France discourages Job Creation with a Short Workweek, Confiscatory Tax Rates and Banning Emails after 6 PM

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 12th, 2014

Week in Review

For socialism to work you need businesses to provide jobs.  Because without people working the government can’t have confiscatory tax rates to fund a massive socialist state.  You’ve got to have jobs.  Which confiscatory tax rates tend to discourage.  For business and rich investors don’t want to pay confiscatory tax rates.  François Hollande ran on a socialist platform in France.  Promising to raise taxes to bring down the deficit.  Which he did.  Raise taxes.  But it didn’t lower an unemployment rate stubbornly staying above 10%.

High taxes and a poor economy caused the socialists to lose elections.  So Hollande is putting together a tax-cutting package.  To reverse their electoral losses.  You’d think the socialists would have learned their lessons that the people want jobs.  And to have jobs you need a business-friendly environment.  Which something like this is not going to help (see France bans work e-mail after 6 p.m. by John Johnson, Newser, posted 4/11/2014 on USA Today).

France already has a 35-hour work week, and a new rule is designed to make sure that it doesn’t start shading toward 40 hours because of work-related e-mail.

The Guardian reports that the rule forbids workers from checking their phones or computers for work stuff after 6 p.m., and it forbids employers from pressuring them to do so.

The move apparently doesn’t affect all workers in France, but it does cover about 1 million workers in the tech industry — including French employees of Google and Facebook…

At Fox Business, a U.S. labor expert finds it hard to believe the IT industry can manage such a draconian shut-off time.

“There’s always something going wrong off the clock — when a computer goes down, it doesn’t go down between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.”

It’s yet another thing to discourage business.  Things happen after hours.  Can you imagine a business wanting to open themselves to that kind of liability?  Having someone in the company send out an email without checking the clock first?  Or someone working late into the evening to catch up on a project.  Sending out a bunch of emails so people could read them first thing in the morning.  If someone else is working late do they read this email?  Perhaps this person was waiting for this email and would like to address it that evening to reduce his or her workload the following day.  Would this worker have been pressured into reading the email knowing his or her boss would have appreciated the extra effort?

There’s a reason why General Motors (GM) went bankrupt.  Well, there are a few of them.  But one of them was costly workplace rules.  Such as only allowing an electrician to change a light bulb at a work station.  Even if the person at that workstation could have changed that bulb in a couple of minutes.  Instead of waiting an hour or so for skilled trades to come around to unscrew the burnt out lamp and screw in a new lamp.

These little workplace rules add up.  And though seemingly harmless when you look at them one at a time in the aggregate they increase the cost of business.  A lot.  Just ask GM.  Something businesses look at when they are considering the location of a new factory.  Whether to expand production at an existing factory.  Or whether to shut down a factory and move production out of the country to a more business-friendly environment.  Thus killing job creation.  Jobs the socialists need for people to have so they can pay confiscatory taxes on their earnings.

A business unfriendly environment will never lower the unemployment rate.  As the socialists in France have proven.  And left-leaning governments everywhere have proven.  Confiscatory tax rates do not attract businesses.  Or rich investors.  They discourage them.  And encourage them to take their money and invest it elsewhere.  And create jobs elsewhere.  In another country that is a little kinder to business.  And job creation.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Geopolitics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 27th, 2014

Politics 101

Twice in little over One Century an Enemy Invaded and Overran Russia/the Soviet Union

On June 24, 1812, Napoleon’s Grande Armée invaded Russia.  And made it all the way to Moscow.  Which they took.  But the Russian army didn’t want anything to do with Napoleon or his Grande Armée so they kept retreating in front of it.  Foiling Napoleon’s plans of engaging and defeating the Russian army.  While drawing them deeper and deeper into Russia.  In a scorched earth retreat.  Leaving nothing for the French.  Making it difficult to feed his massive army.  Then the bitter Russian winter came.  Having expected the Russians to have sued for peace by then they had no winter clothing.  Leaving Napoleon no choice but to retreat.

On June 22, 1941, Joseph Stalin’s ally, Adolf Hitler, broke the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  And invaded the Soviet Union.  About one month later than planned due to some trouble their Italian allies were having in the Balkans.  The Nazi armies advanced through the Soviet armies and reached Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad.  Then the bitter Russian winter came.  And like the French the Germans had no winter clothing.  Having expected a victory before the onset of winter.  They tried to hold their ground as they froze and starved.  But the Soviets pushed them back.  Eventually all the way to Berlin.  But not after some 20 million Soviets died.

Twice in little over one century an enemy invaded and overran Russia/the Soviet Union.  Never again vowed the Soviets.  So when they chased the Nazis back into Berlin they kept the territory they were on after the war.  Which is why Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Albania became Soviet satellites.  Countries behind the Iron Curtain.  To provide a buffer to slow down another invasion before it reached Soviet soil.

For the Latter Part of the 20th Century the Soviets tried to extend their Communist Revolution to other Nations

Of course, following World War II it was the Soviets that had an expansionist policy.  A little thing called the communist revolution.  The assault on capitalism.  Replacing it with socialism first.  Then communism.  And as revolutions go they are fought.  With guns.  So the communist revolution was a perpetual state of war interrupted with moments of peace.  A war the Soviets forced onto their neighbors to get them to join them in their socialist/communist utopia.  Something their neighbors didn’t want.  And something their other neighbors, the Western Powers, would try to help them avoid.

The German capital, Berlin, fell in East Germany.  Berlin, however, was a city divided between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union.  The Western Allies supplied West Berlin via truck and rail transport.  Until the Soviets closed the borders.  In an effort to force West Berlin into the social utopia that was East Berlin.  Something the West Berliners wanted no part of.  So the Western Powers helped them by supplying the city via the Berlin Airlift.  Eventually the Soviets relented.  And opened the truck and rail transport into West Berlin.

