Obamacare will require more Tax Revenue just as it Shrinks the Tax Base

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 9th, 2014

Week in Review

President Obama’s economic policies have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  With some of the greatest economic carnage coming from the Affordable Care Act.  Obamacare.  The great hiring dissuader.  Because of the high cost of compliance for employers.  And now people will even be choosing to leave the labor force.  For it will be less costly for them not to work and collect subsidies for their costly Obamacare (see Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO by Stephen Dinan posted 2/4/2014 on The Washington Times).

Obamacare will push the equivalent of about 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or drop out of the job market altogether, according to estimates released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office.

The analysis set off a furious debate in Washington. The White House argued that the reduction is positive because it means Americans will forgo jobs or extra work to stay home with their children or strike out on their own as entrepreneurs…

“This is one of the perverse incentives in this terrible law. It actually encourages able-bodied people to not work,” said Sen. John Barrasso, Wyoming Republican. “We should be doing all that we can to increase labor force participation. The health care law actually pushes it in the opposite direction.”

Taking the budget as a whole, the CBO said Congress has made substantial headway on cutting spending and raising taxes, which will reduce the deficit to $514 billion this year and $478 billion in 2015.

But it will rise by 2016 and steadily grow to more than $1 trillion in 2022.

If these people choose not to work and become entrepreneurs who will they hire if others like them choose to leave the labor force?

People choosing not to work is a very bad thing for a big-spending government.  Because government taxes workers to pay for all of that spending.  And if people are leaving the workforce leaving fewer workers in the workforce to pay the taxes government needs that can mean only one thing.  Higher taxes on those with jobs.  To help offset the loss in tax revenue as people leave the labor force to spend time with their kids.  Or become entrepreneurs.

Of course anyone becoming an entrepreneur in this economic climate is a glutton for punishment.  For President Obama has created a very anti-business environment.  Higher taxes, more costly regulatory policies and lest we forget, the Affordable Care Act.  To quote Jed Clampett in the Beverly Hillbillies when he asked cousin Pearle if he should move to Beverly Hills after discovering oil on his property.


Jed, how can you even ask? Look around you. You live eight miles from your nearest neighbor. You’re overrun with skunks, possums, coyotes, and bobcats. You use kerosene lamps for light. You cook on a wood stove, summer and winter. You’re drinkin’ homemade moonshine, and washin’ with homemade lye soap. And your bathroom is fifty feet from the house. And you ask should you move!?


Yeah, I reckon you’re right. Man’d be a dang fool to leave all this.

This is how a lot of people feel today about the Obama economy.  “Man’d be a dang fool to” try and be an entrepreneur in this economy.  Especially with the Obamacare Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.  So those 2 million people plus leaving the economy is not a good thing.  It is a very bad thing.  Which will require some large tax increases.  Or massive cuts in government benefits.  Because federal tax revenue will fall if people leave the tax base.  It’s just that simple.



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

Will Three Model S Fires make Tesla join the Long Line of Green Car Company Failures?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 10th, 2013

Week in Review

Tesla has had three car fires with their Model S in six weeks.  Causing their stock price to slide after surging earlier in the year.  Forbes wrote about those better days in a May article that is making the rounds again.  Explaining why Tesla was escaping the fate of so many other green car companies (see The Real Reason Tesla Is Still Alive (And Other Green Car Companies Aren’t) by Joann Muller posted 5/11/2013 on Forbes).

Add VPG to the growing list of recent green car failures: Bright Automotive (electric delivery vans) , Carbon Motors (clean diesel-powered police cars), Aptera Motors (three-wheeled electric cars), Coda Automotive (inexpensive electric sedans) and, arguably the most infamous, Fisker Automotive (plug-in hybrid sports cars).

All had applied for financing under a $25 billion U.S. Energy Department loan program to promote development of cleaner cars, but only Fisker and VPG managed to draw the lucky tickets. Fisker was awarded $529 million (but received only $193 million before the DOE cut them off because of missed milestones) and VPG received $50 million. But now, they’re all dead, or almost dead. (One exception: tiny Wheego Electric of Atlanta, an EV start-up that started out making glorified golf carts and now sells a handful of bubble-shaped two-seaters with a top speed of 65 mph. The company is talking about introducing a $44,000 electric SUV next, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.)

That leaves only Tesla Motors TSLA -1.27%, maker of the plug-in Tesla roadster and the new Model S sedan, still standing. Which begs the question: why has Tesla made it when so many others have not..?

Experience, for one thing. While most of the other green car start-ups were founded by traditional car guys with a dream but little experience running a company, Tesla founder Elon Musk, with degrees in physics and business, had already built and sold one successful company, PayPal, (to eBay in 2002 for $1.5 billion) and also runs SpaceX, a maker of rockets and spacecraft. He had the stomach to push through difficult times, and the chutzpah to twist the arms of reluctant investors…

Tesla has been clever in other ways, too. It sells credits it receives from the state of California for producing zero emissions vehicles to other automakers that aren’t so clean. At up to $35,000 per vehicle, it’s a windfall that has helped keep the company alive, according to Gartner analyst Thilo Koslowski. “At the end of the day, other carmakers are subsidizing Tesla,” Koslowski told the Los Angeles Times.

While true until now, Tesla says those credits will decline as sales spread beyond California and into Europe.  In the first quarter, Tesla said credits sold to other automakers amounted to approximately $68 million or 12% of its revenues.

So the long list of green car company failures tells us there is no market for these cars.  Making it a poor economic model.  Companies that have depended on selling cars to succeed have failed.  But if you’re creative and can think of other sources of cash you can keep a green car company in business even without selling cars.  But tax credits and government loans still weren’t enough to fund Tesla.

Musk, luckily, is a billionaire. He pocketed roughly $180 million as a cofounder of PayPal, and helped get Tesla off the ground in 2004 with an initial investment of $6.3 million. He put in another $20 million in 2007, and then in fall of 2008, with the company on the verge of collapse as the economy seized to a halt, Musk was virtually broke. He spent his last $20 million trying to keep the company afloat, while living off personal loans from friends.

The $465 million government loan helped, as did Tesla’s initial public offering in 2010, which raised $226 million.

Today, Musk is worth almost $3.8 billion — $1 billion more than Forbes estimated less than three months ago. Tesla stock has surged 40 percent this week alone, following the positive earnings report and the Consumer Reports review…

Musk could well make it happen because unlike those other green car companies, he has things you can’t get from the government: huge skin in the game, passion and talent.

This is why Tesla is still in business while those other green car companies are not.  Passion.  Something that is hard to truly appreciate unless you’re an entrepreneur.  And lots and lots of money.  While other companies ran out Musk was still able to go on by putting his money where his passion is.  Makes you want to cheer him on to success.  Even if you don’t believe the electric car is a valid economic model.  You love gasoline.  And you love the internal combustion engine.

