UNR Students for Liberty » Money

Maybe This’ll Help You Understand Credit Schemes.

Barry Belmont — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:22:34 +0000

Most fiscally responsible people know that relying on “credit” is a dubious sort of thing to do. It leads to overspending, underutilizing, and it tends to promote living beyond one’s means. To summarize the financial crisis in a word: Credit. People borrowed on credit, loaned on credit, lived on credit. Maybe this’ll help you understand how bad credit schemes are.

New ASUN Fee: The Failure of Democracy?

Barry Belmont — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:19:42 +0000

I know absolutely nothing about running a university. My knowledge of economies of scale, of recent financial crises, and of what needs to be done to ensure self-sustaining microeconomies is minimally theoretical at best with practical aspects not nuancing my ideology to any great degree. I am not a proponent of governments, bureaucracies, and their ilk. My current basis as an anarchist is likely due to not having experienced any relevant aspects in life and instead derives from thought experiments performed within a societal, culture, and temporal vacuum. When it comes to understanding the impact of the institution of a new ASUN fee, I am utterly ignorant in essentially every respect.

And yet when I went into the ASUN Senate Chambers about two weeks, my voice was heard. Dare I say, my voice was even thoughtfully considered. Student senators, student presidents, and even fellow students heard what I had to say, considered it, and perhaps even agreed with it. This meeting was supposed to be the student president explaining to the student senators that they should fast track his proposal to increase the ASUN fee by $75 so that the university can get all kinds of superawsomenew things, and join the fold of other reputable institutions that have already gone ahead and implemented such proposals. This meeting instead turned into a bash-fest of a handful of students saying they didn’t like the idea of having their fee raised, myself included.

Rather, I wasn’t against the fee, but against the idea of someone saying they know how to spend my money better than I do. And I thought this was solid reasoning. I was convinced it was. How dare you say you know how to spend the money of thousands of people when you can’t even say what you’re going to have for lunch. Something like that.

Something ridiculous like that.

I thought I knew what I was talking about. But. But then I actually thought about what I was talking about. I had made the implicit assumption that I was dealing with a government (it is after all referred to as such) and therefore the implementation of this fee is therefore a tax is therefore illegitimate is therefore wrong. I am pretty sure this is what many around me thought as well. But we were all wrong. Even the student “government” that concluded that establishing this fee would be comparable to taxation without representation – something we are all taught to deplore.

But we were all wrong.

We were not dealing with a government. We were dealing with a company. A business. A corporation that, for reasons beyond me, hid behind the veil of a government. See, the Board of Regents wants this fee to happen. They think it’ll help the campus grow and mature and enrich the experience of future students. They – the bosses of this business – think this is a sound business strategy and want to make it happen so they can continue to be bosses of a booming business. They want to give their customers a better product so they will be more apt to buy it. Sure, it raises the price a bit, but this cost is to be outweighed by the benefit. A new car with all the bells and whistles costs more than an old one or a substandard one, but customers still pay for it. They are paying for quality. And that is ultimately the intent of this Board.

Therefore, my righteous indignation (How Dare You?) is misplaced. It is comparable to me saying “How dare you TGIFridays raise your prices? Don’t levy a fee upon me just because you want to make a better product.” If the raising of prices is a poor move the market will correct it: the business will either fail by continuing to charge more than the market will bare or it will be forced to lower it’s prices to levels with which it can maintain a customer base. And if it is a good move the company will succeed in making more money.

Either way, it is not up to me The Voter to decide. I am just one individual with opinions that can only extend to myself. It is up to me The Consumer as part of The Market to help decide whether this decision is sound. My opinion of a situation can be flawed: if I think TGIFridays’ prices are too high for what they’re giving me, I can take my business elsewhere, but if they gain two more customers for every customer they lose, they made the right choice. I’m just one guy who doesn’t know much and my words in a democratic setting don’t amount to half the hill of beans that would result from my actions within a market.

By even giving me – not an expert in business, finance, economics, universities, or the future – the time of day, the leaders of our company have failed its customers, its future customers, and themselves. Next time, just man up and tell those who don’t know anything about this situation to sit to one side and do some long and hard thinking before opening their mouths.

