Social Justice and Economic Equality

         Social Justice is one of the new Progressive terms used today and taught in our schools.  It is another term for Economic Equality.  This sounds good in theory.  World leaders advocate this on a global basis, and why not?  We live in comparative luxury in this country.  Even people that have never worked a day in their life and live on welfare have a higher standard of living than much of the world. 

        “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  This sounds good.  Is this what Progressives are trying to achieve with big government and wealth redistribution?  Who used this slogan?  It was Karl Marx.  Some modern Progressives say they admire Karl Marx and believe his teachings.  Karl Marx was a communist.

        Theoretically, Karl Marx’s teachings could work in an economy of abundance.  Unfortunately, that has never happened and can never happen, because in a socialist society there is little motivation to produce goods and services.  What does happen is the majority of the population is reduced to a minimal existence, and only the political elite and the politically connected super rich get richer.  President Yanukovych of the Ukraine is an example of how the political elite live in luxury at taxpayer expense.  We have some pretty good examples in our country too.

        It would be nice if our political leaders actually were interested in doing what was best for their country, but it does not work that way.  As Lord Acton said in 1887, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  This is what happens with big government when a small number of political elite decides how the rest of us must live.  As the government becomes larger and the political elite becomes more powerful, the government becomes more and more totalitarian or fascist.  Communism or a dictatorship is the final stage.

        The number of people killed in the 20^th century exceeds the number of people killed in all previous history.  Most died in a time of peace in Marxist countries in the name of social equality.  Many died of starvation in a land of plenty.  Here are some of numbers:

·       Communist China - 70 million people dead

·       Communist Russia - 20 million people dead

·       Japan - 12 million Chinese civilians dead

I am amazed Modern Progressives can convince so many people that big government with the political elite telling us how to live our lives can lead to a world of Milk and Honey.  This has never worked in the history of the world.  What is different now?  Power corrupts.

It is even more contradictory to advocate the control of big government, but complain about the capitalist system and the power of big corporations.  Big corporations control big government now with lobbyists and campaign donations.  Government is getting bigger with more government regulations helping big business, and hurting small businesses.  We need smaller federal government with less regulatory interference in the private sector. 

The dedication of my book, Business Fits reads:

“This book is dedicated to all the small farmers and small town business owners that played a huge part in making this country great.  Unfortunately, they are both disappearing.”  Lets go back to what made this country great. 

      Our founding fathers recognized the danger of big government.  That is why they formed a republic with a three-part government creating a system of checks and balances.  We must comply with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  They are as relevant today as when they were written.  The alternative is not good.

Business Fits Promotion

Is it time to control your own destiny with your own business?  Business Fits: How to find the right business!  is available for free as an eBook on Amazon today through Saturday, Feruary22nd. 

How do you find the right business?  Why do some businesses fail?  The biggest mistake the new entrepreneur makes is selecting a business based on their emotional perception of a product or service.  This Outside-In approach may take you down the wrong road. 

The key is finding the right business that fits your talents, skills, and resources.  The right business fit can help you reach your goals and achieve the life style you desire.  Don’t make this important decision for the wrong reasons. 

The options are infinite.  Where do you start?  Should you start your own business from scratch?  Should you be looking for a business to buy?  Is a franchise or some other business opportunity right for you?

Business Fits: How to find the right business for you! guides you through a creative Inside-Out approach to finding the right business to reach your goals.  This book is a must read for anyone thinking Business Fits: How to find the right business for you! guides you through a creative Inside-Out approach to finding the right business to reach your goals.  This book i

Is it time to control your own destiny with your own business?  Business Fits: How to find the right business!  is available for free as an eBook on Amazon today through Saturday, Feruary22nd. 

How do you find the right business?  Why do some businesses fail?  The biggest mistake the new entrepreneur makes is selecting a business based on their emotional perception of a product or service.  This Outside-In approach may take you down the wrong road. 

The key is finding the right business that fits your talents, skills, and resources.  The right business fit can help you reach your goals and achieve the life style you desire.  Don’t make this important decision for the wrong reasons. 

The options are infinite.  Where do you start?  Should you start your own business from scratch?  Should you be looking for a business to buy?  Is a franchise or some other business opportunity right for you?

Business Fits: How to find the right business for you! guides you through a creative Inside-Out approach to finding the right business to reach your goals.  This book is a must read for anyone thinking Business Fits: How to find the right business for you! guides you through a creative Inside-Out approach to finding the right business to reach your goals.  This book is a must read for anyone thinking of self-employment.     

                               http://goo.gl/e0B5pr

Business Fits may also be valuable for people that already own a business or are in a management position.  

Name Games

       One of my pet peeves is the name game.  In business, many companies do not have managers any more.  They have Team Leaders.  I am not sure what difference a name makes.  I think the job description is probably the same.  If there was a significant change in the job description of the manager, maybe a new name is justified.  I seriously doubt that is the reason in most cases. 

        Some companies now call supervisors Facilitators.  Again, why?  Was there a significant change in the job description to justify the name change?  I doubt it. 

        Part of good management is to continually revise and improve the business system to adjust for changing market conditions.  This means real change, not just a name change.  A name change and a speech by management is not real change.

        Another aspect of the name game that drives me crazy is the use of acronyms.  The military, government, and health care are especially bad at this, but it is a big problem in other industries too.  My title in the Army was NCOIC Control CS3 test.  I’m sure that name gives you all have an excellent idea what I did. 

        I give an example in my book, Business Fits, of a franchisor’s use of an acronym that was unintentionally causing potential franchisees to eliminate the opportunity because they did not understand what the franchisor was saying.  They did not understand and did not want to appear dumb by asking for an explanation. 

        I understand it is common to use acronyms in most industries, but it is a dangerous habit, because acronyms should never be used in marketing.  Customers and prospects may not understand what you are saying. 

        I find the name game in politics especially frustrating.  If a political faction wants to pass some legislation and it fails, they don’t give up.  The just attach a new name to the same old legislation with some minor changes and hope the new name will be more palatable to the public. 

        Progressive is one of my favorites.  Being progressive sounds like a good thing, but a political Progressive is an advocate of big government controlling people’s lives and less personal freedoms.  I think that is the one definition of socialism, and I don’t think it is a good thing. 

        I find it interesting that many hot political topics will have several names.  Some of the names relating to one single issue are: climate change, global warming, greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, clean air, green jobs, clean air & jobs.  It is just a matter of finding a name that sounds good, and can be sold to the public. 

        In business and politics, we must be realistic, collect data, and face facts to make good decisions.  We must be careful not to be taken in by a catchy name, phrase, slogan, or speech.

Rules For Radicals

        Saul David Alinsky (1909-1972) is recognized as one of the first and most prominent community organizers, starting in the south side of Chicago.  Seems to be working out well for Chicago, right?  Community organizer Barrack Obama probably was strongly influenced by Alinsky’s ideas.

Alinsky was also a writer and published Reveille for Radicals in 1946.  He is often noted for his book Rules For Radicals, published in 1971 just prior to his death.    He said the book was written to show the “Have-Nots” how to take power from the “Haves”. 

        I was a collage student in the 1960’s and remember the student demonstrations protesting the Vietnam War and advocating many of Ailinsky’s ideas.  I was never involved in the demonstrations, because I was a full-time student and also worked full-time so I never had time or interest.  I could understand the Vietnam protests, but I just dismissed Ailinsky’s ideas and felt the easily influenced students would eventually grow up and become productive citizens.  Most did and still are today.

        Saul Ailinsky advocated eight objectives for creating a social state.  They are:

1.   Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the people.

2.   Poverty - Increase the poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if they are provided everything they need to live. 

3.   Debt - Increase the debt to an unsustainable level.  This will justify increasing taxes, and thus produce more poverty.

4.   Gun Control - Remove the ability of the people to defend themselves from the government, and create a police state.

5.   Welfare - Take control of every aspect of people’s lives. (Food, Housing, and Income)

6.   Education – Take control of the media and what people read and hear, and take control of what children learn in school.

7.   Religion – Remove any reference to belief in God from government and schools.

8.   Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor.  This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take from the wealthy with the support of the poor  (Wealth Redistribution).

I think it is interesting that Saul Alinsky’s books have the word ‘Radicals” in the titles, but his ideas sound like today’s Modern Progressives.  Have we moved too far left?

The Perfect Presidential Candidate

 

          We are already getting a lot of speculation about who the next Republican and Democratie Presidential candidates could be in 2016.  I think one of the parties should nominate a sure winner based on the profile of that candidate.  That candidate would be a gay, black female.  Just think about it.  This candidate would be assured over 90% of the black vote and over 90% of the gay vote.  The female vote would not be 90%, but would be a strong majority.  The advantage would extend way beyond these captive voter blocks.  If anyone criticized or disagreed with this candidate in anyway, they risk being called a racist, sexist, and a homophobe.  Sounds like a sure winner to me.

        This candidate should also be an atheist, as this would insure the vote of everyone that thinks total separation of church and state is desirable.  Anyone that criticizes the candidate could be called a right-wing Bible thumping nut.  A Muslim would be better than an atheist because that would guarantee 90% of the Muslim vote, and anyone criticizing the Muslim candidate could be perceived as a being against freedom of religion.  The problem is finding an openly gay Muslim woman that was still alive, so that probably wouldn’t work. 

        Think of all the people that will vote for her so they can say they voted for the first woman president or the first gay president.  It’s too late for the first black president, but still a factor.  When President Obama was elected, I heard a lot of people say, “Isn’t it nice to have a black president?” 

The next thing is experience.  The candidate can’t have any.  I had a college professor once told me that a truly qualified candidate could never be elected president, because their record would offend too many special interest groups.  He may have had a valid point.  The candidate cannot have a successful record in the private sector.  An undistinguished career in the public sector is best.  If the candidate is an elected official, they need to be fairly nondescript. The majority of votes cast should be simply “Present” so no one is offended. 

