The miracle of capitalism

The miracle of capitalism is that, first of all, it makes the correct assumption about mankind and how people function. That assumption is that human beings will virtually always act in a way that tends to increase their own happiness or satisfaction. This may be described in various ways:

• Self-defense
• Self-preservation
• Self-serving
• Selfishness

The actions may range, for example, from building an improvised shelter when lost in a wilderness to buying an iPhone. These are both acts of that put self ahead of other options. For example, I may destroy trees or kill an animal to survive when lost in a wilderness area.

What most liberals, progressives and leftists, however, fail to consider is that the buying of the iPhone was just as selfish an act as selling the iPhone was—as was the creation and manufacture of the iPhone.

• If you bought an iPhone, you did so because you felt that you would be happier, more satisfied or better off for having purchased it than by not purchasing it and keeping your money or using it to throw a big pizza party for your friends. Your act was purely selfish. You did not make the decision on whether the world would be a better place if you had an iPhone. You also probably did not consider: “Maybe I should just mail my money to the federal government so they can help more poor people with it.”
  
• If you sold an iPhone, you did so because you felt that your own situation would be improved by having sold it. This holds true whether you were the salesperson behind the counter, accepting a wage—and maybe a commission—for selling the iPhone; or if you were the owner of the franchise or store that sold the iPhone to the end-user. Indeed, it holds true down the entire supply chain—the distributor, the wholesaler, the manufacturer. Each of these were acting in their own self-interest when they acted to sell the iPhone.
  
• If you manufactured an iPhone, chances are you did so because it was in your own best interest to do so. (This is where it gets touchy.) Things are not so wonderful in China. It is quite possible that an eleven-year-old working ten hours a day manufacturing iPhones in China is not being coerced—at least not by Apple®. It is not at all unlikely that the parents of the eleven-year-old feel that it is better for the entire family for this child to be working in the factory than to be in China’s schools of indoctrination, where the treatment of the students may be no better than the treatment in the factory. It is even likely that the eleven-year-old worker feels that it is better for him or her to be in submission to his parents than to rebel. In fact, this young worker may even feel a tingle of pride and satisfaction that he or she is able to contribute to a better life for his whole family by working in the factory. (Granted, this is not the American way—to put children into factories—but we are not in a position to prejudge how other cultures grow and evolve over time. For more on this topic, please read here.)
  
• If you created the iPhone, if you were part of the product design team or even an inventor of one of the components, you, too, decided to create the product and work to get it into production because you were selfish. You did it because you thought you would be more satisfied or better off for having done so than in not doing so. It may have been because you were paid by Apple® or some other company to do the work. Or it may have been that you were simply so enthralled by the invention and innovation that the only way you could find satisfaction was to see it produced and distributed—even if your financial reward was relatively small by comparison. Either way, you selfishly sought whatever it was that brought you satisfaction or happiness.

So, what is the miracle of capitalism? It is the fact that capitalism turns your selfishness into service to the satisfaction of others.

Apple®, in the absence of government coercion, has no power to force anyone to buy an iPhone or an iPad or an iPod. The buyer—as indicated above—buys the product voluntarily (choosing it above all the alternatives, which are not just other similar products, but every other option—including just keeping the money) because the buyer sees the value of the product/service provided by the creators, manufacturers and sellers who bring the product/service to him.

This is the miracle of capitalism: transforming serving for self-satisfaction into service for the satisfaction of others.

On inviolable economic principles

All of the speculations and ruminations of socialist or Marxist economists and thinkers will never find a way for their post-revolution utopian society to avoid the curse of scarcity (witness Soviet Union history). Neither will government welfare schemes devised by liberal or progressive economists escape the ethical limitations found in the intimate and inviolable connection between man's willingness to work ("sweat") and his own wellbeing.

