Lawyers are Anxious to find Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 so they can start the Lawsuits

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2014

Week in Review

The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has devastated families of those who were on board.  But some people are absolutely giddy about the missing airplane.  And can’t wait for the wreckage to be found.  Lawyers.  So they can start suing and making a lot of money off of the suffering of others (see Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: Aviation lawyers flock to China by Peter Ford posted 3/27/2014 on The Christian Science Monitor).

Nineteen days after Malaysia Airlines flight 370 disappeared, search teams have still found no shred of physical evidence to clarify what happened to it or to the 239 people aboard.

But as planes and ships hunt the waters of the Indian Ocean for possible wreckage, lawyers are already scouting for clients at the Lido Hotel in Beijing, where passengers’ relatives are staying.

Holding out the prospect of multimillion dollar compensation deals, aviation disaster lawyers from US and Chinese firms are hovering in the hotel’s coffee shop and corridors in the hope that the biggest mystery in modern aviation history will end with a major payout for victims’ families, and for them…

Mr. Wang, who headed for Beijing as soon as he heard that the plane had disappeared, says he has offered his firm’s services to the relatives of more than 100 passengers on a “no win, no fee” contingency basis, and that about 10 have signed up with Ribbeck…

Equally complex is the question of where any suit against Malaysia Airlines may be heard (though a complaint against Boeing, an American company, would most likely be heard in the United States). While a Malaysian or Chinese court might seem the obvious place, lawyers for potential plaintiffs would be anxious to have any complaint judged in the United States, because “you are looking at a much larger award” there, says Ms. Feng.

This is why they make lawyer jokes.  Call them ambulance chasers.  These are the only people—apart from terrorists— who smile at the loss of life.  Because whenever there is a tragedy it means a big paycheck for a law firm.  Those on the left will call doctors greedy and that they shouldn’t profit on the suffering of others.  Many blaming them for all our health care woes.  Those greedy doctors.  Who the government should force to work for less.  As Obamacare will.  But it should be noted that doctors actually save lives while getting rich.  Lawyers don’t.  They just take the biggest cut of any legal settlement.  Helping themselves far more than they help their clients.  But those on the left have no problem with lawyers getting rich on the suffering of others.  Why?  Because lawyers support Democrats.  And donate money to their campaigns.  Which is why the Democrats will never reform tort law.  Because lawyers and Democrats make a lot of money with these lawsuits.  And they have no intentions of ever changing that.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Colleges and Universities take Advantage of Students to keep that Tuition Money flowing into Big Education

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2014

Week in Review

Getting a college degree is expensive.  Because the greedy rich people running our colleges and universities keep raising the cost of tuition, forcing students to take out bigger and bigger student loans to satiate their greed.  And to make matters worse they often sell them worthless degrees for the current marketplace.  Often giving students poor advice.  Getting them to commit to those big student loans by hook or crook.  Taking advantage of these young students’ trust in them.  Anything to keep that money flowing into Big Education (see What you wish you’d known about college ahead of time by Caitlin Moran posted 2/14/2014 on The Seattle Times).

We received several thoughtful responses to our most recent reader question, which asked: “What do you wish you had known about college ahead of time..?”

Here are a few examples of what our readers said they wish they had known about college when they were younger. Some responses have been edited for length and grammar.

I wish I had known to do more research about my major and what it would actually do for me job-wise. I don’t use my degree for my job now, and I keep hearing about many people who take out huge school loans and graduate with few job skills. I worked my way through school, which was not fun, but at least I got out of college debt free. With recent tuition hikes, getting out debt free is much harder, and students need to make sure the loans will be worth it…

I wish I’d known I should know more about the world before going to college, so I had some idea why I was going. Had I known more about careers, skills and background for careers, and myself, I would have made different choices in college. I wish I had worked for a year or two, known what it was like, and known more about what I wanted.

Of course Big Education is not all that concerned about giving you the skills and background you need for a successful career.  They just want your money.  And to turn you into Democrat voters.  While keeping you Democrat voters as long as possible.  And being indebted by a degree that doesn’t help you make any more money than you could have without that degree goes a long way of making you dependent on Democrats in government.  Because rich and successful people need no help from the government.  Ergo the selling of so many worthless degrees.  To keep these people from becoming rich and successful.  Where they might do something harmful to Big Education.  Like voting Republican.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Democrat Greed increases the Gap between Rich and Poor in the America’s Greediest Areas

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

The Democrats are about redistributing income.  From those according to ability to those according to need.  To reduce the gap between the rich and poor.  Making the world a better place.  Which is why we have high taxes today.  And if you live in a predominantly Democrat area the taxes are even higher.  To reduce poverty and give those greedy fat cats what they deserve for being lucky enough to win life’s lotto (see Repent now. Geographers map 7 deadly sins by Mike Krumboltz posted 12/17/2013 on Yahoo! News).

The seven deadly sins (for those who don’t concern themselves with such things and/or have never seen that creepy Brad Pitt movie) are, in no particular order: wrath, envy, greed, gluttony, sloth, lust and pride.

Seeking to discover where in America those sins are most prevalent, a group of geographers from Kansas State University did some research using data on things such as number of fast food restaurants per capita (gluttony), number of thefts and robberies (envy), and average incomes compared with the number of inhabitants living beneath the poverty line (greed).

Those areas with the most greed are those areas with the greatest income gap between rich and poor.  So you would expect those predominantly Democrat areas would be the least greedy of all places in the United States.  Funny thing, though, they’re not.

If you follow the link you will see a map showing the greediest areas in red.  And where are these red areas?  The greater Seattle area.  The West Coast from San Francisco down to San Diego.  The Las Vegas area.  The greater Phoenix and Tucson areas.  The greater Denver area.  The greater Dallas and Houston areas.  A large swathe of the Mid West from the Greater Chicago area to Gary Indiana to the greater Detroit area/southeast Michigan and Cleveland.  Central and south Florida.  And the East Coast from the greater Washington D.C. area to Philadelphia, New Jersey, the greater New York City area to the greater Boston area.  Now what is the common characteristic that these the greediest areas of the United States share?  That’s right, they are predominantly Democrat.

It appears the Marxist saying “from those according to ability to those according to need” needs to be modified slightly.  “From those outside the Democrat elite to those inside the Democrat elite.  And call Republicans greedy to get working people to vote Democrat.  Allowing the Democrat elite to remain in power.  So they can live the good life while those they purportedly champion pay for it.”  Or perhaps something simpler.  “Screw the poor.”  Because that’s what the Democrats are doing.  Which is why their areas are the greediest areas.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Female CEOs are lowering CEO Compensation just as the Left wants yet the Left Complains

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2012

Week in Review

President Obama won reelection in 2012 because, apparently, people hate the rich.  And they hate corporations.  When Mitt Romney said corporations are people the opposition pounced on that.  As the masses believe corporations are evil entities that serve only profits.  And Satan.  They hate corporations with a passion.  And the rich people that run them.  That’s why President Obama wants to raise tax rates.  Not to raise tax revenue.  For these proposed tax hikes may fund the government for maybe 8 days.  If we’re lucky.  No.  These tax rates are to punish the rich.  Who have raped and pillaged this country so they can live their caviar and champagne lifestyles.

