Capitalizing On Christmas And Free Enterprise

"Our goal is to be a retailer with the ability to see opportunity on the horizon and have a clear path for capitalizing on it.  To do so, we are moving faster than ever before, employing more technology and concentrating our resources on those elements most important to our core customers."

Macy's Department Stores Mission Statement
Rowland Hussey Macy (1822-1877)

R.H. Macy accomplished a lot in a short 54 year life.  Leaving home at 15 to join a whaler company and sail the Atlantic Ocean, he worked there for four years.  During that time he acquired a large red star tattoo on his forearm.  That red star became the logo for his department store many years later.

Opening a "fancy dry goods" store in New York in 1858, his first-day sales totaled $11.08 (about $297 in today's dollars).  He plugged on however, with innovative policies like clearly marking prices (instead of haggling), and advertising those prices with lively and colorful newspaper ads.  His ads utilized set large-block letters, using marketing words and phrases over and over, and were instantly recognizable.  And he made history by hiring the first female executive for a major American retail store.

However, Macy had a lot to do with today's vibrant Christmas sales market.  He was the first to seize upon Santa as a way of selling goods, Christmas cards and wrapping paper.  He hit on this idea at the right time.  Nationally the Christmas tree was coming into vogue, as well as the recognition of Christmas as a religious and family holiday.

How did he capitalize on it?

• He was the first to employ an in-store Santa in 1862.  Children came from all over to tell Santa their secret desires and Christmas toy wishes.
• The country, and world, began to recognize Macy's as the instigator of the annual Christmas Parade.  This affair eventually morphed into the annual Thanksgiving Day Parade, which he used to kick off the Christmas buying season.  His parade was a marketing ploy for getting people to New York and to flock to his store at Christmas time.
• Customers loved crowding outside his store to peer into the large, decorated windows, which advertised the latest in fashion, kitchen wares and toys.  His friend P.T. Barnum suggested he make them more elaborate by using moving figures to tell various Christmas stories.  The windows became the hit of the season, and a practice picked up on by many other retailers around the nation at Christmas time.
• He began accepting mail order.

All in all, employing a capitalist spirit and shrewd business tactics (like mergers), the store eventually grew to be the largest department store in the world.  His short life left quite the legacy to the world of retailing success and free enterprise economics.

The Cancerous Disease Of Statism

"Statism is the disease that prescribes itself as the cure."

Barry Loberfeld

Pretty simply put!

What other thing is arrogant enough to wreck something and then claim to be the only entity that can fix it!  Our gubment does that all the time!

But, to understand the comment, STATISM must be defined.

Statism is essentially when the gubment becomes the most important thing in society - omniscient, omnipotent, and omnigood!

The philosopher Georg Hegel said that the state is "God walking on earth."  His thinking influenced the political thinking of another philosopher, one Karl Marx. 

While a Constitution places limits on gubment influence and activity, statism would do the opposite, removing such restrictions through lawmaking until the final stage of fascism or totalitarianism is reached.  THE GOAL OF STATISM IS 100% STATE!

It takes two forms, societal and economic.

Societal statism - there would be no "of, by and for the people" as sovereignty would rest in the state.  Individuals exist to contribute to the power and influence of the state.  "The people" would look to the state to provide what they typically and formerly would have provided for themselves.  Morality is found in service to the state.  This statist influence would extend into all aspects of the individual's life - education, health, finance, religion, housing, etc.  Statism, therefore, would refer to any state-sponsored political movement that advocates reliance upon the state to build the socialist society.

Economic statism - the state directs the economy, either through direct intervention with state-directed businesses (GM perhaps?), and state-sponsored organizations (Fannie Mae anyone?), or indirectly through economic planning (monetary and fiscal policy).  This intervention should be referred to as state socialism.  It only grows as the bureaucracy grows.  It's primary economic influence is THE BUREAUCRACY.  As it plans and implements its programs, even when the citizens resist (health "care"), at the same time it plans many new bureaucracies and hides many taxes that feed it.  Bureaucracy screws up and creates more bureaucracy to "fix" the screw ups!  The gubment spends to the point of extreme deficit and claims the necessity of additional "revenue enhancements" as the only cure, along with "cuts" in "future" rates of growth!  The vicious cycle only feeds the state. 

It slowly removes and incorporates more and more of the body that sustains it!

Support for the growth of the state, or statism, is more commonly found among liberals than among conservatives.  It was, after all, Ronald Reagan, who said the ten most frightening words in the English language are, "Hi, I'm from the gubment, and I'm here to help."

Surely unchecked growth is a cancerous disease that can only prescribe unchecked growth as the cure. Eventually all cancers reach the point of critical mass and the body can no longer survive its parasite.  And the body dies.  When in economic history has that not been the outcome?

It is impossible to cure any entrenched disease that is eating the body from the inside out.  Before it gets too large, or entrenched, the disease needs to be removed and the remaining cavity filled with newly-generated, healthy material.

THAT represents real change!

A Giant Immorality Portrayed As Truth

"We have enshrined a giant immorality as truth - that individual earnings belong to the collective rather than to those who produce them, and that we can in the name of the collective confiscate ever-larger portions of those earnings to advance our own individual lives and businesses in the form of pork, privileges, subsidies, loans, and entitlements."

Nelson Hultberg

Confiscate is a good word here.

But immorality?

Yes!  It is no less immoral to legislate thievery, in whatever form (taxes, surtaxes, fees, licensing, fines, you name it), than it is to put together a gang and rustle up some funds from people walking down the street!

Morality is defined by Oxford as

1.  concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character
2.  conforming to acceptable standards of behavior
3.  the extent to which an action is right or wrong

Morality comes from the Latin word "moralis," or 'custom.'  As a prefix "im" has variant spellings depending on the letter of the word it is modifying - it's other spellings are "in," "ir," and "il."  In any spelling variant the prefix means NOT, or THE OPPOSITE OF. 

IMmorality, therefore, means the opposite of morality.  And IMmoral means the opposite of moral.

Is it immoral or moral to pick a pocket?  Is it immoral or moral to rob a bank?  Is it immoral or moral to make anyone's successful financial outcome to a righteous risk or venture appear as shady and unfair?  Is it immoral or moral to legislate that more and more of someone's financial outcome to a righteous risk or venture be confiscated in the name of the rest of the group?

When did the rugged individualism that founded and grew this country and its principles into something exceptional get replaced by this idea that the "collective," to use Hultberg's word, and the collectives' wants, trumps the individual?  

And where has the country that extols collectivism developed into something exceptional and lead the world to new heights?

When did the expected entitlement supersede the right to the possession of one's private property?  And when did the right to the possession of one's private property become the expected entitlement of someone else?

Allocation Of Wealth

"In an unmolested market economy - where all dealings are consensual - the 'allocations' of wealth is the result of transactions."

Sheldon Richman

Shop owners are hoping for allocations of wealth.

Product manufacturers are hoping for allocations of wealth.

Entrepreneurs are hoping for allocations of wealth.

Any dealing in a free market economy happens when wealth is allocated!

How does wealth get allocated?  When people vote for our good or service.  They do so with normal transactions.

My Oxford dictionary defines "TRANSACTION" as this:

1.  an instance of buying or selling
2.  the action of conducting business
3.  an exchange or interaction between people

In a free-market economy, which Sheldon Richman calls "unmolested," trillions of transactions happen in the most efficient way possible - voluntarily!  They are each guided by an invisible hand, as it were, where each decision maker evaluates their individual transaction(s) and decides in a way that is most palatable and beneficial.

Most of the unmolested activity takes place between people who never meet however.

How can I say this?

If you are wearing a shirt with a button right now, how many people did it take to get that button onto your shirt before you made the final decision to transact business to acquire that shirt?

But, remember, you have to consider that button from start to finish.

THE ANSWER IS MILLIONS!  MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!  IT TOOK MILLIONS OF PEOPLE TO GET THAT BUTTON ONTO YOUR SHIRT!

And each individual in the inception, production and distribution of that button likely knew few others in the entire process.  But each was acting in his own best interest, allocating resources in the most efficient manner possible, engaging in transactions along the way, before the consumer finally voted for that shirt and make the ultimate transaction to purchase it.

THE CONSUMER MADE THE DECISION TO USE DISCRETIONARY MONIES AND VOTED TO ALLOCATE PERSONAL WEALTH.

That is the guts of a free market economy.  It is the interwoven, connected and unconnected, steps of a long journey to convert natural resources into a consumer product.

A SINGLE BUTTON!

Wow, imagine how many people it required to produce that shirt!

That is a whole lot of allocation of resources engaged in trying to encourage the ultimate allocation of wealth in the pursuit of ... wait for it ... PROFIT.

Incentives To Production

"The way to maximize production is to maximize the incentives to production.*  And the way to do that, as the modern world has discovered, is through the system known as capitalism - the system of private property, free markets, and free enterprise."

Henry Hazlitt (1894 - 1993)

Why is this so hard to understand?

When people are free, and their abilities are left unfettered, each free person will find what they want to do the most, or can do the best, and seek that thing.

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"  That starts out as a dream, but as we get older and more focused it becomes, in most cases, a reality.

What happens when the ability to seek or begin one's most-desired occupation, or start one's business, is hampered or even squashed by a lack of employment opportunity, severe underemployment, and general economic stall?

According to a survey recently published by Forbes, nearly half are dissatisfied with what they do and 81% are unhappy overall.  That is not a new statistic, and not at all surprising.  I heard those exact statistics in surveys taken when I was in business graduate school in the late 70s.  There was a general lack of "incentives to production" then too.  I remember a certain talking head on the TV, wearing a cardigan, calling it a "malaise," and telling us it was OUR fault!

We Americans, indeed people the world over, free or not, desire occupational fulfillment and happiness.  Particularly those who have been in school or training for long periods of time, and have their career paths hopefully mapped out, and are eager to get started. 

Everyone thinks they can contribute, wants to contribute and desires to contribute.

But what if gubment control, increased taxation, regulation of industry or job entry, permits and licensing, redistribution of economic activity, and ever-growing bureaucratic control clobber those "incentives to production?"

Answer me - what would you prefer to do with your life - contribute WHAT YOU accomplish or redistribute WHAT YOU  accomplish?

That's an easy one.

Oh, redistribution is NOT contribution.  Taxes are not investments.  To have bread taken from you and your family is not patriotic.  None of that "spreads the wealth around."  And all of that squashes "incentives to [such] production." 

AND IT CAUSES MALAISE.

People who say such tripe (patriotic contributions and investments) are the equivalent of pigs walking on two legs trying to control a barnyard.

Period.

* The underlining is mine.

The Nature Of Private Property

"If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property."

John Locke (1632 - 1704)

This is an individual who's thoughts and writings about freedom and natural law had a great influence on those who founded the United States, and on one Thomas Jefferson in particular who wrote the Declaration of Independence.

To wit - if an individual is, by a state of nature, master of property earned and owned, and finds the enjoyment of that property to be unsafe or insecure, that individual would reasonably seek out those of like mind and unite with them in the interest of preservation of that property.

So, then, what is property?

The word's origin is Latin, proprietas, from proprius, meaning 'one's own, special.'

From my Oxford dictionary, the definition of property, as it applies to the law, is "the right to possession, use or disposal of something; ownership."

Does it not follow, therefore, that the Founding Fathers, so influenced by such natural law as private property, would choose and develop an economic system that encourages capitalism, free enterprise and free markets?  If a legal framework that encourages moral and voluntary exchange is not integral to the system, the government they founded could not exist!

And if these masters of the ability to possess, use or dispose of their private property feel it unsafe or insecure, or are under the threat of having it more and more completely or forcefully removed, what does Locke suggest they would reasonably do?   

SEPARATE AND UNITE WITH THOSE OF LIKE MIND.

Interestingly, in my previous free enterprise quote, Ayn Rand suggests that the death knell of any nation would happen when one half of a population is expected to support the other half that feels entitled to that support.

That is the very premise of her book Atlas Shrugged.  In that book those with ownership of tangible, financial or intellectual property do separate and unite.

In order for this condition to be reached, property owners have to be identified by how much they possess. 

If income level so determines their identity, or income earned from PREVIOUSLY-ACQUIRED possession, any level is baseless.  No matter one's income, someone else will consider that "rich" by comparison!  And when an overlord determines the level of income that must be treated differently, no matter the level, it can only be ARBITRARY. 

Why?  For certainly, CERTAINLY, that level will encompass a great number of people whose income is LESS than than is earned by the overlords, and the overlords will justify ways, and find ways, and install ways around its application to them!  Whatever the overlords can and will do to benefit themselves will be "legal."  They will protect their property with the law!  And if those same things were to be done by the rest, well, that would be considered "illegal."  They, a separate class, would be punished by the law!

The phrase "four legs good, two legs bad" applies well!

Eventually that pinpointed income level will not provide enough for redistribution to the "entitled" or "dependent" class and redistribution will have to increase as the arbitrary, taxable, income level is lowered, and lowered, and then lowered again.

So, when do those whose earned property is so threatened that they do in fact seek to associate with others of like mind?

THAT, BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF THE CONGREGATION, IS YET, AND PERHAPS SOON, TO BE SEEN ... STAY TUNED.

Have We Reached The Tipping Point?

"When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friends, is about the end of any nation."

Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982)

This scenario has been on the minds of many people in the past few days.

Is it possible that the United States has reached this tipping point?  If not, how close are we?

We certainly know that there is a percentage of any vote that looks for gimmes.  We could accurately call it The Gimme Vote.

If there is The Gimme Vote, what is its percentage of the total vote?  30%?  40%?  What is motivation for The Gimme Vote to vote differently?

We know that one of the larger two parties has a reputation for gimmes, as perceived to be provided by a larger and larger gubment.  And the other larger party, well, is said to hate, and take away, and prevent gimmes, wanting instead a smaller gubment.

So gee, where would the percentage of the populace that wants the gimmes go to vote?

Here are the two positions as envisioned by Ayn Rand's quote:

Party One - vote for us because we will tax the bad people and spend the money on you.
Party Two - you won't need the "help" of gubment because we will help create the economic growth that will ensure you a good job and you will be able to take care of yourself.

Party One surely cannot exist without a dependent class.  Are they going about trying to make that class bigger?

And Party Two surely cannot exist if there is a large, and getting larger, dependent class.  If it continues to exist, it can and will only do so as a minority party.  And, as things continue, as a minority it will get smaller and smaller.

So, my question remains - is it possible that the United States has reached the tipping point?

And if so, what does that mean?  It is said that there are 10,000 Baby Boomers retiring every day, who will no longer be paying the taxes they did while working.  At the same time, gubment is getting larger and larger and filling its old and new bureaucratic nooks and crannies with more people who are paid by taxes.  As these two things happen, the POOL of taxpayers will NECESSARILY shrink.

Each of those taxpayers, NECESSARILY, will have to shoulder a larger and larger burden.

NECESSARILY!

Notice that the POOL is not getting any larger.  Gubment does not create economic growth.  In fact, it can squash it, and does so with laws, licensing restrictions, regulations, taxes and fees, and forcing its people into more and more "programs."

But isn't gubment taking water out of one end of the POOL, say the deeper (richer) end, and pouring that same water into the other side of the POOL, say the shallower (poorer) end?  Is the dimension of the POOL getting bigger?  But the number of people wanting to swim in that POOL is increasing every day!  Will there not one day be a water overflow, no matter how much is poured from one side into the other?

I know the popular term now is "fiscal cliff."  In this metaphor, it might more appropriately be called a "fiscal overflow."

At what point, if it has not happened already, at what point does this naturally retiring 10,000 not get supplemented by more people, every day, who simply say they aren't participating in this gimme thing anymore?

Atlas is shouldering the world.  The load is getting heavier and heavier.  When I hold a weight I know that it seems to get heavier with time.  The load surely is getting heavier and heavier for Atlas with time.  Is Atlas shrugging? 

And how many John Galts would that create?

A Conquering Group Is Needed

"Unhappy is the fate of one who tries to win his battles and succeed in his attacks without cultivating the spirit of enterprise, for the result is waste of time and general stagnation.  When a rare opportunity comes, do not hesitate, but swiftly accomplish tasks that are otherwise impossible."

Sun Tzu (544 BC - 496 BC)

Known best for his book The Art of War, Sun Tzu did not live long but has a long legacy.

Whether he was a real character in Chinese history, or his book can be attributed entirely to him or other family relations, it doesn't matter.  We regard the book attributed to him for what it is.

THIS IS A BOOK THAT HAS BEEN READ FOR CENTURIES BY PEOPLE OF ALL STRIPES AND OCCUPATIONS.

And business leaders and others involved in free enterprise would do well to read it too!

Why?

What is the competition of business if it is not strategy and tactics, offense or defense, attack or feint, and all the many other adjectives and verbs that can be applied to warfare?

Now, we would like to think that such business competition plays within certain legal parameters! 

But cannot the death of one or the other competitors not be the ultimate result, figuratively speaking of course?

But would Sun Tzu understand a war where two entities are struggling one with another and a third, more powerful entity, began directing traffic. 

What would Sun Tzu have to say if that third, more powerful entity, began laying down rules that favored one warring party over the other? 

Or if the more powerful entity began restricting when and how each warring party went about organizing itself, put together its resources, went about finding more resources, or could operate at all?

Or if the more powerful entity began taking resources from both warring parties?

I can't think of a time in war when such a thing happened.

But really, what would Sun Tzu have to say?  It could be that he would suggest that the two warring parties combine in the common effort of dismantling the outside, more powerful entity!

For if they do not, no matter the outcome of the war between the two parties, neither, in the end, will be able to survive as they had imagined.

These two warring parties would have to understand that the direction and thinking of the more powerful entity would have to change.  

And they would have to understand that their forces would need to combine.  

And they would have to understand that their goals would NEVER be realized, they would NEVER be able to cultivate a spirit of enterprise, and the result of their not combining would result in a waste of time and general stagnation.

Sun Tzu was a an understanding person.  He understood human nature.  He understood the thinking of leaders.  He understood competition, in war or otherwise.  And he understood how those who do not pay attention to his words, and do not combine forces when necessary, will indeed STAGNATE.

There is an entity out there that is becoming a more powerful entity with every law passed.  

I think we should combine forces and, in the spirit of Sun Tzu, take advantage of this rare opportunity to throw the bums out so we can accomplish tasks that are otherwise impossible.

Read the quote again!

More And Better Is To Come - If Allowed Unfettered

"The power of population is infinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population increases in a geometric ratio, while the means of subsistence increases in an arithmetic ratio. The number of mouths to be fed will have no limit;  but the food that is to supply them cannot keep pace with the demand for it.  We must come to a stop somewhere, even though each square yard, by extreme improvements in cultivation, could maintain its man.  In this state of things there will be no remedy."

Thomas Robert Malthus (1766 - 1834)

This is a surprisingly faithless view put forth by a Reverend!  You would think that he, of all kinds of people, would understand that an all-knowing, Grand Designer (I use those words playfully) would have known what future populations held in store and would have provided Creation sufficient to handle it! 

His philosophies also surprisingly lack understanding of the power of free-market economics as he thought he was taking "the long view" of economics, and poo-pooed short-term expediencies.

Toward that end he encouraged domestic taxes called the Corn Laws (tariffs) on the importation of wheat, which, he thought, would encourage increased production of grains on his nations' islands!  He was amazingly influential in his time.

His name has become intertwined even today with modern population doomsayers and pessimists who similarly lack understanding of free-market economics and its ability to encourage the search for PROFIT in invention and change.  Each time we are told that the earth cannot "sustain" this or that population amount, and we will all die because of it, the word "MALTHUSIAN" comes to the fore!

Notice when he died.  It was BEFORE the Industrial Revolution, and the discovery and general use of OIL.

In Malthus's day, a farm was necessarily small because it took a farmer and a single-horse or ox plow one day to plow an area about 88 yards x 55 yards.  That area is called an ACRE.

In his day corn was a crop requiring more labor than any other.  Corn was used for grain (human food) and its stalks and leaves were used for animal food.  After the corn harvest, where one man could pick about one acre of corn in a day, the stalks were then gathered by hand, cut down and tied into shocks.  Those shocks were peppered around a field, for later retrieval.

Corn had to be stored in silos of some sort.  The shocks had to be stored in a dry place, and were very important.  Corn farming required a lot of labor and the farms were therefore small.

What teensy thing did the good Reverend Malthus disregard in his thinking?  The mind of FREE MEN!  

People free to think and invent and innovate and change and improve! 

WHEN LEFT UNFETTERED THE CREATIVE MINDS OF PEOPLE FREE TO PURSUE THEIR PASSIONS AND BUSINESSES PRODUCE NEW AND BETTER.  THESE MINDS ALWAYS PRODUCE NEW AND BETTER.

Take for instance corn farming.  Actually let's consider many types of grain farming.  Grains are certainly essential to the survival of mankind.

The Industrial Revolution produced mechanisms, and mechanisms in many markets and industries.

Better plows became mechanical plows.  Implements and tools were invented to provide quicker and mechanical picking, then picking and threshing, then picking and threshing and winnowing of many kinds of grains. 

The first could do so in one row, then a couple of rows and now A DOZEN ROWS of grains!  The latest COMBINE HARVESTERS, so named because they combine picking, threshing, winnowing and collecting for storage, of many rows of a given grain.

Hundreds of acres of farmland can be harvested in one day, by one man! 

While we can't be too hard on Thomas Malthus for his myopia in not seeing all this, we should wonder at his lack of depth of understanding and faith in his considered professions - one profession of worship of a providing, and grand designing, Heavenly Father, and the other profession which considered Adam Smith's free markets and the wondrous powers thereof.

And certainly, if economics is allowed to thrive in a free-market fashion, MORE IS YET TO COME.  There are many better mouse traps being created all around us today, and more are yet to come.

The gubment CANNOT create jobs.  But with policies conducive regulation, and taxation, and domestic laws and unfettered access to markets, gubments can create environments which DO create jobs!

WHEN ECONOMIES SPUTTER AND JOBS ARE LACKING, IT IS ALWAYS DUE TO FREE-MARKET ECONOMICS NOT ALLOWED TO FLOURISH AND DO WHAT FREE-MARKET ECONOMICS, FREE ENTERPRISE, DOES BEST!  GUBMENTS NEED TO GET OUT OF THE WAY! 

SO, MAY I SAY AGAIN, GET OUT OF THE WAY!

New Economic Thinking

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Adam Smith (1723 - 1790)

This simple, yet profound, statement is typical of the thinking of one of the most prominent and influential economists in world history.

Perhaps the second-most important thing of 1776 was the publication of his second-most popular book, commonly referred to as The Wealth Of Nations.

But how that book actually came about the the rest of the story.

He began lecturing at the University of Edinburgh in 1748.  He taught "rhetoric," and his economic philosophy which he called "the obvious and simple system of natural liberty."  His lectures met with much success.  Then, in 1752, he took over as what we would call "chairman" of the Moral Philosophy Department.

His first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, was published in 1759.  His basic premise was this:  that interactions between people, whom he called agent and spectator, depended on sympathy.  His definition of moral sentiment was "sympathy."

Then, in contrast to the prevailing ECONOMIC THEORY of his time, which we refer to as "mercantilism," he began the development of his thinking that the wealth of nations does not depend on their quantity of gold and silver, but what he called the wealth of its labor.  Labor therefore, if left to freely operate and sympathetically deal voluntarily one with another, would produce and economic growth would result.

Moving to France (and befriending one Benjamin Franklin while there) he witnessed something that would change his life, and influence his thinking.  He watched France's wealth become virtually destroyed by Louis 14 and 15, and their destructive wars.  The country's destruction was due to the Royal excessive consumption of goods and services, which Smith deemed to have no economic contribution.  The country was falling apart due to their, what he called, UNPRODUCTIVE LABOR.  He saw how the unproductive leadership TOOK from their society and nation, and did not CONTRIBUTE.

In our current politics, we might refer to this as a struggle between GIVERS AND TAKERS, and those who feel ENTITLED TO ANOTHER PERSON'S LABOR.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS UNPRODUCTIVE LABOR, AND THE TRULY PRODUCTIVE LABOR OF THOSE STRIVING TO MAKE LIVINGS, FIGURED PREDOMINANTLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIS THINKING OF ECONOMIC THEORY.

Smith wrote a letter to his good friend David Hume that he had begun to write a book to "pass away the time."  It was published in 1776, and entitled An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

And history was changed.  And economic thinking, forever.

In addition to the prominent thought quoted above, was his idea that markets are literally controlled by the billions of interactions (hopefully voluntary and sympathetic) between those who "productively labor."  He called that control "THE INVISIBLE HAND."

The most productive national economies of our current world are those countries who practice economic models which most exemplify the thinking of Adam Smith. 

And, obviously, the least productive economies are those countries whose economic practices are the furthest from it.

THE LAST FOUR YEARS HAVE BEEN A DETERMINED EFFORT TO DRAG (A GOOD WORD) OUR ECONOMY FURTHER FROM ADAM SMITH. 

Has this dragging caused our economy to drag?  YES! 

Why is it so hard to understand how freedom and liberty, productive labor, sympathy between "agent and spectator," to use Smith's words, and invisibly-controlled market interactions grow economies, and are beneficial, and their opposite is not?

WHY IS IT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Business Failure Equals Consumer Benefit

"A fact rarely suspected, let alone understood, is that businessmen are by no means the chief beneficiaries of the free market, private ownership, limited government way of life.  Many business ventures fail entirely.  Who then are the beneficiaries?  The masses!"

Leonard E. Read (1898 - 1983)

Businesses fail?  Who knew!

Can business fail in a free market?  Of course. 
Can business fail when gubment intervenes?  Of course.

Should gubment invervene to prevent business failure?  NO!

Who benefits when businesses fail?  According to Dr. Read, well, the consumer does!

Why would a consumer benefit the most when any business fails?  Particularly one that provides goods or services that a consumer desires?

Does this mean to say that a free market, private ownership, limited gubment way of life is not tilted toward business?  Instead it's tilted toward the consumer?

Of course!  When a business fails, in a free or controlled market, what happens is that the consumer is no longer paying for inferior products, poor service, inefficiencies and/or dishonest business practices. 

A controlling gubment might try to prop up the business further.  We have seen that recently.

What happens when that controlling gubment picks winners and losers?  Let's say, for instance, that the gubment wants to pursue what it calls POMEGRACIOUS energy?  It does so because it is promoting a political angle, and it's not necessarily promoting a purple, or violet, or amethyst, or pomegranate color - IT'S A NEW COLOR WHICH THEY CALL POMEGRACIOUS - the color must be pursued.  The new color is the same as the "old" color, but now it's more important!

Not only must POMEGRACIOUS energy be pursued, but the old energy (for which there is no substitute* in the near or long term) must be crushed.  How should it be crushed?  Politically, with words, by creating a more POMEGRACIOUS attitude for Dr. Read's "masses," with tax and regulatory policies - you name it - it MUST be crushed!

* Now we all know that the floating DeLorean is coming, into which we will pour whatever garbage is available nearby, and it will have power forever - but in the near and long terms it simply isn't on the horizon. When I was a kid, I was certain that by now we would all be driving floating cars, but alas, I was wrong.

What if a few POMEGRACIOUS businesses are picked out because it is known they are failing and will soon fail completely?  And those businesses are propped up, let's say, with tax money?  What if they are chosen because some of that tax money can make it back to the GRAND PROPPER in the form of, let's say, political donation?

DOESN'T THAT REPRESENT THE WORST FORM OF GUBMENT INTERVENTION?  ISN'T THAT CRONY "CAPITALISM" AT ITS WORST?  DOES THE CONSUMER BENEFIT IN ANY WAY?  ANY, ANY, ANY WAY?

But, because we are dealing with POMEGRACIOUS businesses, nobody, not the gubment, not the media, nobody with the swag gubment encourages, will say anything about it.  Sure, a few kooks might try, in vain, to point out the utter illegality and stupidity of the moves, but, hey, after all, who listens to the few kooks?

Any business, even if not POMEGRACIOUS, any business that must be propped up with subsidy, or cash infusion, or even utter gubment take over, should not be so propped up if it is going to fail.  And especially if that formerly not POMEGRACIOUS business is now introducing a POMEGRACIOUS product line!  

Why?  Because, as Dr. Read rightly points out, the consumer is not going to benefit! 

• The same inefficiencies that got it into trouble will still exist. 
• The same policies that got it into trouble will still exist. 
• The same substandard products that got it into trouble will still exist.
• The same consumer that did not want the former product line, will not want the new product line, especially if the new product line introduces a POMEGRACIOUS product the consumer has not demonstrated a desire for!
• The new beast will be the same as the old beast.  I've heard a song that says just that!

AND YET THE GRAND PROPPER TELLS US THE EFFORT IS A SUCCESS!  EVEN WHEN THE REST OF US CAN SEE THAT THE CASH INFUSED, NOW GUBMENT-RUN BUSINESS, IS STILL TENS OF BILLIONS OF (OUR) DOLLARS IN THE HOLE!

May I say - pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!  Don't let the smoke and mirrors confuse!  Smoke and mirrors are used by magicians to aid in their illusion.  Even without the smoke and mirrors, an illusion is still an illusion!

Dr. Read is right - (even if POMEGRACIOUS) bad businesses that fail = consumer benefit!

Free Enterprise And Innovation

UNDERSTAND - SIMPLIFY - FOCUS - INNOVATE
This philosophy provides the continuing motivation to develop innovations, which are the best driver of economic development and a guarantee for job security. It is a philosophy of the essential, of customer value, of simplicity. A philosophy built on the conviction that things created for a purpose and with logic, do not need to be completely renewed, but must instead be subject to continuous evolution.
EFFICIENT - RELIABLE - INNOVATIVE

Clarence C. Hobart "C.C." (1854- unknown)

That is the corporate philosophy of the now Hobart Corporation, started in 1906 by CC Hobart.

My first experience with CC Hobart was as a 15 year old.  I got a job as a dishwasher at a hotel near my home.  There was nothing glamorous about the job.  It was exactly as you imagine.  Basically I took dirty dinner and silverware, put it all in special containers and onto a conveyor belt, pushed a button and the belt would drag it all through a huge dishwasher.

 

This logo is what I remember most about that dishwasher!

Anyone who works in a commercial kitchen anywhere is familiar with that logo and the Hobart name.

Certainly, one of the hallmarks, most important hallmarks, of free enterprise is the concept of CREATIVE DESTRUCTION.

Basically, when entrepreneurs and inventors are left to their own means they will innovate.  Creating a product, or taking another product, they will change it and make it different, better, faster or more productive.

As regards creative destruction, does anyone remember the typewriter?

At the turn of the last century C.C. Hobart was partnered and working with a young man named Thomas Edison.  They were creating what they called a "dynamo."  Literally the night before the fully-assembled, $1100 dynamo was to be delivered to their client, the factory burned down.  They only had $200 of insurance on a building containing $3800 worth of equipment.  The two men went their separate ways.

CC was convinced electricity was the wave of the future, and moved to Troy, Ohio to open The Hobart Cabinet Corporation and begin creating.  His first products consisted of wood cabinets to house parts for electric generators, lighting systems, dynamos and flywheels used in the first electric coffee-grinding mill.  It also produced office filing cabinets and desks. 

But remember his philosophy - innovate and innovative.  This is a time line of just SOME of the electric inventions CC Hobart introduced to the world.  .

1905 - electric meat choppers :: 1914 - first commercial mixer :: 1922 - combination meat chopper and mixer :: 1926 - first commercial warewashing machine (dishwasher) :: 1928 - first commercial potato peeler :: 1930 - first electric meat slicer :: 1933 - first electric air whip machine (to create whipped or cream toppings) :: 1942 - helps the war effort with telescoping mounts and fire-control generators :: 1946 - meat saw with "easy clean" design :: 1946 - "moneyline" scales which can be read from any angle :: 1946 - angled meat slicer :: 1955 - heavy-duty bakery mixer :: 1956 - automatic weighing and labeling system :: 1958 - "Saniquick" cold-water glass washer :: 1965 - high-volume, automatic meat weighing and wrapping system :: 1969 - 20 commercial product lines, 32 manufacturing operations and customers in over 100 countries :: 1972 - automatic meat patty machine :: 1972 - pioneers the use of universal product symbols, later becoming the UPC code :: 1982 - the first scale and labeling system which interfaces with store computers :: 1984 - "Scalemaster" technology which gives retailers centralized control of scale files :: 1992 - refrigeration is CFC free :: 1995 - first combination oven/steamer :: 1997 - 100th anniversary :: 2001 - first food-equipment manufacturer to introduce microbial product protection :: 2001 - first fast-food "smart" scales :: 2004 - first "opti-rinse" spray nozzles for dishwashers :: 2006 - the oldest operating Hobart mixer (from 1913) found to still be in operation.

Remember, after their initial invention, each of these products was creatively destroyed and improved upon, even until today.  The Hobart Corporation files as many as 1000 patents annually.

In America's free enterprise, capitalist system, our products get more efficient because of our ability to innovate; our products get more productive because of our ability to innovate; our products get more profitable because of our ability to innovate; and our ability to innovate does not come through gubment edict, mandate or taxes.

NO GUBMENT BUREAUCRAT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE COME UP WITH OR CAUSED TO HAPPEN ALL THE IDEAS THAT HAVE MADE THE HOBART CORPORATION THE INNOVATIVE GIANT IT HAS BEEN FOR OVER 100 YEARS.

BUT FREE-MARKET ECONOMICS AND FREE-ENTERPRISE CAPITALISM DID!

What's The Plan?

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.  I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.  And an enormous debt to boot."

"We want to see private business expand.  We believe that one of the most important ways of achieving these ends at this time is to continue progress toward a balance of the federal budget."

Henry Morgenthau
United States Treasury Secretary
1934-1945

In the early 30s FDR took Herbert Hoover's "New Deal" spending plans and tripled and quadrupled down on them.  Hoover's very Keynesian spending plan was embraced by FDR, only creating a couple of new agencies on top of what Hoover had there.

What ended the depression was when people finally got to work turning plowshares into weapons.  Many left to fight and many stayed to work.  And private business did expand.

And it is said by many economists today that FDR took a recession and turned it into a full-blown depression.  Some economic historians do not have the depression ending officially until 1948, after a brief and slight recession at the end of WWII.

AS I LEARNED MY FIRST DAY OF WORLD HISTORY CLASS IN COLLEGE, WE LEARN FROM HISTORY THAT WE DON'T LEARN FROM HISTORY.

Economics books published this 1934 cartoon, which I first saw while studying economics in college.  I didn't get it then.  I do now.

So here we are again.  Nearing the end of a presidential election campaign we have two philosophies.  One is not addressing issues, saying "give me more time."  The other is not addressing issues, saying "I have done it before, I can do it again."

History says the plea of the former is ridiculousness.  More of the same does not RECOMMEND re-election.  The latter has not garnered enough trust.  His position, however, will be very, very difficult for many to live with.  Why?  Because his vision is one that says we will grow out of this thing through hard work.  People won't need welfare, or food stamps or free phones or whatever because they will be working.  His vision is the traditional American way.  That is the harder thing to vote for.  Both sides of the voting electorate desire "hope and change," and both will get the change part.  But hope?

WE HAVE SERIOUS ISSUES THAT EXISTED AND/OR HAVE BEEN MADE WORSE IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS.  BUT I DON'T SEE ANY PLANS TO ADDRESS THEM.  THESE ARE ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED!  THEY MUST BE HIT HEAD ON.  MORE OF THE SAME WILL NOT WORK!  WE NEED TO CHANGE NOW OR WHAT MADE THIS COUNTRY STRONG AND GREAT WILL EVAPORATE.  HERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT MUST, MUST, MUST BE TACKLED:

• GDP growth barely moving at 1.3%.  During the Depression such growth was 8-9%.  What's the plan?
• The US credit rating was reduced for the first time in history.  There are some rating agencies considering doing it again!  What's the plan?
• Even the "mainstream" news media recognizes that 16% of the population, some 49.1 million people, are in poverty!  That's the most in history.  What's the plan?
• Some 47 million people are using food stamps.  Again, the most in history.  What's the plan?
• Unemployment is said to be 8.1%.  That is statistical poop.  If you include those who truly aren't working, those who have given up, and those very UNDER employed that number more than doubles.  I read where between the Truman years and 2009 the economy has only had 39 months of unemployment over 8%.  Even using the statistical poop numbers, we are now experiencing 43 consecutive months of unemployment over 8%!!  What's the plan?
• Almost 50% of the American consumer budget is food and energy.  Yet these two criteria are NOT included in the national inflation statistic.  Inflation is said to be "in check."  What?  I buy gasoline and meat.  Inflation is not in check.  What's the plan?
• We have unimaginable debt!  It is not "in check!!"  The deficit and national debt have exploded in four years!  The mushroom cloud is still growing.  Such debt is truly unsustainable, especially as 10,000 Baby Boomers exit the work force every day.  What's the plan?
• The "average" family's annual income is down 4.7% (about $5K) in the last four years.  What's the plan?
• Personal income and national income, as macroeconomic statistics, are down in the last four years relative to population growth (according to PBS!).  What's the plan?
• How about energy production?  How are we doing?  And don't count North Dakota, because that is PRIVATE ENTERPRISE at work!  The gubment has no role there.  How's oil and coal production going?  Oil is selling between $90 and $100/barrel!  Structural changes have been made to those industries, and that is significant as there is no energy substitute, no matter what the regime pretends.  What's the plan?
• Huge tax increases are coming in 2013.  They are already in the works.  What?!  What's the plan? 
• The Middle East is in flames.  Our embassies have never been attacked like this, and in US history only 6 ambassadors have been killed intentionally.  The "mainstream" news media hardly mentions this!  What's the plan?

Could I go on?  I guess I could!  Student loans, housing, personal bankruptcy, trade - gee, what's going gangbusters?

WE HAVE BEEN WARNED, AND KNOW, THAT WHAT IS CALLED A "FINANCIAL CLIFF" IS COMING.  AND IT IS COMING!  THIS HAS BEEN CALLED "THE MOST PREDICTABLE ECONOMIC CRISIS IN HISTORY," BY MANY PEOPLE!

WHAT'S THE PLAN?  WHERE'S THE LEADERSHIP?  WHAT'S THE PLAN?  WHERE'S THE LEADERSHIP?  WHAT'S THE PLAN?  WHERE'S THE LEADERSHIP?

Leaders rarely, and that is really true, RARELY, have so much information in advance of a crisis.  CRISES are usually not predicted, OR EVEN PREDICTABLE! 

A TRUE LEADER HITS THE PROBLEM HEAD ON.  IF A LEADER HAS INFORMATION IN ADVANCE OF A CRISIS, IMMEDIATE EFFORTS ARE EMPLOYED, AND LEADERS SPRING INTO ACTION, TO DEAL WITH AND/OR MINIMIZE THE CRISIS.

Don't tell me what you are going to do.  That is useless.  Should we go over all the unmet promises of the last four years?

I WANT TO HEAR HOW, HOW, HOW YOU INTEND TO HANDLE THESE PROBLEMS!!  

THE HOW IS WHAT COUNTS.

Buy Your Twinkies Now

"Modern 'public health' initiatives have moved well beyond what could reasonably be classified as public goods. Today government undertakes all sorts of policies in the name of public health that are aimed at regulating personal behavior."

Radley Balko

Libertarian Journalist

When the world "public" is used, it means gubment.

While the populace is the public, "public" policies and programs - public school, public health care, public welfare, public defender, public servant - you name it, all mean gubment.

Think carefully about which gubment programs are not, in the end, about control.

If it is "Constitutional" to force (mandate) everyone to "buy" health care, it is similarly, THEREFORE, "Constitutional" to force (mandate) everyone to buy Twinkies.  And if that is "Constitutional," it must also be true that the gubment has the "self evident" ability to force (mandate) that everyone NOT buy Twinkies.

How do they do that?  Taxes and edict!  It's okay in at least one city to date to buy three small sodas, but one cannot buy one big one.  Edict!  These edicts have come forth for a long time - smoking rules, trans-fats, coconut oil in popcorn, fried foods in hospitals, certain light bulbs - I'm probably missing a few.

Next sights are set on popcorn itself, milkshakes, vending machine candy, all fried foods, meal calorie counts and milk-coffee products.

Given enough time, the only thing left to eat will be soylent green.

But, keep in mind, we must, MUST I tell you, proliferate needles to addicts, condoms and birth control pills to children, and abortion on demand (even for minors whose parents must NOT be told).

As I said, it is NOT about public health.  It IS about control.

In case you haven't heard, there is the urban legend that Twinkies will last forever.  So, obviously, now is the time to stock up.  Buy, buy, buy!  The day is soon to come when you won't be able to!  Honestly, which would you rather eat - Twinkies or soylent green?  And don't believe those who say that longevity legend isn't true.  It simply has to be...

Mandate The Family Business!

"If somehow everyone was made to begin and manage their own business, statism would have no hold and socialism would die."

JayThe Home Inspector

And people should begin young!

I started my first business at 13!  In print shop at school I printed my own business cards - Jay's Lawn Care Services.  My business differed in that in addition to mowing I would edge!  Those are the days when edgers were glorified hand-held scissors!  And I could charge a little more because I did a little more!

At the same time I delivered the morning paper, got golf balls out of lakes and sold them back to the golfers and flipped hamburgers at Burger Chef.  To do that required that I ride my bike everywhere to get it done, but I did.  So, I have always been self employed!

IMAGINE any society where, in addition to their "regular" jobs, people were to also have their own businesses?

What if that was gubment mandate?! 

What incentive could the gubment use to induce such a practice?

SIMPLE!  LET PEOPLE DO IT TAX FREE!  LET THEM KEEP ALL THE MONEY THEY MAKE IN THEIR OWN BUSINESSES!  CREATE INCENTIVE BY NOURISHING AN ECONOMIC, FREE ENTERPRISE PETRI DISH AND WATCH WHAT GROWS!

Do you think that would ever happen?  I don't either, but IMAGINE it!

This could be the local TV news story:  "Dateline Washington:  today is Labor Day Monday and marks the 236th anniversary of Occupy My Street.  A truly grassroots movement beginning in colonial times, people all over our land have come to celebrate their own businesses by setting up tables and booths dotting every square inch of Lafayette Park across from the White House.  The entire Mall between the Capitol Building and Washington Monument is similarly populated!  Like a business expo, folks have come from all over to promote their goods and services, demonstrating their wares and taking orders.  At lunch time the sandwich ladies showed up selling their homemade sandwiches, scones and cupcakes by the hundreds!  (a quick interview with a smiling sandwich lady with a fist full of money)  And why not?  There are millions of people here!  These celebratory business expos are being held in many thousands of parks all over the country.  The rest of the year these enterprising Americans go quietly about their personal businesses.  For some this small business represents huge chunk of the family income!  But on this Monday, every year, they get together to demonstrate their free enterprise natures and show what it takes to manage a personal business and engage in voluntary exchange.  Doing so, and keeping 100% of their profits, generates billions of dollars annually available for discretionary spending, paying family bills and investment.  And doing so, obviously, keeps our economy well oiled and smoothly moving along.  I think I want a sandwich!  Back to you Iggie!"

You say I'm dreaming!  Yes, maybe I am!  BUT ...

I ask - would it be "greedy" of Americans to work in this fashion and keep what profits they earn?
I ask - would anyone so striving, and as they get better at succeeding, in their own free enterprise business be interested in the paltry "benefits" of gubment designed to keep them poor and dependent, even for generations?
I ask - would there be an entitlement mentality?  Would a political party derive any power from trying to create an entitlement mentality and thereby garner votes toward insuring that mentality's development and maintenance?
I ask - would people be setting up tents, trashing parks and living in filth to protest the "greed" of the American family business?
I ask - would the statists be able to take hold?  Would the wondrous promises of socialism ever have a chance?  COULD they?

The answer to all those questions is not apparent.  It is, let's find the word -- axiomatic?  Blatantly obvious?  Manifest?  How about palpable?  Certainly any of those words apply.

The only way to combat the dregs of socialism is to GET TO WORK.

The only way to promote free enterprise is to create an environment in which people GET TO WORK.

Certainly they would pay the sandwich lady because there would be no free lunch...

The Salt Of The Earth

"Business is the salt of life."

Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

Voltaire was a civil libertarian.  He was in favor of freedom and advocated things like freedom of religion, freedom of personal expression, international free trade and, of all things, state politics free from the politics of the church!

What?  Separation of church and state?  And individual freedoms?

So what did he mean when he said business?  Busy ness?  Yes, in a way.

What is business?  When I studied economics in college I, smartly, had a business and economics dictionary!  Here is a good definition of business:

"An economic system in which goods and services are voluntarily exchanged for one another or money, on the basis of their perceived worth. Every business requires some form of investment and a sufficient number of customers to whom its output can be sold at profit on a consistent basis."  (This is from businessdictionary.com)

There are some key concepts there, with some implied:

1.  Voluntary exchange

2.  Perceived worth

3.  Risk (investment)

4.  A product or service that people want

5.  CONSISTENT profit

Without the last, the business will fail.  Certainly the object of business is to profit.  It's purpose is not to provide social opportunity, employee benefits, back political causes, fund clubs and teams, free give-a-ways, a Christmas party for everyone in Hawaii, or anything like that.  The business owner(s) can CHOOSE to do all of those things and more.  But they can only be done with profits!

But what does Voltaire mean identifying business with salt?

What is salt?  Certainly one of the tastes built into the human ability to distinguish taste, so it works great for seasoning food.  But salt is also used in preservation!

In Roman society, the gubment (the army) sometimes paid soldiers in salt.  The soldiers traded it in the market place for what they needed.  Hence the word SALary.  And Romans were fond of eating leafy vegetables seasoned with salt, and they called it a SALad, literally meaning "salted."

Looking at the list of five things up there associated with the definition of business might give a clue as to what Voltaire understood.  Business promotes freedom!  Business provides seasoning to the society!  Business PRESERVES those freedoms and that society as standards of living are improved through the introduction of goods, services and innovation!

Recently I heard interviews with people who were attending a particular convention.  They were asked about business profits and if those profits should be made illegal.  Yes, of course, profits should be outlawed they said!  There should be no profit!

These are people who clearly have no idea how an economy works.  They have no idea how a society (civilization really) is organized and maintained.  These are people who have never employed anyone and if they ever do it won't be for long.  These are people whose ideas, and the kind of society they promote, will end up in the trash bin of history.  These people are morons.

And if we vote for people like them we will all end up getting dragged down into the trash bin of history...

The New Largest Employer In The World

"Our nation is in deep trouble - morally, economically, and politically.  Practically everything in which the federal government has embroiled itself for the last several decades is in crisis - education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, inflation and the dollar, welfare, government spending, the drug war, and, of course, foreign policy."

Jacob G. Hornberger
The Future of Freedom Foundation
Founder and President

And now, and now (!) pharmaceuticals and health "care!"

The largest employer in the world is the United States Department of Defense.  According to the BBC News Magazine, in March 2012, Defense employs 3.2 million people.  The world's fifth largest employer is the UK's National Health Service with 1.7 million.

That sounds different than it is.  The Defense Department represents about 1% of the US population.  The UK Health Service represents about 3%!

There are about 63,000,000 people in the UK.  And it takes 3% of the population to administer a program far less complex than the zillions of pages and bureaucracies created just at the beginning of the health "care" system in the US! 

Do you not think this program, like all bureaucracies, necessarily, will grow and become more complex?

If 3% is the needed number of people needed to administer such a system in the UK, and it takes 3% minimum to administer a similar system in the US, what's that, 10 million people employed?!  Do you think 3% is accurate?  Personally I think the percentage of the US population employed will be more than 3%.

And we are told our new wondrous system will be cheaper (affordable is the word used), more efficient, faster, and cover more people, with fewer doctors, than previously!  Many still think health care will be "free!"

DOES ANYBODY REALLY BELIEVE THAT? 
DOES ANYBODY REALLY BELIEVE THAT HEALTH CARE IN THE UNITED STATES WON'T BE A SYSTEM IN CRISIS?

Well, I don't!

LIKE JACOB HORNBERGER SAYS, THIS WILL BE THE LATEST IN A SERIES OF CRISES THE GUBMENT EMBROILS ITSELF IN.

I THINK HEALTH CARE WILL BE A "SYSTEM" THAT WILL EAT ITSELF ALIVE.  AND OUR NATION IN THE PROCESS. 

NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, CREATED BY GUBMENT AND BUREAUCRATIC THINKING TO DATE, IS MORE FOREIGN TO THE VERY IDEA OF THE FREEDOMS AND LIBERTIES ENGENDERED BY AMERICA, AS CONCEIVED BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS.  ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.