The Democrat War on Women leads to Young Single Mothers and Abject Poverty

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 19th, 2014

Week in Review

Doctors don’t just treat symptoms.  They order tests and procedures to find the cause for the symptom.  Because if they don’t the underlying problem may get worse.  Causing greater medical problems for the patient later.  Or worse.  This is how medicine works.  Because it’s not a government bureaucracy making medical decisions about the patient.  Now contrast that to how government programs operate.

When a government program shows symptoms that something isn’t right what do government bureaucrats do?   Address only the symptoms.  By throwing money at them.  While never addressing the underlying cause for those symptoms (high chronic unemployment, families below the poverty line, rising federal debt ceiling, etc.).  Instead they just politicize those who are struggling.  And blame everything else but the underlying government policies for their suffering (see Why you can’t “bootstrap” yourself out of poverty by Nicole Goodkind posted 1/17/2014 on Yahoo! Finance).

When money is at its tightest, cost-saving choices are often impossible to make, digging impoverished Americans deeper and deeper into the pit of day-by-day living…

A car…is a necessity for many jobs but the down payment can be insurmountably high. And even after the down payment poor drivers still face monthly payments, high gas prices, and the fact that low-income car buyers pay 2% more for a car loan than affluent people. Low-income drivers can also pay up to $400 more annually than wealthier drivers to insure their cars (for a car of the same model and with the same driver risk).

A lack of capital can also make it impossible to afford the security deposit on an apartment causing those in poverty to live day-to-day in expensive hotels…Those in poverty who are able to rent or buy homes are also more likely to get household appliances through rent-to-own companies and end up paying more due to added interest.

…banks often charge large fees for those who don’t have a minimum amount of capital in their accounts—this makes cash checking establishments, who charge incredibly high interest rates on pay-day loans, the only choice for many.

Ben Hecht, CEO and president of Living Cities, an organization that works to revitalize impoverished areas, joined The Daily Ticker to discuss why it costs so much to be poor.

“Many of us are salaried employees and many poor people, if they’re working, are hourly employees,” explains Hecht.

If you’re an hourly employee who needs to apply for benefits or even see a doctor, you’re missing out on vital pay, Hecht points out…

One of the biggest disadvantages that those in poverty experience is a lack of broadband Internet. “One of the fundamentals about poverty is a lack of access to economic opportunity,” says Hecht. “And we all know that the number one factor in economic opportunity is education and we know that in today’s world much education, even in public schools, is done online.”

A lack of broadband access is not why kids are doing poorly in school.  It’s because they spend too much time online with their social media.  Or spend too much time having fun with sex and drugs instead of doing their homework.  And those who do buckle down and study are being taught things like global warming and the unfairness of capitalism.  Instead of the math and science skills high-tech employers need.  It’s so bad that they have to hire foreigners in the visa program to fill their high tech—and high paying—positions.

What is this about being able to take time off with pay to run errands if you’re salary?  Every salary job I had didn’t work that way.  You were hourly until you reached 40 hours.  Then you were salary after 40 hours.  So if you worked only 36 hours because you took a half day for personal business you got paid for 36 hours.  But if you worked 65 hours to bring a project in on time you got paid for 40 hours.  Because you were salary.  And were expected to put in the hours necessary to get the job done.  The hourly guys laugh at the salary guys.  For if they work 65 hours they’re paid for 65 hours.  With 25 of those hours paid at a time-and-a half premium.

Banks have employees who don’t work for free.  And how does a bank pay for their employees?  In one of two ways.  From the interest they earn in lending your money.  Or the fees you pay when you don’t deposit enough money to lend.  Just look at the numbers.  If someone has an average balance of $3,000 the bank can earn about $4.62 a week on that by loaning it out.  Whereas if someone has an average balance of $25 the bank can only earn about 4 cents a week.  And 4 cents a week isn’t going to help pay anyone’s paycheck.  Even if you have 100 depositors.  Which would give the bank about $4 each week to pay their bills.  While having 100 $3,000 depositors would provide $462 each week to help pay the bills.  So they must charge fees for low balances.  Or lay off workers.

The reason why people can’t save for down payments and security deposits is because they don’t have the job skills to earn a larger paycheck.  Either they didn’t graduate from high school.  Or they are a young single mother who became a mother before getting higher-paying job skills.  For the path to a higher paying job is to graduate from high school.  Go on to college.  Establish a career.  Go to church.  Then get married and start raising a family (see Strong families steeped in Conservative Values and Traditions do Well in America posted 1/11/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  Whereas the people most mired in poverty are young women who have children out of wedlock.

The system isn’t unfair.  The system works very well for those who do what’s best for their future instead of what’s the most fun right now.  We need to take care of the children born into poverty.  But we need to address the cause of this poverty.  The breakdown of the family.  And the abandoning of our culture and traditions.  Those things that made America great.  For the left can talk about the War on Women and Christian oppression all they want.  But it is their libertine attitudes that are putting young single mothers into poverty.

We need to listen to the wise words of Cary Grant in Operation Petticoat.  When the women came aboard the submarine accompanied by a ‘wow’ from the crew Grant’s character said, “Mr. Stovall, Lt. Holden’s influence upon you is starting to worry me. I suggest you “wow” less and “tsk tsk tsk” a little more.”  As a society we need to ‘wow’ less and ‘tsk tsk tsk’ more.  Promote marriage and family over the casual sex that so often results in abject poverty.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

President Obama increases Joblessness and Poverty with his Policies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

The political left is ruining the country.  Every time they get into power they leave a swath of destruction in their wake.  And we hear the same things over and over again.  The plans these people have to fix the things they’ve destroyed.  We heard Jimmy Carter.  And now we’re hearing the same things from President Obama.  But they’re just empty words.  For if things get worse while you’re in office it’s you.  Not everything else (see Exclusive: 4 in 5 in US face near-poverty, no work by Hope Yen, Associated Press, posted 7/28/2013 on Yahoo! Finance).

Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.

The findings come as President Barack Obama tries to renew his administration’s emphasis on the economy, saying in recent speeches that his highest priority is to “rebuild ladders of opportunity” and reverse income inequality.

Renew his emphasis on the economy?  To renew something you had to have done something first.  The president is in his 5th year in office.  And all he’s done is implement policies that has discouraged job creation.  Obamacare is causing employers to freeze hiring and push some employees to part time.  Obamacare, then, has increased joblessness.  And forcing people into lower-paying part-time jobs has increased poverty.

Shutting down the oil business in the Gulf of Mexico destroyed good-paying jobs in the oil business.  Refusing to approve the Keystone XL pipeline has prevented the creating of good-paying construction jobs.  And the additional good-paying jobs in the oil business that would have processed this new oil coming to American refineries and out into the distribution network.

The president’s war on coal is shuttering coal mines.  And destroying good-paying jobs in the mining industry.  And moving away from cost-efficient coal-fired power plants has increased the cost of electric power for businesses and households.  Something else to put pressure on hiring.  Leading to more joblessness.  And poverty.

Things have gotten worse during the Obama presidency because of his anti-business policies.  When you have anti-business policies you don’t create an environment for job creation.  Which is the source of all of our problems.  People can’t get a good-paying full-time job because President Obama is destroying them.  And if that wasn’t bad enough, liberal Democrat policies make a bad situation worse.

Marriage rates are in decline across all races, and the number of white mother-headed households living in poverty has risen to the level of black ones.

“It’s time that America comes to understand that many of the nation’s biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position,” said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty. He noted that despite continuing economic difficulties, minorities have more optimism about the future after Obama’s election, while struggling whites do not…

For the first time since 1975, the number of white single-mother households living in poverty with children surpassed or equaled black ones in the past decade, spurred by job losses and faster rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites. White single-mother families in poverty stood at nearly 1.5 million in 2011, comparable to the number for blacks. Hispanic single-mother families in poverty trailed at 1.2 million.

The political left won’t tell kids to stop having so much sex.  In fact, they’re facilitating it.  By giving free condoms to high school kids.   Making abortion available on demand.  And even providing the morning-after pill to any girl regardless of age without a prescription or parental notification.  Because kids are going to have sex no matter what we say.  A message heard loud and clear by our kids.  Who are having a lot of sex.  Hooking up to satisfy their needs.  Then going on their way.  Seeing no need to get married.  Especially the guys.  Who never had it better.

The enlightened attitude of the political left has made it a veritable smorgasbord out there.  Objectifying women like never before.  Where men look at women as sexual flavors.  And wonder what they feel like tonight.  This is the hookup.  And it isn’t conducive to making long-lasting relationships.  These guys don’t even want to talk to these women.  They want to take care of their business.  And leave.  Returning to their male friends.  Where they can enjoy the things they really like once their sexual needs are satisfied.

This is why marriage rates are declining.  Because with the left’s objectification of women what’s the point of marrying them?  This is the world a girl finds herself in after getting pregnant.  And doesn’t want to get an abortion.  She is on her own.  And there is no faster way to poverty than being a young, single mother.  If she doesn’t graduate from high school or can’t go on to college because she has to raise a baby what chance does she have?  While others are getting an education she is working a job that doesn’t require an education.  When her high school classmates are graduating from college she is still working that same job.  Because she missed out on getting the college education that could have given her a career with a high-paying job.  Instead working a job that requires no advanced education.  The kind that doesn’t pay well.  Because they’re often entry-level.  The kind high school kids work.  And those in college.  Who then quit these jobs to begin the career they went to college for.  But what a single mother can’t do.  Because without that education she doesn’t have that option.

The obvious solution to this problem is for these girls to wait for marriage before having a baby.  When a parent can stay at home with the baby while the other is building a career that lifts them out of the poverty level.  If the left would stop objectifying women people will stop hooking up and get married instead.  To build a career.  And a family.  Instead of just giving in to their base impulses and enjoying the moment.  And living a life of abject poverty.  For like the old saying goes, good things come to those who wait.  And if you wait until marriage before having children life will be so much better than life as a single mother.  As the data shows.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT181: “Slavery in America is the best thing that ever happened for today’s black Americans.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 2nd, 2013

Fundamental Truth

To become the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit the Man Jesus had to Die

There are some Christians who still have bad feelings towards Jews.  Who they blame for killing their Lord and Savior.  Jesus Christ.  Even though Christ died for man’s sins.  He knew the state was going to execute Him.  But He did not try to save Himself.  He accepted His fate.  Because His death was preordained.  It was all part of God’s plan.  For Jesus’ ascension into heaven.  To become the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit He had to die.  And He had to be crucified.  As horrible as that was.  To give the religion that would follow their most sacred icon.  The crucifix.  Or cross for the non-Catholics.

God’s will was done.  And because of it the Christians got a new religion.  Based on the life and death of a Jew.  The Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth.  Which is why the Christian Bible includes the Old Testament.  To include the Mosaic teachings that Christ Himself taught.  So for Christians to hold a grudge against Judaism is illogical.  Especially when the ultimate instrument of Jesus’ death was politics.  Not religion.

The Jews lived under a Roman occupation.  An uneasy Roman occupation.  The Jews were a thorn in Rome’s side.  As they were quite burdensome.  With their not knuckling under as willingly as others.  So to keep the peace they allowed the Jews to keep their religion.  Or rather, they tolerated it.  Something the high priests and Pharisees were very conscious of.  And they didn’t want any trouble that would cause them to lose their privileges.  Like this young whippersnapper coming around and riling up the masses.  For they knew it wouldn’t take much for the Romans to lose their tolerance of them.  And they especially didn’t like His way of not revering them.  That especially cheesed them off.  So the high priests and Pharisees went to the Romans and said this guy, Jesus, is calling Himself king of the Jews.  Something they were sure would not please Caesar.  Emperor of them all.  Well, one thing led to another and they crucified Christ.  Because of politics.  Not Judaism.

Some of the Countries today enjoying the Greatest Liberties and Highest Standards of Living have a Christian Past

Jesus has done more to bring peace to the world than anyone else.  The golden rule?  It has done more to let people live peacefully together than any government law.  It made people kind to each other.  Instead of the brutes we once were.  Religion civilized us.  And Jesus did more than most to make that happen.  Would that have happened if the Romans hadn’t crucified Him?  Of course this is a moot question.  For it was God’s will.  What happened had to happen.  And we are better off because it happened.  (When people use religion to justify violence it’s a different story.  The horrific wars between Catholics and Protestants had nothing to do with the golden rule.  But people who in their zealotry forget the golden rule.)

Death by crucifixion was a long, painful death.  People hung by their arms until they could hang no longer.  Then they transferred their weight to their legs.  Standing up.  And this went on until death mercifully came.  So Jesus hung by His arms with His weight pulling His tissue and tendons against the nails through His hands.  And when He stood the weight of his body forced His tissues and tendons against the nail through his feet.  And up and down he went.  Forcing those nails through His flesh.  A horrible death.  But a death He did not try to avoid.  People make Him out as some hippy peacenik.  But He had guts.  Though it’s easy for a God to have that kind of guts.  Jesus was just a man when He died.

So something good came from something horrible.  The world became a better place.  Yes, there were a lot of religious wars when some bastardized Jesus’ teachings.  But some of the countries today enjoying the greatest liberties and highest standards of living have a Christian past (and are still predominantly Christian).  Like those that were once part of the Christian British Empire.  Where the rule of law and the respect for the individual—not the ruling powers—rule supreme.  And that would not have happened without Christ.  For even the atheist among the Founding Fathers—Thomas Jefferson—thought that Jesus’ teachings were the greatest in the world.  So good things can come from bad things.  Like another good thing that came from one of the worst things there ever was.  Slavery.

There’s a Prosperous Black Middle Class and Black Millionaires in America thanks to Slavery

Africa is a horrible place.  Sadly.  In any metric you use Africa measures horribly.  More people live in poverty in Africa than they do anywhere else in the world.  Africa has the world’s highest infant mortality rates.  Africa has the lowest life expectancy rates in the world.  Africa has the highest homicide rates in the world.  Africa has the lowest per capita GDP in the world.  And Africa has the lowest Human Development Index in the world.  Which basically says that Africa is the worst place in the world to live.  Whereas Europe and the countries that were once part of the Christian British Empire consistently have the best numbers in all of these metrics.  Making them some of the best places to live.  Unlike Africa.

Of course, the slaves who traveled in the hellish conditions of the slave ships to the New World would have preferred to have remained in Africa.  In the world they knew.  With the family they knew.  Without suffering the horrors of that Atlantic crossing.  The slave markets.  And their brutal overseers.  But something good came from all that suffering.  Unfortunately it was not for them.  But their distant ancestors.  Who today can live in a prosperous black middle class.  Where they don’t have to live in poverty.  Where their children are likely to survive their childhood.  And grow up to live a full life.  Where they have a lesser chance of being murdered.  Where they can have a much higher standard of living.  And a higher Human Development Index.  Unlike in Africa.

Slavery in America is the best thing that ever happened for today’s black Americans.  Ironically, the ancestors of those who were lucky enough to escape the slave traders don’t live as good a life as those who did not.  Today blacks in America are CEOs.  Athletes.  Movie stars.  Hip hop-stars.  Doctors.  Lawyers.  Even president of the United States.  So in addition to a prosperous black middle class there are black millionaires in America.  Blacks who started with nothing.  And earned a champagne and caviar life.  Something that just isn’t happening in Africa.  Sadly.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT164: “If the poor ever stopped being poor the Democrats would have trouble winning elections.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

There is no Greater Killer of Poverty than a Job-Creating Free Market Economy

A lot of people vote Democrat because of the perception that the Democrats are for the little guy.  The working man.  The poor.  The disenfranchised.  The sick.  The maimed.  Children.  Women.  Minorities.  Gays.  Lesbians.  Etc.  While Republicans are for rich white men, bankers, corporate executives, Wall Street investors, etc.  Democrats care about people.  While Republicans care about profits.  Democrats good.  Republicans bad.  At least, that’s the common perception in much of America.

The working man.  That’s who the Democrats are for.  The working man.  And what exactly does ‘the working man’ mean?  It means men who are working.  Obviously.  (We’re using the term ‘working man’ because it’s long been part of the lexicon of the Democrat Party.  But we include both men and women when using the expression ‘the working man’.)  The Democrats champion unions to protect the working man.  And to show their gratitude the unions put all their financial support behind Democrat candidates.  So putting people into good jobs is a very important mission for the Democrat Party.  At least that is the perception.