AS(sholes)UN: $64,000 Extra = $64,000 Spent

Barry Belmont — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:21:55 +0000

For those interested in such manners (I’m looking at you VisLupiEstGrex), the ASUN Senate allocated an extra $64,000 in student funds yesterday. Why they didn’t just give $5 back to every student is beyond me. How are they to know that students wouldn’t rather get a Big Mac or pick around the Wal-Mart DVD bin? More importantly, who are they to decide how to spend student funds?

There were about 1,500 votes cast in last years ASUN elections. No single senator got even 200 votes, with the average being something like 75, let’s call it 100. The President got something like 850. However, there are 12,000+ undergraduates paying fees to the ASUN. Any justification the ASUN should make for itself, remember those numbers. This roughly translates to someone appointed by 1/15 of 1/8 of the student body claiming they have a right to spend mine and everyone else’s money.

How did they reallocate funds?

The Executive Board Account got $11,874.67
The Elections Account got $2,097.17
The Programming Board got $9,142.23
The ASUN Office Expenses Account got $23,729.66
The ASUN Sound/Light Account got $2,180.14
The Inkblot Promotions Account got $3,188.24
The ASUN Legal Services Account got $680.94
The Clubs & Orgs (US!) got $23,222.61
The Homecoming Board got $4,203.92

Not included in this list is the actual notably decent things of Wolf Pack Radio and the Brushfire and such, each of which got more money than was planned.

Oh, yea, also, Professional Salaries, Professional & Classified expenses, Club Support, the Programming Board, Diversity Initiatives, the Professional Salaries for ASUN advertising, the wages and fringe of the Senate, and the Homecoming account all increased.

Definition – Irony: the Fiscal Board has not only the smallest forward budget ($10!?) but it was the only account to be reduced.

Government, GTFO of Gambling

Travis Hagen — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:52:02 +0000

Is it just me, or is there no good reason to make gambling illegal? At least drugs have physical addictions and prostitution can spread disease. There are cons to those actions, reasons not to allow such things, but gambling? As far as I can see, gambling is no more addictive than stealing bubble gum from the local Kwik-E-Mart, and disease is certainly not terrible, no worse than any other public place. So what rational reason is cited for banning gambling? I could not actually find the reasoning behind this, especially since many state government hold sanction their own form of gambling in the way of lotteries. Maybe it’s because the government is mad they can’t easily tax un-centralized gambling.

Maybe that is why on June 9, the Federal Government froze 30 million dollars of over 27,000 different people’s money. Of course, there was no warrant or anything, because that is ridiculous. Instead, the assistant US attorney for the Southern District of New York, Arlo Devlin-Brown just faxed over a notice to the bank telling them to seize the funds. He said, “The FBI has authority to seize proceeds of specified unlawful activity without a warrant under exigent circumstances.” This makes sense of course, because people spending their money on things they want to do is clearly an exigent circumstance.

This leaves only one plausible explanation that I can think of, online gambling funds terrorists. That, or it’s all bullshit and the government just needs to leave people alone when it comes to their leisurely activities.

Ron Paul’s HR 1207 Gains Majority Sponsorship!

John Russell — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:48:37 +0000

Just moments ago, Ron Paul’s congressional office posted a press release stating that HR 1207 has received its 218th cosponsor – which is the critical number needed to force a vote on the floor. In fact, the list has grown up to 222 representatives. This is quite exciting to finally begin the process of dismantling the secrecy that the Federal Reserve.

Watch Ron Paul on Freedom Watch discussing the Federal Reserve and his legislation:

It’s Almost Funny…

John Russell — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:39:00 +0000

The Minimum Wage: Simply Explained

Barry Belmont — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:38:00 +0000

or quite simply in graphical terms:

The Package and the Lesson

Barry Belmont — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:34:00 +0000

For those of you attending the University of Nevada, Reno.

