Victimization + Demonization + Emotion = Democrat Votes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 6th, 2014

Politics 101

Politicians Lie because they will Lose Elections if they Tell the Truth

Politicians lie.  Why?  Simple.  Politicians lie when telling the truth won’t help them win an election.

When President Obama lied the Lie of the Year he lied for a reason.  People didn’t like the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).  They did not want national health care.  And they believed that Obamacare would put them onto the path to national health care.  To allay their concerns President Obama said, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.  Period.”  The statement that became the Lie of the Year.  Because a lot of people lost the health care they had and wanted to keep.  In fact, they wrote the Affordable Care Act to make sure that would happen.  As they need to herd as many of the young and healthy into Obamacare as possible to make the thing work.  People who would pay into the program while not collecting any benefits.  So they could subsidize the old and sick.

Had the president told the people that they would lose the health care plan that they liked and wanted to keep there would have been a lot more opposition to the Affordable Care Act.  With constituents pressuring their representatives to vote against it or they would vote against them in the next election.  This is why politicians lie when they do things against the will of the people.  Because they will lose elections if they tell the truth.

Having Victims is No Good unless you have someone to Blame for their Victimization

Democrats lie a lot.  Because their policies have a long history of failure.  Especially their economic policies.  And that’s because Democrats embrace Keynesian economics with a religious fervor.  Despite Keynesian economics giving us the Great Depression, the stagflation of the Seventies, the dot-com bubble recession and the Great Recession.  No, these Keynesian disasters don’t give Democrats any reason to doubt their faith.   Because at the heart of Keynesian economics is an activist government in the private sector economy.

Democrats like to fault capitalism.  Saying unfettered capitalism is unfair.  Unfeeling.  Cruel.  And just plain mean.  So they involve themselves in the private sector economy to even the playing field.  To unrig the rigged game.  To remove the unfair, unfeeling, cruel and mean elements of unfettered capitalism.  By fettering capitalism.  And the first thing they do is identify victims of capitalism.  A secretary who pays a higher tax rate than her boss.  Warren Buffet.  Minimum wage workers who can’t earn a living wage.  And, of course, people who live in fear of losing everything because they don’t have health insurance.

Of course having victims is no good unless you have someone to blame for their victimization.  Such as the 1% who are extremely wealthy but don’t pay their ‘fair share’ of taxes.  Even though they pay over a third of all federal income taxes while totaling only 1% of the population.  Greedy business owners who’d rather pocket millions while depriving their workers from earning a living wage.  Even though most business owners are not millionaires and probably could earn more by working for someone else.  And evil corporations who force people to work against their will or lose their health insurance and other benefits.  Even though people tend to work where they receive the best pay and benefit package their skill and experience can get.  And will leave one job in a heartbeat for a job with a better pay and benefit package elsewhere.

The Affordable Care Act is an Economic Model that cannot deliver on its Promise

Once they have their victims and their villains all they need to do is pull on the heartstrings.  To generate sympathy for the victims.  While getting these same people angry at the villains.  Which they do by avoiding facts.  Instead, they tune in to people’s emotions.   Victims are sad.  And we should do something to help them from their victimization.  Villains are bad.  And we should do something to punish them.  So they demonize these villains.  Getting the people to believe that punishing them, say, with higher taxes will somehow improve their lives.  Which it won’t.  In fact, they could take all the wealth away from the 1% and imprison them but it won’t make a difference in the lives of the 99%.  For if the 1% are no longer creating wealth they would be unable to pay over a third of all federal income taxes anymore.  Requiring higher taxes on the 99%.  Or a drastic cutting of government benefits.

If people understood sound economic principles (and not the Keynesian nonsense our power-hungry politicians favor) they would not be so emotionally manipulated.  In fact, if people had a solid understanding of history they would never vote for anyone attacking capitalism.  As unfettered capitalism is the only economic system that allows people without privilege to be as successful as anyone else in the country.  Whereas the most anti-capitalistic countries have had the greatest poverty and human rights abuses.  Such as the former Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, the former Eastern Bloc countries, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.  So for emotional manipulation to work they need a not so educated public. Which is why the Democrats control public education and our universities.  And champion pre-K.  To get control of our kids as soon as possible.  To dumb them down.  And program them into good Democrat voters.

This is the formula the Democrats use to win elections.  Victimization + Demonization + Emotion = Democrat Votes.  For they can’t win by telling the truth.  Or having informed voters.  So they use their control of our educational system to make more emotionally pliable voters.  Ones that are easier to lie to.  And that they can sway with fiery rhetoric.  Which is why we have Obamacare today.  Because the Affordable Care Act is an economic model that cannot deliver on its promise.  To provide a higher quality health care to more people while costing less.  Which is impossible.  Just as it is impossible to draw a square circle.  It’s either a square.  Or a circle.  It cannot be both.  Ditto for the promise of Obamacare.  Which is why to get people to believe that it was possible to give them more for less required telling a lie so big that it was voted the Lie of the Year.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT184: “If our big Democrat-controlled cities seceded from the US to form a liberal utopia they’d all become like Detroit.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 23rd, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The President basically said he doesn’t like Representative Government

President Obama recently said that some Republicans in Congress told him in private that they agree with his policies.  And would like to vote for his policies.  To do what is right for the American people.  But they won’t because they have a primary election coming up.  And if they agree with the president that will hurt them in that election if they go up against some Tea Party candidate.  And they’re afraid what Rush Limbaugh will say.  Him and his conservative extremists.

Now think about what the president is saying.  He said that these Republicans would vote for his policies if they weren’t afraid to vote against the will of the people they represent.  For if these Republicans are afraid they will lose a primary election by voting for the president’s policies that could only mean the people they represent don’t want them voting for the president’s policies.

This is very telling.  For what the president is really saying is that he could do what he wants to do if it wasn’t for representative government.  That is the big obstacle preventing him from passing policies the people oppose.  The people.  Which is why his administration is full of czars to help write and execute policy.  Because they have no elections to worry about.  And can do things against the will of the people all day long without worrying about the consequences of doing so.

