My political perspective

Scorn

2011-10-22T23:57:00.001-06:00

I see a lot of scorn placed in the wrong places lately. People furious at banks for foreclosing on homes. People angry at relatives for not bailing them out on their every whim. Large groups of people angry at the rich for not paying higher taxes than they already do, dealing with more and more regulation which in fact costs money to come in to compliance to, not creating more jobs on top of everything else. I see people angry at gas stations and oil companies for the price of gas. People are going nuts over employers downsizing. It's all part of cause and effect

If you don't pay your monthly mortgage payments I'm going to give you a warning... Your bank is going to foreclose on you. And guess what! At some point you agreed that it would be fair for them to do so. It's even in writing. They even gave you a full disclosure in written form on the full terms and conditions of your loan! It should come as no shock to you that if you don't pay for something you cannot have or keep it.

The most ridiculous scorn is placed on the heads of the rich. If they save they're condemned dor hoarding. If they spend they're condemned for not being sensitive to the plight of thos who can't spend. For being "frivolous" when others suffer in poverty. If they invest they're condemned for seeking more wealth. The only thing they can do that they're not damned for is giving money away. Which leads me to the motive of those doing the condemning. They have no motive other than to get what is not theirs. The condemnation is fueled by the true greed which is jealousy. The only greed that matters is the greed people give in to when they seek the unearned. When they seek to gain without returning value equal to or greater than the value achieved.

Why is this scorn wrong? Because what is the right way to get money from the rich? The same way it's right to get money from anybody... Earn it! Give value in return! It is GOOD for the rich to spend frivolously, or at all. People with money spending it on goods and serices is what really drives the economy. Government spending doesn't add to the economy, everything it spends first has to be taken FROM the economy. No good or service is provided. They simply take. Instead of that wealth being used to produce, it is marked for consumption. Sure the government builds roads. So do private companies. Ever wonder who runs toll roads? The government runs education. So do private schools. I challenge you to compare the cost and education available of both.

So to those thinking I'm wrong I just have to ask... What business is it of yours what a person does with what they've earned and/or made? And where does your desert island model become relevant? The world is nothing like a desert island. Let's say we ARE stuck on a desert island and one of us is destitute while the other sits fat. No, the one with a stockpile of supplies has no moral obligation to the other. Because first and foremost it is not moral for the one without to demand of the other that which he has not earned. Ending the obligation before it begins. Next, we venture in to what is known as mutual benefit. Though there is no obligation, both benefit from a deal where one invests in the other through initial help. And then an arrangement can be made to divide tasks. This fictional model is akin to children playing "what if" games.

In the real world we produce enough for everyone to have plenty. We're not running out of materials to make "stuff" out of. Historically, when rescources run low, a thinking society finds ways to adapt. When whale oil was running low, we got mass production of fossil fuels. Call it bad if you'd like. But this process made modern life possible. Countless wonders have been attained thanks to this fuel source. I for one don't buy peak oil theories. Nor do I believe we are running out. Is it good to find other sources? Of course. I don't buy in to man made climate change. But pollution is obvious in densely populated areas. And air quality is a health concern.

No I don't buy the charge that anybody owes anybody to enjoy life less because another does. So you're having a rough time. That's not going to stop my attempts to achieve and enjoy that achievement. Perhaps instead of complaining of others throwing cash around, or hoarding, or not doing what you want done... You should be out getting in on the action and amassing your fortune. Maybe you should be making jobs for people and paying them what you currently think is fair. Maybe you should redistribute your own wealth when you get there. Maybe then common sense will make sense to you. I do not enjoy the suffering of others. Nor will I shield them from the effect of their cause. Giving more value to consumption than to creation and production does nothing more than lead you to your own consumption.

Just compare those who win the lottery and end up broke within the year to those who start in third world countries in a shack and wind up multimillionares. There's a key difference. Which is what shames the limited minds that present the desert island, and the Eastern Islands examples. When minds are set on reaping the rewards of solving a problem, no problem is so devistating. When minds are set on nothing more than consumption, you've got a huge problem. Then instead of finding two island inhabitants that have created an island paradise, you find a fat man and a skeleton. It doesn't matter who you think won the fight.

Taxes Taxes Everywhere

2011-10-20T23:33:00.000-06:00

I think I'm going to pick on Democrats specifically. Because ever since their taking the majority in congress, and the White House they've been on a non stop taxing spree. They have followed Reagan's exact line he made mockingly saying "If it moves tax it, if it still moves regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it". How very true these days. Don't mistake me for some Republican shill. I can find many faults with Republicans. I'll pick on them later. But for now... Democrats are on my list. Just today it was in the news that Democrats blocked a Republican effort to stop a new 3% withholding tax. The Democrats have been on a campaign to push a so called "Jobs" bill to supposedly promote job growth. The first flaw is that all of the jobs that would come of it would be jobs for the government. The second is the claim of a tax cut for "small businesses". But hidden in the fine print is a tax hike on incomes above $250k. Well who do you think are the majority of people who have those incomes? Small business owners. So how do you propose to encourage employers to hire when you raise taxes on them?

With all the talk about tax breaks for the wealthy you'd think people would understand how it works by now. Sure, the wealthy tend to enjoy more tax breaks than their employees. And small picture it seems they pay less in taxes. Big picture... Not quite the same story. So lets take an individual who simply owns a business. Their business gets to write off pretty much all business activity. Paying employee's? Not taxed. Paying utilities? It's untaxed money paying for them. Taking money home? TAXED! And here's the thing. The write off isn't dollar for dollar. It's more to the effect of a dollar spent on expenses is thirty cents not owed in taxes for the income. Why is that? Because it's NOT income. It's an expense incurred in the process of gaining the income. Construction workers get the same type of write off for tools and boots, sometimes gas and mileage. It's not explicitly for the wealthy. It's to benefit those who have to spend money in the process of making money.

