Higher Taxes for the “Rich” Are No Way to Fix a Rigged System

Higher taxes just reinforce wasteful, bloated governments and do nothing to solve wealth inequalities. Government’s idea of wealth redistribution is to fund a do-nothing middleman class and their industry cronies at the expense of the people that actually create the wealth with their hard work.

The actual problems have to do with the rigged monetary system that rewards the already-rich with zero interest rates and toxic asset buyback programs… etc. and the Federal Reserves 2% annual inflation target that reduces the value of the dollar and real savings.

The politicians and their pet cronies think they know how to spend your money better than you do, when it’s government’s own programs and policies that cause the problems in the first place.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Danger Weapons Grade Stupidity

The Unprofitably Incompetent

by Robert Gore
Posted on January 25, 2019
Many of us profit every day. We offer services and provide goods, supporting ourselves at a cost that is lower than what we’re paid. We’re profitably competent, engaging in honest production and peaceful, voluntary exchange. The only alternatives to profitable competence are living off of someone else’s profitable competency via inheritance or charity, or criminality—theft via fraud or violence.

Criminals cloak their thefts in all sorts of justifications, some of which, like socialism, become full-blown political doctrines. Ironically, a larcenous litany of demands and rationalizations are efflorescing at a time when whatever is left of the overall profit pool has been drained. It has been mortgaged multiple times, just as hordes of the unprofitably incompetent, who had no hand in producing it, clamor for their “fair share.” They’ll insist the profitably competent figure out how to pay for it, but the fair share of nothing is nothing, political promises to the contrary notwithstanding.

“Your means, my ends; I wish, you fulfill,” is the foundational fantasy of modern governance.

Read More: https://straightlinelogic.com/2019/01/25/the-unprofitably-incompetent-by-robert-gore/

An Honest and Easy Solution to Wealth Inequality

MN Gordon for Economic Prism

“Inequality could be solved easily and honestly.

Stop rigging interest rates.  The free market can decide what rates should be.  Most likely, it would discover rates that were much higher – probably over 5 percent.  Then, in a flash, like champagne at Hiroshima, the post-2009 gains of the super-wealthy would evaporate.”

Read More: economicprism.com/an-honest-and-easy-solution-to-wealth-inequality/

The New Socialist Delusion: A Wealth Tax Doesn’t Work

Economics is just understanding how human nature interacts with wealth. There’s no way to change the LAW of supply and demand, because it’s not a man-made law. Supply and Demand is ultimately based on human survival and people will never act idealistically or logically when it comes to survival.

Why is economics survival? Because if you can’t get enough to eat you die.

The current wave of ignorant populist socialism is based on simplistic understandings of supply and demand and wealth creation, and all of their ideas have been tried and failed.

To name one, the “wealth tax.”

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez Socialism

France waves discreet goodbye to 75 percent super-tax

A History of Socialism in an Old PBS Documentary: Doubt They Would Play This Nowadays

Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (Hour 1: The Rise)

2005 – In the first hour we meet Robert Owen, the 19th century industrialist who coined the term “socialism” and tried to create a utopian world in the middle of rural Indiana. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels forge a manifesto and declare a prophecy. The idea splits. One man tries to marry socialism to democracy, while another starts a revolution.

Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (Hour 2: Revolutions)

From the rice fields of Mao’s China to the rise of British Labour and from the birth of the Israeli kibbutz to African independence, a new generation of leaders brings to life radically diverse visions as socialism comes to power around the globe.

Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (Hour 3: The Collapse)

In the East, Communism falls – while social democracy is reinvented in the West. What shape will socialism take in the twenty-first century? Find out on the conclusion of Heaven On Earth.

 

French Uprising Shows Why We Need the Electoral College

Europe Yellow Vest Uprising

The problem in France is that all of the power and representation is centered in Paris with the French elites, who could care less for the common Frenchmen and French women living outside of Paris.
This is the same situation we would have in the states if the Electoral College was abolished.

The Riots In France Perfectly Illustrate Why We Need The Electoral College

  13, 2018

The debate over the Electoral College comes up constantly during American elections, including the midterms last month, with many on the left calling for a popular vote instead. The process of electoral delegates voting for one particular party even if the popular vote of their state had only a slim majority makes the presidential elections seem generally unfair.

Under the electoral system, lower-population states have outsized influence, higher-population states have somewhat limited influence, and swing states enjoy all the attention. With a popular vote, so the thinking goes, each citizen would have a voice, and the president and his administration would consequently have more legitimacy and better serve the American population.

Conservatives argue that popular elections would lead to politicians giving overriding preference to people in large population centers (i.e., cities) and ignore sparsely populated rural areas. This would result in a “tyranny of the majority” where urban majorities behind the winning party would be overrepresented and rural minorities would be even more underrepresented.

To this, the left simply responds, “So what?” Why should anyone care about what happens to hillbillies withering away in ghost towns? Why should ignorant farmers and ranchers living on big, unpopulated fields have more of a voice than educated professionals living in uptown? Cities are the centers of commerce, industry, education, and culture; they clearly put more in the system than small towns.

It should also be noted that people who support popular elections will cite European countries, like France and other European Union member states, as a reason to give up the Electoral College. If sophisticated Europeans have accepted direct democracy, they reason, Americans seem positively provincial to continue on their present course.

In truth, the bias against rural communities and for European cosmopolitanism often fuels these arguments for the popular vote more than anything substantial. Still, even if the sentiment behind the argument assumes the worst of people in the countryside and the best of people in old cities of Europe, the logic behind it deserves a response. Why should this group receive these protections?

A Popular Vote Feeds into Progressivism

There are two things to consider for this question: (1) what a popular vote implicitly suggests about the role of government, and (2) how a government that exclusively represents urban voters would act.

First, to understand what the argument for a popular vote says about the role of government, one should look at the premises: politician overserve small states, and underserve large ones. These premises envision government as a great provider and the states as needy dependents; they do not present government as the representation of so many different constituents. The motivation behind supporting a popular vote is to make sure the government gives more fairly, not that the government truly speaks for everyone impartially.

Constitutionally speaking, the government should not favor any state or any individual. As defined by John Locke, it does not give out favors, but secures freedoms of life, liberty, and property. People are protected by the government to provide for themselves and prosper. The government keeps the peace, while the people keep their property, and the idea of redistributing property to meet the demands of a favored constituency simply does not exist.

Because liberals have come to see government as a provider, and they shift ever leftward into socialist utopianism, they see elections as opportunities for enrichment. If they really saw government as a representative body of officials intended to secure rights, national elections really wouldn’t make a difference whether they were based on popular vote or something else. A popular vote is thus based on a distorted expectation about government and rewards the wrong kind of leaders. Demagogues who promise to give away more social benefits quickly overcome the statesmen who promise to uphold their duties so people can benefit themselves.

This doesn’t mean that the Electoral College eliminates the possibilities of urban demagogues, but it does discourage it. A politician who has to meet the needs of all kinds of voters, instead of just a few, will not easily be able to make so many promises, nor be able to vilify or ignore unpopular minorities.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/13/the-riots-in-france-perfectly-illustrate-the-need-for-the-electoral-college/

The Old New Deal Introduced the Fascist American Government The New “Green New Deal” will Seal the Deal

Let’s face the fact that the FDR’s New Deal was nothing but a power and money grab by the government that had nothing to do with recovering from the Great Depression. 

Let’s also fact the fact that the science behind man-made climate change is  weaponized, politicized science that is paid for and promoted by billionaires who run foundations, corporations and control most governments. 

The “New Green Deal” won’t just be paid for by the richest Americans, prices would dramatically go up for all Americans. 

This is just another targeted weapon of mass economic destruction aimed at the middle classes. 

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez it is more important to be morally right than facutally correct

Flaws With a “Green New Deal,” Part 1 of 2

BY ROBERT P. MURPHY

DECEMBER 20, 2018

There’s a growing buzz around a “Green New Deal,” spearheaded by newly-elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Although the details are in flux, currently the draft text calls for the creation of a 15-member “Select Committee for a Green New Deal” that would “have authority to develop a detailed national, industrial, economic mobilization plan” to make the U.S. economy “greenhouse gas emissions neutral.” As if that weren’t ambitious enough, the Select Committee’s detailed national plan would also have the goal “to promote economic and environmental justice and equality.” The draft specifically mentions spending $1 trillion over ten years, in addition to extensive taxes and regulations to steer the economy and society as the 15 committee members see fit. (To be clear, the draft text currently calls for the creation of the select committee, which in turn is then tasked with drafting legislation forming the “Green New Deal” itself.)

In this two-part series I will strongly critique both the spirit and substance of a proposed “Green New Deal.” In the second article, I will focus on the specific proposals in the draft legislation. But in this first piece I will give the historical context and explain why the very notion of a Green New Deal is misguided, because it relies on faulty history and bad economics.

Read More: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/regulation/flaws-with-a-green-new-deal-part-1-of-2/