You're not reading the title wrong nor did I misspell the first word. There's a lot going on there, or a lot going on in my head when I penned that. Who wouldn't when one can't help but observe what's going on around this country. I will clear things up in a minute.
First, we look around the world. We look back but not too distantly at the past to see if we can learn or predict what we can of the future from all the diverse histories of nations and regimes. We don't want to overwhelm ourselves with too much data and information so we merely had to to take a quick peek into the last 50-75 years or so, or about two to three generations back. That should be sufficient because we've had two world wars and a handful of regional conflicts during that period. We look at the U.S., of course, then Europe, Asia and South America. We take a special look into Argentina, Cuba, China, USSR (which is now Russia), Japan, Sweden, UK and Venezuela. I think there's plenty there for us to weigh in on the two major economic platforms that had been the dominant systems: capitalism and socialism.
My apologies to Ian Fleming for misappropriating the title of the second of the James Bond series, "Live and Let Die". As a side note, this might surprise many of you because as movies went, it was not till later that it was made into one while "Dr. No", which was sixth in publication chronology, was actually first to hit the big screen. Or, that a few of the movies made were based on short stories, such as, "From a View to a Kill" or "For Your Eyes Only", etc. But I digressed. If there is a point, it is that Ian Fleming wrote the series during the height of the cold war - though a proxy ideological one between the U.S. and the then USSR, it was a direct confrontational battle between communism and democracy. At that time socialism was a gray area, sort of in between the two.
Now, "Live and Let Die" is, of course, a soft misappropriation by Ian Fleming of the more common expression "Live and Let Live". But where did the expression come from? Researchers observed this as some kind of behavioral pattern among men during the First World War. It was a brutal war of trench warfare and close quarter violence, which saw the horrific use of poison gas. It was chemical warfare ferociously employed. Commanders noted that soldiers under certain specific circumstances and time had developed the tendencies toward non-aggression against their enemies - an ironic twist in behavior among combatants. Hence, the expression to live and also let others live. Meanwhile, "Lib" here is short for the growing liberalization of society and the general human experience. I will explain in a bit.
So, the seemingly unnatural tendencies of a group of soldiers was a good thing, wasn't it? Yes, but sadly, wars not only kept re-occurring, the capability of each side during the subsequent conflicts continued to develop by leaps and bound, casualties rose almost exponentially, and now the world finds itself armed with enough armaments to destroy itself several times over.
Today we are waking up to another cold war. Another ideological conflict that is bound to also affect the whole world. This conflict will determine what economic system will prevail. It can be existential because when economies fail, armed conflict is not far behind.
Just over the horizon is a gathering cloud full of promises. It appears to be a bright reflection of everyone's most aspirational wishes for a world free of economic hardships for every citizen. The economically oppressed will be unshackled when the world is freed of economic oppressors which today are basically defined by the wealthy - by the very few who control the most money and possessions. There is a revolt against corporations, the wealthy individuals and families, a seemingly widespread sympathy for those with very little.
A recent example of this revolt is what happened in New York when Amazon was forced to withdraw from building its second headquarters in Long Island. The whole deal was approved by state legislators and local officials who celebrated the agreement after 48 states who vied and lobbied for the opportunity to snag Amazon's business all fell short. Almost all states and local communities offer tax incentives to businesses they wish to attract. In this case Amazon was to get tax breaks over a period of ten years that could amount to about 3 billion dollars in exchange for 25,000 jobs with average salaries estimated to be about $150K per year.
Here's a news clip from:
Reuters Feb 14, 2019
"New York State Senator Michael Gianaris and City Council Member Jimmy Van Bramer said that day that it was “unfathomable that we would sign a $3 billion check” to one of the world’s most valuable companies considering the city’s crumbling subways and overcrowded schools".
This was of course spearheaded by no less than the most popular but newly minted member of Congress - the luminous Alexandria Ocasio Cortes - who celebrated it as a win for her liberal agenda when Amazon announced not to go through with the new York plan. She was quoted, “We do not have to settle for scraps in the greatest city in the world". $150K per year of salary is scrap, according to her. This coming from someone who is either out of touch with reality or totally ignorant of economics. This comment is compounded by the fact that she is an economics major. 25,000 jobs mean tax revenues to the state for far longer than ten years, promising growth, a lot of peripheral businesses from housing to services to stores and small entrepreneurs that will be created by this new headquarters, not counting construction jobs for the new building. The estimate is that north of 25 billion dollars of tax revenues will be realized over the same period that the tax break of 3 billion dollars will be granted to Amazon.
But here is the crazy part. These economic geniuses actually thought they had $3 billion in the state's treasury that they were signing away (read the above quote in bold). There is no $3 billion to give. Not now, for sure, when Amazon pulled out of building their 2nd headquarters there. And New York's "crumbling subways and overcrowded schools" will still be there.
Over the horizon is actually a gathering dark cloud that is socialism. This is a development that should look familiar to anyone who will take the time to see how when a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats took power to run private businesses, or at least dictate how they should be run. Look no further away from the time it took to destroy the economies of once flourishing regions of the world. Spain, Argentina and most recently Venezuela have economies that are now a mere shell, a carcass of what they were. Chavez and Maduro were clones of the Peronistas in Argentina. Socialism was and remain the shortest path if one aims to destroy the national economy. It is a sad trajectory towards national economic decline and the destruction of individual freedom.
Nothing has been learned. Proponents of socialism today are no different from the inexorable fools who insist on doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result. But where does this come from. What well are these people drinking from?
The inherent vice of capitalism is in the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is in the equal sharing of miseries. ---- Winston Churchill
The inherent vice of capitalism is in the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is in the equal sharing of miseries. ---- Winston Churchill
Socialism is about the equal distribution of wealth, liberalism loathes the system that allows for people to become rich as if the reason for their wealth is the cause of poverty. And no one shall take credit for their wealth through hard work while everyone, regardless of their mediocre toil or lack thereof, deserves an equal share of everything that is in the community.
The economy - no matter how much tweaking we have to do - does not provide so that everyone can be super wealthy but neither does it mandate that everyone should be dirt poor either.
Henry Ford was the first of the super rich not by blood or inheritance but by sheer determination and indefatigable hard work over numerous failures. But what did he accomplish most? Before his time the automobile was only for the rich. His method of mass production and goal to make cars affordable made the Model T the first car for the average wage earner. It was what "mobilized" America. In the process he became super rich. It made Detroit the first city of the middle class. Amazon made goods available to all Americans, including those in rural areas, merchandise only city shoppers used to enjoy, at lower prices and shipped free (in many cases) to their doorsteps. It increased the package delivery business of UPS and Fedex by several folds, including that of the U.S. Post Office. Oil single handedly saved the whales when it replaced blubber as fuel for oil lamps. The Rockefeller's became rich but oil industrialized much of the world and improved transportation and agriculture.
We can go on and on. Why should we begrudge the wealthy? It was wealth that allowed for the production of big cruise ships. Where it used to be the privilege only of the super rich to see the world in luxury and ease of travel, the middle class was able to do the same without bankrupting their savings. Should we begrudge the ship builders who made profits from their capital? Are we able to enjoy temperature controlled homes if not for Willis Carrier who was the first to envision in 1902 the manufacturing of air conditioners that regular home owners can afford? Should these people not be rewarded for what they did?
Socialism today, in the eyes of the liberals and radical left, shall be the one ideology to snuff out the fire of inventiveness, entrepreneurship, and impetus to do well. Why? Why should one work so hard when in the end much of what they earned will be redistributed?
The rich don't keep their wealth under their mattresses. They reinvest it. They can't take it with them, to the afterlife, to Mars or other exoplanets. If they spend it, the shipyards and the workers there are happy to build their yachts, builders and craftsmen will be happy to construct their mansions, their private jets and Lamborghini are built by well-paid workers. Those will quickly go away once we get rid of the super rich. Let these super rich get their rewards. Remember, like everyone else, they also only have one life to live, they sleep in one bed and use one bedroom at a time, they can be in just one car or jet at a time, and in the end they all "can't take it with them".
But Henry Ford, with his one life, built a better life for countless others.
Let liberals out-liberalize each other, out radicalize and out-left one another but don't ever let them dictate how we live or spend our money. Already one state is contemplating taxing private retirement plans in order to fund public employee pensions. If we let these ideas permeate in this democracy, the darkness to follow may never see dawn again. Liberalize and let capitalism die.
Best selling mid-20th century author, a refugee from communist Russia said:
For a shorter musing you may want to read something I wrote in 2016:
99 Cannibals and 1
The economy - no matter how much tweaking we have to do - does not provide so that everyone can be super wealthy but neither does it mandate that everyone should be dirt poor either.
Henry Ford was the first of the super rich not by blood or inheritance but by sheer determination and indefatigable hard work over numerous failures. But what did he accomplish most? Before his time the automobile was only for the rich. His method of mass production and goal to make cars affordable made the Model T the first car for the average wage earner. It was what "mobilized" America. In the process he became super rich. It made Detroit the first city of the middle class. Amazon made goods available to all Americans, including those in rural areas, merchandise only city shoppers used to enjoy, at lower prices and shipped free (in many cases) to their doorsteps. It increased the package delivery business of UPS and Fedex by several folds, including that of the U.S. Post Office. Oil single handedly saved the whales when it replaced blubber as fuel for oil lamps. The Rockefeller's became rich but oil industrialized much of the world and improved transportation and agriculture.
We can go on and on. Why should we begrudge the wealthy? It was wealth that allowed for the production of big cruise ships. Where it used to be the privilege only of the super rich to see the world in luxury and ease of travel, the middle class was able to do the same without bankrupting their savings. Should we begrudge the ship builders who made profits from their capital? Are we able to enjoy temperature controlled homes if not for Willis Carrier who was the first to envision in 1902 the manufacturing of air conditioners that regular home owners can afford? Should these people not be rewarded for what they did?
Socialism today, in the eyes of the liberals and radical left, shall be the one ideology to snuff out the fire of inventiveness, entrepreneurship, and impetus to do well. Why? Why should one work so hard when in the end much of what they earned will be redistributed?
The rich don't keep their wealth under their mattresses. They reinvest it. They can't take it with them, to the afterlife, to Mars or other exoplanets. If they spend it, the shipyards and the workers there are happy to build their yachts, builders and craftsmen will be happy to construct their mansions, their private jets and Lamborghini are built by well-paid workers. Those will quickly go away once we get rid of the super rich. Let these super rich get their rewards. Remember, like everyone else, they also only have one life to live, they sleep in one bed and use one bedroom at a time, they can be in just one car or jet at a time, and in the end they all "can't take it with them".
But Henry Ford, with his one life, built a better life for countless others.
Let liberals out-liberalize each other, out radicalize and out-left one another but don't ever let them dictate how we live or spend our money. Already one state is contemplating taxing private retirement plans in order to fund public employee pensions. If we let these ideas permeate in this democracy, the darkness to follow may never see dawn again. Liberalize and let capitalism die.
Best selling mid-20th century author, a refugee from communist Russia said:
For a shorter musing you may want to read something I wrote in 2016:
99 Cannibals and 1
https://abreloth.blogspot.com/2016/12/99-cannibals-and-1.html
No comments:
Post a Comment