ArchiveCategory Archives for "Economics"
How the economy really works, how to fix it, who is breaking it, and why they are breaking it.
How the economy really works, how to fix it, who is breaking it, and why they are breaking it.
An increasing percentage of adults of average intelligence are making at or near the minimum wage, which is a tragedy from any perspective, and thus a popular solution today is to double the minimum wage.
Bernie Sanders is the Presidential candidate promising to double the minimum wage. He says it’s because he really cares about people, and because people have a right to a living wage, and because it would strengthen the economy by enlarging the middle class, which would thus increase consumer spending.
Imagine if Bernie Sanders won and implemented his ideas. Then, if a 30 year old man had been making minimum wage and it were suddenly doubled, he could afford to marry a woman who was making minimum wage, and they could afford to have kids.
That example sounds pretty good if we stop thinking at this point, but if we think for ourselves …
It is pretty easy to see that:
For many, allegory will be more clear than abstract reasoning, so let’s consider how the future would unfold for one man, Chris, if Bernie Sanders won the 2016 Presidential election and promptly doubled the minimum wage.
The Life of Chris
Chris graduated from college with a liberal arts degree in 2009, so he had voted for Obama of course, and even though he had been making minimum wage since the beginning of the Obama administration, he voted to reelect Obama because he still believed the media, who were still telling him that Obama was going to fix everything. He still believed the Myth of Obama created by the media.
Chris was flipping burgers at McDonald’s and thus was contributing pretty much nothing to the world, and for this reason, the world was contributing pretty much nothing to Chris.
Since graduation in 2009, Chris had dreamed of making enough money that he could get married and support a family so that his wife could stay at home and raise the kids so they wouldn’t turn out to be little sociopaths. He had seen how well this had worked for his parents and his brother, which is why he wanted to emulate this aspect of his heritage, even though he saw his family as “not smart enough to vote for Obama”. At some level, he also understood that he had also avoided the trap of drug use because of his parents and his brother.
However, by 2016 Chris had declared bankruptcy. He was at the lowest point in his life and had pretty much given up on Obama. He was ready to make the effort to become a computer programmer, like his brother, which he accurately concluded anyone of average intelligence (like his brother) could do at any point in life if he were willing to make the effort.
According to standardized tests, Chris was actually slightly less intelligent than his brother, and thus both were considered average by what Chris called “conservative” testing methods. Whereas, Chris felt with deep conviction that he was actually smarter than his brother because he was more liberal and because all of his friends agreed with him. He could go all day every day and not meet anyone else in Seattle who disagreed with him. He also believed with deep conviction that he was not “misinformed by the media” like his brother because he did not even own a TV.
Therefore, in 2016, Chris, and all of his friends, voted for Bernie Sanders. They refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. They would not be fooled again like they were with Obama who they were beginning to feel must have actually been “some kind of Neocon”.
Although Bernie Sanders won, Chris didn’t know that, like Obama, Bernie Sanders had won in all the states that used electronic voting machines. Also like Obama, Bernie won in some precincts with more than 100%.
Bernie’s election had once again filled Chris with the hope that he had slowly lost throughout the Obama administration. Then, a few weeks after Chris had begun studying computer programming, Bernie Sanders doubled the minimum wage by executive order. He did this in his first week in office and thus suddenly affirmed everything Chris and his friends believed.
Chris was thinking that computer programming was harder than it actually was because he was still a few weeks away from developing the necessary personal discipline. Chris thus decided that it would be very liberating to free himself from the difficulty of becoming a programmer at this time. He could always do it later.
Chris was flipping burgers at McDonalds and was thus contributing pretty much nothing to the world. However, the world was now forced to contribute twice as much to Chris. Somehow it all seemed fair and just to Chris and his friends, and they knew that it was all because Bernie really cared about people, and because they were smart enough to vote for Bernie.
Out of convenience, Chris married a woman who also made the newly doubled minimum wage. Although they did not make as much combined as his brother, they could buy cheap stuff from China and could thus afford to raise a family with the help of free day care from the government. Of course, their kids were raised by daycare and TV, and were thus little sociopaths compared to his brother’s kids.
Chris’ potential, and the potential of his wife, and many of his friends continued to be wasted … but it gets much worse …
The higher cost of labor then forced many companies to permanently layoff an ever increasing number of minimum wage workers because it was more cost effective to automate the labor of those minimum wage workers. Of course, that caused many new jobs to be created around the world in corresponding skills, such as computer programming. His one libertarian friend, Jim, called it creative destruction, which is why Chris believed with deep conviction that libertarians were stupid people who didn’t care about anyone – except for Jim.
The higher cost of labor also caused inflation, which eroded the extra buying power of the higher minimum wage, so Chris and his wife made twice as much money, but after ten years, everything cost twice as much. By then, he was 40 and becoming a computer programmer was harder, so he postponed it again.
In addition to the damage of inflation, Chris could no longer afford to buy things made in China because Bernie Sanders had imposed a tariff on Chinese products. Bernie claimed that cheaper labor in China was causing American jobs to go overseas. Bernie didn’t know that his higher taxes and heavy regulations were retarding American job growth and innovation. He didn’t know that such policies were a large part of why so many Americans were in minimum wage jobs in the first place. He did not know that freedom is what creates a middle class.
The Chinese government had learned from what once made America great, so they did not reward mediocrity and they did increase freedom. As a result, their people and businesses were thus forced to grow and excel and innovate, which anyone can do, if they must, and thus, products made in China became more expensive and of higher quality than products made in America.
Then Chris’ wife, who had escaped so many previous layoffs, got permanently laid off herself … and commited suicide …
Of his three little sociopaths, one ended up in prison and one died of an overdose, but before further tragedy could strike, the next president (another Democrat) started a war with China because Democrats believe that WWII was good for the economy. Then, like in WWII, all basic necessities were rationed so they could be redirected toward the war effort. Instead of cars and washing machines, people made tanks and bombs, and thus his wife could have gotten a job in a government factory …
His remaining son was drafted of course, but at least he had a job … except … then his son died in battle … and Chris commited suicide … and it was all because Bernie Sanders cared so much about people …
Chris’s friend Jim observed that hundreds of millions around the world died, and that it was those who were most dependent on government. Jim also observed that, perhaps not so coincidentally, this was also the goal of eugenics, which has always been a goal of progressives, and which is thus a goal of the New World Order.
Jim observed that it was almost as if Bernie Sanders were a useful idiot for the NWO.
Then Jim learned that the Federal Reserve was also a large cause of America’s economic problems and that Bernie Sanders had sold out Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill by introducing an amendment that neutered it.
Perhaps Bernie was not being played by the NWO at all. Perhaps Bernie was one of the players.
In order to understand what kind of society works and what kind does not, let’s analyze the Zeitgeist trilogy because they cover a lot of the subjects and fallacies I have encountered in the last few years. Perhaps they are the source of such fallacies.
The Zeitgeist trilogy is very good as explaining conspiracies, such as religion, 9/11, some examples of cronyism, and how banking currently works; but it has a very strong progressive socialist technocracy bias. It even has some very good material on history and psychology. However, whereas the film is 95% right about conspiracy and the supporting history and psychology; it is 95% wrong about economics and the supporting history and psychology. In fact, it is so wrong that such error cannot be an accident.
Its major correct themes, both direct and implied, are:
Its major wrong themes, both direct and implied, are:
Let’s first look at just a few examples of the errors and fallacies that permeate every few seconds of any discussion of economics in these films. The continuous barrage of errors and fallacies in economics and any supporting history or psychology is so great that it would literally take a thousand hours to document and explain all of them, so I will only look at a few. Then we will discuss some of the more general fallacies in the film, and contrast them with what we know actually works and is consistent with human nature.
All of the film links below are from points in the third film in the trilogy, which is named “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward.”
Reality says: “The invisible hand” sounds ominous, but it just means that in a free-market: supply, demand, and prices reach a natural point of equilibrium, and innovation naturally occurs, all because of the countless individual voluntary transactions where all parties are competing and thus trying to maximize their reputation while providing the best product for the price because otherwise the customer would go to a competitor. This spontaneous order all happens without government or regulation, almost as if there were an invisible hand guiding it – much like how evolution occurs without central planning, but on a much faster timeline. For example, as a resource becomes more scarce, its price goes up, and thus demand goes down. Spontaneous order and the invisible hand are beautifully explained in the essay, I Pencil, by Leonard Read. It is one of the best essays I have ever read.
The film not only takes “the invisible hand” out of context, but really overstated its case because no one thinks of the system (or the free-market) as God. It is ironic that the film makes the straw-man argument that advocates of a free-market see it as God; when it would in fact be far more accurate to say that socialists, progressives, and technocrats think of government as God. It is even more ironic given how the first film in the trilogy does such a good job at debunking religion in general (focusing mostly on Christianity BTW.)
Perhaps the greatest irony is how it continuously blames large systemic problems today on the free-market when in fact our system is nothing close to a free-market. We live in a collectivist technocracy with millions of pages of regulations where government and its experts have almost unlimited power, and these films want even more regulation and more redistribution of wealth. They want to double down on the failed, flawed, fatal policies of the past like central planning and regulation. I would say, “You know, that’s what insanity is when you keep doing the same thing over and over again even though it clearly doesn’t work.” However, these films said it for me!
This is yet another example of how the films claim that money is evil, and yet when they do, they are always talking about fiat money based on debt and printed out of thin air by a monopoly like the Federal Reserve. It never occurs to the film makers that money is a product and just needs competition to solve all of the problems created by such a monopoly, which is largely at the root of What is Wrong With the People. Unfortunately, competition is also evil according to these films.
Zeitgeist says: If you step back far enough, you will realize that the GDP … is mostly a measure of industrial inefficiency and social degradation, and the more you see it rise, the worse things are becoming with respect to personal, social, and environmental integrity.
Reality says: Rising GDP is primarily the result of more people and advancing technology. It is self evident that a person who can afford more advanced technology has a higher quality of life. GDP does measure economic activity even if it is the result of cronyism, and thus GDP can be misleading to that extent, but cronyism can only thrive under a collectivist government like what we have in every country in the world; whereas, an individualist free-market government would have little or no power to support cronyism, and thus a free-market can only exist under an individualist government (or under no government at all). Ironically, this film is attacking the free market instead of the collectivism that causes cronyism, and thus the film gets it backwards.
Zeitgeist says: You have to create problems to create profit. There is no profit under the current paradigm in saving lives, putting balance on this planet, having justice, and peace, or anything else.
Reality says: It is self-evident that you do NOT have to create problems to create profit. It is self-evident that a person would trade the fruits of his labor to save his life, to improve his environment, to have justice, peace, and everything else.
Zeitgeist says: There’s an old saying, “Pass a law; create a business.”
Reality says: “Pass a law; create a business.” would only be true under cronyism, which can only thrive under a collectivist government like what we have in every country in the world; whereas, an individualist government would have little power to create laws that would interfere with the free-market by causing the creation of unnecessary businesses, and thus a free-market can only exist under an individualist government (or under no government at all). Ironically, the speaker, Michael C. Ruppert, is attacking the free-market – not collectivism, and thus he gets it backwards – again.
Reality says: It is self-evident that competition causes some companies to compete against planned obsolescence by making a long lasting innovative product. For example, my Honda is going strong after more than 16 years while requiring only one modest repair in that time. Competition from Japanese car manufacturers forced American car companies to start innovating and to improve quality in order to compete with Japanese cars. The only reason American car companies weren’t already increasing quality and innovation was because of cronyism under a collectivist government. They had been a cartel because the collectivist government protected them from competition, which is the opposite of the free-market.
The preceding links should be sufficient to prove I am not making this up.
The second hour of the second film, Zeitgeist Addendum, is all about a “resource based economy” which is where no one would have to work and everyone would get everything for free in an economy that maximized innovation, efficiency, and sustainability in a society managed by experts. Most of the third film expands on that and occasionally contradicts it.
The film criticizes the market because it creates inequality, which is another straw-man argument because it is talking about inequality from unfairly acquired wealth. Whereas, any wealth differences in a free-market would be the result of voluntary transactions, and thus would be fair. It is the economy recommended by the film that is unfair because it is unfair to use coercion against the minority who are more productive and more innovative. Such an unfair collectivist society, ruled by experts, would be much like those societies under Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, or Hitler, which all produced rampant inequality and inefficiency, and which were all unfair … and … well … just mean. Centrally planned societies just creep me out.
This film, which advocates collectivist government and regulation, again blames the free market for the effects of collectivist government and regulation when it states the common fallacy that in a free-market no pharmaceutical company has an incentive to cure a disease because it is more profitable to treat it. The self-evident reality is that the absence of a cure would create an irresistible opportunity to create new companies to produce a cure as a way to outcompete those companies that already have a treatment. The only reason this doesn’t happen is because collectivist governments create regulations, and the real purpose of regulations is to protect cronies from competition. Zeitgeist gets it backwards again.