How about the lamebrain billionaire who claims to pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary. No M.R. Buffett. Not quite the case. Capital gains and portfolio income are taxed indeed at a lower rate... When paid by the recipient. BEFORE those dividends are made on the other hand, corporate income taxes are paid. Corporate income taxes for companies making over $18,333 is at 35%. The highest in the world. Currently the United States charges more to corporations for their tax bill than the U.S.S.R. did. Let that sink in for a minute. And let me ask you the same question that is always answered wrong... Why are jobs leaving America? Unlike the soviet union, America isn't going to execute you for moving your corporate headquarters outside its boundaries. So M.R. Buffett's income is taxed through the corporate income tax (35%) paid as a dividend, and then taxed at that rate (15%). That is just the federal tax burden. This doesn't include state and local taxes. Now throw in sales tax! And you were lead to believe the rich aren't paying "their fair share". Now compare that to the atrocity of 49% of Americans paying ZERO in federal taxes. Now for the icing on the cake... Every dollar taken from a person who employs other people is a dollar that CANNOT be paid in wages to the people being employed. And nobody has EVER gotten a job from a poor person.

Democrats have done a good job of convincing people that they stand for the little guy. But their policies do more harm than good. Look up the census data on the area's with the highest unemployment rates. They are all largely represented by liberal progressives (pardon the redundant term). Also look at the area's with the largest poverty rate. Again, lead by progressive politics. The area's known as "projects" are always represented all the way from city council to congress by Democrats. Yet they complain that businesses won't employ people there. And it's no wonder. Why would you place a factory in an area with high crime, high taxes, and excessive regulation if you have a choice of the opposite? This isn't greed. This is how business works. You're looking for the best goods/services (good neighborhood, low crime rate), at the best price (tax rates), and with the greatest ease (fewer regulations). So who is making it worse for the projects? The businesses that refuse to locate there, or the locals who don't stand up to crime, and vote in progressives that punish business?

Look at the figures on the lowest taxed states. Job creation is higher there than in the highest taxed states. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie took his state from one of the worst states to start a business to being in line to compete with the best states. Granted, a lot still has to be done. But a simple policy of lowering taxes and regulation has taken New Jersey off the list of states hemorrhaging money and jobs. Stagflation in the 70's was marked by high inflation, high interest rates, and a stagnant economy (little if any economic growth). Meaning few jobs were added, and wages didn't go up much either. Economic growth usually implies a combination of the two. What brought about the end of that? Reaganomics. Reaganomics relied on what is considered the trickle down effect. Which has been sharply criticized lately. But it worked. The tax cuts from the very early Reagan years ended the stagflation gripping the country. The 80's were actually a roaring success in comparison.

But some lessons are to be learned from the Reagan years. While Reagan successfully negotiated large tax cuts in his early first term, taxes were slowly raised throughout the rest of his tenure. Not to the levels they were before. But every tax hike came with promises of spending cuts. And the taxes are still chirping with Reagan and the rest of the nation waiting for that to happen. So now you see fiscally conservative libertarians, independents, and conservatives unwilling to bend on the issue of tax hikes in exchange for spending cuts. Because we all know Democrats find a way to worm out of their end of the bargain. This year a deal was struck for spending cuts in exchange for a raise in the debt ceiling. Now with the deficit commission still having not even met for the first time, the Democrats are out trying to pitch yet another spending spree without having the means to pay for it. And it's not even part of the annual budget which is already $1.5 trillion OVER the amount taken in. All the while, every proposal from democrats of deficit reduction only cut our annual overspending... over the course of a decade! Let me rephrase that. Their proposal is to cut one tenth of our annual overspending. Adding up to one year of balanced budget out of every ten. And we're supposed to take their efforts seriously? And who is to say they're not going to propose ANOTHER trillion in un-budgeted spending every other year?

All the while, protesters who are aligned with the very politicians that are doling out federal money to their buddies at the heads of corporations, are protesting those same corporate heads on wall street. You want this to stop? STOP SUPPORTING THE POLITICIANS GIVING THEM THE MONEY! And stop asking the money to be just given to you instead! Public money is for public uses! And the federal government has very few legitimate public uses. For proof, just read the constitution that founded it. The document that outlines its purpose. It's very clear, and very straight forward.

Free Markets

2011-10-18T23:37:00.000-06:00

I get tired of hearing this that and the other needs to be regulated. No it does not. There are two sides to every coin. On one side of the coin you have actions and their desired effect. On the other you have their undesired effect. Take Frank-Dodd for example. Frank-Dodd was a financial reform law that was intended to make banking practices more favorable to the customers and less favorable for the bankers. In it was a regulation that limited the rates banks could charge per swipe of a credit or debit card. In turn, since the banks became less profitable, they began imposing $5 per month fee's for using debit cards. Now congress is holding special hearings about the alleged gouging. You don't have to swipe credit or debit cards. Cash still works. You don't have to use banks that charge the $5 fee. In fact you don't have to use banks at all. There are a number of alternatives, credit unions being among them. You have choices. Nobody is requiring you to turn to a specific business for their services... Except in the case of Obamacare. Which is another issue in and of its self. But back to the bank issue. The headlines show the congressional hearings and the evil bankers, what they don't show is what caused the new fee to begin with. Which was congressional action. And you're sure to read about the blowhard congressmen grilling the greedy bankers. But you're not likely to read that the same blowhard congressmen are the one's who are behind the cause of the new fee's.

Free markets moderate prices on their own. I'll use health care as an example. Standard health care is regulated mercilessly. While you may think this has safety implications, you couldn't be more wrong. The price of standard health care keeps going up. People who are insured, or on medicare don't tend to bother with how much a specific type of care costs. So they don't ever take the time to think out whether or not they even need a service. Elective surgeries like lasic for vision have gone DOWN in price. It isn't heavily regulated. And safety has gone UP. Being a procedure that isn't covered by health insurance, the industry has had to find ways to keep their reputations for safety, and how to lower prices and still profit. It has worked. Lasic is more available than ever. Technologies have improved along with results. Competition has forced the industry participants to improve. While the regulated health care world seems to worsen. Prices have skyrocketed. A single dose of tylenol in an emergency room is a ridiculous $80 plus! What would YOU tell someone to do with a tylenol if they told you that you would have to fork out $80 for a single dose? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be taking it.

