Wealth Of Nations

Not really a rant or extreme opinion of any sort, but I just finished reading An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, the Father of Economics. No, I did not read the book just for the fun of it. I'm not that much of a nerd. I read it for a directed study class.

I had no idea what to expect going into the course, because I really didn't know anything about economics beyond what I "learned " in AP Macroeconomics (I didn't really learn much in that class. I would have failed if not for a few grade-booster tests at the end of the semester so that half of the class wouldn't fail). To be honest, I didn't even know who Adam Smith was going into the course. Economics never really interested me before.

I am interested now. I imagine after reading Wealth of Nations one will either be turned on to the study of economics (either to prove Smith wrong or to delve deeper into the new ideas Smith put forth to see how much they have held true over the past 200+ years), or be completely turned off by the study of economics.

The most surprising thing about his book (once I learned a bit about who Adam Smith was) is that he is not a supporter of laissez faire economics. There are quite a few sections in the book where Smith supports government regulation of business for this, that or the other reason. From what I understand, the general assumption is that Adam Smith is a 100% capitalist that would not approve of any regulations on business at all. That is not what he thinks at all. Certainly he thinks some of the market should be left alone, but he acknowledges human nature is naturally self-interested (which is different than selfish in Smith's vocabulary), and so it is necessary to make sure this self-interest won't hurt the Wealth of the Nation over all.

People have also made the assumption that Smith would support the rich businessman and disdain the laborer. That is not the impression I got at all while reading his book. At one point he even says that laborers are necessary for a business to work, and so they need to be treated decently. He says if the working class is not happy, then society will not be happy. It was like Marx read that bit and expanded on it. In fact, Marx did read Wealth of Nations. He simply thought Smith was too naive, for lack of a better term, in his views and took Smith's ideas about laborers to the extreme.

Now this is not to say Smith was without error in his idea about the economy. He was writing when a free market economy was in its early stages, and so he obviously could not know all the intricacies of how a free market would work (free market being a bit of a misnomer, since, as I stated earlier, he believes in some regulations). He set up a superb foundation for future scholars though, and if nothing else, any person interested in economics should read Wealth of Nations just to see what the "father" had to say on the matter. It is tedious, but worth the read. Actually, even if you aren't currently interested in economics, it's a good educational read regardless.

p.s. I did not include any quotes from the text, because that would require me looking them up. The book is 947 pages long. I am not going to reread the entire thing just to find relevant quotes. I already have to write a 15 page paper on the guy. No need to put any effort into this blog post as well. ... ;)

As a bit of a side note, I also had to read Theory of Moral Sentiments before reading Wealth of Nations. I do think reading Theory of Moral Sentiments before Wealth of Nations really helps to give a more complete picture of Smith, so one can see he is not as cold-hearted as Wealth of Nations might lead one to believe. Or maybe I just like Smith.

So I guess this was like a book review of sorts, except I didn't give a brief summary of what is in the book. Brief summary: economics. Enjoy.

Tall, Dark, and Handsome

You know what is pathetic? I was going to write a blog on three descriptive terms/phrases used in writing that I don’t like, and am now realizing I’m going to have to split this up because it was getting too long (partly because I’m a rambler). So, in order to shorten things, I shall start with the biggest offender of them all: “tall, dark, and handsome.”

Let me first give you a few examples of men (real and characters) that would classify, in the classical sense, as “tall, dark, and handsome”: Clark Gable, James Bond (minus the most recent), Aragorn, Gerard Butler, and Hugh Jackman.

One thing to take note of… allof these men are white. Which raises the question, why are they being characterized as “dark?” Why, because their hair is dark of course. Obviously that is the only qualification for being labeled as“dark” in the “tall, dark, and handsome” category.