Will those three fires in 6 weeks be too great an obstacle for Musk to overcome?  Will the passion and cash last?  Time will tell. 



Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

A Poll of Entrepreneurs shows President Obama as one of the most Anti-Middle Class Presidents Ever

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 19th, 2013

Week in Review

This is the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  And it’s not George W. Bush’s fault.  Despite what he did to increase the size of government.  No.  The anemic recovery is due to President Obama.  And his anti-business policies (see Not open for business posted 10/12/2013 on The Economist).

America is not producing as many start-ups as it did a decade ago and those that have been created are providing fewer jobs—less than five each, compared with an historical average of about seven. Start-ups created 2.7m new jobs in the 2012 financial year compared with 4.7m in 1999.

The financial crisis clearly bears a lot of the blame for reducing America’s stock of capital and animal spirits. But it is only a partial explanation. The decline in the number of firms going public began in 2001. And these problems are continuing to delay the recovery despite the federal government pump-priming the economy and keeping interest rates near zero.

So there you have it.  Federal government pump-priming and near zero interest rates do NOT stimulate economic activity.  As these are the bedrock of Keynesian economics then Keynesian Economics does NOT work.  This is a problem for America.  Because President Obama and the liberal left are dyed-in-the-wool Keynesians.  And why are they Keynesian extremists despite the historical record of Keynesian failure?  Because Keynesian economics empowers Big Government.  That is, Keynesian economics favors those in power.  Not the people.

Three years ago John Dearie and Courtney Geduldig, who both worked for the Financial Services Forum, which represents America’s biggest financial institutions, came up with an inspired idea. Why not ask entrepreneurs themselves what is going wrong? Both big multinationals and established small firms have lots of representatives in Washington, DC. Entrepreneurs are too busy inventing their companies to spend time lobbying. The pair organised meetings and conducted lots of polls. Across a vast and diverse country they heard the same message from everyone they asked: entrepreneurship is in a parlous state. And everyone pointed to the same problems. The result is a new book, “Where the Jobs Are”, which should be dropped onto the heads of America’s squabbling politicians.

The first worry is over human capital. Entrepreneurs repeatedly complain that they cannot hire the right people because universities are failing to keep pace with a fast-changing job market. Small firms lack the resources to provide training and are consequently making do with fewer people working longer hours.

The problem with our educational system is that it teaches our young to become Democrat voters.  Not prepare them for a high-tech economy.  Our public schools teach our children about the evils and unfairness of capitalism while lauding the goodness and fairness of government.  Turning them from their parents who are selfishly destroying the planet with their global warming to the government.  Who is expanding further and further into the private sector to save the polar bears.  And when our kids get to college our system of higher education takes it up a notch.  Attacking the history and the culture that made America the greatest country in the world.  So our college graduates can tell you every bad thing America has ever done but they lack the math and science skills that our high-tech economy so desperately needs.  Forcing businesses to turn to immigrants for those skills.

Immigrants are responsible for launching about half the country’s most successful start-ups and producing a striking number of its patents. But the authorities do their best to drive them out of the country once they have been educated or to break their spirits on the visa treadmill…

The second problem is the complexity and cost of government. Entrepreneurs the world over complain about regulations and taxes. But America’s have lots to gripe about: in 2009-11 the Obama administration issued 106 new regulations each expected to have an economic impact of at least $100m a year. Besides this business founders suffer from the constant political uncertainty generated by a combination of ambitious new legislation, such as Obamacare, and ideological trench warfare. The Vanguard Group, an asset-management firm, calculates that since 2011 Washington’s bickering politicians have imposed, in effect, a $261 billion uncertainty tax that has cost up to 1m new jobs.

Any administration that raises taxes and issues 106 new regulations is no friend of small business, jobs or the middle class.  Therefore President Obama is no friend of small business, jobs or the middle class.  No matter how much he says that he is.  If you want to know why this is the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression it’s because of the Keynesian in the White House.  And the Keynesians in Congress.  That are waging a war on small business, jobs and the middle class.

The financial crisis has worsened the third problem: raising money. Over 70% of new businesses are launched using savings or assets—particularly houses. The crisis reduced the average net wealth of American households by about 40%. Business founders repeatedly mention other problems too. Venture capitalists are increasingly risk-averse. The Sarbanes-Oxley act imposes additional costs of $1m a year on public companies. Investors no longer bother with “growth stocks” because there is more money to be made in making lots of big trades in established firms. The dramatic decline in the number of firms going public since 2001 is worrying because, over the past four decades, more than 90% of jobs created by start-ups came into being after they went public…

Fixing the small-business problem should be at the top of the political agenda. Some 22m workers are either unemployed or underemployed, or have given up looking for work. If it continues to generate new jobs at its current anaemic rate, America will not return to pre-recession employment levels until 2020. The country is lucky that entrepreneurship is part of its DNA. It seems perverse to put unnecessary obstacles in the path of people whose ambition is to found businesses and hire new workers.

Yes, we should put fixing the small-business problem at the top of the political agenda.  Which the Republicans recently tried by defunding Obamacare.  And reining in out of control spending.  But as this would be a check on the growth of government the Democrats shut down the government before letting that happen.  For they will have their taxes, regulations and spending.  And the middle class be damned.  For theirs is a government of the ruling elite, by the ruling elite and for the ruling elite.



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

Entrepreneurs Fail not because they are Stupid but because of an Anti-Business Environment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 16th, 2013

Week in Review

The ‘capitalism’ we have today isn’t our Founding Father’s capitalism.  Yet critics of today’s ‘capitalism’ act as if it is.  And point to the inherent flaws of this ‘capitalism’.  As an excuse to bring in more governmental regulations to fix the problems of ‘capitalism’.  Which is the reason why today’s ‘capitalism’ isn’t capitalism.  It’s not the same economic system that made the United States the number one economic power in the world.  No.  It’s moved more towards European social democracy.  The system that gave the European nations their sovereign debt crises.  But those learned intellectuals speaking from their ivory towers still talk about fixing the problems of ‘capitalism’.  Without really understanding what the real problem is.  And it ain’t capitalism.  It’s the interference of capitalism and free markets.  This is the source of all our problems today.  And unless you address these problems you’re just wasting your time (see How to Reduce ‘Infant Entrepreneur Mortality’ by Sramana Mitra posted 6/10/2013 on the Harvard Business Review Blog).

Ever since the 2008 financial crisis, intellectuals have had to ask themselves, ‘Does Capitalism Still Work..?’

Two particular problems stand out. First, Capitalism has been hijacked by speculators. Second, the system enables amassing wealth at the tip of the pyramid, leaving most of society high and dry. Both problems have resulted in a highly unstable, volatile world order that jitters and shocks markets periodically, leaving financial carnage and mass scale human suffering.

The first problem with ‘capitalism’ today is that intellectuals are trying to fix it.  There isn’t anything wrong with capitalism.  The problems we have today have nothing to do with capitalism.  Because what we have today is state capitalism.  Crony capitalism.  European social democracy.  We have too much government in capitalism.  Who are favoring their big corporate friends in exchange for big corporate campaign donations.  And the only reason we have these speculators is because of the government.  Who is pumping so much cheap money into the economy for the speculators to speculate with.  And when their crony capitalist friends fail the government bails them out with tax dollars.  Because there is no downside to speculation when you have friends in government speculators will speculate.

People like to blame the banks and Wall Street for the subprime mortgage crisis.  But they didn’t create that crisis.  They just played their part.  The government created it.  By pumping cheap money into the economy to keep interest rates artificially low.  To encourage people to buy houses.  Even those who weren’t even considering buying a house.  Or those who simply couldn’t afford to buy a house.  These people changed their behavior based on the government’s manipulation of the interest rates.  As the government intended to do.  And they made everything worse with policies to encourage more and more home ownership.  The big one being Bill Clinton’s Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending.  Where the government threatened lenders to lend to the unqualified or else.  So they did.  Using the subprime mortgage to qualify the unqualified.  And then the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, bought those toxic subprime mortgages from these lenders, chopped and diced them into investments called collateralized debt obligations.  And sold them to unsuspecting investors as high-yield, low-risk investments.  Because they were backed by the safest investment of all time.  The home mortgage.  Only they didn’t tell these investors that these mortgages were toxic subprime mortgages being paid by people who couldn’t qualify for a conventional mortgage.  The safest investment of all time.  The conventional home mortgage.  So these lenders were able to clear these toxic mortgages off of their balance sheets.  Allowing them to issue more toxic subprime mortgages.  They were making money by writing these risky subprime mortgages.  But incurred no risk.  So they kept qualifying the unqualified for more and more mortgages.  Which was profitable.  Safe.  And kept the government off of their backs as threatened in Bill Clinton’s Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending.

This isn’t capitalism.  This is government and their crony capitalist friends using their power, privilege and influence to game the system.  To enrich themselves.  This is what caused the mess we have today.  Where speculators and those in government get richer.  While Main Street America sees its median income fall.  And entrepreneurs struggle to stay in business.

Everybody talks about the role small businesses play in growing economies and creating jobs. However, as it stands, in America alone, 600,000 businesses die in the vine every year. This colossal infant entrepreneur mortality is a product of colossal levels of ignorance about how to build and sustain businesses.

And a myriad of governmental regulations, taxes and a litigious society.  Entrepreneurs today have to spend a lot of money and time protecting their money and time.  They need accountants and tax lawyers to help them comply with an ever growing regulatory environment.  And a boatload of insurances to keep the sharks at bay who all want a piece of their wealth and will sue if given the least opportunity.  It’s so complex that if they try to navigate their own way through these enormous burdens places on business they often make mistakes.  Or simply overlook something that they shouldn’t have.  Often times they just don’t charge enough to cover all of these costs they never expected when starting their businesses.  So when, say, a tax bill comes due they simply don’t have the cash on hand to pay it.  And then the downward death spiral begins.  This is why restaurants and construction companies are the number one and number two business to fail.  Where we have brilliant chefs and trades people who can cook or build something better than anyone else.  But are so out of their element when dealing with the business side of their trade.  The regulatory costs, taxes, insurance, etc.  And find they spend more of their time not doing what they love—cooking or building—but pushing paper through a labyrinth of red tape.  And often don’t find out they are not charging enough to cover all of the regulatory costs, taxes, insurance, etc., until it’s too late.

There is actually a method to the madness of entrepreneurship. And while the ‘character traits’ that support entrepreneurship — courage, tolerance for risk, resilience, persistence — cannot be taught, the method of building businesses can and should be taught.

In fact, it should be taught not just at elite institutions, but at every level of society, en masse.

If we can democratize the education and incubation of entrepreneurs on a global scale, I believe that it would not only check the infant entrepreneur mortality, it would create a much more stable economic system.

No.  That’s not the answer.  The reason why a lot of people remain employees instead of going into business themselves is that these people don’t want to deal with all the regulatory headaches their bosses have to deal with.  A tradesperson would rather work their 8-hour shift and go home.  They don’t want to deal with payroll taxes, workers’ compensation insurance, liability insurance, vehicular insurances, health insurance, real property taxes, personal property taxes, quarterly tax filings, business income tax, use tax, OSHA requirements, environmental requirements, city and state inspections, permits and licenses, etc.  If a tradesperson could just throw his or her tools in a truck and go into business they would.  But they can’t.  So they won’t.  Because it’s just so much easier being an employee than an employer.  Who are always guaranteed a paycheck if they work.  While an employer only gets paid after everyone, and everything, else gets paid.

You want to reduce infant entrepreneur mortality rates?  Get the government out of the private sector.  And give these entrepreneurs a chance.  You’d be surprised at what they can do if the government just leaves them alone.  Just like Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, Henry Ford, etc., did.  Who probably couldn’t do what they did today.  Not in today’s anti-business environment.



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

How a 12-Year Old Canadian and U.S. Unions see Business Differently

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 12th, 2013

Week in Review

Advancing technology has greatly increased productivity.  Allowing fewer workers to do what workers a generation earlier did.  Causing our workforce to age.  Fewer workers are entering the workforce than are leaving it.  And costly union contracts paying pensions and health care to those who have left the workforce has decimated union membership.  For the costs they place on business have made these businesses uncompetitive in the market place.  Chasing manufacturing jobs out of the country.  Leaving union membership in the private sector at its lowest rates since the heyday of the labor movement.  To understand why let’s take a business lesson from the Canadians.  Who are trying to encourage their kids to become entrepreneurs.  Unlike in America.  Where business and profits have become a 4-letter word (see Canadian entrepreneurs: Born or made? by BARRIE McKENNA posted 5/10/2013 on The Globe and Mail).

[Entrepreneurial Adventure] pairs students with local business people to create a business, design a product, sell it and then give the profits to charity.


Evidence suggests Canada suffers from a weak entrepreneurial culture. While it’s relatively easy to start a company, the record of turning start-ups into fast-growing and successful enterprises is less convincing.

A 2010 study by Industry Canada…

… found that Canada generates a lower proportion of fast-growing companies than other developed countries, that relatively few small companies export and that the age profile of business owners is getting older…

Many business schools, including McGill University and the University of Toronto, now offer special entrepreneurship programs.

This is a problem.  For the number one job creator in any free market economy are small business owners.  People who go into business for themselves.  Taking great risk.  And hiring people as they grow.  This is the entrepreneurial spirit.  People who start out small.  And become someone like Steve Jobs.  Most people don’t understand the entrepreneurial process.  And the importance of having a business-friendly environment to encourage entrepreneurialism.  To create jobs.  To grow a healthy economy.  Creating new products that make our lives better.  And to do that one of the first things an entrepreneur must learn is what this 12-year-old learned.

“Some things work and some don’t,” acknowledged Alim Dhanani, 12, who worked on project management and Web design for the company. “To sell something, you have to have the right price. Not too small, so you have a profit, but not too big, so people will buy it.”

A 12-year-old can understand this.  The role of prices in the economy.  They have to be high enough to pay the bills.  But low enough to encourage people to buy from you.  Often times it’s not a matter of a business owner determining the price he or she wishes to charge.  They have to figure out how to pay their bills (and earn a profit) at the prevailing market price.  Something labor unions don’t understand.  Or they simply don’t care (see Fast-food workers in Detroit walk off job, disrupt business by Steve Neavling and Lisa Baertlein posted 5/10/2013 on Reuters).

Hundreds of fast-food employees in Detroit walked off the job on Friday, temporarily shuttering a handful of outlets as part of a growing U.S. worker movement that is demanding higher wages for flipping burgers and operating fryers.

The protests in the Motor City – which is struggling to recover from the hollowing out of its auto manufacturing sector – marked an expansion in organized actions by fast-food workers from ubiquitous chains owned by McDonald’s Corp, Burger King Worldwide and KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut parent Yum Brands Inc.

Fast-food workers, who already have taken to the streets in New York, Chicago and St. Louis, are seeking to roughly double their hourly pay to $15 per hour from around minimum wage, which in Michigan is $7.40 per hour…

“People can’t make a living at $7.40 a hour,” said Rev. Charles Williams II, a protest organizer. “Many of them have babies and children to raise, and they can’t get by with these kind of wages.”

Those workers face high hurdles in their fight for better pay. Low-wage, low-skill workers lack political clout and face significantly higher unemployment than college graduates…

The Detroit action was put together by the Michigan Workers Organizing Committee, an independent union of fast-food workers, that is supported by community, labor and faith-based groups such as the Interfaith Coalition of Pastors, UFCW Local 876, SEIU Healthcare Michigan and Good Jobs Now.

The unions want to do to fast-food what they did to the automotive industry.  In this case the union basically gave unskilled workers the wages and benefits of skilled workers.  Sounds great if you’re an unskilled worker.  But the UAW priced the U.S. auto manufacturers out of the market.  The Big Three are a shell of what they used to be.  With both General Motors and Chrysler requiring taxpayer bailouts to avoid bankruptcy.  And pay for their crushing pension and health care cost obligations.  For GM was paying for more people not working than they were paying to work.  Even a 12-year-old can understand that this is a business model that just won’t work.

So what will happen in fast-food restaurants if you raise the labor wage from $7.40 per hour to $15 per hour?  That’s a labor cost increase of 103%.  In the restaurant business the rule of thumb for calculating your selling prices is as follows.  You calculate your food cost then triple it.  For in general one third of a menu price goes to food.  One third goes to labor.  And one third goes to overhead (utilities, rent, insurance, etc.) and profit.  Now let’s take a typical combination meal (sandwich, fries and beverage) price of $7.50.  One third of this price is $2.48 which represents the labor portion of the price.  The increase in labor is 103%.  So we take 103% of the $2.48 ($2.54) and add it to $7.50 to get the new selling price of the combo meal.  Bringing it to $10.04.

What will customers do?  Now that the combo meal will cost $2.54 more will they just continue to eat fast-food like they once did?  Will they stop adding an extra item from the dollar menu?  Will they just buy a burger and eat it with a beverage from home?  Will they just buy from the dollar menu instead of buying combos?  Of course, with the increase in labor costs that dollar menu will have to become the $2.03 menu.  Will people stop going to fast-food as often as they once did?  Some may decide that if they’re paying for a $6 hamburger the may go to a diner or bar for a $6 hamburger.  Worried about the lost business would fast-food owners try to cut their costs elsewhere to try to continue to sell fast-food at the market price?  By hiring fewer people?  Pushing current workers to part-time so they don’t have to give them costly health insurance?  Or will they just close their restaurant.  As people just won’t pay fancy restaurant prices for fast-food.

That 12-year-old in Canada would understand how the higher labor costs would affect business.  Causing changes in buying habits.  And changes in business practices.  He would not start up a fast-food franchise if labor prices were 103% higher than they are now.  For he would have to raise prices high enough to pay the bills.  But when he did they might be too high to get people to come in and buy food.  Causing a fall in business.  And a loss in revenue.  Making it more difficult to pay the bills.  That 12-year-old would see this as bad business.  Because he understands that a business owner can’t charge whatever he wants to charge.  He has to figure out how to stay in business while selling at the prevailing market price.  And though he may love fast-food he knows that his allowance won’t be able to buy as much as it once did.  So he would reduce his purchases at fast-food restaurants.  Just as his father will probably take the family out less often because of the higher prices.  Just as single mothers struggling to pay their household bills will, too.  But the unions don’t understand this.  Or simply choose not to.  Instead they just tell the workers that their employers are greedy.

It’s a sad day when a 12-year-old has better business sense than our unions.  Then again if unions cared about business they wouldn’t have bankrupted two of the Big Three.



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

Capital Markets, IPO, Bubbles and Stock Market Crashes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 22nd, 2013

Economics 101

Entrepreneurs turn to Venture Capitalists because they Need a Lot of Money Fast

It takes money to make money.  Anyone who ever started a business knows this only too well.  For starting a money-making business takes money.  A lot of it.  New business owners will use their lifesavings.  Mortgage their home.  Borrow from their parents.  Or if they have a really good business plan and own a house with a lot of equity built up in it they may be able to get a loan from a bank.  Or find a cosigner who is willing to pledge some collateral to secure a loan.

Once the business is up and running they depend on business profits to pay the bills.  And service their debt.  If the business struggles they turn to other sources of financing.  They pay their bills slower.  They use credit cards.  They draw down their line of credit at their bank.  They go back to a parent and borrow more money.  A lot of businesses fail at this point.  But some survive.  And their profits not only pay their bills and service their debt.  But these profits can sustain growth.

This is one path.  Entrepreneurs with a brilliant new invention may need a lot of money fast.  To pay for land, a large building for manufacturing, equipment and tooling, energy, waste disposal, packaging, distribution and sales.  And all the people in production and management.  This is just too much money for someone’s lifesavings or a home mortgage to pay for.  So they turn to venture capital.  Investors who will take a huge risk and pay these costs in return for a share of the profits.  And the huge windfall when taking the company public.  If the company doesn’t fail before going public.

The Common Stockholders take the Biggest Risk of All who Finance a Business

As a company grows they need more financing.  And they turn to the capital markets.  To issue bonds.  A large loan broken up into smaller pieces that many bond purchasers can buy.  Each bond paying a fixed interest rate in return for these buyers (i.e., creditors) taking a risk.  Businesses have to redeem their bonds one day (i.e., repay this loan).  Which they don’t have to do with stocks.  The other way businesses raise money in the capital markets.   When owners take their business public they are selling it to investors.  This initial public offering (IPO) of stock brings in money to the business that they don’t have to pay back.  What they give up for this wealth of funding is some control of their business.  The investors who buy this stock get dividends (similar to interest) and voting rights in exchange for taking this risk.  And the chance to reap huge capital gains.

The common stockholders take the biggest risk in financing a business.  (Preferred stockholders fall between bondholders and common stockholders in terms of risk, get a fixed dividend but no voting rights.)  In exchange for that risk they get voting rights.  They elect the board of directors.  Who hire the company’s officers.  So they have the largest say in how the business does its business.  Because they have the largest stake in the company.  After all, they own it.  Which is why businesses work hard to please their common stockholders.  For if they don’t they can lose their job.

During profitable times the board of directors may vote to increase the dividend on the common stock.  But if the business is not doing well they may vote to reduce the dividend.  Or suspend it entirely.  What will worry stockholders, though, more than a reduced dividend is a falling stock price.  For stockholders make a lot of money by buying and selling their shares of stock.  And if the price of their stock falls while they’re holding it they will not be able to sell it without taking a loss on their investment.  So a reduced dividend may be the least of their worries.  As they are far more concerned about what is causing the value of their stock to fall.

Investors make Money by Buying and Selling Stocks based on this Simple Adage, “Buy Low, Sell High.”

A business only gets money from investors from the IPO.  Once investors buy this stock they can sell it in the secondary market.  This is what drives the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  This buying and selling of stocks between investors on the secondary market.  A business gets no additional funding from these transactions.  But they watch the price of their stock very closely.  For it can affect their ability to get new financing.  Creditors don’t want to take all of the risk.  Neither do investors. They want to see a mix of debt (bonds) and equity (stocks).  And if the stock price falls it will be difficult for them to raise money by issuing more stock.  Forcing them to issue more bonds.  Increasing the risk of the creditors.  Which raises the bond interest rate they must pay to attract creditors.  Which makes it hard for the business to raise money to finance operations when their stock price falls.  Not to mention putting the jobs of executive management at risk.

Why?  Because this is not why venture capitalists risk their money.  It is not why investors buy stock in an IPO.  They take these great risks to make money.  Not to lose money.  And the way they expect to get rich is with a rising stock price.  Business owners and their early financers get a share of the stock at the IPO.  For their risk-taking.  And the higher the stock trades for after the IPO the richer they get.  When the stock price settles down after a meteoric rise following the IPO the entrepreneurs and their venture capitalists can sell their stock at the prevailing market price and become incredibly rich.  Thanks to a huge capital gain in the price of the stock.  At least, that is the plan.

But what causes this huge capital gain?  The expectations of future profitability of the new public company.  It’s not about what it is doing today.  But what investors think they will be doing tomorrow.  If they believe that their new product will be the next thing everyone must have investors will want to own that stock before everyone starts buying those things.  So they can take that meteoric rise along with the stock price.  As this new product produces record profits for this business.  So everyone will bid up the price because the investors must have this stock.  Just as they are sure consumers will feel they must have what this business sells.  When there are a lot of companies competing in the same technology market all of these tech stock prices can rise to great heights.  As everyone is taking a big bet that the company they’re buying into will make that next big thing everyone must have.  Causing these stocks to become overvalued.  As these investors’ enthusiasm gets the better of them.  And when reality sets in it can be devastating.

Investors make money by buying and selling stocks.  The key to making wealth is this simple adage, “Buy low, sell high.”  Which means you don’t want to be holding a stock when its price is falling.  So what is an investor to do?  Sell when it could only be a momentary correction before continuing its meteoric rise?  Missing out on a huge capital gain?  Or hold on to it waiting for it to continue its meteoric rise?  Only to see the bottom fall out causing a great financial loss?  The kind of loss that has made investors jump out of a window?  Tough decision.  With painful consequences if an investor decides wrong.  Sometimes it’s just not one individual investor.  If a group of stocks are overvalued.  If there is a bubble in the stock market.  And it bursts.  Look out.  The losses will be huge as many overvalued stocks come crashing down.  Causing a stock market crash.  A recession.  A Great Recession.  Even a Great Depression.



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

Bill Gates, Microsoft, Dot-Com Companies, Dot-Com Bubble, Green Energy and Green Energy Companies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 18th, 2012

History 101

Investors poured Money into Dot-Com IPOs to get in on the Ground Floor of the next BIG Thing

Cash is king.  It is the lifeblood of a business.  The most serious business issues are discussed in blood metaphors.  When a company’s operations are losing money the company is ‘in the red’.  When the company’s losses are so great that there is a high probability of bankruptcy business analysts may say the company is ‘bleeding (or hemorrhaging) red ink all over their balance sheet’.  Indicating the death of the business is imminent.  For if the company is bleeding too much cash it simply won’t have the cash to pay its people, its vendors, its taxes, etc.  And it will cease to be.  Like any living organism that loses too much blood.

Healthy cash flows in a business are so important that analysts, investors, bankers, etc., will review one particular financial statement, the statement of cash flows, for an immediate assessment of a business’ health.  This statement shows the three sources of cash a business has.  Operating activities, investing activities and financing activities.  A successful business can generate all the cash they need from their operating activities.  To get there, though, they need startup capital.  Which comes from their financing activities.  The companies that are preparing for a surge in growth will look for venture capital.  And the inevitable initial public offering (i.e., going public).  For many companies the IPO is the measure of success.  Because going public is what makes these entrepreneurs millionaires.  And billionaires.

In the Eighties one such entrepreneur that became a billionaire is Bill Gates.  Mr. Microsoft himself.  Who made a fortune.  And is now working to give it away.  Just like Andrew Carnegie.  And John D. Rockefeller.  This geek made so much money with his software company that he made a lot of people wealthy who were smart enough to buy Microsoft stock early.  How these stockholders loved Bill Gates.  And every investor since has been waiting for the next Bill Gates to come along.  So they can get in on the ground floor of the next BIG thing.  And they thought they found him.  Rather, they thought they found a whole bunch of him.  Pouring their money into IPO after IPO.  Just waiting for the nascent dot-com companies to take off and soar into the stratosphere of profits.  For the Internet had arrived.  Few knew what it did.  But everyone knew it was the next BIG thing.

The Dot-Coms survived on Venture Capital and the Proceeds from their IPOs as they had no Sales Revenue

And these dot-coms took their money and spent it.  They hired programmers like there was no tomorrow.  They built office buildings.  Cities even offered lucrative incentives to attract these dot-coms to tech corridors they were building in their cities.  And splurged on infrastructure to support them.  The dot-coms bought advertising.  They spent a fortune to develop their brand identity.  Making them common place names in the new high-tech economy.  There was only one thing they didn’t do.  Develop something they could actually sell.

Those on the Left keep talking about how great the Clinton economy was in the Nineties.  Despite higher marginal tax rates than we have now.  These people who don’t even like Wall Street say the stock market did better under Clinton.  Apparently getting rich in the stock market was okay in the Nineties.  Today it only attracts occupy movements to protest the evil that stock profits now are.  But there was one subtle difference between the economy in the Nineties and the boom of the Eighties.  Most of the Nineties was a bubble.  A dot-com bubble.  It wasn’t real.  It was all paper profits that sent stock prices of companies that had nothing to sell soaring.  As all those stockholders sat and waited for these companies to sell the next BIG thing.  Taking them on a whirlwind ride to riches that never came.  Because once that startup capital petered out so did these dot-coms.  Leaving George W. Bush to deal with the resulting Clinton recession.

A review of their statement of cash flows for all of these failed dot-coms would show the same thing.  They would show tremendous flows of cash.  But it all flowed from their financing activities to their operating activities.  Which was nothing but a black hole for that startup capital.  All of these companies survived on venture capital and the proceeds from their IPOs.  They paid all their programmers, bought their buildings, paid for advertising and developed their brand with money from investors.  A healthy business eventually has to replace that startup capital with money from their operating activities.  Businesses that don’t fail.  Because even the most diehard of investors will stop investing in a company that can’t do anything but bleed red ink all over their balance sheet.

Instead of Investors taking the Loss on Green Energy Investments it’s the American Taxpayer taking the Loss

Bill Clinton had his dot-coms.  While President Obama has his green energy companies.  Which are similar to the dot-coms but with one major difference.  Instead of investors pouring money into these companies for a whirlwind ride to riches they’re sitting out the green energy industry.  Because it is a bad investment.  There will be no Microsoft in green energy.  Because it is a horrible business model.  The cost to harness the free energy out of wind and solar is just prohibitive.  The amount of infrastructure required is so costly that there can never be a return on investment.  Like there can be for a coal-fired power plant.  Which is something investors will invest their money in.

Green energy cannot compete in the marketplace unless the government subsidizes it with tax dollars.  Green industries cannot even build a factory.  While they have some private investors it is never enough.  Most green investors typically support these companies with a token investment.  But the real investors who expect a return on investment look at a green energy prospectus and say, “Thank you but no.  It is a horrible investment.”  And the people who want to build these plants know they’re horrible investments as they want to risk other people’s money.  Not theirs.  Which leaves but one source for startup capital.  A source that is so inept about business that they will pour money into a horrible investment.  The government.

The Energy Department invested heavily into these bad investments.  And a lot of them ended the same.  Just like the dot-coms.  The cash on their statement of cash flows went from financing activity to operating activities.  Another black hole for investment capital.  They spent that startup capital on plants and buildings.  Hired people.  And paid themselves very well.  But eventually they ran through that startup capital.  And were unable to get any more.  And with their operating activities unable to generate cash like in a healthy business many of the green energy companies went the way of the dot-coms.  Only instead of investors taking the loss it’s the American taxpayer taking the loss.  As it is their money that is bleeding out in red ink all over these green energy balance sheets.



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

Nikola Tesla, Sheldon Cooper, Inventors & Entrepreneurs, Compromise & Tradeoff, Theoretical & the Practical, GM and Hostess

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 4th, 2012

History 101

Geniuses strive for Theoretical Perfection which often doesn’t work in the Market Place

There have been a lot of brilliant inventors that gave the world incredible things.  Nikola Tesla gave us the modern world thanks to his work in electromagnetic fields.  Giving us the AC power we take for granted today.  Electric motors.  The wireless radio.  Etc.  But as brilliant as Tesla was he was not brilliant in making money from his inventions.  He died broke and in debt.  And, some say, insane.  Though he was probably more like Sheldon Cooper on The Big bang Theory.  As one character on the show called him, “The skinny weirdo.”  Tesla had an eidetic memory (often called a photographic memory).  And probably suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).  Which when added to genius can be mistaken for crazy genius.

So Tesla and the fictional Sheldon Cooper have some things in common.  Genius.  And some odd behavioral traits.  As well as something else.  Neither was rich.  Their genius did not make them rich.  Which is a common trait of all brilliant inventors.  Their genius gets in the way of practicality.  They strive for theoretical perfection.  Which often doesn’t work in the market place.  Because perfection is costly.  And this is what separates the theoretical geniuses from practical engineers.  And entrepreneurs.

The internal combustion engine is a technological marvel.  It has changed the world.  Modernized the world.  It gave us inexpensive modes of transportation like cars, trucks, ships, trains and airplanes.  But the engine is not theoretically perfect.  It is a study of compromise and tradeoff.  Providing a final product that isn’t perfect.  But one that is economically viable.  For example, pistons need to compress an air-fuel mixture for combustion.  However, the piston can’t make such a tight seal that it can’t move up and down in the cylinder.  So the piston is smaller than the cylinder opening.  This allows it to move.  But it doesn’t contain the air-fuel mixture for compression and combustion.  So they add a piston ring.  Which contains the air-fuel mixture but restricts the movement of the piston.  So they add another piston ring that takes oil that splashes up from crank case and passes it through the ring to the cylinder wall.  The heat of combustion, though, can leave deposits from the oil on the cylinder wall.  So they add another piston ring to scrape the cylinder wall.

Selling a ‘Low Price’ is a Dangerous Game to Play Especially if you don’t Know your Costs

Every part of the internal combustion engine is a compromise and tradeoff.  Each part by itself is not the best it can be.  But the assembled whole is.  A theoretical genius may look at the assembled whole and want to add improvements to make it better.  Adding great costs to take it from 97% good to 99% good.  While that 2% improvement may result with a better product no one driving the car would notice any difference.  Other than the much higher price the car carried for that additional 2% improvement.

This is the difference between the theoretical and the practical.  Between brilliant inventor and entrepreneur.  Between successful business owner and someone with a great idea but who can’t bring it to market.  The entrepreneur sees both the little picture (the brilliant idea) and the big picture (bringing it to market).  Something that a lot of people can’t see when they go into business.  The number one and number two business that fail are restaurants and construction.  Why?  Because these are often little picture people.  They may be a great chef or a great carpenter but they often haven’t a clue about business.

They don’t understand their costs.  And because they don’t they often don’t charge enough.  A lot of new business owners often think they need to charge less to lure business away from their competition.  And sometimes that’s true.  But selling a ‘low price’ instead of quality or value is a dangerous game to play.  Especially if you don’t know your costs.  Because as you sell you incur costs.  And have bills to pay.  Bills you need to pay with your sales revenue.  Which you won’t be able to do if you’re not charging enough.

If Business Operations can’t Produce Cash a Business Owner will have to Borrow Money to Pay the Bills

The successful small business owners understand both their long-term financing needs.  And their short-term financing needs.  They incur long-term debt to establish their business.  Debt they need to service.  And pay back.  To do that they need a source of money.  This must come from profitable business operations.  Which means that their sales revenue must make their current assets greater than their current liabilities.  The sum total of cash, accounts receivables and other current assets must be greater than their accounts payable, accrued payroll, accrued taxes, current portion of long-term debt, etc.  And there is only one thing that will do that.  Having sales revenue that covers all a business’s costs.

The successful business owner knows how much to charge.  They know how much their revenue can buy.  And what it can’t buy. They make the tough decisions.  These business owners stay in business.  They see the big picture.  How all the pieces of business fit together.  And how it is imperative to keep their current assets greater than their current liabilities.  For the difference between the two gives a business its working capital.  Which must be positive if they have any hope of servicing their debt.  And repaying it.  As well as growing their business.  Whereas if their working capital is negative the future is bleak.  For they won’t be able to pay their bills.  Grow their business.  Or service their debt.  Worse, because they can’t pay their bills they incur more debt.  As they will have to borrow more money to pay their bills.  Because their business isn’t producing the necessary cash.

Those restaurants and construction companies fail because their owners didn’t know any better.  Others fail despite knowing better.  Like GM, Chrysler, Hostess, just about any airline, Bethlehem Steel, most print newspapers, etc.  Who all entered costly union contracts during good economic times.  Costs their revenues couldn’t pay for in bad economic times.  Which was most of the time.  As they struggled to pay union labor and benefits they run out of money before they could pay their other bills.  As their current liabilities exceeded their current assets.  So instead of producing working capital they ran a deficit.  Forcing them to incur more debt to finance this shortfall.  Again and again.  Until their debt grew so great that it required an interest payment they couldn’t pay.  And now they are no longer with us today.  Having had no choice but to file bankruptcy.



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

Iron, Steel, the Steam Engine, Railroads, the Bessemer Process, Andrew Carnegie and the Lucy Furnace

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 21st, 2012

(Originally published December 14, 2011)

With the Steam Engine we could Build Factories Anywhere and Connect them by Railroads

Iron has been around for a long time.  The Romans used it.  And so did the British centuries later.  They kicked off the Industrial Revolution with iron.  And ended it with steel.  Which was nothing to sneeze at.  For the transition from iron to steel changed the world.  And the United States.  For it was steel that made the United States the dominant economy in the world.

The Romans mined coal in England and Wales.  Used it as a fuel for ovens to dry grain.  And for smelting iron ore.  After the Western Roman Empire collapsed, so did the need for coal.  But it came back.  And the demand was greater than ever.  Finding coal, though, required deeper holes.  Below the water table.  And holes below the water table tended to fill up with water.  To get to the coal, then, you had to pump out the water.  They tried different methods.  But the one that really did the trick was James Watt’s steam engine attached to a pump.

The steam engine was a game changer.  For the first time man could make energy anywhere he wanted.  He didn’t have to find running water to turn a waterwheel.  Depend on the winds.  Or animal power.  With the steam engine he could build a factory anywhere.  And connect these factories together with iron tracks.  On which a steam-powered locomotive could travel.  Ironically, the steam engine burned the very thing James Watt designed it to help mine.  Coal.

Andrew Carnegie made Steel so Inexpensive and Plentiful that he Built America

Iron was strong.  But steel was stronger.  And was the metal of choice.  Unfortunately it was more difficult to make.  So there wasn’t a lot of it around.  Making it expensive.  Unlike iron.  Which was easier to make.  You heated up (smelted) iron ore to burn off the stuff that wasn’t iron from the ore.  Giving you pig iron.  Named for the resulting shape at the end of the smelting process.  When the molten iron was poured into a mold.  There was a line down the center where the molten metal flowed.  And then branched off to fill up ingots.  When it cooled it looked like piglets suckling their mother.  Hence pig iron.

Pig iron had a high carbon content which made it brittle and unusable.  Further processing reduced the carbon content and produced wrought iron.  Which was usable.  And the dominate metal we used until steel.  But to get to steel we needed a better way of removing the residual carbon from the iron ore smelting process.  Something Henry Bessemer discovered.  Which we know as the Bessemer process.  Bessemer mass-produced steel in England by removing the impurities from pig iron by oxidizing them.  And he did this by blowing air through the molten iron.

Andrew Carnegie became a telegraph operator at Pennsylvania Railroad Company.  He excelled, moved up through the company and learned the railroad business.  He used his connections to invest in railroad related industries.  Iron.  Bridges.  And Rails.  He became rich.  He formed a bridge company.  And an ironworks.  Traveling in Europe he saw the Bessemer process.  Impressed, he took that technology and created the Lucy furnace.  Named after his wife.  And changed the world.  His passion to constantly reduce costs led him to vertical integration.  Owning and controlling the supply of raw materials that fed his industries.  He made steel so inexpensive and plentiful that he built America.  Railroads, bridges and skyscrapers exploded across America.  Cities and industries connected by steel tracks.  On which steam locomotives traveled.  Fueled by coal.  And transporting coal.  As well as other raw materials.  Including the finished goods they made.  Making America the new industrial and economic superpower in the world.

Knowing the Market Price of Steel Carnegie reduced his Costs of Production to sell his Steel below that Price

Andrew Carnegie became a rich man because of capitalism.  He lived during great times.  When entrepreneurs could create and produce with minimal government interference.  Which is why the United States became the dominant industrial and economic superpower.

The market set the price of steel.  Not a government bureaucrat.  This is key in capitalism.  Carnegie didn’t count labor inputs to determine the price of his steel.  No.  Instead, knowing the market price of steel he did everything in his powers to reduce his costs of production so he could sell his steel below that price.  Giving steel users less expensive steel.  Which was good for steel users.  As well as everyone else.  But he did this while still making great profits.  Everyone was a winner.  Except those who sold steel at higher prices who could no longer compete.

Carnegie spent part of his life accumulating great wealth.  And he spent the latter part of his life giving that wealth away.  He was one of the great philanthropists of all time.  Thanks to capitalism.  The entrepreneurial spirit.  And the American dream.  Which is individual liberty.  That freedom to create and produce.  Like Carnegie did.  Just as entrepreneurs everywhere have been during since we allowed them to profit from risk taking.



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

2012 Endorsements: Benjamin Franklin

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 15th, 2012

2012 Election

Franklin understood Wealth was not Money but the Talent and Ability of the Entrepreneurs and Artisans

Benjamin Franklin was born into the middle class.  A proud member of what he called the middling people.  Entrepreneurs.  And the very definition of what it meant to be American.  Hard-working people.  Who built success based on diligence, frugality and honesty.  People who strived to live a virtuous life.  Even if they sometimes faltered.  Franklin believed doing good works led to salvation.  He believed in God and was tolerant of all religions.  Especially if they were charitable and helped others, making the world a better place.  So when he could he gave back to his community.  And to his country.  He would die a famous rich man.  But he always thought of himself as that middle class printer.  Who worked hard.  And tried to be virtuous.  Sometimes he failed.  But he did a lot of good along the way.

When he arrived in Philadelphia he had only one Dutch dollar.  He secured employment with a printer where he worked with industry and frugality.  From his first days as an apprentice.  To when he was a small business owner.  Later, on a return trip from London, he came up with four resolutions to live a better life.  1.) It is necessary for me to be extremely frugal for some time, till I have paid what I owe.  2.) To endeavor to speak the truth in every instance; to give nobody expectations that are not likely to be answered, but aim at sincerity in every word and action—the most amiable excellence in a rational being.  3.) To apply myself industriously to whatever business I take in hand, and not divert my mind from my business by any foolish project of suddenly growing rich; for industry and patience are the surest means of plenty.  4.) I resolve to speak ill of no man whatever.

When Franklin opened his own business with a partner he put in long hours.  He worked late into the evening (even working overnight when the work required it).  And started work before most others started their workday.  Being a businessman he understood money.  And the cost of borrowing.  He favored the expansion of the money supply to lower interest rates to lower the cost of borrowing for business.  However, he also understood wealth was not money.  But the talent and ability of the entrepreneurs and artisans.  Those middling people who worked with industry and frugality who offered goods and services for sale.  Purchased largely by other middling people.  The basic barter system improved by money.

Franklin believed in Limited Government and worried about too much Social Engineering

When Franklin became a newspaper publisher (i.e., writer/printer/marketer of a newspaper) he refused to become partisan.  In part because he didn’t want to limit his income.  But also for another reason.  He believed in free expression.  And said, “Printers are educated in the belief that when men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public; and that when Truth and Error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter.”  Words framed and hung in many a newsroom since.  But he wouldn’t print everything.  He refrained from printing things that were scurrilous.  Immoral.  Or might hurt someone personally.

Franklin believed in rugged individualism.  He worked hard to acquire wealth.  And after he did he helped his community.  He helped organize volunteer fire companies.  Suggested a progressive tax on property to pay for a full-time police force.  Improved the post office.  Organized the Pennsylvania Militia during King George’s War against the French and their Indian allies in America.  (The local militia company elected Franklin to command it but he declined, saying he was unqualified and, instead, served as a common soldier.)  He retired from his printing and media empire at 42.  Set for life financially.  Then he became a scientist.  An inventor.  Then statesman.  With always an eye to detail.  And favored being practical over being rigidly dogmatic.

Franklin believed in limited government.  And had a problem with authority.  But he also believed in order.  And a place for government.  He believed in public-private partnerships and created the matching grant (matching a sum raised privately with an equal sum from the government).  He believed in charity.  Offering a helping hand.  And he was a civil activist.  Always tried to improve his community.  However, he worried about too much social engineering.  And unintended consequences.  Even worried that by helping the poor too much government could make them dependent.  And lazy.  For he built his wealth after arriving in Philadelphia with one Dutch dollar in his pocket.  It was hard work that made his success.  Not charity or dependence.

If Benjamin Franklin were here Today he would likely Endorse the Republicans in the 2012 Election

Franklin would go on to be one of the strongest supporters of Independence from Britain.  He helped edit the Declaration of Independence.  Sat in the Constitutional Convention.  And signed both documents.  As well as the Franco-American treaties bringing the French into the American Revolution.  And the Treaty of Paris officially ending the American Revolution.  He was a Founding Father.  Perhaps as indispensable as George Washington.   So if Franklin were here today what would he think about the country he helped create?  And who would he endorse in the 2012 election?

First of all he would be appalled at the size of the federal government.  Which would be unrecognizable to him from the limited government he helped create.  He would find the taxes and regulations on business suffocating to the entrepreneurial spirit.  Dissuading who knows how many from working those long hours.  Like he did.  He spent his time doing what he loved.  Printing, publishing, writing, etc.  Not hiring lawyers and accountants to help him pay his taxes and comply with regulations.  He would like the cheap credit available to business but he would have been shocked by the level of government spending and the level of the federal debt.  For the federal government is anything but frugal.  And the size of the welfare state, the amount of people receiving federal benefits, would have confirmed his fears about too much social engineering.  The blatant bias in the media would have disturbed his nonpartisan senses greatly.  Finally, being someone who rose from the middle class and built his own wealth he would have been greatly offended by the class warfare in politics today.

So who would Franklin endorse in the 2012 election?  Well, the Democrats want to make government bigger.  They want to increase taxes and regulations.  With Obamacare being a big one that will discourage many small businesses from growing.  The current Democrat administration has been the least frugal of all administrations.  Their spending having even caused a credit downgrade.  Their stimulus bill did not benefit the middling people.  Instead, most of that money went to rich Democrat donors.  They want to increase an already immense welfare state.  Which under the current administration has set a record for the number of people on food stamps.  Other than one cable channel (FOX News) and talk radio most media has a liberal bias.  Where truth and error do NOT have fair play.  And it’s the Democrats that push class warfare.  Who want to transfer even more of the tax burden to the wealthy.  Even though the top 10% of earners are already paying about 70% of the taxes.  While the Republicans want to cut taxes and regulations.  Cut spending.  Shrink the size of government.  And provide a business-friendly environment.  So others may start a business and rise up from the middle class.  Who can then give back to their community.  Like Franklin did.  So it is likely that if Franklin were here today he would endorse the party that was closer to his political and business philosophies.  The Republicans.  And the Romney-Ryan ticket.



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

« Previous Entries