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

North Korea Manufactures and Sells Meth to Chinese addicts to bring Hard Currency into the Country

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 25th, 2013

Week in Review

Keynesian economists, and those on the left, think there is nothing wrong with printing money.  Because they don’t understand money.  What it truly is.  So what is money?  It’s a temporary storage of wealth.  It is not wealth.  Doctors make a lot of money because they have learned great skills.  Skills few people have.  And doctors are willing to exchange these skills for money.  The wealth is a doctor’s skills.  The money temporarily holds this wealth until the doctor finds something to trade that money for.  From someone else that has wealth.  Who created something of value the doctor is willing to trade for.

All money did was make this trading of valuable things easier.  So we could trade with anyone even if they don’t want anything we can make or do.  A doctor doesn’t have to find someone who wants their gallbladder removed who has a television set if the doctor wants a television set.  The doctor can just go to a store and buy one.  Because of money.  Making the exchange of goods and services far easier than in a barter system.

Those who think money is wealth and that we should just print it and hand it out to the people are missing one very important point.  If you did this no one would have to work.  Those on the left would applaud that.  But if no one worked there would be no valuable things to trade.  And if there are no valuable things to trade then your money is worthless.  For if there is nothing to buy what good is having money?

North Korea has a lot of money.  But their money is worthless.  Because they just print it.  While their economy contains no valuable things to trade.  Not a big problem in a closed economy.  And you make your people slaves.  But it’s a problem if you want to trade with the outside world for the luxury items the lucky few in the ruling elite enjoy.  For if you have no valuable things in your economy then you must trade for valuable things with hard currency.  Money that isn’t worthless paper.  So North Korea came up with a way to get hard currency (see How North Korea got itself hooked on meth by Max Fisher published 8/21/2013 on The Washington Post).

A new study published in the journal North Korea Review says that parts of North Korea are experiencing a crystal meth “epidemic,” with an “upsurge” of recreational meth use and accompanying addiction in the country’s northern provinces…

So how do people in North Korea, a country where markets are so tightly regulated that even video CDs can be considered dangerous contraband and where social controls are often beyond Orwellian, manage to get hold of meth..?

The problem actually goes back to the 1990s, when North Korea experienced a famine so devastating that virtually the entire world believed the country would collapse at any moment. But it didn’t, in part because Pyongyang finally decided to open up the world’s most closed economy just a small crack, by allowing a degree of black market trade across North Korea’s border with China. The idea was that the black market would bring in food, which it did, preventing North Korea’s implosion.

The black market trade into China has remained that little bit open ever since, either because Pyongyang authorities can’t close it now or because they see some trade as beneficial, probably both. Some provinces along the border have seen their economies liberalize a tiny, tiny bit — most notably North Hamgyung, which is named in the North Korea Review report as particularly blighted by meth addiction.

In the years after the border with China opened that little crack, two other things have happened that led to the current meth crisis. First, medicine ran out and the once-not-terrible health system collapsed — more on this later. Second, North Korea started manufacturing meth in big state-run labs. The country badly needs hard currency and has almost no legitimate international trade. But it was able to exploit the black market trade across the Chinese border by sending state-made meth into China and bringing back the money of Chinese addicts.

This is where things started to spin out of control for North Korea. The state-run meth factories and the cross-border black market trade started to mingle. And some of that meth ended up migrating back across the border and into North Korea, through the black market trade that brings in Chinese rice and DVDs and the like.

This is where the collapse of the North Korean health system becomes relevant. As Isaac Stone Fish reported in a great 2011 Newsweek story, many regular North Koreans started using meth to treat health problems. Real medicine is extremely scarce in the country. But meth is much more common, which means that the prices of medical drugs are artificially inflated, while the price of meth is artificially low. In a culture without much health education and lots of emphasis on traditional remedies, people were ready to believe that meth would do the trick for their medical problems, and many got addicted.

Poor Chinese.  First the British got them addicted to opium.  Then North Korea got them addicted to meth.  It appears the Chinese people are nothing but pawns in the game of international trade.

Back in the days of mercantile Britain trade was all about who collected the most hard currency.  Basically gold and silver in those days.  The British loved Chinese tea.  And were filling ships full of the stuff to bring it back to Britain.  The problem was that the Chinese didn’t want anything the British were selling.  So Chinese goods were flowing to Britain.  But no British goods were flowing to China.  And without having exports to offset imports Britain was forced to trade the only thing they had that China wanted.  Their hard currency.  Their silver.  So Chinese goods flowed out of china.  And Britain’s hard currency flowed out of Britain.  So China was accumulating piles of hard currency while Britain saw their piles diminish.  Which was the exact opposite mercantile Britain wanted.  So they did something about it.  Thanks to India.

India was part of the British Empire.  And she grew opium poppies.  Something some Chinese did want.  So the British used this opium demand to stop the flow of hard currency out of the empire.  And traded Indian opium for Chinese tea.  This solved the trade deficit problem.  But it created a lot of addicts in China.  The addiction problem got so bad that it spawned two wars.  The Opium Wars.  Which did not end well for China.  And things did not get better in the century or so that followed.  And now here is North Korea.  Turning Chinese into addicts to get hard currency out of China (and into North Korea).  Just like the British did.  Of course, North Korea is nothing like the mighty British Empire.  So one would believe that China is allowing this addiction problem to happen.  As it is probably a smaller price to pay than the refugee problem should North Korea collapse.  And they may like that North Korean buffer between them and South Korea.  Japan.  And the United States.

North Korea is everything the left would like to have in the United States.  Tightly regulated markets.  National health care.  No rich people accumulating private property.  Where they frown on profits.  The even put people before profits.  Just like liberals want to do.  There’s no talk radio.  No Rush Limbaugh.  No Fox News.  No free trade.  No low-cost imports to undermine union manufacturing.  No obesity.  Because there is no junk food.  And no 32 ounce sugary beverages.  And a government that can do what is right for the people without having to worry about a Tea Party challenger in the next primary election.  North Korea is liberal nirvana.  Yet life there is horrible and wretched.  Because it’s everything liberals want.  But nothing the people want.

Liberals want to keep expanding government.  To have more government intervention into the free market.  But where does it end?  How far do they want to take things towards North Korea before they say they have enough?  And why anyone should worry about this is because as horrible and wretched life is in North Korea, those in the ruling elite have it pretty darn good.  Because the people in charge of these regimes never suffer like the people outside of the ruling elite.  So the farther they move towards North Korea the less they have to worry about an election taking away their comfy life.  This is why we should worry about a government growing larger.  For throughout world history life like that in North Korea has been the norm.  While life like that in the United States has been the exception.  And the United States has only been around for 225 years (counting from the ratification of the U.S. Constitution).  A crazy new fad the entitled ruling elite (i.e., liberals) would like to do away with.  So they can rule like they did in the good old days.  Much like they do today in North Korea.  Where the supreme ruler, Kim Jong-un, has an obesity problem.  One of the few in North Korea that isn’t gripped with a gnawing hunger every minute of every day.  This is life in a country where the ruling elite hates capitalism.  And puts people before profits.  This liberal nirvana.  Those in power live well.  While everyone else suffers.



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

FT159: “There’s more to know than most people know.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 1st, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Some want to Lower the Voting Age despite our Teens’ Penchant for Making Poor Decisions

Parents can’t tell their kids anything.  Because they know everything already.  Despite doing a lot of stupid stuff.  They smoke cigarettes.  Do drugs.  Binge drink.  Drink and drive.  Have unprotected sex.  And a whole lot of other things that can have lasting consequences.  Consequences such as cancer.  A drug addiction.  An arrest for driving under the influence.  An arrest for vehicular manslaughter.  Catching a venereal disease.  Becoming a single mother while still in high school.  Or becoming a single mother with a venereal disease.  While still in high school.

Teens and young adults have a history of making poor decisions.  Why?  Is it because they are stupid?  No.  It’s because they are young.  Inexperienced.  And grow up in an environment that tells them they are far wiser than they are.  As they grew up people constantly told them that they are smart.  They are wise.  And that we need to listen to what they say.  For they are our future.  Some even wanting to bring them into the political process earlier.  By lowering the voting age.  Which is an odd thing to do.  Considering their penchant for making poor decisions.

Of course kids are all for lowering the voting age.  For if they could vote earlier there would probably be more than 2 states that have decriminalized marijuana by now.  And they could lower the drinking age, too.  For let’s face it kids are going to binge drink no matter what we say.  Just as they are going to smoke marijuana and have sex.  So we might as well help them do these things.  And lowering the voting age will be a step towards making that happen.

The Founding Fathers wanted a Government of the People not a Ruling Elite in a Faraway Place telling them what’s Best for Them

So we know what kids want.  Less parenting.  And more fun.  They want the freedom to enjoy whatever they want to enjoy.  And believe they are enlightened like our Founding Fathers were when they wanted the freedom to do what they wanted to do.  Of course, the Founding Fathers’ Enlightenment was a lot different from that of the kids’ today.  The Founding Fathers were interested in science, economics and religious freedom.  They were familiar with the history of Greece and Rome.  Magna Carta.  The Protestant Reformation.  The English Civil War.  They were proud of their membership in the British Empire.  The most enlightened and free empire, or country, in the world.  Thanks to their representative government.  But when Parliament did not let them have any representation in that house while passing laws to govern them, well, they didn’t love the British Empire as much as they once did.

The Founding Fathers weren’t fans of mercantilism.  Then the dominant economic policy of the day.  European powers fought each other for colonies.  Their colonies shipped raw materials back to the mother country.  Who then used them to manufacture finished goods.  That they then sold to the world.  And to their colonies.  Keeping the net flow of gold and silver flowing to the mother country.  While exporting more finished goods than they imported.  With the state helping a few well-connected domestic businesses.  Keeping the state coffers flush with money.  While the people paid higher prices than they normally would have paid.  Thanks to those government policies favoring the well-connected businesses.  Basically like what China is doing today.  Maintaining a strong export economy with cheap labor.  That doesn’t benefit the Chinese masses all that much.  Creating basically two Chinas.  The rich in the cities.  And the poor and impoverished everywhere else.

The Founding Fathers wanted liberty.  Political liberty.  And economic liberty.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Where the people taking the greatest risk profited the most.  Not the state.  They wanted a limited federal government.  Just large enough to protect the nation.  To treat with other nations.  Those things best suited for the federal government.  While the vast majority of power belonged to the states.  Closer to the people.  And not in some distant land.  They wanted a government of the people.  Not a ruling elite in a faraway place telling them what’s best for them.  That’s why they fought for their independence from a distant power in the first place.  The British Empire.  And they sure didn’t want to trade one distant power oppressing them for another.  They didn’t want money corrupting the federal government.  They wanted the seat of financial power and the seat of government power separated.  For the greatest abuses of power came when wealth joined power in the Old World capitals.  London.  Paris.  Madrid.  Thomas Jefferson wanted the federal capital as far from the bankers and merchants in New York as possible.  Which is why they placed the new federal capital in a swamp on the Potomac River.

Sadly, those who Know the Least often determine who Wins Elections

Those who have studied history understand how the United States came to be.  And what made it the world’s number one economic power.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Free trade.  Sound money.  In particular the gold standard.  They saw history prove Say’s Law.  Supply creates its own demand.  No one demanded personal computers or the Internet.  But when those who brought these to the market place showed how wonderful they were demand soon followed.  They saw history prove David Ricardo’s comparative advantage.  How free trade lets nations produce what they do most efficiently and trade for what they don’t.  Thus increasing the economies of all nations trading freely.

People who know history understand that the prevalent economic policy today, Keynesian economics, is a failed policy.  For Keynesian economic policies are more like mercantilism than free market capitalism.  Calling for more government intervention into the market.  Inflationary monetary policy (i.e., printing money).  As well as tax and spend fiscal policies so the government can redistribute wealth.  So the government can choose winners and losers.  Not the free market.  Policies that all go against what made America the world’s number one economic power.  The Seventies, a time when the Keynesians got everything they wanted when President Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold, saw double-digit inflation, high unemployment and a stagnant economy.  Everything the Keynesians tried failed to improve the economy.  In fact, their policies only made the economy worse.  And the only thing that pulled us out of the stagflation and misery of the Seventies was Ronald Reagan.  Who embraced the classical economic policies that made America the number one economic power in the world.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Say’s Law.  David Ricardo’s comparative advantage.  Sound monetary policy (i.e., noninflationary).  The policies we call Reaganomics.

People who study history know this.  But teens and young adults?  Those more interested in drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana and having sex?  They haven’t a clue about economics or their history.  Yet they often determine elections.  Sad but true.  And it’s just not teens and young adults who don’t understand economics or know their history.  Thanks to the hippies of the Sixties moving into education most people coming out of our public schools don’t.  For the hippies of the Sixties changed the curriculum.  To help them in their quest to destroy capitalism.   By dumbing down the curriculum.  So it’s easier for Keynesians to keep passing the failed policies of the past.  To help them keep expanding the size of government.  To turn this nation back to what the Founding Fathers fought to get away from.  The mercantilism of the Old World.  Of present day China.  Where the few in power have all the power.  And all the wealth.  All because people think they know more than they know.  And vote as if they know everything they need to know.  But there’s more to know than most people know.  And, sadly, those who know the least often determine who wins elections.



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

China’s State Capitalism Export Economy fueled by Cheap Labor, Oppression, Kidnapping, Torture and Asset Seizing

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 10th, 2012

Week in Review

For those on the left that think China’s state capitalism (aka, crony capitalism, socialism, thugocracy, etc.)  is the way to go should live under their state capitalism for awhile.  To get a fist hand account of just how wonderful it is.  Because, frankly, it’s not that wonderful.  At least for those who live under it (see China: toils of communist boss give insight into workings of the party by Tania Branigan posted 3/9/2012 on The Guardian).

The political drama surrounding an ambitious Chinese Communist party leader, his former ally a “robocop” police chief who apparently tried to defect to the west, a missing businessman, and another who claims to have been tortured, has uncovered bitter tensions in the Communist party as a new generation of leaders prepares to take power…

Meanwhile, a Chongqing businessman appears to have vanished in Beijing shortly after publishing a microblog message saying “the jigsaw puzzle around Wang Lijun” would soon become clear. Zhang Mingyu had claimed to have a recording of Wang warning him to stop accusing another businessman of corruption. Zang’s lawyer, Pu Zhiqiang, said Zhang had been visited by police and other officials who wanted him to return to Chongqing, and was now out of contact. Questioning their jurisdiction, Pu added: “Chongqing police came to Beijing to take him. This is more like a kidnapping.” Chongqing police said they had no information on Zhang.

Earlier this week fugitive Chinese businessman Li Jun described Bo’s anti-crime campaign as a “red terror”. He alleged in interviews with the Financial Times and Washington Post that Chongqing security officials had tortured him and seized his assets. Chongqing officials declined to comment…

Bo also indicated inequality in China had hit a high level, saying the gini coefficient – the most commonly used measure of inequality – had exceeded 0.46, a similar level to the United States and well past the 0.4 figure often seen as an indicator of growing social tension. China’s statistics bureau has said it cannot produce a single national figure because of problems with the survey method. Bo said reducing the wealth gap was a major task for Chongqing, adding: “If only a few people are rich then we’ll slide into capitalism. We’ve failed.”

It is precisely because they don’t have capitalism that there are only a few rich people.  And why they have cheap labor for their export economy.  Because the only rich people are the ruling elite.  The people connected to the ruling elite.  And those connected to the ‘businesses’ that are connected to the ruling elite.  Sure, they fear capitalism.  And don’t want to slip into capitalism.  For a national export economy driven by cheap labor needs the power of the state to keep that labor cheap.  And tools like kidnap, torture and seizing the assets of anyone they deem an enemy of the state are most invaluable in subduing a people.  And keeping their wages cheap.  That’s the big fear of slipping into capitalism.  For if they did they wouldn’t be able to oppress their people anymore.



Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

FT94: “It’s hard to fool smart people. Which explains the Department of Education.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 2nd, 2011

Fundamental Truth

The Fewer in the Minority Ruling Power the Richer Each will Be

Not everyone can live like nobility.  Those privileged few who have more than the masses.  Throughout history it’s always been an elite few in power.  A minority rule over the masses.  Why?  Because the masses can only support a select few in a life of plush luxury.

Let’s do a simple exercise.  Take a group of 10 people.  Let’s assume they each earn $30,000.  Not a lot.  It’s enough to get by on but they’re not going to enjoy many luxuries in life.  Now let’s assume one of the ten assumes all power.  Promotes himself to king.  Or herself to queen.  Doesn’t work anymore.  And taxes everyone’s earnings at 35% to support the royal family.  That leaves only 9 people working.  Each now has only $19,500 after taxes to live on.  While the royal family enjoys $94,500.  Which is 485% more.  And it’s tax free.  Because the king is the taxman, too.  Pretty sweet, eh?

It’s good to be in the royal family, yes?  You bet.  But let’s see what happens if more people join the royal family from the kingdom of 10.  As summarized in the following table:

As the number of people working decreases and the number of those not working increases, the money per Royal eventually drops below that of the subjects.  So what do we learn from this little exercise?  The fewer in the minority ruling power the richer each will be.  Ergo the ruling elite must be a small minority.

Kids are Taught that Free Market Capitalism is Killing the Planet and the Polar Bears

This is politics.  And it’s been this way since the dawn of civilization.  In the days of kings minority rule was relatively easy.  But it’s been more difficult since the advent of representative government.  Because you just can’t rule by decree.  You have to win elections.  By getting the people to vote ‘yes’ to working harder.  And paying more taxes.  So those not working can live a plush life of luxury.

Of course you can’t say things like this and expect to win elections.  You have to parse the truth a little.  And by ‘parse’ I mean lie.  You make up a bunch of stuff that sounds important and worthy of doing.  Such as saving the environment.  And battling global warming.  All of which takes a bigger government to regulate the economy to save the planet.  And a lot of taxes to pay for this government.  So how do you do this?  By scaring children in public school.

The earth has warmed and cooled long before man ever put carbon in the atmosphere.  Glaciers have moved thousands of miles before man ever burned coal or created the internal combustion engine.  Oceans have risen and fallen long before Al Gore moved into his oceanfront mansion.  No matter.  For the ‘scientists’ at East Anglia have massaged the data to get the political results they set out to get.  And they say it’s now a fact that man is killing the planet.  So a world government must take over the world’s economies.  To save the planet.  So a select few can live a plush life of luxury courtesy of the labors of others.  Like Al Gore.  But you don’t tell children this.  No.  Instead you show them pictures of polar bears in ‘danger of drowning’ because they’re swimming in water.  Which they are wont to do.  In search of their food.  No matter.  Man is melting the polar icecaps.  So the kiddies are upset.  Because free market capitalism is killing the planet.  And the polar bears.

The Goal of the Department of Education is to make Good Democrat Voters

We constantly have to spend more money on public education to make our kids smarter.  Which must mean our kids graduating from public education aren’t very smart.  But they do know that free market capitalism is killing the planet.  And that global warming is melting the polar ice caps and killing the polar bears.  So they’re learning something.  Just nothing that will improve their test scores to the level of the Asians or the Indians.

Interestingly, this decline in American education coincided with the rise of the Department of Education starting in 1979.  Before then the U.S. led the world in math, science and engineering.  Because our kids were smarter than kids everywhere else.  But then the great dumbing down began.   Multiculturalism.  Diversity.  Outcomes-based education.  Emphasizing the importance of not making anyone feel bad.  Rather than emphasizing the virtue of excelling.  And, of course, indoctrinating them into global warming.  Instead of learning math, science, engineering and capitalism, the social sciences took over the curriculum.  And one fake science.  Which explains why we are now playing catch-up to the Asians and Indians.  When prior to 1979 we played catch-up to no one.

FDR’s New Deal failed.  LBJ’s Great Society failed.  And made the economy a mess in the Seventies.  Liberalism was debunked in the Eighties.  Thanks to Ronald Reagan.  But thanks to the Department of Education, a coordinated assault on our most impressionable was underway.  Keeping the spirit of liberalism alive.  And the size of government grows.  Because they lie to our kids.  Many of who grow up believing these lies.  And vote ‘yes’ to working harder.  And paying more taxes.  So those in the nobility can live a plush life of luxury.

Perhaps the Time is Right for Another Ronald Reagan before Liberalism Sinks the United States into Third World Status

It is hard to fool smart people.  Which explains the Department of Education.  Whose goal is not to make our kids smart.  But to make them good Democrat voters.  So those in government can continue to live like nobility.  And prevent another great ogre like Ronald Reagan from rising again and freeing the people from their oppression.

Which has never been more important as those not paying taxes has reached a tipping point.  And we no longer have the money to support the nobility.  Something has to give.  Perhaps the time is right for another Ronald Reagan to rise and free the people once again.  Before liberalism sinks the United States into third world status.



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

Liberal (lĭb’ər-əl), n., One who adheres to the social and political philosophy of (neo) liberalism.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 27th, 2011

Politics 101

The Single Goal of Liberalism is to Transfer as much Wealth and Power from the Private Sector

The Founding Fathers were liberals.  They believed in individual liberty.  Personal responsibility.  The Rule of Law.  And limited government.  Very limited government.  Very, very limited government.  Not something you associate with liberals today.  Which is why we must call the Founding Fathers classical liberals.  Because liberalism today isn’t our Founding Fathers’ liberalism.  In fact, it’s what they rebelled against.  Privilege.

Liberals today are a small sliver of the population.  About 20%.  And they’ve been around forever.  They’ve just had different names.  The nobility.  The aristocracy.  The planter elite.  Those born of privilege.  And who live off of the wealth created by others.  Through inheritance.  Through land ownership.  Or via taxation.  This privileged class does not work.  No.  They get others to create wealth for them.  And their tool is class warfare.

Their single goal is to make government as large as possible.  For the larger it is the more wealth and power they can transfer from the private sector.  And there is nothing more effective for growing government than pitting one group of people against another.  Rich against poor.  Employees against employers.  Labor against capital.  Consumers against corporations.  And, of course, racism, sexism, ageism, whateverism.  Whoever you are they’ll find someone who has discriminated against you.  And they’ll use that to their advantage.  To legislate a new law in Congress.  Or from the bench in the judiciary.

Liberals get us Accustomed to Living on the ‘Kindness’ of Government and Terrified of Losing the Government Way of Life

Liberals don’t see individuals.  They see the group the individual belongs to.  And how they can use one group to agitate another.  To advance their agenda.  To increase taxation.  And regulation.  To grow government.  To extend their power and influence over the private sector.  So secure their position of privilege.

They once called themselves the ruling elite.  And ruled accordingly.  Until the inconvenience of elections.  Representative government.   And a Constitution that limits their power.  Now they have to be stealthier.  And hide who they are.  What they truly believe.  And use the courts to make law that they can’t legislate in Congress.  How do they do this?  By dumbing down our public education.  Changing the meaning of words.  And by fooling us.  By hiding in a ‘benevolent’ Big Government.  A government that protects the poor.  The disadvantaged.  The little guy.  When in fact they use the poor, the disadvantaged and the little guy to secure their position of privilege.  For if they actually helped these people their work would be done.  And that’s the last thing they want.  To lose their expanding powers to regulate and tax.

So they extend their power and control over us.  While telling us it’s for our own good.  And make as many of us dependent on them as possible.  By providing generous welfare programs.  Social Security.  Medicare.  And now Obamacare.  Getting us accustomed to living on the ‘kindness’ of government.  And making us terrified of losing our government way of life.

Liberals Consume Tax Dollars and Benefit from a Growing Government that Increases Taxes and Regulations

Liberals consume tax dollars.  They don’t pay tax dollars.  The private sector taxpayers pay the salary and benefits of all politicians.  Public sector employees.  Public school teachers.  And college professors.  Via ever escalating tuition prices that no liberal ever objects to.  (Unlike rising prices in the private sector.)  Either paid for by rich parents.  Or student loans.  Once backed by the government.  Now issued by the government.

Liberals enjoy generous pay and benefit packages courtesy of the taxpayer.  In return liberals in education advance the liberal agenda.  (Ask a kid to explain global warming and capitalism and guess which one he or she will be able to explain).  Liberals in unions repay that government kindness (such as favorable legislation that restricts competition) through generous contributions from their union dues.  And agitate, organize and vote for the liberal agenda.  To keep the spigot of that government kindness open.

And then you have the guilty-rich.  People who try to assuage their guilt of inheriting their wealth.  Those who made it rich in the movies.  In music.  In sports.  As an author.  Anyone who got obscenely wealthy.  But doesn’t want to be attacked for being obscenely wealthy.  Like those on Wall Street.  And those corporate CEOs.  So they, too, advance the liberal agenda.  While sheltering their wealth from the greedy hands of government.

Then there’re the pseudo-intellectuals.  Those who advance the liberal agenda to sound smart.  Or to be included in the inner circle of the elite.  Those in the mainstream media.  And celebrities.  Who cry out desperately for affirmation.  That they are more than just someone pretending to be someone else.  Or simply someone reporting on the exciting lives of others.

Finally the young.  The uneducated.  Or poorly educated.  Who don’t understand capitalism, economics, history or public policy.  And they don’t care.  As long as they get something.  Government benefits.  Or fun.  Whether it be sex and drugs.  Or the thrill of protesting.  Anything to escape living in the real world.  Those who just don’t want to grow up.  And become responsible adults.  Like their parents.  Until they start raising a family.  Then they are exactly like their parents.  So the liberals have to get them while they’re young.  And keep them woefully ignorant about the real world for as long as possible.

The Liberal Social and Political Philosophy has the Simple Goal of Securing their Position of Privilege

The liberal social and political philosophy is simple.  Everything they believe, everything they do, has but one goal.  Securing their position of privilege.  Which explains a record of contradiction and failure.  Such as ‘working hard’ to create jobs while the economy wallows in recession due to an unfriendly job-creating environment.  Because of their high taxes.  Costly regulations.  And the great uncertainty of what will come next.

But when you understand their goal it makes perfect sense.  High taxes and regulation extends their control over the private sector.  And recession sets the stage for Keynesian stimulus spending.  Which creates more government programs.  Paid for by higher taxes.  Which is more wealth transferred from the private sector.  Further extending their control over the private sector.

Liberal policy, then, makes perfect sense.  When you understand its goal is to expand their control over the private sector.  To secure their position of privilege.  Because when you do you’ll see that this policy has never been contradictory.  And it has never failed.



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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #77: “Liberals only call for bipartisan compromise when they’ve lost majority power and can no longer dictate policy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 2nd, 2011

English Law and Capitalism gave People Freedom few knew in the 18th Century

Politics is a class struggle.  The ruling class against everyone else.  The ruling elite fights to keep the power in the hands of the privileged few.  While everyone else tries to wrest it away.  So they can live a better life.  Free from tyranny.  And oppression.

Life was pretty good in British North America.  The colonies were growing.  Their English law and free market capitalism gave people freedom that few knew in the 18th century.  Over in Europe the masses were poor and worked for subsistence.  Over in British America, though, a thriving middle class was emerging.  Like I said, life was pretty good.  Until the French had to go and spoil everything.

Great Britain and France were at war.  Again.  And this one was a world war.  The Seven Years’ War (the French and Indian War in North America).  Great Britain ultimately prevailed.  And made all French North America British.  We call it Canada today.  But conquering a world power and managing an empire that stretched around the globe was expensive.  And to make matters worse, the treasury was running low.  They needed more tax revenue.  But Britain’s land owning aristocracy was already heavily taxed.  And they were none too keen on paying any more.  So what to do?

Well, there was this.  There was a vast continent on the other side of the Atlantic with a lot of wealth that just got a whole lot safer thanks to some brilliant, and very expensive, military engagements.  Surely, they would not refuse to pay for some of the safety they gained in the recent war.

The London Ruling Class wouldn’t let a bunch of Backwoods Upstarts challenge their Authority

Well, as it turned out, yes, they could.  And did.  And don’t call me Shirley.

At the time, the American colonialists were proud Britons.  They loved their way of life.  And the representative government enshrined in Parliament.  Based on the Rule of Law.  Only thing was that they had no say in Parliament.  No representation.  Which was fine.  For awhile.  Being that far from the seat of government had its advantages.  But it was a different story when that distant power started flexing its muscle.  And a great power desperate for money could be rather presumptuous.

Now the colonists were reasonable people.  They were willing to make some kind of bipartisan deal of fair-share sacrifice.  But they wanted to talk about it.  They want to sit in Parliament.  And they wanted more say about their future on the new continent.  They were already very unhappy with some of the treaty details the British made with the French.  And the Indians.  Forbidding western expansion?  And allowing the French Canadians to practice their Catholicism in their very backyard?  No.  These would not do.  Americans had to have more say in America’s future.  And the British response?  “Shut your bloody mouths you insolent swine.  You do as we say.  And like it.”

I’m paraphrasing, of course, but you get the gist.  The ruling class in London wasn’t about to listen to a bunch of backwoods upstarts challenging their authority.  No, they were going to dictate policy from London.  And the Americans were going to accept their second class status and do as they were told.  Well, long story short there was a rebellion, the colonies declared their independence from Great Britain and a new confederation of states was born.

After Winning Independence the States got Drunk on Democracy

The Revolutionary War lasted from 1775 until the Treaty of Paris formally ended the war in 1783.  It was a long and bitter war.  Especially in the South where it evolved into a civil war between Patriot and Loyalist.  Independence did not come easy.  Nor was it cheap.  Like Great Britain, the young confederation of states racked up a large war debt.

With the common enemy defeated the several states went their own ways.  And threatened to destroy what they just won.  Some states were fighting over land.  Over tariffs.  Trade.  The united confederation of states wasn’t very united.  And they were more on the road to becoming another war-plagued Europe than the great nation envisioned by George Washington and the others who had served in the Continental Army.  Who saw the greater America.  Beyond the borders of their own state.

And the worst danger was democracy.  Mob-rule.  Religious persecution.  And the general feeling you didn’t have to do anything you didn’t want to.  The people were drunk on democracy.  They were voting themselves whatever they wanted.  In debt?  No problem.  We’ll pass debtor laws to protect you and rip up those contracts you signed.  Or we’ll give you worthless money we’ve printed to pay your debts.  And we’ll pass a law forcing creditors to accept this worthless money as legal tender.  Even though it’s worthless.  The Rule of Law was collapsing.  As was the new ‘nation’.

Madison and Jefferson feared the Power a Permanent Government Debt Gave 

This was quite the pickle.  An oppressive ruling class was bad.  But so was mob-rule.  They needed something else.  Something between these two extremes.  That would somehow strike a delicate balance between responsible governing.  And liberty.  The solution was federalism.  As created in a new Constitution.  Drafted during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia.  Which created a new central government.  That shared power with the states.

Getting the new constitution ratified wasn’t easy.  Most of the old Patriots from the Revolutionary days hated the thought of a new central government.  They didn’t trust it.  This was just King George all over again.  Only on this side of the Atlantic.  The wrong side.

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison worked tirelessly for ratification.  They wrote a series of essays explaining why it was the best compromise possible.  These essays became the Federalist Papers.  An extensive set of checks and balances would greatly limit the powers of the new federal government.  And the only thing the new central government would do would be the things the several states couldn’t do well.  Coin money, treat with other nations, raise an army and navy, etc.

Hamilton and Madison succeeded.  The constitution was ratified.  And the United States of America was born.  And soon thereafter Hamilton and Madison (and Jefferson who was out of the country during the Constitutional Convention) parted ways philosophically.  Hamilton wanted to assume all the states’ debts and fund it.  It was the right thing to do because they had to pay it to be taken seriously on the world stage.  But this scared both Madison and Jefferson.  They feared the power a permanent government debt gave.  Money and government was (and still is) a dangerous combination.  All the world powers consolidated money and power in their capitals.  And all the great mischief of the Old World was a direct result of this combination.  It’s what lets the ruling class oppress the people.  Money and power concentrated into the hands of a privileged few.

Had Liberals lived during the Revolution they would have been Loyalists

Fast forward a few hundred years and we see exactly what Madison and Jefferson feared.  The federal government is bloated beyond the Founding Fathers worst nightmares.  And handling such vast sums of money that would even make Alexander Hamilton spin in his grave. 

We’ve come full circle.  We began by rejecting a distant ruling class.  And we now have a distant ruling class again.  In Washington.  Made up of liberal Democrats.  And obedient RINO Republicans who toe the liberal line.  And the nation has a permanent debt so large that we’ll never pay it off.  Thanks to out of control government spending.  It’s as Madison and Jefferson feared.  All of that spending and debt require ever more taxation.  And ever more borrowing.  And whenever taxation and borrowing is not enough, they manufacture a crisis to scare us into raising both taxes and the borrowing limit.  For we have no choice.  Because if we don’t the consequences will be unbearable.

This is the liberal way.  Big Government.  The bigger the better.  With all power concentrated into as few hands as possible.  Their hands.  The privileged few.  The ruling elite.  Who like to dictate policy when they have majority power.  And cry foul when they don’t.  For the only interest they have in bipartisan compromise is when they can’t have their way.   

Liberals like to invoke the Founding Fathers (and Ronald Reagan) whenever they can in some twisted explanation of why they would support their policies (i.e., the new central government was created to raise taxes and therefore would approve high taxes).  But their actions are clearly more consistent with King George and his ruling class than the Founding Fathers.  And had they lived during the Revolution, no doubt they would have been Loyalists.  To support and maintain the ruling class.  And their privilege.



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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #66: “In socialism you don’t get what you want. You settle for what you get.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 17th, 2011

Beggars can’t be Choosy

Imagine if you will some outdoor summer event.  By the lake.  Or the beach.  Someplace nice.  But a long way from any restaurants or stores.  It’s a day of fun and games enjoyed by all.  A rather long day at that.  And the people get hungry.  Lucky for them there’s food.  Over at the concession area there are two lines.  One long.  One short.  At the long line it says free food.  The short line says $250 per plate. 

There are also menus.  For $250 per plate you can get almost anything you want.  New York strip steak.  Crab legs.  Lobster tails.  BBQ ribs.  Corn on the cob.  Baked potatoes.  You name it and it’s there.  The free line is serving watery, lukewarm macaroni and cheese.  And they make it with an artificial cheese product.  One cup per person.  It tastes horrible.  But, hey, it’s free.  And you know what they say?  Beggars can’t be choosy.  Oh, and they run out before everyone is served.

Now everyone would rather have the steak, ribs, crab, lobster, etc.  But not everyone can afford $250 per plate.  Or wants to pay.  Some say it’s not fair.  But the people enjoying their steak aren’t complaining.  The line’s short.  And there’s plenty of food for them.  It’s just those who can’t or don’t want to pay the $250 per plate that complain.  Because they not only want something for free, they want something good as well.  But life doesn’t work that way.  Because everything costs.  And it’s just too expensive to give away steak, ribs, crab, lobster, etc.  But by selling these at a high price allows them to give away the macaroni and cheese to everyone else.  Which allows everyone to eat.  Until they run out.

As an interesting exercise, substitute ‘health care’ for ‘food’ in the above exercise.

The Free Market is most Efficient 

We can get a broad understanding of economics from this example.  In free market capitalism you can pretty much buy whatever you can afford.  Innovation and the profit incentive provide a lot of competition for your money.  Giving you a lot of choices.  There’s always a new company out there saying, “Hey, look at me!  Look at the new thing I have to sell!”  And if we like what we see we just may buy it.  Perhaps making another millionaire entrepreneur in the process.  While making our life better to boot.  Not too shabby.  This would be the ‘short’ line in our example.

Socialism is a command economy.  ‘Smart’ government bureaucrats direct the economy to maximize market efficiency.  And its objective is egalitarianism, not profits.  Because people should come before profits.  So the socialists decide who gets what resources and what prices should be.  Of course, when you do this, ultimately someone has to decide for the masses.  Because you can’t put 60 million people into a room and ask them what they want.  Sports cars or fuel efficient hybrids?  More tractor parts or more toilet paper and soap?  Grain crops used for food or fuel?  So not only do they decide how to do things more efficiently, they decide our choices for us as well.  This would be the ‘long’ line in our example.

In our example, the free market capitalists are happy.  And sleepy after eating a huge and delicious meal.  The socialists on the other hand are not so happy.  The food wasn’t that good.  And they had to ration it at the end of the day to feed everyone.  And yet they still ran out before everyone ate.  And this happened why?  Because it is the free market that is most efficient.  Not the command economy.  The free market is what fills up store shelves with things we want to buy at affordable prices.  Not the command market of socialism.  If you don’t believe me, talk to someone who lived in the Soviet Union.  Ask them what was on their store shelves.  They probably saw more tractor parts (which they didn’t want to buy) than toilet paper or soap (which they did want to buy).

Egalitarianism leads to Low Quality and Rationing

In theory, socialism sounds wonderful.  Egalitarianism.  Income redistribution.  From those according to ability to those according to need.  Sticking it to the rich.  What’s not to like about that?  I mean, if you’re not rich.  And that’s the catch.  Rich can be a relative term.  If someone has more money than you they’re rich and should pay more in taxes.  And those who make less than you will feel the same way about you.  Which, of course, you’ll probably reply by saying something like, “Hey, wait a minute.  I’m not rich.”  But anyone poorer than you would disagree.

So the middle class will only want to tax the ‘rich’ rich.  And the poor will all be for taxing the middle class and the rich.  Ultimately, though, because there are so many ‘poor’, you have to tax the middle class in any income redistribution scheme.  Because even though the middle class is far from being rich, they are far more numerous.  And the numbers add up. 

Besides being taxpayers, the middle class and rich also have something else in common.  Jobs.  The rich provide startup capital for new businesses.  That creates jobs.  And the middle class start up most small business.  And they, too, create jobs.  In fact, small business creates the majority of the jobs.  So high taxes on these people provide a disincentive to do what they do best.  Create.  Jobs.  And things people want to buy.  So higher taxes reduce incentive.  And this reduces economic output.  Less stuff on the market means higher prices.  Lower quality.  Or simply less stuff.

Some People are more Equal than Others

And this is why beggars can’t be choosy.  Egalitarianism sounds nice but there is only one way to achieve it.  You can’t give everyone steak.  It’s just too costly.  So you give everyone watery, lukewarm macaroni and cheese.  Everyone is equally miserable.  And hungry.  But you don’t complain.  Because it is either that.  Or nothing.  Unless you’re part of the inner circle.  The ruling elite.  For them there is always steak and lobster.  For it’s a small price to pay for all the selfless service they do giving us our egalitarian society.  They have a lot of stress in their life optimizing market efficiency.  So they need a little pick me up.  I mean, who could begrudge them fine steak and caviar after all they’ve done for us?

Socialism is not about market efficiency.  It’s about lowering quality (to make things cheaper).  And rationing.  So you can try to spread less stuff around to more people.  But taxing the creators raises costs.  And reduces economic output.  Which means there is less stuff to distribute to the people.  Which means they have to raise taxes to keep giving the people the same stuff.  Or reduce the quality further.  Or ration more.  It’s an endless downward spiral. 

And once you’re in the system, you are dependent on the system.  You beg and plead for less rationing and cuts but to no avail.  Sure, there’s enough steak for the ruling elite, but not for everyone else.  So there has to be fair-shared sacrifice.  By everyone.  Everyone that’s not in government, that is.  For in an egalitarian society, all people are equal.  Only some are more equal than others.  (A little George Orwell there.)

As an interesting exercise, substitute ‘health care’ for ‘food’ in the above exercise.



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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #65: “The only thing the market is inefficient at is funneling money to anti-business politicians.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 10th, 2011

The Natural Order and a good Last Name

There are two types of people in America.  Those who work.  And elitists who want others to work for them.  It’s been this way since the dawn of civilization.  One group asserted their power over the masses.  The masses then worked.  The ruling elite didn’t.  They just gave the work orders.  The masses dutifully followed their orders and grew the food.  The ruling elite took in the bounty and ate until they were full.  And then some.  While famine thinned out the masses.  It was the natural order once upon a time.  And those who held dominion over the land liked it.

Land, then, was key.  The aristocracy owned the land.  Hence we called them the landed aristocracy.  They owned the land, the food and the wealth.  And the people.  In European and Russian feudalism there were serfs.  In the antebellum American South there were slaves.  The landed aristocracy may buy and sell land and move.  But the serfs/slaves stayed on the land.  Forever.  As their parents did.  As their children would.  It was the natural order.

Your name was very important in the landed aristocracy.  For land was hereditary.  As was wealth.  As was political power.  And it stayed this way for a long time.  While everyone who worked farmed.  But over time, something happened.  People got smarter.  They were able to grow food surpluses.  And they took these surpluses to markets.  Which became cities.  Where we saw the rise of artisans.  Skilled people who made tools and crafts that further improved our lives.  Allowed people to leave the farms.  And create a middle class.  Greatest thing that ever happened for the masses.  It allowed a way out from the back-breaking toil of working the land.  Even if you didn’t have a ‘good’ last name.

Representative Government changes the Natural Order

Of course, not everyone was keen about this.  Because it disrupted the natural order of things.  And threatened the old power structures.  Some adjusted.  Some shared the power.  Like in England.  Where there was a representative government.  There was a bicameral house.  The Parliament.  Representing all people.  The rich in the House of Lords.  And the common people in the House of Commons.  And, of course, the king.  Who represented the king.  And the state.  Now, kings like to wage war.  Conquer.  And add to empire.  But it takes soldiers and sailors to fight.  And money to pay for armies and navies.  Which the king didn’t have.  The rich people had the money.  The landed aristocracy.  The Lords.  So the king just couldn’t wage war unless Parliament consented.  Pretty nice thing this check on power.  This representative government.  It made for happy subjects.

It wasn’t like this in France. While the English were checking the king’s power, the French monarchy was absolute.  It  could do whatever it wanted.  And did.  Spent a lot of money.  Ran up great debts.  Fought a lot of wars.  Including the Seven Years’ War that lost much of French North America to Great Britain.  And helped the Americans in their War of Independence.  Helping them to gain their independence from the British monarchy.  Which proved to be a deadly game for the French monarchy.  For the French people grew fond of representative government themselves.  And they thought if the Americans can overthrow king-rule maybe they could, too.  So they gave it a try.  The French Revolution was a bit bloodier than the American Revolution, but it got the job done.  France, too, had a representative government.  Until Napoleon declared himself emperor, of course.  And then he did a lot of kingly things.  Waged war.  Conquered.  Built empire.  And added to the debt.

Great Britain gave up on minority rule.  France tried to hang on to it, lost it then Napoleon got it back.  The reason minority rule failed in these countries is because a minority ruling power needs money.  And it was easier to get money in an agrarian economy.  When all the wealth was concentrated in the few who owned the land.  The rise of a middle class changed all of that.  Artisans and merchants made a lot of money.  Some even without ‘good’ last names.  The people who didn’t have to kiss any royal ass to get or maintain their wealth.  It was a whole new game out there.  Minority rulers needed to find another way to amass money and power.  And they found it.  In the ‘lie’.

Lies from Marxism to Socialism

A ruling power lying wasn’t anything new.  But some of the lies were.  Marxism, for example, was a new brilliant lie.  It made those the ruling elite wanted to oppress ask to be oppressed.  In the name of egalitarianism.  Rise up you miserable oppressed factory workers.  Attack the industrial bourgeoisie (i.e., the middle class).  You have nothing to lose but your chains.  Karl Marx may have believed the claptrap he wrote.  But those who used it could care less about the underlying philosophy.  They just liked the power it gave them.  So those who aspired to rise to power and rule over the majority led worker revolutions.  And after they won, the workers went back to suffering just as they had before.  Only they had less.  Because the communist commissars knew jack squat about the means of production.  But that was okay.  For it just helped to enslave the masses more.  Well, that.  And the brutal police state that discouraged any inappropriate behavior.  Or thought.

It was a good run for the communist powers that be.  While the masses suffered they lived a very comfortable life.  Just like the landed aristocracy of old.  Unfortunately for them, their ruling policies sent their economies into nosedives.  And they suffered recurring famines.  Marxism was a failure.  The ruling elite knew it.  And most of the people knew it, too.  Often, those who could escape from their communist utopias did.  Because they were anything but utopian.  So those aspiring to ascend to the ruling elite needed a new lie.  And they found it in communism-light.  Socialism.  Which appealed to the people they wanted to oppress for the same reasons Marxism did.  It would stick it to the rich in an egalitarian utopia.

But there was little difference between Marxism and socialism.  Both systems tried to manage the economy.  And both did a horrible job.  Why?  Because state planning is not about improving the lives of those they rule over.  It’s about maintaining power.  An economy left alone will always outperform a managed economy.  Everyone knows this.  But if they leave the economy alone, how can the ruling elite amass power and wealth?  It can’t.  Ergo, the lie continues.  Not to improve the lives of the masses.  But to improve the lives of the ruling elite.  The minority power.  Who only ascends to power by a good lie.

Wealth Redistribution Killed the Golden Goose

The free market does have one inefficiency.  It does not enrich those who do not partake in it.  The ruling elite aspire to be in a minority rule for a couple of reasons.  First of all, when you’re stealing from and oppressing the people, the fewer people in the ruling elite the wealthier each member gets.  Which is what they want.  Wealth.  And being in the ruling elite gives them access to wealth.  Because they are so completely untalented that they could never make any wealth in the free market.  So they use the lie to acquire their wealth.  To live the good life.  Like the landed aristocracy of old.

So they become the champion of the working man and woman.  And promise to deliver that egalitarian society via wealth redistribution.  They promise to tax the rich.  And give to those who will vote for them.  It has proven to be a very effective system.  And in its heyday they were reaping in the money.  Even found a way to funnel tax money directly to them via public sector union dues.  But they just got too greedy.  Pulled too many people into the new aristocracy.  And too many people out of the work force who paid the taxes that paid for their comfortable lives of plenty.

The taxes and policies of the ruling elite have grown so anti-business that it’s reduced economic activity.  And tax generation.  So not only have they bloated the public sector with nonworking people and reduced the taxpaying workforce, they killed the golden goose as well.  And no lie may change the mess they created.  They may have no choice but to unfetter the free market.  And get real jobs.



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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #49: “The ‘tolerant’ are intolerant.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2011

Liberals Benefit most from a Liberal Agenda

People on the left claim to be more tolerant than those on the right.  Live and let live, they say.  But they don’t really mean that.  For they are very intolerant of anyone who thinks differently than they do.

We’re talking about the far left.  The liberals.  That 20% of the population.  Which excludes a large percentage of Democrats.  And moderates and independents.  We’re talking college professors, public school teachers, the liberal media, the Hollywood elite, public sector unions, liberal politicians, etc.  People who have an air of superiority about them.  Who think they’re better than most people.  And who don’t care to hear any contrary views or opinions.  Because if they disagree with them, those views and opinions are just wrong.

For the ruling elite is always right.  And that’s who they think they are.  Elite.  And they rule.  Or try to.  Either in Congress through legislation.  Or by shaping opinion.  In the elite liberal media.  In our public schools where they shape the minds of our young children (to be good stewards of the planet, to trust government and not private business, that Americans stole the land from the indigenous people, that America was built on slavery and greed, etc.).  In our colleges where they continue and add to the work of the public schools (that we oppress women, that we’re a racist society, that Marxism is good while capitalism is bad, etc.).  In the entertainment world (actors, musicians, etc.) that gives a loud voice to this minority opinion.  In the public sector that grows bigger and consumes ever more of our tax dollars in exchange for support of the liberal agenda.  Etc.

It’s a small community.  Where they take care of each other.  They all have a vested interest in advancing the liberal agenda.  Because they live better than the average American.  At the expense of the average American (through high taxes, tuition, union contracts, etc.). 

Getting the People to Vote you into the Privileged Elite

So we have a minority group enjoying a privileged lifestyle.  Far better than the people paying to support that lifestyle can ever imagine.   In times past, the ruling elite used the power of the state to oppress the masses.  To get the money from them to support those privileged lifestyles.  While keeping them living in fear.  So the oppressed didn’t band together to overthrow the ruling elite.

It’s an effective formula.  And it has worked.  For awhile.  For some.  They may enjoy a few years.  Or a decade.  Or two.  A century.  Until they get overthrown by the masses.  Like the French did in 1789 (the French Revolution).  Or like the Russians did in 1917 (the February Revolution and the October Revolution).  These got pretty ugly.  A lot of people died.  Including the royal sovereigns. 

That’s the downside of absolute power.  You really piss off the people you oppress.  And pissed off people tend to revolt.  Thankfully, in a democracy, you don’t have to worry about that.  You can live the privileged life.  Without physically oppressing them.  You just have to get the people to vote for you.  And you do that by promising them free stuff.  And by demonizing your opponents.

Political Correctness helps to Limit Political Dissent

It’s called divide and conquer.  When you go up against a larger enemy, you try to divide that enemy and attack smaller parts of the enemy.  Because there is no way you can win going head to head.  The liberals, that 20%, cannot go up against the other 80% with any hopes of winning.  So they pick off parts of the 80% and attack them.

Their weapon of choice?  Political correctness.  Today you have to be very careful of what you say.  And how you say what you say.  Because if you don’t you can offend someone.  This helps to limit political dissent.  Because dissenters may say something politically incorrect.  And no one wants that.  Because they tell us in our public schools that that is wrong.  In college, too.  And in the media.  And on TV.  In the movies.  Etc.

And you can use political correctness to demonize your opponents.  If you oppose affirmative action you’re racist.  If you oppose immigration reform, you’re racist.  If you oppose welfare reform, you’re cruel and indifferent to the sufferings of the poor.  If you oppose gay marriage you’re a homophobe.  If you oppose gun control you’re a redneck Second Amendment nut (somehow that’s politically correct to say).  If you oppose Big Government you’re a tool of the special interests and Big Business.  And so on.  If you oppose any part of their agenda, there’s just something wrong with you.  Because you disagree with the enlightened people (that 20% of the population).  And because we see so many people admire and respect these enlightened people (thanks to our schooling, the media, Hollywood, etc.) we should want to be like them.  So people admire and respect us, too.

Divide and Conquer the Single Issue People

Those on the left, that 20%, are very tolerant of what you say or do.  As long as it’s what they say or do.  Because if you think and act like they do, they can maintain their privileged life.  If you disagree with them, then you threaten their privileged life.  You could vote liberals out of office.  You could set performance standards for public school teachers.  You could reduce the power of public sector unions.  You start doing these things and the next thing you know these liberals will have to get real jobs.  And they ain’t having none of that.

So they divide and conquer.  They support gay marriage and call you a homophobe because of your ‘intolerance’ of the gay lifestyle.  So the gays and lesbians support liberals.  They support abortion and call you a religious extremist because of your ‘intolerance’ of women having choice.  So a lot of people who enjoy consequence-free sex support liberals.  (And a lot of women who want to keep the right to choose just in case.)   They want to decriminalize drugs and call you a fascist for your ‘intolerance’ of people being free to put whatever they want into their bodies.  So the potheads and other recreational drug users support liberals.  (Of course, these same liberals will tell you NOT to eat a Big Mac or drink a Coke because they’re just not healthy for you.  Unlike heroin or cocaine.  Apparently.)   They support affirmative action and call you a racist because of your ‘intolerance’ of minorities.  So a lot of minorities support liberals.  And so on.

It adds up.  Get enough of these single issue people and you can maintain your power base.  So they are very tolerant of these people’s views and opinions.  And very intolerant of anyone opposing them.  They do this to persuade as many of the 80% that oppose their liberal agenda to support them.  So this minority of the population can continue to live a privileged life.  At our expense.



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

« Previous Entries