Wherein lies my main issue with the term. Authors are always talking about a white man,and never about a man who is actually dark. What would you call a tall and handsome man that is of a darker complexion? Tall, dark, dark, and handsome?And what about men of dark complexion that dye their hair blond? Are they no longer dark? And what if I were to start dating an East Indian man who was tall and handsome, and I described him to my friends as “tall, dark, and handsome”?Why, they would get the impression that my boyfriend was white, because of them is application of the term “dark.” It’d be quite a curfoodle. (which isn’t actually a word, as it turns out. Sure, “ain’t” is in the dictionary, but curfoodle can’t be found but in four places on the internet?!) Quite frankly, I find the term lazy and very Euro-centric (ignoring the fact that there are now actually dark men in Europe… and that many Greek men have always been “dark.” You get my point, though).

Moving on to real examples of a“tall, dark, and handsome” men: Denzel Washington, of course. Antonio Banderas(though I have no idea how tall he is). Billy Dee Williams was probably considered quite handsome in his day. Also,in trying to find tall, “handsome” Asian men on Google, I found this. Last, there is Oded Fehr.

Oh. Comparison: Oded Fehr v.Brendan Fraser. Both in The Mummy. Obviously we can all agree that Oded is obviously the dark one, but not if we are using the term “tall, dark and handsome.”

Moving on, tall and handsome are very subjective terms. To me, any man over 5’10 is tall. To a girl that is 5’10, a man who is 5’10 isn’t tall. Let’s be a bit more descriptive, shall we? And handsome? Some girls think Robert Pattison is “handsome.” Personally, Ithink the man is the furthest thing from. I think Spock (as played by Leonard Nimoy) is handsome. Highly subjective.

In sum, if a person is going to bother to describe someone, a description better than "tall, dark, and handsome" would be much appreciated. And really, if a person can write 70K+ words for a novel, you'd think they would be able to come up with a few extra words to describe a man. It's not like an extra 10 words would kill them. Lazy cliches.

Too humble musicians

Madison and Hamilton were able to spit out the Federalist papers (those long, extremely complicated pieces of work) one every few days or so, and I can’t even be bothered to write a simple blog once a month. I feel a bit pathetic.

So, it’s the last day of the month, and here I am with no topic to discuss (well, I wrote something up, but it needs lots of editing, and I don’t have the time for it now). Since I’m a slacker, I’m just gonna put up a blog post I had written a while ago, but didn’t post originally because I didn’t like it (ha. You’re getting my reject blog post. Bet that makes you feel special)

Here it is:

So last night on a forum [not actually last night, as I wrote this up a while ago], a guy posted a thread asking if any musicians were on the forum. If so, what instruments did they play, how long, what type of music, etc.

A few men replied saying they were musicians, and were like “I’ve been a beginner on the guitar since 1963, I'm still learning stuff and know there's so much more to learn.” When I read response after response saying stuff like that I grew rather peeved. At first I wasn’t sure why. I thought maybe it was the (false?) humility they were displaying, but then I realized it bugged me because it made me feel insignificant, like they were belittling me. I realize that was not their intent, but that is how it felt.

I am an actual beginner on guitar. I’ve been playing less than 2 years, I’m self taught and not highly motivated, so my skills are rather amateurish. Hearing a bunch of men who are obviously skilled on their instrument-of-choice by now, after playing for numerous years, say they are just beginners was like they were discounting anyone who is an actual beginner. If those men are beginners, what does that make us actual beginners? Where does that leave us?

That would be like a Sensai saying she is a white-belt. No. She is not a white belt. She is a blackbelt. White belts are beginners in karate. Black belts are not. Yes, we can all call ourselves students, because we are all continuously learning, but the title of beginner only goes to people who just began, hence the word “beginner.” Likewise, an advanced musician could say “I’m a student of music, always learning something new.” But they should not say “I’m a beginner.”

It’s also annoying to me when musicians try to downplay their skills. There is a difference between being humble and sounding ridiculous.

It may sound like simple semantics, but that is not how it feels to me.

I can add, after reading Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, that the “(false?) humility” is something that bugs me. Smith points out that we are more prone to like a person that is slightly too vain over a person that is slightly too humble. This is because we can at least admire the slightly vain person for striving towards excellence. We cannot admire the too humble person for underestimating the praise actually due them. Sometimes we may even scorn them because it makes us angry that they underestimate their true worth.

A person who has been playing an instrument for 20+ years is prone to be very good at that instrument, and to call themselves a “beginner” is simply too humble. It underestimates the praise they are truly due. It isn’t to be admired. Humility at the correct level is worth admiring (like the distinction I made between saying “I am still a student/still learning” over saying “I am still a beginner”), but a humility too extreme is not worth admiring and is off-putting.

[To avoid being hypocritical in my own post, I'm not a beginner on the guitar. I'm not a skilled guitar player, to be sure, but I am decent.]

When Christians get too theological

While I am progressively growing to prefer discussions about Christ over other talk, I find that overly-theological and philosophical discussion from Christians can get really frustrating. In particular (and I may be shooting myself in the foot with what I am about to say, since I have this blog linked to the place I am about to reference), it bugs me when a person asks a simple question and the answers seem entirely too philosophical.

To use a completely ridiculous example (that I hope will never occur in real life anywhere), a conversation between the inquirer and the answering Christian might go down something like this:

"Do you prefer pizza or fried chicken?" asked John.

Mary's brow creased. "It's not either or. I can like both. Maybe I might be fasting meats, and so I need to eat only cheese pizza on a particular day. Then I would prefer pizza. Or maybe God has told me not to eat cheese for a month, so it would be fried chicken."

"Okay so... nevermind. Forget it."

It's absolutely ridiculous. Instead of simply answering the question, Christians seem to have to make it so complicated.

Yes, sometimes questions are too simplistic, but you can always give an answer without becoming some sort of crazy philosopher. We aren't asking for the answer Aquinas would have been most likely to give. (In which case it would be more like "Well, it may seem like pizza is best for this, that, and the other reason, but truly fried chicken is the best for this, that, and the other reason." ... fried chicken is better, btw)

To give a more theological example:

"I'm confused. Do girls prefer a man that would give a huge proposal or a man that would give a small proposal?"John asked.

Mary shook her head. "Your question is too simplistic. It's not about how the man proposes. It's about how he acts towards the girl before he proposes. Then the girl will say yes whether he proposes to her on a cruise with a stringed quartet or on the back of his pickup truck."

John blinked. "Yeah but, even if she likes the dude, don't girls want big proposals and stuff?"

"John, you're not listening. The proposal doesn't matter. Look, if I am dating a Godly man that is kind, and loving toward his family, then I am going to be happy to marry him -God willing- no matter how he proposes."

"Okay, so godliness is important to a Christian woman when it comes to marriage, and if I am striving to draw nearer to God, and treat my woman good, she is gonna say yes to my proposal. Does that mean I can skip buying the big ring if, as you seem to be saying, proposals don't even matter anyways?"

"Marriage is about the holy union between a man, woman, and God. Rings are materialistic and should not be the focus of marriage. This is not that hard to understand."

John sighed, and slowly flexed his hands that had been curling into fists. "Right. Okay. Thanks so much for your very helpful advice."

Now, if you had two normal people, I imagine the convo might go down something like this:

"I'm confused. Do girls prefer a man that would give a huge proposal or a man that would give a small proposal?"John asked.

"Your question is took simplistic," said Mary. "Some girls are going to prefer big proposals, and some are going to prefer small proposals."

"Oh. But how can you know what type a girl would prefer?"

"Ask her friends."

"It's that easy?"

Mary smiled, and chuckled slightly. "It's that easy."

John felt his cheeks growing warm, and rubbed at the back of his neck. "Wow."

(as an aside, I always feel weird writing about females chuckling. Yeah, we chuckle, but it still seems like odd phrasing)

Don't get me wrong, I love talking about God. My mom and I have some great conversations about holiness, how to make it easier to read your Bible daily, etc. It's just that sometimes I think Christians over-analyze simple questions. It is not a requirement to make everything deep and religious. Sometimes, a question is just a question. If I ask "Do I look good in this dress?" I do not need you to respond with "Would God think you look good in that dress?" [I just gave myself a giggle]

I think it says something that this post is coming from a girl whose family and friends have accused of being entirely too analytic at times. What does it say about someone's analytic tendencies if a habitual over-analyzer thinks you are analyzing things too much?

Romance Me

I’m supposed to be fasting the internet (though I kinda failed at that, since it’s hard to fast the internet when taking summer courses online… I don’t think I thought the fasting thing through), so this blog post is a bit of a breakdown in my self-discipline.

Anyways, I said I’d make a blog post a month (at the very least), so I’m trying to make up a quick little blog post. I just made a 2-part blog post on a review of a book I read, Never the Bride, in my book reviews blog, so now I’m thinking about romance. For the past few weeks I’ve been really focused on romance. Particularly, romance with God. It seems the concept is highly underrated.

In the book, I got it with the hope that the ending would be about the girl choosing to forgo a corporal romance and revel in the love of God instead. It would have been inspiring to read such a book. As is, I have now come to the conclusion that the old saying about "if you want something done right, do it yourself" is true. It seems a difficult concept to write about, especially since my relationship with God is rather juvenile at the moment, but I intend to write a story about a woman choosing to “marry” God instead of a man, and to be satisfied in God instead of looking for satisfaction elsewhere.

Satisfaction is not about giving up the idea of one day possibly marrying an actual person, but living for today, and focusing on what one can do for God today instead of focusing on the possibilities of tomorrow, as the Bible tells us in Matthew 6:34.

I imagine the story will be a bit of an autobiographical sketch, as I will be “writing what I know,” so as my own relationship with God develops, the story will unfold as well. I intend it to be mostly a work of fiction, though. As I learn to live more for God each day, and develop a relationship of love and romance with Him (Song of Songs, except less… well, the relationship can’t exactly be temporal). I think of the song Dance With Me, where the chorus sings “Dance with me, O lover of my soul to the song of all songs. Romance Me, O lover of my soul to the song of all songs.” I want a relationship with God that is so intimate that the chorus will be more than simple words when I sing it. I love the song, but I know I certainly do not have that sort of relationship with God.

What is sad is that so many Christians are afraid to have such a relationship with God. Songs like Dance With Me, Draw Me Close, How He Loves, get labeled as “homoerotic” (usually by men who feel uncomfortable about singing such songs to God), and people say such songs show the “feminization of the church,” which I could make an entire blog post about how that little gem bugs me.

Those songs don’t “feminize” the church (at least, not in the horrible sense that people intend the phrase to mean), and they are not homoerotic. They simply show another side of who God is. He is the Great Romancer of our Souls. He is All We Need. He does Love Us So. Read Song of Songs. Not only is that a book to show the sort of love that can transpire between a husband and a wife, it is a book to show us the sort of love that can transpire between God and His bride (the church). God can be a love to both a man and a woman. The Bible says the church (not just the woman in the church) is His bride. I don't suppose there are any Christian males that will call that homoerotic?

God does want to love us. He does want to cherish us, and care for us. Yes, He also desires our love (agape), and holiness, and obedience, but it does not have to be one or the other. We do not have to chose holiness and obedience over a cherishing relationship with God any more than we have to choose a cherishing relationship with God over holiness and obedience.

In fact, I think the two would work together. The more I learn to love God by obeying Him and being holy, the closer I will draw to Him and learn more of who He truly is, and be better able to enter into the sort of relationship with Him outlined in praise and worship songs like Dance With Me.

I think it is a glorious and beautiful thing to think about, and if I was not trying to hammer this blog post out in such haste, I would provide more scripture to back up what I am saying. As is, that will wait until August. Or, better yet, anyone that reads this post and thinks what I am saying is questionable can be like a Berean, and do his/her own research on the subject (because I certainly haven't spent enough time researching the subject yet). Since this was written in haste, I am sure that something I said might possibly be written in such a way that it could contradict scripture (even though the idea in my head of what I am saying I know doesn’t contradict scripture). If I said something wrong, or if you happen to find something that would add to this subject nicely, feel free to comment.

Turning point in your life

FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) is a standardized test in Florida that students must take from 3^rd-10^th grade, with a scoring standard of 0-6. One of the tests is the timed writing, where we are given an essay prompt and must write an essay.

Just like every other student, I hated FCAT, and I especially hated the time writings. Before FCAT, teachers would always give us practice tests, and that included practice time-writings. The essay below is a practice time-writing. The prompt was something along the lines of “What was a major turning point in your life?” Since I hated FCAT timed-writings, I decided to be a smart-alack, and write a farce of a timed-writing. (As I look back on it now, I do wonder what my teacher was thinking while reading this paper, since she most certainly was not aware of the fact that my response to the prompt was a joke. Lol).

I got a 4. Looking back on the essay now, though, I can see why Florida is so low in the National rankings for primary and secondary schools. I can’t believe I got such a high score on this piece of bologna.

All that being said, all errors in this paper are from the original.

Enjoy

~~~
Hollie -------
Period 2
11-15-05

Imagine being awoken at three o-clock in the morning from the wailing of your two-year-old baby who just had an “accident” while sleeping. Isn’t it just horrid to have to get out of your comfortable bed just to go change your child’s diaper? I’d say it is. Now, imagine not being awoken at three o’clock in the morning, and not going to change your two-year-olds diaper. Isn’t it just divine to get to sleep the whole night through? I know for my parents it was, but not only was it divine for my parents. When I stopped having to get my diaper changed every night and day, my life changed completely. Becoming one-hundred percent potty-trained was a major turning point in my life because adults treated me so differently and my days were much less hectic without the constant diaper changing.

Getting a diaper changed every other hour was definitely not my favorite past-time. I would be running around with my sister and brother, and then low-and-behold my mama would sweep me off my feet and carry me to the diaper-changing table. What a great way to ruin a gal’s fun time! But, once I became potty-trained my mama no longer had to interrupt me in the middle of my games. I could run around all day acting crazy, like little tikes do, without having to worry about diaper-changing time. Next to running around all day, I also got to sleep all night. I would no longer wake up in my dirty sheets, and taking baths every morning were a thing of the past. Yes, my life was pretty darn good.

Of course, every Yin has a Yang. My Yang was becoming a “big girl”. When I became potty-trained grown-ups became complete idiots! They decided that since I no longer did that babyish thing, called “messin’ my pants”, then I was no longer a baby, and since I was no longer a baby I could no longer be treated like a baby. Crying for something I wanted was a definite No-No. Saying “no” all the time was not cute any longer. It was disobedient and rude. Getting snacks whenever I wanted them was called glutiny (as if a two-year-old even knows what that word means). Becoming a “big girl” was definitely a turn for the worst in my short, little life. Every cloud does have a silver lining, though. When I became a “big girl” I got a few privelages. I was the center of attention in the adult world, and that was fun, because when you’re the center of attention in the adult world you get handfuls upon handfuls of sweets. Yummy! Another privelage was getting bedtime switched from eight-thirty at night to nine. Although, I can’t really say I could ever keep myself up till nine, but it’s the thought that counts.

So with my new bed time and longer playing time my life changed in ways unimaginable to babies not yet potty-trained. Becoming potty-trained may not be a turning point people talk about often, but it is one of the most important. It is a drastic change in one’s life that comes and goes, and then is never addressed again. It is just forgotten by all and locked away in the deep recesses of ones mind. But, I’m here to say it is an important turning point in every persons life. I mean, really, could you imagine a world in which no one became potty-trained?

~~~
Upon typing that all out, I must say that is a wonderful piece of fiction. I don’t know if anything I wrote in that paper is true to my life, since I simply made it all up on the spot. Yay for malarkey!

One thing is for certain… I have always been horrible at grammar. Three cheers for the Florida Education System!