On socialism, slavery and blacks in America

Social theorist George Fitzhugh justified slavery as a positive good: "Slavery here [in the U.S.] relieves" the African "from a far more cruel slavery in Africa.... It christianizes [sic], protects, supports and civilizes him; it governs him far better than free laborers at the North are governed.... The master labors for the slave, they exchange industrial value. But the capitalist, living on his income, gives nothing to his subjects. He lives by mere exploitations." Unlike the "wage slaves" (a term Fitzhugh coined), African-Americans were cared for from the cradle to the grave. "Slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism," Fitzhugh wrote in 1854.

[The above adapted from a speech by Robert M.S. McDonald, associate professor of history at the U.S. Military Academy.]

The tragedy is that Fitzhugh's arguments can be reframed to fit the subjugation of American blacks (and other minorities) to socialist welfare policies by Democrats and progressives today. Rewritten as:

"Welfare here in the U.S. relieves the African-Americans from a far more cruel slavery in Africa (or elsewhere).... Welfare protects and supports him; it controls him--assuring that he always knows who his 'master' is and to whom he owes his allegiance at the polls (namely, the Democrats). Welfare controls them far better than free laborers in free-market capitalism are controlled. One never knows how those folks might vote!?!

"In exchange for the African-American's unthinking support at the polls, election cycle after election cycle, the Democrats and progressives promise to care for him (poorly, but care for him, they will) from cradle to grave.

"We, the liberal politician 'masters' will 'labor for them.' We will do whatever is necessary to keep ourselves in a position of power so that we can also assure our 'control' over the votes of the African-Americans under our sway. And we will always endeavor to convince them of how much better off they are under welfare than under the 'exploitation' of the capitalist. We will accomplish this--with the assistance of the willing aid of a progressive media—by avoiding calling attention to the successful blacks who have managed to become successful 'runaway slaves', for we do not want too many others to believe that they might be better off away from the 'plantation' of the welfare state.

"Slavery to welfare is, after all, the very best form of socialism."

Liberals enslave the poor to their poverty

It is ongoing liberal, so-called “progressive,” Democrat public policies that keep many minorities in the U.S. today enslaved, by and large, to programs that reduce their incentive to industry, commerce, and self-improvement. It is a further shame that such public policies and such ongoing class warfare is frequently encouraged by liberal-minded, power-hungry leadership within the minority communities themselves.

These programs function not only as a disincentive to work (i.e., actually have a job), but they also lead to the deterioration of minority neighborhoods as more and more (especially) males are jobless and on the streets day after day. Their hopeless state brought about through well-intentioned but dramatically misguided public welfare programs, leads to increased involvement with drugs and crime while two-parent homes dissolve because the welfare programs pay better when there is no 'bread-winner' in the household.

NOTE: If you don’t want to take my word for it, then at least click on the links in this post and read what is written there before contacting me. Thank you.

Leftists, Liberals and the War on Liberty and the Economy

Edward H. Crane, president of Cato Institute, writing in “Cato Policy Report” (Nov/Dec 2011), properly characterizes the Left here in the U.S.:

Of course, the Left has pretty much given up any claim to being champions of liberty these days. Speech codes on campus and restrictions of political speech show their disdain for the First Amendment. Double-down on troops in Afghanistan? Okay if the president’s a liberal. Then there’s the Left’s profound ignorance on how wealth is created. They love to focus on how to alleviate poverty when the [real] answer is wealth creation. Poverty is the natural state of man. Prosperity requires free markets, respect for contracts, and protection of private property. No big secret, but it seems to escape the Left.

So you have the Obama administration trample centuries of business law [Common Law] by denying Chrysler bondholders their contractual right to be first in line for assets sales under bankruptcy, and instead giving those rights to the UAW [United Auto Workers union], which had no such claim [under the law]. Property rights abused; the difficulty in selling corporate debt increased. The earned income of the rich? We’ll just take it and give it to those who didn’t earn it. Property rights abused; the incentive to create wealth undermined.

The trouble with liberals...

"[T]he trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." -- Ronald Reagan (1964)

Another Open Letter to Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate

I just sent the following to Republican leaders in the U.S. Congress:

Honorable Madame or Sir:

I urge you to oppose legislation that would raise tobacco taxes to expand the State Children's Health Insurance program. Trying to tap more funds from a shrinking source of revenue doesn't make much sense. I'm also concerned that this bill would open the door to a bigger, riskier and more SOCIALIST federal role in health care.