If you want to see the Result of Failed Liberal Policies just look at the Big Democrat-Controlled Cities

There’s a reason why those who want to implement liberal policies like the president have to use deceit.  The nation is about twice as conservative as it is liberal (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup).  This is why Republicans in Congress fear the Tea Party.  Because the Tea Party represent about twice as many of the people than they and their liberal friends in Congress do.

There’s a reason why the number of people who call themselves liberal has hovered around 20% for decades.  Because liberal policies are not good for America.  They are only good for the ‘connected’ class.  Those with friends in high places.  America’s aristocracy.  Who hate the Tea Party.  And most of America.  As they talk condescendingly down to them from their lofty perches in academia, the mainstream media, union leadership, Hollywood, government bureaucracies, etc.  People who are wealthier than most.  Who like to force people to live the way they want them to live through the heavy hand of government.  While exempting themselves from the laws they pass for us.  Like Obamacare.

If you want to see the result of their failed policies just look at the big Democrat-controlled cities.  Like Detroit.  Detroit was controlled by Democrats for decades.  Democrats there ushered in their liberal utopia.  They raised taxes so much to fund a massive city government that they chased business out of the city.  While layer upon layer of costly regulatory policies helped chase even more businesses away.  And with the jobs gone the people soon followed.  Now they have half the population they once did.  With their tax base imploded they are now left with unfunded pension and retiree health care obligations for their public sector that can never pay.  Sending them into bankruptcy.

Just imagine all the Good that could come from Paying an Entry-Level Worker $75,000

There are a lot of people on the left that want a federal bailout for Detroit.  They want people who have long suffered the high taxation and the job-killing legislation that caused Detroit’s problems in the first place to bail out the city.  People who do not benefit from those generous pension and retiree health insurance benefits.  And who will not benefit from a bailout.  They will only see higher taxes.  More federal debt.  Or more inflation to eat away the money THEY saved for their own retirements (if the government chooses to monetize the debt).  Just so the people in the public sector can enjoy better and longer retirements than they will enjoy.  Because they’ll have to work closer to their own death as they will never be able to save enough to enjoy a ‘public sector’ retirement if they have to pay for the public sector’s retirement as well as their own.

Here’s a thought, why not have the other big Democrat-controlled cities bail out Detroit?  Oh, wait a minute, they can’t.  Because their public sectors have left them greatly indebted, too.  These cities are irresponsibly running up debts that they never will be able to repay.  No matter how much they raise taxes and implement new taxes.  There’s never enough.  In fact, in creating their little liberal utopias they have chased a lot of business, and their tax base, out of their cities.  Yet these cities vote overwhelmingly Democrat.  Perhaps these cities should band together.  If they are so much more enlightened than the rest of the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals in this country perhaps they should secede from the US.  Declare themselves city-states.  And join a federation with other Democrat city-states.  Then they can live like they want to live.  And tell the rest of us (the 80% or so who don’t think like they do) to go someplace warm but not at all pleasant.

They could raise taxes on everyone to really redistribute wealth.  They can do away with drug laws.  Lessen the severity of our criminal laws so there isn’t such a disparity of offenders in our jails.  Make it a hate crime to criticize anyone who isn’t a conservative.  Have government-funded birth control, abortion and morning-after pills.  Government-funded housing.  Government-funded food.  And government-funded health care.  They can outlaw profits and force businesses to maximize the social good.  Raise the minimum wage to a true living wage.  Say, $75,000 a year.  Just imagine all the good that could come from paying an entry-level worker $75,000.  There would be no more student loan debt.  For there would be no reason to go to college to become engineers, doctors, nurses, dentists, paramedics, pharmacists, etc.  Wouldn’t that be lovely?  Wouldn’t you love to work and live in a city where you could do any kind of drug wherever you wanted?  Even while you were cooking food in an entry-level job?  Where there was no punishment for breaking the law?  And no one was so puritanical to tell us not to have sex as often or with as many people as we wanted?  Wouldn’t women love this?  Sure, there would be an epidemic of venereal disease but there would be free health care to treat that (if anyone still worked hard to learn to become a doctor, nurse, dentist, paramedic or pharmacist, that is).  Can you just see these utopian city-states?

Actually, you can see it right now.  For I dare say anyone wanting to open a business or raise a family would NOT want to do so in a city like this.  The jobs would leave first.  Then the people.  Imploding the tax base.  Until you’d have nothing but Detroits dotting the landscape of this utopian federation of liberal city-states.  This is what the president and those in the 20% want.  While of course exempting themselves from this world.  Living in their gated fortresses.  Comfortably.  Where they’ll blame the people who abandoned their utopian city-states as unpatriotic.  Who wouldn’t have fled if it wasn’t for the Tea Party.  Rush Limbaugh.  And, of course, George W. Bush.  Who the left will never tire of hating.  Or blaming.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Political Promises, Lies and the Advancement of an Political Agenda

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 11th, 2013

Politics 101

Government Helps the Poor by Keeping them Poor so they Remain Dependent on Government

Politicians lie.  Everyone knows this.  It’s a running joke in comedy movies and television programs.  And a common plotline in dramas.  Because politicians will say and promise anything to get elected.  Which is their primary and only objective.  Winning an election.  And the needs and wants of the people are secondary.  Things they can easily brush aside once ascending to elected office.  Because they don’t really care about the people.  At least, they don’t care for them as much as they care for themselves.

And once they’re in office the promises keep coming.  To help them win the next election.  And to keep the size of government growing.  As well as the amount of taxes they collect.  Which gives them wealth.  And power.  The ultimate goal in running for elected office.  That’s why they sneer at the concept of limited government.  And tax cuts.  Because the less government we have the less wealth and power they enjoy.  For if we really are the self-reliant people of the Founding what need do we have for an expanding government?

Of course the answer to that question is we would have little need for an expanding government.  For we can earn our pay and take care of ourselves.  And our families.  The way Americans did before Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Barack Obama.  Men who do not like that independent spirit.  And will use a host of arguments to condemn it.  It’s not fair being their favorite.  Because who can argue against being fair?  So everything they do is about leveling the playing field.  To make sure the rich pay their fair share.  And to help the little guy.  By making him dependent on government.  And perpetually poor.  So they will remain dependent on government.  So they can keep taking care of these poor.