Jobs.  They are important.  For there is no greater killer of poverty than a job.  Countries that have advanced free market economies have plenty of good-paying jobs.  Where much of the populace lives well above poverty.  Like in Chile.  After Milton Friedman and the Chilean economists known as the ‘Chicago Boys’ ignited free market principles in Chile starting in 1973.  Countries that don’t have advanced free market economies have few good-paying jobs.  Where much of their populace lives in abject poverty.  Such as in Haiti.  And these prosperity/poverty levels impact more than just day-to-day life.

The United States has a High Standard of Living because of a Business-Friendly Environment

Chile suffered a magnitude 8.8 earthquake in 2011.  One of the largest earthquakes ever to be recorded in history.  It claimed approximately 525 lives.  Haiti suffered a magnitude 7.0 earthquake in 2010.  Less powerful than the Chilean earthquake.  Yet the Haitian earthquake claimed approximately 220,000 lives.  The difference between these two death tolls?  More people have good-paying jobs in Chile than they do in Haiti.  Giving Chile a more advanced free market economy.  And better building codes and standards.  Allowing them to survive a stronger earthquake with less loss of life.

This is what jobs give you.  Working people have money to spend.  And working people have money to pay taxes.  Which can lift people out of poverty.  And lift nations out of poverty.  Which is why the United States has such a high standard of living.  Their economy became the number one economy in the world because they had so many jobs.  Thanks to a very business-friendly environment.  The Americans encouraged entrepreneurship.  And supported it with a sound banking system that encouraged capital formation.  Thanks to all those workers saving some of their earnings for the future.  Savings that provided the capital that built America.

So jobs are good.  And providing jobs for the working man is even better.  Because that’s what a working man wants.  A job.  So the Democrats, then, should be all about job creation.  If they are for the working man.  As is the perception.  But is this perception correct?  Well, if you determine that by the number of jobs they’ve created, no.

The Obama Policies are Business Unfriendly to Keep People Poor so the Democrats have Someone to Champion

Before George W. Bush became president in 2001 there were 210,743,000 in the civilian non-institutional population (see Employment Situation Archived News Releases).  Basically those who could have a job.  Of those who could have a job there were 141,489,000 in the civilian labor force.  By the time Bush left office there were 154,587,000 in the civilian labor force.  An increase of 13,098,000 to the civilian labor force.  Which is an increase of 1,637,240 annually.  Or 136,438 monthly.  So this is what a Republican did for the working man.  Now let’s see what a Democrat did.

Before Barack Obama became president in 2009 there were 154,687,000 in the civilian labor force.  At the end of March 2013 there were 155,028,000 in the civilian labor force.  An increase of 441,000.  Which is an increase of 103,765 annually.  Or 8,647 monthly.  The Bush economy created more jobs in a month that the Obama economy created in a year.  In fact, for every job the Obama economy created the Bush economy created 15.8 jobs.  So if you determine who is for the working many by who gives the working man more of what he wants, jobs, it is clear that the Republican is for the working man.  Not the Democrat.

No, President Obama’s economic policies are not business-friendly.  They are decidedly unfriendly to business.  Even punitive.  Which is why there has been no real job creation with the Obama economic policies.  Wall Street may be doing well.  The stock market may be doing well.  But the working man sure isn’t.  In fact, those who are doing well in the Obama economy are rich white men, bankers, corporate executives, Wall Street investors, etc.  So if the Democrats are not for the working man who are they for?  Poor people.  In fact, they love poor people so much that they work hard at keeping them poor.  Giving them a meager government handout instead of a job.  Which is how they win elections.  By giving poor people free stuff.  And if the poor ever stopped being poor the Democrats would have trouble winning elections.  Which is why the Obama economic policies are so business unfriendly.  So there are always poor and impoverished people they can champion.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Political Right, Left and Center

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 22nd, 2012

(Originally published December 8th, 2011)

The French Left wanted Radical Change and Launched the French Revolution

The terms Right, Left and Center go back to the French Revolution.  To the National Assembly.  Where people sat according to their political preferences.  Those who wanted to kill the king, the queen, the nobility, the clergy and pretty much anyone rich sat to the left of the president.  Those who wanted to maintain the monarchy and the established institutions sat to the president’s right.  Those who fell between these views sat in the center.

Why did the French Revolution erupt?  The people were starving.  Taxes were high.  And the government was trying to raise taxes again.  Because the government was drowning in debt.  From decades of war with their archenemy.  Great Britain.  And their financing of the American Revolution.  Where the British Americans were rebelling against the French’s archenemy.  Great Britain.

So France was a tinderbox.  To make matters worse for the monarchy was all that liberty talk of the Americans.  It was like a disease.  And it infected the French.  Who looked at the wealthy few.  The king.  The queen.  The nobility.  The clergy.  And then listened to their empty tummies rumbling.  The French Left wanted radical change.  And revolution.  The French Right said whoa now, let’s not act hasty here.  Yes we have some problems but our glorious French institutions have been around for centuries.  It’s in large part to them that France is great.

The Revolution to Topple a King ended with the Coronation of an Emperor – Napoleon

Well despite France’s great and glorious past the radicals got their way.  And blood ran in the streets of Paris.  Starting with the Storming of the Bastille.  The great medieval fortress housing prisoners of the realm.  The revolutionaries threw open the gates.  And freed all seven prisoners.  Being more a symbolic act than one of substance.  But this led eventually to a number of legislative assemblies.  A lot of blood.  Carnage.  And the beheading of King Louis XVI.  And his queen.  Marie Antoinette.  Eventually the seats on the right side of the National Assembly emptied.  As everyone moved to the president’s left.  Lest they be killed, too.