In spite of such embarrassing errors, this film goes beyond the usual claims that its authoritarian collectivist government will guarantee that everyone has the same amount of stuff, and that everyone will have abundance and the most advanced technology. The Soviets and others clamed that much (and we see how that worked out). This film goes even further by claiming that no one will have to work!
How would the central planning experts know what people want? They would take a survey!!!
So how can a centrally planned society work this time? Well, we are supposed to believe that none of them thought of using computers before and that no one cared about sustainability or the environment before, and that this time will be different.
The film keeps saying that it wants to apply science, and use only falsifiable ideas, and to abandon falsified ideas. Well … central planning has been falsified.
In the second film, everyone will be given two cars, a flying car, a high tech home, and ride around the world in 4000mph trains whenever they want, and it’s all free, and no one has to work, but we discover late in the third film that people will only be given what they need.
These films don’t mention how the officials and experts will have programmed their computers to place the needs of officials and experts above everyone else – much like how Soviet officials could drive in special lanes to avoid traffic, but that wouldn’t be corruption or elitism – because we wouldn’t call it that.
People would be so nice that they wouldn’t even label racists as bad. Racists would just need to be given treatment, which sounds like the rationale for reeducation camps, which are the most fascist thing ever created. Of course, they don’t mention how other kinds of people would also need treatment, such as anyone who doesn’t want to live under their system.
People would shop by checking out any product on the shelf in a store just like they would check out a library book, which assumes sufficient production, efficiency, resources, and volunteer labor that it would actually be on the shelf for you to check out, which assumes the last guy didn’t break it and didn’t possess it any longer than the time he was using it, but why would he care? It’s not his. Needless to say there would be a need for informants in such a society. Creeepy.
The film doesn’t mention how, in order to make things fair and trackable, everyone would have to each be given the same amount of resource credits that they could spend. Resource credits wouldn’t be “money” though … because we wouldn’t call it that.
Cars would be driverless. People can’t be trusted to drive.
The films never mention that they obviously would not allow people to have guns. If people can’t be trusted to drive then they certainly can’t be trusted with guns! Of course, their government would have guns, but they don’t mention that either. They never even directly mention that there would be a government.
Their thinking is captured succinctly in the American Progressive Manifesto.
Much later the film admits that some jobs would have to be done by a human. Would humans volunteer if they would get no more resource credits than before? America already tried communism under ideal conditions multiple times 400 years ago and it failed tragically every time because it was so incompatible with human nature because most people were shirkers. Then Denmark leaned the same lesson more recently.
What about innovators who would use extra resources if they had them to do research and create prototypes? Surely the computer would identify and allocate more resources to such individuals, so that would be yet another opportunity for corruption.
When they say their system would produce enough for everyone, they mean everyone in their ideal world, which would have far fewer people, but they don’t admit that directly. We have to deduce what they believe from two of their statements: 1) We should not use any oil, and 2) “It is only because of oil that there are 7 billion people on this planet now.” Therefore, we know they believe a much smaller population is a necessary and desirable requirement of their system, but it gets creepier than that.
Near the end of the third film, their actress smiles when she sees a news headline that says “Global protests shut down world economy.” Therefore, we know the film makers would like to see that happen. Now consider how that would kill off a lot of people and create a pretext for a global government.
In the next moment, everyone is protesting in the streets and they take all their money (trillions), which happens to already somehow be in paper form, and dump it in front of the World Bank. There is supposedly no violence or death around this time, and then magically we find ourselves in their utopia. I guess they forgot to mention the billions of lives lost and the global police state that occurred before the global government decided to implement their utopia a.k.a. “The Venus Project” …
This reminds me of the book “The Marching Morons” in which a small minority of smart noble people chose to breed only with each other while everyone else became more stupid and petty over the centuries (like in Idiocracy), so the smart noble minority had to work overtime to do all the real work to keep society functioning, but they were too noble to think of a way to get rid of everyone else, so they went with an inferior person’s plan to use mass marketing to trick everyone into boarding spaceships that would take them to utopia. Of course, the noble chosen people knew they were just sending the non-chosen into space to die, thus turning the Earth into a utopia for the noble chosenites. The fake utopia in space that lured everyone to their deaths was said to have been on Venus. Maybe that is why the centrally planned utopia ruled by experts to which Zeitgeist is trying to lure us is called … The Venus Project …
The reality is that Zeitgeist is promoting the New World Order agenda, and thus we see yet again …
Freedom is the Promise of Reality.
I have heard many myths that claim the small investor shouldn’t waste his time and money, but some of the most annoying are the following:
Why should individual investors even try? After all, how can they outperform professional investors?
– or –
In any trade, one of the two parties is the fool, so if you are uncertain which is the fool, then the fool is probably you.
Common sense alone is sufficient to see through these myths, but a little general knowledge of the economic reality can help to further debunk them.
First, note that many small investors are ineffective for many reasons, but being a small investor is not one of those reasons. It is actually an advantage.
Some advantages of large investors are vanishing; whereas, many disadvantages have always existed. Also, small investors don’t have to outperform large investors to make a profit.
Some examples of why small investors don’t have to outperform large investors to make a profit are:
Examples of how some advantages of large investors have been vanishing are:
The disadvantages of large investors that have existed much longer than 20 years can be summarized as how small investors don’t have the constraints of large investors. For example:
The Internet is increasingly abuzz with talk of A Great Reset, but there is a lot of disagreement about the details. Some of the more common themes are the likelihood of hyperinflation, default on the government debt, confiscation of retirement accounts, economic collapse, civil war, world war, and the subsequent rise of police states under a global government, which according to some, is the the goal of a great reset. An equally prevalent but less likely scenario is a prolonged period that sets technology back over 100 years.
While such events have happened throughout history, they are never the most probable near future – until they are already happening. Nevertheless, these predictions are more credible than the mainstream media are willing to admit.
If we think for ourselves, we can see that the US government is incapable of controlling its borrowing and printing of money, that it is increasingly taking an interventionist approach to individuals, business, and other countries, and that it is indeed becoming more of a police state. It is a little harder to see, but the evidence is now sufficient to validate how the US government is trying to provoke armed conflict with the people to justify even more of a police state.
The common recommendations are to buy gold, guns, and farm land, and then ride it out. Almost as prevalent is the recommendation to do the same in a foreign country as a backup. Of course, most people can’t do any of this. Nor would such an individual strategy prevent any of the predicted dystopian futures anyway.
That pretty much sums up The Great Reset.
Now let’s think for ourselves:
Everyone is getting deeper into debt, and hyperinflation seems almost inevitable, but if there were hyperinflation, then all of those debts could be paid back with a day’s wages, so obviously that would not be allowed to happen, which leaves one option. All debts would be recalculated in the New Dollars. Existing dollars would become illegal, and thus worthless, except that they could be traded in for the New Dollars – at an unfair exchange rate. Of course, the usual exceptions would be made to benefit the usual cronies.
The powers over commerce and money granted by the Constitution are very limited. The Congress can:
Of course, the government now exercises absolute power over commerce. For example, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the power to tax justifies forcing everyone to buy health insurance or else pay a fine. Even though this new precedent gives the Congress a way to force us to buy products and services, it was still not satisfactory to the four so-called “liberal” justices because they wanted the decision to include a direct assertion that the commerce clause empowers the Congress to force us to buy products and services. How is it that so-called “liberals” want to force the little guy to buy products and services?
The so called “liberal” Clinton administration argued before the Supreme Court that the power to regulate interstate commerce justified banning the presence of guns in homes within 1000 feet of a school because guns impact education, and education impacts the economy, and the economy impacts interstate commerce, and the Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce! Amazingly, five of the Supreme Court justices disagreed with the Clinton administration. Of course, once one of those five justices has been replaced by Obama, his plan to ban guns everywhere within, not 1000, but 5000! feet of a school will pass the Supreme Court.
Given the new precedent that Congress can make us buy products and services, the many existing bans on products and services, the millions of pages of regulations, the fact that our money is printed out of thin air without competition, and the federal debt; I think it is fair to say that government now exercises absolute power over commerce and is not wielding that power in good faith.
Such extreme power and corruption requires an extreme remedy. Therefore, I propose a new Freedom Amendment – The Separation of Commerce and State:
Separation of Commerce and State
The Congress shall make no law with respect to commerce.
Given that money is part of commerce, the Congress shall not borrow money and shall make no law with respect to money.
Given that labor is a part of commerce, the right of everyone to keep the fruits of their labor shall not be infringed.
Given that trade is a part of commerce, the right of everyone to trade the fruits of their labor for the fruits of another’s labor shall not be infringed. Nor shall the Congress compel the states or the people to trade the fruits of their labor.
If you can understand the allegory of The Funger Games, then you can understand how the world really works …
In the Funger Games, Federal Reserve would assemble the 12 most favored banks (who own the Federal Reserve) and say to them:
Welcome to The Funger Games. The name was inspired by the fungibility of money. You are the 12 chosen banks.
The Federal Reserve shall print 3 trillion dollars out of thin air and inject it into the economy. We could just distribute it to everyone evenly, but instead, we shall distribute it amongst you – the chosen people – at zero percent interest. You must take your share, and you are not allowed to pay it back for 100 years.
The 3 trillion dollars shall enter the economy regardless of your actions; however, not all of the chosen people are equally worthy. Your share shall be determined by your performance on a series of puzzles that will be more easily solved if you acquire all the best young minds in engineering, mathematics, and the physical sciences.
To acquire and protect your investment in all the best young minds in science and engineering, you must also acquire all the best minds in business, law, and politics.
Those who acquire the biggest share of all the best minds shall likely win the largest share of the new money.
If you can understand The Funger Games, then you can understand how the world really works because it is similar to what is actually happening, and would have pretty much the same effect on the world.
If you find it hard to believe that The Funger Games is an accurate allegory to what is really happening, and you want to learn the full cause and effect, read What is Wrong With the People.
First, there is plenty of reason for hope, so don’t despair, but …
Something is wrong with the people, who seem increasingly partisan, ignorant, apathetic, dishonest, evasive, cowardly, hypocritical, passive aggressive, insecure, conformist, closed minded, irrational, illogical, and unprincipled. Perhaps most obvious is the increase in cognitive dissonance, but the entirety of the character devolution of the people should be really obvious to any American who has lived long enough. I first noticed it during the Clinton Administration, but the root cause actually started long before that and merely caused a rather obvious leap under Clinton.
A lifetime of experience has taught me that just about everyone has the potential for the dark side as well as the potential for nobility. Both impulses are in our genes, but something in our environment is favoring the dark side.
First, let’s identify the rather obvious trends that motivate us to find a cause. Then, we will learn how they all have the same root cause:
Before we can solve a problem, we usually must understand the cause; otherwise, the unintended consequences could be worse than the original problem. In fact, the solutions of the past are the cause of most of our problems today.
Given that those who are most successful tend to be those who are least principled, we can see why every other problem is the result of unhealthy interventions at the top, but how did it get to be this way?
After a few generations of unhealthy interventions from the top by men who may or may not have been principled, we can see how their bad solutions created a perverse incentive structure that rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior. Just like bad parenting creates a spoiled child who suffers from arrested development, now an entire people are increasingly spoiled children who suffer from arrested development.
The Soviet Union had a system that rewarded unprincipled people, and it crumbled from within.
Everything afflicting the people (that wasn’t caused by evolution) is caused by dishonest banking and a dishonest money supply, and the watershed of problems are self reinforcing. One unusually large cause of problems, that was itself indirectly caused by dishonest banking and dishonest money, is political correctness. Another unusually large cause of problems that was itself indirectly caused by dishonest banking and dishonest money, is media bias. Of course, the chain of cause and effect is long, complex, and suppressed by the media; whereas, myths are substituted by the media, but the chain of cause and effect should be clear by the end of this article.
This is where the real explanation begins.
Dishonest banking and money are caused by:
Central Banking: The Federal Reserve is a private bank with a government granted monopoly on currency creation; whereas, money is a product just like any other, and thus would benefit from competition just like any other product. Why do you think the Federal Reserve refuses to be audited? Central banking was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.
Fiat Currency: What most people still don’t know is that all of the money in America is created from nothing and backed by nothing except confidence, and thus it is referred to as fiat currency. Fiat currency was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.
Fractional Reserve Banking: The main cause of fiat currency is that banks can lend at least ten times as much money as they receive in deposits, and depending on the type of loan and type of deposit, it can be even more. Over time, the government has been making it increasingly easier for banks to create more unearned money out of nothing. This is known as fractional reserve banking, which was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.
Quantitative Easing: In addition to fractional reserve banking, under Obama, the Federal reserve has been creating a much larger than usual amount of money and loaning it to the government and the banks. This is known as quantitative easing, which was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.
ZIRP: The federal reserve has reduced the interest rates to nearly zero percent on money it loans to the government and on money it loans to those banks who own the Federal Reserve. This is known as Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP), which was universally considered dishonest until the 20th century.
Consider that any entity who borrows money at zero interest has little incentive to ever pay it back, and will in fact have much incentive to keep borrowing. That’s a very corrupting influence.
Bailouts: Before Quantitative Easing and ZIRP, the government tried bailouts. Does anyone believe that the crash of 2008 and many of its prerequisites would have happened if all the self-proclaimed Elites had been certain that bailouts were an impossibility? It is almost as if bailouts were part of some plan.
Bailouts are unconstitutional, but they happened anyway, so we see that it is really just the character of the American people that gives the Constitution its power, and the American people lacked the character to stop the bailouts. It is almost as if character devolution were part of some plan.
Bailouts were universally considered dishonest until Obama.
Cronyism: Dishonest banking causes the government and the big banks to receive a flood of unearned money, which then finds it way to their closest cronies, which thus tempts cronies to become closer cronies and which tempts honest entities to become first-time cronies. This is called cronyism, and although it has been growing for a long time, it was universally considered to be dishonest – until Obama became the President.
Government rewards cronies with bailouts, contracts, tax breaks, regulations that help the crony and/or hurt honest competitors, and with selective enforcement of laws and regulations. Once the media became cronies, then media bias also helped other cronies and hurt honest competitors.
Once cronyism took hold at the top of government, the cronyism trickled down to the local level. Cronies in local government thus have the support of the cronies directly above them.
A system that favors cronyism makes it increasingly difficult for honest individuals and honest businesses to compete with cronies. It also manufactures more cronies by corrupting honest people. Furthermore, the dwindling number of men of principle limit their success by avoiding doing business with cronies.
Dishonest bankers corrupted honest banking, which then corrupted government, which then corrupted the free-market, which thus corrupted the people, which thus reduced entrepreneurship, innovation, efficiency, and honesty.
Inflation: Newly created dollars make each existing dollar worth less than before, and thus a reason to be first in line for the new money is the ability to spend it before each dollar has become worth less than it would have been worth – had the new money never been created. This is called inflation, which was universally considered dishonest before FDR.
Inflation is like a tax of several percent a year on every dollar in existence. It makes prices permanently higher than they would have been. The recipient of the inflation tax is whoever received the new money before it inflated prices. Inflation is theft.
Therefore, inflation tempts honest people to compete to be first in line.
Misallocation of Capital: More than ever before, there is a flood of new money at near zero percent interest rates. This new money often starts off in investment banks and thus much of it naturally finds it way into financial instruments, which thus creates even more incentive to bet the rest of the new money on financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, hedge funds, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and options.
Consider the alternatives available to anyone who had access to unlimited new money at zero percent interest rates. Would he spend the effort to evaluate and fund your idea for a product which has a 50% chance of making him 10 million dollars in five years, and which is in a field he knows nothing about, and which will have even less chance of success than before – given inflation, cronyism, and the increased interest in financial instruments? – OR – Would he instead invest in financial instruments and in bribing politicians given that those have the potential for more profit and faster profit, and that he is already intimately familiar with such investments? If he loses, he can always just borrow more at zero interest.
Consider the alternatives of an MIT graduate who could invent a product that could attract investment capital. He could make an engineer’s salary, and then maybe someday invent something that would make him a couple of million dollars after years of saving or after increasingly difficult competition with financial instruments for investment capital. – OR – He could work for Goldman Sachs and make three times as much right away, and have three times the opportunity to make a couple of million dollars, and do it three times sooner. This is like The Funger Games.
Suppose government has more money to spend. That means more labor is directed toward government projects and less labor is available for projects that are capable of earning enough money from voluntary customers to pay for themselves. At the same time, inflation resulting from government borrowing reduces the value each dollar spent on projects capable of earning enough money from voluntary customers to pay for themselves.
These are examples of misallocations of capital resulting from interventions in the free-market, and are caused by dishonest banking. Misallocation of capital was universally considered unhealthy before FDR.
The Seen vs. The Unseen: Misallocation of capital is very hard to detect because of “the seen vs. the unseen”, which is a phenomenon first identified by Frederic Bastiat in 1850. Whereas, we can easily see the jobs created by the new money at zero interest, only one man in a million can see the jobs that were lost or never created because of the new money.
An additional hurdle is the bias of a crony media cheering for the new money projects and ridiculing those one in a million who can see the lost jobs and who can see that they were higher quality jobs because they would have been making something for which people would have voluntarily paid enough to generate a profit; whereas, crony jobs were created as a result of cronyism, taxes, bribes, and free money.
The “seen vs. the unseen” was universal knowledge – before government schools.
The Broken Window Fallacy: One way to penetrate the media bias and “the seen vs. the unseen” is the broken window fallacy, which is another idea from Frederic Bastiat in 1850.
Consider that progressives claim that all government spending, such as war, helps the economy as much as, and usually more than, any private spending. The progressive argument is another version of the argument that if a kid breaks a window, then that helps the economy because the capital spent on fixing the broken window created more work for the carpenter and more work for the window maker.
Whereas, we can easily see the jobs created by the capital spent on fixing broken windows, we cannot easily see the jobs that would have been created by that same capital if the windows had never been broken. Both labor and physical resources were obviously wasted in such a misallocation of capital.
Sooner or later the capital would have been used create something the owner thought customers would voluntarily pay enough for to earn him a profit. If the owner couldn’t think of any use for his capital, then he or his bank would loan it out to any borrower who did have an idea to create something the borrower thought customers would voluntarily pay enough for to earn him a profit and pay the interest on the loan.
The broken window fallacy so easily penetrates the seen vs. the unseen that it made it difficult for governments to borrow such great sums of money, and thus great effort has been spent by economists and other cronies to deny or circumvent the broken window fallacy. The pressure to deny reality has corrupted many economists because the surest path to obscurity in economics has been to embrace reality.
Keynesianism: The broken window fallacy was universally accepted until John Maynard Keynes developed the obfuscation that so delights dishonest bankers, governments, and cronies to this day. Keynes said that if people were unemployed, and if capital were not being used at that moment, then government should take that capital in the form of taxes, or borrow money, and spend it on some kind of project – any kind of project.
Keynesianism has been the dominant economic theory since FDR. Consider that Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman recently said that the best thing that could happen to the economy would be fighting off an alien invasion! or building the Death Star! or just plain old war! Of course, we could just build some pyramids or some bridges to nowhere too. We could even just dig some holes and fill them up again. We could make them dig with spoons to maximize employment.
Like I said, the pressure to deny reality has corrupted many economists because the surest path to obscurity in economics has been to embrace reality. Fortunately that has been changing rapidly since the Great Crash of 2008 and the ongoing economic malaise since.
The New Plantation: In order to buy off a majority in a pseudo democracy, the dishonest bankers and their cronies understood that they needed a lot more cronies, and that it would be pretty easy to buy the poorest people with all that free money and with the bias of their cronies in the media. Hence they invented the New Deal and then the War on Poverty.
They are not even spending their own money. They just create it and loan it to the government, and then the middle class must pay it back to them (through taxes) – and with interest! These programs are unconstitutional, and are also taxation without representation for those who were too young to vote against the programs or the against borrowing. This is why I say the federal debt is not legitimate.
The War on Poverty has enslaved the black community. Government dependency is the new plantation. The black community has thus been neutralized and pacified and only causes damage to itself and is no threat to the dishonest bankers.
Winning an election in America is just about impossible if a candidate is perceived to be unsupportive of government dependency. If a candidate does not conform on this issue, or on other issues as well, then the crony media will paint him as an uncaring racist who hates poor people. Not only does this system prevent men of character from winning, but such a repulsive system naturally discourages men of character from running for political office in the first place.
In addition to corrupting or discouraging honest candidates. Teaching people that they can’t survive without being given the fruits of other men’s labor is a corrupting influence on their character. It is an atrocity of progressivism on a grand scale.
A few brave black men have come forth to expose how the Democratic Party have enslaved the black community on the new plantation. They call themselves “runaway slaves”. Some are the one in a million who can see what would have been (they can see the unseen), and some are just honest, independent minded men of principle. They are mercilessly ridiculed by the crony media when not being completely ignored by them. They are among my heroes.
Affirmative Action: In a wealthy country like America, the trinkets of the new plantation could not corrupt enough voters, so the dishonest bankers and their cronies in government and the media then invented affirmative action, which lets a woman or an individual from a racial minority sue an employee and his company for millions if that company fired him, didn’t hire him, or didn’t promote him. Ironically, the potential of such lawsuits is a rational reason not to hire someone. Likewise, another irony is how it raises the rational question of whether someone is competent if they benefited from affirmative action.
Of course, if the assumption were correct that hiring a given number of women and minorities is profitable for a company, then that would have obviously happened by now without government interference. To understand why, suppose those companies who hired women and minorities outcompeted those who did not, then other companies would either emulate their success or go out of business. If hiring women and minorities does not make your business more profitable, then why should the government destroy your business unless you hire them anyway? Either way, to interfere in a private business is fascism.
Another aspect of affirmative action in business is 8a companies, which are companies owned by women or racial minorities. Government gives preference to 8a companies for government contracts, loans, bailouts, subsidies, taxes, etc. Government also gives preferential treatment to companies who buy goods and services from 8a companies.
Academia also has affirmative action. For example, every school gives preference to students who are female or from a racial minority.
SAT scores are fudged based on race. Asians lose points. Hispanics gain points. Blacks gain more points than Hispanics, and the scores of whites are unaltered.
Title IX is a court decision that mandates a university must have equal numbers of female athletes and spend equal amounts of money on male and female athletics. Given that females are genetically programmed to be less interested in athletics, the universities try to be fair by giving a lot more athletic scholarships to female students, and by reducing the number of male athletes. Now they want to extend this philosophy to science and engineering!
Another example of the cognitive dissonance of title IX is cheerleading. Although cheerleading is the most rigorous and dangerous female sport, they are not counted as athletes, because cheerleading is politically incorrect. In their putative desire to help female athletes, progressives have exposed cheerleaders to great danger without any of the insurance or other protections they give to other female athletes.
Reproduction is another kind of affirmative action, and one where the government’s double standard is pretty extreme. The result of pregnancy is solely the woman’s choice, and thus the result of that choice is solely the woman’s responsibility. More specifically, if the woman chooses the more expensive choice, then that extra expense is solely her responsibility. Just to be clear, birth is the more expensive choice, and abortion is the less expensive choice; therefore, the extra expense for the birth choice is the cost of birth plus 18 years of child support minus the cost of abortion. It would be a simple and fair legal matter for the man to also choose whether he wants to be responsible for the birth, but instead, the government let’s the woman decide whether the government will force him to pay 18 years of child support.
Divorce is another kind of affirmative action, and one where the government’s double standard is pretty extreme:
Winning an election in America is just about impossible if a candidate is perceived to be unsupportive of affirmative action. If a candidate does not conform on this issue, or on other issues as well, then the crony media will paint him as an uncaring racist who hates poor people and women. Not only does this system prevent men of character from winning, but such a repulsive system naturally discourages men of character from running for political office in the first place.
An employee who takes the noble and rational position of opposing affirmative action will be cited as evidence of his employer’s guilt in an affirmative action lawsuit. This discourages companies from hiring or promoting anyone who opposes affirmative action. Also, the crony media have taught everyone that it is OK to ridicule and shun anyone who opposes affirmative action, and thus only conformist employees who lack principles can easily climb the corporate ladder.
If an opponent of affirmative action tries to be an entrepreneur, then advertisers and investors will shun him because of potential ridicule from the crony media.
Such a double standard not only tends to corrupt or expel honest, independent minded men of principle, it also corrupts women and racial minorities. Although the putative goal is to help women and racial minorities, teaching them that they cannot succeed without help from the government is a corrupting influence on their character. Teaching them that double standards are OK, and that intervention in voluntary agreements is OK, are also corrupting influences on their character.
Sexual Harassment: In a wealthy and tolerant country like America, the trinkets of the new plantation and affirmative action could not corrupt enough voters, so the dishonest bankers and their cronies in government and the media then invented sexual harassment. which is all about banning speech and ideas. For example it is illegal to create a hostile working environment for women through one’s speech, although for all practical purposes, women have no such restrictions on their speech about men. Ironically, the potential of such lawsuits is a rational reason not to hire a woman.
For example, if a man were to make the politically incorrect statement that men and women have obviously evolved different genetically programmed behaviors, then that would contradict the politically correct belief that men and women are only different because of how they were raised. This would place his employer at risk of being sued if they did not fire or discipline him – if anyone complained – which is likely.
Telling any joke about women would be illegal; whereas, the HR woman at my company had a joke on her wall ridiculing men, which is legal – for all practical purposes. The rules do not apply equally to men and women.
If a man complains that the rules do not apply equally to men and women, then this would place his employer at risk of being sued if they did not fire or discipline him – if anyone complained. At the very least, he would just be shunned – because his thinking did not conform, and the crony media have taught everyone that it is OK to shun and ridicule anyone who does not conform with political correctness.
The kind of man who thrives in a politically correct workplace environment is obviously like the kind of President who thrives in a politically correct environment – like Bill Clinton – the unprincipled, harassing, raping, adulterous, liar – who feminists defend.
Sexual harassment laws created a hostile workplace environment for honest, independent minded men of principle.
Winning an election in America is just about impossible if a candidate is perceived to be unsupportive of sexual harassment laws. If a candidate does not conform on this issue, and other issues as well, then the crony media will paint him as an uncaring misogynist who hates women and will accuse him of sexual harassment. Not only does this system prevent men of character from winning, but such a repulsive system naturally discourages men of character from running for political office in the first place.
Such a double standard not only tends to corrupt or expel honest, independent minded men of character, but it also corrupts women by teaching them to have double standards, to overreact to perceived insults, and to feel dependent on government.
Arrested Development: In spite of all the pressures trying to corrupt every man, woman, and child in America, a mature, honest, independent minded man of principle can successfully maintain his integrity and still support a family if he is smart enough and articulate enough. Such individuals are few, but their power is magnified by the Internet, which is why the dishonest bankers and their cronies in government and the media employ an array of forces to arrest our development.
Controlling the Internet is one strategy employed to arrest our development. Although the Internet is not the physical world, and cannot by itself produce a mature person, it can help anyone to develop faster and more completely through exposure to all of the ideas that ever existed. Control of the Internet continues to progress along many fronts.
Eliminating independent entrepreneurs (those who get no advantage from the government) is a strategy employed to arrest our development. Independent entrepreneurs not only learn all about reality, but are also role models who inspire others.
Eliminating small businesses is another strategy employed to arrest our development. Although many small businesses are dependent on government in one or more ways, and are thus cronies to varying degrees, they still are much closer to reality than the big corporate experience.
Eliminating family farms is a must. People are exposed to a lot of reality on a farm, and they feel way less dependent on government.
Eliminating ownership of single family homes (especially without a mortgage) is also an important technique for arresting our development. People who grow up in cities and who rent, preferably an apartment, are much more likely to suffer from arrested development and feel much more helpless and dependent on government. They are more likely to be conformists, and they are also more like puppies – weird little puppies. They quietly support the system built by the dishonest bankers and passive aggressively pressure others into conforming. They lack the confidence, the courage, and the independence of thought to break out of their cage. Their only sense of confidence comes from being part of something bigger.
The myriad regulations, laws, and financial collapses have been forcing waves of people into becoming city renters – almost as if that were the plan.
Bad Role Models: The most obvious of the many causes of the character devolution of the people is bad role models. We already explained how bad role models got to be role models, but apparently we are genetically programmed to emulate successful role models – even if they lack principles.
I first noticed this trend in the Clinton Administration, and I am certain that it was the example of Bill Clinton himself that influenced people to devolve. I am certain because that is how it affected me, as well as the people around me. It probably didn’t help that I lived in the Washington DC area throughout the Clinton administration. I started down this path a couple of times, but as an independent thinker, I always came back and continued to evolve in a more noble direction. This doesn’t work for everyone because being an independent thinker is much harder for most people; otherwise, we wouldn’t have these problems in the first place.
Whereas, Bill Clinton was the first relevant bad role model, since then, the relevant bad role model has been the media. These role models are almost exclusively Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, etc. Perhaps not so coincidentally, when I think of those people succumbing to character devolution, they happen to mostly be Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, etc.
Obama is not a relevant bad role model because he is just another infected progressive. He is the good cop, and the media are the bad cop. Together they are one entity. Obama is just a front man – a blank canvas on to which the media can paint any image they want.
Although we live in a system that tends to reward those least principled, and where those infected partially infect everyone else, I also notice that because their character flaws have become so obvious, many others are becoming better people by taking pride in not being like them.
Elitism: Needless to say, so much free money and so much power creates a class of people who could not compete in a free-market, and yet, who feel entitled to … well … everything. They are much like trust fund babies, or like the boss’s son. In fact, their character is similar to that of the people they have trapped in government dependency.
Most elites think the rest of us are just sucking up their resources. We are useless eaters, and the earth would be a lot better off if there were far fewer of us. That’s called eugenics – much like what was proposed by Obama’s progressive science czar. It is no secret that Nazis were inspired by the eugenics of American progressives. It is thus almost as if the exponential growth in physical and mental maladies were part of some plan.
Therefore, elites plot to convince us that we need a global government to protect the earth – hence exaggerated global threats like anthropogenic global warming. Of course, they would control their new global government just as easily as they control the US government. Then there would be even less diversity of ideas in government which would be just about perfect for an established oligarchy.
Elites protect themselves by keeping us divided against each other, which is another reason for their programs such as affirmative action, welfare, title IX, sexual harassment, political correctness, and all other manifestations of identity politics. They use the same technique Machiavelli recommended to divide and conquer a people. They are not ideological. They will support any weak faction, but always through coercive means – in order to maximize division among the people.
Whichever party is in power, the federal debt rises, poverty increases, and regulation increases. Their regulations reduce competition and retard innovation. Fewer competitors and retarded innovation are solving problems slower than they occur; whereas, a freer market used to solve problems faster than they occurred.
Reduced competition and slower innovation is a good thing to those elites who want to maintain control over the people and continue milking them. I think that perhaps at one time, elites were more noble, but then they lost their way. They have been corrupted by … themselves.
Media Bias: While both extreme and quite obvious, media bias is not as obvious as a cause of character devolution, but the media cause character devolution by suppressing reality and promoting myths in support of all of the other causes of character devolution we have already talked about. Such a biased agenda permeates the entire media, from Hollywood sitcoms, to the mainstream “News” organizations.
The following links are just a sampling of topics on which the media suppresses reality and promote myths:
It’s about ideas – not factions.
The collection of ideas and policies driving the character devolution of Americans, like all ideas and policies, do have their adherents; but what can we call these particular believers given how they span all other factions? They could be any religion, race, party, nationality, etc. They include the Republican Party leadership (the Neocons), the Democratic Party leadership, and lots of other believers; but the most diligent and articulate believers tend to call themselves “progressives”, which is pretty historically accurate, so we use that term as well. I previously referred to believers as The Political Class, but the term “progressive” is much more common.
Looking at the words and actions of enough progressives, anyone can conclude that they champion two ideas, whether they realize it or not:
Just talking with a wide variety of people in America, one can see that a large percentage, adhere to both of these two ideas, whether they realize it or not. Of course, believers seem even more numerous outside America, but I am merely a witness to the American manifestation.
You are Here
While there have always been some unprincipled men who were able to acquire power and wealth, dishonest banking has given them almost unlimited power and money. While cronyism has always existed, a flood of unearned money has made it grow exponentially – especially under Obama.
We all know that the opportunity to receive unearned money creates perverse incentives, but this historically unprecedented flood of unearned money has created a pusillanimous plethora of perversity.
Most people in America today remind me of Vika in the movie Oblivion. She is the poster child for passive aggressiveness and normalcy bias.
The reality is that we now live in a system designed to corrupt, expel, or hobble … honest, independent minded men of principle, and reward unprincipled conformists. The purpose of our system is to control us and milk us while preventing any competition from arising.
Although we live in a system that tends to reward those least principled, and where those infected, partially infect everyone else, I have noticed that because their character flaws have become so obvious, many others are becoming better people by taking pride in not being like them.
The Tea Parties and OWS may not have realized it, but before they were co-opted, they were rebelling against the character devolution of the people, and were unprecedented in recent history. More recently, President Obama, backed by the crony media, was hours away from attacking Syria in another progressive interventionist act of aggression designed to cause countries to borrow more money, but then the Tea Partiers, occupiers, conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, independents, socialists, and libertarians came together and said NO! Obama and his progressive cronies stumbled and backed off when confronted with this unprecedented assertion of character, which thus empowered Vladimir Putin and the British legislature to also resist Obama and his progressive allies.
It is never to late for anyone to become the person he wants to be. To once again embrace the Soul of Humanity requires little more than a decision.
I am reminded of the epiphany of one of the characters in the movie Slow Burn (2000). He was a criminal and a simpleton, but he instantly transcended every character in the movie when rebuked the beautiful woman who offered him herself and a treasure in diamonds if he would kill the other criminal who always bullied him and who deserved to die anyway, but he told her, “No! I’m never letting anyone else talk me into doing something that I know is wrong!”
Progressive economists agree. Enough government spending (of any kind) would fix the economy. For example, building pyramids would fix the economy. War would fix the economy. Fighting an alien invasion would fix the economy, and building the Death Star would fix the economy. Therefore, the government could fix the economy by performing one of its very few Constitutional roles – regulating the militia.
The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and it says the people have a right to form militia, and it also recommends that the government regulate those militia by providing them with regular (standard/uniform/sufficient) equipment and training.
Of course, providing equipment and training in no way obligates a free individual to show up when the government calls forth the militia. A individual militiaman shows up only when he has decided it is the right thing to do, and he shows up only for as long as he continues to believe it is the right thing to do.
Of course, just as those who have freedom of speech are all of us, and the media (the press) are all of us – the militia are all of us.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure freedom by ensuring that the people are a much greater military force than the government. Therefore, every individual has the right to keep and bear – not just any kind of arms the government has – but any kind of arms without limitation – without infringement.
To avoid distraction, let’s quickly address weapons of mass destruction. Until the Constitution is amended, the people also have a Constitutional right to own any weapons. With or without such an amendment, the government would not have to equip the militia with weapons of mass destruction. Now, back to our point …
The government could equip the militia (all of us) with the best weapons, training, and gear.
Although the militia are all of us, it wouldn’t make sense to equip everyone, and the test of whom to exclude from the program of free regulation must be objective, ethical, and simple. For example, it must be free of conflict of interest. The test is thus – pretty obvious.
Only those who pay taxes are eligible, and regardless of whether one pays taxes, anyone who receives income from the government is not eligible.
If you are a progressive, the economy would be fixed.
If you are a conservative, America would be impossible to invade.
If you are a libertarian, freedom would be ensured.
A lifetime of education from America’s media elite, such as MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, PBS, the NYT, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN, have given me the foundation and principles that empower me to think for myself and thereby figure out why we can’t let Detroit go bankrupt.
Detroit is too big to fail.
Republicans are turning Detroit into a plantation.
Don’t blame the victims of greedy capitalists.
Only racists would oppose a bail out.
We are all in this together.
It takes a village (a government).
We have to move forward.
Somebody has to be in charge.
There is a Constitutional mandate to promote the general welfare.
Government rightly has the power to implement any good idea.
When we’re all on the same page, everyone benefits.
Everyone has a right to good healthcare.
Everyone has a right to a living wage.
Everyone has a right to good nutrition.
Just think of it as reparations for slavery.
Do it for the children.
Do it for Trayvon.
What if it were Obama’s kids?
What if it were your kids?
If it helps just one child, no cost is too great.
In a free-market, who would save a dying child?
It would be bad if George Bush did it, but we can trust Obama.
Obama is The One.
Only racists distrust Obama.
The alternative is chaos.
The alternative is anarchy.
What would Jesus do?
After all, Jesus would be a Democrat.
Detroit has done everything right. It has been ruled by Democrats and unions for 51 years, and ruled by black mayors for 49 years. It even has the 3rd highest income tax of any city in America. Therefore, the problems of Detroit must be part of a vast right wing conspiracy. As an example, consider how the internet has allowed the spread of right wing hate speech from people like this guy. He says stuff like:
Sooner or later, socialists run out of other people’s money.
The world is the result of our individual choices.
Progressivism violates the Soul of Humanity.
Freedom is the Promise of Reality.
Now can you see the problem? These are the ideas on which America was founded, and we all know that America was founded on slavery. Such right wing hate speech is what scared all of the white people into leaving Detroit. It is like something out of Atlas Shrugged, in which the most productive people in America left the system and formed their own society. Therefore, the solution must come from the federal government because, while it is easy to leave a city, it would be much harder for people to leave the country, and Obama’s DHS would stop them if they tried – and rightly so.
What about when it is no longer Obama’s DHS? I know it is hard to imagine how America could elect anyone who is not a Democrat ever again – but that is why we need global governance, so that wealthy individuals cannot escape their debt to their country and to the world.
As you can see, a lifetime of education from America’s media elite have given me the foundation and principles that empower me to think for myself.
We’ve always had enough information to know what to do: