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

The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Labor Force Participation Rate from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 10th, 2014

Economics 101

(Originally published May 21st, 2013)

The DJIA and the Labor Force Participation Rate tell us how both Wall Street and Main Street are Doing

Rich people don’t need jobs.  They can make money with money.  Investing in the stock market.  When you see the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) increasing you know rich people are getting richer.  Whereas the middle class, the working people, aren’t getting rich.  But they may be building a retirement nest egg.  Which is good.  So they benefit, too, from a rising DJIA.  But that’s for later.  What they need now is a job.  Unlike rich people.  The middle class typically lives from paycheck to paycheck.  So more important to them is a growing job market.  Not so much a growing stock market.  For the middle class needs a day job to be able to invest in the stock market.  Whereas rich people don’t.  For a rich person’s money works enough for the both of them.

So the Dow Jones Industrial Average shows how well rich people are doing.   And how well the working class’ retirement nest eggs are growing for their retirement.  But it doesn’t really show how well the middle class is living.  For they need a job to pay their bills.  To put food on their tables.  And to raise their families.  So the DJIA doesn’t necessarily show how well the middle class is doing.  But there is an economic indicator that does.  The labor force participation rate.  Which shows the percentage of people who could be working that are working.  So if the labor force participation rate (LFPR) is increasing it means more people looking for a job can find a job.  Allowing more people to be able to pay their bills, put food on their tables and raise their families.

These two economic indicators (the DJIA and the LFPR) can give us an idea of how both Wall Street and Main Street are doing.  Ideally you’d want to see both increasing.  A rising DJIA shows businesses are growing.  Allowing Wall Street to profit from rising stock prices.  While those growing businesses create jobs for Main Street.   If we look at these economic indicators over time we can even see which ‘street’ an administration’s policies favor.   Interestingly, it’s not the one you would think based on the political rhetoric.

Wall Street grew 75% Richer under Clinton than it did under Reagan while Main Street grew 65% Poorer

Those going through our public schools and universities are taught that capitalism is unfair.  Corporations are evil.  And government is good.  The Democrats favor a growing welfare state.  Funded by a highly progressive tax code.  That taxes rich people at higher tax rates.  While Republicans favor a limited government.  A minimum of government spending and regulation.  And lower tax rates.  Therefore the Republicans are for rich people and evil corporations.  While the Democrats are for the working man.  Our schools and universities teach our kids this.  The mainstream media reinforces this view.  As does Hollywood, television and the music industry.  But one thing doesn’t.  The historical record (see Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate and Recessions 1950-Present and Dow Jones Industrial Average Index: Historical Data).

DJIA vs Labor Force Participation Rate - Reagan

The Democrats hated Ronald Reagan.  Because he believed in classical economics.  Which is what made this country great.  Before Keynesian economics came along in the early 20th Century.  And ushered in the era of Big Government.  Reagan reversed a lot of the damage the Keynesians caused.  He tamed inflation.  Cut taxes.  Reduced regulation.  And made a business-friendly environment.  Where the government intervened little into the private sector economy.  And during his 8 years in office we see that BOTH Wall Street (the Dow Jones Industrial Average) and Main Street (the labor force participation rate) did well.  Contrary to everything the left says.  The DJIA increased about 129%.  And the LFPR increased about 3.4%.  Indicating a huge increase of jobs for the working class.  Showing that it wasn’t only the rich doing well under Reaganomics.  The policies of his successor, though, changed that.  As Wall Street did better under Bill Clinton than Main Street.

DJIA vs Labor Force Participation Rate - Clinton

Despite the Democrats being for the working man and Bill Clinton’s numerous statements about going back to work to help the middle class (especially during his impeachment) Wall Street clearly did better than Main Street under Bill Clinton.  During his 8 years in office the LFPR increased 1.2%.  While the DJIA increased 226%.  Which means Wall Street grew 75% richer under Clinton than it did under Reagan.  While Main Street grew 65% poorer under Clinton than it did under Reagan.  Which means the gap between the rich and the middle class grew greater under Clinton than it did under Reagan.  Clearly showing that Reagan’s policies favored the Middle Class more than Clinton’s policies did.  And that Clinton’s policies favored Wall Street more than Regan’s did.  Which is the complete opposite of the Democrat narrative.  But it gets worse.

The Historical Record shows the Rich do Better under Democrats and the Middle Class does Better under Republicans

The great economy of the Nineties the Democrats love to talk about was nothing more than a bubble.  A bubble of irrational exuberance.  As investors borrowed boatloads of cheap money thanks to artificially low interest rates.  And poured it into dot-com companies that had nothing to sell.  After these dot-coms spent that start-up capital they had no revenue to replace it.  And went belly-up in droves.  Giving George W. Bush a nasty recession at the beginning of his presidency.  Compounded by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

DJIA vs Labor Force Participation Rate - Bush

The LFPR fell throughout Bush’s first term as all those dot-com jobs went away in the dot-com crash.  Made worse by the 9/11 attacks.  As all the malinvestments of the Clinton presidency were wrung out of the economy things started to get better.  The LFPR leveled off and the DJIA began to rise.  But then the specter of Bill Clinton cast another pall over the Bush presidency.  Clinton’s Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending forced lenders to lower their lending standards to qualify more of the unqualified.  Which they did under fear of the full force and fury of the federal government.  Using the subprime mortgage to put the unqualified into homes they couldn’t afford.  This policy also pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy these toxic subprime mortgages from these lenders.  Freeing them up to make more toxic loans.  This house of cards came crashing down at the end of the Bush presidency.  Which is why the DJIA fell 19.4%.  And the LFPR fell 2.1%.  Even though the economy tanked thanks to those artificially low interest rates that brought on the subprime mortgage crisis and Great Recession both Wall Street and Main Street took this rocky ride together.  They fell together in his first term.  Rose then fell together in his second term.  Something that didn’t happen in the Obama presidency.

DJIA vs Labor Force Participation Rate - Obama

During the Obama presidency Wall Street has done better over time.  Just as Main Street has done worse over time.  This despite hearing nothing about how President Obama cares for the middle class.  When it is clear he doesn’t.  As his policies have clearly benefited rich people.  Wall Street.  While Main Street suffers the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  So far during his presidency the LFPR has fallen 3.7%.  While the DJIA has risen by 86%.  Creating one of the largest gaps between the rich and the middle class.  This despite President Obama being the champion of the middle class.  Which he isn’t.  In fact, one should always be suspect about anyone claiming to be the champion of the middle class.  As the middle class always suffers more than the rich when these people come to power.  Just look at Venezuela under Hugo Chaves.  Where the rich got richer.  And the middle class today can’t find any toilet paper to buy.  This is what the historical record tells us.  The rich do better under Democrats.  And the middle class does better under Republicans.  Despite what our schools and universities teach our kids.  Or what they say in movies and television.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Oil Trains Derail as President Obama tries to Enrich his Rich Billionaire Friends

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 4th, 2014

Week in Review

If there are two things President Obama doesn’t like they are rich people and oil.  Well, at least he acts that way.  Espousing more concern for the working man.  And clean energy.  Which is why President Obama said “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline.  Or could there have been another reason (see BNSF opens North Dakota track as oil by rail faces more scrutiny by Nicholas Sakelaris posted 1/2/2014 on the Dallas Business Journal)?

Burlington Northern Santa Fe re-opened the double track Thursday morning outside Casselton, N.D., where an oil train collided with a grain train, causing a massive fireball-like explosion earlier this week…

Fort Worth-based BNSF hauls an estimated 750,000 barrels of crude oil per day. The railroad carried an estimated 100 million barrels of crude oil out of the Bakken in 2012, a massive increase from previous years.

You know who owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)?  Warren Buffett.  For BNSF is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway.  So Warren Buffet is profiting greatly from President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline.  One can’t help to wonder if that has anything to do with the Buffett Rule (see Buffett would profit from Keystone cancellation by Dave Boyer posted 1/24/2012 on The Washington Times).

Warren Buffett, whom President Obama likes to cite as a fair-minded billionaire while arguing for higher taxes on the wealthy, stands to benefit from the president’s decision to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.

Mr. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC, which is among the railroads that would transport oil produced in western Canada if the pipeline isn’t built…

If completed, the $7 billion Keystone XL would deliver 700,000 barrels a day of crude from oil sands in Canada to Texas refineries on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. It would traverse about 1,600 miles.

The State Department’s review of the project said shipping oil via rail is more costly than delivering it to refineries by pipeline.

Mr. Obama often cites Mr. Buffett as an example of a civic-minded billionaire because the entrepreneur has said he should pay a higher tax rate than his secretary. Mr. Buffett and the president like to tell the story of how Mr. Buffett pays a 15 percent effective tax rate, while his secretary pays a higher rate even though she earns only a fraction of what he does.

The president has called his push for higher taxes on the wealthy the “Buffett rule.”

Funny.  Warren Buffett says we should tax rich people more and the Keystone XL pipeline doesn’t get built.  Instead that oil goes on Buffett’s trains.  Making him a lot of money.  Just like the president’s rich friends on Wall Street are making a lot of money.  Who have all gotten richer under the Obama presidency while median family income fell for Main Street.  So more oil is traveling across the country.  Some of which is derailing and soaking into our pristine environment.  Or exploding.  While rich people are getting richer.  And President Obama would have us believe he’s for the working man and clean energy.

It would seem President Obama is more for getting Democrat supporters rich than helping Main Street.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Labor Force Participation Rate from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 21st, 2013

History 101

The DJIA and the Labor Force Participation Rate tell us how both Wall Street and Main Street are Doing

Rich people don’t need jobs.  They can make money with money.  Investing in the stock market.  When you see the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) increasing you know rich people are getting richer.  Whereas the middle class, the working people, aren’t getting rich.  But they may be building a retirement nest egg.  Which is good.  So they benefit, too, from a rising DJIA.  But that’s for later.  What they need now is a job.  Unlike rich people.  The middle class typically lives from paycheck to paycheck.  So more important to them is a growing job market.  Not so much a growing stock market.  For the middle class needs a day job to be able to invest in the stock market.  Whereas rich people don’t.  For a rich person’s money works enough for the both of them.

So the Dow Jones Industrial Average shows how well rich people are doing.   And how well the working class’ retirement nest eggs are growing for their retirement.  But it doesn’t really show how well the middle class is living.  For they need a job to pay their bills.  To put food on their tables.  And to raise their families.  So the DJIA doesn’t necessarily show how well the middle class is doing.  But there is an economic indicator that does.  The labor force participation rate.  Which shows the percentage of people who could be working that are working.  So if the labor force participation rate (LFPR) is increasing it means more people looking for a job can find a job.  Allowing more people to be able to pay their bills, put food on their tables and raise their families.

These two economic indicators (the DJIA and the LFPR) can give us an idea of how both Wall Street and Main Street are doing.  Ideally you’d want to see both increasing.  A rising DJIA shows businesses are growing.  Allowing Wall Street to profit from rising stock prices.  While those growing businesses create jobs for Main Street.   If we look at these economic indicators over time we can even see which ‘street’ an administration’s policies favor.   Interestingly, it’s not the one you would think based on the political rhetoric.

Wall Street grew 75% Richer under Clinton than it did under Reagan while Main Street grew 65% Poorer

Those going through our public schools and universities are taught that capitalism is unfair.  Corporations are evil.  And government is good.  The Democrats favor a growing welfare state.  Funded by a highly progressive tax code.  That taxes rich people at higher tax rates.  While Republicans favor a limited government.  A minimum of government spending and regulation.  And lower tax rates.  Therefore the Republicans are for rich people and evil corporations.  While the Democrats are for the working man.  Our schools and universities teach our kids this.  The mainstream media reinforces this view.  As does Hollywood, television and the music industry.  But one thing doesn’t.  The historical record (see Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate and Recessions 1950-Present and Dow Jones Industrial Average Index: Historical Data).

DJIA vs Labor Force Participation Rate - Reagan

The Democrats hated Ronald Reagan.  Because he believed in classical economics.  Which is what made this country great.  Before Keynesian economics came along in the early 20th Century.  And ushered in the era of Big Government.  Reagan reversed a lot of the damage the Keynesians caused.  He tamed inflation.  Cut taxes.  Reduced regulation.  And made a business-friendly environment.  Where the government intervened little into the private sector economy.  And during his 8 years in office we see that BOTH Wall Street (the Dow Jones Industrial Average) and Main Street (the labor force participation rate) did well.  Contrary to everything the left says.  The DJIA increased about 129%.  And the LFPR increased about 3.4%.  Indicating a huge increase of jobs for the working class.  Showing that it wasn’t only the rich doing well under Reaganomics.  The policies of his successor, though, changed that.  As Wall Street did better under Bill Clinton than Main Street.

DJIA vs Labor Force Participation Rate - Clinton

Despite the Democrats being for the working man and Bill Clinton’s numerous statements about going back to work to help the middle class (especially during his impeachment) Wall Street clearly did better than Main Street under Bill Clinton.  During his 8 years in office the LFPR increased 1.2%.  While the DJIA increased 226%.  Which means Wall Street grew 75% richer under Clinton than it did under Reagan.  While Main Street grew 65% poorer under Clinton than it did under Reagan.  Which means the gap between the rich and the middle class grew greater under Clinton than it did under Reagan.  Clearly showing that Reagan’s policies favored the Middle Class more than Clinton’s policies did.  And that Clinton’s policies favored Wall Street more than Regan’s did.  Which is the complete opposite of the Democrat narrative.  But it gets worse.

The Historical Record shows the Rich do Better under Democrats and the Middle Class does Better under Republicans

The great economy of the Nineties the Democrats love to talk about was nothing more than a bubble.  A bubble of irrational exuberance.  As investors borrowed boatloads of cheap money thanks to artificially low interest rates.  And poured it into dot-com companies that had nothing to sell.  After these dot-coms spent that start-up capital they had no revenue to replace it.  And went belly-up in droves.  Giving George W. Bush a nasty recession at the beginning of his presidency.  Compounded by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

DJIA vs Labor Force Participation Rate - Bush

The LFPR fell throughout Bush’s first term as all those dot-com jobs went away in the dot-com crash.  Made worse by the 9/11 attacks.  As all the malinvestments of the Clinton presidency were wrung out of the economy things started to get better.  The LFPR leveled off and the DJIA began to rise.  But then the specter of Bill Clinton cast another pall over the Bush presidency.  Clinton’s Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending forced lenders to lower their lending standards to qualify more of the unqualified.  Which they did under fear of the full force and fury of the federal government.  Using the subprime mortgage to put the unqualified into homes they couldn’t afford.  This policy also pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy these toxic subprime mortgages from these lenders.  Freeing them up to make more toxic loans.  This house of cards came crashing down at the end of the Bush presidency.  Which is why the DJIA fell 19.4%.  And the LFPR fell 2.1%.  Even though the economy tanked thanks to those artificially low interest rates that brought on the subprime mortgage crisis and Great Recession both Wall Street and Main Street took this rocky ride together.  They fell together in his first term.  Rose then fell together in his second term.  Something that didn’t happen in the Obama presidency.

DJIA vs Labor Force Participation Rate - Obama

During the Obama presidency Wall Street has done better over time.  Just as Main Street has done worse over time.  This despite hearing nothing about how President Obama cares for the middle class.  When it is clear he doesn’t.  As his policies have clearly benefited rich people.  Wall Street.  While Main Street suffers the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  So far during his presidency the LFPR has fallen 3.7%.  While the DJIA has risen by 86%.  Creating one of the largest gaps between the rich and the middle class.  This despite President Obama being the champion of the middle class.  Which he isn’t.  In fact, one should always be suspect about anyone claiming to be the champion of the middle class.  As the middle class always suffers more than the rich when these people come to power.  Just look at Venezuela under Hugo Chaves.  Where the rich got richer.  And the middle class today can’t find any toilet paper to buy.  This is what the historical record tells us.  The rich do better under Democrats.  And the middle class does better under Republicans.  Despite what our schools and universities teach our kids.  Or what they say in movies and television.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

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

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Labor Costs, Standard of Living, Artisans, Gunsmiths, Specifications, Interchangeability of Parts, Machine Tools and the Assembly Line

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 15th, 2012

Technology 101

Since the Dawn of Civilization we’ve Waged a War against High Labor Costs

Technology determines our standard of living.  The greater we develop technology the higher our standard of living.  Because the things that make our lives easier and more enjoyable come down in price as technology advances.  So that the great conveniences and comforts of life are available to all.  And not just for the amusements of a wealthy upper class.  For example, who owned and enjoyed the first automobiles?  It was the wealthy upper class.  Exclusively.  Until Henry Ford used all the technology of the day to reduce the price of a car so that a working man could afford and enjoy one.  Changing America forever.

Labor.  The cost of people making things.  This is the cost that holds back the standard of living.  The thing that made the comforts of life affordable only to the rich.  Since the dawn of civilization we’ve waged a war against high labor costs.  To find ways to allow people to create more for less.  The division of labor allowed specialization and a middle class.  Where artisans made things they could trade for other things.  But artisans were artists.  Each thing they made was one of a kind.  And it took time.  A single artisan could not operate at an economies of scale to bring unit prices down.  Which tended to keep their more labor-intensive works more costly and available only to the wealthy class.  And rulers of their civilization.

Great talent was going to waste.  And a great number of people were not living anywhere near as well as the few well-to-do.  To unleash this human capital, to make a better life available to anyone, they had to reduce these labor costs.  Figure out a way to make more for less.  And we took a giant step forward in this direction thanks to war.  One of the great drivers of technology.

Precision Machine Tools allowed the Interchangeability of Parts

Some of our first firearms were works of art.  Built by highly skilled artisans.  Gunsmiths.  Who carefully and painstakingly shaped, fitted and gently filed parts he created and assembled together into a working firearm.  Changed the way we fought wars forever.  They were expensive.  And not all that plentiful at first.  Because it took such a long time for a gunsmith to build one from scratch.  Who was always busy building new guns.  Or carefully and painstakingly repairing old ones damaged in battle.  Shaping, fitting and filing a replacement part into the old firearm and restoring it to working order.

Then someone got a bright idea.  Actually, a few had the same bright idea at various points in time.  If we could standardize these parts by building them to a set of specifications we could mass-produce these parts.  Building the same part over and over again, one after another, following a set of specifications as closely as possible.  And then take these uniform parts and assemble firearms out of them.  Because the parts were uniform they were interchangeable.  Any part could go into any gun.  A worker could just grab these interchangeable parts from piles of identical parts and slap them together into a finished firearm.  Furthermore, we could keep spare parts in our armories.  So we can easily repair parts damaged or broken in combat by simply replacing the broken part with a new part.  Without sending the firearm back to the manufacturer.

Of course, the interchangeability of parts was not possible without the precision machine tools provided.  At first artisans guided their hand tools with a trained eye.  Often securing the piece he was working in a vise and working the tool around the piece.  Machine tools allowed us to spin our work and used a constrained tool to shape it.  Or to constrain our work and apply a spinning tool to drill, cut or shape it.  Using machines to constrain our work allowed us to apply greater forces on our work.  Which advanced metal working.  And allowed us to manufacture things with complex shapes and demanding specifications.  Creating the many thousands of pieces that we ultimately assemble into a finished good.  Allowing us to build more for less.

Computer Controlled Machine Tools and Robots increased the Speed and Precision of Assembling Automobiles

The interchangeability of parts and machine tools led to the assembly line.  Where we assembled things in mass quantities.  From piles of interchangeable parts.  Then Henry Ford made the assembly line move.  Taking mass production to a new level.  Reducing the costs for one of the wealthy class’ most expensive toys.  The automobile.  Bringing labor costs down so far that the final selling price was inexpensive enough for the working man to afford.

Computer controlled machine tools increased the speed and precision at which we made these interchangeable parts.  And robots on the assembly line increased the speed and precision of assembling automobiles.  Which should have reduced the price of cars even further.  But they seem to be more expensive than they need be.  Making many cars today too expensive for the working man.  Making them toys for the rich and well-to-do again.  For technology has reduced costs everywhere in the assembly pipeline but one.  The final assembly labor costs.  Which should have plummeted in the advance of all this technology.  But they haven’t.  Because unions have removed these costs from market forces.  Keeping labor costs higher than market costs.  And in turn pushing the selling price of their cars higher than market prices.  Opening the door to Japanese competition in the Seventies.  And the Japanese stepped in.  Sold a lot of cars.  So many that they would one day even sell more than GM.  Where we come full circle.  One of the countries (the other being Nazi Germany) that changed American manufacturing by pulling it out of the Great Depression changed it once again.

During the war years of the Great Depression FDR set a wage ceiling.  He didn’t want employers paying workers too much.  A bit of a problem when you’re trying to hire the best workers.  So employers got creative.  And, instead, started offering benefits to get around that wage ceiling to attract the best workers.  Following World War II the wage ceiling was gone.  But the benefits lived on.  And are some of the most contentious issues discussed at contract negotiations with the United Automobile Workers (UAW).  Ultimately leading to the great legacy costs that led the Big Three (GM, Chrysler and Ford) to bankruptcy and government bailouts. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Democrat (dĕm’ə-krăt’), n., A member of the Democrat Party, the more liberal of the two major political parties in the United States.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 17th, 2011

Politics 101

The Planter Elite was a Small Minority in the South but these Southern Democrats Wielded the Political Power

People often say that the Democrat Party is for the working man.  Which is rather ironic as it has more often been the party of privilege.  It was also the party of slavery.  The party of Jim Crowe Laws.  The party of segregation.  And the party to have an Exalted Cyclops of the KKK as a high-ranking member of Congress.  Senator Byrd.  Who later filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Which is another irony.

Black voters tend to vote Democrat despite this history.  At the time of the Civil War it was Northern Republicans against Southern Democrats.  The Southern states seceding from the Union to keep their slaves.  And the institution of slavery.  For the plantation system was a throwback to Old World aristocracy.  Only with slaves instead of peasants.  The Planter Elite was a small minority in the South.  But they wielded the political power.  And owned all of the good land.  Like in any landed aristocracy.  And slavery worked that good land.  That peculiar institution that survived long past the 20 years the Founding Fathers thought it would.  Of course, the Founding Fathers never counted on Eli Whitney.  Or his cotton gin.

Today’s Democrats can trace their lineage back to Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party.  And to the man who wrote “all men are created equal.”  The hero of the yeoman farmer.  The backbone of the new republic.  Only Thomas Jefferson was more equal than most.  He was part of the landed aristocracy of the South, the planter elite.  Wealthy.  Refined.  A bit of a dandy.  And a hypocrite.  To some.

Thomas Jefferson saw the Corruption Resulting from Mixing Money and Government

Thomas Jefferson was brilliant.  Well read.  And had strong beliefs.  He understood politics.  And he knew world history.  He hated bankers and merchants.  Saw the corruption resulting from mixing money and government.  And especially hated Alexander Hamilton.  The secretary of the treasury.  And puppet master of George Washington.  Or so he believed.

Hamilton was a capitalist.  He understood money.  And the power of capital.  Ergo he was a sneaky bastard.  Corrupt.  And possibly the devil.  In Jefferson’s eyes.  So he worked tirelessly to destroy Hamilton.  Put a man on the federal payroll to help fund an opposition newspaper.  And slandered the hell out of him.  Exposed the affair with Mrs. Reynolds but left out the part about the Reynolds being crooks.  Mrs. Reynolds seduced Hamilton so Mr. Reynolds could blackmail him.  She did.  He did.  And Hamilton paid.  With his own money.  But Jefferson accused him of embezzling from the treasury to pay off the Reynolds.  And later lamented that Hamilton was such a good thief that they found absolutely no evidence of his heinous crimes.

When Jefferson was president, though, he did something very Hamiltonian.  He bought the Louisiana Territory.  Something that Hamilton would have done in a heartbeat.  And something Jefferson would have fought tirelessly against if he tried.

The Democrat Party is the Party of the Working Man as long as that Working Man belongs to a Union

So was Jefferson a hypocrite?  Sort of.  To many he was.  To himself, though, he wasn’t.  In his mind there was no contradiction in any of his actions.  For Jefferson’s mind could believe two conflicting truths at the same time.  He didn’t lie.  He didn’t flip flop.  These were not contradictions.  But paradoxes.  For the truth was nimble and flexible in his pragmatic vision.  And in that vision was an agrarian economy.  No banks.  A weak merchant class.  And a very limited and anemic federal government.  That spoke with a southern accent.  In other words a federal government was okay per se as long as Virginia and the planters of the other southern states controlled it.  Which they did for nearly a century thanks to the Three-Fifths Compromise.  That counted slaves as three-fifths a person for representation (giving the South more representatives per district than the North).  But not for taxation.

Privilege.  Born of the plantation system in America.  Based on the institution of slavery.  Where a small minority wielded great political power.  And exploited people (slaves) to accumulate wealth.  Protect their power.  And their privilege.  Not unlike the modern Democrat Party.  But today, because of the abolition of slavery, they have to do things differently.

Yes, the Democrat Party is the party of the working man.  As long as that working man belongs to a union.  Pays union dues.  And that union supports the Democrat party.  Working men who don’t are scabs.  And don’t deserve to have jobs.  So Democrat legislation favors Big Labor.  And unions.  Makes it hard for nonunion companies to compete for work.  And jobs using federal money have to pay union wages.  Either by union employees.  Preferably.  Or scabs earning union scale thanks to Davis-Bacon.  Which they would rather not have.  Because scabs earning union scale thanks to Davis-Bacon still don’t pay union dues.  But it at least makes it harder to compete against union companies.

Privilege Begets Privilege

This is the formula for most Democrat support.  Automotive workers (UAW).  Health care workers (SIEU).  Public sector workers (public sector unions).  Public school teachers (teachers unions).  And so on.  Privilege begets privilege.  You get favorable legislation as long as part of your union dues goes to Democrat coffers.  And if Democrats win control of Congress they will implement more anti-capitalistic legislation.  Impose tariffs to protect union jobs.  Increasing costs to taxpayers everywhere.  To support this privilege class.  So it’s who you know.  And not your ability.  Just like it was in the good old days.

To bolster their power they have to appeal to others in the electorate who aren’t union employees.  Because there just aren’t enough union employees.  Yet, at least.  So they also delve into crony capitalism.  Picking winners and losers in the private sector.  By supporting companies in favorable industries with grants and loan guarantees.  The winners being those who support Democrat candidates.  Privilege begets privilege.  The losers being those who don’t.  And these poor bastards not only don’t get grants or loan guarantees.  But the government saddles them with costly regulations to boot.  Or the Justice Departments initiates antitrust proceedings against them.  Like Microsoft.

Of course it takes Big Government to play like this.  And Big Government needs a lot of taxes.  For to spend money you have to first tax.  Or play with monetary policy.  Which is why Democrats will always oppose returning to the gold standard.  Because sometimes you can’t tax and spend.  Sometimes you have to print money and spend.  And you can’t do that with a gold standard.  But because of the problems inherent with printing money (inflation), they will tax every last penny they can first.  And their weapon of choice is class warfare.  To get the poor and middle class to agree to increase tax rates on the rich.  Which they are all for.  But what they don’t know is that Democrats are constantly redefining who is rich.  Which they would not be for.  Because a lot of people are being surprised to find out that they are now rich.  Especially modest middle class couples (say a cop and a teacher) whose combined income make them rich.  Much to their surprise.

The Democrat Party is For Sale to the Highest Contributor

The Democrats round out their base by appealing to populist issues.  They play down the God stuff and keep abortion legal to keep the youth vote.  And the feminists.  By showing that the government is not your parents when it comes to sex.  Or drugs (the youth is ever hopeful for the Democrat who finally decriminalizes marijuana).  Which is ironic as that same government acts like parents everywhere else.  Policing what we eat, drink and legally smoke.

They increase welfare spending to keep the poor dependent.  And voting Democrat.  They appeal to special interests (environmentalists, gays and lesbians, etc.) to get their support, too.  By painting their opponents as vicious monsters who want to destroy the environment.  Who want to criminalize being gay.  And who want to bring back the Spanish Inquisition.

You see, the modern Democrat Party has to buy votes.  Or lie to scare people.  Because people don’t willingly vote to give privilege to others.  Unless there’s something in it for them.  And this is where the modern Democrat Party breaks from Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson did things to prevent money from influencing power.  And he did some pretty shady things.  But they were for a higher purpose.  To keep the spirit of 1776 alive.

The higher purpose of the Democratic Party?  The Democratic Party.  And unlike Jefferson, they’re all for influencing power with money.  In fact, the Democrat Party is for sale to the highest contributor.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #69: “Democrats bank on the youth vote because they’ve lost the wise vote.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 7th, 2011

Republicans are Greedy, Stuffy Old Farts

The perception is that the Democrats are for the working man.  Or woman.  And the Republicans are for the rich.  Which isn’t exactly true.  For there are a lot of wealthy who vote Democrat.  And a lot of working men and women who vote Republican.  But in politics perception is key.  Like it is in real estate.  I’m sure you’ve heard the one about the small agent who people perceived as the biggest agent in town.  Of the few properties listed, the agent had one on the road into town.  And one on the road out of town.  The agent owned two signs.  Each property got one.  And everyone saw these signs as they drove in and out of that town.  And thought, “I see these signs everywhere.  That agent must be the biggest agent in town.”  The agent isn’t.  But people perceive this because of the signs.

And there is a perception in politics.  It starts out when we are young.  In school.  And see our favorite teachers go on strike.  We love them so much we want to help them.  So we stand in picket lines with them.  Hold signs.  Blissfully ignorant of the underlying issues.  But teachers are good.  They’re not rich corporate types.  Some even have to buy their own school supplies because the school is so impoverished.  They deserve better.  Even though they get the summer off.  And don’t pay a dime for their health care or retirement.  If your parents had the same deal when you were a kid, they would have given you a lot more presents on your birthday and at Christmas.  Gone to Disney World a few more times.  And bought you that bike you always wanted.  But kids don’t understand this.  And the perception is that people are greedy because they don’t want to pay more in taxes to help their favorite teachers.

As these kids grow people hammer this message into them again and again.  On television.  In the movies.  In books.  In college.  Republicans are greedy.  Democrats care for the little people.  They don’t explain how.  It is just an article of faith.  Which the kids accept.  Without question.  Especially when they start getting politically aware.  And they feel special when people start initiating them into the political process.  They don’t understand anything yet.  They’re still self-centered kids.  But they like the attention.  It makes them feel good.  And when they learn that the Democrats are for fun, why, that’s even better.  For it is the Republicans that are against fun.  They disapprove of sexual promiscuity.  Drugs.  Birth control.  Abortion.  The greedy, stuffy old farts that they are.

Democrats are Enlightened and Care about People

It’s all part of the generation gap.  The kids against their parents.  Who don’t know anything.  In the sitcom Happy Days, ‘enlightened’ high school kids campaign for the Democrat candidate Adlai Stevenson while the parents support Dwight Eisenhower.  In the sitcom All in the Family, the ‘enlightened’ Meathead supports George McGovern while the bigoted Archie Bunker supports Richard Nixon.  In the sitcom Family Ties, the parents are caring liberals while Alex Keaton is a greedy, unfeeling young Republican who worships money, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. 

Since the Seventies the message has been clear for kids watching television.  Bigoted, greedy, unfeeling, dishonest, out-of-touch people are Republicans.  Enlightened people who care about other people are Democrats.  That’s a powerful perception.  And it works.  The majority of young people typically vote Democrat.  Mostly for the social issues.  Which they believe are enlightened on the Democrat side.  Which is all they really care about at their age.  When their hormones are raging out of control.  They’re not thinking about economic or foreign policy.  They’re thinking about the weekend. 

I mean, let’s face it.  Kids aren’t that smart.  They’re young.  Have little experience.  Which is why they do a lot of stupid things.  Smoke.  Work on deep sun tans.  Drive recklessly.  Drink before they’re of legal age.  Do drugs.  Drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.  Have unprotected sex.  Catch a sexually transmitted disease.  Give a sexually transmitted disease.  Accidentally get pregnant.  And the list goes on.  Their concerns are not long term.  Their interests are not long term.  It’s all about having fun now.  So despite this poor judgment we need to get out the vote and get these kids into the voting booth.   Why?  Simply because they will vote Democrat.

The Problem with Young Voters is that they Grow Up

So who votes Democrat these days?  Besides ignorant kids?  Mostly people who benefit from a large and growing government.  The poor who want more welfare benefits.  The elderly who want more Social Security and Medicare benefits.  Unions who get favorable legislation restricting lower-cost competition.  Public sector unions who we pay directly with our taxes.  And the smattering of single-issue people.  Environmentalists.  The anti-nuke crowd.  Gays and lesbians (rejected by some religious groups).  Feminists.  The pro-choice people.  Etc.

It’s a lot of people.  But America is still a center-right country.  Which leans conservative.  Which makes the youth vote so critical.  That’s why they get them while they’re young.  It’s the whole point of public education.  To make good Democrat voters.  That’s why they focus on things like environmentalism.  The theory of evolution.  Multiculturalism.  Sex education.  Birth control.  Things that will drive wedges between kids and their parents.  Should their parents be Republicans.  So after graduation they understand some fundamental truths of life.  Republicans bad.  Democrats good.  Until they start working and raising a family of their own.  At which time they will start complaining about the school curriculum at their own kids’ school.

Again, this is why the youth vote is so important.  For the youth have one fatal flaw.  They grow up.  A large part of that center-right America was once far left.  Kids who voted Democrat.  For the social issues.  Who then grew.  And stopped being ignorant.  Stopped thinking about short term fun.  And started thinking about long term consequences.  About their kids.  And their kids’ future.  A lot of these people changed their views on the social issues.  And started paying attention to economic and foreign policy issues.  Even went back to church.  Because they wanted their kids to go to church.  And they didn’t do these things because they became a bunch of greedy, stuffy old farts.  It’s called being responsible.  Which is what happens when kids grow up.  And have kids of their own. 

Indoctrinating and Dumbing Down

Once they do grow up the Democrats have to replace them with the next batch of kids coming of age.  And they take this seriously.  First it was 12 years of public school.  Then they added kindergarten.  And now there’s been talk about state-paid pre-school.  So the state can get to these kids sooner to start driving that wedge between them and their parents.  And they’re virulently opposed to school vouchers.  The ability to use your school tax dollars on the school of your choice.  For a couple of reason.  It thins the classes at the public schools.  Worst, private and charter schools often make smarter kids.  Who may think for themselves instead of just becoming good Democrat voters.

This attacks the primary mission of public education.  Indoctrinating kids into the Democratic Party.  And dumbing them down.  Teaching them things like global warming and multiculturalism.  While the Chinese and Indians are teaching their kids science and engineering.  So is it any surprise that the Chinese may soon surpass the United States as the world’s largest economy?

This is another reason why America is a center-right country.  Jobs in the private sector are important.  And pay for all those state benefits people vote Democrat for.  The costs of these programs are huge.  Too huge.  And we can’t sustain this kind of government spending anymore.  Grownups with jobs understand this.  Kids don’t.  So they may lose more of the grownup vote if they cut these benefits.  Which makes the youth vote even more important.  Because they are losing more and more of the wise vote.  The responsible ones with jobs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #26: “If we need Big Government to protect us from ourselves, then our public schools can’t be the best place to learn.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 12th, 2010

WE ARE WHAT they teach us.  And here is a little of what our teachers taught us.  And a little of what we learned by observation.

WHEN I WAS in grade school, our teachers went on strike.  It was great.  Another week or so of summer vacation.  But I saw a curious thing.  Some of my classmates were carrying picket signs.  And there they were, walking with the teachers.  I could not understand why anyone would want to help to end an extended summer vacation.  That’s all I knew about a teacher’s strike.  I had no idea why they didn’t want to go back to work.  I just knew it meant I didn’t have to go back to school yet.

The signs my fellow students carried said something about making our schools better.  As kids typically don’t like being in school, I couldn’t imagine they thought much about improving the educational system.  Other than greatly shortening the school day.  And school year.  But giving a pay raise to our teachers?  Giving them more benefits?  How, exactly, was that going to make school better?  I mean, if they got more pay and benefits, our education would get worse, not better.  They would just transfer money from the classroom to the teachers.  Unless the city raised property taxes to replace the classroom money that was given to the teachers.  And that would only increase the household costs of these kids’ parents.  Meaning less presents at Christmas.  Couldn’t these kids see the folly of their ways?

Of course they couldn’t.  They were just useful pawns.  They hadn’t the foggiest idea why teachers go on strike.  The teachers told them what to say.  What to think.  And they lied to these kids.  They weren’t striking because they wanted more money and better benefits.  Which they were.  No.  They told these innocent children that they were striking so they could have a better art department.  A better music department.  Better field trips.  That’s why these teachers were on the picket lines.  For the children.  And that every time there were cuts in the classroom, it was because of the greed of their parents who didn’t approve a millage.  Or who bitched about rising property taxes.  It was never their OWN greed.  Never that.

WE HAD A mock election when I was in 7th grade.  It was an ‘exercise in democracy’.  I remember voting for the Democrat candidate.  I don’t know why.  I knew nothing about politics.  I had only recently quit playing with my toy cars.  I was still reading The Hardy Boys mystery novels.  And thinking about the pretty girls in class.  What I don’t remember was spending much time thinking about the presidential election.  But there I was, voting for the Democrat candidate.  Who won in our little mock election.  But how did I, as well as my fellow students, know enough about politics to vote for the Democrat candidate?

Obviously, they taught us what to think.  That the Democrat candidate was the better candidate.  Because he was for the working man.  And cared about the little people.  That the Democrats cared about education.  Not profits.  All these touchy feely things.  Which was about all a kid could understand.  A kid can’t understand monetary or fiscal policy.  The intricacies of foreign policy.  They don’t have a clue about those things.  But kids do know that they should play nice.  And that’s what the Democrats are all about.  Playing nice.  And providing political muscle for the teachers’ unions in exchange for votes.  And obedient little minds of mush that will one day become voters.

I HAD A speech/debate class in high school.  Our teacher used the latest in progressive teaching methods.  A lot of touchy feely stuff.  Feel more than think.  We often did these exercises where the class as a whole debated the pros and cons of a particular position.  One day we went through a list of five or so.  I found the last one interesting.  It was about a ‘death ray’.

I had recently watched a program about nuclear weapons.  I learned that the size of their warheads was a function of the accuracy of the weapons.  They needed a big radius of destruction to guarantee the destruction of the target.  This is true for all weapon systems, conventional or nuclear.  The less accurate they are, the bigger the destructive force required.  (Whereas smart weapons today can have smaller warheads because they can be steered onto target.)  The more accurate the weapon, the less destructive it can be.  The less collateral damage there would be.  Less civilian dead.  The lesson described the ‘death ray’ as a weapon of pinpoint accuracy.  Based on what I just recently learned, I thought that it would be very interesting to discuss the pros of such a weapon.

When we finished discussing the position before the ‘death ray’, he said something like it was obvious that no one would argue for such a weapon system.  So there was no point in discussing it.  And then, as an afterthought, he said “unless someone does” with a condescending smirk.  I raised my hand.  I began to make some positive points.  He cut me off.  There was to be no discussion in favor of any weapon system in his class.  Turns out he was anti-war.  Free speech was one thing but not when you disagree with the program.

TWO BOOKS THAT that stand out from high school that were required reading are The Grapes of Wrath and Johnny Got His Gun.  You couldn’t find a couple of more depressing books if you tried.  The Grapes of Wrath was about the plight of a family who lost the farm during the dust bowl of the Great Depression.  In it you learned that bankers were evil.  Rich people were evil.  That Big Business was evil and exploited the poor.  Whereas poor people were virtuous.  And only poor people helped other poor people.  That Big Government was good and helped the poor people.  That FDR’s New Deal was good and helped the poor people.  That unions are good and protect those who Big Business exploits.  You get the picture?  Democrats good.  Republicans bad.  Because the Democrats take care of the little guy.  And evil bankers and fat cats are all Republicans.  Or so we were taught.

Johnny Got His Gun is an anti-war book.  It’s about a U.S. veteran of World War I.  Joe Bonham.  He lost about every part of the human body you could.  And yet they kept him alive.  I read it in the 10th grade.  Young and impressionable, I saw the folly of war.  War hurt good, young men like poor Joe Bonham.  (Incidentally, the name ‘Bonham’?  It’s from the French ‘bon homme’, good man.)  A pity only the anti-war crowd read it.  Apparently no one read it in Germany or Italy or the Soviet Union.  Maybe if their citizens did read it World War II would not have broken out.  Thankfully for the free world, though, men did serve in the armed forces despite what happened to poor Joe Bonham.  And they saved liberty.  And the burning of books did not spread further.  And books like this, because of men who did pick up a gun, remain in the public school curriculum.

Of course, you know why they (the public school teachers) are anti-war, don’t you?  It’s simple.  Any money spent on the military is money not spent on them.

I HAD AN electronics teacher in high school who was really cool.  He let us drink coffee in class (or, should I say, cream and sugar with some coffee).  He’d send a student across the street to buy donuts to eat with our coffee.  And he taught us how to build little black boxes that could unscramble scrambled television.  He was also a pretty good teacher.  A PNP transistor symbol?  The arrow was P-N (peein’) on the base.  (An NPN transistor symbol pointed away from the base.)  The resistor color code?  Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.  The whore.  (Hey, this stuff was funny when you’re only 16 years old.)  He even set up an interview for me at an electronic repair shop.  He liked being a teacher.  But he enjoyed doing concrete flatwork, too.  One of those things he did to pay the bills while in college.  And kept doing after college.  And that’s what he did during the summer, the peak of the construction season.  And made good money doing it.

MY MOM WORKED as a volunteer at my grade school.  She got to know the teachers pretty well.  She even went to their homes.  One lived not too far away from us.  I went with her once or twice.  Talk about surreal.  Seeing your teacher outside the school.  Acting so un-teacher-like.  Wearing something she doesn’t wear to school.  Having fun.  Laughing and joking.  And seeing her being a mom to her own kids.  That was weird.  We treated her politely and with respect in school.  Her kids whined “maaaa” at home just like I did when I was at home.  My teacher was just a normal person.  Human, almost.

But what really struck me then was that though they lived in the same general area as we did, they had more.  Bigger house.  With nicer stuff.  A newer car in the driveway.  More presents under their Christmas tree.  And in bigger boxes.  It was a ‘blue-collar’ neighborhood.  Her husband was a ‘blue-collar’ worker.  Just like my dad.  But my mom volunteered.  My teacher was, well, a teacher.  The ultimate second income in a two income family.  Good pay and benefits.  And no child care to worry about.  Teachers are off when their kids are off.  Holidays.  Breaks.  Snow days.  And, of course, summer vacation.  It just didn’t get better for a working mom.

IT IS INTERESTING that people become more conservative with age.  They may start out Democrat.  But after working awhile or raising a family, they often become Republican.  Not all of them.  But a lot.  The net number of people changing from Democrat to Republican far exceeds those changing from Republican to Democrat.  If there are any.  Other than for political reasons (in a desperate attempt to get reelected by switching parties).  That’s why the Democrats depend on the youth vote.  Because the youth vote is an uninformed voted.  They haven’t been deprogrammed yet.  They still toe the party line.  Because they don’t know any better.  Yet.

As we work and live in the real world, though, away from the insulated life of home or the college campus, things change.  We get older.  And wiser.  Less naive.  Less idealistic.  Less ignorant.  That’s why there is a net change from Democrat to Republican.  We grow up.  And start thinking for ourselves.  And try as they might during our public school indoctrination, we stop being sheep.  Eventually.  We strop bleating their mantra.  ‘Big Government good.  Private sector bad’.  Why?  Because we see that public school teachers and government workers live a lot better than we do.  This privileged few, this ruling elite, continue to take from us and respond with condescending arrogance when we complain.  Angry that we don’t mind our place in the lower strata of society.  Where we belong.

And they are nervous.  They can only maintain their elite status as long as we pay for it.  The more we learn, though, the less we are willing to support this aristocracy.  And they know it.  So they try to keep us dumbed down.  For an educated constituency is the greatest threat to Big Government.  And the public school system.  This self-proclaimed aristocracy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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