The revolutionaries aimed their wrath at anyone who was not supportive of the Revolution.  And even those whose support was only lukewarm.  They killed these enemies of the Revolution.  Or any other enemies that they conveniently identified as enemies of the Revolution.  Leaders rose.  And leaders fell.  Jean-Paul Marat.  Georges-Jacques Danton.  And Maximillien Robespierre.  All three were killed.  Charlotte Corday, a supporter of the Right, stabbed Marat in his bath tub.  Danton and Robespierre were guillotined.  Leaders of violence.  Victims of violence.  These members of the French Left.  Who killed and terrorized the people unlike the king they killed.  King Louis XVI.  Or the queen they killed.  Marie Antoinette.

Ultimately the French Revolution gave the world Napoleon.  And world war.  And the Revolution to topple a king ended with the coronation of an emperor.  For this opportunist ultimately had the biggest army.  Napoleon could consolidate his power.  Unlike Marat.  Danton.  Or Robespierre.  But Napoleon could.  And did.  Then he set out to create an empire.  Much like the kings that came before him did.

Those on the Right are Distrustful of those on the Left when they Talk about Egalitarianism and Fairness

Today the meaning of Left, Right and Center vary.  But, in general, those on the Right prefer the way things are.  Proven by time to work.  And those on the Left are never happy with how things are and want to change them to some new theoretical ideal that time hasn’t proven as a viable workable system.  Such as socialism.  And communism.  Generally referred to as ‘leftist’ systems.  And both are systems that have never worked.

Fascist Italy, Communist Russia and Nazi Germany were all new experimental systems to right all the wrongs of past governments.  And all three governments made their citizens’ lives worse with harsh police states.  With the state summarily executing enemies of the state.  Much like Marat, Danton and Robespierre did in France.  Many refer to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy as right-wing states.  But both were fascist states.  Which was nothing more than a national socialism.  Which was a combination of socialism.  And nationalism.  These were people who wanted radical change.  Control over the masses.  And empire.  If these governments sat in the French National Legislation they all would have taken seats to the left of the president.

Leftists hate the rich and successful.  And want to confiscate their wealth for themselves.  Instead of trying to achieve wealth on their own merit.  Those on the Right are distrustful of those on the Left when they talk about egalitarianism and fairness.  Because they know what that means.  They are going to take their wealth via the power of government.  By a progressive tax system.  Inheritance tax.  Capital gains tax.  Surtaxes to punish success.  Regulatory laws and fees that increase the cost of doing business.  (As well as increases the prices of goods and services.)  Etc.

The Left champions the poor and downtrodden as they ascend to power.  But rarely have they helped the poor and downtrodden.  Only a select few in the party upper echelons ever live a better life.   For example, the Democrat Party launched a war on poverty in the Sixties and yet there is still poverty.  Despite a myriad of government programs that has exploded the size of government.  All headed by rich bureaucrats living better lives.  While the poor and downtrodden are still wallowing in poverty.  And we know this because the Left is constantly telling us this.  In their never ending quest to expand the size of government.

The center is somewhere between the Left and the Right.  It’s not really a group with core political beliefs.  But more of a group that that likes a little from column ‘A’.  And a little from column ‘B’.

Politics is a Procession – We tend to Start on the Left, Work our Way through the Center and End on the Right

Perhaps another way to look at this is those on the right being parents in a family.  Children of these parents who are now raising their own families are in the center.  And the young children who are still in college are on the left.

The young know little and have even less responsibility.  They like to stay out late, party, do drugs and have consequence-free sex.  They don’t like anything that restricts their good times.  Hence they are always hostile to authority.  Church.  Or state.  And their vote tends to lean towards anarchy.  Where anything goes.

The children starting their own families are slowly giving up the ways of their youth.  They are becoming established in their careers.  Raising children.  Which leaves little time for fun.  But they are hesitant to admit that they have become their parents.  So they hang on to some of their idealistic ways of their youth.  While starting to save for their kids’ college education.  And their retirement.  They even start going to church.  To get their kids started on the right foot.  And to try and keep their kids from doing everything they did when they were young.

The parents have worked long and hard.  They have a family.  And grandchildren.  They want the best for their family.  And a happy and secure retirement.  After playing by the rules all of their lives they don’t want to rock the boat now that they are so close to retirement.  So they are very pleased to stay with the proven ways of the past.  And prefer to help others at their church.  Rather than giving money to a leviathan government.

Politics is a procession.  We tend to start on the Left.  Work our way through the Center.  And end on the Right.  For we tend to grow less radical with age.  Because as we age we accumulate wealth and have far more to lose with radical change.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

JFK, Tax Cuts, Vietnam, LBJ, Great Society, Hippies, Race Riots, Keynesian Spending, Nixon, Carter and Ronald Reagan

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 21st, 2012

History 101

Ronald Reagan would follow the Kennedy Example of Cutting Taxes to Grow the Economy

In 1961 West German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard gave John F. Kennedy (JFK) some good advice.  During JFK’s visit he told him not to make the same mistake the British had.  He told Kennedy NOT to follow their policy of high taxation.  Because it killed economic activity.  And economic growth.  England was suffering from her bad tax policy.  He urged the American president not to make the same mistake.

JFK heeded Erhard’s advice.  And cut tax rates.  This did not please liberals in his Democrat Party.  Who were all Keynesians.  And believed in large government interventions into the private sector.  Funded by large government expenditures.  Which in the Keynesian world you got in one of three ways.  Tax, borrow or print money.  You did not cut tax rates.  Which was blasphemous in Keynesian doctrine.  You never, ever, cut tax rates.  But Kennedy did.  Arguing that “an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget—just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.”

