Delusions of Grandeur
"You evil capitalist; making wealth for other people."
I heard that sarcastic comment the other day walking down the halls of the building where I rent office space. It never ceases to amaze me how willingly delusional some people are.
First off, let's establish that wealth is a relative term. Compared to most of the world's population, I'm sure that I appear as stupidly wealthy as Bill Gates appears to me. When someone makes such a ludicrous statement, it makes me wonder what their definition of wealth is.
Can we agree that giving someone a job is not the same as creating wealth? I've heard the same fellow is planning on hiring three people to man phones and make cold calls to pitch whatever product he has to sell. Is he really thinking about creating wealth for his employees? Is going to split the profits equally four ways? I kinda doubt it. He undoubtedly plans to keep most of the profits and pay is employees a meager wage for growing his business.
I've always understood capitalism to be about one thing: making money for #1. If capitalism is about creating wealth for others, how do you explain that 80% of the wealth in the U.S. is held by 20% of the population? (sociology.ucsc.edu) Have you ever pondered the term “trickle down economics?” Why not “downpour economics?” Or even “stream down economics?” Because capitalism and trickle down economics work just like a dam on a river. Sure, some of the water continues to flow down stream, but most of it stays behind the dam.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not really opposed to capitalism. I don't even disparage the ridiculously wealthy—at least not very often. I just think you should call it what it is. If you want to adhere to capitalistic principles and state that capitalism allows all people the same theoretical opportunity to amass wealth, fine. But don't for a minute delude yourself into believing that makes you a philanthropist.
Can you hear my blood boiling?
Saw this today in a comment thread on Facebook:
...expanding real competition by allowing insurance companies to issue health policies across state lines, changing deductables[sic] and coverage to encourage people to only go to the doctor when they need to, and to pay more of their health costs themselves directly.
First: I'm no insurance industry expert, but I'm a bit confused by the first statement there. So Blue Cross/Blue Shield only operates in one state? Cigna? Humana? You're telling me the legal hoo ha that creates separate business entities per state prevents these three (and all the rest) from competing with each other on a national level? Really? I'm not sure how that's even relevant. My understanding is the industry is driven more my local markets than national ones.
Second: The only people who talk about consumers bearing more of their health care costs directly are the people with insurance coverage good enough that they pay for very little themselves. As someone who has one of these "consumer health plans" and who often wakes up in pain from a bum shoulder that needs some kind of medical assessment, but who can't do anything about it because he can't afford a $100 office visit—assuming the doctor doesn't order an x-ray or (god help me) an MRI, and we'll just try to not contemplate the possibility of surgery—I have two words for you. Bite me.
Third: The same people who think consumers should bear more of their health care costs are the same people who are freaking out because they think Obama is going to "take away their health care." So what they are really saying is "Someone needs to bear the costs of health care, just not me." Self serving bastards.
Here’s your sign.
I was stunned when this actually made news. Talk about a tempest in a teapot. Have we really sunk this far? How far up your ass does your head have to be to even consider the President of the United States encouraging kids to stay in school a bad thing? Have you been watching the man at all the last nine months? He couldn't be more restrained, diplomatic or politic. What do you think he's really going to say TO. SCHOOL. CHILDREN?
HT: Greg Prince
The Doom of History
The opposition in this year has already imported into this campaign a very interesting thing because it's foreign. They have imported the propaganda technique invented by the dictators abroad. Remember, a number of years ago, there was a book, Mein Kampf, written by Hitler himself. The technique was all set out in Hitler's book, and it is copied by the aggressors of Italy and Japan. According to that technique you should never use a small falsehood. Always a big one. For it's very fantastic nature would make it more credible if only you keep repeating it over and over and over again.
Well, let's take some simple illustrations that come to mind. For example—although I rubbed my eyes when I read it—we have been told that it was not a Republican depression, but a Democratic depression from which this nation was saved in 1933; that this administration—this one, today's—is responsible for all the suffering and misery that the history books and the American people always thought had been brought about by the twelve ill-fated years when the Republican party was in power.
In the same video he also says, "The people of this country know the past too well to be deceived into forgetting...." Apparently not.