Congress Proposes Protectionist Free Trade Bill: Transforming America into China to Create Jobs

So what Congress is saying is…. We need to be more like CHINA (1840’s America?)????

Currently, the Chinese government is keeping their currency artificially lower than a floating value. The effects on Chinese society of this artificially lowered currency should be a warning to US policy makers who are attempting correct the trade imbalance by having China increase the RMB’s value.  Congress is considering imposing a tariff on Chinese products unless they raise the value of their currency in relation to the dollar, created a de-facto weaker dollar when it comes to trade. If the Chinese will not raise its currency value Congress will pin tariffs on Chinese goods effectively accomplishing the same effect.

Congress is ignoring major consequences of their actions for the sake of increasing manufacturing jobs in the US. When any nation, lowers the value of its currency in relation to their trading partner, a lower the standard of living for their people is generated. When a nation artificially decreases the value of its currency to increase exports, manufactured goods are exported elsewhere rather than kept at home enjoyed by the citizenry who cant afford it. In China the lower valued currency has resulted in China’s huge poverty rate and low standards of living, even though they have a huge manufacturing base.

An undervalued Chinese currency has resulted in a powerful manufacturing base which is a huge benefit to Chinese officials who reap the profits from the labor (because of their tight links with industry and the state). The state’s elite accomplish the second objective of satiating their population with jobs and a functioning economy. Employed people are complacent people. The Chinese government is also attempting to use their artificially low currency in a development plan where a large industrial manufacturing export base is rapidly created that can later be tooled the develop a domestic internal consumer market. The consequence of this strategy is a lower standard of living for everyone outside the elite (Who reaps the profits from overseas trade) until the switch can be made . The Chinese know lower currency and export are not signs of a developed nation.

For America, a developed economy, de-developing isn’t the answer. We already have a domestic consumer base, and a strong currency has allowed our people a high standard of living. We have spent decasedes transforming ourselves from a low tech manufacturing economy to a high-tech and service based economy that has resulted in the greatest era of human prosperity ever seen!  America had its industrial revolution in the 18^th and early 19^th centuries we don’t need it now. We have had during the last two decades virtually full employment at most times even though there was a trade deficit. As manufacturing jobs moved to China, those free laborers were retooled and eventually perused careers in other industries or high tech manufacturing. Now that we have around nine percent unemployment, the trade deficit issue has become a scapegoat for congress to blame for lost american jobs (even though the trade deficit is decreasing on its own without congress’s help and has had a low effect on US jobs).

If we want to eliminate our robust standard of living then Congress’s plan is the answer and the Chinese model will be adopted. America will dumb down its workforce and accept a lower standard of living to please and allowing the All Powerful Congress to waste America’s intellectual and labor capital by essentially creating burger flipping jobs in assembly factories. Wasn’t that the criticism of George Bush’s job numbers in 2003-2004?

Bring Innovation NOT Degeneration to American Manufacturing: Kill Three Birds with One Stone

We cannot have high standards of living and cheap goods without international trade. Some labor must necessarily cost less for a good to be cheaper. Do we want Americans sewing clothing and assembling toys or do we want them producing heavy machine equipment for export or designing the latest technological innovation to increase everyone’s livelihood?

Let’s build a better America, not copy China! Instead of shutting out the competition embrace it and make ourselves more competitive. Since American goods cost too much for a domestic market, let’s make our goods as cheap as the Chinese by helping industry reduce the large cost that have forced them to move and close down. Increasing industrial competition, not reducing it will lower prices, create jobs, and benefit the consumer with the availability better made American goods at the same cheap Chinese priced goods. If Congress truly desired a better America, policies can be pursued where consumers, industry and workers can benefit at the same time and our trade deficit would decrease naturally, making it a win-win for all.

If you agree with this article, TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO VOTE NO TO THE “CURRENCY REFORM FOR FREE TRADE ACT.”

This bill is nothing mare than PROTECTIONIST ploy to increase low skilled manufacturing jobs at the expense of ROBUST standards of living enjoyed by consumers.

Sources:

BBC NEWS http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11407254

House Ways and Means Committeehttp://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=11347

Open Congress (good resource for Bill information): http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2378/show

Nancy Pelosi’s Press Release: http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1888

Hoover Graphic: http://www.artdiamondblog.com/archives/2007/08/

Congress Puts Trade Sanctions on China Pandering to Special Interests, Hurting Consumers

WHY IS CONGRESS OK WITH IGNORING CONSUMERS?

The Legislature on both sides of the aisle is once again willing to abandoned the American consumer for the most nefarious of reasons; INTEREST GROUP POLITICS! The coming vote and probable passage of the “Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act” is a classic case of consumer vs. interest group politics. This battle usually plays out with the consumer being underrepresented in Congressional decisions and industry with union backing being overrepresented. Consumers are all the citizens within the society and the benefits from free trade are widespread among them. This spread results in a sacrifice by politicians of consumer interests due to of an organized and concentrated nature of unions and big business which have a large stake in pushing for protectionist policies. Consumers are lured into inaction by the free rider concept, where no one stands up for a consumer, because they can allow another to do it for them.

Free trade is a benefit to consumers, allowing for cheap goods to flow into their nation undercutting the market price offered by the domestic market. This undercutting allows more consumers who were not able to purchase the good at the higher price to purchase that good. More products are sold at a cheaper cost increasing the standard of living of the population, and freeing up capital that would not exist in the hands of consumers if domestic markets were cheaper!

The Democrats have a clear advantage in passing this bill and so do the Republicans. Both sides can claim that they supported bills to increase American jobs and fight the evils of overseas outsourcing. Congress believes that the American people will focus on jobs rather than statistical data from economist showing the benefits of trade for cheap goods that increase standard of living. If American can reduce the trade deficit by passing the higher cost on a widespread consumer base Congress looks good for creating jobs at the expense of unknowing American consumers.

Congress is also bought and paid for by the manufacturing industry and unions. An increase in manufacturing jobs will increase the number of union employees that have fallen over the decades. The unions are a strong backbone of the Democratic political machine and will benefit from the increased Union membership. The consumer will suffer at the expense of democrats rebuilding their once lost union base that has been in steady decline due to free trade.

Republicans and Democrats are bombarded constantly by corporate manufacturing lobbyist, which have been pushing for a means to block out their competition from Chinese firms. A recession with high unemployment is a perfect time to make their push and quickly pass protectionist policies. This has repeated itself constantly in the past, the best example being the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 which prolonged the Great Depression and was a reaction to job losses.

Many Republicans support the bill, in a false belief that plans to creating jobs fast will help Americans, and voting for the bill will gain those votes in November. With large unemployment, jobs right now are certainly needed but, bringing the low tech outsourced industrial base of America to the US on the backs of American consumers isn’t the way to do it! This quick fix will create long-term higher costs on goods. The Republicans are foolishly supporting this bill which is diametrically opposed to their economic principles as a party, which believes in raising American standards of living through free markets.

If one looks at the supporters of this bill it is striking that they are composed of all domestic industrial manufacturing corporations and unions (link at end of post). Not a single consumer group supports this bill. Why? BECAUSE IT IS BAD FOR CONSUMERS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

List of Bill Supporters: House Ways and Means Committee http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=11347

Congress Planning Trade Sanctions Against China: Supporting Manufacturing at the Expense of the Consumers

————————————————————–

Trade Sanctions Bill Against China!

Congress’s Aid to Big Business and Unions at the Expense of American Consumers!

THE FACTS

This week, congressional Democrats and Republicans under the leadership of Sander Levin approved through the House’s ways and means committee the “Currency Reform for Free Trade Act” sanctioning import duties on nations who artificial depreciate their currencies. The bill is directly targeting China’s artificially low currency in comparison to the dollar which has allowed it to export cheap goods to American Consumers, fueling its economic growth and currency reserves. This bill will come to a vote in the house next week.

The US trade deficit with China in 2009 was $227 billion down from 2008. It is projected to decrease again by the end of this year due to a decrease in the value of US currency and China’s cutbacks on growth and lending.

According to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s press release: There are approximately 150 Co-sponsors of the bill 45 of them are Republicans.