Government rarely chooses Tax-Cutting for Stimulus as Cutting Taxes doesn’t Increase the Size of Government

LBJ declared a War on Poverty.  Justifying a huge increase in federal spending starting the Sixties.  And after spending untold billions to eradicate poverty what did we get?  Not much.  We still have poverty.  And the government spends more with each passing year to alleviate the suffering of the impoverished.  But it never goes away.  Poverty.  And the government nurtures it.  Protects it.  By making it more attractive to stay on a meager government assistance instead of going to work.  And building a career.  Doing something you love.  While leaving your mark on the world.  Instead we get ever increasing federal spending.  And a permanent underclass the government can be savior to.  You see they don’t want to win the War on Poverty.  Because if they win it then we won’t need them anymore.

The greatest killer of poverty is a job.  People gainfully employed can provide themselves food, shelter, etc.  They can have clean drinking water.  And heat in the winter.  It’s only the unemployed who look at food, shelter and heat as sought after luxuries.  For people with jobs are those self-reliant people.  Who provide tax dollars instead of consuming them.  This is no secret.  So it would follow that the best thing to do during a recession is to make it as easy as possible to create jobs.  You do that by lowering taxes.  And cutting regulations.  Not by raising taxes.  Or adding regulatory costs.  And you sure don’t pass a quasi national health care plan like Obamacare.

Also, history has shown that Keynesian stimulus spending does not pull economies out of recession.  If it did Ronald Reagan would not have won in a landslide against Jimmy Carter.  And Europe would not be in a sovereign debt crisis.  Keynesians know this.  But they can’t pass up the opportunity to increase federal spending.  So they promise lower unemployment rates and higher GDP numbers if only Congress does the right thing and “pass this stimulus bill.”  And when it doesn’t work they have two predictable explanations.  They didn’t spend enough.  And that even they didn’t realize how bad their predecessor destroyed the economy.  Calling the recession du jour the worst since the Great Depression.  Covering their lies about ending the recession with statements like “things would have been worse if we didn’t act.”  And though they didn’t reduce unemployment they’ll make incredulous claims like “we saved 800,000 jobs with this bold action.”  Predictable.  For their primary objective isn’t to end any recession.  It is to exploit the crisis to advance their agenda.  Basically, increasing the size of government.  And we know this because there are two ways to put more money into people’s pockets to stimulate the economy.  You can cut taxes so they have more money to spend.  Or you can tax, borrow and print money so the government can spend more.  Very rarely do they ever choose the tax-cutting route.  Because the tax-cutting way works against their agenda of increasing the size of government.

Politicians Promise and Lie to the Young and Naïve to Advance a Political Agenda

And speaking of Obamacare President Obama promised the American people that if you liked your private health insurance plan you could keep it.  And the cost of that health care plan would go down.  Because they had a massive convoluted health care plan that was going to give health care to everyone.  Increase the quality of health care from what it is now.  And it was going to be less expensive.  Which was a lie.  Because you can’t have more of anything for less money.  Life just doesn’t work that way.  As they implement Obamacare its taxes and regulations are forcing business owners to push people from full-time to part-time.  So they aren’t forced into providing mandated health insurance plans.  Some even have no choice but to drop their health care coverage for all of their employees.  Because their health care costs went up.  Not down.  And they’re predicting doctor shortages.  Because the only cost savings they can get is by forcing people to work for less in the health care industry.  So they’re leaving.  Under Obamacare there will be higher costs, longer wait times, rationing, denial of services and lower quality.  Everything they promised wouldn’t happen.  And everything critics said would happen.  So are the proponents of Obamacare just so utterly ignorant?  Or were they lying through their teeth because they just wanted to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy?  With an agenda to increase the size of government one has to go with lying through their teeth.

President Obama blamed George W. Bush for the world hating America.  When he became president he no longer projected American power.  Instead he wanted to talk to our enemies.  To negotiate with them.  He even dropped words from official usage.  Like the War on Terror.  To make our enemies like us.  Because people like people who aren’t bullies.  And that was what George W. Bush was.  A bully.  So President Obama warmed up to the Islamic world.  So the Islamic world would warm up to us.  Even announcing withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan early in his administration.  Ending the war on you-know-what.  So he could use that money for Obamacare.  Promising the American people the world would be a safer place.  Even passing on an opportunity to help overthrow the government in Iran.  America’s greatest enemy.  Instead, he helped people overthrow a couple of our allies.  Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.  And Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.  Who since the Iraq war had been an ally in the War on Terror.  And the thanks for this new Islam-friendly American policy?  They killed our ambassador in Benghazi along with three other Americans.  Al Qaeda is now in Libya.  And the Muslim Brotherhood is in Egypt.  And it looks like al Qaeda is now in Syria.  Another enemy of the United States the people were trying to overthrow that President Obama chose not to help.  The Middle East may burn now.  Making the world a more dangerous place.  But the president got what he wanted.  All that money we were spending overseas they can now spend at home.  Rewarding friends and campaign contributors.  As well as buying votes.

And now they are calling for tighter gun control measures.  Greater background checks.  And a national gun register.  To protect the kids they say.  So another Newtown massacre doesn’t happen.  Even though they themselves will admit that every measure they proposed thus far would not have stopped the shooter at Newton.  Aurora.  Tucson.  Virginia Tech.  Or any other shooting where some mentally unsound person killed random strangers.  These people didn’t kill because guns made them kill.  They killed because they were sick.  And we didn’t protect society by institutionalizing these people.  The only thing we could have done to stop them once they started shooting we didn’t do.  Having someone armed in these ‘gun-free’ zones.  For these sick people shoot unarmed innocents until someone with a gun arrives on the scene to shoot back.  So arming teachers may save children from another Newtown.  While everything they proposed thus far will do absolutely nothing to prevent a future Newton.  Yet they press for further restrictions on gun ownership.  And if it won’t make children safer one wonders why they want to exploit these shootings to advance their anti-gun-ownership agenda.  As they are interested in acquiring greater wealth and power one would have to assume it’s the power.  Perhaps making them feel more all-powerful if they can actually nullify the Second Amendment.

So politicians promise and lie to advance an agenda.  Which is why the young typically vote for those who promise and lie so much.  The liberal Democrats.  As the young are naïve and easy to lie to.  While older people tend to vote Republican.  For they are older.  They have heard all of the promises and lies before.  And they’re wiser.  Which comes with age.  Which is why the liberal Democrats get them while they’re young. For it’s hard to keep them once they gain knowledge and experience.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Hugo Chavez is Dead but the Bizarre Conspiracy Theories live On

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 17th, 2013

Week in Review

The United Nations isn’t too happy about President Obama’s drone policy.  Killing suspected terrorists anywhere in the world.  As well as a few innocent bystanders here or there.  It smacks a bit of imperialism.  And it may be a little extralegal.  But apparently terrorists and innocent bystanders aren’t the only people President Obama is signaling out for special treatment.  What they call extreme prejudice in the covert ops business.  Apparently he’s looking at presidential candidates, too.  At least, according to Venezuela’s Maduro (see Venezuela’s Maduro accuses U.S. of “plot” to kill rival by Daniel Wallis posted 3/17/2013 on Reuters).

Venezuela’s acting president urged U.S. President Barack Obama to stop what he called a plot by the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency to kill his opposition rival and trigger a coup ahead of an April 14 election.

Nicolas Maduro said the plan was to blame the murder on the OPEC nation’s government and to “fill Venezuelans with hate” as they prepare to vote following the death of socialist leader Hugo Chavez.

Maduro first mentioned a plot against his rival, Henrique Capriles, last week. He blamed it on former Bush administration officials Roger Noriega and Otto Reich. Both rejected the claim as untrue, outrageous and defamatory.

“I call on President Obama – Roger Noriega, Otto Reich, officials at the Pentagon and at the CIA are behind a plan to assassinate the right-wing presidential candidate to create chaos,” Maduro said in a TV interview broadcast on Sunday…

Capriles, who kicked off the opposition’s bid to drum up support with big rallies in the provinces over the weekend, said Maduro would be to blame if anything happened to him.

No matter what you think about President Obama or his liberal use of drones to kill people this is a pretty outrageous claim.  First of all, the Left loved Hugo Chavez.  And they don’t come further left than President Obama.  He’s trying to take the United States in the direction of Venezuela.  So he wouldn’t kill the guy that wasn’t a socialist to foment chaos to bring down the one that was.  He would just do it to bring down the right-wing candidate.  If he did that sort of thing.  Which, of course, he doesn’t.  Unless Capriles was a member of an al Qaeda cell.  Or he had the misfortune of being too close to someone who was.  Then all bets are off.

I’m joking, of course.  It’s probably what Capriles said.  If anything happens to him to cause him to lose the election it will probably not be the fault of President Obama.  But the fault of the one who wins the election.  Who may use some campaign tactics that may be a bit extralegal.  Let’s just hope it doesn’t come to that.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

FT118: ” It’s better to have rich investors risk their wealth than having the government risk our taxes.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 18th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

It wasn’t the Private Investors who lost Half a Billion Dollars on Solyndra

It takes money to create jobs.  Some conveniently forget this fact when the politicians want to take money away from rich people who got rich by creating jobs.  But the politicians always remember this fact when they want to ‘invest’ our tax money into projects to create jobs.  When they want to spend our taxes they then fully understand the concept that it takes money to create jobs.  Funny how that works.

Also funny is that the projects the politicians want to invest in are not projects the rich investors want to invest in.  Because it’s their wealth they’re risking they are a little choosier in deciding where to invest it.  So they don’t invest in these losers the politicians champion.  For even though these politicians are Ivy League graduates who are smarter than everyone else they only like to risk other people’s money.  Unless they have inside information.  Such as pending legislation that will affect the market.  Then they’ll invest their own money.  But that’s the only time.  For as smart as these Ivy League graduates are they have little understanding of free market capitalism.  Or what it takes to be an entrepreneur.  And have no idea how to evaluate an investment opportunity without having inside information.

Still, politicians are so arrogant to believe that they are smarter than the market.  And that if they ‘wisely’ invest our tax money that they can do a better job than those who risk their own money.  People the politicians believe aren’t smart enough to make the best and wisest investments.  Despite their having gotten rich doing just that.  Making wise investments.  For example, it wasn’t the private investors who lost half a billion dollars on Solyndra.  For they saw the only thing keeping the solar industry afloat were government subsidies.  And any industry that requires government subsidies is not likely ever to earn a profit.  So they said ‘no’ to Solyndra and put their money in what they deemed wiser investments.  While the government invested in Solyndra.  Because they saw that as the ‘wiser’ investment.  Only to lose a half a billion of our tax dollars in the process.  Yup.  When it comes to making smart investments the politicians are regular ‘geniuses’.  And by that I mean they are actually the opposite of geniuses.  I was using sarcasm.

Politicians lose Hundreds of Billions of our Tax Dollars in Investment after Investment because they Care 

So the politicians are worse than the worst rank amateur investor.  We know it.  They know it.  At least they should know it what with their perfect record of failure.  So why do they do it?  Why do they continually take money away from the people who know how to better invest that money so they can make some of the worst investments of all time?  That’s a good question.  And we really need to think about it. 

To figure this out think about this one word.  Elections.  That’s the key.  You see, a majority of people wouldn’t vote for these politicians.  Because they want to spend our money.  They want to raise our taxes.  So they can spend it on more Solyndras.  How does that help them?  Here’s how.  People at these companies who receive this federal money are very grateful.  And to show their gratitude they make campaign contributions.  Often with some of the very money they received from the government.  Part of that ‘wise’ investment to create the ‘smart jobs’ of the future.  And why not?  There’ll be a little left over after paying some generous executive salaries and bonuses.  Why not give a little back to the people that made all of that possible?  Make a nice campaign contribution to help the politicians convince the people that they are smart and wise and deserve to win the next election.  So they can spend more of the people’s taxes.  Into other wise investments.  Like Solyndra. 

You just need one thing to make this all possible.  A bad investment.  An investment so bad that no rich people will risk their own money.  Because they know what a loser the investment is.  It has to be that bad.  So someone in the government can say rich people are evil and selfish.  That they only care about turning a profit.  That they are not interested in the jobs of the future.  Or high paying jobs with good benefits for the working man.  Like the politicians do.  They care about the people.  Instead of turning a profit.  And are willing to invest taxpayer money in the poorest of investments.  And lose hundreds of billions of our tax dollars in investment after investment.  Because they care.  More for their own self-interests but they care.  Unlike those evil rich people.  Who refuse to waste valuable investment capital.  And won’t let the people they’ve loaned it to waste it either.  Because they only care about the money.  Unlike our government.  Who has no problem throwing away trillions of our tax dollars.

Investors Invest Responsibly and know how to Pick a Winner that will Create Jobs 

Rich investors take risks when they invest their own money.  So they are very careful in how they invest it.  And when they invest it they are very interested in how that money is used.  They don’t need any oversight committees or legislation.  Because they are no one’s fool.  They are not rank amateurs.  And they appreciate the value of hard-earned money.  They have a vested interest to make sure that money is used in the most efficient manner possible.  Because it’s their money.  And they care.

Politicians invest taxpayer money.  They have no vested interest.  So they don’t care.  When they run out of money from all of their bad investments they don’t suffer any consequences.  All they do is malign rich people again to foster a little class warfare to make raising taxes on the ‘evil rich’ easier.  Then they keep on making bad investments.  Mostly to their political cronies.  Who will return some of that public money back to them in the form of a campaign contribution.

That’s why it’s better to have rich investors risk their wealth than having the government risk our taxes.  Investors will invest responsibly.  The politicians will not.  And the investors know how to pick a winner that will create jobs.  The politicians do not.  The only way they know how to make money is with inside information.  Or skimming a little off the top of the public purse.  Which is the only way to explain investments like Solyndra.  It’s either that or our politicians are just really stupid. 

What a choice.  Corrupt or stupid.  Or is it even worse?  Are they corrupt AND stupid?  If so it sure would help explain a lot.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Electoral College

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2011

Politics 101

The Founding Fathers put Responsible, Enlightened and Disinterested People between the People and their Government

The Founding Fathers were no fans of democracy.  Election by popular vote was little more than mob rule.  It would lead to the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  And as Benjamin Franklin warned, once the people learned they could vote themselves money from the treasury, they would.

These feelings extended to the states as well.  The small states did not want to be ruled by the large states.  This is why every state had two senators in the Senate.  To offset the influence of the big states in the House of Representatives.  Where the people voted for their representatives by direct popular vote.  And to offset the influence of the new federal government, the state legislatures would elect their senators.  Giving the states a large say in federal affairs.

Knowing history as they did, this was all very purposeful.  Indirect elections.  Putting other people between the people and the power of government.  And the treasury.  The people would vote for responsible, enlightened and disinterested people to represent them.  Then these responsible, enlightened and disinterested people would make policy.  And by doing this the Founding Fathers hoped that the new republic would survive.

The Founding Fathers set up the United States as a Federation of Independent States

Blacks make up about 12% of the population.  Gay and lesbians less than 1.5%.  In a true democracy it would not be difficult for the majority to win a popular vote to make these people illegal.  As crazy as that sounds a democracy could do that.  If that was the way the mob felt at the time of the vote.  This was the kind of thing the small states worried about.  As well as the Founding Fathers.  A tyranny of the majority.  Where anything goes.  As long as the majority says so.

Interestingly, a popular vote could have freed the slaves.  Which was a concern of the southern states.  The Three-Fifth Compromise was yet another provision the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution.  To get the southern states to join the new union.  This counted 3/5 of a slave as a person to determine representation in the House of Representatives.  Which would offset the numerical superiority of free people in the northern states.  And prevent them from ruling the southern states.  Which is pretty much what happened after the Civil War.  As the freed slaves tended to vote along with their northern liberators.

The Founding Fathers set up the United States as a federation of independent states.  For before there was a United States of America there were independent states loosely associated together.  Coming together only when they needed each other such as winning their independence from Great Britain.  Even during the Revolution the states were still fiercely independent.  And getting these fiercely independent states to join together in a more perfect union required a lot of checks and balances.  A separation of powers.  And indirect elections.  Which the Founding Fathers dutifully included in the new Constitution.  It wasn’t perfect.  But it was the best such a diverse group of people and beliefs could produce.

The Seventeenth Amendment Destroyed a very Large Check on Federal Power

Of course, this leaves the presidential election.  And the Electoral College.  Which grew out of the same concerns.  Of trying to prevent the large states from ruling the small states.  The Electoral College blended together the popular vote of the House of Representatives.  And the indirect vote of the Senate.

Each state had electors who actually voted for the president.  The number of electors in each state equaled that state’s representation in Congress.  The number of representatives in the House (population-based).  And the number of senators (state-based).  The electors typically cast all of their electoral votes based on the outcome of the popular vote of their state.  Which is why sometimes presidents win elections even though they lose the national popular vote.  An outcome designed by the Founding Fathers.  To prevent a tyranny of the majority from ruling over the minority.

Some things have changed since the Founding.  We extended the right to vote to black men.  And then later to women.  Both good things.  But not all changes were good.  Such as the Seventeenth Amendment.  Perhaps the biggest change from the intent of the Founding Fathers.  Ratified in 1913, it changed the election of Senators from a vote by the state’s legislature to a popular vote like that for the House.  Destroying a very large check on federal power.  Creating a much more powerful central government by transferring power form the states to the federal government.  What the Founding Fathers tried to prevent in the original Constitution.  With their checks and balances.  Their separation of powers.  And their indirect elections.  Including the Electoral College.  Which, if eliminated, would give even more power to the federal government.  And a greater ability for the majority to rule unchecked over the minority.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Primary and General Elections

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2011

Politics 101

The Founding Fathers pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor

People have protested and died fighting for the right to vote throughout history.  The American Revolutionary War was over taxation without representation.  Meaning that the American colonies wanted representation in British Parliament.  Something the British government did not allow.  Worse, they started taxing the Americans.  Who had no representation in Parliament.  And this did not go over well with the American colonists.  They had had enough.  They wanted a say in their government.

So the Founding Fathers committed treason.  They signed the Declaration of Independence.  And fought 8 years to have that say in their government.  It took awhile.  And a lot of the signers of the Declaration of Independence suffered for their treason.  They lost their property.  Their wealth.  And even their families.  Who suffered all sorts of brutality at the hands of the British.  These traitors.  Who defied their king.  But the cause persevered.  And the Americans won their independence.  As well as their right to self-government.

Back then people cared.  Enough to pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.  But today?  People have other priorities in life.  Where reality television is more important in their lives than having that say in their government.  For they have no idea what the Founding Fathers paid to give us this cushy life of plenty.  And just assume the good times will continue to roll.  Especially if they keep voting for whoever promises to give them more free stuff.

Candidates move to the Center after Winning their Party’s Nomination and become someone Completely Different

In the country that struggled for 8 years to get the right to vote.  In the country that inspired people all around the world to follow them in the pursuit of happiness.  In the very bastion of liberty and self-government.  In America.  Guess how many people vote today in a typical presidential election.  Little more than half of eligible voters.  And that’s in the general election.  It’s far worse in the primary election.  Where we see maybe half of that turnout.  Which is rather sad.  Considering that these are the people who actually pay attention to politics.  For this is where a political party chooses their candidate for the general election.  You see, each party has a platform.  A set of political ideas.  Their core philosophy.  And the people choose who they think will best advance their party platform in the primary election.

So during the primary election candidates try to be that candidate.  The one who will best advance the party platform.  Typically the conservative moves as far right as possible to show his or her conservative bona fides.  And the liberal moves as far left as possible to show his or her liberal bona fides.  Here they’re trying to appeal to the party base.  The hardcore.  Those who are as far away from the political center as is possible.  Those who don’t give a whit about compromise or bipartisanship.  They want a purebred candidate that will take the country where they feel it should be.  They don’t want someone who will reach across the aisle and compromise away their most cherished principles.

The population roughly breaks down to 40% conservative, 20% liberal and 40% moderate/independent.  Which is all fine and dandy during the primary election.  But it’s a bit of a problem during the general election.  For that 40% moderate/independent forms the political center.  That area the candidates run away from during the primary election.  So they must scramble back to it after winning their party’s nomination.  And hope that most of those in the center didn’t pay attention during the primary.  To make the lying easier.  To no longer be who they said they were during the primary.  But to be someone completely different.  Someone who can reach across the aisle.  Someone who can compromise away their base’s most cherished principles.  Someone who believes politics should be bipartisan.  Or, better still, nonpartisan.  In other words, the last person their base would want.

When the Choice is between two Moderates, Democrats will always Choose the Democrat Moderate

Liberals have to run to the center.  For their base only amounts to about 20% of the electorate.  But it’s not quite the same for conservatives.  At 40% of the electorate they don’t have to run the center.  They only need another 10% or so of the vote to win.  So running to the center actually hurts them.  Because a lot of that political center is Democrat.  And if the vote comes down to 2 moderates they’re going to vote for the Democrat moderate over the Republican moderate every time.  Because all things being equal, a Democrat will vote for a Democrat.

When the Republicans ran a moderate who campaigned as someone who would reach across the aisle and compromise away his base’s most cherished principles, John McCain didn’t get the moderate vote.  They voted for the Democrat.  Who lied during the general election and ran as a moderate.  Sometimes he even talked like a conservative.  Even though Barack Obama was as liberal as they came.  At least based on his voting record in public office.

When Republican Ronald Reagan won his party nomination he didn’t run to the center.  He remained a conservative.  And he won.  Because a lot of Democrats voted for him.  The Reagan Democrats.  Because there was a real difference between him and Jimmy Carter.  There was a conservative and a liberal.  And the Reagan Democrats decided to vote for the conservative because they liked the conservative message better than the liberal message.  But when the choice is between two moderates who promise to reach across the aisle more than the other there’s no real difference between the candidates.  And no reason to vote for the other guy when he or she is no different than the one from your own party.

Ignoring the Primary Elections ignores the Philosophical Debate and turns the General Election into a Populist Contest

It is a shame the level of voter apathy in the country that stands for self-government.  Almost half of the eligible voters ignore politics 3 years out of 4.  And only vote in the presidential general election.  It’s a shame because we have a 2-party system.  Like it or not.  There are only two core political philosophies to choose from.  For those in the middle don’t have a philosophy.  A party.  A party platform.  A primary election.  Or a political convention.  They only get involved once every 4 years at the general election.  And ultimately end up voting for a Democrat or a Republican.  Even though they refuse to identify themselves with either party.

But ignoring the primary elections ignores the party platforms.  The meat and potatoes of the philosophical debate.  And turns the general election into nothing but a populist contest.  True democracy.  Mob rule.  With the winner often being the one who promises the most to the least politically informed.

Politics has come a long way since the Founding Fathers pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.  It’s probably a good thing they’re not here to see what has become of their self-government.  They wouldn’t like what they would see.  Especially the voter apathy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Independent (ĭn’dĭ-pĕn’dənt), n., One that is independent, especially a voter, officeholder, or political candidate who is not committed to a political party.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 24th, 2011

Politics 101

Independents have no Political Philosophy and can be Swayed by a Candidate’s Charisma or Populist Issue

Independents have little interest in politics.  They don’t follow the issues.  Have no philosophical basis to form a political belief.  And have no political beliefs.  As demonstrated by their voting for both Republicans.  And Democrats.  Showing that they can easily vote for and against the same fundamental beliefs.

Independents don’t understand what a party platform is.  The philosophical basis for a political party.  The things the party believes in.  And tries to advance.  In the United States there are 2 major political parties.  The Republicans.  And the Democrats.  Who stand for very different things.

Yet at elections the Independents form that great center of the electorate that tends to decide elections.  So both Republicans and Democrats try to woo them.  Because they both feel they have an equal chance.  Even though they couldn’t be more different in their political philosophy.  Because Independents have no political philosophy.  And can be swayed by a candidate’s charisma.  Or a populist issue.