If you haven’t already heard, the president of the ASUN,* Eli Reilly, has proposed a “stimulus package” for UNR. The idea is for $200,000 to be spent over two years that “will create 50 new student jobs on campus.” If this isn’t the definition of blindingly moronic, then I don’t know what is.

In fact, if this is considered a “good idea” or is actually thought, by anybody, at any time, for any reason to be an effective way to “stimulate” UNR in a positive way, then I am afraid that everything I’ve ever known, loved, or cared for in humanity is circling the drain.

In the face of “budget cuts” and a “recession” someone’s fearless leader (not mine), Eli Reilly, has seen fit to inflate the budget 10% what it was last year. When START said that cutting the budget of certain programs was going to be necessary and that if elected they would be scrupulous about it, they were screamed out of whatever room they were in. Laughed at, picked on, and called ridiculous, for proposing such a ridiculous idea. And yet with Reilly’s cuts of $12,500 from Flipside, $3,000 from homecoming, $4,000 from Insight, and $50,000 from club support, this course of action is applauded and indeed deemed responsible.

Wait, what? you might ask. Didn’t I just say the budget is 10% greater, and yet there are all these cuts? What’s up? Well you’ll be glad to know that among the increases were: senate wages (go figure…), executive wages (go figure…), professional salaries (seeing a trend?), professional and classified salaries (seriously?), ASUN advertising, Campus Escort, the Leadership Program, and Diversity inititives.

That’s right. Stuff that doesn’t actually help the majority of students in any conceivable way. No money for tutoring, no help centers, no counseling, nothing.

Complaints of slash and burn cutting (with a heavy dose of favoritism) aside, what about this “stimulus package.” Well, 50 lucky students are going to get jobs working for the ASUN or some other department on campus. Fifty make work jobs paid for by people with actual jobs, actually working their way through college. These jobs that Reilly hopes to create don’t exist now because it doesn’t pay for them to exist now. Put another way, the reason there aren’t the 50 jobs he hopes to create out of thin air already existing now is because it is not worth it by the people who would employ them to allow them to work for them. As an example, say there are 20 of you working at the Panda Express (mmm…) on campus. Why aren’t there 25? Because the people paying you will lose money.

The solution, at least in the eyes of someone’s economically ignorant leader? Have student fees pay for those 5 extra workers! According to the “package” the department will only pay for 25% of the student’s salary while the University picks up the 75% slack. Now, Panda Express only needs to value those 5 new employees at 1/4 of what they value their other employees. But, the 1/4 valuable workers will still be paid the same amount! (or close to it) Who exactly is this fair to?

Not the workers who get paid what they’re effectively worth (and not 4 times as much).
Not the majority of students whom this money is being taken away from (~$16.50 per person).
Not the people excluded from the jobs (since there is no way to effectively measure marginal costs for employment in this case).
Not even to the students who get these jobs! Preferential treatment is still unfair even if we like it.

Why do it then? Why not just give every student $16.50 in Advantage Cash or only for the Bookstore and stimulate the University that way? Who gets the jobs? Which jobs are they? Why those jobs? Why not other jobs? Why? Why?

Why?

Because we have a student government. Like all governments it does not, cannot, know the best way to achieve ends. The person in charge* ($8,800) is a History major, the speaker of the Senate ($7,000) is an “International Affairs” major, and of the two newly elected College of Business senators ($870 each) only one is an actual Economics major, though (so far as I know), he had nothing to do with the budget or this “package”: these people do not know what they are doing with money. Even if they were all Ecomonics geniuses, they still wouldn’t know how to properly spend other people’s money better than they do. You can’t know how to do that. And this is one of the major failings of government (next to it being illegitimate and ever-more-tyrannical).

So give it back. Give us back our money. It’s not yours and it’s not yours to give to 50 other people in some misguided attempt to “stimulate” the University. Isn’t it enough that the four people mentioned above have already taken $17,540 from us by themselves? Must they take even more in the name of others? There is nothing worse than a benevolent thief, he knows of no crime greater than that of honest ownership.

And let us, as a final note, never forget that lesson near and dear to us all:

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

Fiat… repelling the mind since the 18th century

John Russell — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:25:00 +0000