One of the more interesting things about the various cabinet appointments being made by King Donnie is the reaction of the envy filled citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika to the relative net worth of many of his appointments. The King is drawing from his social circle as he selects his advisors and since he is a billionaire many of his appointments are billionaires as well. What the net worth of an individual has to do with the quality of his advice as a member of the King's court is not clear to me but many people are up in arms that King Donnie has not been appointing paupers to his cabinet. Why paupers are better qualified to offer up advice to the King is also not explained.
Kent Kirkpatrick of Broomfield wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post a week or so ago in which he voiced an opinion about the King's appointments that I believe is representative of all socialists in this immoral country. Here is what Kent had to say, "I did not vote for Donald trump, but I hope he has a successful presidency and can deliver on some of his more bipartisan campaign promises. One of his major promises was to restore America jobs sent overseas, including increasing US manufacturing jobs. to this end, he has appointed several billionaires to Cabinet posts responsible for this rejuvenation. Like Trump, they have been guided solely by self-interest and are the very people, part of the 0.1 percent, who have made their money by shipping jobs overseas, cutting workers' benefits, lobbying against raising the minimum wage, and taking an ever increasing portion of the pie. I would like to think we are living in a fantasy where leopards could change their spots. Unfortunately, we are not." Let's consider envy-filled Kent's comments for a while today.
Kent believes that King Donnie's appointments are evil men because they are "guided solely by self-interest." I wonder....what guides Kent? Is he guided exclusively by altruism? If so, how does he pay his bills? How does he remain a productive member of society if he does not pursue the self-interested activity of seeking profits by serving others? Or maybe Kent is not a productive member of society. Maybe he is on the government dole. Maybe Kent votes for career politicians who promise to take some of the income of profit seeking and self-interested individuals and give it to him. That is called theft by the way and it is a very self-interested way to behave. Regardless, I know for a fact that Kent is a hypocrite. How do I know that? Because every human being who has ever lived has been guided exclusively by self-interest. The noble, moral and glorious principle of self-interest is what Adam Smith described as the guiding hand that brings about all economic growth and prosperity. A pox upon those who do not praise the virtues of self-interest. And another pox upon those who confuse self-interest with selfishness.
Kent believes that those human beings who make up the top 0.1% of the wealth population are evil and should be killed. Well, he didn't actually say they should be killed. But he does believe that the civil government should steal most of their money and give it to good men like him. Why this is true Kent does not say. Like a good socialist Kent simply assumes that wealth is evil, unless it is being redistributed to him, in which case it is good as soon as his grubby hands are placed upon it. Somebody has to be in the top .1% of the wealth population. Why are those who find themselves in that position bad men and women? Kent does not say but all socialists who read his comments nod their heads in agreement with his view. That is called group-think and it is very common among socialists.
Kent is totally ignorant about how the world works economically. In that sense he is a perfect socialist. I have never met a socialist who has an economic clue. Kent is a perfect representative of the socialist mindset when he believes that profit seeking businessmen "make money" by "shipping jobs overseas, cutting workers' benefits, lobbying against raising the minimum wage and taking an ever increasing portion of the pie." Man is Kent dumb. Allow me to instruct him in Economics 101.
Profits come from only one source. That source is giving consumers something they want to purchase for a price they are willing to pay. In the absence of government coercion (found in things like health care and other grossly regulated business activities) a profit is only realized when a consumer is served. Consumers are sovereign. Let me repeat that for Kent since his ears are clogged with socialist drivel. Consumers are sovereign. All profits are derived by selling things to consumers. Those who serve the consumers the best (hardly a self-interested activity as Kent defines the term) become the wealthiest. King Donnie's Court is not filled with billionaires who became billionaires by sitting around thinking up ways to make other people's lives miserable. Just the opposite is the case. They became wealthy by serving consumers, something Kent would be well advised to think about doing himself.
Producers do not "lobby against raising the minimum wage" in order to enrich themselves. Profit seeking businessmen and corporations oppose any attempt by government to interfere with the cost of labor in the free market for a very good reason. Why do they oppose the minimum wage? Because an artificially high wage prevents them from serving the consumers as efficiently as they would prefer to do. Higher labor costs mean higher costs for the sovereign consumers and higher costs for the sovereign consumers means consumers are not served as well as they could be. Profit seeking billionaires understand this principle while envy filled socialists do not.
Kent's doctrine of the pie is classic socialism. Under his view the "pie" consists of all the wealth in a particular geo-political zone. Also under his view this wealth has somehow just magically appeared. Also under his view this pie of wealth is static, that is, it neither grows nor shrinks. Under his view the pie is what we are all fighting for. And under his view it is the role of government to give him a bigger piece of the pie. Why that should be he does not say. That makes Kent an evil man in my view.
Kent refuses to acknowledge that the pie he envisions only exists because of the entrepreneurial activities of profit seeking and self-interested businessmen. It did not just appear out of nowhere. It was not created by government. It is the productive members of society who make the pie. Then, just like the tale of the Little Red Hen, the unproductive members of society, like Kent, come along and demand a piece of something they had nothing to do with creating. That also makes Kent an evil man in my view. Kent needs to repent of his envy and become a productive member of society. Who knows? Maybe someday he can become a billionaire too.