According to President Obama the young should shun these corporations and do something better with their lives.  Like working for a nonprofit.  By doing something where we give.  Not get rich.  For that is being a good American in these Obama times.  We shouldn’t pursue meaningless high-paying jobs.  Instead we should get a low-paying social services job.  Or work in a food kitchen.  Anything is better than working for these most evil and vile corporations (see What Did Marissa Mayer Mean in a Year When 86% of Executives Were Still Men? by Rebecca Greenfield posted 12/11/2012 on The Atlantic Wire).

As of June, women held a mere 14.3 percent of executive positions at Fortune 500 companies, according to new data from Catalyst, reports Bloomberg’s Brooke Sutherland. That 1.4 percent increase from last year represents a “glacial pace,” the report states…

And it’s difficult to find signs of change elsewhere. Of the 71 leaders ranked in a new Forbes list of the world’s most powerful people, only four women made the cut…

As for the future of female CEOs, the gender pay-gap is still alive and well, even for fresh college graduates.

All right, I’m confused.  If corporations are so evil and serve Satan why is it so important for women to become rich CEOs at them?

This is the general consensus on the Left.  Who are not happy about glass ceilings.  Or gender pay-gaps.

If we pay CEOs too much why are they so concerned that female CEOs earn less than their male counterparts?  If we want to reduce CEO compensation we should applaud these women for doing just that.  These women may just be choosing not to rape and pillage the people with high prices.  With less profits (a good thing according to everyone on the Left) there’s less money to pay their CEO.  Or perhaps they aren’t drawing a large paycheck so their employees can have bigger paychecks.

Women are more nurturing and feeling.  We hear it all of the time.  It’s why we need more women in Congress.  Who will listen to the poor instead of the lobbyists.  Perhaps this is why there are so few female CEOs.  Because they are too nurturing and feeling to maximize profits for their shareholders.  Because profits are bad.  Or so the Left has told them all of their life from public school through college.  Institutions all controlled by the Left.  And more women did vote for President Obama than the rich CEO Mitt Romney.  Showing their disdain for corporate profits.  Perhaps shareholders noticed this general trend and prefer greedy, heartless, male sons of bitches to run their corporations so they will maximize their profits.  Someone who doesn’t favor birth control and abortion over profits, a driving factor in why women voted for President Obama according to exit polls.

So what are corporations?  Evil?  Or so good that we need more women running them?  They can’t be both.  They can’t be the source of everything that is wrong in this country while at the same time we criticize them for not having more women running them.  If they’re evil we should applaud the fact that few women run them and that we don’t pay those that do a lot.  If they’re not evil we need to stop attacking them.  And blaming our budget deficits on them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Australia subsidizes a University Education to generate Tax Revenue and Volunteerism

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 11th, 2012

Week in Review

Australian university graduates are not volunteering enough after receiving their subsidized education according to a new study.  Which is one of the reasons they subsidize the high price of a university degree.  Instead of trying to bring those high prices down (see Student subsidy too high: report by Benjamin Preiss posted 8/6/2012 on The Sidney Morning Herald).

THE government should spend less on subsidising university students until graduates can provide a better return for society on the public investment, according to a new study.

Existing fee subsidies were merely redistributing income to students and graduates who would have attended university anyway, according to the report, Graduate Winners, by the independent think tank the Grattan Institute. It suggests the $6 billion the government spends on fee support could be better spent.

The report compares the personal gains for university graduates with their broader contributions to society in areas such as volunteering and paying taxes. Graduates, in most cases, benefit financially from a university degree by getting higher-paid jobs than people with no higher education. But the report found graduates were only slightly more likely to volunteer regularly than people with low-level TAFE qualifications…

If a goal of university subsidies is volunteerism and they’re not seeing a return on that investment why continue the subsidies?  They have the same problem in America.  Liberal college graduates’ idea of volunteerism is raising taxes and donating other people’s money to their favorite causes.  Some leading American liberal politicians even have a sad record of charitable donations.  Because they are never generous with their own money.  They want a larger more caring government to provide for the poor and impoverished masses but they want other people to pay for it.  Yet those who do donate and contribute their time are often conservatives.  Who do this through their churches.  Who work hard and pay their taxes.  And donate their time and money to charitable causes.  A lot of them without a university degree to boot.  Apparently some things transcend international borders.

Mr Norton said the government should cut back its funding and allow universities to increase the price of their degrees. He said the earning capacity for university graduates in most cases outweighed the cost of more expensive degrees.

But Tertiary Education Minister Chris Evans said the government would not increase fees for university students.

He said the students would carry an additional $3 billion a year in debt if the government accepted the report’s recommendations. ”The evidence is that dramatic increases in fees lead to decreased participation and higher debt,” Mr Evans said. ”We don’t want a situation where students leave university, join the workforce and have debts that shadow them for many years…”

Here’s something else they share with the Americans.  The high price of a university degree.  Which the answer is the same everywhere in the world apparently.  Subsidize education.  But they never try to reduce the high prices of education.  In fact, higher education is the one area that they never criticize for its high prices.  Unlike health care.  Prescription drugs.  Gasoline.  You name it.  When it’s the private sector pursuing profits liberals everywhere demonize these seekers of profit.  But when it’s liberal universities pursuing profits so they can provide higher pay and benefit packages to their professors, administrators and campus workers what do you hear from liberals about these seekers of profits?  Just a whole lot of quiet interrupted by the sounds of crickets chirping.  Then the attacks on ‘greedy’ taxpayers who oppose higher taxes to subsidize the generous pay and benefit packages of said university employees.  Which is what gives those students “debts that shadow them for many years.”

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nancy Pelosi Hates Nonunion Workers because She Can’t Collect Tribute from Them Like She Can from Union Workers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 6th, 2011

Week in Review

Nancy Pelosi believes there is such a thing as a bad job.  And I’m not talking about flipping burgers.  I’m talking about building jet planes.  Normally good.  As jet planes dominate U.S. exports.  But these jobs are only good jobs when they are in Seattle.  Not in nonunion South Carolina (see Pelosi Vs. Boeing — And Jobs posted 11/1/2011 on Investors.com).

“Do you think it’s right that Boeing has to close down that plant in South Carolina because it’s nonunion?” asked host Maria Bartiromo.

Pelosi’s quick answer was “yes.”

Pelosi said she preferred the plant in the right-to-work state would unionize; failing that, the National Labor Relations Board is right to shut down the plant where Boeing hopes to build its Dreamliner passenger aircraft.

So instead of adding jobs to the economy Ms. Pelosi would prefer these people collect unemployment checks.  Why?

Union representation must be forced on them so they can be forced to pay union dues, a big chunk of which is funneled into Democratic campaign coffers. Over the past two years, the [International Association of Machinists] donated $1.98 million to Democratic candidates and $34,000 to Republicans.

Similarly, the trillion dollars in wasted stimulus and other legislation have gone mostly to projects using union workers, in particular teacher and construction unions. Stimulus money has also gone to failing but politically connected firms like Solyndra, whose major investors are big Democratic donors.

Nancy and her Democrat colleagues are greedy.  And pine for the days when people like them ruled over others.  Simply by being born into the nobility.  With democracy putting the kibosh on aristocracy they have come up with this clever ruse to put taxpayer dollars into their pockets.

They still steal it.  But not directly.  They give it to someone else.  Who then gives some of it back to them.  If this sounds familiar you may have seen this in the movies.  We call it ‘money laundering’.  She calls it tribute.  The proper respect paid to her privileged class.

This is what it’s all about in the Democrat party.  The money.  So when you hear them talk about creating jobs and stimulating the economy it’s what we call in politics ‘lying’.

They just want the money.  And could care less whether or not they create a job.  If you disagree answer me this.  After 5 years of Pelosi/Obama and all of that stimulus, where are the jobs?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Problem with the Occupy Wall Street People is that they don’t Know the Difference between Capitalism and Crony Capitalism

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 15th, 2011

Bank Tellers have a Job because they didn’t go to College to get a Philosophy or an English Degree

Another proud day for American public education and American colleges (see Protesters arrested in bank march, party in Times Square by Georgett Roberts, Jennifer Bain and Kevin Fasick posted 10/15/2011 on the New York Post).

The “Crossroads of the World” were jammed when thousands of anti-greed protesters brought their party to Times Square, capping a day of marches marred by the arrest of more than 20 who stormed a Citibank branch.

And what do they want?  A lot of free stuff.  The greedy little bastards.

Brought their ‘party’?  Yeah, that about sums up these beatniks on Wall Street.  For them life is nothing but a party.  And a protest is an even better party.  I mean, look at them.  They’re having the time of their lives.

Earlier, 24 protesters were arrested when a mob stormed a LaGuardia Place Citibank and shouted slogans as two demonstrators closed their bank accounts in protest just after 2 p.m.

I hope they find a safe place for that money.  There are a lot of desperate people out there who need money.  And it would have been a lot harder for them to get at that money if they had left it locked in a bank.

They were screaming and chanting while they were going in. Security told them to leave, but they didn’t. They stood in a group chanting things to the tellers. There were locked in, and then they were taken away.”

If I’m not mistaken bank tellers aren’t part of that superrich 1%.  No.  They’re probably a part of that 99%.  Like the protesters.  Only they have a job.  Unlike the protestors.  Because they didn’t go to college to get a philosophy or English degree.

“We went into the bank to peacefully protest,” she said. “People were standing in the bank giving testimonials, speaking about their student debt, some of which is held by Citibank and a few undercover police officers came into the bank”

These people partied for 4 years (or more) while going to college getting their worthless degrees.  And learning how to hate America.  And the man.  And now they’re bitching to complete strangers about their own bad decisions?  Taking on debt for some BS degree?  Mom and Dad probably warned them not to do that.  To get a degree in something useful instead.  Like business.  Accounting.  Chemistry.  Something that has value in the economy.  But did they listen?  Apparently not.

He said he paid $559 annually in fees to the bank, including late charges.

“I’ve been wanting to move my money for awhile. But this opened my eyes,” he said of his experiences. “I’m going to use a community-based bank for my funds.”

This is just like someone living in East Berlin at the height of the Cold War waiting for their chance to escape to West Berlin.  To scale the Berlin Wall.  Before the East Germans shot him.  Or her.  Of course, there are some subtle differences.  East Germany was an oppressive police state that killed people trying to escape.  While America is a free county.  With a free market.  Where you can move your money to any bank you wish.  Without the threat of being gunned down by the state.

We call this free market capitalism.  Businesses compete for you business by pleasing you more than their competition.  You don’t need a law to make banks please you.  If you don’t like how a bank is treating you, leave.  All you have to do is open a new account.  Withdraw your money from the old account.  And deposit it into the new account.  It’s that easy.  It sure is a hell of a lot easier than trying to
climb a barbwire wall under withering machine gun fire.

If Government Favoritism Bothers you Perhaps you should Direct your Angst at Washington D.C. at the Next Election

These protestors may hate capitalism.  Because they were taught that on our college campuses.  But they sure love some of its billionaires.  Even though they belong to that 1% (see Protesters should not target entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs by Antony Davies posted 10/12/2011 on The Morning Call).

Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple who died last week at age 56, left the world a better place than he found it — and not just because of the treasure trove of gadgets he shepherded into creation.

Mr. Jobs’ life is a testament to what economists have long been telling us — that wealth and plunder are not the same thing. Plunder is what you get when you take from others. Wealth is what you get when you give to others.

Due to his commercial success, Mr. Jobs accumulated $8 billion of wealth over his life. But you won’t see Occupy Wall Street protesters coming after Jobs or Apple because it is so obvious that we freely gave our money to him in exchange for his products. We don’t view Jobs’ wealth as plunder, but as one-half of a transaction. We gave him $8 billion and he gave us the world that science fiction authors promised.

We voluntarily gave our money to billionaire like Steve Jobs.  The Occupy Wall Street mob is trying to take money from others.  The Steve Jobs of the world create wealth because they please us.  People like those on Wall Street threaten us for plunder or else.  Steve Jobs good.  Plunderers bad.

The young protesters currently occupying Wall Street should be careful where they direct their ire. People like Steve Jobs who gained their wealth by providing value to others — including the protesters using iPhones to call their friends — shouldn’t be the subject of protest. The protesters should focus their ire on those who use the political process to gain plunder by forcing the rest of us to subsidize their losing business models.

Some of these pirates can be found on Wall Street. They benefited when the government forced taxpayers to underwrite Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s largesse, and they benefited when the government forced taxpayers to bail out the companies that bet on that largesse.

But they’re not just in New York City.

Let us not forget that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Government Sponsored Enterprises.  With close ties to the government.  Executing government policy.  And being under the official oversight of the government.  In particular, at the time of the subprime mortgage crisis, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.  Who kept saying there’s nothing wrong with Freddie or Fannie.  That they were both as sound as a pound.  All the way up to the Great Recession.  Which they caused.

Pirates can be found on Main Street, where businessmen ask the government to create an unfair licensing system that will hamstring their competitors. They can be found in the public sector, where public unions ask the government to maintain a system that forces us to use the U.S. Postal Service to send first-class mail. Some can even be found on the farm, when they fight to maintain government requirements to put ethanol in our gas tanks and pay huge tariffs on imported sugar.

