How Progressives Have Created the Problems of Today – Big Business Part 1.

As I have stated before recently I have do not seem to have the time to write entries to this blog as frequently as I want. I hope you will bare with me on the time between entries, I will try to get them out a fast as I can.

As I have mentioned in my other post, I believe that the government policies create by progressives not only do not solve the problems they are designed to solve, but actually make most of the problems they try to solve worst. This is no more evident in the area of business and the issues that progressive complain about, big corporations, high executive pay, and lost of jobs in the US. I believe that each of these problems have at their root the policies put in place by progressives to control big business, and solve these very problems. But instead what these policies and regulation have done is make these problems only worst, and I believe that this might have been the goal of both the government and the businesses in the first place. They each gain in this game and in the process we the citizens lose out.

They achieve this by perpetuating several myths and using several methods. They are successful in what they do because our education and media do not anymore work to educate and inform us. Add to that the fact we have our own lives to live, which makes it hard for us to learn the truth about what is going on, on our own. So let us start by addressing these myths one by one and see how they are actually used to promote more government regulation, which is, believe it or not, the goal of both the government and big business.

The first myth and the biggest is that we have a free market economic system. This not total true, while we do have a pretty free market system, there are other markets in the world that are freer then what we have here. We have lots of regulation that are suppose to control business and protect us, but actually have the opposite effect, and in the process eliminate freedom in the market place. Now you can not have a truly free market system, just like you can not have a truly free society, for two reasons. The first of these is that government exist to protect peoples rights, most notably life, liberty and property, and the government should protect us when those rights are violated by a business. The second reason is that government also exist to enforce agreements or contracts between parties, and when those agreement are violated government is needed to solve these disputes.

See government keeps society from falling into anarchy and lawlessness, and it does the same for the the market place. Where the problem comes into play is when government, in trying to keep the market place stable, goes too far and moves towards totalitarianism in the market place. At that point politicians start using the laws they writes to make businesses conform to their social goals and in their arrogance try to manage the economy. When this happens companies react by trying to minimize the effect on their business activities, by trying to influence these same politicians. This quickly morphs into businesses using this influence to gain an advantage over their competition.

This leads us into our second and third myths. The second one is that progressives do not like big business and they are are for the smaller man. The third myth is that big business does not like government regulations and wants instead a free market. Both of these are false, both progressive and business have the same goal, control of the market place. We do not see it because they both hide the truth from us, and we do not have the time to seek it out.

Here is an example of how they work together, but makes it seem that they are working at odds with each other. Let’s say the government passes a new law that says every company that earns over 2 million dollars in profits must comply with a regulation, which involves filling out monthly forms and other paperwork. The 2 million dollar limit is supposedly to give a small business an advantage over the larger ones, but here is what really happens.

The large companies puts their lawyers, which are already are on retainer, on the job of making sure they comply with the new regulations, which they used their influence to help write in the first place. The small companies do not worry about it, because it does not apply to them. The issue comes when you look a the company that is just over the 2million dollar limit. A company of this size only has 3 choices, stop growing which leads to stagnation and death. Comply with the regulation, which means their expenses have to go up, and now they either have to grow faster to make up the lost revenue and shut their doors if they can not. The final option is to realize that they are basically stuck, and sale themselves to the larger company.

Basically the results of all three is that as time goes on the smaller business are more likely to fail as they grow. The larger business will buy them and in the process get bigger. The results basically will be the complete opposite of what you were told. We were lied to, because if we knew the truth we would of fought the new laws.

The progressive play this game because they really do like big business as long as they control them. See it is easier to control 30 big business, then 3000 smaller ones. There are only 30 books to review, 30 companies to tax and only the production of those 30 companies to control. Having to deal for the short term with the 30 powerful executives is a small price to pay to achieve their utopian society.

Business executives like this model also, when they think about things in the short term and how to increase those short term profits. Now keep in mind that making a profit is not bad, because making a profit is the goal of every citizen in a free society. It is the way that each and everyone of us acquire the things we need and want. When you go to work and get a pay check the difference in what you pay in taxes, gas, food, clothes and other expenses that you spend so that you can get up and go to work, and what you make is your profit. You spend that profit on other things such as entertainment, electronics, education and other things you want either for enjoyment or to improve yourself.

But when making a short term profit is the only goal, things will not work out right for anyone in the long term. I believe this way of thinking started when the practice of people starting in the mail room and working their way up, was short circuited by the hiring of college graduates into executive position. When this change was made we lost some very important things. We have lost loyalty to the company and we lost experience. Both of which have created a lot of the problems we have today, like the mortgage failure. In this case and a lot of cases in the past people broke rules or business practices that they should not of broken, because they did not have the wisdom and experience to know the reasons behind the rules. (Just a note here, it is the progressives that say the young should ignore their elders, instead of respecting them as was traditional before.)

In the mortgage industry crisis, there is a rule or good business practice, that you should not invest in something unless you can determine it’s true worth. But a lot executives of business and banks invested in derivatives based on bundled mortgages, even when they had no ideas what their true worth were. They broke that rule because they did not have the wisdom to understand why that rule existed. Instead they just wanted that short term profit to make the books look good, get their paycheck and get out. They had no loyalty to the company, share holders or even the employees. They did not have that long term outlook that business really need.

So basically because of peoples’ short sightedness and desire to control us, I believe that end up with bigger and bigger businesses. In the next post I will touch on how the policies of the progressive create the high salaries of executives that they complain so much about. I have touched on some if before, but in the next post I will go into detail.

How Progressives Have Created the Problems of Today – Higher Education

Sorry for the delay on this post, but life has been busy with work, the holidays and other issues.  I now want to talk about how the policies of Progressives have caused problems in higher educations.  These problems are again mainly tied to the money provided to these institution by the government, which allows the government to set an agenda that the colleges must conform to.  Again let us start with a little history to see where we started and where we are.

Back in Colonial times if you went to college you had to pay for that privilege yourself.  This meant that only the well off, those that were sponsored by others, or those that worked to put themselves through College attended.  If you did not enter into college, you learned some trade either from your family or by apprenticeship.  This started to change in the 1860′s when the government gave land grants or money to every state to start colleges that were design to teach agriculture and mechanical arts.

This push to for new colleges was continued in the 1890′s when these colleges got additional annual grants to promote certain programs.  This continued and basically moved into the model where the government designate what will be supported, approves the plans for those programs and audit the expenditures.  Public service, performed by these colleges was also encourage, through the use of these funds that were provided.  Up to this point the money flowing from the government to the colleges was direct, this changed during the depression.

It was at this time that direct federal aid to students was started.  Both forms of funding were increased during WWII by the federal government.  This was to pay for both research into new technology and training programs for army and navy trainees.  After WWII federal funding decline, as solders completed their education under the Sevicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the G.I. Bill.    In the 1950′s we see the first generally available student loan and grant program with the passage of the National Defense Education Act.  This was then supplemented in the 1960′s with the Higher Education act, which created basically the programs which most students use to fund their college educations.  This all sounds great, but in actuality it has created several problems in society that are just now coming to roost.

First since most students do not have to pay for their education directly, instead they either have direct grants or student loans.  This has created a disconnect between price of a college education and value of that college education.  This disconnect has allowed colleges to increase tuition at a higher rate then inflation as seen by this chart (I was not able to find the original source of this chart).  Looking at this chart you will see that college tuition has risen faster then medical cost and home prices. This disconnect has also allowed colleges to justify certain actions, which a free market, where students were paying for their education, would not allow.  For example hiring professors that promote particular political or social views, which they would not be able to do without this disconnect, because most students or their families would rather spend their money at institutions that shared their views then those that do not.  You also see colleges restricting freedom of expression of the students by such means as hate speech rules and free speech zones.  Add to this the government and schools requiring students to take certain classes that are designed to promote a certain world view.  This is all happens, because we have broken the link between the money and the education.  Without that link parents and students are less likely to shop around for a college that dose not have those restriction and instead they would select those institutions that better fit their world view.

Also, because of this disconnect and the basically unlimited student pool to pull from, these colleges can raise their prices without regard of market forces.  We have at this time moved from a model that we started with where colleges were fighting over the students, to one where the students are basically fighting over the openings that the colleges have.  Or in other words we have gone from a buyers market, to an extreme seller market.  Since a sellers market moves the power in the transaction from the buyer to the seller, in an extreme seller market you basically have a the same conditions as a monopoly.

Since most of the money for this seller market is coming from the government that makes them the true buyer.  And since they are the biggest and most powerful buyer in this market, it gives them a lot of control, that they should not have.  Basically the power over the colleges that the students should have has been moved from them to the government.  This means what is taught and the policies at the college are dictated by those in Congress, who really have no interest in making sure the student gets the most value for their money.  Instead they are interested in making sure special interest are taken care of, so the special interest will take care of them.  It is for this very reason that there is only one college, that I am aware of, that will not take money from the government.  That college is Hillsdale, they believe that their independence and ability to teach they way they want is more important then government money.  It is also one of the most conservative colleges in this country.

Now college education in and of itself is not bad, but what we have now is the following.  Colleges have no reason to control cost, and policies in place that make it hard to do so.  This means that some students are being stuck with college loans which they are required to repay at the start of their life, that can be in the 100′s of thousands of dollars.  We also have students getting degrees which have no real world application, or if there are real world application the students find the pay to not be sufficient or the jobs too few.  To make matter worst a lot of people find out later in life that the dream job they thought they wanted, was not for them.  So that expensive degree that they got now, has less value to them as they go an explore a new field.  Basically these students are starting their life off with an expensive college education, that they have to pay off before they can really enjoy life.  In some case by the time they do so, they are starting to be more concerned with retiring at that point.  Or even worst they find out what they thought would be their dream job, is something they do not enjoy and are looking at spending more money to acquire new skills and training in a new profession.  All this because they did not have the life experiences necessary to make a better informed decision.

I think what we need to do is flip the system upside down.  What I see is that, after high school a student will get a low skill job in the field they believe they would like to work in.  Once they have gotten a feel for the job and the company has gotten a feel for them, they will start learning the skills necessary to move up in their chosen field.  They will continue along this path as they move up in their selected field.  At any point if they decide it is really not for them, they can leave and change field of study with most if not all their education paid for.  The employer of the individual could also contribute towards the education of the employee, thus making sure they were getting an employee that was better suited to their particular needs.

This would also solve one other problem I see with colleges today.  See the colleges have the student take basically general studies during the first two years, because they realize that a student does not really know what they want to do and this gives them a chance to try new things.  The problem with this is that student is paying the colleges for two years of study, which will have little or no value in the future employment.  I am not saying that these areas of studies are not of value, but they can and should come later when the student is better able to pay for them and when they will most likely have more personal value to them.

Making these changes would solve many problems.  For example it would allow recent graduates a chance to grow and learn without tying them to huge debts.  It would make them more independent and better prepared for the jobs with more responsibility, because they would not only have their college education, but real world experience in their chosen field.  And finally it will help with the problems in the business world that I will be tackling starting in my next post in this series.

How Progressives Have Created the Problems of Today – K-12 Education

First let me say, I am not one that believes that we should shutdown all public schools and have only private schools.  I truly believe that the public has an interest in providing education to the children in this country.  I just do not believe that should be the role or within the domain of the Federal government.  I also, do believe that over time and as “progressive education” has taken over the education system we have lost our way when it comes to public education.  This problem of losing our way is compounded by the top down control and involvement of the Federal government.  Because of this I will be taken a look at some of the major areas where I think that progressive thought has lead us astray and how we can get back on track.  Before I do that lets take a quick time line look at education in this country.

Before the 1840, public education was a system that was able to only the well to do in this country, and also only to those who were lucky enough to have a school in their local area.  The movement to change this was started by Horace Mann and Henry Barnard both who believe that schooling could help in prevent crime and poverty, and in the process create better citizens.  Their actions along with others, over time created the public education system we have today.

That model was further moved forward in the 1940′s when the states started taking a more active role in education, both by defining the school districts and by increase funding.  They were followed in the 1950′s by the Federal government, which had been involved in education since the formation of the Department of Education in 1867 as and advisory board, as they increased funding also.  This chart from the department of education shows that since the 1991-92 school year federal spend as a percent of dollars has increased from 6% to 8% and state spending has increased from 43% to 46%. Both of these have resulted in the percent paid by localities dropping from 41% to 37%, and this drop also means a lost of control as the state and federal money have strings attached. It is these strings that have been put in place by progressives that I believe are causing the problem we have in our education system today. This top down approach to education results in policies that actually hurt the student and make it near impossible to implement policies that help students learn to their full potential.  These ideas come from both sides of the aisle and have all had results that have hurt our students.

On one side you have programs like “No Child Left Behind”, promoted by the progressives on the right.  The concept of testing the students to determine the effectiveness of the teachers and schools on the surface is good.  But because the accreditation awarded is tied to the money the school receives, it leads itself to things such as teaching to the test, and out and out cheating by teachers and school administrators to raise their schools scores.  All of this is done to get federal dollars from a bureaucracy too large to effectively monitor the system.  In the process the students’ eduction is short sighted, because only those areas that are known to be on the test are taught.

The left progressives promote a misguide notion where we are suppose to protect and build the student’s self-esteem.  This lead to ideas such as not issuing grades, not using certain colors to mark papers, and not failing students that have not learned the material.  You can also add to this bi-lingual learning which actual makes it harder for immigrants to learn English and become part of the US society.  All of these things do not prepare the student for the real world or teach them how to deal with failure.  Instead they teach them to be self-centered and egotistical, both of which can lead to increase criminal activity and other harmful behaviors.  Not to mention that these students are no where ready to deal with the real world, instead they have expectation that include high paying jobs, low work ethic, and not wanting to take responsibility for their actions.

You add into this mix the NEA, which while they promote that their mission is education children, seem to be more interested in protecting the teachers by opposing things like merit pay, taking away tenure, and insisting on complex procedures to fire a teacher.  All of these things draw funds and resources away from the student in order to protect the teacher, and leads to situation like you have in some cities where teachers are paid just to come in and sit, because they can not be fired, but cannot be put back with the students.  You can add to this the NEA opposition to school vouchers, the one thing that would allow our children to escape this circus.

This circus has been created because our education system is controlled from the top down.  This control promoted by progressives, because they know best, has left localities and parents with very few ways to escape this trap, and all of those require money.  Of course most of those that promote these ideas and create this problem, have the money to keep their children out of this circus, and place them in private schools.  This leaves those in the middle class and poor to deal with the mess that these policies promote.  Of course the middle class having the time and energy to work with their children and get involved in school have it a little better.  So really these policies hurt the poor, who are already down trodden and loosing hope, to suffer in these poor conditions.

Because everybody believes they know best, and are willing to fight for it.  Our children are caught between various parties in their power struggle for not only the resources that come with the children, but more and more these progressives are trying to control their minds.  Taking our adult conflicts into the classroom, for example issues about the environment, and religions.  Our children do not need to be pawns in the fight to save the polar bear or in the arguments over religion verses science.  Both of these are issues have become battleground issues in our science classrooms, which should be teaching our children basic of science, so they can discover the answers for themselves.  Instead we insist on using them for our political gain, by proselytising to them one view point or another.

So now that I have basically said what I see wrong with public education in this country, and taken everybody to task, what do I believe the solution is.  I think we need to go back to our roots and make our schools more local in nature once more.  I believe that we should stop all funding to schools from the federal level, and in the process remove any control they have of the K-12 education system in our country.  I also believe that state funding should be severally limited and the strings attached to that should be removed.  To transition to this new system, we need to first dismantle the current structure of the Department of Education.  Also all funding from the federal and most funding from the state level should be turned into block grants of a set amount per a student.  This money should have no strings attached, and should go to the schools either public or private that teaches the student.  I do not see a problem with religious schools getting this money if no strings are attached because the government is not promoting any one religion, instead it is only supporting the choices that the parent makes in that area.  This will mean also that public schools will have to work to improve themselves to attract new students.

I also believe that schools should focus less to on promoting the issues of today in the classroom and the new fads in how to teach a student.  Instead they should focus more on teaching students how to learn and not so much on what to learn.  This means going back more to the basics such as reading, writing, and arithmetic.  Later we need to include the subjects of history, science, government, logic, debating, and philosophy, and teach the ability to search for answers in these areas.  I also believe that we do need to measure how our schools preform on this, firstly by withdrawing our students if a school does not perform, but more importantly testing our students not on facts and figures, but on the ability to reason and solve problems.

We also need to keep in mind that a child’s self-esteem is not truly built by protecting them from failure, instead it is built up by helping them learn how to deal with failure.  In order to do that they need to fail in the first place, and once they do we need to show them how to get up, dust themselves off and work to learn from the experience.  This means that some students will be held back, and others will not get trophies for only participating.  What we need to do in those cases is teach them how to deal with that disappointment, and how to make choices so that it does not happen again.  By not doing that, we are setting them up to fail in the future.

The next posting will be on higher education and the problems our fixation on college education has caused.



How Progressive Programs Have Create the Problems of Today — Intro

I have been thinking about how so many of the problem we have today have been created by government, especially the Federal Government, involvement in our lives. Wherever I look what I see is that the problems we have today, when I investigate and look at the history of the problems, what I find is that government in trying to solve a minor problem, has created a larger problem and then tries to fix the new problem with more government involvement. This process is like treating anemia with bloodletting and when it does not work, instead of stepping back and trying to figuring out what truly is going on, just letting out more blood. It will not work and eventually will kill the patient, which is what I believe is happening now in the US.

So what is a progressive policy and how do they come about. A progressive policy is one that is supposedly designed to move society forward and in a direction that makes it better for all. That would seem to mean that it would create a society that is richer, healthier, and in every way better then what we have today. The problem is that while the ideal is achievable, the time frame that the progressive have in mind is not. They want what they want now, and allowing society to evolve naturally to the ideal condition is not an option. Also those that promote these policies tend to get frustrated with having to take the time and energy to convince those that disagree with them.

They also tend to have a view that society is a machine like system, which can be controlled by just setting the right switches in the right places, and given enough time and money they will get it right. The problem with this is that society is not like a machine, it is not only a dynamic system that is in constitute change, it is a chaotic one that is unpredictable. Throwing a switch or changing a setting can have unforeseen results, that can and will cause more problems in the future.

So when you have people that believe they know the solution and we all will agree with them if we listen and were as smart as them, with the belief that society can be controlled like a machine, you end up with people who write and implement progressive policies. Now since these policies are designed to make people do things which they might not agree are good for them, but are good for society as a whole, the policies must by design limit freedom. People who believe in these policies are not concerned with that, because they know that the choices they are limiting are the wrong choices.  So the issue is to identify the progressives in society and their policies, so that we can fix the problems they have caused.

Before we start, I want to propose that there are three types of people in society.  There are those that have a desire to lead, and there are those that have a desire to follow.  It is these two types of people that the progressive policies appeal to.  The ones that want to lead, like the progressive policies because it make the people dependent on them, thus easier to lead.  The ones that have a desire to follow, like the progressive policies because it means they do not have to take responsibility for themselves, those that lead have already taken on that responsibility.  It is the third group that has no use for progressive policies, because they are a group of people that want to take responsibility for their lives, and also have no desire to take on the responsibility for the lives of others.  So even if they exhibit the traits listed below, they will not act on them, except in their personal lives, which will not cause anyone else any problems.

The first thing to look for in a progressive is the belief that they are superior to everyone else around them, especially those that disagree with them.  They also believe that this superiority is what gives them the right to lead society out the darkness to greatness, and justifies their desire for power.  So you can see this can be a person like Al Gore, who believes that he and those that agree with him are right.  Or it can be a radical religious leader, like those in the Taliban, that believes that our problems are caused by sinners in society.  Or it can a politicians that calls those that disagree with them stupid, dangerous or worst.  See they can not have dissent about what they want to do, because of the fallacy in their second identifying trait.

The second identifying trait is that they believe they have the only correct solution to the problem to be solved.  In some cases they believe they and those that follow them are the only ones that see the problem.  Everybody else is too stupid or do not wish to solve the problem, because not doing so benefits them.  Since they have the solution to the problem, there is really no need to discuss the issue or listen to other views.  Doing so will only cloud the issues further and make implementing the solution harder. They also do not have the patience or believe the problem is so dire, that taking the time to convince us idiots that they are right, will take too long. This is why they believe that systems of government that place the power in the hands of the elites like them are so great.  It eliminates public debate and makes things run smoother.  This leads into the third attribute of a progressive, which is they ignore evidence that does not support their position.

See if they acknowledge that their solution have failed in the past when they have been tried, that admission will then destroy the preceding beliefs that they hold true.  So they tend to not acknowledge the problems that history has shown their same policies have caused in the past.  They will say that what is being said is a lie, or some sort of distortion of the truth.  If they are forced to acknowledge it they will then start making excuses, such as those previous policies did not have enough support, and if they did have the support required, those bad results would not of happened.  They will blame others for the falling of the policies, for example they will claim the policies were sabotaged.  In all cases their response will basically fall back around to that the problems with their solution being reported were not caused by the solution, it was instead that the solution was not able to be implemented correctly.  They will then argue that the only way to implement the solution correctly, is with more money, and more rules that keep the wrong choices from being made. This leads us to the way to identify a progressive solution to a problem.

A progressive policies can be identified by several traits.  They all center around the certainty that the policies are never the problem, instead the problem is that the policy has not been implemented correctly because of several reasons.  First there was not enough money put towards solving the problem, thus more money is always going to be needed.  This leads to the lost to more and more property rights, as that property is seized to support the policies.  Second, there are those that are purposely working around the limits the policy has put in place, and thus more rules and regulation are need.  This leads to lost of more and more freedoms, as these rules limit what can and can not be done.  Thirdly the policy is being, sabotaged by those that spread falsehoods about those policies, this leads to more censoring of speech, to correct those errors.  So right there we have three true litmus test to identify a progressive policy, by the rights being violated by the implementation of the policies.  Government will take more and more property from the citizens, so as to provide more resources to those policies, violating the right to property.  Second, the government will introduce new laws limiting the actions that people can take, this will limit the liberty of the people.  Thirdly the government, will try to silence those that speak against these policies.  Most of this will be done by ridicule and personal attacks, but can quickly move into actual government actions taken against those that do not support the policies.

In the post, of this series, to follow I am going to look at policies in various areas of society that the Progressive have identified as not working correctly. We try to identify some of the policies that they put in place that caused these problems and will also look at how and why these policies meet the above criteria.  And then, finally we will look at what we can do to repair the damage they have done.  The first area I want to tackle is the education system in this country.

Michael Moore and I Agree … There is No Free Market in the United States

I was working on another post, but this video came to my attention and I had to discuss it right now, it was just too good to miss. If you have read some of my previous post, especially on health care, one of my themes is that we really do not have a true free market in this country. We do have a market that is freer then most in the world, but it can not be classified as a true free market because of the involvement of government in business.

Well imagine my surprise when I found out that Micheal Moore actually agrees with me.

Now I will say that me and the Chad Swarthout agree to the solution, which is less government. Mr. Moore in his own words remains optimistic that a government of the people by the people can fix the problem. I think he is going to have to wait for a long time for that to occur, because when you use government to control business. Business will use their money and influence to control government, that is just the way it is. And in that process we the people are the losers.

If instead we keep government from being able to control business, then business will have no reason to influence government. That will remove them from the picture and give us more power over government, by default. And if you allow business to function without government involvement, then business will have to deal with us fairly in order to get our business. They will not be able to use government to eliminate competition anymore, which is what they do now. This will give us more power over how businesses do business, via the democratic rules of the free market.

One other thing that Moore does not understand is that a true free market is very democratic. If a business does not treat me well or makes a crummy product I can vote against that businesses continuing to exist by going elsewhere. Is that not a democratic process? But when one business gets advantages over another from government, my vote is diluted. Progressives believe in government involving themselves in business, which leads to them picking winners and losers. Usually the winners are those that provide the most money to the campaigns of the politicians.

He also mentioned the high pay of executives. This problem has two roots. First it is the very large business that got that way because of government interference. But the other problem is the changes that the progressives made in this country. Before the 1950 to become an executive in a business you normally started in the mail room and worked your way up. That did two things, first it taught you the business and second it gave you feeling of owner ship in the business. I realized the truth about the ownership part because of my work history. As is not very typical in the computer business I have worked at the same company for 18 years. Most people in the computer field change jobs about every 2 years or so. One day it hit me that I felt ownership of our product and business because of the years I had put in there. That is missing in today’s society when people switch jobs every few years.

Now what you have is people go to college for degrees that were not needed before the 1950 and businesses were convinced by executives with degrees that only people with degrees would make good executives. This led to a mindset that each company had to get the best executive out there by paying them more and more, instead of promoting the mail room clerk up the corporate ladder. Now executives demand higher pay and more staff which feeds into the whole cycle, as condition for them taking a job. Why do we have this, because the idea that a college degree was necessary was created by the progressives. They then got the government to step in and provide a means to get that degree. This then leads into the other problem Moore mentioned, student loans and debt when leaving college.

See Moore is correct, colleges used to work their butts off to get students to apply. They were all in competition for a small body of students that had the necessary resources and learning to attend college. When the progressives promoted the idea that college was necessary and give people the means to pay for it, more students were available for the colleges to admit. As any economics professor will tell you if the demand goes up and the supply stays the same the price will go up. To make matters worst, since most students were not paying for college, instead the government was through student loan programs, there was no desire from the students to drive the price down. This pushed the prices up even faster the normal.

So every problem Moore mentions in this clip, I believe can be traced back to one thing. The very progressive polices that he so lovingly believes in.

The problem I see with overly complex laws

One of the things we as a people are realizing is that our government likes overly complex laws. There are maybe many reasons for this, but one that I have been thinking about recently is the one I want to talk about. I am getting a strong impression as I am becoming more aware and waking from from my slumber, that laws are not really written protect the rights of others from being violated. Instead I am starting to believe that they are written to give cover to those that break the laws and have the right connections. In this group I put politicians, business leaders, bureaucrats and even celebrities (which could explain their leaning left, beside they being airheads). Basically anyone that has the connections and money to get a lawyer that knows the law is protected by these complex laws. The sad thing is that the people who need their rights protected the most, are the ones that do not fit in those groups. Instead they are the very people the powerful in this country take advantage of, hiding behind and using those very complex laws.

A good example of this is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 that was signed by President Bush. If you are not aware of the effect of this law, it requires that all batches of any product produced and designed to be sold for children under 12, be tested for certain chemicals. It does not matter if the item is made by a big toy company like Mattel or a small independent producer of items, like the folks at craft shows. They all must test the items at great expense by a third party, or so it would seem. According to this news release, Mattel has gotten approved by the CSP on a 3-0 vote to used their own “fire walled” testing labs, which is allowed by the laws. Supposedly these testing labs are protected from corporate influence, and thus will not perform the testing accordingly. It would seem that now Mattel has plausible deniable if a contaminated item gets through. All they would have to do is claim a problem was at the lab and pay a fine. How much you want to bet that the fine will be less then the true cost of testing they would of otherwise had to pay?

Now the question is why can we not say that if a manufacture, produces a product that is used properly and cause harms is responsible. Not only should the company be responsible, but also the executive in charge that should be responsibility for the actions of the company. There is two reasons why we have moved away from this simple concept. First we have stupid consumers that sue when they misuse the product. The sad thing is that not only do they have their cases heard, but they sometimes win. But the other reason is that we have companies and executives that do not take responsibility for their actions or inaction. Both of these come together to make laws that try to cover all conditions and in trying to do that create even bigger holes for others to use to keep out themselves of trouble.  You throw in special interest that use their contacts to have exceptions thrown in that they can take advantage of and end up where laws protect those that violate our rights, instead of protecting our rights.

The only way we are only going to fix this problem, is by changing society. We as a society need to wake up and start taking responsibility for our actions and also holding others accountable for their actions. Part of this is for us to start electing people who will stand up for the rule of law and the rights of people, above using the law to build up their power, and protect their supporters and friends. At that point laws need to be passed that are simple, clear and concise in nature.

Am I really Selfish?

This question comes about after my visit to Senator Warner’s office and talking to one of his legislative aides. The aides total attitude towards me oozed the sentiment that I was selfish, because I did not want to pay more taxes and be forced to accept healthcare plans approved by the government.

I am supposedly selfish because I want the government to leave me alone and let me live my life. I am selfish because I want to make the decision of who to help and why. I am selfish because I want to take care of myself. There has to be something wrong with that picture.

So let us start with the definition of selfish. I know we all think we know what it means, but so we are clear here is the two definition that apply:

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one’s own welfare or advantage in disregard of others.

When I look at those definition I see one that common theme that jumps out at me. In both they talk about a “disregard of others”, meaning that I do not care about the plight of others. I do care about the plight of others, and try to help out as much as I can, but I can not help out as much as I would like because most of my money is going to pay taxes.

I also decide to look at the various religions and what their commandments had to say. This was very interesting because what I found is that while most promoted charity, they also said had a lot to say about stealing, or taking what is not yours by force. For example the religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all follow the 10 commandments or some form of it. No where in the 10 commandments will you find selfishness mention, but you will find both stealing and coveting mentioned. I found the main commandment of Buddhism, on the web and the list I looked at, had the admonishment against stealing at number two. Now some could make a point that the commandments of Buddhism eight; “Wear no garlands, perfumes or any adornments.”, nine; “Sleep not in luxurious beds.”, and ten; “Accept no gold or silver.”, could be admonishments against selfishness. I do not see it that way, I see it as an admonishment against living a life of excess, which is completely different then having no regard for others, as you get as much as you can . The ten disciplines list of Hinduism list stealing at number four along with a desire to possess. From what I can find the desire to posses is more along the lines of coveting and not living to excess and above your means. The point is that most of the major religions of the world and even those who not religious in nature will agree that stealing or coveting what is not yours is a greater wrong, then that of wanting to keep what is yours.

So what does it means to covet that which is not yours or to steal. From the same on-line dictionary above I get the following definition for covet.

to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably

For the word steal I get this meaning.

to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

I do not think that it is much a jump in logic to realize that if you covet something, you are more likely to steal it if you can get away with it.

Why do those that are calling me selfish want to take what I have? It is because they believe they can do more good in the community with it, then I will, and thus they are more deserving of it then me. I think this fits the definition of coveting mentioned above. Now if you covet what I want, and then can get that taking from me by force either directly or through a third party, that is stealing.

Wait you say stealing is only illegal if it is done against the law. That is true, you are using the laws to take what I have. But that raises the following question, are those laws just? There are and have been laws on the books that are unjust, for example just look at the Jim-Crow laws of the south before the civil rights movement. Those laws were unjust because they treated people differently. So are the laws that take my property away, without cause, to give to those that the government has determine need it more then me, really be called just? I do not believe so, because the government is taking my property to provide something that is not to my benefit. This means that I have less to money to pursue my happiness with, as guaranteed by the Constitution in the preamble. The government is only really allowed to tax me and spend my money when doing so allows them to protect my right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. It does not matter if the money goes to the poor or goes to the wealthy, taking what is mine and not providing a benefit to me is wrong. That makes the laws that take what is mine and gives it others unjust in nature, and using them to take what is mine is thus stealing.

So what we have is that if I want to keep what I have worked hard for and earned, I am selfish. So what are those that want to have the government take what I worked hard for and give it to them. I would say they are thieves. And I will have to say I much rather be called selfish, then to be called a thief. So if you are going to continue to call me a selfish for wanting to keep what is mine, maybe I should start calling you a thief for wanting to take that which is not yours. I pretty sure when it comes down to who is more right, I will end up on top.

Now we are at that final question that you need to answer. I am proud to be selfish in your eyes, are you proud to be a thief in mine?

The Path to Success for Our Kids is Through Failure

My mom sent me this video in an e-mail, it is of a man name Nick Vujicic. I do not know much about this exceptionable man. Here is a man that has not allowed his disabilities to stop him. Most of us in his position would of given up and be living in a bed, having people take care of us. But he has not taken that path, instead he has not given up

This is what we need to teach our kids today, but it is not what teach them anymore. We protect them from failure. No one loses at sports anymore, everybody get a trophy. We do everything in our power to not fail our students. We dumb down the classes and material, so that they do not have to think. We do not allow our children to take risk, we place them in a bubble and try to keep them from harm. One reason I believe we do this is because we have fewer children today and thus we have more time and resource to put towards them. But the main reason is that we have been told that we need to protect our children’s self esteem.

This is a fallacy that you will find in the logic of most of the programs today. They focus too much on the results and not on the best way to achieve the results. In this case the real best way for kids to build their self esteem is to learn that they will fail, but if they really want to achieve they will have to work through that failure. It is this process of failure and eventual success that builds real self esteem. When we take away the failure aspect, we do not allow them the real chance to succeed. The other thing about is that we are just fooling ourselves, we do not fool them, they know better. They do keep score, even if we do not. They know that they did not truly win that trophy, which is why it is in the back of the closet or under the bed. Failure is the only way to success, when we remove this we remove the real chance for success.

I want to finish this by mentioning a person that I found out about, that I really admire. This is a man that started off with very little, he had just a sixth grade education and became a multi-millionaire. That in is a great story, but there is even more. He was educated in a poor area of Monroe, Louisiana, in the late 1910′s. Two years after his family moved to Memphis, Tennessee, his mother passed away leaving him at the age of 15 and his six siblings to fend for themselves. In 1928 he moved to Chicago and worked at various jobs, but even though he had a job during the depression, he struck out on his own. It seems he preferred his “freedom” to “security”, and for that very reason he did the following.

He took 25 dollars, using his car as collateral to purchase soap, which he sold door to door. He was able to build this company up to 18 million dollars of sales and a sales force of 5000. It was also at this time that he started having problems, first the White Citizen’s Council organized a boycott of his products when they learned his company was owned by an African-American. This was then made worst when he spoke and unspeakable truth in an interview with the US News and World Report “Negroes are not discriminated against because of the color of their skin. They are discriminated against because they have not anything to offer that people want to buy.”. This did not go over well with the African-American leaders of the time, and they arranged a boycott of his products also. So now he was getting from both sides. This plus a some federal legal troubles he went into bankruptcy in 1971 and was order to repay 1.6 millions. Even with all this in 1972 the company made $300 thousands, and he did not give up.

That is the message you need to spread to your children. No matter where you look, those that actually achieve something in this country, have gotten there through failure. Not because someone protected them from that failure.

How to Destroy Big Businesses for Lefties.

I know that a lot of you think that big corporations are bad and that they need to be reigned in and even destroy. The problem is, from what I can see, that you have not had much success in this endeavor, and I thought I would point you to a different tactic that you can use to actually bring big business to their knees. There are also some additional benefits to this plan as it will place more power in the hands of the people and help the minority communities in this country. It will do this by increasing the power of community based businesses, which is something your current techniques are not doing.  Actually your current techniques are having the opposite effect.

This plan will not be popular with a lot of people. One of these groups that will not like this is the politicians in Washington. See they like having big business around, because a few big companies are easier to regulate and control, then many smaller community based businesses. They like their power over the businesses and the people, and are not willing to give it up. This will also limit the power of politicians at the state and local level, for the same reasons.  Of course if you have fewer people telling you what you can not do, you will have more choices and options available to you to make a difference in you community.  This is also something they do not want, they want you to look to them for the solutions.

This plan is not favored by big business either. It will truly make them work harder to stay in business. They will have to lower their prices, provide good customer service and treat their employees fairly. They will have to make all the types of changes that you want them to make. They will have to respect the environment, if that is what you want. They will have to provide the products and services you demand. Everything that you desire can be made to happen by the correct implementation of this plan. They do try to make you  believe that they want this system put in place, but they are just pulling a Brer Rabbit on you and have been successful at it. They scream for this change all the time, but in fact they do that because they know you will do your best to deny them whatever the ask for.  All I am asking is to sit down and think about things, do you really think the big lazy businesses want to work for your business.  Of course not, they want to do as little work as possible for your business and in this they are succeeding.  This plan will change that dynamic, they will have to work for you business.

Now you are familiar with this plan, but those that want the power and do not want you to achieve you objectives have been lying to you about this for years. They say they want to help you achieve the things you want, but in fact what they want is more power and control over you life. The thing is, that they will even work with big businesses in the back rooms and dark alleys to achieve this goal. The business in the light of day scream about how unfair all the regulations are and how they will hurt their business, but the truth is that those laws and regulations are designed to help them get a bigger shared of the market for their products and put their competitors out of business. They will say that we have tried it in the past and it has failed. That is not true, we have never allowed it to function without interference, and even then when the interference was not too great, the things done under this model have brought you all the goodies you enjoy today. Every major advance in that has been made in the last 200 years, has come about because of this system, even when it was hobbled by the government. When this is not allow to function, the advances of this country and others have stagnated.

Now you maybe wondering why someone like me that does not believe in those things you do is going to tell you how to bring down the big corporations in this country. The main reason is that I want my freedoms. I want to be able to live my life the way I think is best and this secret pact between politicians and big corporations is making that harder and harder. I also like community businesses and I think that everyone that wants to open one should have that chance. See I need you to work with me to make this change, without you things will just get worst and the changes you and I both want to see will never be achieved.

This system is the Free Market, allowing business and consumers to get the best deal they can and to look out for their own interest. Where this system has not been allowed to function, the environment has been destroyed to a greater extent then it every has in this country. The income difference between the poor and the rich is wider then it is here, and us moving away from that system has made the problem worst in this country. The middle class was destroyed, when this system was eliminated. Not having a free market system allows the government and big business to enslave the population, and in the process make those who are in control to get richer and more powerful. While the rest of us get weaker and poorer.

Now I do not ask you take my word for all the above. I actually suggest that you go forth, read and learn more about this system. I want you to fully understand how this system works, and I know that you are smart enough to make a decision based on the facts you will find. That is something that those who will tell you that this system will not work, do not want you to do. They will tell you not to waste your time, that you will not learn anything new. That all you will find is lies told to you by big business. But I just want you to keep one thing in mind, I want you to learn the truth for yourself. They want you to listen only to them, because they know best. I want you to listen to yourself, because I know that you know best, not them.

Here is a good site to go to get started, they have podcast that you can download and listen to on your iPod. Please do so, because even if you end of disagreeing with me, I want you to know the truth.

Foundation for Economic Education

Dr. Ezeklel Emmanuel’s Speech at City Club of Cleveland 06/13/08 Video 3 Part 1

Video 2 Part 2

Okay the final video, and then I can get on other issues. In this video we will hear the last two planks of the Doctor’s plan. We will also hear his thoughts on how to deal with the tort reform problem, and then an recap of his plan and how it solves the problems with the health care system that need to be solved, at least according to him.

Of course his solutions to these problems, for the most part, will do more harm then good.

The video starts right off with plank 8 of his plan. When talking about his plan he says the following. Again when I have take each plank and broken it down into bullet points.

The plan would be overseen by a National health board and 12 regional health boards, modeled on the Federal Reserve.

• That is the officials would be appointed for long standard terms, could not be removed, are not political appointees.
• So that they are insulated from political pressure, they have finances through the guaranteed dedicated Value Added Tax so there is not any fiscal pressure on them by Congress.
• They set the standard benefit package, they oversee these insurance exchanges, they get information from health plans on their performance and they report to the American people and Congress about the performance of the health care system regularly.

Okay so we are going to model this on one of the most out of control systems the Congress has ever created, the Federal Reserve. A body that we have come to learn, can not be controlled by Congress or the President. This is made worst because the people in control of my health care will be appointed for a long time, and no matter what they do they can not be removed from office. Also my health care is a lot more personal then Federal Reserve policies. In addition they will have control of a large sum of other peoples money, which they will be able to spend based on the rules that they will set. Congress will have no real oversight of them, and I will be subject to the laws they dream up. Can someone say unconstitutional?

We now get into plank number 9 at 0:38 into the video. This plank deals with another group that looks at the effectiveness of new technology and treatments.

There is an Institute for Technology and Outcome Assessment.

• One of the problem with our current system is that we don’t actually monitor the value of new interventions. We don’t monitor how patients are doing overall. We conduct these sort of random big studies about how people are doing, but we do regularly get data.
• And as most business men recognize, without data you can’t manage. You need to know the performance to know whether things are getting better or worst.
• This institute is all about collecting data.
• We propose to fund it with about 0.5% of the Value Added Tax.
• And to collect data, evaluate new interventions, see if they are actually worth it. Evaluate how persons are doing in the various health plans and insurance plans.

As you will see below in further statements, this institute is the one that is going to recommend that if you are 50 years old and need an expensive procedure, you will not get it. He maybe right that we need more and better information on how well procedures and technology are working. But the decisions based on that information needs to be made by the patient and their families, not some faceless bureaucrat in the regional office. In addition that information should not be collected by the Government, but a group that will get value for their honesty and truthfulness.

At 1:20 he addresses the malpractice issue, by creating a system that even a two year old will know is not fair. Here is him describing how he would handle it.

Finally to solve the medical malpractice problem, we propose a each regional health care board have a center for patient safety and dispute resolution. So patients that feel like they have been harmed by medical malpractice will report to these centers. They would investigate and adjudicate and they would also have authority and responsibility for instituting patient safety measures, so fewer people get harmed by the medical care system.

So let me get this straight, the same group that is telling the doctors what they can and can not do, that is controlling my health care and has a financial stake in the outcome of my treatment, is going be investigator, judge, and jury on any malpractice case I might bring forth. Who thinks they will get a fair trial in this system. I do not think that will be the case, I think that any decision is going to be based on the bottom line for the region, not my health.

Video 3 Part 2