Exposing A Fallacy

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or even a logical thinker to understand a terrible fallacy. Almost everything Americans buy, such as autos; electronics, clothing and many other items are manufactured in foreign lands. Even American cars are partially manufactured in Mexico. Americans are so involved in consuming, that the United States has been over-buying from the world since before the 1970s. The U.S. passed from positive to negative in exchange to the world in 1977, which placed the U.S. on the short side. The annual loss has been over $600 billion and gets larger almost every year. This loss represents a big difference between what Americans buy as against what we sell to the world.

Here is the fallacy. If Americans are buying more than selling, how can the country as a whole enjoy a large growth rate in the economy, which was recently stated at 3.5 % per year? To enjoy any kind of growth must come from those who sell foreign products. They are enjoying increases in the numbers of items sold, $600+ billion with profits increasing. Technically, that is growth in the nation's economy. On the distaff side, the United States can't be increasing its manufacturing to achieve such a large growth, for the numbers show that the U.S. manufacturing is too small a part of the whole economy and it is shrinking yearly.

Realizing this, the fallacy expands; although the economy is increasing, the United States is not adding to its capital base. In other words, we are not manufacturing items, building factories nor doing anything to create jobs for our children or our grandchildren. Yes, our progeny can become sales or service people, but they will sell to whom? The other question is, where are those people doing all the buying today getting their money? It must be from sales and services!

What everyone agrees to is that Americans are leaving their grandchildren with an ever-growing national debt, which has an ever-growing interest obligation.

What a national failure!

Then there is Orwell's other statement, "Freedom is Slavery." Big Brother goes around telling all of us what a free country we live in, and emphasizing our presumed desires to bring freedom to the rest of the world. Free by getting the Congress to enact the most repressive laws under the umbrella of increased security. Free to have had the Attorney General enforce laws that didn't exist, or stop plea bargaining. Yes, Americans are even free to support and rebuild Iraq, while we have nothing to show for it ourselves - not even additional jobs. Little known, again our ignorance, we are spending money buying mercenaries from small countries as additional soldiers to just stand around in Iraq. Look at the freedom we brought to peaceful Afghanistan and now to "peaceful" Iraq. And we, the peace-loving people brought such happiness to Somalia, Panama, Serbia and Kosovo. (Those are only the big military operations in recent years.) We are such peace loving people that if we had been warlike, what would the world be today? How do or will most other counties refrain from finding excuses to attack other countries with all of our supposedly justifiable excuses for starting wars?

Let us all hope that there is some higher force to protect Americans, our progeny and the rest of the world, not as much from Big Brother, but from our ignorance.

Corporations And Citizen's Interests

CORPORATIONS

The U.S. Congress ratifies many bills that don't represent citizens' interests. A few important legislation's that were recently passed included: the Medicare bill, the monumental energy bill and environmental legislation.

The U.S. drug companies put into the Medicare bill a small provision that Americans can't go to other countries to buy prescription drugs. The idiotic rational for this legislation is that the drugs might be unsafe in other countries. In effect, that is saying that Canadians are risking their lives with the same or similar medications. Are the U.S. drug companies sending inferior products to Canada? How offensive to the Canadians!

The U.S. auto companies kept any oil conservation measures out of the energy bill. Do the board members of American oil and auto companies approve of the U.S sending dollars for oil to Muslim countries? That cash has the potential of reaching the terrorists hands. American auto companies are losing market share to foreign auto makers by not producing energy efficient cars. Most car owners don't enjoy spending large amounts per gallon for excess gasoline consumption.

Do the board members of the electric companies which currently use coal have children and breathe the air surrounding them? It is likely that they along with their wives and children don't live in the United States. If they live outside the U.S., they don't feel compelled to upgrade the U.S. plants. They just let the stockholders and most Americans breathe the dirty air. The board members other ploy is to buy credits from clean plants. That creates favored living areas. But what about those areas near the dirty plants? Who cares? It is definitely not a concern if those in charge live outside the U.S.

The directors and officers of companies do not necessarily speak for the stockholders or employees. The money they use to influence Congress is corporate money not their money. Money that is not used for the corporation must be given to the owners of the company. This logic must apply to any and all non-business expenses or gifts. Examine what major companies have donated for - special religious or educational causes. Many of these causes, like creationism, can be controversial, depending upon the viewpoint endowed. If stockholders received larger dividends, they could choose to make individual donations.

Our founding fathers provided for this situation of influencing the government toward their causes. The First Amendment states "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," not to buy the government. If corporation directors think something is wrong, let them use corporate money to get stockholders to petition Congress.

Corporations are artificial creations of a government. It is the responsibility of the governments (the states) to restrict these expenses. In one way or another, the legislators' ox can or will be gored. If not today, then tomorrow!

Socialist Elites and Obama Political Operatives Insist Small Businesses Don't Get Economics

The other day someone told me that it was great that I ran a small business, but then I found it was a back-handed compliment as he told me I didn't understand the role of government - to that I say BS. I run a think tank, and my small business turned into a franchise operation in 23-states, 450 cities, and 4-countries. And I understand government better than most, and better than most at the annual Davos Convention where world leaders embarrass themselves with their socialist theory and ignorance as to what government is about.

You see, I see governments purpose similar to Ludwig van Misses "Bureaucracy" so go pick up a copy of it and then tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Now then, let me tone it down a little bit and explain it to you in simpler terms, without my sharp tongue or attitude. Let me just give it to you straight.

When this administration tells the small business people of the world which employee two-thirds of our population that they don't know what they're talking about, and that President Obama and his team can run a better economy than all the small businesses going about their business and making exchanges in the free marketplace of their own accord and for the consumers, clients, and customers who vote with their dollar by choice - well that is just ridiculous.

Small business people understand economics, they understand how to balance a checkbook, keep inventory, save for a rainy day, and they know a hell of a lot more about providing jobs than this administration. This administration has spent $5 trillion, plundered our nation's treasury, and we don't have any more jobs to show for it over a four year period, and yet this administration has the audacity to ask the American voters and the American people for four more years. No way.

One thing that people don't understand is that 10% of our population is self-employed, and that 10% hires two-thirds of the rest of our population. In other words 66% of our population is employed by small business, and 10% are the owners of those businesses, and that equals 76%. The corporations and the government combined employ the remaining 24%. President Romney, hopefully the future president, understands this, and he was right when he stated that our small businesses are the job growth engine for our nation. Now then, with regards to the Obama Administration; how dare anyone who was never run a small business in their life tell us otherwise! Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

The Reality Of Taxes

In the United States there are people who feel that paying taxes is un-American. They would rather see a vast curtailment of civic programs. Their overriding desire is to reduce their own personal tax burden. Fortunately, most Congress members need to get reelected, so social programs are reduced but not cut. Either way, the necessity of paying for our current needs is passed on to our progeny. It is already necessary for the government to sell bonds for almost everything it does. That includes any funding for the reduced social programs. When the U.S. had a positive balance in the national government's finances, our current president made an unsound premise that the positive balances were the "peoples' money." He forced through Congress new tax reductions. That positive balance was actually our grandchildren's money, not ours. The money collected from taxes would have reduced the national debt. Now our grandchildren will live with an ever increasing debt from all our current excesses.

The wealthy have turned their backs on the poor, to avoid writing tax checks to the city, state and national governments. The upper class does not realize that if the middle class and the poor get any money, they spend it. This increases most businesses' bottom lines. That gives the wealthy, which own the businesses, more money than any tax reductions might provide. Generally the wealthy don't do additional spending from tax reductions. The wealthy already have everything they desire. The tax reductions for the rich don't really help business. That extra money might go into stocks of foreign travel. Higher sock prices don't directly help businesses. The increased stock prices help speculators who buy and sell the stocks. In fact, few of the daily stock trades are in listed stocks. The stocks traded daily far exceed the number of shares listed in any market. That is especially evident after eliminating the stocks that are seldom traded by trusts, pension funds and little old ladies. As to foreign travel, that obviously doesn't help business here in the U.S.

Many corporate executives move their companies out of the U.S. to find cheaper labor. Some corporations move their offices to off shore locations just so to save on taxes. The middle class and the poor are then left without work. Many people take meaningless jobs to get any income. The wealthy demanded lower taxes and got tax reductions for themselves. They expect the Federal government to protect their foreign investments, if those investments get threatened. That seems unjust and incomprehensible. Shouldn't those executives and companies be paying higher taxes or even a penalty tax? They started in the U.S., so they should in effect pay for the learning and development experience that triggered their success.

What is even more incomprehensible, most international U.S. corporations have refused to repatriate profits earned abroad, leaving that money outside the country just to save on U.S. taxes. Talk about patriotism!

The U.S. citizens and Congress must focus upon the real problems, not the immediate benefits, if the United States hopes to continue to prosper. Every American, even top corporate executives, must realize that the American government needs tax money in order to operate. It is easy to pass our responsibilities on to future generations. But when that becomes personal, like our own children or grandchildren, we think differently. Taxes are as much a necessity as our next meal. We can't skip it. We can't imagine our grandchildren living under the burden of interest on a huge unmanageable national debt. We must face that time for it is fast approaching.

Media Bias: Was History Channel's Postponement of Series Finale Politically Motivated?

The History Channel just completed an eight hour series, The Men Who Built America, about five influential capitalists that almost single-handedly transformed a broken, tired post-Civil War America into a global super power: Vanderbilt (Shipping/Railroads), Rockefeller (Oil), Carnegie (Steel), JP Morgan (Finance), and Ford (Autos). Capitalists will cheer and communists will jeer these men but all will enjoy this extraordinarily interesting story of their lives, their deals and their interactions with each other as they propelled America into the world's top economy and amassed unsurpassed personal fortunes. During the height of their careers Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan were collectively worth in today's currency some $1 Trillion.

This is an excellent series that everyone should see. However, it is particularly curious that its finale was scheduled to air two days before Election Day but was postponed at the last minute until November 11th because of "unforeseen circumstances." After viewing the finale, one must wonder if those "unforeseen circumstances" included the potential for that episode to inadvertently help republicans during the elections two days later. The 50-year period depicted in the series touches upon many themes relevant to the election narrative this year, including the role of capitalism, class struggle (99% vs. 1%), labor unions, the role of government regulation, to name a few.

The first six hours of the series, which aired repeatedly during October, clearly made the case for the incumbent president and democrats. Those "robber barons" were depicted as greedy and ruthless and were reviled by nearly everyone in their time; they screwed their customers, their workers, their partners and each other, a pattern that supports the democrat agenda to expand the role of government to reign in and regulate the wealth and influence of the rich and powerful. Given the relentless and slanderous attacks against Bain Capital, Mitt Romney and republicans generally as self serving, greedy capitalists, viewers are likely to draw comparisons between those men and today's republicans.

However, by delaying the finale, viewers must wait until after the election to find out that those titan figures set up foundations to distribute much of that wealth for the benefit of mankind, through charitable organizations that survive to this day. Additionally, despite all the brutality and hardship inflicted by those men, those men made America the unrivaled economic and military superpower of the 20th century; a nation positioned and destined to defend the free world against tyranny during two world wars.

Our entire way of life today began with the achievements of those men; railroads unified the nation and along with steel made our dense cities possible. Oil and autos made subsequent suburbanization inevitable. Those men also gave us companies that today are known as General Electric, Exxon, Chevron, U.S. Steel, Ford and scores more. The series also makes the point that brutality and ruthlessness was the by-product of the speed with which those industries were expanded and consolidated. We can never know whether a slower, more genteel, less disruptive evolution would have ultimately yielded similar prosperity. Series closing commentary underscores the point that those men and their entrepreneurial spirit "built" modern America, despite our president's claim about today's entrepreneurs to the contrary. All of those mitigating factors must weigh into the evaluation of the critics of capitalism.

Was the finale's postponement an unfortunate coincidence or a deliberate attempt to influence the election? We may never know. If finding politics in a seemingly innocuous postponement of a TV series sounds far-fetched, it is at least consistent with other seemingly innocuous delays by this administration, including and most recently the stonewalled investigation into the Libya attack (Sept 11), the attempted Iranian attack on our drone (Nov 1), and most recently the resignation of CIA Director (Nov 9) for transgressions obviously known well before the election. The American people still wait for adequate answers by this administration. In that light, questioning the motivation for postponing the finale of this politically relevant series is probably not as far-fetched as it might initially seem.

Now Americans Get to Learn What Obama's Tax Reform Means - Huge Tax Increases

During the run-up to the 2012 elections, I can remember that President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney had a final debate in Florida, Governor Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, challenging the incumbent Democrat Barack Obama was explaining his economic plans and his thoughts on taxation, loopholes, and various deductions which might be cut to help improve government revenue. President Barack Obama insisted that he didn't want tax cuts, but he had a tax reform plan of his own.

This was news to me because he already had four years to implement any new tax reform strategies, but hadn't until now even mentioned it, except for this "class warfare" of taxing the rich billionaire boys club. Perhaps he was going to wait until after the election like so many other things that he plans on doing, but he did wanted to disrupt his campaign, or cause himself to lose votes. He would be afraid of losing the confidence of the American voter by reneging on his words, or promises during the previous 2008 election, not that he had fulfilled very many of them anyway in the four years after that.

Well, on this note I would like to explain to you what Obama's tax reform strategy really means. He told us that he would raise the tax on millionaires and billionaires. Still, if we took all the money from all the billionaires in the United States, he couldn't even run the United States federal government for more than 90 days, and it would hardly make a dent in the federal debt, or the additional trillion dollars that he is spending up and beyond the amount of money that comes in in tax revenue to the federal government.

Okay so, what does this mean? It means that not only people that make more than $250,000 per year will have an increased tax bill; it means that every American in the middle class will get squeezed even more. In fact, we are destroying our middle-class now, we are taking them down. Many believe that socialism balances the playing field, and helps with financially quality. In some regards that's true, because when socialism finally hits, everyone in the entire country is equally poor, except a very few individuals who are in cahoots with the leadership, and able to make crony capitalist deals and stay in the flow of money.

Interestingly enough, those folks rarely pay taxes, and it hardly matters which country they are in, because if it is run by socialists, it's always the same. If you doubt what I'm saying just take a look at Greece, Italy, Spain, or Portugal right now. That's where they are all at, and that's where we're going because the American voters never bothered to ask what President Obama's tax reform meant, they never looked at the plan, because it was never shown. It was another one of those Nancy Pelosi moments; "you are just going to have to vote for it (him) to see what's in it (the tax reform plan)."

Nevertheless, the American People voted for the brilliant orator and Teleprompter in Chief one last time as he made those great speeches. The rest is history, and folks it is a; repeat. Socialism is not progressive, it's regressive, it's never worked in human history.