David Hamilton

This conversation is closed.

I don't believe government is an efficient tool for solving problems. I want my representatives to believe it can be, then prove it.

I think most politicians, worldwide, across parties and systems of government, are so caught up in the sport of it all... That in essence, they forget their primary responsibility, to efficiently manage, and use the resources of government.

People on both sides of issues in any country, will often talk about how their side wants to solve problems but the other side gets in the way... but I'm actually not talking about problems, or issues, I'm talking about governance, as management of the bureaucracy. People aren’t just elected to shrink or expand government, or sign policy, they are also elected as managers, or appointers of management, and most of them do a terrible job.

Having spent over a decade in the part time employ of the federal government, I can tell you, who you elect, makes a difference on the ground… Sometimes. People who truly believe that government can be used to efficiently solve problems, take the management part of their job seriously. People who do not believe in governments ability to solve problems, do not take this responsibility seriously.

I worked under appointees, that were across the spectrum, from ultra right, to ultra left. In general, the difference is simple, one group wants you to buy stuff, one wants you to hire people, they’re both stupid.
There is one group of people, however, on both sides of the spectrum, that the bureaucracy must constantly fear. People who believe government cannot do good. Why? Is it just fear of firings or layoffs? NO! The exact opposite.

People who do not believe that government can solve problems, appoint their friends to high paying government positions. They give huge government contracts to incompetent agencies intentionally, and they never fire anyone… Why? They believe, that‘s what everyone is doing.

Keynesians, on the left, meanwhile, are just as bad, because they believe it doesn’t matter how you spend, just spend. That doesn't get problems solved.

Thoughts?

  • thumb
    Jun 29 2012: Q: How many people can inhabit the Earth before a system of government becomes necessary?
    A: One.
    Our only choice is to actively participate in our local government as agents of change. Corruption and cronyism thrive where people do nothing." Right" and "Left" don't matter much. It's being "In" that really matters.
    We learned in kindergarden that choices have consequences. Elected representatives ought not be immune to that rule.
  • Jun 29 2012: The bureaucracy IS the government. The politicians represent the people in shaping the government or determining its direction but they are NOT the government. By design the system in which they operate is only supposed to work after everyone has compromised sufficiently enough. It prevents forceful individuals and interests from having too much power and influence.

    It's a utopian fantasy to believe that the people will all magically cooperate and think alike. People think, behave, and act differently as well as have different sets of values. Representatives symbolize this. Without a system to facilitate compromise, there will always be one group that seeks dominance at the expense of others, just look at African tribal politics. If the system is especially dysfunctional, then there isn't enough dialogue or action to facilitate compromise.

    For our system to become functional again, both sides need to believe in the merits of the sysem and to see a benefit of sharing a community with others that have different sets of values. This isn't something that mere elected officials can solve. It goes deeper than that, right into the heart of each major group within our national community.
  • thumb
    Jul 3 2012: A very wonderful topic indeed, I am surprised by your opinions as US is a developed country and you have a mixed opinions on politics . Well there is a famous saying "Politicians are like diapers , they need to be changed frequently" :)

    One way is to make efficient use of Media and NGOs to unite against corruption in Politics. It is quite threatening since some social activists in my country are killed in mysterious circumstances.
  • thumb
    Jul 2 2012: I don't think you fully understand Keynesian economics. The way that Keynesian economics works, isn't just spend just for the sake of spending. It is a system were you spend money to make money. Just as you would do in a business.

    This economic system depends on increasing consumer expenditures by reducing taxes or increasing government spending. So that people will spend more so that firms will produce more and therefore our GDP will increase. On top of this. This increase in production will cause jobs to increase because firms will have more money from the extra production that has been created through increased consumption.

    The other way that government can stimulate the economy through economic means through the Keynesian theory is through the increase of investment with firms. Through incentives to create capital (in the economic term capital is land, machinery and buildings) if through policy investment is increased this same multiplier affect will take place once again. Same with government expenditures.

    The problem today is that we don't stick with any economic theory. On the right most people follow Milton Freedmen's Monetarism, new classical theory and Regan Economics (supply side economics) and on the left the Keynesian theory. Compromise, of these theories does not work and in my opinion when in trouble you use the Keynesian theory. If people don't have money to spend on goods and services how will increasing supply? People don't have the money to spend, so they won't spend it. The suppliers will pocket the money.......like they have in recent policies in America.
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2012: I understand the theory... My specific critique is of the Keynesian belief that ALL government expenditures have a multiplier effect.

      This may not even be a part of Keynes original theory, but it is incredibly prominent among liberal thinkers, "Pay unemployed people to dig a ditch and then fill it back in, it doesn't matter what you pay them to do, just get people working"... The problem with this philosophy, is that it is the exact same philosophy of Ayn Rand and the neocons... government can do NO good.

      If the government was capable of doing anything good, than, at the very least, it would matter how they spent the money. Do you understand what I'm saying there? If you believe it doesn't matter how the government spends its money... Then you believe the government doesn't spend its money well... Ever. If it did, it would matter.

      My point here also, is that while either of these economic theories, may be benificial for the country... One more than the other one can even argue... You can't argue, that a human being who possesses either of these economic theories will take seriously the day to day business of managing the millions of bureaucrats that the government already employs.

      Obama occasionally still talks about bringing the troops home... So does Romney... What are either of them going to do with these people when they get back? They'll still be on the payroll. Here's the big secret, neither of them have any plan, except to send them into the next war. If they did have a plan for what to do with the million people they already employ when combat ends... They would be fighting about it... They're not.

      One should have a plan like "I'm going to employ these people to melt glass for solar concentration using federal land and green technology"... While the other says "I'm going to fire them all and cut millitary spending 50%". Neither of them have any interest in actually governing or managing anything, they want to be pop icons.
    • Jul 8 2012: The Keynesian theory is horribly flawed, and its advocates steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that it causes more harm that good.

      The notion that government spending can get an economy going again isn't just wrong. It is also 100% dependent upon an elastic money supply. Keynesians have no rational answer for the question of why government spending started in 1934 but didn't produce the "cure" it was supposed to produce. It has no answer for why, four years from the 2008 crisis, the economy is still suffering. If Keynesiasm really worked, the economy would be healthy right now.

      Keynesians, monetarists, etc. see an elastic money supply as a good thing, but it is actually quite horrible. It is the mechanism by which the dollar (and every other fiat currency) rapidly loses value over the years.

      Elastic money discourages savings and encourages borrow-and-spend mentalities. Thus, the only people who can succeed in the long run are the big risk takers, the big borrowers who gamble their way to the top with other peoples' money, while the average person trying to save for the future and for their retirement are left holding the proverbial bag.

      Elastic money supplies are the #1 cause of poverty, not just in America but throughout the world. The dollar was actually one of the most stable elastic currencies (up until four years ago). Most elastic currencies are so destructive in the countries where they dominate that the peoples of those countries can never improve their situation. A contemporary example (one out of more than 100) is Afghanistan, which has suffered tremendous monetary destruction in the past 20 years.

      Keynesian economics actually makes people more dependent upon government, not less. Elastic money is the mechanism whereby the rich get richer at the poor's expense. It's the lifeline of the corporate-dominated economy...something truly ironic considering the loudest critics of corporations are the same people who spout off about the glories of Keynesian ec
      • thumb
        Jul 10 2012: I agree with you almost entirely... The problem is, we already have millions of government employees, most of whom are well meaning poor people, who needed a job, and thought they could help. So, the reverse of Keynesian theory, the over reaction to fear of these economic policies, has become just as stupid and destructive.

        The Tea Party, the Ayn Rand fans, the neocons, and the Grover Norquist people... They all want to keep employing these people, especially the soldiers, they just don't want to pay for it with taxes... That's Keynesian... If we don't pay for it, we print it and deflate our currency, and it's horrible for everyone.

        Almost all federal spending in southern Republican states, is paid for by taxing New York, Chicago, Boston, and California. The southern states constantly have their hands out for federal spending, they all import federal tax money from other states, but they're voting to lower taxes.

        My point here, is that all of these people are essentially voting to take federal spending away from themselves... Los Angeles doesn't rely on the local military base to provide jobs, lots of southern towns do. Moving towards free market solutions, is going to decimate the rural south, and they're the ones voting for it... Meanwhile the only strategy for rebuilding these impoverished areas, is "lower standard of living, and import manufacturing by competing with Chinese and African labor rates", which Americans on the whole will never go for.

        For every dollar a New Yorker is taxed, 1 dollar and 40 cents is spent, that's how federal spending works right now, we tax 1 dollar, we borrow 40 cents... So for every dollar we're taxed, we also take on 40 cents of debt... How much federal spending does A New Yorker recieve for that? 72 cents... Government work is a subsidy for the south, and whoever wants to dismantle it, better have a plan for what those people are supposed to do without jobs, and how that's going to "help" the economy.
      • thumb
        Jul 10 2012: It should practically be illegal to run on any of the following platforms...

        "I think government is useless, and needs to be dismantled... Now elect me" If government is useless, than build an actual business that makes things, and stop spending millions of dollars for a job in government management, that pays 100k.

        "I think government has a role to play in solving more problems" Really? What evidence is there that government is doing the job we've already given it well? Make what we're doing work, and then maybe you can ask for expanded powers. When social security and medicare are solvent programs that help people across all demographics... You might be able to convince us to institute medicare for all... While they're not... You can't.

        "The government is only good for protecting us through the millitary, everything else is wasteful"... Before public education, there was universal illiteracy of the poor... Is public education great, no, but it's better than that, reform it. Was the sky brown in New York and California 20 years ago? Is it bluish now? Some environmental regulations work... Do all of them? No of course not.

        The only acceptable platform, for running for any government office, should be "I am going to improve these existing organizations, by cutting spending here, and re investing here. This is my platform for fiscal solvency. As those policies begin to work, maybe we could exand into etc..."
        • Jul 10 2012: I don't really are about banning platforms. That's pointless in my opinion. However, I agree with most of your analysis.

          I do think, however, that you're overlooking a key point. Change the monetary system, and the rest takes care of itself. You don't really have to worry about how the South will fare if spending gets cut or what will happen to L.A. or how taxing authorities will react in NYC.

          The fact is that the politicians will fall all over themselves finding ways to continue to promise things to everyone while satisfying nobody. The difference will be that they can no longer go endlessly into debt in order to fund it all. So even though they want to behave irresponsibly, they won't be able to. Instead, they'll have to cope with reality instead of cheating it.

          European politicians are running into this right now, and they don't like it. But they're dealing with it anyway. Neither do the people like it. No one does. Finding out that there is a price to pay for Keynesianism infuriates most people.

          However, there is one crucial element missing from the European picture that would make the whole thing go much smoother, that would ease the transition. That's having a money supply that is limited, like gold or silver would be. Include that in the mix, and all of a sudden everything becomes easier to transition. I'm not talking about making the dollar or the euro a gold dollar or a gold euro. I'm talking about a competing currency (something that is essentially illegal here in the U.S. right now).

          The reason we know this works is that historically, whenever fiat currencies have collapsed (as they always do) economies recover extraordinarily quickly when alternative hard currency is allowed to reappear. That's the hard money effect that eases the change.

          Of course, the politicians and the bankers can't stand this idea, because they lose power, influence, and wealth. That's also what makes it so hard to make the change. But it's also what makes it worthwhile.
      • thumb
        Jul 10 2012: I didn't mean that platforms should actually be banned, but... You shouldn't have to ban putting Sarah Palin on a news program... No one should be interested in it. It should be embarassing to a news anchor, and organization, to ask these idealogues for their "analysis".

        I agree with you about having a limited money supply actually... and I wasn't so much ignoring that point, as... I didn't want to write another 2k characters, but here goes, and I'll try to be a bit brief. I actually believe I have a solution to this problem.

        Ron Paul, is the only man who seems to truly support this idea... He is one of the only politicians I respect, even though I disagree with him on a host of issues, pubic education, and the EPA being the best expamples. The key reason I respect Ron Paul however, is that even he admits that this process would take a decade, at best... He knows this would be a slow process of rebuilding our currency, and making our "safety nets" real, and solvent. My only critique, ist that lots of his supporters don't really understand how dramatic and harsh that decade would be.

        I have a very unusual solution for this problem, and I'd be interested to hear what you think. "Green" and "safe" mining, is pretty much a pipe dream... It's way too expensive to be profitable. Bring the soldiers home, and pay them the same money we're paying them now, and the same equipment cost, but use them to mine, in the national parks, in the most sustainable, safe way possible.

        Industries will pop up specifically to provide for this industry... and some of the products they create, will inevitably be cost effective enough to help the traditional mining industry. Do we sell the ore we mine with these new techniques? Even if it becomes profitable? No... We use it to back our currency.

        I know what you're thinking "If you're losing value doing things this way, how it actually back the value of your currency?".
      • thumb
        Jul 10 2012: It couldn't... back when there was a competing currency, that was actually worth something... That doesn't exist anymore.

        Our dollar, will be worth 10 cents worth of gold... The Euro, will still be worth paper... Or, the other way around. I think this is actually the solution to the financial crisis, use existing government employees to in an overpriced manner, harvest resources from government owned property, and rather than sell it, use it to back your currency.
        • Jul 10 2012: I see what you're saying, but it won't work. A key ingredient of an alternative currency is that it must not be manipulable by central authority. It has to exist independent of the government.

          Even the gold standard, with all its flaws, tried at least to do that much. It allowed people to redeem dollars in gold, to effectively "step away" from the dollar, but the government STILL managed to debase it anyway, then stuck it to the gold holders when the spam hit the fan.

          I think Paul's beliefs are heavily influenced by his experience in Congress, understandably so. I'm assuming that his Free Competition in Currency Act gets passed. He won't assume that. He hopes for it, but he won't assume it. I strongly believe that his belief, combined with his knowledge of how powerful the ship of state is, leads him to believe that the pain would last 10 years. Based on his assumptions, I believe he's right. I just don't accept his assumptions.

          The provisions in his bill would enable gold or silver or both to circulate again as private currency. No need to get Uncle Sam's blessing. That enables independent currency. At that point, the market takes over.

          In the end, the pain will be felt by the people left holding the bag after all the nonsense leading up to now. If Congress insists on continuing to support the banks and corporations in making sure that the people end up holding the bag, then Paul's right. It'll be painful for everyone.

          But that will be true no matter what happens. It's unavoidable. Doesn't matter if currency competition isn't created. Doesn't matter what the Fed does. Doesn't matter what Congress does. Doesnt matter what the ECB does. The pain will inevitably happen so long as policy stays on that road. Short of a public rebellion on a massive scale, that appears inevitable at this point.

          The best we can hope for is to make the pain last for as short of a time as possible. That's what independent currency competition enables.
      • thumb
        Jul 11 2012: I agree with you up to a point. Throughout history, when you give central authority the power to manipulate currency, it is only a matter of time before they completely destroy its value. On the other hand, I think it's pessimistic to suggest that an educated and engaged populace is incapable of overcoming that through the election of a competent central authority.

        I don't trust a private company to be the central authority in currency manipulation, any more than I trust an elected official. Private currency competition, sounds like feudalism to me. I find digging our way out of this whole 1% at a time, a better alternative.

        How did we make our economy incomprehensible nonsense? We took ourselves off the gold standard, piece by piece... We can get it back that way. I understand why many disagree with that hypothesis... It's never been done before, but it doesn't seem impossible.
        • Jul 11 2012: I agree. An educated electorate cannot overcome a central authority via election. However, an electorate, even if only moderately elected, can change the rules of the authority. That's what Paul's act does, and that's ALL it does and ALL it needs to do.

          I also agree that private companies cannot be trusted as central authorities any more than governments can. However, I've also suggested nothing of the kind up until now. Neither has Paul. Competition literally means competition, not a central authority.

          I disagree that "we" took the gold standard apart piece by piece. Rather, it was the powerfully entrenched who did it for us (and without our permission) having gotten their lackeys elected into key government positions.

          The gold standard was poorly thought out because it didn't actually address the question of fractional reserve banking. It just papered it over. That is not acceptable.

          We will never dig our way out of this mess 1% of the time. It cannot happen. With that approach, for every step forward we will take 100 steps backward. The powerful are just too powerful. They'll undermine incrementalism every step of the way.

          Learn from the experience of conservative Republicans, who have taken the measured and incremental approach for decades. Under their leadership, the government has grown by leaps and bounds, and we are farther away from limited government than ever because of incrementalism. That's because incrementalism always gets trumped by centralized power.

          Remember the wisdom of Harry Browne. I don't remember his exact quote, but the gist of it is that no government law will ever come out the way you want it to. When Congress is done with it, most of it will be unrecognizable to you.

          The solution cannot be found in government. The best we can hope for is to break a hole in the government-based monopoly just enough to allow what passes these days for a free market to work.
  • Jul 1 2012: David,

    Politicians tend to follow the opinion of majority of electorates to preserve their seats.
    I think we don't need to blame politicians who we select by election.
    Make them follow our opinion by letting them feel our power.
    The only power we have is election.
    Bureaucrates want to secure their jobs and to get promoted by following politician's direction.
    They have no soul. They change their own opinions easily when power shift occurs...
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2012: TAKE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ONE'S IGNORANCE! I love it Jinsub. Our political system isn't flawed only because politician's are evil. It's flawed because not enough people care and do the research needed to make educated decisions!

      3 problems with American politics:
      1) People are ignorant to what is going on and blindly follow one political party or the other
      2) The news media is for entertainment more over than it is to inform our population
      3) Politicians are swayed by this polarization and unless the politicians of the past are less likely to cross party lines!

      We have what I like to call "The great wall of political divide." It's a proverbial wall that stops conversation between each party for what is truly better for the USA.
    • thumb
      Jul 3 2012: Politicians are meant to be creative and intelligent people who lead, and help control majority opinion by making convincing logical arguments. They don't do that anymore.

      We don't select politicians, incompetent, childish, political parties select politicians... We are supposed to.

      Majority opinion, is what it is. Someone needs to change it in order to solve our problems... There are 2 options for this, intelligent people reclaim the 4th estate, and people begin paying for news again. Or a brilliant, creative leader comes along, and actually manages this monstrosity in a way that makes rational sense.

      Bureaucrates have souls. In America they're not even very well paid. The appointees are, but 90% of bureaucrates are just poor people, and ex millitary, who needed a job. You wouldn't want their jobs, it's meaningless, boring, thankless, customer service work. Many of them fight at the ground level to reduce waste, and are furious at the system they have to work within. Policy is what makes bureaucrates the inefficient nightmare you have to deal with when you have a civil issue, and they're just as angry about being unable to help you, as you are about them being unable to help you.



      In the words of Akira Kurosawa, in the brilliant film "Ikiru", "In 14 years I've never taken a vacation... Why, because you're afraid City Hall will be unable to function without you? No, because I'm afraid they'll discover, that they don't really need me there at all."
  • Jun 30 2012: David,

    Your faith in government is much greater than mine, and much greater than our founding fathers. Our government was not designed to be efficient, just the opposite. The reason for the 'checks and balances' was because our founding fathers had a profound fear of government, and especially a government that could act too quickly and rashly. To them, governing was a very narrow activity, it was not a means of solving society's problems.

    Even within the bureaucracy, the government reflects the diverse wishes of the people. For example, one federal department is paying a bunch of people to discourage us from eating too much cheese because it can be unhealthy, while the agricultural department is paying a bunch of people to encourage us to buy more cheese.

    If you want an efficient means to address problems, go to the free market or a non-governmental organization.

    Note that I am not saying the government cannot do good, and I certainly am not condoning bad behavior on the part of people in government. When unqualified friends get government positions, or contracts go to incompetent agencies, that is corruption. Corruption has always been a part of government, in spite of our best efforts to clean it out. All government employees should do the best job they can for the people they serve, and to the extent possible, we should hold them accountable. As for stupidity, we proudly say that we have a government of the people. We don't have a government of (just the) smart people. These issues are very different from government efficiency.
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2012: I agree with most of what you say. The problem I have with moving to the free market isn't truly economical but social. I fear that the free market doesn't look out for the individual as much as government does. Such as poverty, minimum wage and social welfare. I understand your argument with cheese...because that makes sense but what about education. A lot of government intervention nay sayers talk about the national involvement with the department of education. I have recently seen the argument saying that the regulations have caused prices to go up. the argument was something along the lines of this.

      A new college opens up. The law school hires active lawyers to teach their students instead of accredited teachers. Harvard sees this and says if you don't hire accredited teachers we'll tell the bureau of education on you! So the school has to hire accredited teachers.

      Okay, that sounds like PURE evil....I disagree they are holding the school accountable to make sure that the school is hiring people that are TEACHERS...to TEACH! I understand about bureaucracy and I'm all for a logical discussion of how to eliminate it but I feel like getting rid of government intervention is giving up. Not trying to make something better. What are your thoughts? Do you just plan believe in a deterioration of national government?
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2012: I have absolutely no faith in our government. I am simply pointing out that we already have 2 million people working for it... and no one is running on what to do better with them. That's my only point. You've got Keynes ultra left followers, who say it doesn't matter what you spend money on, because it's all good for the economy. You've got the neocons on the other saying it doesn't matter what you do with the money, because it's all evil.

      Those are both horrible management philosophies, and so, solutions to our problems, even free market ones, will come from neither side, and we all ought to be smart enough to know that by now. Why are any of these people even on TV? None of these people are smart enough, to sound competent in front of a class of 12 year olds, yet we put them in front of millions of adults every night, and no one complains.
      • thumb
        Jul 2 2012: I feel like we've had a lot of out cry not only now but for years. Yes, the ignorant majority definitely, will be happy as long as you let them drink beer and watch the games on Sunday but I think it's some crazy percentage that feels the same way as you do. That are government is inefficient. I forget the polls but when the debt ceiling talked of being raised congresses approval rating was very very low.

        As many of the other commenter have mentioned though. As ignorant American's we are responsible for who we put in office. The ill informed population votes in these people and nothing changes because no one is willing to question or learn. It's a problem but as I always say...if there's a problem, seek a solution otherwise, your just complaining.
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2012: David, Edward Long is on top of this. My comment is that the problem with government is us. We had a Senator in office for over 50 years in Arizona and he passed one bill the Salt River Project Canal. The current senior senator from Arizona is deeply impressed and in love with himself. To my knowledge he has never passed a bill for the state of Arizona. In both cases these people should have been put on notice and if no improvement is noted then removed from office. These people vote themselves raises and perks and have not "earned" the salary. They exempt themselves from Obamacare and kept their free and expensive medical care, they voted raises and a large retirement package for only two terms of office. They are exempt and immune from the very laws they pass for us. They need to be held accountable and available for prosecution when proven illegal acts have happened.

    Only then will government become responsible and conduct themselves in the manner the Constitution and founding fathers outlined.

    Without consequences there cannot and will not be any chages effected.

    All the best. Bob.
    • Jun 29 2012: This is a good example of why the US is in trouble. It's called a Confirmation Bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

      Senator McCain has done a lot more than just one project, here's his legislative record: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=300071

      Members of Congress already have healthcare. Obamacare doesn't apply. The main point of Obamacare is that the pool of insured people have enough healthy people to offset the unhealthy, and thereby bring down costs for everyone.

      There's a viral Internet meme going around about Congressional pay, perks, and pensions. Sadly lies spread 100x faster than the truth. Here's an about.com article on that topic: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm .

      I agree that there are some improvements that need to be made. But if we're going to change anything, let's start with the things that are actually broken.

      There's nothing in the world harder than seeing something that looks true, that makes you angry, before sharing it or talking about it with your friends, to first verify sources and facts.
    • thumb
      Jul 2 2012: I agree that the problem is us. I just want to point out that solutions to the problem will come from neither side of the current political spectrum, so we must abandon them, and replace them with something functional.
      • thumb
        Jul 2 2012: I agree. Many people dropped affiliation with the Dems and repubs and registered as independents. That is not a solution it is however a strong statement that the two have departed from the needs,wants, and desires of the people. The problem with adding a valid third party it works to the advantage of one of the current parties in most cases because it splits the vote. The two parties are so entrenched that I t think it would be hard to abandon them. The sad truth is that any system is subject to the same corruption that has infected these two. Thanks for the comment.
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2012: Hi David.
    I found your opinion very interesting.
    I'm from Mexico, and right now we are about to vote for our new president, and as you said, on side says they want to solve the problems, but the other side only gets in the way.
    Elections in Mexico this time had been a very critical situation for our country, It looked more like a sympathy contest.
    And the main problem is that people are becoming fanatics of one or other candidate. And they don't see the real person who is behind the image they tray to project.
    Because of all that I've been thinking a lot about the government and it's figures. And I came with the conclusion that we, the very own people from one country or another are the responsible for the course of our nations. We can not be waiting for one single person to correct all the problems that millions provoke.
    If we really want that the situation across the world to change, we must start in our own homes. Education is the answer, I am a strong believer of this statement. With education, we can transmit all the values that appears to be lost or forgotten, and that can help us to create better persons, resulting in better administrators and a better government.