A message Ronald Reagan would give time and again some 20 years later.  And would follow the Kennedy example of cutting taxes to grow the economy.  Generating more tax revenue without having to cut spending.  The result of JFK’s ‘trickle-down’ economics were impressive.  He cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%.  And cut the 20% rate to 14% at the other end of the scale.  What did people do with these tax savings?  They saved.  And invested.  Savings rose from an annual growth rate of 2% to 9%.  Business investment from 2% to 8%.  New jobs grew at a rate of 100%.  And unemployment fell by one third.  With GDP rising some 40% in two years.  And despite cutting tax rates tax revenue rose.  The booming economy generating more tax revenue even at the lower rates.  Even more than the Keynesians said Kennedy was going to cost the government with his tax cuts.

The Social Upheavals of the Sixties, the Race Riots and his Unpopular Vietnam War all took their Toll on LBJ

Liberals love JFK.  But for none of these reasons.  They prefer to wax poetically about his fight to end economic and racial injustice.  Which were in reality low on his priority list.  Addressing civil rights only after trouble was escalating in the south.  But that’s the Left’s cherished memory of him.  And of Camelot.  The American royal family.  They don’t talk about JFK’s trickle-down economics.  His Bay of Pigs fiasco (the plan to oust Fidel Castro from Cuba that he withdrew support from after it met difficulty on the beaches).  His Cuban missile crisis (near nuclear war with the Soviet Union) which his indecision at the Bay of Pigs may have invited.   Or his war in Vietnam.  No.  They stay silent on the best part of his presidency.  As well as the worst parts.  And focus instead on the fairy tale that was Camelot.  Ignoring completely his excellent economic policies and the strong economy they gave us.  And all that tax revenue that poured into the treasury.  Yes, they may have liked having that money.  But they didn’t have to like how it got there.

Following JFK’s assassination Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) ascended to the presidency.  An old school politician that knew how to make deals to advance legislation.  And boy did he.  He declared unconditional war on poverty.  And unleashed the Great Society to spend America out of poverty.  Keynesian to the core.  Pure demand-side economics.  Give poor people money which they will use to buy consumer goods.  That Keynesian consumption that was so crucial to a healthy economy.  So Johnson made good use of all that tax revenue JFK created with his tax cuts.  And LBJ’s Great Society consumed enormous amounts of that tax revenue.  As did JFK’s Vietnam War.  Now LBJ’s war.  Which LBJ escalated.  Government expenditures exploded during the Johnson administration.  And the spending obligations he put into place were only going to escalate future expenditures.  Oh, and we were also trying to land a man on the moon during this time.  All during a time when the world was changing.  When a bunch of filthy hippies began to protest anything that didn’t somehow gratify them (their rallying cry was sex, drugs and rock & roll).  And racial tensions simmered to the boiling point in our crowded cities.

The social upheavals of the Sixties.  The race riots.  The unpopular war on our living room televisions.  They all took their toll on LBJ.  The race riots especially hurt him as he had spent so much money on ending economic and racial injustice.  On a televised address he told the nation that he was through being the president.  He wasn’t going to run for another term.  And he wouldn’t accept a nomination for a second term.  He basically thanked an ungrateful nation.  And planned for his retirement.  Leaving a fiscal mess for the next president.  As well as a mess in Vietnam.  And the job for cleaning up these messes fell to Richard Milhous Nixon.

When Nixon entered the Presidency all those Spending Obligations of the Great Society were Coming Due

Nixon had a lot of liberal tendencies.  He was actually a member of the NAACP since 1950.  Long before JFK or LBJ talked of civil rights.  He believed in New Deal economics.  Of the good government could do.  He was also an environmentalist.  Giving us the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  And giving us emissions standards for our cars.  He gave us the Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA).  And a flurry of other regulations.  Not what you would expect from a Republican these days.  Of course, few probably know this.  But they probably do know about Watergate.  At least the word ‘Watergate’.  Which was pretty tame by today’s standards.  Spying on the political opposition.  Then lying about it.

When Nixon entered the presidency all those spending obligations of the Great Society were coming due.  The cost of LBJ’s Great Society really hit the Nixon administration hard.  Enormous amounts of money were flowing out to poor people (so they could spend it and buy consumer goods).  To the war in Vietnam.  To the Cold War.  To the space program.  To the enlarged federal government.  Government spending was going off the chart.  But it wasn’t having the affect on the economy the Keynesians said it would.  They were taxing, borrowing and printing money like good little Keynesians.  But they were devaluing the dollar in the process.  And igniting inflation.  Worse, the U.S. dollar was the reserve currency of the world.  Foreign nations pegged their currency to the U.S. dollar.  The U.S. pegged the dollar to gold.  As the Americans devalued the dollar, though, the foreign countries traded their dollars for gold.  Gold began to fly out of the country.  So Nixon did what any responsible Keynesian would do.  Instead of playing by the rules of the game he changed the rules.  And decoupled the dollar from gold.  The Nixon Shock.  Ushering in the era of unfettered Keynesian economics.  Deficit spending.  Growing debt.  High inflation.  High unemployment.  Stagflation.  And malaise.

Jimmy Carter would see the worse of LBJ’s Great Society.  As it left his economy in a mess.  Despite all of that government spending.  And Carter suffered because he, too, was a Keynesian.  He believed in that GDP formula where GDP equaled the sum of consumption, investment, government expenditures and net exports (exports – Imports).  And the formula clearly states that the way to increase GDP (and increase the number of jobs) was to increase government spending to give money to people so they could buy consumer goods (increasing government spending and consumption in the formula).  It was simple arithmetic.  But the formula left out about half of all economic activity.  The intermediate business spending that takes place before any consumer goods enter our stores.  Think of things consumers don’t buy.  Like railroad track, blast furnaces, construction front-end loaders, etc.  Economic activity that JFK encouraged with his tax cuts.  As Ronald Reagan did so, too, some 20 years later.  Which is why the JFK and the Reagan economies were far better than any Keynesian administration.

Even after more than a decade of unfettered Keynesian spending consumption was only 34% of all economic activity in 1982.  Even though official GDP figures reported it at 65%.  Why the discrepancy?  Intermediate business spending.  The stages of production before consumer goods.  Coming in at 54% of real economic activity in 1982.  Which is why the tax-cut policies of JFK and Ronald Reagan worked.  And the spending policies of JBJ, Nixon and Carter didn’t.  Trickle-down works.  Because it creates jobs.  And those lower tax rates generate higher tax revenues because more people are working and paying taxes.  All things a Keynesian wants.  But they will reject them because they resulted from the ‘wrong’ policies.  Because Keynesians want to tax, borrow and print.  Regardless of their effect on the economy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Poverty is Down in Chile thanks to Job-Creation and Subsidies paid for by those Newly Created Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 29th, 2012

Week in Review

Job-creation reduces poverty in Chile.  And it goes back to the Seventies.  But you wouldn’t know it by reading this (see Poverty indicators decline posted 7/25/2012 on Economist Intelligence Unit).

Improvements in Chile’s poverty indicators in the past two decades are back on track after a setback in 2009. The proportion of the population living in poverty fell from 15.1% in 2009 to 14.4% in 2011, according to the latest Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (Casen) household survey. There was also a substantial drop in the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, from 3.7% in 2009 to 2.8% in 2011. The main factor explaining these trends was the strong level of job-creation recorded in Chile in the past two years, but well-targeted government subsidies also played an important role…

Within the IEF programme, the monthly bonuses under the “dignity” component, worth Ps6,000 (US$12.5) per person in the household, plus Ps13,000 per household, are targeted at those in extreme poverty, and will be unconditional. Beyond that, if the children in the household attend their mandatory healthcare check-ups and achieve a school attendance rate of at least 85%, the household will receive a monthly bonus of Ps8,000 per child. This yields Ps53,000 per month to a household with two adults and two children satisfying these conditions, or US$97 per month for one with one adult and two children.

Yes, job-creation was a strong factor.  Targeted government subsidies?  Not really.  First of all, you can’t do targeted subsidies if you don’t have a lot of jobs creating a lot of tax revenue.  You can have jobs without subsidies but you can’t have subsidies without jobs.  Because jobs pay for subsidies.

Paying people to have children?  Where have I heard this before?  Oh, yes.  LBJ’s Great Society.  That gave us AFDC.  Aid to Families with Dependent Children.  That destroyed poor families by encouraging single mothers to have more babies to collect more benefits.  Allowing men to father as many children as they pleased with as many women as they pleased because they don’t have to pay to raise their children.  The state became the father to these children (and husband to these women).  Raised them in crime-infested housing projects.  And sent them to broken, substandard schools.  Which these kids dropped out of and joined gangs.  Yeah, AFDC worked so well that Bill Clinton, a Democrat, reformed welfare to fix this ill-conceived policy.  Because even he knew you can’t fix problems by simply throwing money at them.  Jobs were better.  And families.  Where a child grew up with a mother and a father to nurture and discipline the child.  To put them on the right path.  Something the state just couldn’t do.

Missing from this piece is any mention of Milton Friedman.  The Chicago Boys.  El Ladrillo.  The economic plan put together by the Chilean economists who studied at the University of Chicago.  In the Chicago school of economics.  It was so thick they called it The Brick.  Or El Ladrillo.  Milton Friedman and these great Chilean economists, the Chicago Boys, turned the Chilean economy around.  The dictator Augusto Pinochet even invited Milton Friedman down to Chile to help.  Friedman went.  Gave some advice.  And Pinochet followed it.  Turning their horrible economy around (see Monetarism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Augusto Pinochet, Chile, Hyperinflation, El Ladrillo, Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman and Miracle of Chile).

He ditched the mercantilist policies.  Embraced laissez-faire capitalism.  Privatized the state industries.  Established free trade.  Cut government spending.  And stopped printing money.  Ending the hyperinflation.  Replacing it with a strict monetary policy… Friedman’s monetarism turned the Chilean economy around.  Creating a prosperous market economy.  With a growing middle class.  The strong economic growth led to some healthy tax revenue.  Which in later years funded antipoverty programs.  The Miracle of Chile even replaced the military junta with a democratic government.  Chile now has one of the healthiest and freest economies in the world.

It was these sound economic policies that created the Miracle of Chile in the Eighties.  Not targeted subsidies.  Real economic growth provides prosperity.  People with jobs.  Who earn money to spend in the economy.  And pay taxes.  That’s the way it always works.  Jobs first.  Then prosperity.  And then the tax revenue that funds government spending.  It just doesn’t work the other way around.  If it did Greece wouldn’t be in the trouble it’s in.  The United States wouldn’t still be lingering in the Great Recession.  And President Clinton wouldn’t have reformed welfare to end the family killer AFDC.  No.  Excessive government spending only creates great debt.  High inflation.  And a permanently impoverished underclass.  At least this is what history has shown us.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT120: “Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day; give him a job and he can have an obesity problem.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 1st, 2012

Fundamental Truth

In Warfare Starvation and Famine are the most Potent of Weapons

Starvation and famine has plagued mankind since the dawn of time.  It was the driving force in evolution.  Those who took control of their food supply lived.  Those who didn’t disappeared from the evolutionary path.  Like Neanderthal.  And those who came before him.  Our earliest civilizations massed their populations to farm.  And the masses lived in cities.  Setting down roots and saying goodbye to their hunting and gathering ways.  In the Wei River valley.  In the Indus River valley.  The valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris.  In the Nile River valley.  Where modern life took root.  Produced our first food surpluses.  And gave birth to urban life.  And the middle class.

The rise of the middle class allowed civilization to flourish.  For every person that didn’t have to produce food could do something else.  Build better tools.  Create a better government.  Create art.  In general, think about other things.  Those other things that made humans different.  By giving us a more interesting life.  And more sophisticated ways to express ourselves.

But this growth was a double-edged sword.  For large urban populations that made life more enjoyable was also a great threat to the food supply.  A cool and wet summer could destroy crops.  Poor food storage could spoil the food surplus.  A war could see an enemy purposely destroy your crops and your food surplus.  Causing famine.  Where half or your city population could easily die before the next harvest.  Or more.  Especially if the famine resulted from an act of war.   As an act of genocide.  To clear people off land that others want to use for their own food needs.  Which was Hitler’s plan in Russia.  To take the food from the Ukraine.  Kill the indigenous population.  And replace them with Nazis.  Thus creating more living space for the Third Reich.  Or Lebensraum.    Because in warfare starvation and famine are the most potent of weapons.

History has shown that the most Food-Abundant Countries are the most Capitalistic

England led the way in agricultural advances.  Increasing crop yields such that small tracts of land could support greater populations.  As well as produce such huge food surpluses that they had food to export.  As the British Empire spread across the globe so did their advanced agricultural ways.  During the 19th century starvation and famine were becoming rarer in the technologically advanced West.  The 19th century Irish Potato Famine reduced Ireland’s population by up to 25%.  A tragedy of epic proportions.  But it was an exception to the rule.  For food was growing so abundant in the advanced Western World that rarely did people go hungry.  Or feared famine.  And when mechanization and chemistry hit the farm our crop yields exploded.

During the Twentieth Century the Western World produced so much food that food prices plummeted.  Causing the Great Depression.  There was so much food available that farmers couldn’t sell their food at a high enough price to service the debt that they incurred mechanizing their farms.  But not everyone was producing bumper crops in the Twentieth Century.  Both the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China set records for death by famine.  As they shunned the ways of the West.  And the state took over their agricultural sectors.  States that were so inept at good farming practices and things economic that crop yields plummeted.  North Korea to this day can’t even grow enough food for her own people.  And has recurring famines.  Because they hold on to the communist ways of Stalin and Mao.  While the Russians and the Chinese have long abandoned them. 

History has shown that the most food-abundant countries are the most capitalistic.  Countries whose agricultural sectors use the latest in technology.  And/or have a rich and vibrant economy that can buy all the food they need if they can’t produce their own.  Like Hong Kong.  Basically a rock off the Chinese mainland.  It has little arable land.  Few natural resources.  But what it does have is low taxation and free trade.  And laissez-faire capitalism.  The Chinese lost Hong Kong to the British Empire (who have since given it back).  And the British used laissez-faire capitalism to make Hong Kong the gem it is today.  Where people are free and in want of little.  And in this island nation that can’t grow enough food to feed their population famine is unheard of.  Why?  Because they have the wealth to trade for all the food they desire.  In fact, while Mao gave the people in the People’s Republic of China famine Hong Kong were doing just fine.  Because they were wealthy and could trade for what they needed.  And they had the Royal Navy protecting her.

In America our Food Supplies are so Abundant and so Cheap that Poor People are becoming Obese

Poverty is the biggest killer.  Famine is prevalent in poor countries.  Like Haiti.  North Korea.  And sub-Saharan Africa.  People suffer in these countries unlike they do in the West.  Despite the amount of aid the West pours into them.  And it’s not because Western nations were blessed with natural resources.  Hong Kong doesn’t have anything other than laissez-faire capitalism.  Protected by the Rule of Law and minimal government interference into the private sector economy.  The very things that are missing from Haiti, North Korea and sub-Saharan Africa.  Where corruption rules supreme.  There is little regard for human rights.  Or property rights.  And no one can protect their people from the abuses of government.  Or from warring neighbors.  Like the Royal Navy protected Hong Kong.  And pretty much the rest of the world during the 19th century.  Just like America’s military might made the world safe for capitalism in the Twentieth Century.

Third world nations are not a victim of first world nations.  They are a victim of themselves.  Where corrupt rulers collect Western aid and live well while their people suffer.  Especially the nations that eschew capitalism.  And embrace socialism.  Like the Soviet Union did.  Like the People’s Republic of China did (the current Chinese regime is enjoying economic growth by allowing some capitalism into their still communist country).  And like North Korea still does.  These socialist utopias were a living hell for their people.  Where they live in fear of their government.  And of famine.

Meanwhile in the Western capitalist nations what do they suffer from?  Especially the poor people in America?  Obesity.  In New York they’re passing laws restricting the size of sugary beverages because they are dangerous to your health.  While they pass out free condoms and birth control as sex is far less risky behavior than a delicious carbonated beverage.  Apparently.  Yes, in America our food supplies are so abundant and so cheap that poor people are becoming obese.  Because capitalism has made those food supplies abundant and cheap.  And capitalism gave people jobs where they could afford to buy so much food that they can give themselves an obesity problem.  A problem they just don’t have in Haiti, North Korea or sub-Saharan Africa.  Because they can’t grow enough food.  Or earn enough money to buy enough food.  For they don’t have an environment conducive to creating jobs.  Which is why these nations are still impoverished and/or suffering famine despite all the aid the West gives them.  Food aid will run out.  And then they’ll just be starving once again.  If they have jobs, though, they’ll be able to buy food whenever they’re hungry.  Because it’s like that old saying.  Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day; give him a job and he can have an obesity problem.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries