“’The folks in the middle and at the bottom haven’t seen wage or income growth, not just over the last three, four years, but over the last 15 years,’” the president said.”
Good morning Readers:
It is a wonderful fall day outside. I have so many things to write about, I can't decide. I'll address socialism, and maybe tomorrow I will tell you why part of my asset portfolio includes gold (and silver).
President Obama's statement on the middleclass is really interesting. When the Democrats say they are for the poor and at the same time, the middleclass, I can't help but wonder what that means.
Folks, I do not know the meaning. Socialism finds it very hard to support even the idea of a middleclass as we've observed "middleclass" in the USA. Are there any readers that are Democrats that believe the Democrats are Capitalists and they believe that free market driven by demand and supply is the way to build middleclass? And why would socialists even strive for a middleclass, because ultimately under Socialist philosophy every one would have equal assets to everyone else (no economic layers). (Where assets include one's income, since in fact income is an asset.)
Sadly, as an observer over 50+ years of adult life, the whole world (not just the USA) is moving toward Socialism even though Socialism is achieved through different forms of government which includes Communism, Nazi, and others. I will refrain from writing and supporting a thesis about how these always turn into Totalitarian states. I will point out, the difference between our forefathers of the USA and Socialism turned around the idea of individual rights, verses only the state has rights, and grants privileges to its people. At the heart of individual right of the USA is property right. (You can read other things in this blog to show you how I believe property rights no longer exists in the USA, destroyed by all the rulings of the Supreme Court over time.)
Please, please read what I think our Forefathers set up.
They established the right of the individual which meant strict enforcement of property rights; property rights that could not arbitrarily be removed by the ruling party of the country.
A USA citizen could count on property rights to protect their capital investment. Remove that right, and you do not have the country our forefather's envisioned.
The world "Capitalism" brings up an emotional picture of "The Sum of All Evil", and if you have watched USA movies for long, you know that the "BAD" guys are the capitalists. (Unfortunately, our bankers have proven the movie story's point - bankers are bad dudes and they never go to jail.) Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialists ideas. If I may be so bold (and timid at the same time), I will point out to you George W. Bush push to sub-prime mortgages is where what appears to be a conservative Republican, is shown in practice as no more than liberal financial Democrat, with conservative moral values. (A wolf in sheep's clothing among the conservative people. The destroyer of liberty and individual rights as no President before him.)
The women on the street who see little or no difference between Democrats and Republicans are correct. Both parties would seem to argue (as shown by actions not rhetoric) the system of economic and social organization which is based on private property in the means of production does not SUFFICIENTLY consider the interests of the community, and ownership serves the purpose of only a single strata. In turn, this ownership limits productivity of the country.
This philosophy (which I am asserting has totally penetrated the USA, Europe, Canada and all the world) demands (with support from various "social-political" and "social reform" movements) interference in all fields of economic life. No matter what party rules this country, the only difference in the attitude is what program(s) they are going to force the people through taxation to endure.
Then you will not have to study very deeply that these programs of either party are the fundamentally accepted principles of the Socialist Program.
May I then conclude (with certainly arguments against this position will be forth coming by you), that Socialism is not confined to China Communism (and Communism in general), or the members of the numerous socialists parties in the USA and the world. Look no farther than Germany, and understand the current leaders of Germany come from East Germany (Communists), and their party the Christian Democratic Union is made up almost exclusively of parties that have "socialists" in their name. All those parties mentioned are socialists who consider the socialistic order of society economically and ethically superior to that form of society based on individual rights and private ownership as the means of production. For one reason or another the current rulers will make a temporary compromise (as Angela Merkel has done) between their socialistic ideal and the specific interests they believe themselves to represent.
If we broadly accept this definition of Socialism, then we would have to conclude that the vast majority of the people in the USA and even more so in the world are Socialists.
Those who confess the principles of private ownership as the means of production ARE FEW INDEED.
Just suppose (for discussion sake only) that you were fed up with the USA socialist state, and you want to leave for a country that is based in individual rights. Where would you go? What government that is currently out there supports the idea (to a fault) that individuals have rights that supersede the right of the state to usurp his or her property?
Return for a moment then to Mr. Obama's statement about the middleclass. The assertion was that the middleclass (and the poor) have not seen any wage increases in the last 15 years. I suspect he is correct, although I cannot point to any scientific reports on that subject. We do know (factually) that people asking for and qualifying for Foodstamps has exploded since Mr. Obama took over as President.
How can there be any stratification (poor, middleclass, rich) in a Socialists state? How can the government "force/plan" any movement at all between these strata if production is owned by "private enterprise"? May I suggest, if one is a Socialists, one has to come to the conclusion "private ownership" is bad, and only the government knows how to allocate resources.
While I won't go into a long diatribe here, think about Communist China. Why have they privatized so much of their industry? Why is that, and why is it that is so successful in the world market place? Hmmm... curious-or, and curious-or
ObamaCare (Mr. Obama's signature law - Affordable Health Care), is Socialism controlled by "private insurance", "private health care groups" - hospitals, etc. The approach is not completely Socialism, probably because even the middle of the road democrats would not have voted for the "single tax payer" system. Of course, I would argue my assertion here could not be proved, and even if you talked to Mr. Obama directly, he would not be able to articulate why the AHC was written the way it was. However, it is a comprise of the full Socialists ideal; a single payer system.
While my diatribe is TOOOOOOO long for a blog entry all ready, it may still be valuable to discern how the consumer (not the layers of economic classes) have been faring under Mr. Obama.
What we would observe is that Mr. Obama's policies (really started by George W. Bush) have been subsidizing the uber rich at the expense of every other economic class. "Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%" http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/
It would seem Socialists compromise (if that is really how to view it) has led to a reverse Robin Hood: steal from the poor (through taxation and inflation and very low return on their investment) and give to the uber-rich (not even the upper middleclass).
The lower layers of the economic class have very few assets they own, and they become poorer as the real value of their wages decline and their (stress "their") cost of living increases. The Federal Reserve's (with the Secretary of Treasury blessing) printing of money does not create wealth. It is a covert and obfuscated way of wealth redistribution from the lower layers of the economic class to the uber-rich.
How have prices reacted to QE since 2009?
- One gallon of gasoline in 2009: $2.50 - One gallon of gasoline in 2013: $3.50 A $1.00 increase, or +10% annual price inflation.
- One pound of coffee in 2009: $3.66 - One pound of coffee in 2011 (latest data available): $5.23. A $1.57 increase, or +21% annual price inflation. http://www.ico.org/new_historical.asp
- Cost of health care in 2009: $16,771 - Cost of heath care in 2013: $22,030. A $5259 increase, or +8% annual price inflation. http://www.milliman.com/mmi/
- Real average hourly earnings 2009: $8.50 Real average hourly earnings 2013: $8.78 A $0.28 increase, or +0.8% annual price increase. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/realer_08142009.pdf
Well, no matter what side of the political debate one sits, we have to side with Mr. Obama's statement, that the gains have gone to the uber-rich.
No comments:
Post a Comment