Congress shouldn't be raising taxes on ANYTHING during these tough economic times, but hitting tobacco products to fatten SCHIP spending is especially silly. We would actually need to recruit millions of new smokers just to be able to meet the new spending commitments. I'm worried that other TAX HIKES that I would pay will surely follow in order to cover for the long-term costs of this SOCIALIST legislation.

I've had enough of these budget-busting games. I urge you to VOTE AGAINST any attempts to TAKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN AN EVER-INCREASING SOCIALIST DIRECTION with more programs and higher taxes.

What are YOU going to do?

If We Lose This Battle, We May Lose the War

Wise men have always understood than men of equal intelligence, equal brilliance, and equal learning may hold differing viewpoints on the same issue. To hold these differing opinions under the same circumstances requires that the men with differing opinions must, in the end, be seeking differing goals out of the circumstances in which they find themselves.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves today, we have a radical left-wing President-elect supported by a Democrat Congress that is, in turn, supported by the radical left-wing of the Democrat party. I repeat, Congress is not supported by mainstream (or even "Main Street") America, but rather driven by their own leftist avant garde agenda.

I implore you to consider carefully how closely the present leftist agenda in the newly elected federal executive and freshly reinforced Democrat Congress reflects that agenda set forth by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels in The Communist Manifesto.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes: Understand here that the intent is the "nationalization" of private property for "public purposes." We are seeing the first steps being taken in this direction with the acquisition by the federal government of "stakes" in U.S. banks.
   
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax: Increasing taxes on the so-called "rich" has been the hew and cry of the Democrats for years. However, in the recent election cycle Obama made it his war cry.
   
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance: The Obama administration has already laid out its plan to increase the "death tax" to 55%. That would put the U.S. half way to the goal of the "abolition of all right of inheritance," would it not?
   
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels: Here's one the Democrats have not seized upon, as yet. The question is, how long will it be before those who stand for the U.S. Constitution and its original intent are labeled as "rebels"? Will the government then seize their property in "self-defense"?
   
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly: Is not this the direction in which we are headed with the $700 billion placed in the hands of Henry Paulsen to "rescue" the U.S. citizenry from the present "crisis"? NOTE: This "crisis" itself is entirely the making of the long-term philosophies and encouragement of the liberals and Democrats.
   
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State: With a history of undermining privately owned and individually operated transportation (the personal automobile) through policies that have made them increasingly expensive to own and operate; and, over the same period, being powerful advocates for "public transportation," I believe we can see that the leftist Democrat agenda is certainly showing tendencies in this direction.
   
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan: This is indicative of a plan for the federal government to take more and more of the private economy under its control. In just the last several months we have seen moves in two specific areas: banking and automobile manufacturing. However, we have a "promise" from the President-elect and the record of prior attempts by Democrats in Congress to take control of the healthcare sector of the U.S. economy.
   
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture: Was it not Barak Obama's words that he would establish a "citizen army"? The similarity of language is stark and frightening.
   
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country: Here is the one missing point from the presently exposed leftist agenda of the Democrats.
   
10. Free education for all children in public schools: Of course, "public school" education is only for the masses. It's not good enough for the Obama's, nor is it good enough for most of the Congressmen and Senators that are such "supporters" of "public education" for us, "the teaming masses." Of course, the purpose of the "free education" has proven to be more for indoctrination than for education, for surely we are witness to the fact the average product of "public education" is far better indoctrinated than educated by almost any measure.
    

Fellow citizens, if you love this great nation as I do, I beg of you that you stand up with me and fight against any acts of this Congress or the forthcoming federal Administration that would tend along these lines. Arm yourselves with the knowledge of the telephone numbers, fax numbers, and addresses of your Congressmen and Senators, House and Senatorial committee members of pertinent committees, and support with your finances organizations that are taking historic stands against the onslaught of leftist legislation and actions.

We must fight for those who do not yet see! We must fight for the generation that has been indoctrinated by public education -- for those who foolishly thought that a vote for Barak Obama was like casting a vote for an "American Idol" contestant.

We must fight NOW! For I fear that if we lose this battle now, we may lose the war. So much damage may be done and so many things my be cast into law that will be virtually impossible to reverse in the future if we do not now take a firm stand.

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

An Excuse to Do Anything or Everything

Rahm Emanuel, Barak Obama's new Chief of Staff declare, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”

Throughout history, those who wished to take despotic actions that the citizens would otherwise reject have moved rapidly to take those actions in times of crises. Almost any crisis will do as an excuse for those bent on moving government in directions counter to the long-term interests of the people. In recent history we have seen Hitler was one such opportunist, leveraging Germany's post-World War I economic failures as grounds for taking drastic Socialist actions.

Rarely, however, are despots so candid as President-elect Obama's emerging administration. Rahm Emanuel (quoted above) enunciates this crisis-based opportunism precisely.

The present Democrat-controlled Congress, brazenly encouraged by its recent victories at the polls and the most radically left-wing President-elect in the history of our nation, is poised to take just such actions. Using the current economic crisis as its excuse, the left-wing radicals presently sitting at the helm of our national legislature are prepared to take control -- one way or the other -- of the U.S. automakers in order to "remake" them according to their leftist and eco-Nazi agenda.

Under the euphemistic term "retooling," the Democrat leftists intend to force Ford, Chrysler, and GM to produce cars for "the green economy." As in the former Soviet Union, the only cars that will be available from U.S. factories will be those that meet approved "government designs." You can be sure that if these leftists have their way, protectionist measures will be put in place to assure that foreign auto manufactures will be priced out of the market, as well.

Next on their list of "crisis" measures will be steps to assure that gasoline prices are pushed higher again. And, of course, a grasp at another huge portion of the U.S. private economy -- the "nationalization" of healthcare.

Please take action now to stand against these kinds of actions by the current (and future) Congress and the Obama administration. Write and call your Senators and Representatives.

(c)2008 Richard D. Cushing

Worth Considering At This Time

"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs." --Theodore Roosevelt

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too." --W. Somerset Maugham

Obama's Limousine-Liberal Hypocrisy

Worth repeating:

"Barack and Michelle Obama are poised to commit a classic act of limousine-liberal hypocrisy -- in this case, turning their backs on tens of thousands of inner-city kids in Washington, D.C. Public schools, it seems, are good enough for poor and middle-class families, but not for rich families like the Obamas.

"In July, when he addressed the NAACP's annual convention, Sen. Barack Obama expressed his devotion to American public schools, vowing he would not 'walk away from them' by supporting school-choice programs like Sen. John McCain did. ... There were 59,616 students enrolled in the D.C. public schools in 2006, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. If McCain's plan to increase by 2,000 the number of vouchers available in the District were enacted, taxpayers would still be spending $15,798 per student per year to send more than 55,000 kids through a school system where about nine out of 10 students do not learn to read or do math at grade-level proficiency by the time they 'graduate' from elementary school.

"What is Obama's plan to deal with this? Spend $18 billion more in federal tax dollars on public education (as he promised in his campaign) -- and send his own kids to extremely expensive private schools. Currently, Obama's two daughters (ages 7 and 10) attend the University of Chicago Lab School, where tuition is $18,492 for grades 1-4 and $20,286 for grades 5-8. When Michelle Obama visited Washington this week, she toured only two prospective schools for her daughters: Sidwell Friends, where lower-school tuition is $28,442; and Georgetown Day, where tuition is $27,445 for grades 1-5."

Credit to columnist Terence Jeffrey as reported in "The Patriot Post" 17 Nov 2008, Vol. 08, No. 47.

A Warning from Alexander Hamilton - The Federalist Papers #1

It was Alexander Hamilton that warned citizens so many years ago that we must be watchful, for he said, "... dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues and ending tyrants."

It was just such speech as Hamilton describes that has been the ladder upon which every socialist and communistic threat to the liberties of the people first climbed within reach of their despotic control.