Prescriptions are the same way. Prescription prices would quickly drop in price if health insurance suddenly became non existent. There's no way people would pay the full retail price. Having to suddenly offer competitive pricing, the drug companies would find more cost efficient ways of producing their medicines. Which doesn't mean lower quality drugs. It means they would rethink the processes that cost so much.Compare name brand to generic. It's the exact same thing. The same dose of the exact same chemical compound. Chemically there isn't even a remote difference. Yet pricing can be extremely different. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how the examples listed here prove the effects of market pricing vs government price controls. The examples go on and on.

The housing crisis is another example of failed regulations. There are regulations concerning how much of a home's value you can borrow. Which sounds like a great idea at face value. Preventing people from over leveraging on their homes seems like a great plan. Until you meet the conditions of the past decade. When over speculation leads to home prices inflating far beyond their actual value, people end up with the ability to borrow far more than their home is actually worth, without the discipline needed to keep from doing so. Then the bubble bursts. Housing prices begin to collapse. Being so many people were lured in to loans with low introductory rates, a large number of people need to be able to refinance their loans to get a reasonable rate. But they can't. The law expressly forbids refinance because they are already over leveraged. Leaving them stuck to deal with a large jump in their interest rate. Which means they cannot legally reach a new deal with their lenders that would allow them to better afford their contractual obligations. Let that sit for a minute. It is against the law in this case for both parties to reach a more equitable agreement that benefits them both.

There are other topics I'd like to cover here like Obamacare. But they'll be needing their own entries. But I want to leave you with this thought. Who do you trust more to decide what a product or service is worth to you? Yourself, or a politician who spends the majority of his time rubbing elbows with friends of, and the very people you're conducting business with? It's up to you to think transactions through. No matter what, you are the only person you can trust to have your interests as priority #1. Politicians have their career, re-election, and campaign contributions to worry about. Almost all of the people you'll deal with in business are salesmen. Never go in to any deal thinking otherwise. You have to look out for you. You have to think things through. Mans means of survival is his ability to think. Do not negate this ability. Run from people who advocate the notion that you shouldn't be expected to think. Only the foolish would link arms with persons who arm themselves and want others disarmed.

Green or $Green$?

2011-10-16T23:00:00.000-06:00

Have you ever noticed all the talk about going green these days? Green grocery bags, green light bulbs, green gars, green companies, green buildings, green clothing, green containers, green appliances... The list goes on. Maybe environmentalists are finally starting to get it, and cash in on the opportunities to make money based on their "environmentally friendly" ideas. Or maybe not. Current legislation already plans a ban on the general sale of incandescent bulbs. And aims by 2020 to require all light bulbs to attain the same lumen/watt rating as CFL light bulbs. Legislation requiring other products meet a criteria your products fit isn't a way of making them compete. It's a way of making it so you don't have to. If the CFL was a good competitor to the incandescent bulb, they wouldn't see fit to legislate the transition. It would happen organically. The same goes for grocery bags. If the reusable green bags were such a revolutionary way to carry your groceries home, they wouldn't be lobbying local municipalities to ban plastic bags. If higher gas mileage was such a critical feature to a consumer buying an automobile, the federal government wouldn't have to be raising regulations to require auto manufacturers to raise fuel efficiency on the vehicles they produce. The usual progressive philosophy seems to be shining through as strongly as ever. If you can't persuade, force.

Here's a little food for thought concerning the use of CFL's. The supposed enemy as claimed by environmentalists and global warming alarmists is carbon dioxide. Or CO2. Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of everything from animals and insects breathing, to burning materials and chemicals. The claim is that our use of fossil fuels is causing a build up of co2 in the atmosphere, causing the earth to warm, and supposedly the icecaps will melt, and Florida is supposed to have been under water for the past decade. Tree's and other vegetation convert co2 to o2 or oxygen through a process called photosynthesis. The higher the concentration of co2 the faster photosynthesis takes place. Also the higher the temperature in the atmosphere, the faster heat radiates from it. So our own ecosystem has measures in place that compensate for increased co2 production. Yet CFL's contain mercury, and the majority of them are made in China. Having to be shipped a longer distance which means burning more fossil fuels to deliver to their ultimate power outlet. So if tree's and other vegetation clean up co2 and convert it in to useful o2... What cleans up the toxic mercury? Plants absorb the mercury, the mercury is then transferred to animals that feed on the plants. Which then transfer to other animals that eat those animals. Mercury is a metal and doesn't exactly disappear. And cannot be converted in to a non toxic form. It can only ever be diluted or contained.

About the whole anti co2 movement. There is a form of energy that, besides materials preparation, does not produce one bit of co2. It produces more energy in one plant than all wind and solar combined, and requires use of fewer materials. It's process occurs naturally on the planet, the only thing the power plant does is reap the benefits. It's name... Nuclear. The fission that takes place produces no more radiation than uranium's natural radioactive decay. A little known fact about radiation caused by decay, all carbon decay puts off radiation. In fact, in recent decades a gas known as radon was discovered that is the exact byproduct of radioactive decay. It is found in houses with negative pressure, even the slightest amount, where there are holes or cracks in the foundation. There are proven methods of storage of nuclear waste (depleted uranium, water. For further information google how nuclear power works), which are safe, reliable, and threaten nobody. Every time nuclear power is mentioned the name Chernobyl comes up. Along with Three Mile Island. Yes, Chernobyl resulted in the utter devastation of a major metropolitan area. And entire city evacuated that is now a ghost town because it is uninhabitable. It was also run by a communist government, all of the warnings were deliberately ignored. And ultimately the reactor was allowed to reach the point of a full melt down because not only were those in charge too arrogant to allow the reactor to be shut down and fixed. Those on the ground were too scared to do it anyway. They weren't just looking at being fired. The consequences of ignoring orders would have been far more severe. 3 Mile Island, while considered a major incident, was anything but. The power plant has been deemed safe for people to still work at. Currently there is controversy about nuclear due to the tsunami in Japan that wrecked a nuclear power plant. But use of simple logic could have avoided such disaster. Rather than build the plant to withstand a certain height of tsunami... Wouldn't it be wiser to place it where it is not at risk of one? There is concern about a nuclear power plant in California because of the San Andreas fault line, and risk of major earthquake. I agree. Move the reactors to Nevada, Arizona, or Utah. We run miles upon miles of power lines anyway. It's no big deal to transport electricity anymore.

Green energy technologies are fascinating. I'm extremely interested in United Nuclear's hydrogen conversion kit for automobiles. I would love to get one put on my car. It's incredible that we can turn light in to electricity. Wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal would all make fantastic sources of electricity. But the time is not ripe to drop fossil fuels. The alternatives for mass production of electricity are too expensive. If you can build a way to harness these more cheaply, produce more from them, and make them more feasible to implement... DO IT! You'll join the top .1% of richest people. And unlike your friends in the green movement, I'll congratulate you on both.

And sorry electric car fans... The electric car is the worst idea there is. It takes more energy to produce the electricity to store in a battery, than the electricity in the battery will produce when run through an electric motor. It's simple physics. Plus you have to worry about diminished battery life, as batteries (even when rechargeable) are consumable products. They go bad. They also don't work so well when it is cold (so much for Chevy Volt being useful in Alaska). It's ridiculous, it's horrible planning, and nobody is talking about the effects on drastically increased electromagnetic radiation levels on the human body. Or on anything for that matter. 100 years ago, nobody could have fathomed that automobiles when used en masse could cause air quality problems. Nobody thought of what happens when large amounts of people burn large amounts of gasoline in enclosed valleys, and don't find way's to burn that fuel more thoroughly. So why don't we learn from this mistake and do a little research on what happens when 100% of our transportation needs are emitting large quantities of electromagnetic radiation? Seems logical to me. And I don't mean make government pay for it, or put a stop to the electric car. There's no need for government putting a damper on that unmarketable idea. I mean, private sector. If you're planning on developing electric car technology, research it. You might discover a thing or two.

If you want to know the thing that creeps me out the most about the global warming alarmists, it's power. Not one of them has a free market approach. Not one of them advocate individual liberty. Every last global warming alarmist wants to give government the authority to decide how you use energy. Every last one of them advocate more taxes to subsidize their more expensive products. Every last one of them want to be on the inside track of a either a fascist, socialist, or communist system that favors the well connected and "big to do". While the rest of us surrender our liberty, and aren't given a choice in how we conduct our lives. Al Gore says to stop flying commercially and privately to travel. While he jets around the globe on his own private jet. He suggests we unplug our televisions and computers to save energy, while his personal home uses more energy in a month than most people use in an entire year. The leaders of the green movement and global warming alarmism want everybody to lower their quality of life... So the resources can be saved for their use. Looking at the topic objectively, you'll see it is less and less about the environment, and more about money and power. Show me how we can retain freedom, not pay extra taxes, and not pay some sort of guilt tax to developing countries, and I may consider your argument

Depressions and The Great Recession

2011-10-16T19:33:00.000-06:00

One of the most overlooked yet most important events of the 20th century has long been forgotten by our school system. It was market by a stock market crash and a sudden, severe downturn in economic production. It was also wrought with extraordinary deflation, and high unemployment. I'm talking about the depression... Of 1920. A little known event that lasted only a few months. The reason this even is so important to the world of politics and to the world of money is because of the actions government took to end it. Which were incredibly effective. Government has not tried this strategy since. They got out of the way, and released their grip that was strangling the economy. Taxes were slashed. Not nit picked and kind of reduced. The rates were cut Texas Chainsaw Massacre style. For the lamen out there... Deep and repeatedly. So was spending. So if the Keynesian's were right... How did this return to economic growth happen? So to start with we have a depression that started worse than the great depression did, and ended within a year of it starting. Without government stepping in and claiming to be cleaning up the mess.

Now on to something to compare it to. The great depression. Which by the way is only referred to as such in America. Of course the rest of the world knows it as simply "the depression". The great depression is largely believed to be caused by the stock market collapse. Which is a massive misunderstanding. The stock market collapse was nothing more than another symptom of the depression. This is the period where we get the term "Ponzi Scheme" from. The handling of this depression is the antithesis of Harding's handling of the '20-'21 depression. Hoover was largely blamed for the depression. FDR seen as the savior. But in the end, neither could really do anything to end it. Not only did it take years for the great depression to come to an end, but government spent like drunken sailors (almost like drunken sailors... Drunken sailors spend their own money). Taxes were hiked up on the rich, endless public works programs were started. Which were massive failures. Works Progress Administration employees were largely viewed as lazy, and slow workers. Earning the WPA the nicknames "Won't Produce Anything", and "We Piddle Around". In comparison to Harding/Hoover you could say FDR's "New Deal" was more of a "Raw Deal".

Modern day. We have unemployment sitting around 9.5%. Higher than it was predicted it would be if congress didn't pass yet another Keynesian spending program to "prime the pump" of the economy. And this 9.5% doesn't count self employed people who never paid in to the unemployment insurance system, people who have given up looking for work, and underemployed. There are similarities between today and the great depression. Both were the result of mass overspending and over borrowing on behalf of the masses. Both were preceded by the economy growing too quickly because people were borrowing to spend instead of earning to spend. Both have been approached from Keynesian angles. And in neither instance does the evidence show it working. You cannot create jobs by taxing employers more to pay people not to work. Just as you can't move goods by putting the cart in front of the horse. Simply by announcing the Harding/Coolidge approach you'd see the economy begin to show signs of life. If you want proof on how toxic Keynesian policies are to free market economies, simply look up a schedule of every speech President Obama has made, and compare the days stock market activity.

In short... Keynesian economics fail everybody. The notion that actions that would make an individual poor will make a nation wealthy is just simple nonsense. Individuals across the nation have taken actions that make them poor. Which is spending money they don't have. Not only is it making individuals AND the nation poor coming from the private sector, but it is doing the same from the public sector. National debt is nothing more than tomorrows taxes. Anyone that pays taxes agrees that their taxes are too high. This is an easy position to defend considering that 49% of Americans do not pay any taxes. I don't care how poor you are or how much you get from the government... You should be paying taxes. Taxes are supposed to be a way to collect revenue, not another outlet for welfare. Inflation is a back door tax that nobody notices. Nobody knows that at least 3% of their income is paid to the hidden inflation tax. They also don't know that they are the source of money that gets taxed by the corporate tax.The price of corporate income tax is priced in to every item they buy. So is the capital gains tax. The inheritance tax is only paid by the middle class. They are the only ones that accrue enough to be hit by the tax, but not enough to pay for the loopholes (which will never be closed by the way, politicians will never harm their own families and legacies with their legislation). If you did research on whole life insurance policies you'd see that is exactly what they are designed to do... Escape the inheritance tax. Which is 50%. So now you're taxed to death... And taxed for dying as well.

Beneficiaries

2011-10-15T23:02:00.000-06:00

The first question a person should ask when considering politics is who it is that benefits, and who it is that has to pay for those benefits. Collectivist philosophies claim to benefit the poor and middle class. We can rule out middle class because history already shows capitalism created the highest percentage of middle class of any system. Collectivist philosophies result in special favors for those closest to the power brokers. When power is evenly distributed among the population this problem cannot exist. Because no person holds more power or authority than another. This is the reason for the separation of powers in the federal government. It is also the reason the senate wasn't set up to be democratically elected, but to be elected by state governments. Because the house of representatives were set up to represent the interests of the people. The senate was set up to represent the interests of the states. A senate that was held accountable by the states that sent them would never vote for legislation that was detrimental to the states. It is harder to hold two houses accountable in the public eye because it requires an increasingly involved public. The more politicians you have to monitor, the harder it is to monitor them properly. And lets face it, the public does not monitor their politicians any more. Do you know where your representative stands on issues important to you?

More and more people tend to vote for politicians that sympathize with them, and want to provide more government services to them. But they don't see the other side of the coin. When government increases taxes on a business owner, the business owner either has to raise prices, lower wages, or both. The same goes when the government raises taxes on the business its self. This is not punishment on the lower classes. This is not retaliation. This is cause and effect. A business owner starts a business to create a livelihood. Much like you purchase an automobile to get places. If your car isn't running properly you replace parts and make adjustments so it does. Just like a business owner is going to make adjustments to their business to make it perform as they expect. Jobs are not the creator of businesses. Businesses are the creator of jobs. And profits are crucial to a business existing. If a business runs no profit, it will have no reserves. Nothing to keep it running when it runs at a loss. Which happens all the time in business. Businesses often must make enough in a 3-5 month span to keep it running for the 7-9 months they will break even or run at a loss. An employee doesn't see these figures because typically their paychecks come in consistently, and always clear the bank. People often take for granted the amount of planning and effort goes in to making this happen.

I've heard arguments about "greedy" people making money off of helping people out. Sure, a person with a decent amount of money COULD help a family or two out and take a loss on it during . But I want to ask you a question. If you lose a penny on every person you help out how many can you help? If you lose a hundred dollars on every person you help out, how many can you help? If you MAKE a hundred dollars off of every person you help out, how many can you help? I'm not advocating gouging people for your services. What I am advocating is getting something out of it so you can do it again and again. I'm advocating an exchange of value for value. If your assistance saves a person a couple thousand... Why should they begrudge you your pittance? My thought is which is more selfish, the person expecting something for doing? Or the person expecting doing for nothing? If I can stop a foreclosure on your home, save you tens of thousands of dollars in future judgements (which the bank will get), limit the damage to your credit, and help you find another place to move to... Is that worth my making a couple thousand dollars to you? Even if it doesn't come from your pocket? If not, why? Does a cash incentive diminish the good that has been done for you? Will the new place you would have had to move to anyway be any less because instead of being forced out and sued for the difference at auction, someone short sold the house, cut you free from obligation, and fed their family by doing so?

I simply do not understand the entitlement mentality behind certain ideals. I've heard that the self help industry simply HAD to be nothing but crooks because if their services worked they should offer them for free. I'll make it simple for you. If you spend your time getting good at something, in this case bringing out the best in people. If you provide a service (in this case, helping people to get more out of their life), why should you do this for free? A person who listens to self help guru's is more likely to enjoy their day because they have been inspired to set a goal and/or direction. They are more likely to pursue a dream because a book, video, or audio recording told them how possible it really was. A person is more likely to enjoy their life because a person has spent their time getting good at helping people see what they can do, instead of what they can't. And if entertainers are worthy of wealth because they offer 3-120 minutes of enjoyment... Why aren't self help guru's worthy of wealth for the lifetime of enjoyment they help people achieve?

It is very easy to justify free market principals. Because it is up to the individual holding the money whether or not a good or service is worth anything. Not some supposedly moral collective. You know full well whether or not an eight track is worth $40 of YOUR money. You also know if that same money should be used to buy food. I don't feel bad for a hungry person who comes home from the store with video games. I don't pity the person who is unwilling to work who also doesn't have life's special amenities. Robin hood taxes take from the productive and give to people who's sole course of action is consumption. How is this supposed to spur more production in a society? Lack of something to consume is the number one driver for production. When everyone produces, everyone benefits. Because there is more to go around. When society as a whole consumes more than it produces (such as America does today), then that society is simply headed towards consuming its self.

Regulation

2011-10-15T22:03:00.000-06:00

Perhaps one of the most difficult topics for people to come to agreement on is the topic of regulation. What is right to regulate and what is not. The U.S. Constitution is very clear on what the federal government should regulate. Interstate commerce (strictly for the purpose of eliminating interstate feuds), international relations, and immigration. It is not within their authority to tell people what they can imbibe (drug policy), what speed limits should be, how local schools work, how hospitals run, how you pay for medical care, etc... As a matter of fact the first amendment prohibits almost everything the FCC was set up to do. Which is to censor the public airwaves (i.e. radio and television).

I for one am strongly against every drug policy and law that has been implemented at the federal level. Marijuana has got to be the most ridiculous example there is. The only excuses the prohibitionists can come up with is their claim that marijuana is bad for you and can lead to other drugs. I'm not a pot smoker. Never cared for the stuff. Here's what's wrong with the drug policy. Instead of having regulations at the local level that place the sale of drugs in the hands of responsible, law abiding business owners, we put it in the hands of criminals. Instead of collecting sales tax revenue on them which would mean income for the government, we pay extra income taxes and pay police to chase the criminals dealing them. Comparatively fruitlessly. Instead of dealing with existing addicts by sending them to clinics on their own dime to get a measured dose of their exact fix, we manufacture drugs that are worse for you than the original and give them to addicts on the public dime. And then expect them to live by the honor system and stay off their drug of choice. This method is clearly failing everyone. Instead of easy to get substances with low prices being delivered to addicts, we're letting the most dangerous among us charge a "risk of getting caught" fee to people who need help, and often become desperate because of this risk fee. Illicit drugs don't cost a fraction of their street value to produce. The price is so high because those risking their necks to deliver are making it "worth" their risk.

I've heard the argument that central planning through regulation makes society more efficient. If that was the case then drugs would not exist in our society, health care wouldn't have so many problems with affordability, automobile manufacturers wouldn't be struggling so hard to turn a profit or innovate new engine types. Federal regulations could easily be beaten if they had to compete with privatized standards. The FDA would be quickly replaced by private companies certifying the safety of food and medicine if they had to compete. Instead of having multiple companies staking their reputation on every drug they certify as safe, we have a government monopoly that cannot be challenged or held accountable when they're wrong. Which they often are. For evidence, watch television for a month and pay attention to how many law firms you see advertising for class action lawsuits on recalled drugs. We have a federal department of transportation that failed to prevent multiple rollovers of Ford vehicles that had inadequate tires for their weight. If you want problems solved you make multiple groups of people compete to solve the problem. You don't give a single entity a monopoly on it now and forever. What is to keep them working at their best?

In regards to technology I've heard of people suggesting things be regulated to keep them uniform. Such as connections between cell phones and computers. What's wrong with that notion is that instead of the best product winning, a winner is chosen by consensus of bureaucrats. Whatever the bureau decides is the right choice is forced on everybody. While it sounds nice to some at face value, you'd have to ignore the hindering effect it would have on innovation of new technologies. Instead of inventing something and bringing it to market, you have to apply for a government agency to look it over and consider the ability of other businesses to come up to the new standard before you can introduce it. And then people wonder why free markets result in more invention than centrally planned economies. If they think enough to notice it at all. In truth the best product ends up winning out. Remember, all capitalist transactions are voluntary. So if a product doesn't have a feature you want... Don't buy it. Buy one that is set up how you want it. So many people settle for what is available right here and now. But people need to learn self restraint. Hold out for the product or service that best suits your needs.

When it all comes down to it freedom cannot exist without responsibility and accountability. When people stop being responsible and accountable, they cease to be free. They become slaves to the consequences of their lack of responsibility, and seeking to evade being held accountable. When you start allowing government to regulate you concede that you are incapable of developing and living your own standards. And the question is, in a society where no man is fit to decide for himself how he should live, who is fit to decide how others should live? And how are people who are incapable of making their own decisions expected to be able to decide who should make those decisions for them? The very basics in collectivist theory contradict themselves. And mans judgement is increasingly measured against his level of formal education. You do not need four years of programming from progressive college professors in order to understand when something is nonsense. Do you know the origin of the term? It's from the dark ages. If you can't see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, or hear it... It's nonsense. Meaning if it cannot be measured by the very basics of mans ability to understand then it is bogus.

If you have to have a college degree to understand the meanings of a political philosophy, don't walk, bur run from it. Because what this means is you are expected to have years of programming and propaganda in order to be willing to accept their philosophy. My philosophy is simple. I want myself to be free to make my own decisions. I want the same for you. I want to get rich and profit from my ideal society, I also want everybody else to as well. My proposed philosophy doesn't restrain anybody's creativity. If you can think of a better way to build a product, prepare food, deliver a good or service, or save time in anybody's day in any way... You should benefit from it. The others ultimately result in the well connected ending up wealthy, and getting exemptions from regulations. While all others must comply.

Money

2011-10-15T00:53:00.000-06:00

I see a lot of people deride modern society as money centered, and money as the root of all evil. Often it is changed to "the love of money is the root of all evil". So I thought I should chime in on this. Money is nothing more than a tool. It is a vehicle for exchange. The problem with every assumption about money is that they all assume money to be the driving force. This of course is false. People don't want money because piles of crisp paper are so useful. People in Germany under the Wiemar inflationary period burned it to heat their homes. The money was worthless otherwise because their governments handling of it was worthless. Money like any tool is only as useful as the person using it is. When in the hands of a person who's habit and intention is to create value in society, money will bring more value. When in the hands of a person who's sole intention is to consume, money will consume the person. Case in point. It has almost become a guarantee that a person who wins the lottery will file bankruptcy within 5 years. Every year a poor person has the lotto money, their chances of filing bankruptcy grows exponentially.

By this time pretty much everybody has seen a movie about an unworthy heir to a vast fortune. Chances are the heir spent recklessly on booze, parties, extravagant vehicles, outrageously wasteful habits, etc... And you see so much envy among the general public. I can't count how many times I've heard someone lament about their life, and speak enviously of people who have been handed incredible fortunes. Why is this? Do you think somehow the waste would be less distasteful if you were the one doing it? Do you think somehow money will erase the habits you have that are preventing you from being wealthy of your own accord? A rich person without money is simply broke. They are not poor because they have not adopted the mentality. A poor person with money is still poor. They still have the habits that will ultimately end up in their being without money again. So ask yourself, what is it you do with money that has put you where you are?

I started by stating that money is a tool. It is also a symbol. It is a symbol of a persons ability to produce. And the level at which they do so. Let's use a factory as an example. A general laborer while an important part of the process makes the least. Because even though they carry out an important duty, their training is limited. Labor represents use of muscle, which any able bodied (which are most) can carry out. Skilled labor and people who supply, maintain, or run equipment make more because beyond being able to do the labor, they are trained to carry out tasks that require experience, skill, dedication, and proving themselves to be able to do more than flex some muscle. Management makes yet more because not only do they have to understand the processes, but they have to understand how to staff, orchistrate, and supply these processes. Executive would make even more yet because this is where synergy comes in. Not only do they have to understand the processes on the ground floor, and management, but they have to understand how it is financed, marketed, distributed, and how to lead it. Every step of the process you can see where the more people you oversee, the more you make. Because the human element IS valued and appreciated in capitalism. And so is the ability to lead and organize the human element.