Here’s my point. Pirates can be found in all cities, and in all sectors, but their power to plunder has its source in one city: Washington, D.C. The federal government and the businesses that use political ties to force their products on consumers aren’t creating value — they’re enriching themselves at our expense. If protesters want to stop the plunder, then they are protesting in the wrong place.

That’s right, it takes two to tango.  And to plunder.  Lobbyists can’t lobby politicians unless they’re for sale.  Corporations can’t plunder unless they have cronies in Washington letting them.  By restricting competition.  And this is the key difference between capitalism (such as Steve Jobs used) and crony capitalism (such as what everyone is pissed off about).  It’s is crony capitalism that gets special favors from government.  In exchange for campaign contributions.

So if this kind of government favoritism bothers you, perhaps you should direct your angst to those who make the rules.  Washington D.C.  And by that I mean at the voting booth at the next election.  The way real democracy works.

The Occupy Wall Street Protestors have no Idea about Capital, Labor, Regulatory, Distribution, Insurance or Piracy Costs

And speaking of piracy, let’s talk about that a little.  And I’m not talking about bootlegging music or movies.  I’m not about literal pirates on the high seas (see Prepare to repel boarders posted 10/13/2011 on The Economist).

SOMALI pirates can be persistent. They have attacked the Maersk Alabama, a container ship owned by an American subsidiary of Denmark’s Maersk Line, no fewer than five times, most recently in May. In the first attack, in 2009, the captain was held hostage until the US Navy rescued him. Then Maersk put private armed guards on the ship. Since then, it has successfully repelled all boarders.

Maersk says it is only arming a few ships plying the pirate-infested waters off East Africa. But the practice is spreading rapidly among shipping firms despite the cost, which can run to $100,000 per voyage for a four-man team. That is because the number of attacks, off Somalia and elsewhere, has kept growing despite the strengthening of naval patrols (see chart). The European Union’s NAVFOR task-force, NATO warships and other navies patrol the waters off Somalia, but this has only pushed the pirates out into the open ocean, extending their attack zone towards India’s coast and as far south as Mozambique’s. This has forced the shipping industry, its insurers, and the national and international authorities that oversee them to accept that private armed guards are a necessity.

American ships plying these waters are bringing American-made goods to overseas markets.  Which everyone agrees is vital to our economy.  A positive balance of trade.  More exports.  Less imports.  And here we are trying to deliver our exports.  And having our ships hijacked by pirates.

Protestors hate corporations.  Because that’s where rich people sit back with their feet up on their desk puffing away on their fat cigars.  While counting their money.  At least, that’s what the protestors think.  They have no idea about the capital costs for plant and equipment.  Labor costs.  Regulatory costs.  Distribution (container ships ain’t cheap).  Insurance.  And, of course, piracy on the high seas and ransom demands.

Protestors are no fans of military spending, either.  They think the military is used just to invade other countries so we can steal their oil.  Well, they can’t blame this Somali piracy on America.  For the Somalis are stealing from anyone.  And nations everywhere have banded together to try and protect their trade routes.  But can’t.  Which is pretty sad.  Because during World War II we eventually defeated the U-Boat menace in the North Atlantic.  Of course, back then, we spent what was necessary on the military to win.  Unlike today.  Where the military budget is just a source of funds the Wall Street protestors want to plunder.

The Occupy Wall Street protestors are Acting like Spoiled Children, Like a Bunch of Eric Cartmans

The Occupy Wall Street protestors hate banks.  Capital formation.  Corporations.  That is, capitalism.  How do we know this?  Because they have told us.  Via Twitter.  Blogs.  YouTube.  Which they wrote and/or recorded on their Apple products.  And uploaded it to the Internet.  That we then downloaded on our Apple products.  Or other devices.  All of which made possible by banks, capital formation and corporations.  That is, capitalism.

These kids love capitalism.  They love the toys capitalism offers.  They just hate not being born into privilege.  Where they can afford to satisfy every want and urge as soon as they have it.  Without having to work hard or wait until they can afford to pay for these things.  They’re acting like spoiled children.  Like a bunch of Eric Cartmans.  Except for that part about being a bunch of filthy, stinking hippies.  For everyone knows that hippies are the bane of Cartman’s existence.  But apart from that one difference, these protestors are Eric Cartman.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Capitalism vs. Communism, Socialism, Occupy Wall Street and President Obama

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 14th, 2011

The Corporation was Created to Raise Capital and Manage Risk so they can Build the Stuff we Want

No wonder the Occupy Wall Street people have their heads filled with nonsense.  Here’s an Ivy League publication that doesn’t even understand what a stakeholder in a corporation is.  They have a stake, i.e., a share.  They own stock.  They’ve risked their capital.  And if you don’t risk capital, then you’re just not a stakeholder (see Occupy Wall Street: What Businesses Need to Know by Hari Bapuji and Suhaib Riaz posted 10/14/2011 on the Harvard Business Review).

The demonstrators are asserting that they are stakeholders in American business, and they’re correct — they are stakeholders, as consumers, as employees, and as citizens affected by the financial system in general.

No they’re not.  Unless they bought stock in these corporations.  Which I doubt, because people typically don’t protest against companies they invest in.  Unless they’re idiots.

The corporation was created to raise large amounts of capital.  And manage risk.  By selling stocks to shareholders.  So they can raise the money to build the stuff we want.  Things that hopefully would make a profit one day.  A profit that the shareholders would share in.  As they are the ones taking the BIGGEST risk.  The corporate officers of these corporations have a fiduciary responsibility with the shareholders.  To make a profit.  It’s their company.  They paid for it.  And these shareholders owe nothing to that mob on Wall Street.  Unless any of them own stock.

You’d think those writing for a business school would understand basic business 101.

Businesses should look at whether existing models of compensation are contributing to this inequality. They need to find ways to reward performance without increasing pay disparities. Developing new models of compensation and governance is not easy and can only be possible through a long-term and sincere engagement with a wide set of stakeholders, such as regulators, academics, and representatives of workers.

They want to do away with merit.  And introduce something more akin to communism.  Where everyone is equal.  No matter the value of their work.  People have tried this.  In North KoreaCuba.  And the former Soviet Union.  Note the word ‘former’ in that last one.  There’s a reason why it’s former.  No one wanted to do the harder jobs if they didn’t get paid any more for the additional brain power or risk.  And those stuck carrying the weight of their comrades?  They just didn’t bust their ass in the process.  And that’s why the Soviet Union is a ‘former’ union.

But this is what the Occupy Wall Street people want.  Force people to do those harder jobs.  But pay these wealth creators no more than them.  Even if they only work at a Starbucks.  Or collect government assistance.

The Egalitarian Polices of the Great Society Destroyed the Economy in the Seventies

So an Ivy League publication doesn’t understand business.  But you know who does?  Al Jazeera.  Their conclusions are all wrong but at least they get a lot of stuff right along the way (see The instability of inequality by Nouriel Roubini posted 10/14/2011 on Al Jazeera).

While these protests have no unified theme, they express in different ways the serious concerns of the world’s working and middle classes about their prospects in the face of the growing concentration of power among economic, financial, and political elites. The causes of their concern are clear enough: high unemployment and underemployment in advanced and emerging economies; inadequate skills and education for young people and workers to compete in a globalised world; resentment against corruption, including legalised forms like lobbying; and a sharp rise in income and wealth inequality in advanced and fast-growing emerging-market economies.

Of course, the malaise that so many people feel cannot be reduced to one factor. For example, the rise in inequality has many causes: the addition of 2.3 billion Chinese and Indians to the global labour force, which is reducing the jobs and wages of unskilled blue-collar and off-shorable white-collar workers in advanced economies; skill-biased technological change; winner-take-all effects; early emergence of income and wealth disparities in rapidly growing, previously low-income economies; and less progressive taxation.

American industry is uncompetitive.  That appears to be the problem.  That’s why there are fewer jobs.  So people who earn income via their labor are being priced out of the market by their generous pay and benefit packages.  But people who earn their income via capital always have a place to invest capital.  Capital is capital.  It is always competitive.  That’s why more wealth is accumulating to the rich.  Because they haven’t killed their golden goose.  Like unions have killed unskilled American manufacturing.

This doesn’t explain those kids on Wall Street, though.  The ones with college degrees.  Their problem is their degrees.  Many of them are worthless.  Probably a lot of English majors out there.  Or have degrees in sociology.  Anthropology.  Philosophy.  Women studies.  Etc.  But there just aren’t a lot of stores out there selling this stuff.

The increase in private- and public-sector leverage and the related asset and credit bubbles are partly the result of inequality. Mediocre income growth for everyone but the rich in the last few decades opened a gap between incomes and spending aspirations. In Anglo-Saxon countries, the response was to democratise credit – via financial liberalisation – thereby fuelling a rise in private debt as households borrowed to make up the difference. In Europe, the gap was filled by public services – free education, health care, etc. – that were not fully financed by taxes, fuelling public deficits and debt. In both cases, debt levels eventually became unsustainable.

Too much debt is never a good thing.  But those bubbles weren’t the result of inequality.  They were the result of trying to make everyone equal.  Extending credit to the credit unworthyPutting people into houses who had no business owning a house.  That was the fault of irresponsible government policy.  Not inequality.  Just like the free education, health care, etc.  We didn’t have these problems when those things weren’t free.  And when only people who could qualify for a mortgage were getting mortgages.

The problem is not new. Karl Marx oversold socialism, but he was right in claiming that globalisation, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labour to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct. As he argued, unregulated capitalism can lead to regular bouts of over-capacity, under-consumption, and the recurrence of destructive financial crises, fuelled by credit bubbles and asset-price booms and busts.

Karl Marx was wrong.  At least, he hasn’t been proven right yet.  And many have tried.  The Soviets.  The Chinese.  The North Koreans.  The Cubans.  Marxism has been an abject failure.  And those busts were made worse by monetary policy trying to eliminate them.  If credit wasn’t so cheap and mortgage standards weren’t so low there would have been no housing bubble.  It was government policy that encouraged people to accumulate debt.  Not inequality.  Government is just bad at running things.  Which is why Marxism has been an abject failure.

Thus, the rise of the social-welfare state was a response (often of market-oriented liberal democracies) to the threat of popular revolutions, socialism, and communism as the frequency and severity of economic and financial crises increased. Three decades of relative social and economic stability then ensued, from the late 1940’s until the mid-1970’s, a period when inequality fell sharply and median incomes grew rapidly.

Some of the lessons about the need for prudential regulation of the financial system were lost in the Reagan-Thatcher era, when the appetite for massive deregulation was created in part by the flaws in Europe’s social-welfare model. Those flaws were reflected in yawning fiscal deficits, regulatory overkill, and a lack of economic dynamism that led to sclerotic growth then and the eurozone’s sovereign-debt crisis now.

Government spending exploded during the Sixties.  They printed so much money in the Seventies to pay for the obligations of the Sixties that Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold.  So he could print more money.  Giving us record high interest rates.  And record high inflation.  Weak GDP.  And high unemployment.  This was all because of the egalitarian polices of the Great Society.  They destroyed the economy in the Seventies.  Reagan and Thatcher brought back prosperity.  By stopping the insanity.  They cut taxes.  Cut regulation.  And the economy took off.  It’s the reversal of the Reagan-Thatcher policies that are returning the economy to the malaise of the Seventies.  Both in the UK.  And the USA.

In the Soviet Union all of the Good Stuff came from the Decadent, Capitalist West via the Black Market

But this socialist/communist claptrap is what they’re teaching in American universities.  These protestors don’t understand the role of capital in the modern economy.  The entrepreneurial spirit.  Risk management.  They don’t understand anything other than that they weren’t born into privilege.  And this just pisses them off (see OWS’ Program? Distract From Dems’ Failures by Charles Krauthammer posted 10/14/2011 on Investors.com).

To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.

Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program — less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt.

What’s the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich. Then? Haven’t gotten that far. No postprandial plans.

It’s ironic that that they hate corporate America but love to indulge in their products.

During the Cold War.  When there was full employment behind the Iron Curtain.  In the tractor factories.  People stood in line all day to buy soap and toilet paper at reasonable prices.  But they bought Levi’s on the black market.  And anything else they wanted that wasn’t dreary and drab.  Or scratchy and caustic.  Whatever the price.  Why?  Because all of the good stuff came from the decadent, capitalist West.

These protestors need to read a little history of what it was like when there was true egalitarianism.  It sucked.  That’s why Soviets defected to the U.S.  And Americans didn’t defect to the U.S.S.R.  Because capitalism was better.  People lived better under capitalism than they did under communism.

The President of the United States should not use the Risk of Civil War as a Reelection Strategy

As Krauthammer says in his column, this Occupy Wall Street movement has political motives.  Obama is following in the shoes of Jimmy Carter.  The economy is in the toilet.  His policies have all failed.  And he has no chance of reelection based on his record.  So he is using the class warfare card.  Which is irresponsible.  And dangerous.

Obama is opening a Pandora’s box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation’s leader.

Mobs are easy to create.  But they take on a life of their own.  Are dangerous.  And unpredictable.  The president of the United States should not use the risk of civil war as a reelection strategy.  Because it’s not exactly constitutional.  Or in keeping with the oath of office he swore.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 7th, 2011

As far as Protest Movements go these Tea Party People can be Rather Boring

Everyone who follows the mainstream media knows that the Tea Party is nothing more than a bunch of radical racists out to raise hell and get into your face if you dare to disagree with them (see Glenn Beck on the Mall by Lexington posted 8/29/2010 on The Economist).