The Soviets tried to spread their socialist utopia to other countries that didn’t want it.  Greece.  Turkey.  Iran.  South Korea.  The United States and the Western Powers helped these countries resist these Soviet advances.  Even fighting a shooting war on the Korean peninsula to push the Soviet and China backed North Korea out of South Korea.  So through the remainder of the 20th century the Soviets tried to extend the communist revolution to other nations.  While the United States tried to thwart their designs.  And stared each other down with their nuclear weapons in the Cold War.  Developing the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).  Meaning that any country that started a nuclear war was going to lose, too, in that nuclear exchange.  It was mutually assured but it really was a warning to the Soviets.  Who had designs on conquering other nations.  Including the United States.  Who had no designs on waging war with the Soviet Union.

Geopolitics is about the Balance of Power

To balance the threat of the Soviet Union the Western Powers formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  For Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc., had no chance by themselves against an attacking Soviet Union.  They did as a member of NATO, though.  Where an attack on one was an attack on all.  Which meant if the Soviets attacked the Low Countries they were also attacking France, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States.  The Americans even deployed armor units in West Germany.  The Soviets replied with the Warsaw Pact.  A NATO-like organization between the Soviet Union and some of those countries in Eastern Europe they never left after the end of World War II.

And there was peace.  What we call the Pax Americana.  The American peace.  For it was the awesome might of the American military that gave NATO its teeth.  With troops deployed around the world.  Air forces stationed within striking distances of potential hotspots.  The mightiest navy ever to ply the oceans.  A huge nuclear arsenal.  And the greatest economy in the world that could pay for all of this while the American people still lived a happy and carefree life with all of the comforts a capitalist society could give.  Something the socialism/communism of the Soviet Union could not.  For the people in the Soviet sphere waited for apartments, cars and groceries.  Large extended families crowded into small apartments.  And people waited in lines at stores with empty shelves.  Which explains why the Soviets required a brutal secret police force.  The KGB.

People in the Soviet sphere who learned of how much better life was in the West tried to escape to the West.  This is why they built the Berlin Wall.  Not to keep West Berliners from sneaking into that socialist utopia inside East Berlin.  But to keep the East Berliners from escaping that socialist utopia.  For the only way you can get people to live in that socialist/communist utopia is by force.  And you have to spread the communist revolution not to make life better for people in capitalist societies.  But to destroy that better life across the border from communist societies.  To extinguish that beacon of liberty that keeps luring their people from their oppressive police state.  Something Russia is returning to.  As Vladimir Putin slowly but surely reassembles the Soviet Union.  Not to reconstitute the buffer to protect Russia from another invasion.  But simply because he wants to.  And can.  So far, at least.

Geopolitics is about the balance of power.  Some like to maintain a balance of power to keep the peace.  Like the Romans, the British and the Americans did with their Pax Romana, Pax Britannica and Pax Americana.  Where the prevailing superpower kept the peace.  While others are more interested in acquiring power than peace.  Like Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Putin.  Who didn’t have strong economies.  And used force to get what they wanted.  Raw materials.  Food.  Or a warm water port in the Crimea.  And they are always looking for a weakness in their enemies to alter the balance of power.  For they were/are masters of geopolitics.  And want to redraw the borders of the world.  To restore the former glory of a past empire.  Or to realize some glorious destiny they believe God has planned for the nation.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the Soviet Union

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 18th, 2014

History 101

Marx called for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat where the Workers controlled the Means of Production

Karl Marx did not like capitalism.  Or middle class people that used money to make money.  The bourgeoisie.  Who exploit the working man.  The proletariat.  The bourgeoisie used their capital to exploit the labor of the working man (i.e., taking a risk and investing in land, factories, machinery, labor, etc.) to make money.  While the working man slaved away at slave wages creating all the great things we have in the world.  Of course, the proletariat could not do any of this unless others took risks and invested in land, factories, machinery, labor, etc.

This was just not fair to Karl Marx.  Because the industrial bourgeoisie had all the power.  And their exploitation of the proletariat was nothing more than a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.  So Marx created a socio-economic philosophy to address this dictatorship.  Marxism.  And called for a social transformation.  For working men everywhere to unite.  And break the chains that bound them in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.  Calling for a dictatorship of the proletariat.  For the workers to control the means of production.  In a new system that replaced capitalism.  Socialism.  Until they could usher in the true ideal.  Communism.

In capitalism the bourgeoisie get rich creating neat things people discover and want to buy.  In communism there would be no bourgeoisie using the means of production to make a buck.  Instead, wise and selfless people would determine what was best for the people.  Instead of free markets allocating scarce resources economic planners would.  And they’d do it better.  Because they are selfless.  Creating large surpluses that would go not into some rich capitalist’s bank account.  But they would fairly distribute this surplus among the working class.  So society as a whole would be better off.  Sounds great.  But if the market didn’t make the decisions of what to produce who did?  As it turned out for Marxism that was a very difficult question to answer.

Leon Trotsky was a Like-Minded Marxist and the number two Communist behind Lenin

The Russian people were growing tired of World War I.  And Tsar Nicholas.  In fact they had it with the Russian Empire.  Even before World War I.  Although serfdom was abolished in 1861 the lives of peasants didn’t improve much.  There was still famine.  And the serfs had to pay a lot to their former landlords for their freedom.  So there was revolutionary fervor in the air.  And a few peasant uprisings.  As well as a few revolutionaries.  Such as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.  Who was a Marxist.  His anti-Tsarist political activity got him arrested and exiled a few times.  In fact, during World War I he was living in exile in Switzerland.  Hoping that the Germans would weaken Tsarist Russia enough to kick off a socialist revolution in Russia.

When revolution did break out Lenin was anxious to return to Russia.  But being in Switzerland posed a problem.  It was surrounded by warring countries.  Lucky for him, though, the Germans were anxious to close the eastern front of the war.  And a little revolution in Russia could do just that.  So they transported Lenin through Germany and helped him return to Russia.  They travelled north.  Took a ferry to Sweden.  Then by train to Petrograd.  Formally Saint Petersburg (Peter the Great’s new capital on the Baltic Sea).  Which was later renamed Leningrad.  And then later renamed Saint Petersburg.  Where he would lead the Bolshevik Party.  And the world-wide socialist revolution against capitalism.

Leon Trotsky was a like-minded Marxist.  And an anti-militarist.  He had a falling out with Lenin but eventually reunited.  With Trotsky becoming the number two communist behind Lenin.  Trotsky addressed a problem with Marxism for Russia.  Socialism was to be the final step AFTER capitalism.  Once there was a strong industrial proletariat.  Russia didn’t have that.  For it was one of the least advanced countries in the world.  An agrarian nation barely out of the Middle Ages.  So Russia had to industrialize WHILE the proletariat took over the means of production.  Which brought up a big problem.  How could a backward nation industrialize while having a revolution?  How could they do this without other advanced capitalistic countries coming to the aid of the bourgeoisie?  Which Trotsky answered with his Permanent Revolution.  For the Russian socialist revolution to be successful there had to be socialist revolutions in other countries, too.  Thinking more in terms of a worldwide revolution of industrialized states.  And not just in Russia.  Something another Marxist disagreed with.  Joseph Stalin

Communist States have Guards on their Borders to prevent People from Escaping their Socialist Utopia

During these revolutionary times workers’ councils were appearing throughout the country.  Soviets.  Which helped stir up the revolutionary fervor.  In 1917 the imperial government fell.  The Bolsheviks killed the Tsar and his family.  And Russia fell into civil war.  Which the Bolsheviks won in 1922.  And formed the Soviet Union.  Or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).  That stretched from Eastern Europe to the Pacific Ocean.  Under the rule of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.  Until he died in 1924.  Then Joseph Stalin took over after a brutal power struggle.  Even exiled Leon Trotsky.  And established totalitarian rule.  Stalin created a planned economy.  Rapid industrialization.  And collectivization.  As well as famines, forced labor, deportation and great purges of his political enemies.  To strengthen his one-party rule.  To protect the socialist revolution from a return of capitalism.

The Russian Revolution was the only successful socialist revolution in Europe.  The dictatorship of the proletariat did not happen as Lenin and Trotsky had envisioned.  So Stalin abandoned the idea of Permanent Revolution.  And adopted Socialism in One Country instead.  To strengthen the Soviet Union.  And not support a world-wide socialist revolution against capitalism.  In direct opposition of Trotsky.  To aid in the USSR’s industrialization Stalin made a pact with the devil.  Adolf Hitler.  And entered an economic agreement that would allow Hitler to build and test his war machine on Soviet soil that he would use in World War II.  Then came the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  And the secret protocol.  Where Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to conquer and divvy up the countries located between them.

Trotsky did not like what the Soviet Union became under Stalin.  An oppressive dictatorship of Joseph Stalin.  Not the dictatorship of the proletariat envisioned by Karl Marx.  And he didn’t like that pact with a militarist Nazi Germany.  He predicted that Stalin’s USSR would not last.  Either suffering a political revolution like Tsar Nicholas suffered.  Or it would collapse into a capitalist state.  Stalin disagreed.  And killed him and his family.  Getting rid of the last of the old Bolsheviks.  Leaving him to rule uncontested until his death in 1953.  Exporting communism wherever he could.  Where it killed more people than any other ideology.  Until the great and brutal socialism experiment collapsed in 1991.  For Trotsky was right.  It could not survive when a better life was just across a border.  Which is why all of the communist states have guards on their borders.  To keep their people from escaping their socialist utopia.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Venezuela’s Socialism has given it one of the World’s highest Murder Rates

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 11th, 2014

Week in Review

President Obama is launching a war against income disparity.  Because under his 5 years or so as president the rich got richer while the median family income fell.  This income gap is the source of all our woes.  Or so he says.  And it can lead to other bad things.  Like violence between the classes.  Which is why he’ll say we need to raise the taxes on the rich.  To help everyone else who has suffered under the Obama economic policies.  So everyone has everything they could ever need or want.  And be happy.  Where people will live together in peace and bliss.  Like in socialists countries.  Where they put people before profits (see Former Miss Venezuela Monica Spear slain resisting robbery by Jorge Rueda, The Associated Press, posted 1/7/2014 on The Star).

Assailants shot and killed a popular soap-opera actress and former Miss Venezuela and her Irish ex-husband in the presence of their 5-year-old daughter when they resisted a robbery, authorities said Tuesday.

Monica Spear, 29, and Henry Thomas Berry, 39, were slain late Monday night on a roadside near Puerto Cabello, Venezuela’s main port, after their car broke down, the prosecutor’s office said in a statement…

Venezuela has one of the world’s highest murder rates and violent crime is so rampant that Venezuelans tend to stay home after dark…

According to the non-profit Venezuelan Observatory of Violence, the oil-rich South American country’s murder rate was 79 per 100,000 inhabitants last year.

Hugo Chávez was an extreme anti-capitalist.  And he turned Venezuela into a socialist paradise.  Putting people before profits.  But like all other planned economies it just led to shortages of everything.  And because the state couldn’t provide like a free market could a profitable black market developed.  Where what limited goods there were ended up selling at higher prices.  Leading to great income disparity.  As people with money could buy what they needed from the black markets while the poorer people could not.  And went without.

Deprivation and corruption led to ever greater income disparity.  As criminals and those in government lived well.  While the people suffered abject poverty.  Leading to a society that became so lawless that the people hid in their homes after dark.  This is what you get with socialism.  Well, that.  And an oppressive police state.  To keep those suffering abject poverty from rising up against the government.  So those in government can continue to live the good life.  While they continue to ‘fight for the people’.  Who never seem to escape from their abject poverty.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Hugo Chávez’ Socialism made Venezuela a more Violent and Dangerous Place

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 28th, 2013

Week in Review

The Democrats have a mission.  To reduce the income disparity between rich and poor.  To reduce the rate of violent crime.  For the only reason people ever hurt one another is because they are wanting for the basic necessities in life.  And they sometimes take them forcibly from those who have them.  But if there is no income disparity there is no rich and poor.  So no one would ever hurt anyone.

Which is why Democrats work so hard to reduce the income disparity between rich and poor.  Their tool?  Income redistribution.  From those according to ability.  To those according to need.  Like Karl Marx wanted to do.  But socialism never really caught on in the United States.  As most Americans see the abject failure it has been.  But this hasn’t stopped other nations from experimenting with it.  In 1999 Hugo Chávez became president of Venezuela.  And he proceeded to make Venezuela socialist.  Here are some highlights of his work pulled from Wikipedia:

Following Chavismo, his own political ideology of Bolivarianism and Socialism of the 21st Century, he focused on implementing socialist reforms in the country as a part of a social project known as the Bolivarian Revolution. He implemented the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution, participatory democratic councils, the nationalization of several key industries, and increased government funding of health care and education and made significant reductions in poverty with oil revenues.[1][2] The Bolivarian Missions have entailed the construction of thousands of free medical clinics for the poor,[3] the institution of educational campaigns that have reportedly made more than one million adult Venezuelans literate,[4] and the enactment of food[5] and housing subsidies…[6]

Closely aligning himself with the communist governments of Fidel and then Raúl Castro in Cuba and the socialist governments of Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, his presidency was seen as a part of the socialist “pink tide” sweeping Latin America. Along with these governments, Chávez described his policies as anti-imperialist, being a prominent adversary of the United States’s foreign policy as well as a vocal critic of US-supported neoliberalism and laissez-faire capitalism.[8] He supported Latin American and Caribbean cooperation and was instrumental in setting up the pan-regional Union of South American Nations, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, the Bank of the South, and the regional television network TeleSur. Chávez was a highly controversial and divisive figure both at home and abroad. On occasion he used undiplomatic language towards other world leaders, having compared US president George W. Bush to a donkey[9] and the devil.[10]

Hugo Chávez created a socialist paradise in Venezuela.  One that would have pleased the father of socialism.  Karl Marx.  Chávez destroyed the income disparity between rich and poor.  Making the people happy.  Where they linked their arms together and sang Kumbaya.  Like the hippies in America did as they lived in their socialist/communist communes.  So you think the people would be living together in a brotherhood of man.  Like John Lennon sang about in his song Imagine.  No possessions.  No greed or hunger.  Just everyone living as one.  So how is that socialist paradise?  Well, the people aren’t living as one in a brotherhood of man (see Venezuela’s Homicide Rate Rises, NGO’s Report Says by the AP posted on ABC News).

A non-governmental group that tracks violent crime in Venezuela says the country’s homicide rate has risen again in 2013 and has quadrupled over the past 15 years.

The Venezuelan Violence Observatory estimates that 24,763 killings occurred this year, pushing up the homicide rate to 79 per 100,000 inhabitants. It was 73 per 100,000 people in 2012. In 1998, the rate was 19.

The more Chávez made Venezuela socialist the more violent crime there was.  That’s not what’s supposed to happen according to the Democrats.  It’s supposed to create a brotherhood of man.  Like John Lennon sang about.  Not make more people kill each other.  Apparently not only was Karl Marx wrong.  But the Democrats are wrong, too.  Imagine that.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire, Hang them up on Telephone Wire, President Obama

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 12th, 2013

Politics 101

Oppression and Lies are Standard Fare for a Communist Dictatorship

Communists are pragmatic.  They know what they want.  And they do what it takes to get what they want.  For them the ends justify the means.  No matter how horrible those means can be.  And they’ve been pretty horrible.  As communists have been among the greatest abusers of human rights.  Something their people are not too keen on.  As well as those living in the free world.  So communists do something else a lot.  They lie.

When you want to do things against the will of the people you need to either lie to the people.  Or oppress the people with a large police state.  Which can be costly.  Because you have to take care of your police apparatus so they oppress the people and don’t turn on you.  That’s how all dictators stay in power.  Life is horrible in their countries.  But it’s pretty good at the top.  And those who protect those at the top.  North Korea still suffers from recurring famines.  Yet those at the top never go hungry.  Or suffer the abject poverty of the people.  And it’s been this way for a long time.  A system maintained with the firm hand of the state.  From Kim Il Sung to Kim Jong Il to Kim Jong Un.  As the Kim family succession continues to keep life horrible in North Korea (see North Korea announces execution of Kim Jong Un’s uncle, Jang Song Thaek by Chico Harlan posted 12/12/2013 on The Washington Post).

There have been no outward signs of instability under Kim Jong Un, and the North has largely maintained its key policies, resisting economic reform, devoting money to its weapons program and maintaining a gulag system for those accused of political crimes.

Kim Jong Un’s uncle was Jang Song Thaek.  I say was for he is no more.  Jang was in the inner circle of Kim Jong Il and thought to be a potential successor.  But that didn’t happen.  As Kim Jong Un had those honors.  But Jang was around a long time.  And knew a lot of people.  Which, of course, made him a threat.  So Kim Jong Un had him arrested, put him on trial for crimes against the state and executed.  Telling the people he was a “traitor for all ages” and was “despicable human scum” and was “worse than a dog.”  He demonized him to get the people to accept that this execution was just.  And to send a message.  He held power.  And anyone thinking otherwise will be demonized and executed.  Standard sort of fare for a communist dictatorship.  Oppression.  And lies.

You get the People to ask for more Government by Buying their Votes with a Cradle-to-Grave Welfare State

A communist state has its drawbacks, though.  The aforementioned abject poverty and recurring famines.  Because as an economic system planned economies just don’t work.  But a free market economy tends to put ideas into people’s heads.  Such as we don’t really need the government as much as the government wants us to believe we need them.  In the movie V for Vendetta this was something Chancellor Sutler impressed upon his lieutenants.  It was imperative to let the people know how much they needed British socialism.  Which is not quite communism.  But it’s anti-free market capitalism just like communism.  And a little easier to sell to the people.  For despite the left’s love affair with communism it is hard to spin that as anything other than it is.  Horrible.  I mean, people aren’t trying to break into North Korea and Cuba.  They’re risking their lives to escape these communist utopias.

So those on the left adopted a new type of socialism.  Social democracy.  Which was communism/socialism lite.  It wasn’t as anti-free market capitalism as communism/socialism was.  So as not to bring about the abject poverty and recurring famines you got with communism/socialism.  And you backed off on the oppressive police state.  Instead, you get the people to ask for more government.  By buying their votes with a cradle-to-grave welfare state.  And a lot of government jobs with decent pay and wonderful benefits.  To make the people love the state.  And impress on them how much they need the state.

Of course this bloated welfare state is costly.  Which they pay for with a progressive tax system.  A tax system that is ‘fair’.  By making the evil rich pay higher taxes so the good poor and the innocent children can have a decent life.  Not just those evil rich people.  And how do you oppose this?  You can’t.  Unless you hate the poor.  And the children.  Which is what the left says about the opposition whenever they oppose new spending.  Or higher taxes.  Of course, having to fight these battles over taxes and spending can be a pain in the behind.  So the state takes care of those in the inner circle of power.  Those who think correctly.  Who help get the people to ask for these taxes and spending.  The media who helps to spread their propaganda.  And the educational system.  That teaches the young to grow up loving government.  And fearing free market capitalism.  Then you add the coup de grâce.  National health care.

President Obama lied over and over again to put America onto the Pathway towards National Health Care

Every communist/socialist dictatorship had/has national health care.  For once the people become dependent on the state for their good health the state has them for life.  And whenever the opposition resists higher taxes for more spending all you have to do is kill some people by making them wait longer for health care that the opposition denied them.  Causing outrage among the people.  Who demand that the opposition stop playing politics with their lives.  The left’s kind of oppression.  Having the people beg for more government.  This is why national health care (or something that will help usher in national health care) is the holy grail of the left.  And why President Obama lied through his teeth to pass the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) into law (see Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’ by Angie Drobnic Holan posted 12/12/2013 on PolitiFact.com).

PolitiFact has named “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” the Lie of the Year for 2013. Readers in a separate online poll overwhelmingly agreed with the choice…

The Affordable Care Act tried to allow existing health plans to continue under a complicated process called “grandfathering,” which basically said insurance companies could keep selling plans if they followed certain rules.

The problem for insurers was that the Obamacare rules were strict. If the plans deviated even a little, they would lose their grandfathered status. In practice, that meant insurers canceled plans that didn’t meet new standards.

Obama’s team seemed to understand that likelihood. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the grandfathering rules in June 2010 and acknowledged that some plans would go away. Yet Obama repeated “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” when seeking re-election last year…

Also on Oct. 1, insurers started sending out cancellation letters for 2014…

One example: PBS Newshour interviewed a woman from Washington, D.C., who was a supporter of the health care law and found her policy canceled. New policies had significantly higher rates. She told Newshour that the only thing the new policy covered that her old one didn’t was maternity care and pediatric services. And she was 58…

First, they tried to shift blame to insurers. “FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans,” said Valerie Jarrett, a top adviser to Obama, on Oct. 28.

PolitiFact rated her statement False. The restrictions on grandfathering were part of the law, and they were driving cancellations.

Then, they tried to change the subject. “It’s important to remember both before the ACA was ever even a gleam in anybody’s eye, let alone passed into law, that insurance companies were doing this all the time, especially in the individual market because it was lightly regulated and the incentives were so skewed,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

But what really set everyone off was when Obama tried to rewrite his slogan, telling political supporters on Nov. 4, “Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law, and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”

Pants on Fire! PolitiFact counted 37 times when he’d included no caveats, such as a high-profile speech to the American Medical Association in 2009: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

President Obama lied.  Over and over again.  He lied to get this pathway to national health care into law (for once he destroys the private health insurance industry what will be left but a public option?).  And he lied to win reelection.  President Obama lied.  And his fellow Democrats lied.  Over and over again.  To put America onto the pathway towards their holy grail.  National health care.  The linchpin of the massive cradle-to-grave welfare state.  The one thing that allows the state to tax and spend more than anything else.  And puts the opposition into the position of wanting to kill people anytime they oppose higher taxes and more spending.  Which has a lot more staying power than a government shutdown.

What can you say about someone who lies (at least) 37 times?  That person is a pathological liar.  A pragmatic.  A person who believes the ends justify the means.  That the rule of law is only a suggestion.  A person that will say anything and break any law to get what he wants.  And is willing to kill people by taking away the health insurance they liked and wanted to keep.  By taking away the doctor they liked and wanted to keep.  And by taking away the medication they liked and wanted to keep.  Fear and suffering President Obama and his fellow Democrats and supporters in the media and education are indifferent to.  For their greatest concern is how will this hurt President Obama?  This is what those on the left worry about.  Their dear leader.  Not the people.  Just like the inner circle surrounding every tin-pot dictator worry about.  For if the people turn on the dear leader they may overthrow him.  And with him go their privileged lives amidst the abject poverty and recurring famines surrounding them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Pilgrims and Thanksgiving

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 3rd, 2013

History 101

Queen Elizabeth hated the Puritans more than the Catholics

The Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock were God-fearing people.  Who had left England to escape religious persecution.  The Pilgrims were members of the new Protestant faith.  Less than a century old at that time.  With Henry VIII, King of England, turning Catholic England Protestant in the 1530s.  Which didn’t go over well with England’s Catholics.  Becoming a thorn in Henry’s daughter’s side.  Queen Elizabeth.  (The first Queen Elizabeth.  Not the current one.)  Who she persecuted.  But they weren’t the only people she persecuted.

The Church of England swung between Catholicism and Protestantism through the years.  Trying to please both Catholic and Protestant.  In time becoming neither Catholic nor Protestant but something in between.  Pleasing neither Catholic nor Protestant.  Queen Elizabeth, the head of the Church of England, settled the matter.  By persecuting those dissatisfied with the Church of England.  The Catholics who said it was too Protestant.  And the Protestant ‘extremists’ who said the Protest Church of England was too Catholic.

It was these Protestant ‘extremists’ that really irked Elizabeth.  No, the Church of England wasn’t good enough for them.  Because it didn’t strip every last vestige of Catholicism from it.  It was impure.  Corrupted with Catholicism.  Vestments.  Icons.  Altars.  It was just downright obscene.  That’s why she turned on these ‘Puritans’ with a vengeance.  And persecuted them like Catholics.  Even worse at times.

The Pilgrims suffered Three Years of Poor Harvests and Famines because of Socialism

Things didn’t get any better under James I.  Who followed Elizabeth’s lead.  With the political climate turning against the ‘Puritans’ they skedaddled.  Leaving England.  And resettled in Leiden, Holland.  Where they had the freedom to worship as they pleased.  But the different language and culture became a problem for the congregation.  Their children were becoming less like their parents and more like the Dutch.  Who enjoyed the pleasures in life a little more freely than they thought proper for a ‘Puritan’.  If their children became Dutch it would ultimately mean the end of the congregation.  So they boarded a ship.  No, not that one.  They took the Speedwell to England.  Then boarded THAT ship.  The Mayflower.  Crossed the Atlantic Ocean.  And landed at Plymouth Rock.

Now the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock were God-fearing people.  But they had a little in common with the hippies of the Sixties.  Not the sex and drugs.  But how they lived.  For the Pilgrims lived like the hippies wanted to live.  As communists.  The Pilgrims worked but didn’t own anything.  Everything they produced belonged to everyone.  Produced by those according to ability.  And taken by those according to need.  The perfect communist society.  And truly authentic to the yet unknown communist philosophy.  Right down to the recurring famines.

The harvest of 1620 was poor.  Making the first winter hard.  And there was famine.  It was so bad that half of them died.  The Indians then taught them how to grow corn.  Things were looking up.  They celebrated the first Thanksgiving.  But the harvest of 1621 was just as bad as the harvest of 1620.  And they suffered another famine.  Another poor harvest followed in 1622.  And another famine.  Why?  Because people were lazy.  The most able-bodied of them did not want to work according to their ability.  Just so the lazy could enjoy the fruit of their labors.  And draw from the common stores according to their need.  Without contributing anything to the common stores.  Because they had better things to do than work.  Besides, it was easier just to steal what others grew than working hard in the fields.

All of the Things that made America Great were born in Plymouth Colony

Jamestown was suffering the same fate.  The socialist utopia of living in a commune just didn’t work.  The most able-bodied men refused to work according to their ability to support other men’s wives and children.  For they had their own wives and children to support.  So those with ability did the minimum.  Because doing any more didn’t help them in any way.  Or their families.  It was like asking people to work an extra two hours at work for free.  So others with large families to support could work two hours less and go home early.  So one group of workers work 10 hours for 8 hours of wages.  While another group work for 6 hours for 8 hours of wages.  Which is socialism.  Redistribution.  From those according to ability to those according to need.  It was this economic philosophy many settlements used.  Giving them poor harvests.  And famines.

But that all changed in 1623 for the Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony.  William Bradford, governor of the colony, changed the economic system.  He abolished socialism.  And replaced it with free market capitalism.  He parceled out the common land.  Giving each household a parcel of land.  Saying it was their property.  It belonged to them.  As did anything they grew on it.  Which meant the more they grew the more they could eat.  Or trade for other things they needed.  Which unleashed the energies in the able-bodied.  And they worked their behinds off.  Growing as much as they possibly could.  Soon the harvests everywhere they implemented free market capitalism were bountiful.  Even in Jamestown.  And there was no famine in Plymouth Colony following the 1623 harvest.  Things were different.  And never would be the same again.

Finally the Pilgrims had a reason to be thankful.  Free markets.  The best medicine there is for famine.  Thanks to free market capitalism the colonies prospered.  And a new nation arose.  This economic liberty would go on to make the United States the greatest nation in the world.  Religious freedom.  Private property.  Limited government.  All of those things that made America great were born there in Plymouth Colony.  Thanks to William Bradford.  Who saw the futility of socialism.  And abolished it.  Things were difficult in the beginning.  But their decision to leave England ultimately provided the better life they were seeking.  And as it turned out they got out when the getting was good.  For the religious climate didn’t improve in England.  As the conflict between Catholics and Protestants would lead to civil war in 1642.  And it wasn’t pleasant.  Missing the horror of that gave the Pilgrims another thing to be thankful for.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Venezuela’s Socialist Policies cause Runaway Inflation and High Prices

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 24th, 2013

Week in Review

Socialists who attack capitalism say they are the champion of the poor.  And yet the poorest of the poor are in socialist countries.  Where some live without indoor plumbing or electric power.  While the poor in capitalist countries can suffer from obesity.  And most if not all have indoor plumbing and electric power.  As well as refrigerators, microwaves and televisions.

Venezuela is an anti-capitalist, socialist country.  So you would think it’s a poor person’s paradise there.  But because of runaway inflation only the rich do well in this socialist paradise.  While the poor can barely afford to live (see Venezuela jails 100 ‘bourgeois’ businessmen in crackdown by Andrew Cawthorne and Deisy Buitrago, Reuters, posted 11/14/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Venezuela’s socialist government has arrested more than 100 “bourgeois” businessmen in a crackdown on alleged price-gouging at hundreds of shops and companies since the weekend, President Nicolas Maduro said on Thursday.

“They are barbaric, these capitalist parasites!” Maduro thundered in the latest of his lengthy daily speeches. “We have more than 100 of the bourgeoisie behind bars at the moment.”

The successor to the late Hugo Chavez also said his government was preparing a law to limit Venezuelan businesses’ profits to between 15 percent and 30 percent.

Officials say unscrupulous companies have been hiking prices of electronics and other goods more than 1,000 percent. Critics say failed socialist economic policies and restricted access to foreign currency are behind Venezuela’s runaway inflation.

So what’s to blame for these high prices?  Capitalism?  Or socialism?  Well, if you blame a devalued currency and a scarcity of basic goods, you have to blame socialism.

Venezuela’s official inflation, 54 percent annually, is the highest in the Americas…

Given Venezuelans’ anxiety over inflation, and scarcities of basic goods from toilet paper to milk, Maduro was risking a backlash at the December 8 nationwide municipal elections…

Critics say the moves do not tackle the roots of Venezuela’s economic malaise, like an overvalued bolivar that forces many importers to buy black-market dollars and then pass those costs on to consumers.

The government has ordered local telecom companies to block various websites showing the bolivar at 10 times the official rate of 6.3 to the greenback on the illegal market.

The socialist economy of Venezuela can’t provide the basic necessities.  So they have to import a lot of goods.  But before you buy a country’s exports you have to exchange your currency first.  And when you’ve devalued your currency by printing money to pay for a welfare state you don’t get a lot of foreign currency in exchange.  Because your money is worthless.  And no one outside the country wants it.  For what are they going to spend it on?  It’s not like Venezuela has a booming export market to shop at.  So when you can’t exchange bolivars for US dollars you have to get US dollars some other way.  On the black market.  So you have a currency that has some purchasing power to pay for those US exports.

So inflation, scarcity and the cost of black market US dollars adds a lot of costs to businesses.  Which they have to recover somehow.  And the only way they can is through higher prices.  Which hurt the poor the most.  For they’re not getting big pay raises to keep pace with rising prices.  In fact, Venezuelans don’t even want to hold on to their own currency.  Because it’s losing purchasing power at such a great rate that the longer they hold on to it the less it will buy.  Which is why they want those imports.  Because you can’t inflate manufactured goods.  So they hold their value.  Unlike a savings account full of bolivars.

It’s not the bourgeois capitalist parasites making life miserable for the poor.  It’s Venezuela’s socialist policies.  Just as similar policies caused people to flee Cuba on rickety boats to get to America.  And East Germans risked their lives to climb over the Berlin Wall.  If you put two societies close together, one socialist and one capitalist, the flow of people between the two will be from the socialist state to the capitalist state.  Which is why socialist states are often police states.  So they can prevent their people from escaping their socialist paradise.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Politics of Liberal Economic Policies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 18th, 2013

Economics 101

What doesn’t Kill You Makes you Stronger

They say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.  And you can see that in military basic training.  There have been some good movies showing what military basic training is like.  Perhaps one of the best is Full Metal Jacket.  Where Gunnery Sergeant Hartman played by R. Lee Ermey wasn’t acting as much as reliving his days as a Marine Corps drill instructor.  Watching it you may come to hate Sergeant Hartman for he was pretty sadistic.  But they didn’t design basic training to be a pleasant experience.  They designed it to prepare recruits for the worst thing in the world.  War.

In the miniseries Band of Brothers we follow Easy Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, from basic training through D-Day and to the end of the war.  Airborne training followed basic training.  And was harder.  Fewer people make it through airborne training than they do basic training.  Ranger training is even harder.  And fewer people make it through Ranger training.  But airborne units and Rangers get the more difficult missions in combat.  Because they can do more.  For their training is more difficult.  But it didn’t kill them.  So it made them stronger.

Perhaps the most difficult military training is the Navy’s SEAL program.  Where if they get a good class of recruits they may have 1 in 10 complete training.  For it is that hard.  In fact, some have died in training because they refused to give up.  That’s why you will find few tougher than a Navy SEAL.  They are tough.  And they never quit.  Which is why we give them the most difficult missions to complete.  Missions that others would find impossible.  Proving that the more brutal and difficult training is the stronger and more able we get.

During the 20th Century the American Left has tried to replace Rugged Individualism with the Nanny State

Those who founded this nation were tough people who worked hard and never gave up.  They provided their own housing, food, clothing, etc.  If they needed something they figured out how to provide it for themselves.  They worked long hours.  Survived brutal winters and hostile environments.  But they never gave up.  In fact, they raised families while doing all of this.  With no help from government.  As there were no government benefits.  Yet they survived.  Even prospered.  For what didn’t kill them only made them stronger.  These rugged individuals could do anything.  And did.  Which is why the United States is the leader of the free world.  And the world’s number one economy.  Because of that rugged individualism.

This is the way America was before the progressives came and softened us.  And made rugged individualism somehow a bad thing.  Beginning with Woodrow Wilson.  Then FDR.  LBJ.  And then President Obama.  A long line of American presidents who eschewed individualism.  And thought in collective terms.  When the Americans rejected socialism they gave us progressivism.  When we rejected communism they gave us liberalism.  The 20th century has been a tireless attempt for those on the left to replace rugged individualism with the nanny state.  With their brilliant selves in power.  Managing the economy.  And making life fair.  To undo the unfairness of laissez-faire capitalism.  To make the United States better.  And more according to their vision.  Just like the socialists did.  And the communists did.  Yet no socialist or communist state became the leader of the free world.  Or the world’s number one economy.

Those who lived in those socialist and communist utopias learned one thing.  It was better to live someplace else.  And their ultimate destination?  The United States.  Yet those on the left refused to believe that life was worse in those states where they put people first instead of profits.  Like that unfeeling and cruel laissez-faire capitalism did.  Which is why Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Obama worked tirelessly to move the United States in the direction of socialism and communism.  Because they cared for the people.  Or the power they got by making so many people dependent on government.

Someone receiving a Comfortable Level of Benefits will not be pushed to Leave their Comfort Zone

So is it about the power or that thing about helping people?  What is it exactly that progressives/liberals really want?  Well, we can look at the historical record to determine that.  By looking at a point in time when America really changed.  With the assassination of JFK.  JFK’s chances of reelection weren’t great.  Which is why he went to Texas.  As he needed LBJ to deliver Texas to the Democrats.  Instead of electoral victory, though, he fell to an assassin’s bullet.  The great outpouring of grief and love for their fallen president exceeded the love he got before the assassination.  The heightened emotions allowed LBJ to pass the many programs of the Great Society into law.  In the memory of JFK.  The greatest expansion of the federal government since FDR’s New Deal.  Making the welfare state the largest yet.  In an attempt to put people first.  Not profits.  In fact, LBJ declared a war on poverty.  By providing government assistance to lift everyone out of poverty.  And he championed civil rights.  LBJ was going to make the United States that utopia socialists and communists always dreamt about.  For everyone.  Blacks.  And whites.  Especially blacks.  Who were suffering great discrimination then.  But things would be different for them.  Starting in the Sixties everything was going to get better.  And how are blacks doing today?  Well, if you use employment as a measure, not good (see Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age by the Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Unemplyment Rates by Race Age Sex Rev 2

The federal government has done a lot for blacks.  More than any other minority group.  Affirmative Action was to correct all past wrongs.  By making it easier to get into college.  And to get a job.  Yet we don’t see that when looking at the unemployment numbers.  In fact, the group the government does the least for—white men—is doing the best.  They don’t need any help because they won life’s lottery.  By being born white.  According to liberals.  So there’s no Affirmative Action for them.  Yet they have half the unemployment rate black men have.  While white women have half the unemployment rate black women have.  And white 16-19 year olds have half the unemployment rate black 16-19 year olds have.  Brilliant progressives/liberals have been trying to make life better for blacks for 50 some years now and have failed.  Despite this blacks have never been more loyal to them.  Which answers the question what the Democrats care more for.  The people?  Or the power the people give them.  By getting them dependent on government.  Who they tell over and over again that they would have nothing if it weren’t for them.  The Democrats.  For blacks just can’t make it on their own without help.  Even though after receiving all of that help blacks are suffering the greatest levels of unemployment.  Clearly something isn’t right here.  And it goes back to that thing that made America great.  Rugged individualism.

You know what the difference is between a white SEAL and a black SEAL?  Nothing.  Blacks have equality of opportunity in SEAL training.  And that’s all they need.  They don’t need special treatment.  And the Navy doesn’t tell them that they do.  All they need is the strength.  And the will.  Which will be there if you don’t keep telling people that they can’t succeed without the government’s help.  Because if you keep doing that they will come to believe that.  And they will keep voting Democrat.  Looking for help.  Whereas those who face adversity and overcome it grow stronger.  Because what doesn’t kill them makes them stronger.

Handing out government benefits will make people like you.  But it won’t get them a job.  For someone receiving a comfortable level of benefits will not be pushed to leave their comfort zone.  And while they languish in their comfort zone they will not gain work experience.  Allowing others to gain experience and move up in their careers.  Making them more employable.  While those with less experience and less education are less employable.  And that’s what Democrats do when they buy votes with government benefits.  Make people less employable.  And blacks have been especially useful to them.  As they can stoke the fires of racism to drive blacks even further to the Democrat Party.  By calling Republicans racists.  Because they want to take away their benefits.  Just because they hate black people.  Or so goes the Democrat line.  So they keep voting Democrat.  While losing their rugged individualism.  And suffering higher levels of unemployment than everyone else.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Even the French feel they are Taxed too Much

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 28th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama is sick and tired of the Republicans, conservatives and the people who don’t give him everything he wants.   The fiscal year ends Monday so he has to fight with the Republican controlled House of Representatives to get them to pay for his increased spending.  And because he’s spending so much we have to raise the debt limit again so we can borrow the money to pay for his out of control spending.  How he wished the United States was more like France.  They don’t have these problems.  Why, the French will even elect a socialist president.  While President Obama has to veil his contempt for capitalism France can just tax and tax and then tax again.  And no one bitches about high taxes.  Well, that may be changing (see Why do the French tolerate such high taxes? by S.P. posted 9/24/2013 on The Economist).

The government is planning an extra €3 billion ($4 billion) of taxes next year, which will push up the overall tax take in the economy to 46.5% and make 2014 the fifth consecutive year that the tax burden in France has grown. François Hollande, the Socialist president, was elected last year on a promise to tax the rich, with a scheme for a top income-tax rate of 75%. But the tax bill is now wearing holes in the pockets of not just the rich but the rest, too. Why do the French put up with paying so much tax..?

Historically, the French have tolerated high taxes as the price of decent public services and a proper universal safety-net. All those fast trains, first-rate hospitals and public crèches do not come for nothing, and the French are the first to defend a way of life subsidised by the public purse that can often only be bought privately in Britain or America. Moreover, the French make a firm distinction between taxes and social-insurance contributions. Only half of households have to pay income tax, but everybody pays social charges… Indeed, the longstanding tolerance for taxes has underpinned the solidity of French sovereign debt, since it is a fair bet that France’s government can efficiently collect the taxes it needs…

This social contract, however, could be on the verge of breaking down. Over the past year, as taxes on beer and cigarettes have risen, tax-free overtime abolished, tax deductions squeezed and tax-band thresholds frozen, even the French have started to grumble. Polls suggest that tax increases have become the top worry among voters, and chief reason for Mr Hollande’s calamitous popularity ratings. The sharp rise in taxes, which began under Nicolas Sarkozy, the previous president, as part of an effort to reduce the government’s budget deficit, is all the more resented at a time when the French are no longer convinced that their public services—underperforming state schools, overcrowded commuter trains—are so much better than those that cost less in other countries. What is the point of paying Swedish-style taxes (or more) if you do not receive Scandinavian-style public services in return?

The new mood has not passed the politicians by. Mr Moscovici acknowledged recently that the French are “fed up” with taxes. Mr Hollande even conceded in a television interview that tax increases have been “too much”. Most of the effort to reduce the budget deficit in 2014 will now fall not on tax increases but public-spending cuts. Mr Hollande has promised a “tax pause”, which will be part of the message in the 2014 budget.

Yes, even the French are tiring of constantly rising taxes.  Especially when they keep paying more for less.  Which is what happens with socialism.  High taxes are a disincentive.  When you have “decent public services and a proper universal safety-net” it takes away a person’s ambition to do more and achieve more.  They may want to.  But if half of their income from this extra effort goes to taxes why put in any extra effort?  After all, there are already “decent public services and a proper universal safety-net” available.  Why work twice as hard to have virtually the same things?

This is the price of the welfare state.  It makes people less willing to take risks.  To start a business.  To create something new that everyone will want to have.  Socialism kills the entrepreneurial spirit.  And stalls the engine of job creation.  With all those small businesses going uncreated huge amounts of wealth goes uncreated.  Wealth that they can never tax.  Tax revenue doesn’t grow to keep up with the growth in spending.  So they increase tax rates.  And find other ways to make people pay more taxes.  While the quality of services fall.  Just like they are in France.  Just as they are in the United States.

And they will only get worse in the United States with the addition of Obamacare.  Which will explode the deficit while throwing the country back into recession.  With a corresponding fall in tax revenue the government will look for other ways to make people pay more taxes.  It’s happening in France.  As it has happened in every other socialist country.  And will happen in the United States.  Because of President Obama’s veiled contempt of capitalism.  The kind of contempt for capitalism shown by socialist President François Hollande.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries