San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, October 16, 2015

Investing In One Lesson

I was reading the issue of Forbes in which the world's richest people are listed the other day.  As I looked through the list of people who are worth billions and billions of dollars it occurred to me that many of them have one thing in common.  It wasn't true all the time but it was true more often than not.  Can you guess what the world's richest billionaires share in common?  Answer:  Many of them are lifetime buyers of stocks.
Average people like you and me need some means to build up a nest egg for our futures.  Is it possible to mimic the investment behavior of the rick folks and become lifetime buyers of stocks?  I believe that it is. Furthermore, I believe the problem most of us middle class investors have has nothing to do with our investment strategy and everything to do with our emotional inability to carry it through.  Simply put, most people are far too fearful to commit themselves to a stocks only investment plan, especially when the market inevitably goes through one of its many down periods.  That fear is what keeps so many people from ever becoming members of the top 1% of the net worth population.
If you want to become a member of the top 1% of the net worth population you can do so, providing no cataclysmic event like an asteroid falls from the sky and crushes you takes place.  All you need to do is commit yourself to a lifetime of purchasing stocks, or stock mutual funds.  Today's blog post may be the most important one I have ever written if you are serious about building up a nest egg.  So, without further ado, I present my one investment lesson that, if followed, can make you financially independent.
Buy stock mutual funds early and often.  Keep buying shares of stock mutual funds your entire life.  Given a choice between spending money on a consumer good or investing into a stock mutual fund, chose the stock mutual fund.  Make this a habit throughout your entire life.  Do not stop buying shares of stock mutual funds until you have a nest egg large enough to provide for your income needs. Then you may start selling them in order to pay your bills in retirement.   Why do I say this is the one rule of investing you must never forget?  Look at the graph below:

Over the long term stock funds outperform all other asset classes.  You will, by definition, be investing over the long term.  If you start investing when you are 25 years of age you will have a life expectancy of 55 more years.  The most important investment decision you will ever make is not what ratio of your assets to place into the various asset classes.  The most important decision you will ever make is to place all of your investment assets into stock funds.  Look at the graph below.  Unlike the graph above it is not set to a logarithmic scale.  You will notice that the stock fund investments go through powerful up and down markets.  The fear generated during those down markets is precisely why almost nobody can commit to stocks only for their lifetimes.  You will also notice that there is no comparison in total return between the various asset classes.  Despite the fluctuation in value in stock funds, they are the only investment that will deliver a real return over the long term.  Fearful of having their portfolio decrease in value from $300 to $175 during a market downturn, most investors will place their funds into asset classes that are worth the staggering sum of $15 when the stock market is at a bottom but that allowed them to not lose any money while the stock market tanked.  They brag about how much money they did not lose while ignorant stock fund investors complain about their loss of $125. Meanwhile, nobody is looking at the big, comparative picture.  The stock fund investor, even after the bloodbath in the stock market, has 12 times more wealth than the bond/CD/fixed annuity/cash investor.  Look at the period from 1998 through 2002 below to see what I mean. 

Many investment advisers are smart enough to know that stocks are the best investment vehicle in the world.  But they also know that selling terrified investors on the merits of a stocks only investment portfolio is almost impossible.  So what do they do?  They compromise and come up with some allocation of the investment portfolio that allows the investor to hold both stocks and bonds.  That is a very bad decision.  Look at the graph below.  Note that the graph below is on a logarithmic scale.  The decision to allocate any portion of your investment portfolio to bonds, ostensibly to reduce volatility and eliminate fear during bear markets, is downright dumb.  Why should you accept lower returns just to allow yourself to feel mildly better when the stock market is tumbling?  Answer:  You shouldn't.  Commit yourself to be a lifetime buyer of stock mutual funds and nothing else.  Don't stupidly dilute your overall total return just to be able to feel mildly better about yourself during a market downturn.  That short term feeling of superiority will eventually be replaced with despair in the long term when you realize how much money it cost you to feel just a little bit better in a down market.

What sorts of returns can you expect as a lifetime buyer of stock mutual funds?  Look at the chart below for the answer.  This chart shows you the average annual rate of total return for stocks for every rolling five through twenty five year period from 1992 through 2013.  I selected this time period to be able to include the second and third worst bear markets in the history of the stock market.  Those bear markets took place in 2000-2002 and 2008-2009 when the stock market dropped 49% and 57%, respectively.  Those bear markets kept millions of people from investing in the stock market, thus depriving themselves of stellar returns and hefty net worth balances. 

There is no secret to building a million dollar portfolio.  Building a million dollar portfolio does not require perfect market timing.  Nor does it require perfect asset allocation, unless you mean being 100% in stocks 100% of the time.  The secret to building a million dollar portfolio is to commit yourself to buying stock funds early and never changing your mind, no matter how scary the stock market might appear.  It means buying when others are selling and buying when others are buying.  It means buying, buying and more buying.  It does not take a lot of money.  Your average hourly wage slave can accomplish this goal if he commits himself to buying early and often.  This truth is not hard to prove, nor is it hard for anyone of average intelligence to understand.  Still, it is almost impossible for the average person to do because the average person is driven by his emotional reaction to the stock market as opposed to his rational apprehension of what the stock market can do for him.  For that select few who can commit to being 100% in stock mutual funds 100% of the time, the future is bright.  Bets are off for all others.  They will likely fall prey to some fast-talking investment scammer who manages to convince them that he has found the secret to timing the market and never experiencing any losses.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Enemies Of The Democratic Candidates For King/Queen

The Democratic debates were on the television the other night.  I hesitate to call them debates because they do not even come close to following the proper format for a formal debate.  Instead they are a series of carefully orchestrated questions designed to make the candidates look good as they pander to their various envy-filled constituencies.  They are basically a waste of time and I chose to spend my evening sitting outside sipping a very fine glass of Cabernet instead.  As usual the wine was provided by a generous benefactor who took pity upon me when he saw me swilling down $7 bottles of cheap red wine.  I was most grateful.
I got up the next morning and opened my morning paper to find a full report about the non-event known as the Democratic candidates debate when something caught my eye.  There, on the second page of the paper, was a list of things discussed by the candidates.  One item from the list stuck out.  It was entitled "My Favorite Enemy" and it recorded the answers of the candidates to the question, "Who is your favorite enemy?"  The answers to that simple and unusual question tell a whole lot more about the character and nature of the candidates than anything else that took place that carefully controlled night.  Let me tell you about some of the answers.
Everyone knows that Hillary will be crowned the next Queen.  It is inevitable.  It is also good.  A federal government split between a Democratic monarchy and a Republican law making machine virtually guarantees gridlock and gridlock, in case you are unaware, is the best possible condition for a government that has run wildly out of control.  Despite the fact that we could crown Hillary today and skip all of the theater associated with the upcoming elections we decide to pretend that we do not really know who is going to win.  To fill out the stage with Hillary the Democrats put up the communist Bernie Sanders and three other guys I had never heard of before.  Each candidate was given the opportunity to tell the audience who his number one enemy is.
A fellow by the name of Lincoln Chafee declared "the coal lobby" to be his number one enemy.  I suspect it is fair to assume that Lincoln is not from Kentucky.  Not knowing a single thing about him or why he answered the question that way I will take a crazy stab in the dark and say that Lincoln was pandering to the Greenies when he said the coal lobby was his biggest enemy.  The coal lobby does not buy the government line that government subsidized renewable energy sources are the wave of the future.  The coal lobby has this incredibly sensible idea that abundant supplies of clean coal can provide energy for the Socialist Democracy of Amerika for years to come more cheaply and without government, read taxpayer, financed subsidies.  Democrats being what they are, Lincoln staunchly described himself as an opponent of common sense, cheap energy and allowing you to keep the money you earn.  Good for him.
Another fellow by the name of Webb said that his number one enemy was "the enemy soldier who wounded me."  Wow! That is precisely the McCain-like answer I would expect from a Republican. What was Webb doing up on stage with all of those welfare-statists when he should have been on stage with the warfare-statist Republicans?  I doubt that his answer played very well to the crowd.  His answer was nothing more than a seemingly transparent attempt to cook up some sort of sympathy for him as a war hero and defender of the SDA.  Democrats don't care about that sort of thing and neither do I so I will not write anything else about Webb.
A person whom I am pretty sure is not Welsh by the name of O'Malley declared the NRA to be his number one enemy.  I find that to be an amazing answer.  The NRA exists to promote and defend the 2nd Amendment right of every citizen in this geo-political zone to own, posses and use a gun.  Certainly O'Malley is smart enough to know that if he would somehow be able to win the election and become the next King of the SDA he would be required to swear an oath before God to uphold and defend the Constitution of the SDA, including the right of every citizen in this geo-political zone to own, possess and use a gun.  That being the case, why would he pronounce himself to be an enemy of the very Constitution he knows he must swear an oath to uphold?  The answer to that question is really quite simple.  The SDA is a post-Constitutional country.  The ancient document that was used to establish the United States of America is an interesting historical document but has nothing to do with the present day governance of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  The SDA is governed by various majorities of citizens who elect career politicians to do their envy-filled bidding.  The document known as the Constitution is a serious hindrance to the way things are done today so it must be ignored.  Still, just like those crazed Brits pretend to have a Queen, we pretend to care about what the Constitution says.  It is really nothing more than theater and everyone knows it but it makes those who are politically active feel good about themselves and that is all, in the final analysis, that really matters.
Bernie Sanders, true to form, declared two number one enemies. The first was "Wall Street" and the second was"pharmaceutical companies."   If I were to draw a Venn diagram of his answer we would all see that one is contained within the other.  By hating the profit seeking businesses on Wall Street Bernie also necessarily hates the profit seeking pharmaceutical companies that operate there.  So I will just combine his answers together and say that Bernie hates anyone who desires to make a profit.  The fact that Bernie hates any fellow human being who desires to make a profit betrays the depths of his moral depravity.  Certainly Bernie is smart enough to know that profits are only realized when someone serves someone else.  A person or a company can only realize profits when that person or company produces goods and services and sells them to willing customers in a voluntary market for prices the customers are willing to pay.  In the free market all participants go away happy.  This is unlike the political market where only the winner goes away happy and the loser knows he is about to be abused by his former opponents with a bevy of new laws, rules and regulations designed to suppress his political power and destroy his wealth.  Bernie hates the free market and loves the coercive hegemonic market of career politicians.  Isn't politics grand?
Future Queen Hillary's answers, yes answers, to the question were most revealing.  People have written about how Hillary keeps a long list of her enemies.  Although she publicly denies it when accused of keeping the list, she publicly confessed that it was true when she answered the question about who her number one enemy was.  Unlike the other candidates she could not keep her answer to one person or group.  No, Hillary listed five different groups as her number one enemy.  Her list included, "the NRA, health insurance companies, drug companies, Iranians and Republicans."  Now that is a fascinating list of enemies.
Like O'Malley, Hillary hates the Constitution and declares anyone who supports it to be her personal enemy.  She would abolish all guns for all time, except for people employed by the government who are anointed with the right to carry and use guns because they are protecting us from the bad guys, whoever they may be.  In making that pronouncement it never occurs to her that many of the bad guys are within her own ranks.  Like Bernie she also hates drug companies.  Why does she hate them so?  Is it because they have spent billions of dollars of their own money creating new and innovate drugs that have allowed millions of Amerikans to live longer and healthier lives?  Of course not.  Hillary hates drug companies because they make profits and all communists hate profits with a passion.  But Hillary goes farther than Bernie.  She hates other things as well.
Hillary hates health insurance companies because they make a profit as well.  She believes that corporations should use their own money to serve others and receive nothing in return.  Where that money will come from is never described.  Maybe they could open an account at the Fed and obtain unlimited access to endless funds, like Hillary and other career politicians do when they have to pay for something.  Or maybe they could adopt the coercive power of taxation and simply steal if from people like the government does.  I suspect Hillary would approve of a corporation raising funds by counterfeiting and stealing but she adamantly opposes a company raising funds via profits on goods sold.  That is immoral.
Hillary is very smart.  She wants to win the vote of as many moderate Republicans (really just Democrats in the final analysis) so she professes her hatred for Iran as a means to get those votes.  I find it interesting that she did not say Russia or Putin.  I suspect that is because she knows that the SDA has no intention of invading Russia.  On the other hand, Iran is a convenient whipping post.  Maybe she sees herself invading Iran, like King George II invaded Iraq, and then standing on an aircraft carrier and pronouncing that her mission was accomplished.  On the same level as her contempt for Iranians is her contempt for her fellow SDA citizens known as Republicans.  That really tells me all I need to know about future Queen Hillary.  She basically hates anyone who does not agree with her and and who refuses to do what she says at all times.  That means Hillary is a despot.  Get ready for her.  She is coming in 2017.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Examples Of Horrific Income Inequality

There has been an ongoing verbal joust taking place on the editorial page of the Denver Post in recent weeks on the topic of income inequality.  All of the usual platitudes have been spewed and nobody has come even close to changing the opinion of another person on the issue.  The latest salvo comes from Ed Johnson of Littleton.  I begin with Ed's comments today because they are typical of those who believe that government should be in the business of setting wage rates in the free market. Ed believes that when people freely establish their own pay scales via voluntary exchanges some envy-filled people should become angry that everyone does not earn exactly the same amount of money.  Ed is self righteous, angry and envy-filled.  Here is some of what he had to say:
"Roeder (a previous letter writer, MW) also believes that 'It is not the responsibility or the right of the government to even out the income of Americans.'  Actually, it is exactly that right which Americans, through their governmental representatives, gave the government when the progressive income tax was first enacted in 1913.  That progressive tax and inheritance taxes are meant to curtail the growth and power of an aristocracy that would take us back to the days of the robber barons or even to feudal times....We don't need 'even' income, just everyone paying their fair share."  Let's consider Ed's comments for a moment.
Ed loves democracy.  Ed rightly understands what democracy is.  Ed glories in the fact that democracy allows him, as a member of the majority, to do things to minority groups that make more money than he does.  He can steal from them, by majority vote.  He can force them to pay all his bills, by majority vote.  He can tax away their inheritances and give them to himself, by majority vote.  I don't know which "Americans" Ed is referring to when he writes that "Americans gave their government the right" to initiate a progressive income tax that now forces the top 49% of the population to pay the entire federal tax bill, but I can assure him that I am not one of them.  Does that mean I am not an Amerikan?  I certainly hope so.  Maybe I can escape the judgment that is to come.  Meanwhile Ed can vainly attempt to convince himself that his theft by majority vote doctrine is morally good because it is keeping the Socialist Democracy of Amerika from reverting to the economic conditions of feudal societies from the past but all he is really doing is justifying theft in his own mind.  No doubt Ed sees himself as a hero and a champion of the common man.  He is also magnanimous.  He grants that all incomes do not have to be "even," whatever that means.  All he wants if for the rich to pay their "fair share," whatever that means.
Ed conjures up the ghost of "robber barons" in his diatribe against freedom.  The standard, government school indoctrinated, teaching on the topic of the robber barons is that they were men who grew too big for their own economic britches and needed to be cut down to size by a beneficent, omniscient and omnipotent government armed with anti-trust laws in order to keep those evil seekers of profits from enslaving the citizens of this country.  The fact of the matter is precisely the opposite.  If you really want to discover the truth, and you probably don't, you need to read a book entitled "The Myth of the Robber Barons."  It is available here.  Author Burton Folsom conclusively proves that early industrialists who operated freely in the fledgling economy of the United States provided enormous economic growth and its associated benefits for all citizens in the land.  Conversely, industrialists who were more concerned with garnering government protection and privilege for their activities, thereby creating government approved monopolies, were the ones who were directly responsible for ripping off the people and giving big business a bad name.  The key ingredient here is not big business.  Business grows big only when it gives the consumers what they want for a price they are willing to pay.  The key ingredient is government intervention into the marketplace, which always ends badly as it grants privileges to one group, turns one politically connected group into winners and another group into losers and always ends up harming the consumer who inevitably pays more than he would under free market conditions.
I hate to admit it but as I consider his arguments I must confess that Ed has changed my mind.  I am now going to go on a crusade against income inequality.  In fact, please allow me to take the remaining space in today's blog post to give you a list of my most egregious examples of income inequality that I can think of off the top of my head.  All of these examples are screaming for government intervention.  I will vote for anyone who agrees to create new laws to fix these specific examples of income inequality.  Without further ado, here are my examples of horrific cases of income inequality:
  • Government school teachers make a lot of money.  Once these folks get into the government school system and put in a couple of decades of work, with the associated automatic cost of living raises, they can make upwards of six figure incomes for just nine months work each year.  In families where both husband and wife work as school teachers they can amass serious amounts of wealth.  Conversely, Christian school teachers beg for money all the time.  They are paid at levels approximately equal to 30% of what a government school teacher makes.  They teach the same subjects as government school teachers, with a few Bible classes and anti-evolution programs thrown in on the side.  They work just as hard.  They have the same level of education as their government school counterparts but they are paid significantly less for the same level and quality of work.  If we are going to solve the problem of income inequality I suggest we start by raising property taxes and making Christian school teachers salary and benefits packages equal to those teaching in the government schools.
  • The medical profession is rife with income inequality.  Government approved doctors who become members of the government doctors union (AMA) are able to command incomes much greater than the free market would bear.  They do so by limiting the supply of doctors, thus forcing up the price that needs to be paid to obtain the services of one.  If somebody attempts to provide medical services without a government license the doctors will have him arrested and imprisoned, no matter how good he might be at providing free market medical care.  PAs, nurses and others on the outer boundaries of medical care do most of the actual work when it comes to taking care of sick people.  If you have ever been hospitalized you know this to be true.  Yet these noble warriors against illness make a mere pittance of what the government approved doctors make.  This is an incredible example of income inequality.  I demand that medical service workers make the same amount of money as the doctors they are enslaved to.  To pay for these higher wages I propose a new "medical assistance and compassionate care" tax on the rich, whoever they are.
  • Lawyers, like their counterparts in the medical profession, make a tremendous amount of money because they are members of a government union that allows them to persecute and prosecute anyone who attempts to practice law who is not a member of their union.  Lawyers then create wage slave assistants who essentially do all of the work for them.  Anyone who has ever hung out around a legal office knows what I am writing to be true.  The lawyers are out playing golf while the legal assistants are doing all the work.  I propose a  new law that would force all lawyers to pay the same wage to their assistants as they make.  To pay for this new law I would propose a special "legal liberation fund" tax on the rich, whoever they are.
  • According to this blogger, "Dan Arnall of ABC News writes that, 'The latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009) show that government workers make about 5 percent more than private sector workers on average.'  He goes on to point out that the disparity is greatest when private workers are compared to federal employees."  So there you have it.  Federal government employees make 5% more money than their counterparts in the private sector.  This is a disgusting example of income inequality that must be rectified.  I would propose several things to fix this problem.  First, the federal government needs to create a new bureau to look into the problem.  The bureau would be tasked with defining precisely who these federal employees are, as well as identifying every single one of their private sector counterparts.  Once the list of names of the victims of federally sponsored income inequality is established I would propose a law that would raise all of their incomes by 5%, across the board.  To pay for this new bureau and the associated income equalizing transfer I would propose a new "private sector employee income fairness" tax on the rich, whoever they are.
  • Government employed security officers, commonly referred to as cops, make much more money than their counterparts in the private sector.  They also have much greater benefits in regards to such things as health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance and pension and retirement benefits.  If there is one thing that should never be the case in this country (we can put a man on the moon but we can't fix income inequality?) it is that any level of income inequality should exist among those who put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe.  Allowing income inequality to exist among the brave men and women who protect us from bad guys is tantamount to valuing one life more than another.  For shame!   So I propose a new law that would bring up the salary and benefits packages available to private security officers to the levels of those who are employed by the government.  To pay for this new program of anti-income inequality I would propose a new tax called the "brothers in arms fairness" tax.  It should be imposed upon the rich, whoever they are.
These examples of horrific income inequality are all I have time to put up on my blog today.  There are many more examples of this sort, all of them emanating from the fact that government employees are privileged and people employed in the private sector are not.  But I need to get to work.  I own a janitorial company and I can't earn nearly as much as my counterparts who have contracts with the government.  I have to scramble every day to make a living while they have higher salaries, more days off and superior working conditions.  I would like to propose a tax to solve that problem but I am afraid that doing so would put me on the hook for paying for it.  So I will just keep my mouth closed and my head down.  It is never a good idea to get the attention of the majority in a democracy.  Doing so almost always means a loss of income.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

The Enslavement Of Sang-moon Bae

Sang-moon Bae is a professional golfer.  He turned professional in 2004 and has 15 wins to his credit since then.  He is a rising star in professional golf and he is appearing more frequently on the PGA Tour in Amerika, where he has earned two wins during his short career.  He was the leading money winner on the Japan Golf Tour in 2011.  Most recently he played well, almost leading the International Team to a victory of the Amerikan Team in the President's Cup last week.  Sang-moon is also a citizen of the geo-political zone known as South Korea.
Professional golfers are one of the most sterling examples of the free market in action.  To succeed in the highly competitive world of professional golf you must be very, very good.  There is no place for excuses either as each player competes by himself against all other players who are also competing by themselves.  It is mano a mano as each player tries to shoot the lowest score and outplay the other competitors.  If a player does not make the cut he goes home with no money.  If a player makes the cut he gets to play on the weekend where his earnings are determined entirely by his final score.  Players who do not score well enough to make enough money will not be permitted to play again the next year.  A hungry pack of other players is always waiting in the wings to take away the tour card of a player who is not good enough to compete against the highest level of competition.  There is no pity for a loser.  There is no mercy for a loser.  Losers eventually end up finding another way to make a living.
Golfers, like all other professional athletes, are paid by their fans.  That does not mean that the people attending the tournaments write checks and give them to the players after a match.  Like most sports there is a middleman who coordinates the payment from the fans to the players.  In golf that middleman is the Professional Golf Association, or PGA.  Fans pay money to attend golf tournaments.  Profit seeking businesses pay for sponsorships to get advertising at golf tournaments that they hope will expand their revenues.  Television stations pay fees to broadcast professional golf tournaments to fans at home.  All of this money is put into a pot and used to pay the golfers who play well.  The PGA is about as pure of an example of free market capitalism as we can find in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika these days.
Sang-moon Bae has earned almost $6.5 million during his professional career, including $2 million in 2015.  That tells me that he is doing an outstanding job entertaining golf fans.  He is being highly compensated because golf fans like what he does.  In the free market all participants are paid according to how well they satisfy the customers.  To date nobody has ever offered to pay me money to play golf.  A couple of people have offered to pay me money to stop playing golf but I ignored those jokers.  Apparently, and to my shock and surprise, I do not play golf well enough to entertain golf fans.  Their loss, I suppose, but I can't make a living playing golf because golf fans do not want to watch me play.  That is not the case with Sang-moon Bae.  He can earn millions of dollars playing golf.  Good for him.
Why do I bring up all this seemingly unimportant information today?  I am telling you about the PGA and Sang-moon Bae because effective today Sang-moon Bae is a slave of the government of South Korea.  Yes, you guessed it, South Korea practices conscription and Sang-moon Bae, a man who entertains thousands, perhaps millions of golf fans, is going to disappear for two years as he is forced against his will to serve the government of the geo-political zone in which he has his citizenship.
Yesterday was Columbus Day.  I read some articles about the holiday in which the authors said that the Indians living in this country prior to Columbus were enslaved by the white men who conquered them.  It seems to me that the White Man-Indian War that took place in this country years ago had plenty of slaughter on both sides.  I don't recall either of the two warring factions enslaving their opponents so I dismissed those claims as spurious.
People who hate profit-seeking businesses often speak of employees of those companies as being "wage slaves."  They define wage slaves as people who work for a company at a wage lower than they would like to be paid.  I work for a lot of companies as a janitor and I would like to be paid $200/hour for my services.  Nobody will pay me that wage and I work for about $50/hour instead.  I guess that makes me a wage slave.  Funny though, I don't feel like a slave.  Nobody forced me to sign my cleaning contracts.  Indeed, I am happy to have them.  So I dismiss the idea of wage slavery as spurious as well.
People who love to mind the business of others like to tell me that children who work for Amerikan companies in shops that are located overseas are "slaves" working in "sweatshops."  These do-gooders do everything they can to interfere between the employer and the employees who want to work.  Calling the employees slaves is a good way to win a propaganda war but it really does not tell me much about the real world.  When I look at the employees who are working in these shops I don't see any of them being forced to do so against their wills.  Indeed, they are happy for the work and the opportunity to support their families.  Once again I see no evidence of slavery in the things people tell me are infested with it.
I found out that Sang-moon Bae was going to be enslaved to his government for two years while watching the President's Cup last weekend.  The announcers were lavish in their praise for Bae, describing him as an "inspiration" for all people everywhere simply because he did not criminally flee his country in order to avoid his enslavement.  If I were Mr. Bae I would have fled the country and continued my professional career.  I do not want to be a slave and I would do anything I could to prevent that state of affairs from being imposed on me.  But I am a believer in freedom, something that is very rare these days.  Everyone else believes that enslavement to the state and compulsory service to a military machine is a noble and glorious thing for a person to do.  Everyone else believes that government is a god and forced service to that god is a good thing to do.  I am forced to conclude that most people worship civil government and the State because they believe that conscription and enslavement to the civil government is a good thing whereas voluntary contracts between people seeking income and profit-seeking businesses seeking profits are allegedly of the devil.  What a strange world we live in these days where evil is good and good is evil. 

Monday, October 12, 2015

Bernie Visits Boulder

The Democratic candidate for next King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika known as Bernie Sanders visited Boulder this past weekend.  I have posted to this blog previously and shown that Bernie is no more a Democrat than I am a Republican.  Bernie is a full-fledged communist.  He wants government to forcibly redistribute wealth to select groups of privileged people.  He hates all profit-seeking enterprises and would make a law requiring companies to make profits only to have those profits stolen from them and given to his cronies (can anyone say Atlas Shrugged?).  This message of hatred for profit-seeking businesses and the glorification of communism resonates with the people, whoever they are.  Actually I know who they are.  The people who love Bernie hate freedom and love, adore and worship government.  Let me tell you a bit about it.
The Denver Post reported that, "Before an estimated crowd of 9,000...Bernie Sanders delivered his wildly popular manifesto (interesting choice of words, isn't it?  MW) to an audience that loved every word of it....Some in the crowd seemed to mouth his punchlines with him, like concertgoers giddy at the chance to hear a favorite song in person.... Many spectators, decked out in pins and stickers, began lining up five hours before the speech.  Throughout the queue, which wound thousands deep within about 90 minutes, many die-hard fans spoke of their hopes for a candidate whose potential is boundless.   'I want to be able to look back on this day and say that I was in the front seat for Bernie,' said Jennifer Deschner. 'You are so close to his presence, so close to this magnificent human being that has a chance to change everything about our lives.'"  I wonder, didn't the people say the same thing about Stalin and Mao?   Didn't something very similar just take place in North Korea over the weekend?
The abject worship that took place during Bernie's rally is indicative of the state of government worship that exists in this idolatrous land today.  As a post-Christian society the religious members, and everyone is religious, of our geo-political zone have to worship something, or somebody.  Bernie is the most recent person to become deified.  Why has Bernie been given this horrible status as the next god-King of the SDA?  Because he preaches an uncompromising message of envy and state enforced redistribution of wealth.  What sinful soul can resist that message, especially when the sinful soul sees itself on the receiving end of the distribution of the largess?  Jennifer's comment is really nothing more than adoration of a man.  That sort of adoration should be given to God alone.  For the biblically astute, remember King Herod and his adoration by the masses.  But as Bob Dylan told us, everybody has to worship someone and the citizens of the SDA worship the career politicians who rule over us, or want to rule over us.
To be fair, Bernie has a couple of good ideas.  He believes that it is morally wrong for business to get in bed with government and create a competition stifling monopoly.  Good for him.  He also believes that the military of the SDA should defend the SDA and leave the rest of the world alone.  Double good for him.  Besides those two issues however, Bernie does not have much of value to say.  So what socialist doctrines did he preach during his sermon in Boulder?  Here are a few:
  • Bernie wants free public universities.  By "public" he means taxpayer financed.  By taxpayer financed he means paid for by the top 49% of the income population that cannot protect itself by means of a majority vote.  By "free" he means paid for by the top 49% of the income population.  Just like every communist who has come before him, Bernie wants to take the money of the politically unprotected minority of citizens who are wealthy and use it to fund educational boondoggles for the majority of citizens that remain.  What would be taught in these free public universities?  Well the glories of communism, socialism and worship of the state, of course!
  • A new federal program designed to create millions of new jobs.  I am not making this stuff up.  Bernie really believes he can channel the ghost of FDR and return the SDA to the inglorious days of the New Deal.  Bernie believes that jobs can be created by government.  For him and his followers it is all so simple.  All he has to do is take money from the rich.  Once he has a nice stockpile of money he can create a job for people digging holes or moving a pile of rocks from one place to another.  He then "pays" those people for their "work."  All of this government activity will, of course, drive enormous rates of economic growth that will lift the poor and impoverished in the lower 51% into the top 49%, where they can then expect to be soaked.  All of this reminds me of the old Russian saying about a government job in communist Russia...."We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."  What a glorious thing it would be to have a socioeconomic system like the old Russian empire.  Quick, someone get a tissue for Jennifer.  I think she is starting to cry.
  • Bernie's favorite topic, and the one that gets the greatest popular response, is his belief that income inequality is a "grotesque" condition that must be fixed by government action.  Bernie is always a bit sparse on details when it comes to describing precisely how he will fix this grotesque problem.  A progressive income tax on the rich, whoever they are, plus higher corporate taxes are always a part of his scheme.  But he never explains how he will overcome the fact that higher rates of taxation bring about a reduced rate of economic growth, thus making it impossible for those noble poor people to catch up with those evil rich people on the income scale.  Even worse, Bernie, to my knowledge, has never addressed the far greater problem of net worth inequality.  Income inequality is one thing but net worth inequality is a far greater social evil.  People may differ by a million dollars or so in annual income but net worth variations can be as high as hundreds of billions of dollars between the noble poor and the evil rich.  Bernie is going to have to propose a straightforward program of government sponsored theft.  Anyone with a net worth above a certain level will find all of their wealth above that level confiscated and given to Bernie's cronies, less 20% for government handling.  Now we are talking real communism.
The newspaper article identified Bruce Floyd, of Denver, as an attendee of the worship service who also happens to be some sort of racial minority.  I don't think he is Welsh since, in true tyrannical form, the Welsh are never recognized as a minority by anyone.   The article said that it was ironic that Bruce found it hard to warm up to Bernie's message because Bernie is "an old white man,"  despite the fact Bernie was proposing income redistribution programs that all black people would quite naturally celebrate.  Bruce said he had difficulty "connecting" to the old white man because, "Being born to a black dad and Hispanic mom, there has been this sort of disconnect...its sometimes hard for people to connect with someone who might not understand their plight."  Wow!  Being born to a black dad and Hispanic mom is now a mental illness known as "plight," whatever that is.  Could you imagine an old white man making a statement like that about a black candidate for King?  And they say that Amerika is no longer a racist country.
After watching the early returns I am rooting for a Donald Trump/Bernie Sanders election for our next King.  I think that would be more fun than a barrel full of monkeys, although it would not be as intelligent or dignified.