It is indeed both presumptuous and preposterous of Mr Beck to claim the mantle of Martin Luther King and the civil-rights movement for his own noxious style of politics. However, not seeing is believing: I saw no evidence at all of racism at this particular event. It was a good-natured, somewhat solemn, gathering of mostly white and well-to-do people from all over America who for some reason or other saw fit to respond to Mr Beck’s plea to show up to “restore” America’s honour. The main focus of the formal ceremony consisted of paying tribute to the country’s servicemen and veterans, of whom there were many in the crowd.

This was Glenn Beck‘s rally back in 2010.  Probably the most hated man in the Tea Party movement.  Those on the Left belittle and mock this man to no end.  Because they think he is dangerous.  Incendiary.  A racist of the first degree.  If so, where was the racism?  The radicalism?  The in your face anger?

As far as protest movements go these Tea Party people can be rather boring.

The Mark of a True Liberal is Being Generous with other People’s Private Property

So, yes, the Tea Party appears to be rather boring when they protest.  Can’t say that for the Occupy Wall Street people, though.  They’ve been pretty provocative.  Breaking the law.  Getting arrested.  And being really, really annoying (see For Some, Wall Street Is Main Street by Cara Buckley posted 10/7/2011 on The New York Times).

Panini and Company normally sells sandwiches to tourists in Lower Manhattan and the residents nearby, but in recent days its owner, Stacey Tzortzatos, has also become something of a restroom monitor. Protesters from Occupy Wall Street, who are encamped in a nearby park, have been tromping in by the scores, and not because they are hungry.

Ms. Tzortzatos’s tolerance for the newcomers finally vanished when the sink was broken and fell to the floor. She installed a $200 lock on the bathroom to thwart nonpaying customers, angering the protesters.

“I’m looked at as the enemy of the people,” she said.

I don’t recall the destruction of private party at any Tea Party rallies.

A sandwich shop is not a big corporation.  It’s a small business.  A Mom and Pop type store.  I don’t recall this demand on their list of demands.  Free access to use and destroy Mom and Pop stores everywhere for their exploitation of the working class.  All one or two that work for them.

Mothers have grown weary of navigating strollers through the maze of barricades that have sprouted along the streets. Toddlers have been roused from sleep just after bedtime by chanting and pounding drums.

Heather Amato, 35, a psychologist who lives near the protest area, said she felt disturbed by some of the conduct of the protesters. She said she had to shield her toddler from the sight of women at the park dancing topless.

I can’t understand why these people would have trouble getting a job.  Chanting and pounding drums at all hours of the night.  And girls getting so drunk that they let the Bobbsey Twins out in public.  (If you ever been on spring break you know you usually don’t see the girls come out until after vast amounts of alcohol have been consumed.  ).  If that doesn’t say responsibility and punctuality I don’t know what does.

The site of the protests, Zuccotti Park, is privately owned but open to the public. Melissa Corley, a spokeswoman for Brookfield Office Properties, which owns the park, said in a statement that sanitation conditions had reached “unacceptable levels.”

If you’ve never been to an outdoor concert let me clarify.  There’s trash everywhere.  And lots of pee.  Perhaps even some poop.  Sad to say I knew of a guy in construction that liked to leave ‘surprises’ for his coworkers.  In a trench.  In a dumpster.  In an attic.  He just thought it was funny.  He was eventually fired.  But I don’t think it was poop-related.  I believe he failed a drug test.

Several businesses said they had no choice but to respond to the influx of protesters by closing bathrooms.

Mike Keane, who owns O’Hara’s Restaurant and Pub, said that theft of bathroom soap and toilet paper had skyrocketed and that one protester used the bathroom but failed to properly use the toilet.

Both Ms. Tzortzatos, owner of Panini & Co., and Mr. Keane said that the protesters rarely bought anything, yet hurled curses when they were told that only paying customers could use their bathrooms.

Steve Zamfotis, manager of another nearby store, Steve’s Pizza, said: “They are pests. They go to the bathroom and don’t even buy a cup of coffee.”

Mr. Zamfotis said he closed his bathroom after it repeatedly flooded from protesters’ bathing there.

Stealing toilet paper?  That would explain some of the unacceptable sanitary conditions in the park.

Speaking of poop, this reminds me of another poop anecdote.  The same guy who told me about that construction worker had some port-a-johns on job site.  Apparently he pissed off some workers.  After which they, too, didn’t use the toilet facilities properly.  They didn’t lift the lids.  They just pooped on them.  Some people protest in strange and mysterious ways.  Which is what I’m guessing happened here.  Either on the toilet seat.  Or, perhaps, on the floor.  And that reminds me of yet another poop anecdote.  I knew a lawyer who did that once.  He was angry at his landlord.  So he pooped in the stairwell.  I guess that showed her.  Just like these protestors showed this restaurant owner.

Kira Annika, a spokeswoman for the protesters, wrote in an e-mail that she had not heard of such complaints. “We were under the impression that the local business community appreciated our patronage and the attention that we give them,” she wrote.

Still, in a widely distributed pamphlet, “Welcome To Liberty Plaza: Home of Occupy Wall Street,” participants were given explicit instructions on where to find relief.

“After you’ve dined,” the pamphlet reads, “feel free to refresh yourself in the restrooms of neighboring businesses like Burger King and McDonalds without feeling obligated to buy anything.”

A manager of the Burger King in question said he had no trouble with the protesters, though a maintenance worker at the McDonald’s, Deon Cook, said that in recent days he had been forced to clean the bathroom every five minutes.

How generous they are with other people’s private property.  The mark of a true liberal.  I’m sure they would be just as generous with their own private property.  And welcome strangers into their homes to use their toilets.

Yves Delva, a manager at a nearby Modell’s Sporting Goods, said sales had been brisk for sleeping bags, sweatshirts, hand warmers sweatpants and goggles — that last item presumably bought to protect the eyes from pepper spray, which has been used by police officers in response to the demonstrations. “We’ve been profiting,” Mr. Delva said.

Well this is strange.  This is capitalism.  And these are products of corporations.  I guess they’ll surrender their principles when it gets cold and wet.  Probably even be willing to go back to their parent’s house.  To a warm, dry bed.  And heat.  Once the temperatures fall.  And the rainy season sets in.  One thing for sure.  They ain’t the protestors their parents were.

The Problem with the Occupy Wall Street people is that they are not more Tea Party-Like

And it’s just not me saying this.  Even one of their supporters says this (see Tea Party Lessons for the Left by Michael Tomasky posted 10/4/2011 on Yahoo! News).

