Tag Archives: Socialism

Awesome

Some say Obama is a Socialist.  Some say he is a Communist.  Others even say he is a fascist.  What is harder to dispute is what Karl Marx was.

Continue reading

What It Means To Be Poor In America

Mark Perry nudged me the other day.  We hear so much how bad it is in America.  That the middle class is “under attack” and only the Government can save them.  Further, the health care debate has pointed out that America spends more on health care than any other nation in the world.

Data from a report by two Swedish researches illuminates some very interesting facts:

  1. The ratio of people living in poverty is shrinking

1959 1999
Whites 18 10
Blacks 55 24
Hispanics 23(1972) 23
Total 22 12

2.  Being poor does not mean living without

Home Ownership 45.9
Car 72.8
2 or more cars 30.2
Air conditioning 76.6
Refrigerator 96.9
Washing machine 64.7
Drying cabinet/tumbler drier 55.6
Dishwasher 33.9
Garbage disposal 29.7
Microwave 73.3
Colour TV 97.3
2 or more colour TV sets 55.3
Cable or satellite TV 62.6
Wide screen TV 26.3
Video or DV 78
2 or more video and DVD players 25.3
Stereo 58.6
Telephone answering machine 35.3
Mobile phone 26.6
PC 24.6
Internet access 18

Lastly

3.  Being poor in America is better than being average in the EU

People Sq Feet per person
Europe, average 2.5 976.5 395.7
USA, poor  1993 2.8 1228 438.6
USA, all  1993 2.6 1875 721.2

What does this tell us?  It tells us that being poor in America means that you have a bigger house than the average European.  It tells us that whatever we have been doing, we should do more of it.  And that any modeling on Europe would be a mistake.

Real World Classroom

Leftists, all ya’ll…come over here.  We have, in real time and in a real country, a case where a leader is trying to implement Socialism on his country.  It started out all right.  The people were very happy to hear that they would all get to go to the circus and have ice cream before bed.  Longer summer vacations and shorter schools years too.  The people were happy, the boss was givin’ away the joint and all the while  claiming the “rich” would just pay for it.  Balance it out, after all.  It’s only fair ya know.

Not really working out for him now.  But then again, he is inefficient and needs to bribe h is friends:

The state oil company, PDVSA, produced 3.2 million barrels per day in 1998, the year before Mr Chavez won the presidency. After a decade of rising corruption and inefficiency, daily output has now fallen to 2.4 million barrels, according to OPEC figures. About half of this oil is now delivered at a discount to Mr Chavez’s friends around Latin America. The 18 nations in his “Petrocaribe” club, founded in 2005, pay Venezuela only 30 per cent of the market price within 90 days, with rest in instalments spread over 25 years.

Not only has the company failed to keep up with technology and INCREASE its production, he has reduced it.  And on top of that, he is robbing his country of the money that he COULD be making by asinine payment terms.  But hey, the people are happy with this Socialism, right?

Tens of thousands of Venezuelans opposed to President Hugo Chavez took to the streets Saturday, blaming him for rolling blackouts, water rationing, widespread crime and other problems they say are making daily life increasingly difficult.

Ooops.  Not so much.

Viva la Venezuela.

Freedom Fries

As always, I have Brad and Britt on the radio for the morning commute.  I listen because they are local and because I need to convince myself that I listen to both sides.  As such, I normally am shaking my head at the discussion and the mind-set I get from Greensboro.

This morning was different.  The subject was France and whether or not it’s better to live in France or the USA.  Normally, the left says that the French model is better but given the choice, they don’t wanna live there.  As if they subconsciously understand that you don’t get both the “good life” France offers and the freedom and benefits of such that America offers.

Brad and Britt both agreed that it is much MUCH better to live in America than France.  Again, this isn’t surprising, this follows the leftist road map.  But as the conversation continued, I was pleasantly surprised at WHY they would not like to live in France.  For example, they idea of “strikes and riots when the price of milk goes up a by a nickel” was pure genius in its simplicity in capturing the French culture.  But it got even better.  When describing the summer break, Britt correctly wondered “who is gonna do the work?”.  And not to leave Brad out, he weighed in with this “given the chance to make a life in America vs being taken care of but tracked, I would take America ANYDAY!”

This was just a wonderful way to start the morning.  It gave me hope that we ARE a center-right nation.  That we know the chance, the opportunity, to strike out and make our way is a fundamental and uniquely American principle.  That we get freedom.  That being provided for has its price.

Yet it’s this wonderful news that frustrates me from the marketing side of me.  I am convinced that a conservative approach to finance and economics is the way to prosperity and advancement.  But the right is SO poor at spreading the message that we get painted as greedy industrialists.  And we never EVER learn from that.  No one wants to hear that minimum wage laws should be abolished.  “How greedy can you get?  Slave wages for the poor!”  It resonates.  It sticks.  Never mind that unemployment goes up, cost of goods go up and innovation and choice are restricted.

And who doesn’t wanna provide less expensive yet better medical care to everyone?  We ALL do.  The problem is, there is a wrong way and a right way.  Restricting that market is the wrong way.  Opening it up is the right way.

But we never get the message out.  We just sit back and “can’t be bothered by that”.  It’s the same reason you never see serious economists enter into debate about the most commonly accepted financial principles; because it is so basic and understood, that to debate it is beneath all serious members.  It would be akin to debating that 2 is greater than 1.

Anyway, Brad, Britt….well said.  And welcome to the center-right society!

Why Global Warming Isn't About Rising Temperatures

For the last several days I have been considering global warming.  Trying to see it from both sides.  I really am trying to understand what is driving the debate and how it is constructed.  My conclusion kinda surprised me.  I don’t think that the whole Global Warming “movement” is about “climate change”.

I do think that there are people that feel:

  1. The world is warming
  2. That man is contributing to this warming
  3. That we can do something to reduce this man-made impact
  4. And that we should do that thing

However, I don’t think that those people make up the majority of this movement.  And to the extent that they are in this movement, they are being hijacked into something much much larger than they realize.

On the other “side”, I see very few people whom I would describe as “Deniers”.  That is, a group of people who either:

  1. Deny the world is warming
  2. Deny that man contributes to warming, if it exists

Instead, what I find are “skeptics”.  And I think the term “skeptic” applies more to the “extent and mitigation” rather than to the whole, “are we warming at all” side of the debate.  I happen to fall into this “skeptic” camp.  That is, I am willing to accept that the planet is warming, that man contributes [in a couple of ways-more on that] and that I remain unconvinced the mitigating solutions are required.

Be that as it may, during my contemplation I found it unimaginable that something like global warming should fall along party lines.  Taxes?  Sure.  War?  Sure.  Education?  Sure.  But this?  No way.  There are simply too many gun loving, huntin-hikin-campin conservatives out there that LOVE the world we live in to make it so.  Clearly, then, there is SOMETHING else in this debate that is driving the divide.  And maybe it took Copenhagen to make it clear to me.

This isn’t about warming and cooling.  Finding solutions to either or proving the data.  This is about:

Socialism, the other spectre Karl Marx spoke about, which walks here too, rather it is like a counter-spectre. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt. Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world. We say this from Venezuela, which because of socialism faces threats from the U.S. Empire.

From the countries that comprise ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance, we call, and I want to, with respect, but from my soul, call in the name of many on this planet, we say to governments and peoples of the Earth, to paraphrase Simón Bolívar, the Liberator: If the destructive nature of capitalism opposes us, let’s fight against it and make it obey us, let’s not wait idly by for the death of humanity.

History calls on us to unite and to fight.

If capitalism resists, we are obliged to take up a battle against capitalism and open the way for the salvation of the human species. It’s up to us, raising the banners of Christ, Mohammed, equality, love, justice, humanity, the true and most profound humanism. If we don’t do it, the most wonderful creation of the universe, the human being, will disappear, it will disappear.

This isn’t about the climate.  This is about something much much more insidious than that.

The World Compared to the States

Ben Hoffman is having another monster conversation describing Common Right-Wing Lies.  Ben’s post begins by talking about what he considers lies:

  1. right-wingers claim Obama promised that unemployment would not go above 8 percent if the stimulus was passed. Eric Cantor claimed: “We were promised. The president said we would keep unemployment under 8.5 percent (if the stimulus passed).”
  2. Lie: Reagan’s tax cuts resulted in increased revenues.
  3. Lie: Obama’s spending has resulted in a huge budget deficit.

And then he refutes that by claiming the “Fact”:

  1. The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan report included a graph that projected unemployment rates without the stimulus would peak at 9% and with the stimulus at just under 8%. That is not a promise; it is a projection, an estimate, a prediction. Claiming it was a promise is crazy talk.
  2. Reagan’s tax cuts resulted in decreased revenues. His tax increases resulted in increased revenues.
  3. Obama is responsible for only a small sliver of the deficit.

Now, there is a whole board full of comments on the subject; stop over for the debate.

However, during that debate, we began to take on the role of Government and really what it means when the Government creates public programs; Libraries, Parks, Beaches, Zoos and Police/Fire Stations.  I contend that when the government uses public money to establish and run these organizations, it is the equivalent of robbing one neighbor at gun point only to take that money and give it to your other neighbor in the form of a library, museum or zoo.

Of course this is a Libertarian point of view.  And maybe taken to its extreme, is a bit untenable.  But I do maintain that if a government is going to set up public works programs, it should be as local to the people as possible.  There is very little argument that can be made that would support taking money from citizens in North Carolina to support a Federal program giving money to an Art District in California.

Anyway, during the debate, one of us, Arbourist, made a comment stating that Socialist States are alive and well in the world:

Of course not, libertarianism has not ever been implemented, nor will it ever be implemented. It is not a practical way to run a society, unlike socialism which has many practical applications, and is doing great in many locations:Cuba, Venezuela, Nigeria, Canada, Sweden, Norway, […].

This got me to thinking.  So, I went out and grabbed some data here and here.  Put it down and paper and came up with this:

GDP per Capita

This is a graph showing the GDP per Capita of the World’s richest 50-60-70 nations, some interesting nations not in that group and then the list of nations quoted by Arbourist.  Further, I have compared these nations to the States of the United States of America, just to see where they rank.

Check out some interesting notes:

  1. The top 4 nations all are financial destination countries.  Their rankings might be skewed as such.
  2. Of the nations mention by the Arbourist, only 1, Norway, ranks ahead of the United States.  The 5 remaining rank below the United States.
  3. Of the 5 that rank behind the USA, two rank ahead of the European Union.
  4. While Norway ranks ahead of the USA in total, if Norway became a State, it would only be the 5th richest in our Nation.
  5. If Canada and Sweden were to become States, they would be the 40th and 43rd richest States respectively.
  6. And finally, if Venezuela, Cuba and Nigeria were to become States, they would immediately be the poorest States in the Country; their combined GDP per Capita not even equaling that of Mississippi–currently the poorest State in the Nation.

No, the fact remains.  The United States of America is the single richest Nation ever in the history of the world.  And we are so rich because we try to maximize the free market and the flow of capital and the driving motivation of profits.  The freer the market, the better off her citizens.

When "They" say "We" then "You" are "Them"

So, Obama wins the Nobel Peace prize.  And for no good, or even existing, reason.  After all, he was nominated only 12 days[!] into his Presidency.  Which begs the question:

When a group of devout Socialists hands this prestigious award to a 12 day old leader, it seems pretty clear that those Socialists feel he is a Socialist.

Yikes.