San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, September 9, 2016

ColoradoCare Would Be Worse Than ObamaCare

The Denver Post ran an op/ed piece a month or so ago in favor of the proposed amendment to the Colorado constitution that would mandate universal health insurance for all Colorado citizens.  Here is a bit of what the article said:
"There’s a proposal on the November ballot (Amendment 69) that asks Coloradans to approve a $25 billion tax increase....All the independent analyses agree that Amendment 69 would actually save money for nearly every Colorado family and firm. That’s because the amendment creates a new, state-based health plan, ColoradoCare, which would replace the absurdly expensive health care premiums we now pay to out-of-state insurance giants....The big insurers have been gouging us for years, reducing coverage while raising costs. Amendment 69 would give them an in-state competitor.  But lower cost is not the only reason why ColoradoCare is better than relying on the tender mercies of the insurance industry."
"The health insurance giants dictate which doctors you can go to. If your doctor didn’t make the cut — and the networks get narrower every year — tough luck. In contrast, ColoradoCare covers every provider in the state, which means you, not the insurance company, can choose the doctor, the chiropractor, the physical therapist, etc....Every insurance plan dictates which procedures or prescriptions it will pay for. Currently, these rules are made by business executives in Minnetonka, Minn. (United HealthCare), Indianapolis (Anthem Blue Cross), and Bloomfield, Conn. (Cigna). Coloradans have zero control over these distant decision-makers. In contrast, ColoradoCare will be controlled by you; Coloradans will elect their neighbors to serve on the governing board right here in our state.  Finally, ColoradoCare will do something our country should have done long ago. It will provide health care to everybody. Today, more than 350,000 Coloradans have no insurance at all. When those people get sick, they go to the emergency room — the most expensive possible place to provide health care. And since they’re uninsured, all the rest of us get stuck paying their bills. Wouldn’t it be better if everybody paid for health insurance, and everybody was covered? That’s what Amendment 69 will do. It won’t be free. It will cost $25 billion.  But — have I mentioned this? — that’s less than we’re paying now for coverage that’s not nearly as good."
Total spending by the career politicians who rule over those of us who live in Colorado was $33 billion in the last fiscal year.  If the minority of the citizens of this state who make the decision to vote approve Amendment 69 this November total state spending will increase by 75%, with all of the increase going to a new bureau created for the purpose of socializing all of the medical care disbursed in the state.  Unlike Obamacare, which still allows for some limited choice when it comes to which policy I may purchase and which doctors I may use, ColoradoCare would eliminate all competition and establish a "single payer" system.  All medical insurance will be proudly administered by my "neighbors" who will "serve on the governing board right here in" Colorado.  Why does that thought not bring me any comfort?
To pay for the socialized medical program Amendment 69 proposes that taxes be raised dramatically.  As a Colorado citizen I currently pay a state tax rate of 4.65%.  That percentage is applied, with some minor adjustments, to my federal taxable income.  That means I usually end up paying ~2% of my gross personal income in state taxes.  If Amendment 69 is passed things will change dramatically.  To pay for the new program a flat 10% tax will be imposed on all ordinary income.  Officially the employee will pay 3.33% and the employer will pay 6.37% (the same fiction created by the thieves at the Social Security Administration) but the net impact is a 10% reduction in what I could, or should, have earned at my job.  Since I own my own business I will pay a straight 10% tax on all business income.  State spending may only be going up by 75% but the tax burden borne by the citizens of this state will go up by a whopping 315% as my state tax rate will rise from 4.65% to 14.65% to pay for the new program.
That is only part of the story on taxes.  In addition to the 10% tax on all ordinary income, other income items such as capital gains, dividends, and "some portion of other retirement income" will also be taxed.  As it stands now most retirees in this state pay no state taxes at all.   A big reason for that is the retirement income exemption which allows them to eliminate most or all of their retirement income from their net taxable income figure.  Given that retirees will likely be using more of the socialized medical services than those who are still working, does it not make sense to force them to pay their fair share and charge a premium over the 10% rate the rest of us are getting hit with?  I would propose that retirees be required to pay a flat 20% on all of their income, regardless of its source.  Of course, that will not happen.  There are too many votes to be bought by career politicians and their lackey bureaucrats to anger the retirees.
Like all socialistic programs the burden for paying for the medical insurance is dramatically over weighted upon those who earn enough money to be in the top 49% of the income population.  It does not matter if you are a single person who is never sick making $300,000 per year or a family of 10 which constantly visits the doctor and the hospital earning $30,000 per year.  Unlike the free market, which can make discriminatory decisions based upon medical history and other factors, the socialized program makes no such discriminatory decisions and everyone pays the same percentage regardless of how much they use the program.  This creates the common problem in which everyone is incentivized to use the program as much as possible since there are no financial reasons to be thrifty when it comes to medical care.  The family of 10 pays $3000 for their "coverage" and uses hundreds of thousands of dollars in services while the healthy single pays $30,000 for his coverage and never uses it.  Please explain to me how that is fair.
The proponents of ColoradoCare make a huge deal about how out of state insurance companies have been "gouging us for years."  Just what does that mean?  Accusations of that sort usually mean that those who are at higher risk pay more for insurance, just as they should.  Those sorts of accusations are also usually leveled at profit seeking insurance companies when they make the proper financial decision to exclude certain coverages when it is absolutely certain the customer would be immediately using those services.  Only people religiously committed to the envy-filled principles of socialism can make the accusation that an insurance company is morally required to lose money by covering people who, in the free market, would never be covered.  Amendment 69 would enshrine their immoral religious beliefs as a part of the Colorado constitution.
Proponents of Amendment 69 also believe in a nationwide single payer system, with the single payer being a government bureau of course.  Since Obamacare fell short of that goal the socialists at Amendment 69 headquarters came up with the brilliant idea of ColoradoCare.  The primary argument in support of their position is that people who do not have health insurance go to emergency rooms for routine medical care, thus driving up costs and creating inefficiencies that ColoradoCare can allegedly remedy, thus "saving" the taxpayers money.  Given the fact that no government program has ever done anything more efficiently than the free, or semi-free, market, it is hard to believe ColoradoCare will be able to deliver on its promises.  The best way to deal with the problem of medical care freeloaders is to refuse to serve them.  You read that right.  If a person cannot pay or does not have insurance he should not receive medical care.  If that means people will be dying in the streets then so be it.  It is morally superior for people to die in the streets because they are unwilling or unable to pay for medical care than it is for the state government to steal money from one person and use it to give "free" care to a deadbeat patient.  There is no sin committed when people die from disease and illness.  There is a great sin committed every time the government commits an act of theft.
Ultimately the moral arguments are ignored by almost everyone, especially when the are biblically based arguments,  and it all boils down to utility.  The advocates of ColoradoCare seriously believe, despite all historic evidence to the contrary, that a socialist program of health care, administered by state bureaucrats, can more expeditiously, efficiently and cheaply provide health care services to Colorado citizens than the current "system" we live under.  It does not matter that the VA is a profound failure.  It does not matter that Medicare is bankrupt and wastes billions of dollars every year.  It does not matter that Obamacare is collapsing before our very eyes.  All that matters is their religious belief in the omnipotent and beneficent nature of their god, the state, to provide their medical care.  So if you are a fellow believer in the god of government, please vote in favor of Amendment 69.  On the other hand, if you have a brain and are not completely committed to institutionalizing the sin of envy, you might want to oppose it. 

Thursday, September 8, 2016

The Presbyterian Church In America Is Pro-Homosexual

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is a conservative Reformed denomination that came into existence in response to theological liberalism in other Presbyterian denominations back in the 1970s.  As is typically the case with all Christian denominations, the longer they are around the more then are prone to turn liberal themselves, thus negating the reason for their existence in the first place. The PCA describes itself as, "...well known even outside its tent as a church that is unswerving in its commitment to the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards, the purity of the church, the transformational presence and power of God in its worship, a dynamic and prophetic confrontation of unbiblical thought and behavior, and a demonstration of the truth through the practice of holiness and love in Christian fellowship."
I was a presbyter in the PCA two decades ago and I do not agree with the self assessment quoted above.  I was immorally and illegally, according to the PCA Book of Church Order, thrown out of the church for taking a theological position my fellow presbyters despised but could not prove to be in error.  Rather than deal with my biblical argument and their own hypocrisy they held a series of secret meetings wherein they agreed to simply throw me out of the presbytery.  When I arrived for a schedule presbytery meeting they informed me I was no longer a part of the presbytery and that if I did not leave the church building I would be arrested for trespassing.
Prior to my immoral and illegal dismissal I had written a paper in defense of my theological position that the presbytery had actually prepared a written response to.  In the course of defending its position the two fellows responsible for writing the paper adopted two heretical positions.  To avoid the logically necessary conclusions of the position I had taken, and that they hated with a passion, they declared that logical arguments can have "two stories" and that the conclusions found in each of those "two stories can be logically contradictory without harming the system of thought."  In other words, A could be both A and non-A, provided both answers exist in different "stories."  This allowed them to declare that my position was unbiblical even though it was logically necessary.  This stark repudiation of logical thought was astounding and shocking.  It was directly contradictory to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which they professed to believe,  but that did not seem to bother my fellow presbyters at the time.
The second position taken by the two fellows who wrote the paper was that the judicial pronouncements made by the Standing Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of the PCA "constitute the living voice of the Church" and cannot be questioned or amended after they have been made.  In other words, the presbytery adopted the position  of the Roman Catholic Church that Scripture and Church councils are co-equal in authority within the Church.  I had challenged an SJC ruling and made a logically necessary biblical argument proving the SJC stance to be unbiblical and in error.  They rejected my argument by asserting that SJC judicial pronouncements are authoritative and not subject to question or review. 
I responded to these two arguments with charges of heresy which were promptly ignored as I was determined to be no longer a member of the presbytery and, therefore, not permitted to address it. A presbyter from another presbytery examined my charges and suggested that my former presbytery look into the things I had written but his advice was ignored.  The presbytery unanimously voted to adopt the position paper of the two fellows and, in doing so, enshrined logical contradiction and the co-authority of Church councils with the Bible as the theological opinions of the presbytery.  So, as far as I am concerned, the Rocky Mountain Presbytery of the PCA was apostate two decades ago.
A new apostasy has come up in recent days, as described in this article.  The PCA has always been filled with men who desire to be man-pleasers so they can grow numerically large churches.  Church growth is always the prime objective and theological rigor is the first victim when church growth is on the line.  Given the current culture of pro-homosexuality in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, it was only a matter of time before the PCA would move in the direction of accepting and encouraging homosexual behavior.
The author of the above article attempts to keep everything secret, for reasons that I do not understand, but still attempts to describe what is happening.  Apparently a PCA mega-church has a Senior Pastor who wants to ordain a homosexual as a Teaching elder.  Here is some of the text taken from the examination of this potential Teaching elder as he responded to various questions about himself:  "This young man not only claims to be homosexually-attracted to men but is very firm in his unrepentant attitude regarding that attraction. His struggle is not with homosexual attraction itself. He embraces it. However, to be obedient to God as a homosexually-attracted man, he claims to remain celibate. The pastor and the Presbytery all agree that homosexual lusts and behaviors are sinful. However, they also agree that homosexual attractions (desires, thoughts and feelings) are not sinful. When the ministerial candidate was asked if he believes 'his homosexual feelings, attractions, thoughts and desires are sinful,' he believes they are not and further upholds that homosexual attractions and God-given heterosexual attractions are morally equivalent."
So let me get this straight.  A homosexual man confesses that he is a non-practicing homosexual.  That same homosexual man believes that his homosexual "desires" are not sinful and equates them to heterosexual sexual desires, thus declaring them morally good and proper.  The pastor, as well as the presbytery of which he is a member, wants to have this man ordained as a Teaching elder.  Both the pastor and the presbytery are recorded as believing that "homosexual lusts" are sinful but "homosexual desires, thoughts and feelings" are not.  Remember a few moments ago when I wrote about how my old presbytery denied the principle of logical contradiction?  The same thing is taking place here.  What are homosexual "desires, thoughts and feelings" if they are not "homosexual lusts?"  Indeed, lust is simply another word for a powerful desire or feeling.  It is not possible to deny the sinfulness of homosexual desires (or, as is the case with this man, affirm homosexual desires as morally good) and affirm the sinfulness of homosexual lusts at the same time.  But these men do this anyway because they have denied the principle of logical contradiction and they want to make a place for this homosexual man in the PCA.
The pastor of this church went on to preach a sermon in defense of the homosexual man's position.  Here, in part, is what he had to say, "You remember when, when, when the Pharisees were asking why is the man who was born blind, why was he born this way. You know, who sinned, the Pharisees said, “Who did something wrong that he was born this way; was it him or was it his parents?” And Jesus said, “Nobody did anything wrong. It wasn’t his parents, it wasn’t him. He wasn’t born this way because there’s something wrong with him. He was born this way so that through his affliction, through his minority position as a blind person, God can be glorified.”  The two huge problems associated with the passage being used in support of the homosexual man are, first, that it is not speaking about homosexuality and, second, it directly contradicts another passage in which homosexuality is defined as being a punishment and a judgement upon men for their refusal to acknowledge or worship the God of the Bible (Romans 1).  So once again we have a pastor adopting the presupposition of the denial of the principle of logical contradiction in order to support a position he has already decided to believe and wants to find in the Bible.
The story further describes what happened to a couple of Teaching elders who could see what was going on and objected to the proceedings by bringing charges against the pastor. "The recommendation to dismiss the charges against the pastor by his Presbytery’s CJB passed handily. It should be noted that when a couple of elders objected to the CJB’s recommendations, they were ignored by the Clerk, the Moderator and the Chairman of the CJB, and their comments were stricken from the minutes."   Humm.....that all sounds very familiar to me.  In fact, this whole situation sounds like business as usual in the PCA.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Apple Owes Amerikans Absolutely Nothing

Profit seeking companies exist for one purpose...to make a profit.  Unlike government entities, which exist for the purpose of taking money from profit seeking companies and giving that money to people who vote for the career politicians who populate those government entities, profit seeking companies measure their success at serving the sovereign consumer by how much profit they make.  Profits are the measure of success for a profit seeking company.  The more profit a company has the more it knows that it is giving the consumers what they want for a price they are willing to pay.  When a profit seeking company realizes a profit we know for sure that both the consumers and the company are happy.
In the corporate world a profit seeking company is owned by the shareholders of that company.  The shareholders of the company hire a Board of Directors to conduct the affairs of the company and the Board of Directors hire the people who actually operate the business.  In a profit seeking company the shareholders are supreme.  The profits that the profit seeking company realizes belong to the shareholders and the shareholders alone.  Nobody else has a moral claim upon the profits of the shareholders.  Anyone who claims to have a moral right to the profits of the shareholders of a profit seeking company is an envy filled liar who should be severely punished for his socialist beliefs.
All corporate profits should be tax free.  I argued at length for this position here.  If you want to see the argument, click on the link.  Only those who worship at the throne of civil government believe that profit seeking corporations should be forced to pay taxes on the profits they realize.  Profit seeking corporations that cut deals with the various civil governments in which they do business that allow them to operate in environments where the tax burden is reduced or, in some cases, eliminated completely for a period of time, should be praised for their shrewd dealings with the Beast.  Civil governments cut those types of deals because they realize that some revenue is better than no revenue at all.  Wise managers of profit seeking businesses will play various civil government and agencies against one another to get the best possible deal they can get when it comes to taxes.
All of the above blather is introductory to today's post.  Soft-headed, patriotic, envy filled and government worshiping Andrew Baird of Evergreen, Colorado made the following comments in the editorial section of the Denver Post today: "I for one am happy to see Apple punished by the European Union.  If Apple and other American companies had any sense of loyalty to the American people, they would stay at home and pay their fair share of US taxes."  Let's consider Andrew's inane comments here today.
For those of you unfamiliar with the story, Apple had cut a deal with the government of Ireland in which it received tax incentives to operate in Ireland.  The EU found out about what Ireland had done and decided to intervene.  After examining the details of the situation the bureaucrats at the EU announced that they were going to overrule the sovereign right of Ireland to conduct tax policy as it sees fit and declared that Apple had to pay Ireland $15 billion in "back taxes."  Ireland has been one of the economic success stories of the EU precisely because it has cut its tax burden put upon profit seeking businesses.  The career politicians and bureaucrats within the EU want to put a stop to that.
Let's get a couple of things straight, things that Andrew does not seem to understand.  Ireland has no moral right to tax a profit seeking business.  The EU has no moral right to tax a profit seeking business.  The EU also has no moral right to tell Ireland how to go about its affairs when it comes to taxing profit seeking businesses.  Everything the EU has done is immoral and every bureaucrat who has been engaged in this persecution of Apple will be held accountable by the God of the Bible for his sins.
Andy believes that Apple, a profit seeking corporation, should be held morally accountable for not being "loyal to the Amerikan people," whatever that means.  What is the moral or ethical basis for his assertion? He has none.  Andy's belief that Apple should not conduct any business operations in foreign countries so that all of its activities can be taxed at the confiscatory domestic corporate tax rate of 35%  is his understanding and definition of loyalty.  Envy-filled Andy is so blinded by his envy that he can't stand it when a profit seeking company makes a profit.  In other words, Andy hates it when businesses serve the consumers.  On the other hand, Andy rejoices every time a business is forced into subjection and required to serve civil government.  That reveals the most relevant fact about Andy....he worships civil government.
Andy is happy that Apple is "being punished" by the EU.  Typically punishment is something done after a sin or crime has been committed.  Andy apparently believes that Apple committed a sin or a crime when it agreed to do business in Ireland when Ireland agreed to reduce some of the immoral tax burden Apple would normally be required to pay.  How that behavior rises to the level of a sin or a crime is not described.  Andy is driven by his feelings, not his thoughts, and he feels really good when profit seeking corporations are punished for sins they did not commit. That tells us another thing about Andy.  He is a committed socialist.
Andy believes that a profit seeking corporation in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika has a moral obligation, punishable by civil government when not performed, to remain in the geopolitical entity in which it was started and pay, in the case of the SDA, 35% of its profits to the government of the SDA.  Andy's ethical system contains the moral principle that all profit seeking businesses must remain within the geopolitical confines of the country they originated in regardless of how large they become, who their customers are and with no regard to the economic conditions of the time.  The alleged lack of "loyalty" on display when Apple conducts business operations in foreign lands, populated with stinkin' foreigners who are no doubt stealing our jobs, outrages Andy and he wants the offenders to be severely punished by taking more than a third of their profits and giving it to beatific government agents to be dispersed to their friends.
I wonder.....does Andy own any product produced in more than one country?  Does he own any product produced by Apple?  Does he own any product produced in a foreign land that allowed the manufacturer of that product to escape paying its "fair share" of taxes to its government?  Does he own anything produced by an international conglomerate?  Is everything that Andy owns made in Amerika, by Amerikans, and sold exclusively to Amerikans?  My guess is that if I were granted free access to Andy's home and possessions I would find hypocrisy of the highest degree there.  Only in Andy's mind it would not be hypocrisy.  When he gets a good deal buying a foreign or internationally produced good he brags to his neighbors about what a sweet deal he made.  But when a profit seeking corporation does the same thing he calls for the police to arrest, persecute, fine and incarcerate the offenders.   That is a fine example of hypocrisy and, in case you were not aware, God will judge it severely.
God-haters love to quote the biblical passage which exhorts us to "judge not, lest you be judged."  In doing so they ignore the context of the passage.  The statement is not a blanket prohibition upon the act of judgment.  The verse that follows explains the meaning.  "For in the manner in which you judge shall you be judged."  Andy self righteously judges Apple for his concept of corporate sins while, at the same time, ignores the fact that his standard finds him guilty as well. That is not a good place to be.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Ford Outsources Jobs To Mexico To Increase Profits

How did you react to the title of this blog post?  Did you sigh in disgust?  Did you get angry at the tale of another greedy corporation seeking to enrich itself at the expense of the Amerikan worker?  Did you call out to your favorite career politician and ask her to make a law that would make it illegal for Ford to move some of its jobs to Mexico?  Or perhaps you thought to yourself, "Good for them, this will allow Ford to make quality cars less expensively and, in the long run, save me money when I need or want to purchase a car!"  If you have any knowledge of economics and the ability to suppress the sinful emotion of envy you would have reacted with joy to the Ford decision to outsource jobs to Mexico.  Allow me to explain why.
I was listening to the Donald last night as he was discussing the tragedy of "our jobs" going to some country populated with stinkin' foreigners.  He promised that if he is elected he would hunt down and punish every profit seeking corporation that ever even thinks about outsourcing labor to a foreign country.  He described the process whereby any profit seeking company that attempts to bring back goods produced by stinkin' foreigners would be so heavily taxed, also known as a tariff, that no company would ever dare to do that again.  The tax would be so punitive that the company would be incapable of selling the foreign produced good for a profit, thus hitting immoral profit seeking companies where it hurts them the most.  In the Donald's view, any company that outsources jobs should be driven out of business and into bankruptcy for refusing to keep "our jobs" in the SDA.  The crowd wildly applauded Trump's plan to stick it to every company that would ever dare to attempt to make a profit by using foreign labor.
The example of Ford Motor Company was given as proof positive of how the immoral and unpatriotic profit seeking activities of Ford have done damage to hard working, loyal and dedicated Amerikan citizens.  Ford has moved some of its operations involved with casting engine blocks across the border to Mexico, where the job can be done with equal quality and less cost.  As a result, several thousand Amerikans who previously sold their labor services to Ford found themselves temporarily out of a job.  Since those workers believed they had a right to eternal job security and since those workers believe that the profit motive is immoral they called out for career politicians to protect them from the depredations of Ford.  The politicians quickly put away their mistresses and crawled out from under their rocks in response to the call.  Trump is simply the highest profile politico to denounce profits obtained by outsourcing labor services.  Let's consider a couple of the many absurd, illogical and downright stupid presuppositions behind the generally held belief that outsourcing labor to foreign countries is immoral and should be punished by the federal government.
No person who is selling his labor services to a profit seeking company has a moral claim upon the profits of that company.  This is one of the most common stupid presuppositions floating about in the envy filled minds of the citizens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  A job is nothing more, and nothing less, than a contract whereby one person agrees to sell his labor to another person or company in exchange for cash payments.  Sometimes the job has a specific end date.  Other times it does not.  In all cases it is understood that when the company no longer requires the labor services of the worker the job will terminate.  No worker has a right to expect that his job will last forever.  No business creating a job is morally obligated to ensure that job will exist forever.  Furthermore, no worker has the right to expect that he should receive some of the profits the company earns simply because he has a contract to supply labor to the company.
No company has a moral obligation to pay more for the labor services it purchases simply because the person being hired happens to live in a particular geo-political zone.  All companies have the moral right to pay whoever they want, whatever amount they want, for their labor services.  Anyone who complains about the free market transactions of a profit seeking company is a sinful louse who needs to repent of his sin and leave the company alone.  It is nobody's business but the company's and the person being hired when it comes down to how much he will be paid, how long he will work and where he will work.
No company is under any moral or economic obligation to only hire labor services from people who live within the geo-political zone in which the company is headquartered.  Jobs are not owned by politicians, nor are they owned by some amorphous entity known as "us," "we," or "our."  Jobs are created by profit seeking companies and those same profit seeking companies can do anything they please with the jobs they have created.  No profit seeking company has a moral or patriotic duty to only contract with citizens of the SDA and any politician who claims that they do is an economic idiot and a liar who needs to repent of his sin.
The notion of profit being evil exposes the pandemic hypocrisy found in the hearts and minds of envy filled citizens of the SDA.  No person I have ever met in this country has ever personally behaved as if profits are immoral.  All SDA citizens I have ever known have always attempted to maximize their personal profits.  When they look for a job they look for the best paying job. When they go shopping at Wal-Mart they seek out the lowest prices.  When they go to a football game they seek to pay the lowest price for the ticket, the lowest price for parking and the lowest price for a beer and a dog.  When they have a garage sale they seek to sell their items for the highest possible price.  When they engage in trades on E-Bay they seek the highest price for what they sell and the lowest price for what they purchase.  In other words, everyone in the universe always seeks to maximize their profits.  Even more, that is never considered to be a bad or immoral thing to do.  Then, when it comes time to speak of corporate profits, everything suddenly changes.
Corporate profits are, by definition, immoral because they are indicative that the workers employed by the company are being exploited, even though nobody forced anyone to take a job and nobody is working at gunpoint.  This is socialism at its finest.  My profits are mine and your profits are mine also. Why?  Because the religiously held doctrines of socialism and the federal government say so.  My profits are indicative of my superior negotiating abilities and your profits are indicative of your immoral behavior.  My profits prove I am serving the consumer and your profits prove you are exploiting the worker.  There is a word for all of this and that word is envy.  Everyone wants what he has and everyone also wants what his neighbor has.  When career politicians become involved that will happen for those who are granted special government privileges.
I rejoice when Ford sends some of its jobs to Mexico.  I rejoice when Ford realizes record profits.  Do you know why?  Because profits are nothing more than the best litmus test for consumer satisfaction.  A profit can only exist, in a market free of government coercion, when consumers are being served.  No company ever makes a profit by refusing to serve the consumers.  No company ever makes a profit, in the absence of government coercion, by exploiting any human being.  The companies that make the largest profits are those companies that serve the consumers the best.  Profits are a direct and unadulterated sign of how well the company is providing goods and services to consumers for prices they are willing to pay.  Profits are wonderful.  Everyone should rejoice when profits are high because that means more people are being economically satisfied.
When career politicians slap taxes on goods imported from foreign lands because the stinkin' foreigners making those goods allegedly "stole Amerikan jobs" they are only punishing the consumers within their own country.  If the taxes are so high the company can no longer make a profit the company will go out of business.  When the company goes out of business consumers have fewer choices about what to purchase and the remaining choices will cost more than they did before.  If the company can mange to stay in business it will only do so because it raises its prices on the good that it sells to Amerikans.  Who then is forced to pay the bill for the tariff?  The Amerikan consumer of course!  If politicians were forced to tell the truth, imagine Jim Carey in "Liar Liar" here, they would change the content of their speeches about how evil profit seeking companies are exporting "our jobs overseas."  Here is what they would say instead:  "If you elect me I will tax profit seeking companies in order to garner the votes of the envy filled socialists who live in this immoral country.  My actions may indeed cause a couple of labor services contracts to remain with citizens of this land for a little bit longer but they will most certainly raise the prices and decrease the selection of thousands of goods produced for the Amerikan consumer.  I am a smart politician and you are a stupid member of the electorate.  I know that I can exploit the highly publicized loss of a couple of hundred labor contracts and that almost nobody will ever realize that the price for my tax is to be borne by each and every one of you every time you make a purchase.  If you vote for me you can feel good about yourself and you will never know that you are the one who is being fleeced to keep me in power."

Monday, September 5, 2016

Nobody Should Ever Celebrate Labor or Labor Day

Today is Labor Day in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Labor Day is a government created holiday to celebrate the greatness of socialism by emphasizing the importance and significance of those who sell their labor services to profit seeking businesses.  It is an utterly ridiculous and stupid day.  There is nothing about the act of labor that should ever be celebrated.  Of all the people who contribute to the economic growth of the geo-political zone known as the SDA laborers contribute the least to the process.  Those who contribute the most, like entrepreneurs, independent businessmen and profit seeking corporations, are demonized by the socialist career politicians who rule over us.  I guess that is to be expected in a country that bows down to the throne of government mandated wealth redistribution.
I am a janitor.  I own a janitorial company.  I sell my labor services to people and companies who want me to clean their bathrooms and offices.  I run a tight ship and only employ the best janitors.  My crews are the best in the business at what they do and, as a result, they are the best paid in the business for what they do.  The people I work for are willing to pay a premium for the labor services I provide.  That allows me to make a living doing nothing more than using my labor, and the labor of my employees, to clean up after the people who are really responsible for making the world go around.
Some of my contracts are with oil and oil services companies.  Other contracts are with technology companies, such as those who specialize in writing code for the millions of new apps that seemingly appear every day.  I won't work for lawyers because I believe what they are doing is immoral.  The people I work for are not parasites.  The people I work for come to work each day with new ideas about how to best serve the consumer.  They work tirelessly to provide goods and services that they hope the consumers will be willing to purchase from them.  Sometimes they succeed at serving the consumers and they become quite wealthy.  Other times they fail to provide the things the consumers want and they go out of business.  Usually the folks who go out of business get back on their feet, dust themselves off and try to figure out what they did wrong.  Then they are back at it again, striving mightily to figure out precisely what it is the consumers want that they are capable of providing, and then getting that good to them.
All of the companies I work for are profit seeking companies.  All of the companies I work for employ other people for their labor services.  None of the people employed by any of the companies for their labor services ever does anything that someone else at the company has not thought up previously.  In other words, those who provide labor services to profit seeking companies are the least important, least significant and most overrated people in the entire process of providing goods and services for the consumers.  Why, then, are we expected to celebrate labor on this day?  Conversely, why are the real heroes of the economy like entrepreneurs, profit seeking corporations and independent businessmen not celebrated with a special day?
The answers to those two questions are the same.  The SDA is, after all, a socialist country. The SDA is also a post-Christian nation.  The combination of the abandonment of Christian law with socialism results in the worship of the worker and the hatred of the employer.  Sprinkle a generous portion of sinful envy over this stew and we have the perfect pot of sinful porridge.  The men and women who are responsible for creating all of the things we use, enjoy and want to purchase in the future are treated with disdain while the people who simply sell those heroic folks their labor services are worshiped as gods.
For socialism to continue to make progress it is important to continually stir the sinful pot of porridge.  Profit must be seen as a bad thing.  Those who earn profits must be labeled as evil people who exploit both consumers and the heroic workers whom they employ.  The mere word 'corporation' must come to be seen as almost demonic in nature.  Businessmen must be portrayed as fat cats interested only in the size of their own wallets, only occasionally considering the people they sell their goods to and then only to exploit them by overcharging them more efficiently and secretively.  At the same time career politicians and their lackey career bureaucrats must be seen as the anointed protectors of the people.  They must be portrayed as a vital and necessary weapon of war engaged for all of us in the war against evil profit seeking corporations.  Without them we would all be economically doomed.
Labor Day is nothing but government propaganda day.  Career politicians benefit because they can use the day as another tool in their kit to buy the votes of the ignorant and stupid citizens in this immoral land.  Our rulers praise the noble worker, in exchange for their votes.  Meanwhile, lazy and inefficient providers of labor services (descriptive of most employees of other companies in my experience) are glorified and given a day off, fully paid for by their employers by government law by the way.  What a con it all is.