There are no Independent Conventions to Nominate Independent Candidates because Independents Stand for Nothing

Democrats are for active government and income redistribution via high taxes.  Republicans are for limited government and low taxes.  The Independents are neither Republicans nor Democrats.  And that’s the extent of their party platform.

There are few Independents in politics.  Often a politician will run as an Independent after they lose the primary election for their own party.  Sort of like having a temper tantrum.  They weren’t a good enough Republican or Democrat to win the support of Republican or Democrat voters in the primary election.  So they stamp their feet and whine, “I’ll run as an Independent then in the general election.”  Where they stand a good chance of winning.  Because there are a lot of people out there who don’t vote according to any political philosophy.  Like they do during the primaries.  The Independents.

There are no party caucuses for Independents.  No Independent debates.  No Independent primary elections.  No Independent conventions to nominate an Independent candidate.  Because Independents stand for nothing.  For they are the disengaged.  The uninformed.  And out of touch.  They only think about politics at election time.  And then base their vote on how they feel at that time.  Choosing their candidate by who charms them the most.  Or stands for the populist issue they are most familiar with.

Independents eschew Republicans and Democrats yet Vote Republican or Democrat in the End

Independents eschew Republicans and Democrats.  They’re above them.  They study the issues.  And make informed decisions.  They don’t just vote the party line.  Or so they say.  But they often do.  Vote the party line.  By voting either Republican or Democrat in the end.  Often without a clue of the consequences of their vote.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Moderate (mŏd’ər-ĭt), n., One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 3rd, 2011

Politics 101

Moderates just want to Get Along with Everyone and Believe in Consensus and Bipartisanship

Moderates are people who like to pick and choose.  A little from this philosophy.  And a little from that philosophy.  For example, a moderate Catholic may approve of abortion.  Because they disagree with the extreme view of no abortions in Catholicism.  Of course, there is no such thing as being a little bit Catholic.  Just like you can’t be a little bit pregnant.

A moderate, then, has no philosophical basis.  And doesn’t have a definite opinion.  They don’t know what they want.  But they know what they don’t want.  Extreme opinions.  Even just your run of the mill opinions.  To them everything is just an opinion.  And no opinion is right.  Or wrong.  It’s just an opinion.  And they don’t like to face the extreme unpleasantness that is life.  They’d rather avoid addressing problems that can make life unpleasant.  So they procrastinate.  And are great procrastinators.  Their motto is this.  Why solve today what we can solve tomorrow?  And then they hope that tomorrow never comes.

Moderates just want to get along with everyone.  They believe in consensus.  Reaching across the aisle.  Bipartisanship.  For they believe that there is a middle ground in every issue.  And they desperately seek the middle ground to avoid confrontation.  Which means that you can lie to them.  If you tell them what they want to hear.  And they will believe you.  Because they want to believe you.  Especially if you’re telling them what they want to hear.

Adolf Hitler lied Charismatically to Win Votes and Seize Power

Moderates are good people.  Who can be led astray.  Such as in Nazi Germany.  The vast majority of Germans were not Nazis.  If they were they wouldn’t have needed such an oppressive police state.  And there would have been no Gestapo.  But there was a police state.  And a Gestapo.

Most Germans just wanted to work.  And support their families.  Which was hard to do coming out of World War I, the Great Depression and hyperinflation.  Caused by Keynesian policies.  That is, printing money.  To pay their war reparations per a rather harsh Versailles Treaty.

Adolf Hitler knew how to sweet talk the masses.  Tell them what they wanted to hear.  And he did.  He was charismatic.  A populist.  Could give a great speech.  And he lied through his teeth.  The people heard what they wanted to hear.  And they voted for him.  That’s right.  Hitler didn’t seize power in a military coup.  He seized power by winning votes.  And passing populist laws.  After he had failed to seize power in a military coup.

Moderates may not Know what they Want but they Sure Know what they Don’t Want, such as National Health Care

In the U.S. the moderates typically determine elections.  Because about 40% of the people are limited-government conservatives.  About 20% are big-government liberals.  And the rest are moderates.  And they tend to vote Democrat.  Because the Democrats say the things they want to hear.  Consensus.  Bipartisan.  Working together to solve the people’s problems.

Some big-government liberals run as conservatives during elections.  And they lie so well that often a large percentage of these moderates vote Democrat.  Because, for some reason, they want to vote conservative.  But only if the conservative is a Democrat.

Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama campaigned as moderates.  In fact, some even compared Barack Obama to the great Ronald Reagan.  A conservative Republican.  And it worked.  Clinton and Obama won their elections.  By lying.  They campaigned as limited-government moderates.  But they governed as big-government liberals.  They swung so far to the left that they both lost their mid-term elections.  Clinton lost the midterms for trying to pass Hillarycare.  And Obama loss the midterms for passing Obamacare.

The moderates may not know what they want.  But they know what they don’t want.  And they sure don’t want national health care.

The Consequence of having no Philosophical Basis is that Decisions are based on Populist Views and Feelings

Moderates don’t like extreme opinions.  Like the government can’t spend money it doesn’t have.  So Democrats campaign saying they will get the rich to pay their fair share.  Which sounds good.  Because moderates aren’t rich.  They’re hardworking middle class people.  So moderates vote Democrat because it seems like the nice thing to do.  The fair thing to do.  So the government continues to spend money it doesn’t have.  Knowing that they can continue in their irresponsible ways as long as they can get moderates to believe their lies.

This is the consequence of having no philosophical basis.  Decisions are based on populist views.  And feelings.  Which a cunning big-government liberal politician can always exploit.  And they have to if they ever hope to win an election.  For they aren’t going to convert the 40% of the people who are limited-government conservatives.  Because limited-government conservatives actually believe in something.  And tend to be impervious to their lies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

If it weren’t for High Labor and Regulatory Costs there would be no need for Currency Manipulation

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 2nd, 2011

Minimum Wage Earners only become Valuable after Costly on the Job Training

Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs.  And they’re starting to get that in the UK (see Minimum wage harming job opportunities for young by Richard Tyler and James Kirkup posted 10/2/2011 on The Telegraph).

Firms may be reluctant to create jobs by recruiting inexperienced staff because they are put off by the increased wage bill, the Low Pay Commission has suggested.

The Commission’s intervention comes amid calls from businesses for minsters to freeze or even cut the rate to enable more young people to find work…

Official figures last month showed that almost 1 million of the 2.5 million people officially counted as unemployed in Britain are aged between 16 and 24.

Almost 220,000 have been out of work for more than a year and some economists fear a “lost generation” of young people who never learn the habits of work and face a lifelong struggle ever to find employment…

“The concern is that the current rate is discouraging some employees from taking on young people and giving them a chance to get into the workplace,” he said. “Some companies are finding the rate is a real problem.”

The New England Patriots pay Tom Brady more money than the Detroit Lions pay Mathew Stafford.  Stafford was the number one draft pick.  Brady wasn’t.  But Brady has 3 Super Bowl rings.  Stafford doesn’t have one.  Yet.  He may have one soon, though.  He’s having a very good season.  Undefeated through 4 weeks.  But Brady is better.  Because of his 3 Super Bowl rings.  And his experience.  It’s that experience that makes him worth more.

What’s true for quarterbacks in the NFL is true for workers everywhere.  Experience makes a worker worth more to an employer.  Inexperienced workers are worth less.  So they’re paid less.  Just like in the NFL.

The New England Patriots pay Brady a lot of money.  But they can’t pay everyone that amount of money.  Most players will make less than him.  Just like in the workforce.

Key employees are paid more.  And less critical employees are paid less.  Entry level workers with the least skill and the least experience get paid the least.  These are the minimum wage workers.  Who are just starting their working careers.  Most of who are grateful for the work experience.   Because they know if they show ability they can move up.  Gain more experience.  And earn more as they become more valuable to their employer.  Or to their employer’s competitor.

So of course employers oppose high minimum wages.  Because minimum wage earners only become valuable after costly on the job training.  That’s why they’re paid the least.  They come in with nothing.  And don’t provide any value until the employer gives them value through training.  Mentorship.  And experience.

If you Protect your Markets too much from Imports you will Hurt your own Export Markets

Costs are costs.  And labor costs are some of the more expensive costs.  Because there are a lot of other costs attached to wages.  They add up.  And often are a percentage of an employee’s wages.  The higher the wage, the higher these other costs.  Which makes it harder for a business to be competitive.  And in today’s competitive global economy, nations will help their businesses be competitive any way they can.  To try and make up for all those onerous regulations they impose on their businesses (see One more such victory posted 10/1/2011 on The Economist).

A YEAR ago Brazil’s finance minister, Guido Mantega, declared that the world had entered into a “currency war”. He worried that in a depressed global economy, without enough spending to go around, countries would sally forth and grab a bit of extra demand for themselves by weakening their currencies. The dollar, for example, fell by 11% against Brazil’s real in the year to August 2011, much to the chagrin of Brazil’s manufacturers. Like other emerging economies it fought back by imposing taxes and other restrictions on foreign purchases of local securities…

A cheaper real, zloty and rupee will help emerging economies win a bigger share of global spending. But that is small consolation if global spending declines…

Falling export orders was one of the complaints voiced by Chinese manufacturers in a preliminary survey of purchasing managers published by HSBC last week.

Yes, a cheaper currency gives you an advantage.  So a nation wants it.  But so do other nations.  And what’s more, these other nations don’t want your nation to have a cheap currency.  Because a cheap currency means more exports.

But a currency war is a double edged sword.  If you protect your markets too much from imports you will hurt your own export markets.  Yeah, you may succeed in having a cheap currency but little good that will do if your primary export market slaps a punitive tariff on everything you sell there.

And then there’s the danger of releasing the inflation genie from its bottle.  If you devalue your currency too much your own manufacturing costs will rise.  It’ll take more dollars to buy the stuff you need to manufacture the things you sell.  Which means you’ll have to raise prices.  And anyone who buys from you will have to raise their prices.  And so on until this inflation ends in a recession.  Which will slash overall consumer spending.  Making any win in a currency war a hollow one.

The Senate Bill to Punish China for Currency Manipulation is nothing more than Pandering to a Recession-Weary America

So rational thinking bets against any currency war.  Or antagonizing any trade relationships.  Of course, in an election cycle, rational takes a back seat to winning an election (see Senators court 2012 voters with China currency bill by Doug Palmer posted 10/2/2011 on Reuters).

For lawmakers eyeing their re-election prospects next year, this week provides a chance to show they mean business about cracking down on China’s currency practices and returning jobs to America…

“It is very easy to say that China is the bogeyman,” said Doug Guthrie, dean of business at George Washington University. He said the bill would do little to help U.S. jobs and would raise U.S. import costs, but said it might yet pass…

The Senate bill is the wrong approach because most of the goods the United States imports from China are no longer made by U.S. industry, Frisbie [president of the U.S.-China Business Council] said.

“I’ve always been of the view that, if the Chinese currency were to appreciate, we’re not going to get those jobs back in the U.S. They will migrate to Indonesia or Vietnam or Bangladesh perhaps Sub-Saharan African — the lowest next lowest cost place,” Lardy [a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics] said.

So this Senate bill is nothing more than pandering to a recession-weary America.  It won’t help the economy.  And probably will end up making things worse.  By making life that much more expensive for the American consumer.  By replacing those cheap Chinese goods with almost as cheap goods from Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh or Sub-Saharan Africa.  All the while creating zero American jobs.   It will just make life more difficult.  But it may elect a politician or two.  And really, now, isn’t that what’s really important?  I’m jesting, of course.

Why Exactly is the ‘Made in USA’ Stamped Stuff more Expensive?

Perhaps it isn’t the Chinese.  Or the other emerging economies.  Perhaps it isn’t the weak currencies of our trading partners.  Maybe it’s us.  I mean, why do we play with the currency in the first place?  To make our goods cheaper.

So the issue we should be addressing is why are our goods more expensive in the first place.  Why exactly is the ‘Made in USA’ stamped stuff more expensive?  Higher labor and regulatory costs.  Such as the minimum wage.  And the hundreds of other costly regulations American businesses have to comply with.  Remove these and America can be competitive again.  With anyone.  Anywhere.  And in any industry.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries