LOVED this Podcast!
Boettke on Mises | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty
Monday, December 27, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Willer Time, Baby!
I've just given away my last piece of campaign lit and pestered hundreds of likely voters. Now I'm out of leaflets. Now, it's Willer time!
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Absolutely, f@%king, shameless.
| Gov. Chris Christie comments on 'teachers unions gone wild' |
More here:
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Daniel Henninger: Capitalism Saved the Miners
Shame on you Mr Henninger for being so churlish. Churlishly revealing that invisible hand which guides such prosperity.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Did the Free Market Burn Down the House? รข€” Mises Economics Blog
Thank you for the clarity, Mr Tucker!
Did the Free Market Burn Down the House? รข€” Mises Economics Blog
Did the Free Market Burn Down the House? รข€” Mises Economics Blog
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Morals schmorals
"Taxes, I believe, are the lubricant for the machinery of our democracy."
Huh???
Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton makes 'moral' case for tax increase - TwinCities.com
Huh???
Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton makes 'moral' case for tax increase - TwinCities.com
Monday, September 13, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Today's Ray of Hope (Re-visited)
In honor of 9/11, I'm posting the following story a friend of mine sent to me a couple weeks after the events of September 11th, 2001.
"It is a late Tuesday night (aka early Wednesday morning). I have just returned from a bar, where I and two co-workers celebrated our completion of this week's edition of the newspaper before last call. As I was sitting alone, recently abondoned by the aforementioned co=workers and waiting to pay my tab, I became aware of something very troubling. At a table several feet from mine sat two dark-skinned men quietly imbibing their beers. I had noticed them when I first sat down, and felt immediately guilty, as my first thoughts were: hey there's two dark-skinned males... should I be suspicious of them?
What was even more troubling, however, was the tension mounting them and a be-mulleted man who's ill-conceived patriotism was about to manifest itself as something ugly. His friends called him Vic, so I shall call him Jake. The only other thing I know about this man was that he seemed to have total recall of Bon Jovi song lyrics, as I had made note of several minutes earlier.
Anyway, this Jake fellow, well within my earshot, had approached the two dark-skinned men and, anything but innocently, asked, "So, are you guys happy my country blew up?" Despite his hyperbole, it was obvious he was referring to the events of September 11th.
The question was loaded with gunpowder, and the response could not have been a more effective fuse. One of the men responded by quietly stating, "It's not my country". As far as Jake was concerned, this guy was shrugging off the attack by saying: "America is not my country, so why should I care?"
But, to my ear, what this dark-skinned male, whose accent had revealed him as Hispanic, was trying to say was: "It's not my country that launched the heinous attack, so please don't hold me responsible". Jake retorted with incorrectly administered racial epithets and rhetorical suggestions too bizarre to relate. The two men returned fire with odd remarks which probably made more sense in Spanish. At this point Jake made it clear that this matter would be settled in the parking lot when these men decided to leave, which was emanate, as closing time was already being announced.
During the exchange I had repositioned myself at my table and was now physically between Jake and the two men. The bartender called out (for the umpteenth time), "C'mon, everybody out".
The two men stood up from their chairs. Jake hopped off his bar stool and started stepping towards them. I stood up. Jake stopped in his tracks, looked around, and sat back down on his stool. For a moment all I could think was, "Woah... I can't possibly be that imposing". Then, I too looked around the room and this is what I saw: everyone else in the bar was standing, and in the same stance I was: glaring at Jake, shoulders forward, fists clenched, and eyes that said, "Not in my country you don't".
At this point a middle-aged, pot-bellied, gentleman (who's adult life could probably be divided into two equal parts: 1. many years spent following the Grateful Dead, and 2. many years spent paying bar trivia) moseyed over to Jake and, with calmness that would've made Ghandi enraged with jealousy, began to reason with him. Very slowly, yet almost in unison, I and the army of vigilant bar patrons relaxed from our battle stations as we intensely eavesdropped on the conversation between Jake and this Jerry Garcia-esque Buddha.
I feel guilty for the second time tonight. I feel guilty because ever since the events of September 11th I have been dreadfully anticipating the backlash of passionately irrational against innocent and misallocated people who look even vaguely Arabic, yet I've underestimated the power of everyone else - the people who believe in America and who understand what this country is founded on. The ones who care more about what it is that makes America such a unique and wonderful place, and who understand that nationality goes beyond ethnicity and that humanity supercedes them all.
Jake didn't leave the bar tonight with any great revelation, for all I know he may be sitting at home right now writing an email to his friends advocating unrelenting intolerance and blind injustice. But, I feel confident in having seen first hand that, for every Jake there is a bar full of people willing to get in his way, and at least one wise man who has some sense to share.
I was in the parking lot when the two men drove away. They left peacefully with no further confrontation. For now.
There's no moral here, and I don't mean to come off as some sort of preacher, for my feelings towards Jake were just as mechanical as his were towards the hispanic men, but still I found the experience to be enlightening and positive. The sad thing is, what was an enlighteningly positive experience for me was undoubtedly a horribly threatening experience for two poor guys who came to this country for probably much the same reasons our ancestors did.
Take that for what it's worth.
I think it's worth a hell of a lot.
God bless Americans."
I think it's worth a hell of a lot too, hombre.
(h/t: UBP)
"It is a late Tuesday night (aka early Wednesday morning). I have just returned from a bar, where I and two co-workers celebrated our completion of this week's edition of the newspaper before last call. As I was sitting alone, recently abondoned by the aforementioned co=workers and waiting to pay my tab, I became aware of something very troubling. At a table several feet from mine sat two dark-skinned men quietly imbibing their beers. I had noticed them when I first sat down, and felt immediately guilty, as my first thoughts were: hey there's two dark-skinned males... should I be suspicious of them?
What was even more troubling, however, was the tension mounting them and a be-mulleted man who's ill-conceived patriotism was about to manifest itself as something ugly. His friends called him Vic, so I shall call him Jake. The only other thing I know about this man was that he seemed to have total recall of Bon Jovi song lyrics, as I had made note of several minutes earlier.
Anyway, this Jake fellow, well within my earshot, had approached the two dark-skinned men and, anything but innocently, asked, "So, are you guys happy my country blew up?" Despite his hyperbole, it was obvious he was referring to the events of September 11th.
The question was loaded with gunpowder, and the response could not have been a more effective fuse. One of the men responded by quietly stating, "It's not my country". As far as Jake was concerned, this guy was shrugging off the attack by saying: "America is not my country, so why should I care?"
But, to my ear, what this dark-skinned male, whose accent had revealed him as Hispanic, was trying to say was: "It's not my country that launched the heinous attack, so please don't hold me responsible". Jake retorted with incorrectly administered racial epithets and rhetorical suggestions too bizarre to relate. The two men returned fire with odd remarks which probably made more sense in Spanish. At this point Jake made it clear that this matter would be settled in the parking lot when these men decided to leave, which was emanate, as closing time was already being announced.
During the exchange I had repositioned myself at my table and was now physically between Jake and the two men. The bartender called out (for the umpteenth time), "C'mon, everybody out".
The two men stood up from their chairs. Jake hopped off his bar stool and started stepping towards them. I stood up. Jake stopped in his tracks, looked around, and sat back down on his stool. For a moment all I could think was, "Woah... I can't possibly be that imposing". Then, I too looked around the room and this is what I saw: everyone else in the bar was standing, and in the same stance I was: glaring at Jake, shoulders forward, fists clenched, and eyes that said, "Not in my country you don't".
At this point a middle-aged, pot-bellied, gentleman (who's adult life could probably be divided into two equal parts: 1. many years spent following the Grateful Dead, and 2. many years spent paying bar trivia) moseyed over to Jake and, with calmness that would've made Ghandi enraged with jealousy, began to reason with him. Very slowly, yet almost in unison, I and the army of vigilant bar patrons relaxed from our battle stations as we intensely eavesdropped on the conversation between Jake and this Jerry Garcia-esque Buddha.
I feel guilty for the second time tonight. I feel guilty because ever since the events of September 11th I have been dreadfully anticipating the backlash of passionately irrational against innocent and misallocated people who look even vaguely Arabic, yet I've underestimated the power of everyone else - the people who believe in America and who understand what this country is founded on. The ones who care more about what it is that makes America such a unique and wonderful place, and who understand that nationality goes beyond ethnicity and that humanity supercedes them all.
Jake didn't leave the bar tonight with any great revelation, for all I know he may be sitting at home right now writing an email to his friends advocating unrelenting intolerance and blind injustice. But, I feel confident in having seen first hand that, for every Jake there is a bar full of people willing to get in his way, and at least one wise man who has some sense to share.
I was in the parking lot when the two men drove away. They left peacefully with no further confrontation. For now.
There's no moral here, and I don't mean to come off as some sort of preacher, for my feelings towards Jake were just as mechanical as his were towards the hispanic men, but still I found the experience to be enlightening and positive. The sad thing is, what was an enlighteningly positive experience for me was undoubtedly a horribly threatening experience for two poor guys who came to this country for probably much the same reasons our ancestors did.
Take that for what it's worth.
I think it's worth a hell of a lot.
God bless Americans."
I think it's worth a hell of a lot too, hombre.
(h/t: UBP)
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Three Ingredients for Murder: Neuroscientist James Fallon on psychopaths...
Hmmmm... This might explain why I am the way I am.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Ever-Quotable P.J. O'Rourke
"The free market is not an ideology or a creed or something we're supposed to take on faith, it's a measurement. It's a bathroom scale. I may hate what I see when I step on the bathroom scale, but I can't pass a law saying I weigh 160 pounds. Authoritarian governments think they can pass that law—a law to change the measurement of things."
More here.
Mark Perry follows this up with a note on the minimum wage:
Exhibit A: The minimum wage law. A teenager with no work experience steps on a "bathroom scale" that accurately and truthfully measures the market value of unskilled labor, and the scale says "$5.00 per hour." Politicians pass minimum wage legislation to rig the "bathroom scale" of labor value to instead produce an inaccurate, false inflated reading of "$7.25 per hour." And they then seem puzzled that more than one out of every four teenagers who is looking for a job is unable to find one, but that's what happens when you "rig" the "bathroom scale."
(h/t: Mark Perry)
More here.
Mark Perry follows this up with a note on the minimum wage:
Exhibit A: The minimum wage law. A teenager with no work experience steps on a "bathroom scale" that accurately and truthfully measures the market value of unskilled labor, and the scale says "$5.00 per hour." Politicians pass minimum wage legislation to rig the "bathroom scale" of labor value to instead produce an inaccurate, false inflated reading of "$7.25 per hour." And they then seem puzzled that more than one out of every four teenagers who is looking for a job is unable to find one, but that's what happens when you "rig" the "bathroom scale."
(h/t: Mark Perry)
Thursday, August 19, 2010
A few thoughts on President Obama and this whole Ground Zero Mosque fiasco
The day was January 14th, 1980 and William F Buckley - at a taping for his program, Firing Line - asked President-elect Ronald Wilson Reagan the pointed question, "I should like to begin by asking President Reagan: What would you do if, say, one afternoon you were advised that a race riot had broken out in Detroit?" Reagan, after a brief pause, replied, "Well, I would be inclined to say that that was a problem for the local authorities in Detroit, unless those local authorities were unable to control the situation."
This is a request to President Barack Obama.
Dear President Obama,
I understand that you are in a bit of hot water again. This time it is due to your comments supporting the "Ground Zero" mosque. I will dispense with any positions I may have on this issue as I believe them to be moot in relation to the office you hold (and the office I seek). But, let me say this, read the above statement by former president Reagan and take it as a "teachable moment". You seem to be a man of many opinions, which, I can't say I blame you - I too suffer from the weight of many an opinion. But, perhaps you should understand that your job, or role, as president is a Federal one. Your duties are restricted by the Constitution to the Federal government, not the individual states.
Now, I understand that the Federal government has its fingers in many state matters and thus the line is so blurred that we cannot comprehend the difference. But, be that as it may, perhaps you should take the same route which Reagan chose. I know that your comments about the arrest of Henry Gates last year gave you a bit of flack and resulted in the ridiculous "Beer Summit". I thought you would have learned a lesson with that episode in your presidency but apparently you have not.
This "Ground Zero" mosque melee is ultimately a local and/or state issue. As many Americans were affected by the horrific events of that day, a nation such as ours was founded upon the rights of private property and, in the issue of this current case, is currently handled (at best I might add) by the local and/or state authorities.
The next time a reporter, or anyone else for that matter, inquires about your opinion on a particular matter in which you ultimately have no jurisdiction over, perhaps you should reply that said matter is one for the local and state authorities. Besides, I'm sure you have another game of golf which is a far more pressing issue. ;)
This is a request to President Barack Obama.
Dear President Obama,
I understand that you are in a bit of hot water again. This time it is due to your comments supporting the "Ground Zero" mosque. I will dispense with any positions I may have on this issue as I believe them to be moot in relation to the office you hold (and the office I seek). But, let me say this, read the above statement by former president Reagan and take it as a "teachable moment". You seem to be a man of many opinions, which, I can't say I blame you - I too suffer from the weight of many an opinion. But, perhaps you should understand that your job, or role, as president is a Federal one. Your duties are restricted by the Constitution to the Federal government, not the individual states.
Now, I understand that the Federal government has its fingers in many state matters and thus the line is so blurred that we cannot comprehend the difference. But, be that as it may, perhaps you should take the same route which Reagan chose. I know that your comments about the arrest of Henry Gates last year gave you a bit of flack and resulted in the ridiculous "Beer Summit". I thought you would have learned a lesson with that episode in your presidency but apparently you have not.
This "Ground Zero" mosque melee is ultimately a local and/or state issue. As many Americans were affected by the horrific events of that day, a nation such as ours was founded upon the rights of private property and, in the issue of this current case, is currently handled (at best I might add) by the local and/or state authorities.
The next time a reporter, or anyone else for that matter, inquires about your opinion on a particular matter in which you ultimately have no jurisdiction over, perhaps you should reply that said matter is one for the local and state authorities. Besides, I'm sure you have another game of golf which is a far more pressing issue. ;)
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Who's Reviving Who's Economy?
In all due respect to those candidates in attendance. Politicians don't revive the economy, the people do. Let loose the chains that bind us and you will see real growth.
Read more here.
Read more here.
When Enough is Enough
At recent events I've had people come up to me and express their frustration with their elected representatives. They often speak out of regret for having voted for this official or that. They ask me what they can do about this. Often I am perplexed as I try to find an answer to their dilemma.
I often think of life as a system of trade-offs. You may decide to buy the car with a larger engine because of the feel of the acceleration yet you accept the trade-off of getting fewer miles to the gallon. You may decide to send your child to a certain private college in spite of the costs to you as a parent. That decision may prevent you from taking a vacation overseas, or buying that V8 Mustang, or going to see Springsteen as many times as you can in as many cities possible but you make that choice because the trade-off is more important to you and more in line with your values.
The same could be said of the choices we make when voting for our elected officials. Some may view the fiscal or economic issues as being more critical and thus may be willing to overlook the drawbacks or cons that come with a certain candidate. On the other hand, some may consider social issues such as gay rights, abortion, the war on drugs, etc. to be of more importance that any fiscal or economic issues.
What I would propose is we get back to what is the foundation of our Republic, our Constitution. If we ever need to consider whether or not to support an incumbent in their bid for re-election I suggest we look at their voting record. If, at any time whatsoever, they have voted in support of legislation which violates our constitution then they have violated the oath the swore when they took office and should not be re-elected.
If the candidate has not served in office, then perhaps we should evaluate their positions to see if they, in any way, violate and infringe on the Constitution then they should not receive a single vote.
There it is. Our decision may not be easy, but it is simple. If we as the people of this great Republic ever want to reclaim this land back from the Republicans and Democrats we must hold them accountable to the Constitution. At the end of the day, it is all we have left that preserves our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property, as it was originally written and is in the way I prefer).
I often think of life as a system of trade-offs. You may decide to buy the car with a larger engine because of the feel of the acceleration yet you accept the trade-off of getting fewer miles to the gallon. You may decide to send your child to a certain private college in spite of the costs to you as a parent. That decision may prevent you from taking a vacation overseas, or buying that V8 Mustang, or going to see Springsteen as many times as you can in as many cities possible but you make that choice because the trade-off is more important to you and more in line with your values.
The same could be said of the choices we make when voting for our elected officials. Some may view the fiscal or economic issues as being more critical and thus may be willing to overlook the drawbacks or cons that come with a certain candidate. On the other hand, some may consider social issues such as gay rights, abortion, the war on drugs, etc. to be of more importance that any fiscal or economic issues.
What I would propose is we get back to what is the foundation of our Republic, our Constitution. If we ever need to consider whether or not to support an incumbent in their bid for re-election I suggest we look at their voting record. If, at any time whatsoever, they have voted in support of legislation which violates our constitution then they have violated the oath the swore when they took office and should not be re-elected.
If the candidate has not served in office, then perhaps we should evaluate their positions to see if they, in any way, violate and infringe on the Constitution then they should not receive a single vote.
There it is. Our decision may not be easy, but it is simple. If we as the people of this great Republic ever want to reclaim this land back from the Republicans and Democrats we must hold them accountable to the Constitution. At the end of the day, it is all we have left that preserves our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property, as it was originally written and is in the way I prefer).
Monday, August 9, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
It's Come to This...
If this does not convince people of the lunacy that is our out-of-control government I don't know what will.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/portland_lemonade_stand_runs_i.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/portland_lemonade_stand_runs_i.html
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
National Night Out
An open letter to those I met tonight (and all others in my district).
Thank you for allowing me visit with, and meet all of you. I wish I could have sampled some of your food but between the heat and biking around it would not have been a good idea. :)
I wish I could have spent more time talking to you but I had a narrow window to make my rounds. But, I would like to thank you for showing me the respect you displayed with me. I know Republicans are not that popular in this district and it means to world to me when people show genuine kindness and respect towards those they disagree with, especially me. :)
I would be proud to represent all of you - Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, or Independent.
Thank you for allowing me visit with, and meet all of you. I wish I could have sampled some of your food but between the heat and biking around it would not have been a good idea. :)
I wish I could have spent more time talking to you but I had a narrow window to make my rounds. But, I would like to thank you for showing me the respect you displayed with me. I know Republicans are not that popular in this district and it means to world to me when people show genuine kindness and respect towards those they disagree with, especially me. :)
I would be proud to represent all of you - Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, or Independent.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
George Will Keynotes 2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner
Watch this video. Some of the facts Will mentions should be a wake up call to us.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Restoring Power to the People
"It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power." ~ Albert Jay Nock
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Press Release
Contact:
Nathan Atkins
Candidate for Minnesota State Representative
District 63A
Nate Atkins for State House
5508 Bryant Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55419
natkins99@gmail.com
For Immediate Release:
DESPITE POOR JOB NUMBERS AND A SPUTTERING RECOVERY, DFL CANDIDATE KELLIHER WANTS TO RAISE MINNESOTA’S MINIMUM WAGE
June 9th 2010, DFL gubernatorial candidate Margaret Anderson Kelliher announced Friday she wants to boost the state's minimum wage by $1.50.
Lagging behind in the polls, DFL endorsed gubernatorial candidate Margaret Anderson Kelliher took the opportunity Friday to take a shot at her Republican challenger Tom Emmer and his suggestion of lowering the state’s minimum wage for hospitality employees who earn tips. Not be to be outdone however, Kelliher, who wasn’t merely willing to concede in leaving the minimum unchanged, stated she actually wants to raise the state’s minimum.
Kelliher’s proposal would bring the minimum wage to $7.65 for employers with annual sales more than $625,000. The minimum wage would rise to $6.75 for small employers, with annual sales less than $625,000.
Stating her contention that Emmer was “out of touch with the challenges facing hard-working families struggling in this economy”, Kelliher went on to state that during “these difficult times we shouldn’t be cutting wages for middle-class families.”
“Kelliher would far better serve the people of the state of Minnesota were she to take a basic economics class,” says Nathan Atkins, candidate for the State House of Representatives in District 63A. “I don’t honestly know how you can keep a straight face in citing hard-working families who are struggling while telling some of them you’ve every intention of raising their labor costs. I think what is truly out of touch is Kelliher’s insistence that middle-class families are the ones holding minimum wage jobs. According to U.S. Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics), the bulk of workers at or below the minimum wage in earnings are young individuals not families as Kelliher contends. Further still, half of those workers are under the age of 25. A quarter of those workers are between the ages of 16-19. ” Atkins goes on to state, “Raising the minimum wage will do nothing but prevent unskilled workers from the opportunities of gaining employment. Furthermore, if Kelliher believes that raising the minimum wage will help middle class families, why not raise it to $10 per hour? Or, better yet, $15? That may require employers to pay their now minimum wage workers more money but they will compensate for such a requirement by laying others off, and hiring far fewer – resulting in rising unemployment.”
As Candidate for Minnesota State Representative in District 63A, I have a different idea about what our state needs in a representative. We need representatives who can understand the immediate and long-term impacts of their actions and decisions. While most politicians only care about winning the next election and hence only seek to examine the short-term impacts of their actions, I care about the future generations of Minnesotans and will understand how my decisions will affect the future as well as the now.
Nathan Atkins
Candidate for Minnesota State Representative
District 63A
Nate Atkins for State House
5508 Bryant Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55419
natkins99@gmail.com
For Immediate Release:
DESPITE POOR JOB NUMBERS AND A SPUTTERING RECOVERY, DFL CANDIDATE KELLIHER WANTS TO RAISE MINNESOTA’S MINIMUM WAGE
June 9th 2010, DFL gubernatorial candidate Margaret Anderson Kelliher announced Friday she wants to boost the state's minimum wage by $1.50.
Lagging behind in the polls, DFL endorsed gubernatorial candidate Margaret Anderson Kelliher took the opportunity Friday to take a shot at her Republican challenger Tom Emmer and his suggestion of lowering the state’s minimum wage for hospitality employees who earn tips. Not be to be outdone however, Kelliher, who wasn’t merely willing to concede in leaving the minimum unchanged, stated she actually wants to raise the state’s minimum.
Kelliher’s proposal would bring the minimum wage to $7.65 for employers with annual sales more than $625,000. The minimum wage would rise to $6.75 for small employers, with annual sales less than $625,000.
Stating her contention that Emmer was “out of touch with the challenges facing hard-working families struggling in this economy”, Kelliher went on to state that during “these difficult times we shouldn’t be cutting wages for middle-class families.”
“Kelliher would far better serve the people of the state of Minnesota were she to take a basic economics class,” says Nathan Atkins, candidate for the State House of Representatives in District 63A. “I don’t honestly know how you can keep a straight face in citing hard-working families who are struggling while telling some of them you’ve every intention of raising their labor costs. I think what is truly out of touch is Kelliher’s insistence that middle-class families are the ones holding minimum wage jobs. According to U.S. Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics), the bulk of workers at or below the minimum wage in earnings are young individuals not families as Kelliher contends. Further still, half of those workers are under the age of 25. A quarter of those workers are between the ages of 16-19. ” Atkins goes on to state, “Raising the minimum wage will do nothing but prevent unskilled workers from the opportunities of gaining employment. Furthermore, if Kelliher believes that raising the minimum wage will help middle class families, why not raise it to $10 per hour? Or, better yet, $15? That may require employers to pay their now minimum wage workers more money but they will compensate for such a requirement by laying others off, and hiring far fewer – resulting in rising unemployment.”
As Candidate for Minnesota State Representative in District 63A, I have a different idea about what our state needs in a representative. We need representatives who can understand the immediate and long-term impacts of their actions and decisions. While most politicians only care about winning the next election and hence only seek to examine the short-term impacts of their actions, I care about the future generations of Minnesotans and will understand how my decisions will affect the future as well as the now.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
4th of July Pics
Many thanks to my volunteers Stacia, Bill, Joel, Kaylea, Tarek, Evan, and my mom Joan and my sister Leah.
Also thanks to Dan and Sandy for letting us use their awesome car!
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Seeing What is Not Seen
Friday, May 28, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Links Of The Week (LOTW)
The always excellent Don Boudreaux provides his usual brilliance in his open letters and letters to various media outlets below:
Boudreaux quotes Thomas Sowell in this letter, which is always a plus.
And, one must never overlook a retort to Ezra Klein here.
Here are 26 Reasons Not To Blame Capitalism.
Steve Chapman offers some insights into immigration law over at Reason.
And, last but not least, Glenn Beck offers a brief insight into the Forgotten Depression:
Please read Thomas Woods' article over at the Mises Institute on this episode in American History as a follow up to this video.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Fundraiser-o-rama!
Hola all!
Are you interested in hearing more about Nate's campaign?
Do you ever wonder what Nate really thinks about the issues facing our state?
Are you tired of Nate's partisan/libertarian postings on his Facebook page?
Do you feel like berating Nate for his beliefs?
Would you like to see Nate's new (well, not so much "new" because he's been here for a while, but he just bought the place) house in beautiful Southwest Minneapolis?
Are you in the mood for some tacos and beer?
Well, if you answered yes to any of the above questions then you are cordially invited to Nate's campaign fundraiser / housewarming / Cinco de Mayo party featuring a taco bar and plenty of ice-cold Leinie's on tap (and, maybe some margaritas?)!
It's all happening on Wednesday, May 5th, from 6:00 PM until 10-ish at Nate's place at:
Casa de Nate - AKA Campaign Headquarters
5508 Bryant Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55419
All are welcome, all that is requested is a donation of $25 to Nate's campaign to restore your power as citizens of this great state and Republic.
Hope to see you all there!
Are you interested in hearing more about Nate's campaign?
Do you ever wonder what Nate really thinks about the issues facing our state?
Are you tired of Nate's partisan/libertarian postings on his Facebook page?
Do you feel like berating Nate for his beliefs?
Would you like to see Nate's new (well, not so much "new" because he's been here for a while, but he just bought the place) house in beautiful Southwest Minneapolis?
Are you in the mood for some tacos and beer?
Well, if you answered yes to any of the above questions then you are cordially invited to Nate's campaign fundraiser / housewarming / Cinco de Mayo party featuring a taco bar and plenty of ice-cold Leinie's on tap (and, maybe some margaritas?)!
It's all happening on Wednesday, May 5th, from 6:00 PM until 10-ish at Nate's place at:
Casa de Nate - AKA Campaign Headquarters
5508 Bryant Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55419
All are welcome, all that is requested is a donation of $25 to Nate's campaign to restore your power as citizens of this great state and Republic.
Hope to see you all there!
What is a Libertarian? Part 4
Good points all around here. I know where I fall in but I would be interested in hearing from others as well.
What is a Libertarian? Part 3
I think David Boaz of the Cato Institute makes a great point about the Koreas here.
What is a Libertarian? Part 2
The 2nd part of the series on what a Libertarian is.
Watching this reminds me of one of my favorite clips of the late Milton Friedman.
Watching this reminds me of one of my favorite clips of the late Milton Friedman.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
What is a Libertarian?
People will sometimes ask me what I mean when I say I'm a Libertarian. Well, here are a couple of videos that might give you some insight.
The 1st video is from a recent episode of Stossel on the Fox Business Channel. The 2nd is of an interview by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution and Milton Friedman.
Enjoy!
The 1st video is from a recent episode of Stossel on the Fox Business Channel. The 2nd is of an interview by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution and Milton Friedman.
Enjoy!
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Republican Junk Economics
John Stossel talk with the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor about energy myths.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Why The Stimulus Isn't Working: Q & A with economist Richard McKenzie
From Reason.tv website:
It's been a year since Congress passed a stimulus bill that will eventually dole out $787 billion in taxpayer money to lucky recipients across the country.
In California, stimulus money has been used to pay the salaries of cops, provide rental assistance to residents of Santa Monica, and subsidize homeowners who weatherize their homes. Were those good investments?
The University of California at Irvine was awarded $42 million in stimulus money to fund different research projects and, in one case, $2 million to "stimulate student interest in mathematics and computer science." Was that a good use of scarce public dollars?
To learn more, Reason.tv's Paul Feine spoke with UC-Irvine economist Richard McKenzie who, a year ago, predicted that the stimulus package wouldn't work.
McKenzie is the author of Why Popcorn Costs So Much at the Movies: And other Pricing Puzzles.
MNLG Endorsement
I am very proud to say that last night at O'Gara's in St Paul I was endorsed by the wonderful members of Minnesotans for Limited Government.
See the list of endorsed candidates here.
See the list of endorsed candidates here.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Reason Saves Cleveland
Drew Carey hosts this 6-part series (condensed into 1 episode here) about the decline of his hometown Cleveland.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Peering Into Our Future?
Don Boudreaux shares a glimpse at the present in France and the possible future here in the U.S.
Read it here.
Read it here.
On Freedom
From the “Legend of the Grand Inquisitor,” Dostoyevsky’s story-within-a-story in The Brothers Karamazov:
Know then [said the Grand Inquisitor to the figure of Christ, who had mysteriously appeared to him], that now, and only now, Thy people feel fully sure and satisfied of their freedom; and that only since they have themselves and of their own free will delivered that freedom unto our hands by placing it submissively at our feet. . . .
Wouldst Thou go into the world empty-handed? Wouldst Thou venture thither with Thy vague and undefined promise of freedom, which men, dull and unruly as they are by nature, are unable so much as to understand, which they avoid and fear? — for never was there anything more unbearable to the human race than personal freedom . . . ! I repeat to Thee, man has no greater anxiety in life than to find someone to whom he can make over that gift of freedom with which the unfortunate creature is born. . . .
They will have no secrets from us. It will rest with us to permit them to live with their wives and concubines, or to forbid them, to have children or remain childless, either way depending on the degree of their obedience to us; and they will submit most joyfully to us the most agonizing secrets of their souls — all, all will they lay down at our feet, and we will authorize and remit them all in Thy name, and they will believe us and accept our mediation with rapture, as it will deliver them from their greatest anxiety and torture — that of having to decide freely for themselves.
(h/t: Peter Robinson via The Corner)
Know then [said the Grand Inquisitor to the figure of Christ, who had mysteriously appeared to him], that now, and only now, Thy people feel fully sure and satisfied of their freedom; and that only since they have themselves and of their own free will delivered that freedom unto our hands by placing it submissively at our feet. . . .
Wouldst Thou go into the world empty-handed? Wouldst Thou venture thither with Thy vague and undefined promise of freedom, which men, dull and unruly as they are by nature, are unable so much as to understand, which they avoid and fear? — for never was there anything more unbearable to the human race than personal freedom . . . ! I repeat to Thee, man has no greater anxiety in life than to find someone to whom he can make over that gift of freedom with which the unfortunate creature is born. . . .
They will have no secrets from us. It will rest with us to permit them to live with their wives and concubines, or to forbid them, to have children or remain childless, either way depending on the degree of their obedience to us; and they will submit most joyfully to us the most agonizing secrets of their souls — all, all will they lay down at our feet, and we will authorize and remit them all in Thy name, and they will believe us and accept our mediation with rapture, as it will deliver them from their greatest anxiety and torture — that of having to decide freely for themselves.
(h/t: Peter Robinson via The Corner)
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Lies, Damned Lies, and CBO Estimates
Mitchell hits a vital point when he touches on how budget forecasters rarely take into account how taxation causes people to modify their behavior.
Lies, Damned Lies, and CBO EstimatesPosted using ShareThis
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Some Thoughts on What We See and Don't See; OR How I Learned to Stop Remembering and Forget History
A sign at the Dachau Concentration Camp museum reads, "Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It", and below it a photograph of a pile of dead bodies. The result of Nazi extermination.
~
I've been reading Henry Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson (I'm not sure why I am on this one now, I seem to start with the big, 700+ page books like Human Action instead of starting small and working my way up. Perhaps I'm just a glutton for punishment).
Anyway, I am always struck by how timeless books like Hazlitt's are. They repeatedly surprise me as works that could be just as easily applied to our current situations as they were when they were first published.
Take the 2nd chapter in EIOL (I'm using that abbreviation because I'm lazy and I don't have an editor). In this chapter, Hazlitt renews Bastiat's essay concerning the "Broken Window" fallacy in economics. This fallacy seems to be the root of many government interventions in our economy.
Take, for instance, this $1 billion bonding bill of a crap sandwich being fed to us by those in St Paul. Supporters of this bonding bill, such as, Paul Thissen, assert that if we (the government) spend a lot of money (like $1 billion) then that spending results in jobs, which results in people being able to spend their earnings on, well, "stuff". That spending on that "stuff" perpetuates the growth of the economy. The problem with this is that this $1 billion needs to come from somewhere and be financed and paid by something (TAXES). When the people have to repay this debt through taxation they are prevented from spending it on "stuff" that would further grow the economy. Essentially, that $1 billion may create some work for people to do, but it also prevents it from being spent on something else. To better analogize this, imagine taking a handful of dirty, sweaty, crumpled up dollar bills from your right pocket and putting it in you left pocket. All that you have done is transfer that money from one place to another, you haven't gained or lost anything. Nothing has been created. The same goes for massive spending bills like this (or any spending for that matter), work may be created for some, but it is also taken from others because the money being spent must later be paid for through taxation.
If you want to know if one of these politicians is full of B.S. ask them why they proposed $1 billion for this bonding bill. Heck, if $1 billion will create enough jobs to get our economy humming again, why not $2 billion? Why not $10 billion? At $10 billion our economy should be taking off like a rocket. Imagine, we could all look like this guy (or girl). Ask them which hack-economist told them that $1 billion is the "just right" amount to get our economy motoring along again. Perhaps it's this guy. One would think that the amount borrowed would have been prescribed to be a more exact, less rounded number, like $989, 413,607.00.
This path is really nothing new. Heck, this bonding bill is really just a miniature version of the federal stimulus bill passed last year. The Obama administration claimed that if the stimulus was passed unemployment would top out at 8%. Well, here we are, 1 year later, and we're hovering around 9.7%.
Why would we want a mini-stimulus in our own state if the grande version failed so miserably at the Federal level? Because we simply fail to remember and learn from history. This sales technique is really nothing new. Nixon tried it, Ford tried it, Carter tried it, and what did we get? The 70s, that's what we got. Aside from a Hollywood renaissance and Zeppelin, the 70s were nothing to write home about.
Remember, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
~
I've been reading Henry Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson (I'm not sure why I am on this one now, I seem to start with the big, 700+ page books like Human Action instead of starting small and working my way up. Perhaps I'm just a glutton for punishment).
Anyway, I am always struck by how timeless books like Hazlitt's are. They repeatedly surprise me as works that could be just as easily applied to our current situations as they were when they were first published.
Take the 2nd chapter in EIOL (I'm using that abbreviation because I'm lazy and I don't have an editor). In this chapter, Hazlitt renews Bastiat's essay concerning the "Broken Window" fallacy in economics. This fallacy seems to be the root of many government interventions in our economy.
Take, for instance, this $1 billion bonding bill of a crap sandwich being fed to us by those in St Paul. Supporters of this bonding bill, such as, Paul Thissen, assert that if we (the government) spend a lot of money (like $1 billion) then that spending results in jobs, which results in people being able to spend their earnings on, well, "stuff". That spending on that "stuff" perpetuates the growth of the economy. The problem with this is that this $1 billion needs to come from somewhere and be financed and paid by something (TAXES). When the people have to repay this debt through taxation they are prevented from spending it on "stuff" that would further grow the economy. Essentially, that $1 billion may create some work for people to do, but it also prevents it from being spent on something else. To better analogize this, imagine taking a handful of dirty, sweaty, crumpled up dollar bills from your right pocket and putting it in you left pocket. All that you have done is transfer that money from one place to another, you haven't gained or lost anything. Nothing has been created. The same goes for massive spending bills like this (or any spending for that matter), work may be created for some, but it is also taken from others because the money being spent must later be paid for through taxation.
If you want to know if one of these politicians is full of B.S. ask them why they proposed $1 billion for this bonding bill. Heck, if $1 billion will create enough jobs to get our economy humming again, why not $2 billion? Why not $10 billion? At $10 billion our economy should be taking off like a rocket. Imagine, we could all look like this guy (or girl). Ask them which hack-economist told them that $1 billion is the "just right" amount to get our economy motoring along again. Perhaps it's this guy. One would think that the amount borrowed would have been prescribed to be a more exact, less rounded number, like $989, 413,607.00.
This path is really nothing new. Heck, this bonding bill is really just a miniature version of the federal stimulus bill passed last year. The Obama administration claimed that if the stimulus was passed unemployment would top out at 8%. Well, here we are, 1 year later, and we're hovering around 9.7%.
Why would we want a mini-stimulus in our own state if the grande version failed so miserably at the Federal level? Because we simply fail to remember and learn from history. This sales technique is really nothing new. Nixon tried it, Ford tried it, Carter tried it, and what did we get? The 70s, that's what we got. Aside from a Hollywood renaissance and Zeppelin, the 70s were nothing to write home about.
Remember, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
QOTD
Quote of the day
"In a true market system, no one may employ state coercion to gain an advantage at his neighbor's expense. No transaction can take place without the willing consent of both parties. The market economy thus treats human beings as ends in themselves, a moral principle on which Catholic social teaching insists" ~ Thomas Woods Jr
"In a true market system, no one may employ state coercion to gain an advantage at his neighbor's expense. No transaction can take place without the willing consent of both parties. The market economy thus treats human beings as ends in themselves, a moral principle on which Catholic social teaching insists" ~ Thomas Woods Jr
Thursday, February 25, 2010
More of Paul Ryan
"The difference in our approaches is clear. We don't think all the answers lie in Washington."
Exactly
Exactly
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
More government involvement in marriage...
I really can't stop laughing at this...
"Couples to stage 'nag-in' in Washington later this month", HA!
New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other
"Couples to stage 'nag-in' in Washington later this month", HA!
New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other
QOTD
Quote of the Day
"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" ~ Henry Hazlitt
"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" ~ Henry Hazlitt
Friday, February 12, 2010
Sowell on "Fairness" - Part IV
This of you who know me are aware of my great admiration for Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution.
Read this article (link below), the 4th in a 4 part series, to get a better understanding as to why.
http://article.nationalreview.com/424644/innate-superiority-an-inferior-idea/thomas-sowell
Read this article (link below), the 4th in a 4 part series, to get a better understanding as to why.
http://article.nationalreview.com/424644/innate-superiority-an-inferior-idea/thomas-sowell
Sowell on "Fairness" - Part III
This of you who know me are aware of my great admiration for Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution.
Read this article (link below), the 3rd in a 4 part series, to get a better understanding as to why.
http://article.nationalreview.com/424502/rawls-and-fairness/thomas-sowell
Read this article (link below), the 3rd in a 4 part series, to get a better understanding as to why.
http://article.nationalreview.com/424502/rawls-and-fairness/thomas-sowell
Sowell on "Fairness" - Part II
This of you who know me are aware of my great admiration for Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution.
Read this article (link below), the 2nd in a 4 part series, to get a better understanding as to why.
http://article.nationalreview.com/424387/fairness-in-education/thomas-sowell
Read this article (link below), the 2nd in a 4 part series, to get a better understanding as to why.
http://article.nationalreview.com/424387/fairness-in-education/thomas-sowell
Sowell on "Fairness" - Part I
This of you who know me are aware of my great admiration for Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution.
Read this article (link below), the 1st in a 4 part series, to get a better understanding as to why.
http://article.nationalreview.com/424381/the-fallacy-of-fairness/thomas-sowell
Read this article (link below), the 1st in a 4 part series, to get a better understanding as to why.
http://article.nationalreview.com/424381/the-fallacy-of-fairness/thomas-sowell
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
BOTW
Book of the Week
"Meltdown" by Thomas Woods, Jr.
I think it is a sign of one's great abilities when they can explain seemingly complex ideas in very simple terms to average person.
Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams come to mind, and now after reading "Meltdown" I can say the same for Thomas Woods.
You can purchase it here.
"Meltdown" by Thomas Woods, Jr.
I think it is a sign of one's great abilities when they can explain seemingly complex ideas in very simple terms to average person.
Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams come to mind, and now after reading "Meltdown" I can say the same for Thomas Woods.
You can purchase it here.
Another Case for School Choice
Via the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Cato scholar Izzy Santa explains why school choice as an example of competition is better than government-created monopolies.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
QOTD
Quote of the Day
"Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them." ~ Ronald Reagan
Sunday, February 7, 2010
An Open Letter to Those in St Paul
Dear State Legislators and Our Governor (and those gubernatorial candidates both Republicans and Democrats),
The idea of increasing taxes on the "rich" when our state is facing a multi-billion dollar deficit may seem like a sensible action, but I would discourage you from doing so. Increased revenues are the assumed result of this increased taxation but I can assure you the revenues you so desire will not come flowing in. Your assumption that increased taxes on the rich necessarily is a classic example of Stage One Thinking. Increasing the tax burden on the "rich" does not take into account how they will respond to these actions.
Please look at the results of similar initiatives in Maryland and New Jersey where such actions have resulted in decreased revenues and the potential loss of a tax base as these "rich" you seem to despise have moved away.
Increase their taxes and they will leave.
Increase their taxes and they will save, rather than spend their money.
Increase their taxes and they will work less, if not at all.
Please read this article, as well as, this one and pay heed to the warnings within.
Sincerely,
Nathan Atkins
The idea of increasing taxes on the "rich" when our state is facing a multi-billion dollar deficit may seem like a sensible action, but I would discourage you from doing so. Increased revenues are the assumed result of this increased taxation but I can assure you the revenues you so desire will not come flowing in. Your assumption that increased taxes on the rich necessarily is a classic example of Stage One Thinking. Increasing the tax burden on the "rich" does not take into account how they will respond to these actions.
Please look at the results of similar initiatives in Maryland and New Jersey where such actions have resulted in decreased revenues and the potential loss of a tax base as these "rich" you seem to despise have moved away.
Increase their taxes and they will leave.
Increase their taxes and they will save, rather than spend their money.
Increase their taxes and they will work less, if not at all.
Please read this article, as well as, this one and pay heed to the warnings within.
Sincerely,
Nathan Atkins
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
QOTD
Quote of the Day
"A government can't control the economy without controlling people" ~ Ronald Reagan
From his 1964 speech, "A Time for Choosing".
Monday, February 1, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Protectionism in Our State Government
A key aspect to understanding why government action cannot spur meaningful economic growth and prosperity is to recognize the fact that politicians do not make economic decisions, they make political decisions.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune recently reported on a new state law that "prohibits cities, counties, the state and other 'public employers' from buying uniforms or safety equipment made outside the United States." The man behind this measure is Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia. Tom believes that a big reason we are not recovering from this recession is because we don't make as many "things" as other countries do. Other countries, Rukavina contends, "still make things" and he adds, "When you make things, turn natural resources into things, you also turn them into livable jobs."
Rukavina's measure may be noble in its intention, but as many of us know the road to hell is paved with, well, nevermind.
The idea that buying American will inherently spur economic growth is one posed with little intellectual investigation. Rep. Rukavina would be wise to read this article posted by Daniel Griswold, the Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.
If free trade has truly resulted in the loss of American jobs, why did unemployment rise in the aftermath of NAFTA? While it may be true that America has lost manufacturing jobs as it has opened up trade with the world, it has grown in the service area of the economy. It is not so much that American has lost jobs, it is that demand has directed our economy to evolve and adapt to supply more service-related jobs.
I'll post a couple links and a rather funny yet informative video from reason.tv. I encourage Rep. Rukavina to visit these links and watch the video; not that he will. Heck, I doubt he will ever read this blog - as of this writing, I only have 3 followers, including myself.
Links -
http://www.cato.org/trade-immigration
"Mad About Trade" by Daniel Griswold
The Minneapolis Star Tribune recently reported on a new state law that "prohibits cities, counties, the state and other 'public employers' from buying uniforms or safety equipment made outside the United States." The man behind this measure is Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia. Tom believes that a big reason we are not recovering from this recession is because we don't make as many "things" as other countries do. Other countries, Rukavina contends, "still make things" and he adds, "When you make things, turn natural resources into things, you also turn them into livable jobs."
Rukavina's measure may be noble in its intention, but as many of us know the road to hell is paved with, well, nevermind.
The idea that buying American will inherently spur economic growth is one posed with little intellectual investigation. Rep. Rukavina would be wise to read this article posted by Daniel Griswold, the Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.
If free trade has truly resulted in the loss of American jobs, why did unemployment rise in the aftermath of NAFTA? While it may be true that America has lost manufacturing jobs as it has opened up trade with the world, it has grown in the service area of the economy. It is not so much that American has lost jobs, it is that demand has directed our economy to evolve and adapt to supply more service-related jobs.
I'll post a couple links and a rather funny yet informative video from reason.tv. I encourage Rep. Rukavina to visit these links and watch the video; not that he will. Heck, I doubt he will ever read this blog - as of this writing, I only have 3 followers, including myself.
Links -
http://www.cato.org/trade-immigration
"Mad About Trade" by Daniel Griswold
QOTW
"Sometimes any issue that hits the television news seems to become an issue that must be addressed by the federal government. And like busybodies everywhere, Congress can't help peering in our windows and telling us how to live our lives." ~ Michael D Tanner
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
BOTW (Book of the Week)
For those of you interested in learning about alternatives to government "solutions" to our health care system I encourage you to check out "Healthy Competition" by Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute.
You can purchase it here.
You can purchase it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)