[Yes, I know I just made a blog post about 5 minutes ago. I couldn't help myself with this one though. I post one of my writings, and had to go look through the other ones I have kept over the years. I found this little jewel from my sophomore year in High School and decided I absolutely had to post it now.]

Biocentric Equality

2 things:
1) I have decided that I shall endeavor to make at least 1 blog post per month, because my blog posting schedule is exceedingly erratic.
2) It seems that June is going to be a very busy month for me, so I imagine I probably won't think of something to complain about in form of an "intelligent" opinion. As such, I had the thought "Hmm, I'm a poli-sci major. I have to do plenty of writings. Why don't I just post one of my essay assignments or something?" As is, I imagine an essay would be too long of a post, so I decided to post a "short writing" homework assignment from my Ethics class I took this past Spring semester. As such, the pages I am quoting come from the book I had to buy for my Ethics class (Ethics in Contemporary Society, or something of the sort), as does the question.

Enjoy
~~~
bit of an edit: thought it might be worthwhile to throw in a definition of what biocentric equality is. Simply put, it's the belief that all things on earth are of equal inherent value. So that means that the earth, the animals, and the humans are all equal in value, and we should treat animals and the earth with respect and honor because they are of equal value to us.

No that is not a textbook definition. That is simply me summarizing what I remember it to be.
~~~

Hollie -------
Homework #3
Ethics
2-2-11

“Do you accept the principle of biocentric equality? Why or why not?” (p. 122)

I find that I agree with certain tenets of biocentric equality and disagree with others. To start with the negatives, my main contention with the theory is the claim that everything in nature is inherently equal, or “equal in intrinsic worth” (p. 119). The belief seems to be that humans are not superior to nature or animals. We are all of equal worth in that we all deserve proper care and consideration and should not be maltreated or mishandled. In other words, “…all things in the biosphere have an equal right to live and blossom and to reach their own individual forms of unfolding and self-realization within the larger Self-realization” (p. 119). As a Christian, I believe humans are of more worth than anything else in the universe. Genesis tells us God gave Adam dominion over the earth and the animals (Genesis 1:26). Humans are superior to animals and the earth. God created us as such. The earth and animals are certainly of worth to God, but like any artist, He places more worth on some of His creations than others. Humans are His masterpiece, and animals and the earth are simply the backdrop. This means that humans are to be given more consideration than the earth. Our comfort and security is more important than that of animals, and the earth exists not simply to exist, but as a home for humans. This contrasts with the biocentric idea that no thing on earth is more important than the other.

On the positive side, I do agree with the statement that “…if we harm the rest of Nature then we are harming ourselves” (p. 119). My agreement comes from a mixture of Thomist and Utilitarian tendencies. As far as utilitarianism goes, we only have one earth to live on, and it would be in my best interests to keep this one earth running. Harming nature to the point of uselessness is harming myself. As far as natural law goes, Aquinas says natural law is the actualization of the reasoning of God buried within our conscious. God is not an unwise god, and He knows destroying the earth would be of no benefit to humans. As such, He instilled a natural inclination within us to want to preserve the earth. It is not natural for humans to destroy that which sustains them.

I also feel no obligation to care for earth except out of a feeling of respect for God’s creation. It has nothing to do with feeling like I am in some sort of harmony with a non-sentient earth. In sum, I will not destroy earth because 1) I need somewhere to live and 2) God created it, so I respect it.

The statement that “…we should live with minimum rather than maximum impact on other species and on the Earth in general” (p. 119) creates mixed feelings within me. I tend toward agreeing with the statement, but not because I agree with the biocentric equality ideals. I agree because I think it benefits humans to live frugally. Once more, it will help to preserve the earth, and it is in all humans’ best interests to preserve that which they live on. To destroy the earth is akin to purposefully burning down one’s home without first finding a new home to live in.

~~~
One of my teacher's notes: "I, too, share your anthropocentrism! 10/10"

So apparently I'm an anthropocentrist.