Wednesday, September 22, 2004


By: Michael Akerman

First off, if you haven't read part 1 of the posting-in-parts, read that first. It's immediately below. Seriously, you'll just be confused if you don't. It's right here.

Daily Editorial Time

Today, I saw the stupidest building wall ever.

I should explain: at State, in the brickyard, the fraternities and sororities and Christian organizations build shacks to raise money for Habitat for Humanity. All well and good, of course, aside from the fact that panhandling annoys me, but on one of the buildings, they spraypainted: "The largest cause of homelessness is...


Ahhhhhhhhhhh! ::slams head on wall:: Yes! Let us rise up against the evils of capitalism! Victory for the proletariat! Ach du lieber, and so forth! Ich ven ein Deutschland! (I'm fairly certain I misspelled all the German and that, and possibly the word proletariat...)

Anyways, obviously the best way to end homelessness is to switch over to Communism. That's worked before, right?

All sarcasm aside, there's a reason that capitalism is the best economic setup. You see, in a command economy of any kind, be it Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism... what have you, there must not only exist control of economic practices, but perfect control of economic practices. As economic conditions fluctuate, the legislation controlling the economy must react in absolutely perfect synch, that is, in real time. Each time the supply of wool goes down one unit, the price of wool must go up one unit at the exact same time. This, of course, is impossible. Granted, a Communism could stay afloat longer nowadays because computers can shovel through so very much data so quickly, but there will still be a delay, and even small errors build up into crippling shortages of goods that cause the massive starvation and death that tends to come with communism.

Granted, capitalism is not perfect, because there can be no such thing without perfect response time. However, instead of attempting to compensate exactly for economic changes, like command economies, and failing miserably, capitalism tends to undercompensate, then overcompensate, creating a nice, even average. Nowadays, with rapid communication and calculation, the undercompensations and overcompensations are not nearly as drastic as they used to be, so we end up with a nice boom time (like the 90s) followed by a nice shallow recession (like now). Believe me, it's better this way than absolute economic collapse.

And I could go on for days about what causes homelessness, so I'll do that later.

On a different note, what's up with the controversy over genetic engineering? It's not dangerous, it increases yields without a corresponding increase in pollution, it could improve the average quality of life. The only argument that holds any water is that it's "playing God." Frankly, this argument doesn't hold water.

God would not allow us to tweak His creations to better suit us if He didn't want us to. Otherwise, opening an umbrella would surely mean you'd be smote. Surely, God meant for us to become moistened by the rain?

Surely plowing a field would set us up a place next to the devil. Worse still, irrigation and fertilization. And what about greenhouses and hydroponics? We are all doomed, I guess.

Part 2

Another day, another glimpse into the inner workings of IVIC. An addendum to my reply yesterday (which I forgot to post yesterday), Smith's reply, then my reply:

(Removed these email's as well. See ANABFR 1)

That's it for today. Mail from Pirate day shows up tomorrow. That's a real treat! Y'all come back now, ya hear?

By my hand,
~Michael Akerman