        Personal wealth is good, but it must be inherited or earned in some way other than being successful in the private sector.  Being a show business celebrity, star sports athlete, or an author are okay.  If an author, the writings cannot spell out specific political agendas, as this could alienate too many people.  Marrying wealth is also okay, but in this case the candidate should be from a state where same-sex marriages are legal.  The spouse’s wealth must meet the previously mentioned criteria. 

Academic achievement is good, but if it is marginal or if the candidate received special consideration due to affirmative action, the records must be sealed.  Political science and law degrees are always good for politicians. 

Personal history is not too important, as long as there are no sex scandals.  Most drug history, financial indiscretions, fraud, and even some felonies can be handled in most cases.  The crime or indiscretion is not a problem, but the candidate can’t get caught in a cover-up.

The candidate does not have to have any real talent, except she must be photogenic, she must have a good speaking voice, and she must be able give a good speech.  She does not have to know what she is saying or memorize.  She just needs to be able to read the teleprompter and deliver the speech convincingly.  There are plenty of speechwriters that can write a speech to appeal to any audience and still keep it generic enough so people can hear what they want to hear.

Let’s recap.  We have a gay, black female with money, but no achievements, record, history, or talent in business or politics.  She is photogenic and can deliver a good speech.  Sounds like a sure winner to me. 

This blog was fun, but it is just a tongue-in-cheek spoof, or was it?

Promoting Obama Care

 

       In my book, Business Fits, I state that every business must have marketing of some kind to survive and be successful.  The saying, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." describes one of the major mistakes of new inventors or entrepreneurs.  History shows that the people marketing a product are the ones making most of the money and not the inventor.

       Marketing includes many things like sales and advertising.  The problem with advetising is it is expensive and often has a lot of waste coverage.  All of this is covered in my book Business Fits.  I also point out that the best advertising is often free publicity.  If you can get your product covered by the media, more people are made aware of your product than is possible with most acvertising and it is free.

        With all the free publicity the media has given Obama Care, there obviously is little or no need to advertise.  I was appalled when I recently learned the federal government is spending over $684 million of our tax dollars to advertise Obama care.  Who is stupid enough to think some advertising with celebrities and a few good speeches can make an unworkable concept successful.  If any private business operated this inefficiently, it would be quickly out of business.  Of course we know big government does not have to use common sense or operate efficiently. 

        Obama care cannot work economically, unless large numbers of healthy young people sign up for the insurance.  This will not happen, as healthy young people do not feel they need the insurance yet.  It is cheaper to pay the penalty, plus they can be covered under their parent’s plan to age twenty-six.  They can wait until they do get sick because they can’t be denied medical insurance because of a prior existing condition anyway.  An ad featuring a celebrity is not going to change this.

        The workable solution for more affordable health care is catastrophic medical insurance and medical savings plans.  We must move toward this solution.  Obama care will fail, but big government never goes away, so the next step is the government as a single payer followed by a government provided healthcare.  That is socialism and I don’t like it or want it.  We better start voting for representatives that reduce the size of government and observe the Constitution.

Cloward & Piven

       Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were a married couple who were both professors at Columbia University School of Social Work.  They proposed a political strategy in 1966 to have the federal government take over all welfare from the states and expand welfare until it overloaded and collapsed the government and the economy.  This would then force the federal government to provide a guaranteed income to everyone, and eventually take over the private sector of the economy.

       Cloward and Piven’s plan was much more detailed, and involved many steps, but the basic plan and objective was as I have stated.  Their proposal is quite interesting and I would recommend reading it in detail.  I must warn you it is a little scary when you look at recent history.  Cloward and Piven felt the Democratic Party was the best vehicle to implement the plan.  I think the plan kind of sounds like socialism, communism, Marxism, or Maoism.  I don’t think the term Progressive was the politically correct term then.

       In 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson became the 36^th President of the United States.  His vision for the country was what he called the Great Society.  In 1964 LBJ announced what he called the war on poverty, which drastically expanded federal welfare programs.  There are now over eighty federal welfare programs, and total welfare expenditures have increased 11,000%.  Yes, that is eleven thousand percent since LBJ’s war on poverty. 

       Has the war on poverty worked?  The percentage of the population living in poverty is about the same.  We now have two and three generations that know nothing except living on welfare.  We have enslaved these people to a life of welfare.  I understand I have used a politically incorrect term, but it best describes what we have done to these people and it has nothing to do with race. 

       If these policies have not worked after fifty years, do we make a change in policy, or just throw more money at the problem?  Our national debt has increased $6 trillion since President Obama took office and we a now approaching a $17 trillion debt.  What did Einstein call the Definition of Insanity?  I think it was, “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. 

        Maybe creating jobs and teaching a responsible work ethic is a better plan.  Is it time we elect some fiscally responsible representatives with some real plans for change?