I like to make the comparison between money and guns. Both are tools that can be both greatly good and greatly evil, depending on how they are used. When used to protect the innocent, and deter those who wish to do ill, guns are tools of great good. Because great bodily harm or the threat of it can stop a person from comitting heinous acts. But in the hands of those wishing to commit heinous acts, guns are tools of tremendous evil. The same applies to money. In the hands of people who respect its power and potential, you'll often see money financing the building and operation of factories. Factories that create jobs, produce goods, and make commerce possible in ways that could not have even been fathomed 300 years ago. When in the hands of the irresponsible you'll often see money being spent on intoxicants (alcohol, drugs, and the like). You'll see it being used as an excuse to break the rules of society. Being spent on buying favors, and short term love. People doing this will often hold it over the heads of their percieved inferiors. Most likely held as some sort of status symbol. You'll see it spent on shiny things of no real value. In comparison to the life and death of guns it may seem minimal, but the similarities in their ability to enhance misery or happiness are astounding. Give a miserable person who is unable to handle money a lot of it, and he'll be all the more miserable because of the money he was once given slipping from his grasp. Take money from a person who knows how to handle it, and you'll see them get it back and possibly more.

I can easily see the ability of a person to make their money back being used as an argument for doing so, but here's the problem with such an argument. It would have to negate the first person mentioned who would be all the more miserable when given money because of how money would expand on their existing money woes. If you can't hang on to the pennies, you'll lose the millions. This is akin to taking someone unable to drive a compact car, and throwing them behind the wheel of a semi pulling three trailers. In my last profession when someone tried to skip steps in the learning process we always told them "you need to take the 101 before you can expect to understand the 202". In other words "you've got to learn to crawl before you learn to walk". This scenario is more like trying to jump straight to running marathons.

Corruption and Abuse

2011-10-13T21:27:00.000-06:00

A lot of what is being talked about and protested is the corruption happening between big business and government. I'll start by clarifying before elaborating. Both parties are guilty. But the bulk of the responsibility lies in the power brokers in Washington (side note, what a disgrace the city has become to its own name). Yes, big business is corrupt when it collaborates with government for undeserved taxpayer money. And when it spends endlessly lobbying for influence. But all that money would be spent in vain if politicians would not sell influence. But what's more is the influence being sold doesn't belong to the seller to begin with. Because their job is not influence, it's representation.

Right now the "Occupy" movement is busy protesting this relationship between big business and government. And the organizers are proposing a solution of bigger government that has enough power and money to theoretically end this relationship. But the problem is, the more power you give a central government, the more money will chase after influence in it. If government did not have the ability to bail failing business models out, business would not rely on failing models or bailouts. They would have to adapt to survive. Isn't that what evolution is all about? Teddy Roosevelt was obsessed with the destruction of the notorious trusts. But what was it that created the trusts? Regulation. In the days of monopolistic trusts, corporations could not own shares of other companies. Forcing use of another type of legal entity. The trust. Which result in yet more regulations to break up monopolies.

Environmentalism is yet another excuse being used for more government power. Claiming the environment needs government regulations to stop evil polluting rich people from dumping toxic waste in to public drinking water. Let's talk toxic waste in drinking water. Ever heard of fluoride? Look up the side effects of consumption, and then tell me government is preventing toxic waste being introduced to public drinking water. Let's talk basics. Business does not benefit from wasted energy. They have to pay light, water, and gas bills like you and I. And if their evil profits are eaten up by inefficient equipment, how long do you think they'll put off the purchase of efficient equipment? Greed is a good thing in this sense. How much do you think companies like wasting materials they have to pay to attain? 3% waste was high in a field I used to work in. In a field that recycled the waste. Which is most. Do you think a company would let steel rust in their stockyards when they can get money from scrap heaps for recycling that steel? Fuel does not get burned by idling equipment when companies are concerned with turning profits. Industries do not thrive with workforces in poor health. The lack of consistency in production costs more than cleanup efforts and health programs. Delayed deliveries cost business, which results in poor sales. And employees missing work as a result of a negative impact on their health by their environment is more likely than not, going to cause delivery delays.

Nobody is forcing you to buy from Exxon, or work for (lets say) Dow Chemical. We live in a free society. If your employer treats you poorly, replace it. If a company's business practices strike you as unethical, don't buy from them. How many protesting in wall street are using smartphones made by a company that trades where they are protesting? Or using wireless service stationed there? How many are covered head to toe, and bathe in products that are represented in wall street? When it all comes down to it, the answer isn't in Washington. It's not in Manhattan. It's in you. If you want a simple life, accept that your material property is also going to be simple. If you want a life of plenty, accept that you're going to have to know and/or work plenty.

The system of socialism is a system based on taking. You take from the thinkers, the builders, the workers, the productive. You even take from those who don't achieve. You take from them the lessons of their failures, and you take from them the incentive to do more. You take from them the payment for their inaction.

Capitalism, The REAL Love Story

2011-10-12T22:06:00.000-06:00

In light of the anti-capitalist sentiment running rampant today I see this as an important subject to cover. Obviously my people saw the hypocritical documentary "Capitalism: A Love Story" and were swayed by it. Lets set the record straight. The film maker is known to have used non union filming crews, and sold the film through capitalist channels (i.e. theaters, dvd's, and took payment for online downloads). Don't get me wrong. I believe in free speech and the film maker has every right to express his beliefs. I also believe a person is entitled to profiting from the fruits of their labor. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy in disparaging a system you are utilizing to get your message out, and to put food on your plate with.

So on to the point. Capitalism is based on very simple, very solid principles. You are entitled to the benefits (profits) of your work. Higher risk is worth a higher cut. You are the sole person responsible for yourself and your family. All men are created equal, equal results are not guaranteed. Money is not everything, it is simply a method of exchange. A tool for the job of trading. Failure is the greatest teacher, it shows you what does not work. Success is for those willing to fail and try again. Capitalism isn't the cold, unfeeling machine it is made out to be. While it delivers some difficulties, it also showers with rewards. Rewards which are for you to either share or not.

The collectivists claim that it is the duty of society to care for the less fortunate. Which I attest is a partial truth. To some degree it is the duty of individuals in a society to care for the less fortunate, but of their own free will. The collectivists decry the rich for being greedy, while demanding the rich give the rewards they have earned to them. All while overlooking the fact that the affluent give more to charitable causes than anybody. It is as if to say it is wrong to demand the fruits of your own labor, but justified to demand the fruits of an other's labor. It is wrong prepare yourself for anything and everything, to stand on your own. But proper to demand another make up for your own lack of preparation. So the alternative we've been presented to the tenets of self reliance, planning ahead, producing more than you consume, and careful planning is rationing. Centrally planned and democratically elected rationing.

As I've stated many times in the past, government is force. It is a gun. If you defy government mandates, men with guns come to enforce them. And it only has rights and authority we the people that government represents lend it. You do not have the right to take from another no matter how much more than you that other person has. Neither does your neighbor. Or his neighbor. And 300,000,000 x 0 = 0 (rough population times right to take from a person against their will). It doesn't matter how many people you add to the equation. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Is it right for a person to rob a bank at gunpoint because the bank will be less affected by the loss than he will by the gain? If you answer yes then how about the next person? Or the next? Or the next? When do you start to care? When it affects YOUR account balance or ability to withdraw funds?

Capitalism works on the concept that if you do not like a product or service you are free to choose another or not even buy at all. It's your money and your decision what you spend it on. Also if you don't like the way a company treats you, you are free to work for another or start your own. The construction industry is full of business owners who worked for a company, did not like something about the terms of their job, and started out on their own. Nobody is forcing you to stay in your current situation. The limits of your ability to make money are set by the limits of your imagination. If you can think of a way to create value for someone, you can think of a way to bring money to yourself. If you can lighten a persons workload by providing a service or building a product... You have a source of income. It's your effort, your idea, your enterprise. Why should you be expected to do that and feel guilty for it paying off?

Profit is sold as this massive evil in which the person gaining the profit has shortchanged the person on the other end of the bargain. Which is far from true. Profit means benefit, or gain. And in any transaction both parties are able to profit. For example, a company makes a piece of machinery that costs them a grand total of 5000 man hours to produce. And sells it for the result of 300,000 man hours of another company's production. An amazing profit right? Totally ripped the purchasing company off right? Wrong! The same piece of machinery would likely result in the purchasing company reducing man hours required to reach the same production. It would also produce well over the 300,000 man hours, perhaps in multiples of hundreds of thousands. One hour is not necessarily equal to another. An hour sweeping a floor at an auto shop isn't equal in value to an hour spent by a specialist in surgery. An hour spent emptying garbage cans does not provide the same value as an hour spent arranging the sale and shipping of an entire quarter of production for a company. Yes there is an income gap. There's also a value of services gap.

There are ways to use capitalism to your advantage. If you're reading this blog then you have a tool literally at your fingertips that has unlimited earning potential. The internet has quickly overtaken brick and mortar business (physical stores) in profitability. You don't have to have Rockefeller money to get started. And search engines have made it easier to set up shop and be found. You can even use search engines to learn how to participate, or what products tend to sell. You don't even have to sell anything. High school kids have begun earning incomes by programming smartphone apps and selling ad space on them. Free posting, free distribution, and getting paid for ads on something you made and distributed for next to nothing. And we're expected to believe that there's no money to be made? Nobody ever got rich by finding problems with solutions. True wealth is earned by finding solutions to problems.

Intro

2011-10-12T19:29:00.001-06:00

I'll start by saying this blog will not be politically correct. There's nothing more offensive than something said in attempt to sugar coat, or disguise the meaning of an intended statement. With all of the back and forth in the political and philosophical world today I'm sure my views have been portrayed, and rebuked, defended, and then rebuked again. But nevertheless I think I'll make my own case. Even if only one person ever visits this blog.

The past decade has seen massive political upheaval, with seemingly more to come. Political camps once thought to be taboo or even fringe have come to the forefront. I'll be spending time defending one of those fringes and doing my best to prove the faults of another. I am staunchly for the Constitution of The United States. I disagree with a couple of amendments made to it during the 20th century, but that case is for another post.

For now I'll be starting with the major theme of the day. The big controversy is big business vs big government. Today we have the "Occupy" movement that underscores this very issue. What has been overlooked in today's dialogue is that one really cannot exist without the other. Virtually every major international bank has been propped up by massive government bailouts. With the sales pitch being that the money, jobs, and business they represent would vanish without government help. I disagree. While the institutions may have been gone, the assets would still be there. The buildings sold off to the highest bidder in some auction. The paper assets auctioned off as well. Jobs popping up to serve the budding new businesses now in charge of those properties and assets. And with a very important change. Worthy men at the helm of these companies. And worthwhile business models being used.

We have people protesting in Wall Street as if somehow chastising the mooch will stop the enabler from handing out to other mooches. This simply isn't the case. I'm afraid the people of the "Occupy" movement are being guided in the wrong direction. And not by accident. While I do acknowledge the people in the movement are on to something, I must point out a few flaws. The source of the corruption lies in D.C. Where the power is. Sure Wall Street funnels money in to lobbying D.C., but it is D.C. allowing the lobbying to mean anything. But the very beginnings of the movement lie with people who are anti capitalist. Something this blog will discuss at great length. And I'll sum up my gripe with central planning and micro manage style regulation here quickly. If two heads are better than one, then 300 million heads are better than the mere thousands that make up our legislature, their staff, and the White House. Regulations being proposed on everything down to what type of connector is used on the charger for your cell phone.

I will elaborate more in future posts, but for now I'll just stick with a basic premise. The Foundation of my personal views and beliefs. It is immoral to initiate force. Government is nothing more than force. If you disobey laws they force a fine or incarceration upon you. If you refuse they send men with guns to force your compliance. Now days there is an effort to switch to non deadly means of force. But they are still using tools of force regardless. The only proper use of force is in response to force. Yes my posts are likely to be long winded, but there is much to discuss. And not only views to present, but logic and evidence to be presented to support those views. So enjoy, or don't. Either way do yourself this small favor and at least think about the philosophy behind political views before accepting them as your own.