We must beware lest obsequious speech and the promise to "rescue us" in the time of economy emergency become also the steps by which our American liberties are overrun by liberal politicians hungry for ever larger governments and ever more control over the economy.

An Open Letter

04 November 2008


President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500
FAX 202.456.2461

Senator Norm Coleman
320 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
FAX 202.224.1152

Representative Jim Ramstad
103 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
FAX 202.225.6351


Esteemed and Honorable Gentlemen:

I am well aware that your offices likely receive thousands of comments and letters. Some, I am certain, from genuine “kooks”. I am also aware that the “proper” thing to do is to write just a few sentences for, we are told, that anything more than that will not get read.

Perhaps that last part is a contributor to the problems that plague our current political system and had led the United States to its current unfortunate state. I dearly love this great nation as, I am certain, do you. This letter is not intended to be specific finger-pointing but, rather, what I hope to be a pouring out of my heart with some thoughts that might be of some value in returning the United States to its former glory and greatness. (Here I trust God that something has not been irretrievably lost.)

I say it will be a pouring out of my heart, but I believe also that it will be considered, perhaps, harsh. But is “harsh” not sometimes the thing that causes us all to awaken – to consider where we have been or where we are going?

The Republicans – over the last 100 years or so – have, seemingly, not understood, or at least not taken action on, the underlying nature and intent of the leftists that are among us. Perhaps this is, in part, due to our unwillingness to recognize these leftists for what they are.

I would first contend that if we are unwilling to name a matter by its real name, we are greatly disadvantaged in dealing with the matter at hand.

Here I take the liberty of enumerating a few specific areas where, I believe, we are specifically at risk due to Republican inaction over the last century:

1. Republican officeholders have been unwilling or unable to recognize that leftists are willing to take everything the right will give without making any bona fide concessions on their part. This is precisely the same tactic taken by every leftist government or political group that has existed since the rise of socialism as codified by Marx and Engels. The political negotiations of the left are almost never with any general intent other than to take advantage of the gullibility of their opponents and their opponents foolish willingness to yield in the name of “reaching across the aisle.”
   
   
2. Republican officeholders have been unwilling or unable to recognize that leftists, if given the opportunity, will endeavor to control the education of children from the cradle to adulthood in order to indoctrinate them to socialist concepts. The Republicans have collaborated with the leftist – perhaps unwittingly, but collaborated nonetheless – in a program of federally funded education that has permitted the leftists to dominate education from preschool through graduate school.
   
   
3. Republican officeholders have been unwilling or unable to recognize that the leftists will always endeavor to divide in order to conquer. Leftist rhetoric will always pit Blacks against whites, rich against poor, women against men, and more in order to intimidate those on the right from taking any public stand against the leftist agenda. This dialectic is a false one, but unless the Republicans are willing to take a strong stand against the lies beneath these false dichotomies and expose them, their mouths will be forever shut.
   
   
4. Republican officeholders have been unwilling or unable to recognize that leftists will endeavor to control the press in order that they will be free to drive forward with their agenda under the protective cover of what (even in this nation) has become nothing more than propaganda. It is certainly not "news" or "journalism". Unless the Republican officeholders are willing to take the issues directly to the American public in public forums or via (now) the alternative media, the Republicans will forever be handicapped by this disadvantage.
   

I believe we can blame the current state of affairs in the U.S. on the bulk of Republican officeholders who are, for the most part, spineless – unwilling or unable to stand up to defend what is best for this great nation. They are unwilling to suffer “bad press” because re-election is their primary (or, seemingly, their sole) goal. It appears that they no longer have a heart for the greatness of our nation. They no longer understand or support the U.S. Constitution. Most of them seem to have no willingness to PAY THE PRICE for speaking the TRUTH.

Great leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan were willing to pay the price of “bad press” in order to fight for what was best for the nation. They did not move “to the center.” Instead, they took their arguments to the people and move the people to the position that was in the best interest of the nation.

My hope from this letter is only that some of my heart – if deemed worthy – would be shared with other Republicans. I do not count the job of being a politician in today’s world as “easy”, but if our nation is to survive as something more than another mediocre political entity that populates the world stage, we must find men among us who are willing to take a stand for something other than re-election.

Please, do not take this as negative, but rather as I place it in your hands as constructive criticism. Consider it. Even, pray about it.

"I am opposed to Socialism because of its inhumanity; because it saps the vitality of the human race which has no vitality to spare; because it lulls to indolence those who must struggle to survive; because the theories of good men who are enthralled by its delusions are made the excuse of the wicked who would rather plunder than work; because it stops enterprise, promotes laziness, exalts inefficiency, inspires hatred, checks production, assures waste and instills into the souls of the unfortunate and the weak hopes impossible of fruition whose inevitable blasting will add to the bitterness of their lot." – Edward F. Adams

Very truly yours,

Richard D. Cushing

I hate socialism

"I am opposed to Socialism because of its inhumanity; because it saps the vitality of the human race which has no vitality to spare; because it lulls to indolence those who must struggle to survive; because the theories of good men who are enthralled by its delusions are made the excuse of the wicked who would rather plunder than work; because it stops enterprise, promotes laziness, exalts inefficiency, inspires hatred, checks production, assures waste and instills into the souls of the unfortunate and the weak hopes impossible of fruition whose inevitable blasting will add to the bitterness of their lot."

-- Edward F. Adams (1913)

Operating according to principles - Part I

Some have charged that liberal politicians "have no principles." The charge is usually stated something like this: "How on earth can so-and-so do such a thing? Doesn't he have any principles?"

However, I beg to differ with those that allege such things against liberals in our government!

Liberal politicians, in general, act according to a solid set of principles with an history dating back to the 19th century (at least).

In this post, I will try to bring forth some quotations out of the past that might shed some light on just how principled are the actions and words of those defamed liberal politicos. Let us begin.


On the Matter of Classes, Races, Minorities, and Their Struggles

While the American conservative approach to classes, races, minorities and the challenges they face is to give equal opportunity to them all insomuch as it lies within the government's power to do so, the liberal politicians in this nation seem to operate by another principle.

So much of the liberal politicians' rhetoric, so many of the liberal politicians' public policy, appears to be predicated upon pitting "rich" against "poor", "Black" against "White", "the minority" against "the majority", and so forth. They do this to obtain leverage, votes, and (of course) power.

On the one hand, the conservative principle was well articulated by Abraham Lincoln when he said, "That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise."

On the other hand, the principle that most clearly articulates the apparent thought processes behind liberal rhetoric and political action is this: "The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles."[1]

Obama draws the following distinction as the the difference between the "rich" and the "poor": "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other...."[2] Another way he positions this dichotomy is as the struggle between "Wall Street" and "Main Street." You will find that rhetoric used by other liberals in Congress, like Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, or Joe Biden is similar.

It was a Republican -- Abraham Lincoln -- that first freed the slaves from individual ownership.

It is ongoing liberal Democrat public policy that keeps minorities in the U.S. today enslaved, by and large, to programs that reduce their incentive to industry, commerce, and self-improvement. It is a further shame that such public policies and such ongoing "class warfare" is frequently encouraged by liberal-minded, power-hungry leadership within the minority communities themselves.


On Free-Trade and the Free Market System

Here, too, liberals have a general principle to which they adhere: "...Free Trade. In one word, ...exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."[3]

Liberals, unfortunately, believe that in a market exchange, there must a "winner" and a "loser". They believe that the market exchange is a zero-sum action. If the "seller" gets a +1 out of the deal, the "buyer" must have gotten a -1 out of the deal. Indulge me in recounting an incident that, I believe, shows this is not the case.

A few years ago, I had two young sons. These boys wanted to earn some money, so they took on a couple of newspaper routes. They worked diligently -- getting up at 4:30 AM day after day -- for many months and saved their money. (This, by the way, is called "creating capital.")

When each of them had saved somewhat more than $100, they wanted me to take them down to let them buy new bicycles. Of course, I did so.

They shopped and shopped until each had found the bicycle that suited them and their budget. After they had made their purchases -- swapped their hard-earned cash for the bicycles of their choice -- I asked them: "Who just 'won' in the deal you just transacted? Did Pep Boys (where they had made their purchase) 'win', or did you?"

They both took a moment to think, then the younger of the two (maybe 10 or 11 at the time) replied: "We both 'won'."

I replied, "You're right! You each wanted the bicycle more than you wanted the cash. That is to say, you placed a higher value on the bicycle than the cash. However, Pep Boys wanted the cash more than they wanted the bicycles. They placed a higher value on the cash than on the bicycles. Everyone involved got their own view of higher value in the transaction."

There was no "exploitation" occurring in this transaction!

"Free trade" simply assumes that there is an equally powerful self-interest on each side of a given transaction. As long as there is no force and no coercion involved in the transaction, then each of the participants will (logically) make the decision that they believe is in their own self-interest. Self-interest is to take the option that gives the choosing party the maximum value as a result of the exchange. That decision could be, for example, to not accept the deal offered by the other party. That, too, may be a "free trade" or "free market" outcome.

Of course, if liberals could not define "free markets" and "free trade" as exploitive, how could they find the fodder they require for creating and renewing antagonisms between classes, races, and minorities? This redefinition of the "evils" of an unfettered economy is essential to their creation and maintenance of a "power base" predicated on "class warfare."


On Too Much Success

Back in the late 1990's, when Microsoft Corporation was being pursued by various state prosecutors for alleged abuses in the marketplace, one of Microsoft's lead product engineers was quoted with regard to the charges. I cannot now quote him exactly, but allow the liberty of paraphrasing his statements:

Apparently, success in the U.S. is like a dog race. At the beginning of the race, the goal of all the dogs is to catch the rabbit. However, if anyone actually catches the rabbit, they want to stop the race and start it over again.

One of the things that liberal principles cannot countenance is too much success! Their principle is captured as follows: "...there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. "[4]

"Too much civilization" means to liberals that Americans should not be allowed to have, through their own sweat, toil and sacrifice, an economy that causes other peoples to be envious. This thought persists even though no nation in the history of the world has spent more of their own son's precious blood nor put more of their own nation's capital at risk for the liberty of other peoples.

"Too much means of subsistence" is construed by liberals to mean that Americans should not be permitted to have and maintain an industrial and economic infrastructure that consumes 25% (or whatever number) of the world's present active supply of petroleum-based energy. More than this, the liberals have carried this further to say that we do not even have the right to use America's own known energy reserves to supply our needs.

And, "too much industry, [and] too much commerce" is the liberal principle to be applied any time they want to apply confiscatory taxes to tear down industry and commerce.

It has been a good year for Exxon-Mobil, there's no doubt about it! They are one of the companies that happened to be in the right industry at the right time to make better-than-average profits. The liberals appear to be appalled at the $11.7 billion reported on the firms 10Q.

However, allow me to point out some other numbers that the liberals do not talk about when they discuss Exxon-Mobil:

• Exxon-Mobil has nearly $267 billion invested in their operations. Many of these assets are at risk world-wide because they must work in nations with tenuous or even hostile governments. With this investment at risk, their present profits represent a 19% return-on-assets.
  
• In the three-month period reported on their 10Q, Exxon-Mobil paid $10,526,000,000 in income taxes. That breaks down to: $115,700,000 per day in income taxes; $4,800,000 per hour in income taxes; $80,000 per minute in income taxes; or $1,334 every second in income taxes! Still, the liberals want to extract more and more from this and similar companies while driving them to take additional capital risks by spending more money further exploring areas with doubtful reserves or investing heavily in "alternative energy" development.

It seems apparent that Exxon-Mobil is better managed than Fannie-Mae and Freddy-Mac, which were run mostly by liberal Democrat appointees. One thing we have not witnessed in those two firms is "too much success".

[To be continued]

-- Richard

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1888
[2] Marx and Engels, ibid
[3] Marx and Engels, ibid
[4] Marx and Engels, ibid