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1888

Manufacturing Industries and Unions have enthusiastically supported the bill according to the Ways and Means Committees website. These supporters are: The Fair Currency Coalition, AFL-CIO, Coalition of Agricultural Producers, United Auto Workers (UAW), United Steel Workers, American Iron & Steel Institute, American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, Alliance for American Manufacturing, National Council of Textile Organizations

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=11347

CONGRESS’S JUSTIFICATION/LOGIC

The bill’s intent according to its sponsor Congressman Sander Levin  is to restore the balance of trade between the US and China. China’s artificially low currency has allowed the dollar to have a higher exchange rate, increasing the dollars purchasing power for Chinese goods. This stronger currency allows American consumers to purchase cheap Chinese goods rather than paying higher prices in dollar terms for US equivalent products. Congress wants to impose import tariffs on Chinese goods so that the price of those goods will increase to be on par with the already higher cost American products. Therefore American goods will be purchased over tariff imposed higher priced Chinese goods.

This increase in domestic consumption of domestic goods and decrease in imports will create manufacturing jobs for American workers, replacing the labor outsourced to China. According to Levin: “[The yuan] has a major impact on American workers and therefore American jobs. That’s what this is really all about.” If China doesn’t increase the value of the Yuan in relation to the dollar, Congress will impose tariff duties to correct its effect on the price of Chinese exports to the US.

JOBS MAY BE CREATED!!! BUT…..

If penalties and import duties are imposed as this bill outlines, it will result in a favorable outcome for US manufacturing industries. If China decides to retaliate with its own trade tariffs to reciprocate a trade war, US exports to China will decrease and nobody will benefit. This tit for tat policy is unlikely but still a possibility, and has happened in the past. The benefits for manufacturing industries that do not rely on cheap Chinese imports for parts or equipment will benefit from this policy by increasing market share.

Domestic demand for American goods will increase for comparable products imported from China that have the duty tariff imposed on them. American products will gain an advantage as cheaper priced and consumers would be left with the only rational option being the cheaper US product. The price increase from the tariff  results in a higher market price and less demand. The loss of supply for China subtracting the loss of demand of goods at the higher price will equal the gains and amount produced  by American industries. Less demand will result in fewer products being sold. While fewer products will be bought overall, the American industries would keep the money from production and sale inside the US.

With this increased supply to meet domestic demand, manufacturing jobs in the US would be created to service the increased US market share. Ultimately, the US will gain industrial jobs to build the products once imported from China.

Even though job in manufacturing will increase in the US while their counterparts in China will decrease or move elsewhere, is low skilled manufacturing jobs increasing really beneficial to the US?  Do we really want to retool Americans to do the same low-level, low skilled jobs as Chinese labor? Rather than opening up position for jobs in high-tech industries to increase our exports, or to open business opportunities for export of Americas service labor industries, Congress is declaring that jobs of low skill are desirable. What we should be doing is training this unemployed worker force to retool for high-tech, technical and high paying manufacturing. Rather than dumbing down the work force we should be legislating to make it easier for the US to export high-tech industries around the globe. As much as the green industry is artificial political demand and inefficient it would be  preferable to Americans assembling dolls that unskilled Chinese labor does cheaply and efficiently. Lets produce exceptional engineering rather than exceptional American made plungers.

While the quality of jobs is an issue that should be considered, this policy completely ignores the effects duty tariffs will have to the US as a whole! While the manufacturing industries and its workers will benefit, the American people are getting a bad deal

WHO GETS THE SHORT END OF THE STICK?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!! (as usual). The reason the trade deficit with China, and trade existing at all between the two countries, is that China is able to provide Americans cheap consumer goods. These goods are bought by Americans at a lower price than their American counterparts allowing for more purchasing power by consumers. These consumers are able to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world at the expense of losing the manufacturing base that produced them going overseas. When the tariffs take effect there will be no cheap alternative and the American people will be forced to pay higher prices for those goods, or reduce their standard of living. Free Trade and the cheapness of Chinese labor allows for Americans to save a buck and raise their standard of living.  To deny this reality of cheap goods benefiting consumers shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Cheaper products keeps cost of living LOW! Congress is going to raise the cost of living while everyone is struggling to make ends meet.

While one might think this is simply picking a winner and a looser and that in an economic situation like a recession keeping everyone employed is more important than overall living standards, the benefits in the long run and the short run do not calculate to an increase in total welfare for society. In the long run prices will remain higher and those shorter term job gains being sustained by that higher price will not increase standards of living as long as they exist with the tariff. Creative destruction would not eliminate those inefficient jobs!  Also those short-term jobs made possible by the price increase will decrease the number of goods produced because of the price will become unaffordable for some. Therefore, the welfare gain of manufacturing does not compare to the overall surplus and total welfare gained from cheap Chinese goods.

The act of Congress trying to reduce the trade deficit is an attempt to stop the American people from making the most rational choice and buying the cheaper product! Manufacturing industries that depend on cheap products from China to build high-tech will have increased costs. These high-tech industries may be forced to raise prices cutting off one of the main exports the US has; high-tech equipment.

Sanctioning China is also a bad political move. China is and will be a major world power, regardless of US actions to cut off trade with it. China is on a course to become a massive economy, and it has a government geared toward that objective. If we make competitors out of the Chinese rather than partners, that would create an unneeded enemy. A stable friendly China can be a key ally on the world stage where the world is increasingly becoming multi-polar. Chinese relations is an investment with a future world power, being friendly with a nation of 1.3 billion people is more important than a trade balance that helps special interests.

China is actually slowly raising the Yuan but in small increments. Why rush a process that is occurring naturally as our trade deficit equalizes naturally? Congress needs to stop pander for votes and think with smart policy.

The oxymoron of this whole affair is that Congress has cleverly disguised Protectionist trade policies under the guise of a Free Trade bill.

If Congress passes “Currency Reform for Free Trade Act” H.R.2378 the Special Interests will benefit at the expense of consumers! Urge your congressman to vote NO to Protect Consumers!

Other sources:

BBC NEWS http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11407254

House Ways and Means Committee http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=11347

Open Congress (good resource for Bill information): http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2378/show

Nancy Pelosi’s Press Release: http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1888

Hoover Graphic: http://www.artdiamondblog.com/archives/2007/08/

Playing the Jester- A Need for a New Plan To Stop Iran

Just to preempt this post: This is a continuation of yesterdays post “International Affairs for Thought! Where do you stand?”

A major problem with modern international affairs theory and its application is the failure of individuals, leaders and society from one country to recognize the different playbook their counterparts in other countries use to determine policies. Some nations practice realist political theory in their international affairs, seeking to grow their power and survive against their neighbors and other nations who strive to outpace them in competition. Others attempt to reach out to other nations for global cooperation, seeking to build a more internationalized world under a flag of liberal internationalism and partnerships for cooperative prosperity.

Nations today especially in the West seem to form bad policy when their leaders and policymakers pursue policies without considering the philosophical understanding and political theory of their counterparts. Policy makers constantly project on their counterparts their own political philosophies rather than determining the inner motivation of their fellow statesmen. Liberal Internationalist policies cannot succeed when nations in mutual debate believe in policies that reflect realist political theory without appealing to their sense of power.

The recent diplomacy between Iran and the United States clearly illustrates this breakdown. Barack Obama is a Liberal Internationalist in foreign affairs. He believes that international cooperation is the key to solving conflicting political, economic, military and strategic problems between nations. His actions throughout his entire administration in his desire for “sitting down at the table” with the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, illustrate this misconceived notion of Liberal Internationalists. He avoids threatening military force or national power to subdue Iran, instead he is focusing on dialogue without implementing any strong policy whether soft or hard power. He constantly leaves the door open for the Iranians to rejoin negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. Obama stated at his UN Assembly meeting speech, an hour before Ahkmadinejad made his outrageous comments (calling 911 an inside job):

“In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope. We respect their rights as members of the community of nations. I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations.

But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East – then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that Treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future not belong to fear.”

What International obligations does Iran have to the world? Who decided these arbitrary international standards? Why must Iran be held accountable? These are the questions that are the focus of Iran’s opposition. Unlike Obama the Iranians view the world in realist power politics terms.

With the historical experience in the weakened position of colonial subjects under British and Russian rule, the Iranians have a deep understanding of the fate of nations who do not adopt and follow realist political strategies to grow more powerful than their potential enemies. This understanding compels the Iranians to strengthen their nation through the achievement of national power through nuclear weapons development. Nuclear weapons are an insurance measure for defense against the future possibility of a challenge to Iran’s actions from World powers whose interests may not coincide with Iran’s. It is also a means to enter world politics from a position of strength from which it can use that power base to control and dominate Middle Eastern politics for its own survival and vitality. This is most certainly the thinking and strategy of the Iranians. Any attempt to hinder this weapons development is seen by Iran as an attempt to diminish the power of Iran on the world stage. “If Iran is weak they can be exploited” is how their leaders view the situation of not having the ultimate deterrent of nuclear weapons.

Yet, the Obama administration continues to misunderstand their adversaries and assume that they can appeal to the Iranians sense of duty and honor as members of a fantasy coalition of cooperative world nations. By playing the Obama administration for fools, by canceling, restarting and procrastinating talks, the Iranians have been buying the time they needed for weapons develop. The modus operandi of the Obama administration needs to change to reflect the reality of how Iranians view the internal game playing out, or Iran will surely continue to run circles around the US, until the bomb is acquired.

To achieve US strategic interests of preventing Iran from acquiring the bomb, the US must present a position to the Iranians that will force them to choose sustainment of national sovereignty in giving up the bomb instead of pursuing their quest to achieve more national power through Nukes. The US must be willing to convince the Iranians that the threat of their nation’s existence is at stake, and the US is willing to use its military, economic, and diplomatic might to hurt the Iranian nation to the point of its collapse. If they can show a clear powerful threat the Iranians will see the only option is to back down. We need to make them an offer they cannot refuse! (Does not mean we cannot offer incentives to go along such as economic integration and deals as long as they are treated as secondary motivations). The lessons of Iraq as well as other occupations are fresh in the minds of Iran’s leaders and they desire national growth and survival above all else. War with the US will only set them further back. The development of nuclear weapons is a gamble by the Iranians to build the bomb before the US adopts a strong position. The Iranians understood the weak position of Liberal internationalist, it is time Obama learned that Iran is playing games and has exploited them to allow their scientists to develop the bomb.

In diplomacy, one should always know their opposition as well as themselves. The Iranians knew Obama’s strategy and exploited a weakness of liberal internationalist strain, with great success. The United States must be willing to determine if such approaches will work with non-democratic states and states in which their vested interest is in growth through power. The only way to force a realist policy to change in your favor is to exploit its calculations on power to your own desired outcome. An appeal to the moral traditions and values of liberalism will only work when it is the best option of a nation for national self-interest. The Iranians clearly view the development of the bomb as a means to achieve their interest. Nations will always act in their interest and the assumption that liberal international cooperation can always secede in settling disputes denies power political realities.

Time For a Change of Strategy in Iran, don’t you think?

Source for Obama’s Speech at the UN: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/obama-un-speech-text_n_296017.html

Source for Political Cartoon Above: http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/gallery/political-cartoons/cowboy_diplomacy_big.jpg

International Affairs for Thought! Where do you stand?

So you think you know how the world works? Just to be sure.... did you know....

THE THREE BIG IDEAS:

In International Affairs there are three major schools of thought; Realism, Liberalism (NOT American Liberalism but Internal Affairs Liberalism) and Constructivism. These schools are prisms by which political theorist view interaction between nations on the world stage.

Realism focuses on the relationships between states through the prism of power. The ability of a state to grow and prosper can be understood through its ability to muster enough power (whether it be wealth, prestige, culture, military, diplomatic influence) to enact and cause desired outcomes that grow that power, and decrease that power of competing states. This is the oldest of the political theories (Machiavelli is one of the founders see left), which views international relations as a struggle for national survival. A nation can only survive if it has the POWER to ensure it!



Liberalism focuses on the cooperative aspects of interstate relations rather than the competition between them. States because of International institutions and/or the common facet of a democratic government can breach interstate divisions and cooperate to prosper. International trade and NATO illustrate this mutual democratic cooperation and the UN and International Organizations show this internationalist cooperative facet of liberalism. According to Liberalism, interstate relations are not a zero sum game but rather a positive sum game. Cooperation is mutually beneficial and prosperity is achieved from peaceful and harmonious interaction, rather than competition. Let Me, Help You, Help Me, Help You!

While Realism and Liberalism were the main driving forces behind internal political theory in the 20^th century, a new political theory of Constructivism emerged in the late 20^th century. Constructivism emphasizes the power of ideas and their effects on the international stage. In the 21^st and 20^th century non-state groups have emerged as influential and powerful forces on the world stage. Whether it be terrorist organizations, global NGO’s, multinational corporations, or simply internet communities; non-state actors have increasingly become prominent facets in international politics. What empowers these groups are communities of individuals with shared ideas or objectives coming together. While these groups are not new, their influence has become increasingly recognized in modern political thought. IT IS KINDA COMPLICATED NOW!

—

Do you think International affairs are about the power game between competing states and cooperation is simply a means to shared power? (YOU JERK?)

Do you believe the world can cooperate together in liberal theory trading and solving problems in a mutually beneficial way (whether it be the “nation building” and free trade strategy of George Bush or the Barack Obama commitment to internationalism)?  (YOU DUMMY?/WUSS?)

Or do you think history is driven by ideas not states striving for power under realist perspective and partnerships under shared liberal theory? (WHY ARE YOU MAKING THIS MORE COMPLICATED? ITS ACTUALLY VERY SIMPLE!)

As for myself, my answer as many of yours probably does, barrows from 2-3 of the theories. Each theory has merit but clear disadvantages. How you can be a hardcore realist explain the benefits of international trade, or the post cold war world? How can you support the liberal theories and explain the failure that the UN has become, the increasing tension between democratic states like Pakistan and India and the negative consequences of free trade? How can you be a pure constructivist and say the main factor is increasingly becoming non-state actors when terrorism is funded/supported by state actors, NGO’s are funded by liberal international states, and multinational corporations regulated by the nation states they are based in? States still appear to determine the game! Or do they?

—

I would give you  my two cents on how the world works below… but I have to keep you coming back for more do I not? (*insert evil laugh here*). I will post how I mold the three tomorrow! Just for a hint… reread the first post.

For now… ask yourself, how do you view the world and where does your ideology fit into these three? Comments are welcome if you think I am misrepresenting anything!

Further Reading: http://www.alanalexandroff.com/Snyder.html An excellent article that was in “Foreign Policy” a prestigious political journal. Someone was nice enough to transcribe the text from the article to their personal site.

Hello Earth!

Hey World,

This is my first post so I would like to keep it short and sweet. I have not edited or played with any of the features just registered. I will get adding the bells and whistles shortly. I just want to say hello and thanks for checking out the site!

For future readers: I hope you enjoy my commentaries over the coming weeks on life, politics, history, society and culture. When I was little I had an interest and intense curiosity for the world at large and human knowledge. As I grew and went to college my ideas and thoughts began to take into complex theories and ideas. With each new piece of information learned from a study of human knowledge, my curiosity grew and these ideas were fitted into a personal philosophy of human existence. If I were to classify my current lexicon of thoughts I would classify myself as a strong believer in the potential of Human Individualism.

People drive the world, and these people are individuals who through interaction, always create complex and unique systems that are facets of our society. The Internet Generation and the current trend of our society towards individuals ideas reinforces this concept. The internet is empowering individuals with more knowledge and outlets for interaction at their fingertips than ever before. This power allows individuals to shape the ideas of other individuals and themselves bringing about the fruition of complex social structures on a global scale. While its cliché to say everyone can make a difference, it is more true now then it ever was before.

A great revolution of human ideas is occurring and we are in the middle of it. With this blog I hope to create a dialog with you to share our ideas, random thoughts, and concrete opinions on the world at large and the society in which we live.

Thank you for your support and open minds!

-Dan