But now comes Occupy Wall Street. Is the cosmic score about to be evened? Maybe. But paradoxically, only if this new left protest movement embraces some crucial lessons from the Tea Party movement—and if it outgrows certain impulses from 1968 that continue to loom large in the left’s imagination.

… To succeed, it would have to model itself on 1963, not 1968. And I’m not confident that any left-wing protest movement today can understand that.

What do I mean? In 1963, we had the March on Washington. No one threw anything. There were no drum circles. The protesters of 1963 said to America, “We are like you; in fact, we are you.”…The protesters of 1968 said to America, “We are not like you; in fact, we hate you…”

What changed, between 1963 and 1968? This: In 1963, protest was undertaken for the purpose of winning. By 1968, protest became a carnival of self-expression. Winning was the stated goal, but deep down, emotionally, it wasn’t really the goal: sticking it to the man was. Imagine that the SCLC-led protesters of 1963 had indulged in self-expression, and ask yourself whether they would have succeeded. I think I need say no more on that.

So these protesters are getting it wrong.  They’re protesting for the fun of protesting.  Not for some deep underlying philosophical principle.  It appears you can summarize all of their grievances and demands with one word.  PARTY!  Sort of the way it was in 1968.  I guess.

And this is where today’s protesters need to steal a page from the Tea Party activists. I beg, plead, implore, importune: Get some spokespeople out there for the cause who are just regular Americans…

The genius of the Tea Party movement lies entirely in the fact that its public faces were, by and large, regular Americans. How many stories did we all read about the homemaker from Wilkes-Barre and the IT guy from Dubuque who’d never been involved in politics in their lives and never thought they would be until the Tea Party came along? These people resonate with other Americans: “She’s my neighbor; he’s just like me.” That gave the Tea Party movement incredible force and made the media take it seriously, and making the media take you seriously is, alas, at least half the battle in our age.

The OWS movement is part of the way there. The “We Are the 99 Percent” trope is powerful. It is true. But the movement has to prove that it really is the 99 percent. It has to win middle America, and the way to win middle America is to be middle America. For all the Seattle-ish longhairs down in Zucotti Park—whom the mainstream media and the right wing will undoubtedly highlight—there are, to be sure, homemakers in Wilkes-Barre and IT guys in Dubuque who sympathize. Find them. Put them out there. Get them on cable.

So if I understand this correctly, the problem with the answer to the Tea Party, the Occupy Wall Street people, is that they are not more Tea Party-like.  They’re not as polite.  As law abiding.  As clean.  As respectable (you don’t see many bare-breasted women dancing at Tea Party events).  So they need to be more like this.  And less like themselves.  More like respectable grownups.  And less like overindulgent children.  Who have but one thing on their mind.  PARTY!

The Tea Party Respects the Rule of Law and Private Property Rights

Occupy Wall Street is not the Tea Party.  For the Tea Party is interested in the Rule of Law.  The Constitution.  They are concerned that the nation is drifting too far away from the intent of the Founding Fathers.  Those guiding principles that have made the United States that shining city upon the hill.  The ultimate destination for emigrants everywhere.  Whereas the Occupy Wall Street People want bigger government and more free stuff.  And, of course, they want to do one other thing.  PARTY (see The Left’s Pathetic Tea Party by Rich Lowry posted 10/4/2011 on National Review Online)!

In the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Left thinks it might have found its own tea party…

This is a sign either of desperation to find anyone on the left still energized after three years of Hope and Change, or of a lack of standards, or both. The Left’s tea party is a juvenile rabble, a woolly-headed horde that has been laboring to come up with one concrete demand on the basis of its — in the words of one sympathetic writer — “horizontal, autonomous, leaderless, modified-consensus-based system with roots in anarchist thought.”

The Right’s tea party had its signature event at a rally at the Lincoln Memorial where everyone listened politely to patriotic exhortations and picked up their trash and went home. The Left’s tea party closed down a major thoroughfare in New York City — the Brooklyn Bridge — and saw its members arrested in the hundreds.

The Tea Party respects the Rule of Law.  And private property rights.  That’s why they’re not pigs when visiting other people’s property.  They don’t poop and pee wherever they want.  Disrupt traffic.  Or get arrested.  I mean, if you had to have either the Tea Party people or the Occupy Wall Street people be your next door neighbor, who would you choose?

What was remarkable about the Right’s tea party is that it depended on solid burghers who typically don’t have the time or inclination to protest anything. Occupy Wall Street is a project of people who do little besides protest. It’s all down to a standard operating procedure: the guitars, the drums, the street theater, the age-old chants…

The New York Times quoted one Occupy Wall Street veteran telling a newcomer: “It doesn’t matter what you’re protesting. Just protest.” That captures the coherence of the exercise, which is a giant, ideologically charged, post-adolescent sleepover complete with face paint and pizza deliveries.

Again, I think we can sum up their grievances and demands with one word.  PARTY!

Now it’s Time for Them to Stop Thinking about Themselves and Just go Home

There’s an expression that goes like this.  Don’t sh*t where you eat.  A vulgar expression, yes, but it’s kind of apropos.  It means you don’t have sex with someone at work.  Because if the relationship goes sour, as they almost always do when you fool around at work, it can become very awkward around each other after the break up.  Which can be very unpleasant.  And strain the working relationship.

Now the ‘having a job’ part of this analogy has nothing to do with the Occupy Wall Street people.  It’s more of a literal meaning.  If you’re trying to win the hearts and minds of the people around you, well, you can’t go pooping all over their private property.  Nothing says ‘I hate you more’ than an unwelcomed poop.  And strains the solidarity relationship.

Of course, these indiscriminate poopers don’t care about anyone but themselves.  They protest not for an overriding principle.  But to get free stuff for themselves.  And, of course, to PARTY!  That’s why they have long overstayed their welcome in this neighborhood.  Now it’s time for them to stop thinking about themselves.  And just go home.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #86: “Smug, all-knowing condescension camouflages a vacuous philosophical basis.” –Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 6th, 2011

Ronald Reagan had a B.A. in Economics, Served in the Army, was President of SAG and Served Two Terms as California Governor

The Left hated Ronald Reagan.  They belittled him.  Made snarky comments like ‘he’s just an actor’.  That he wasn’t smart enough to be president.  And not qualified.  For all he could do was give a good speech.  Because he was just an actor.

Yes, he was an actor.  But he did go to college.  Had a B.A. in economics and sociology.   Enlisted in the Army and served in the cavalry.  Earned a commission in the Reserve Officer Corps just before World War II.  Served stateside during World War II making training films for the army.  Severely nearsighted, the Army classified him for limited service only.  Which meant he couldn’t serve overseas.  He served 8 years as president of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG).  During the height of the Red Scare.  Which cemented his anti-communist credentials.  (Yes, there were communists in Hollywood.  As well as in the FDR administration.)  Hosted General Electric Theater for 8 years.  He visited General Electric R&D facilities.  About 135.  Saw job creation up close during his tenure with GE.  Helping to hone his economic views.  He served two terms as California governor.  During the peak of the Vietnam anti-war protests.  When he gave his concession speak at the 1976 Republican Convention, delegates mumbled that they had nominated the wrong man (Gerald Ford).  At the age of 69, Reagan became president.  Despite snarky comments like ‘he’s too old to be president’.

So Reagan had the education.  And a long list of experience on his resume.  Experience that took him through some of the most defining moments of American history.  And spent 8 years as governor of the most populous state.  Eight years of solid executive experience.  So he was every bit qualified for office.  The people who attacked him just didn’t like his ideology.  And the fact that he was very good in elected office.  So they used smug, all-knowing condescension to belittle him.  And it worked well.  For they did not like Reagan on American college campuses.  Where kids parroted what they heard in the media.  And on their favorite shows.  But didn’t have an original thought in their heads.

Incidentally, Barack Obama got a B.S. in political science from Columbia.  And a law degree from Harvard.  He served 3 terms as Illinois state senator.  And 2/3 of a term as U.S. senator.  He had no military experience.  No executive experience.  And his only other experience was confined to academe.  Or law.  Yet those who said Ronald Reagan was not qualified to be president had no problem with Barack Obama.  Go figure.

George W. Bush had an M.B.A. from Harvard, served in the Texas ANG, ran businesses and served two terms as Texas Governor

But compared to George W. Bush, they held Ronald Reagan in great esteem.  For the Left just flat out called Bush an idiot.  And simply too stupid to be president.

For being stupid Bush was pretty well educated.  He had an B.A. in history from Yale.  A good thing for presidents to know.  History.  And he earned an M.B.A. from Harvard.  The only president to have one.  He served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam.  He then worked in the oil industry.  Started up some oil exploration companies.  Bush Exploration, for one.   This merged with Spectrum 7.  Where he served as chairman.  The oil glut of the Eighties hit that company hard.  It later merged with Harken Energy.   Where he served on the board.  He helped Dad run for president.  Bought a piece of the Texas Rangers after that.  Spent five years there as the managing general partner.  Built the value of the team so well that when he sold his chunk he got uber rich.  Then he served about one and a half terms as Texas governor.

This is the man the Left said was too stupid to be president.  This man who had an M.B.A. from Harvard.  One of the most pretentious Ivy League schools.  A man who worked in the energy industry.  And understood it.  Who knew how to run a business.  And did.  Even ran a Major League baseball team.  And had some 6 years of solid executive experience as the governor of the second most populous state.  So he, too, was every bit qualified for office.  The people who attacked him just didn’t like his ideology.  And the fact that he was very good in elected office.  And in the business world.  So they used smug, all-knowing condescension to belittle him.  And it worked well.  For they did not like Bush on American college campuses either.  Where kids parroted what they heard in the media.  And on their favorite shows.  But they didn’t have an original thought in their heads.  Some things just never change.

Incidentally, Barack Obama got a B.S. in political science from Columbia.  And a law degree from Harvard.  He served 3 terms as Illinois state senator.  And 2/3 of a term as U.S. senator.  He had no military experience.  No executive experience.  And his only other experience was confined to academe.  Or law.  Yet those who said George W. Bush was not qualified to be president had no problem with Barack Obama.  Go figure.

They make their Snarky Little Comments about the Greed of Corporations while Greedily Demanding more Government Benefits

And speaking of these college geniuses, you can hear a lot of them doing what they do best.  Whining.  They’re protesting up on Wall Street.  Cause they hate capitalism.  Because their tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt hasn’t given them a high paying job.  And because they hate capitalism you know they don’t have a business degree.  Or anything that can be used in the business world.  Further, if they don’t want to be a toady to corporate America, they probably don’t have a degree that would help them gain employment with a corporation.  Like a chemistry degree.  An engineering degree.  Or a physics degree.  No.  These would have been too corporate.  And possibly too harmful to the environment.  Not to mention hard.

These protestors are living the protest life of the Sixties.  Complete with free love.  And drugs.  Which, incidentally, is why they went to college.  Not to sit in some boring-ass lectures and take exams with math on them.  And that’s why they’re so angry.  Because during difficult economic times corporations don’t have the money to waste on wasteful degrees like women’s studies.  Art.  Poetry.  French.  Anthropology.  Or some other liberal art or social science.  No.  The only high paying job opportunities for these are in academe.  Or in government.  When they are flush with taxpayer cash.  Thanks to corporations providing real jobs for taxpayers.  But when there are no real jobs, there are no tax dollars to pay for these phony baloney jobs.

So they make their snarky little comments about the greed of corporations.  About the greed of the bankers.  About the greed of Republicans.  All the while they are greedily demanding more government benefits.  Paid for by the very people they are protesting against.  While enjoying the very things these greedy corporations have given them.  They are using wireless technology to live-tweet their latest list of whines.  All technology created by the very corporations they hate.  Produced under the system they want to purge from America.  Capitalism.

If it wasn’t for Capitalism they’d be Working in a Field Somewhere for Subsistence Right Now

Look at Apple.  And Steve Jobs.  Look at what he created.  And ask yourself this.  Why Steve Jobs and not someone in Cuba?  Someone in North Korea?  Someone in the former Soviet Union?  These are three hardcore socialist regimes these protestors admire.  Who have egalitarian systems of government.  Where there is fair-shared misery.  No one lives better than anyone else.  Except those within the party apparatchik.  Which these protestors naturally assume they would be part of.  Once America became fair.  And they stripped the rich of all their wealth.  For the benefit of mankind.  And by mankind I mean these protestors.

Cuba even has a national health care system that is so impressive that Michael Moore made a movie about it.  While condemning the inferior American system.  Cuba is great.  They care about their people there.  So much so that they don’t let them leave.  For fear of the substandard love they’ll get in another nation.  Still some of these fools try to escape their utopia.  By crossing shark-infested water in some of the most unseaworthy boats.  To get to Florida.  In the USA.  To the country that the Wall Street protestors say is worse than Cuba.  If only they had iPhones in Cuba they could get their live-tweet feed from Wall Street so they would know that things are better there.  So they can stay there.  In their utopia.

Of course, it’s not better there.  And Steve Jobs wasn’t a Cuban.  He wasn’t a North Korean.  He wasn’t a Soviet.  He was an American.  An entrepreneur.  And a capitalist.  Who made Apple a rich corporation by giving us things we can’t live without.  Things we never asked for.  Things we didn’t even know about.  Until after he created them.  And he told us how cool they were.

They can make snarky, all-knowing, condescending remarks all day long about corporate greed and the evil of capitalism.  But if it wasn’t for capitalism they’d be working in a field somewhere for subsistence right now.  And the fact that they don’t know this shows how empty headed and brainwashed they are.  And what a piss-poor job our public schools and colleges are doing.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries