Modern Capitalism

I see a lot of people complaining about capitalism and in their complaints there are always two problems, first is that they don't understand the fundamentals of capitalism, and the second is that what they really have a problem with isn't capitalism, it's MODERN capitalism. The concept of capitalism is that people deserve to be compensated for their work and those that work better deserve better compensation. Those that come up with better products will get more market share and thereby receive better rewards.

If you have two co-workers, one that is always late, never contributes to the project and spends all their time at the office playing candy crush on their phone, and another one that is punctual, gets their projects done early, and is constantly striving to improve their skill set. Which one should be rewarded with a promotion? A raise?

That's capitalism. The problem is that somewhere in the 70s/80s there was a shift in capitalism and it moved from 'Companies exist to give their customers the best service/product' to 'companies exist to make money' and this is where the problems started as companies shifted their focus, cutting costs, raising prices, and doing anything, and everything, to increase profit ... at the expense of their employees and customers. ... People ceased to matter except as a means of making money.

I'm not saying that pure capitalism is perfect, greedy people will always take advantage of others, but don't act like they don't do it under socialism as well. Under socialism, no matter how pure the motives of the set up, a 'ruling class' will emerge, they will get more, they will give favor to those that serve them and create problems for those that don't. Corruption exists in both systems and it is the greedy that will find a way to benefit themselves through it.

Of course education is at fault here as well, because one of the KEY factors in capitalism is the power of the consumer, as power that most don't consider or even seem to know exists. I've talked about this before in various rambles in the past. But people will complain and rant against various things they don't like, while at the same time paying the price to get the items.

Take the issues with the last round of game consoles where there were massive shortages because scalpers bought huge batches of the consoles only to sell them on ebay for 3-4 times the MSRP. People yelled, people screamed, people called Microsoft and Sony and the scalpers horrible names, but you know what? Not a single scalper had any units left at the end. Every console that they bought and marked up sold. So what lesson did they learn? People will pay that much for the consoles. 

Well Sony and Microsoft should have done more to stop it! ... Realistically, what difference does it make to them? They sold their product and got their asking price, that's all they're technically interested in doing. What people do with the consoles after they get them is not their concern. Realistically it is up to the CONSUMER to shut down scalpers ... if scalpers couldn't sell the units they bought, or couldn't sell enough of them to make a profit they would stop buying them. Trust me, if the best sale the scalpers could make was at MSRP or maybe even MSRP + 15% it wouldn't be an issue, there wouldn't be enough money in it to make it worth the effort. But if they know they can buy 10 units, keep one for themselves, and sell 9 at even 2x MSRP they'll do it in a heartbeat, if they think there's the remotest chance they can get more than that they won't be able to charge up those credit cards fast enough.

Lack of economic education AND a society that reinforces the constant FOMO of materialism means people mistake 'want' for 'need' and are willing to pay stupid amounts of money for the new shiny ... be it consoles, smart phones, tablets, laptops, cars, or anything else. Companies know it and take advantage of it every day. 

The problem is, it's unsustainable. Entertainment is really starting to feel this wall, trying to find more and more ways to slash budgets and expenses because, at the end of the day, the market is saturated. Netflix, for example, was so profitable early on because they had solid licensed content and a rapidly growing consumer base as more and more people came on board with streaming, so, with money to invest they went into production, making their own shows and creating some very successful movies and series. But they went too heavily in that direction as though planning on continued growth in their subscriber base ... but then several things hit ... one they largely achieved market saturation most people that could afford a subscription HAD one so they stopped getting new customers. Two, they let a lot of their licensed old shows and movies lapse so some of the content people wanted on the platform went elsewhere. Also, three, several other streaming platforms began springing up, competing for those subscriptions because people couldn't afford to subscribe to ALL of them. The first meant that their income growth tapered off, the second and third meant that people canceled or paused their accounts to view other platforms that had more of what they wanted to watch at the time. 

 As all of this was happening, various costs began to increase including the cost of maintaining the network infrastructure and storage required, not to mention the writer and actor strikes, production crew cost increases, and, let's face it, increased cost of living across the board effecting everyone's budgets. But the exec level, and the investors, want, no demand year to year growth in the profit .... they don't care that costs went up, that subscriptions are down, they want their money and if that means cutting jobs, canceling shows, and selling assets then dammit that's what they're going to do to hit those profit numbers ... never mind that it will make it that much harder NEXT year because you dug a hole this year ..... The bankers, the investors, and the executive level decisions makers that are doing this only care about the money ... only care about how much they can line their pockets now ... and THAT's the problem. 

It's why originality has left Hollywood ... they don't want to make anything new ... they don't want new IPs or ideas because they are untried and might not work out ... they want sure things because they can't afford to back a bad film. Worse still, streaming has been horrible for Hollywood as it has lost them MOST of their after market sales, the real place that the studios recovered their money in most instances AND it is a major factor in the fact that fewer people are going to theaters so hitting them on both ends. And the decision makers aren't movie people ... they're bankers ... in the past the people running things, making decisions, loved making movies .... they've been replaced by people that love making money. 

Here's the thing, and I've found this true more often than not ... in most pursuits if your goal is just to 'make money' you'll usually fail. If your goal is to 'make a product' there's a reasonable chance that if you're serious about it, if your HEART is in it, that it will make you money. Maybe not a lot, maybe not fast, maybe not consistently, but those things will be defined as much by how much effort you apply and how consistent you are in doing it.

I did some work with a group of film makers several years ago. They had several hit movie series, mostly horror, and, as we were getting ready to start up another production several of us were sitting around a table and someone asked how they did it, how they got started. The answer was they produced a LOT of films ... most of which failed ... but each year they generally managed to get 1 that made them enough money to bankroll them for another year, and eventually they got one that set them up, let them improve their product and gave them the ability to branch out. Of course successful ones got sequels and gave them some degree of stable income that they could bank on. In the end though, they did it because they loved doing it, and all they ever really wanted was enough to make their next one.

Knocking off the Dust

Wow. It HAS been a while.... And some things haven't changed since the last time I posted here. I thought about making a fresh start, about clearing out the archives, but you know what? Nah, I may not 100% agree today with everything I wrote back then, but it was my thoughts, and really the main thing that this is about is my thoughts, searching for the truth ... that central facet ... the bone of the matter. It was always what Klikhizz, what I, meant in talking about the Path of Bones ... the path at the center of everything, the foundation, the core, the skeleton that everything is built upon.

 I didn't know everything back then, and I sure as hell don't know it all now. I'm not the person I was then and, in another ... looks over at the archives ... 20 years I won't be who I am now. At least that's the hope. People ether learn, change, evolve in their opinions or their minds are too closed to think for themselves, and if I want anything to be true of me, it's that I'll never become THAT person.

 At my core I'd still say that I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, largely a person that believes that what you do is your business as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else. But the world has changed, I can see that certain definitions have been changed over my lifetime, and not for the better. Certain things have stagnated, and many things that should have been ended have been left to fester.

I'm not writing this now to change people's minds, hell I don't plan to advertise this page any more than whatever blogger's algorithm does automatically. It's posted publicly, if people find it and read it fine, if they don't, fine, technically it's a journal for myself really. A way to look back on my thoughts down the road and go 'God I can't believe what an idiot I was' or, at least, consider why I thought certain things and think about why I changed my mind. 

The world has changed ... this isn't the world that it was in 2004 when I first started these rambles. Time marches forward, and if I've learned anything in my 53 years on this planet it's that you can't stop time, technology, or change.

This isn't to say that I disagree with what I wrote, I haven't gone back through it all, but I'm reasonably sure that I don't 100% disagree, but my opinions may have gained some nuance in the last 20 years ... some perspective that I didn't have back then. Maybe just because I've seen the change in the world, and see the damage that some of those trying to hold on to a past that doesn't exist any more are doing. But then isn't that what should change your mind ... acknowledging and accepting new ideas and knowledge that you maybe hadn't seen before? Change is a part of life ... nothing good comes without change, nothing improves the idea isn't to stop change ... that way lies stagnation and decline ... the idea is to make the best change for society as a whole, and sometimes that means letting go of things.

Where will this go from here? I don't know ... will I have the time, desire, and material to keep posting here regularly again? I don't know. The political landscape is bleak .... I don't know where things are headed at this point, if something doesn't change I truly fear what may be on the horizon ... not just in the US, but globally. I hope I'm wrong, but I see entirely too much hate in the world, and I see our leaders fanning those flames rather than dousing them, I see too many parallels in history and none of them end well. 

 Part of the problem is that our Education system has failed so many, for decades if not a century or more, an institution to churn out good little workers with just enough knowledge to do their job. The government isn't interested in teaching critical thinking because critical thinkers question things, critical thinkers want to know why, critical thinkers check sources, check facts, and expect their leaders to provide facts and evidence rather than just taking their word for things. A nation of critical thinkers could do great things, but such people are difficult to lead ... or more accurately, are difficult to mislead. They think about things, they see flaws and wonder why those haven't been fixed, only to realize that they aren't going to be fixed because that flaw benefits those in power. That those flaws are there to keep them in power.

It is said that power corrupts, but I'm not completely sure that's accurate. I can't decide if power corrupts, if power attracts those that are corruptible, or if those that are already corrupt can be relied upon to seek more power. The thing is power only truly attracts those that don't care about the responsibility that it entails. The head that wears the crown is only heavy if it cares about the people that it leads, if it cares about improving their lives or at least protecting them. What we need is a leader that understands that, who seeks to address the responsibility, rather than power, prestige, or notoriety. One who loves people, who wants to raise everyone up, who understands the strength of compassion. One that realizes that life is a collaborative art, and we all make more beautiful pictures when we work together rather than tearing each other down.

Trade Jobs

I have said before that I think that as a culture we place way too much of an emphasis on college. We have record high numbers of students enrolling in 4 year colleges to earn degrees. Paying massive sums of money ... that is to say going into massive debt by taking out loans in order to pay the massive sums of money .... and walking out with pieces of worthless paper for the most part.

Part of this is because at the age that most people go to college (just out of high school) they have no clue what to do. They either choose to study a particular degree program because they think it's interesting, or it will be easy, or that they'll get rich. While many things may be interesting if you are going to college and paying to study something you should make sure that what your studying will pay off .... can you USE that to get a job? If you're pursuing something in college because 'it will be easy' you are definitely setting up to go for all the wrong reasons and should really just not spend the money. And chances are that if you're going to study something just because you think it will make you rich ... you're likely to find that 1-you hate it, and 2-there are a million other people doing the same thing. Meaning that there are going to be a lot of other students ... just like you ... looking for the 10 or so of those jobs that are going to be available when you graduate.

What are you going to DO with the degree when you graduate? What does a degree in Art Appreciation or Women's Studies prepare you to do as a career? Conversely if you're going for a career as a journalist (for example) do you really NEED a degree .... what is a college going to teach you that you can't learn at a Tech school ... or better yet by working? Is it going to teach you how to write? I would hope you learned that before high school ... or teach you how to think? How to ask people questions ... or how to manipulate peoples answers? How to report the facts .... or how to manipulate people's opinions?

In MOST cases college degrees are pointless really. The only reason that an entry level accounting position (for example) requires one is because there are thousands of applicants that have one ... and the only reason that thousands of applicants have one is because we have spent the better part of 40 years telling kids they had to get one. Over half the kids enrolled at most colleges have no business being there ... they are either studying something that will not prepare them for any kind of career or studying something they could just have easily (and probably more effectively) learned on the job.

All the while we have, as a culture, turned away from the trades. Treated trades workers as a lesser class of job. The type of job to be done by those too dumb to do a real job ... too low tech to be really useful. Construction, Plumbing, Electricians, Mechanics, Welders .... the economy and society NEED these people to function and yet fewer and fewer people are interested in these fields.

In a very real sense these are the spark plug jobs of the economy ... they aren't the fuel, they aren't the power of the machine, but in a very real sense without them the whole thing simply won't work. They may not steer it, they may not invent it, but they build it, they make it work, and they fix it when it breaks. These shouldn't be 'last resort' jobs ... they should be jobs that people are proud to take. They take skill and dedication to master and they can be just as rewarding as any other career out there. No they aren't for everyone, but the kid that likes to tinker on his car and work on engines shouldn't feel ashamed to become a mechanic ... he should be proud that he can take on a trade doing something that he enjoys and is good at rather than trying to force himself through college and onto a career path just because people have told him his whole life that that's what he is supposed to do.

What is a 'Right'

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what is and isn't a 'Right'. Specifically there are a lot of people saying that insurance or health care is a right and should therefore be provided by the government in some form or fashion. But that's not what 'rights' are.

It is not the government's job to 'provide' you your Rights .... in fact your Rights do not come from government in the first place. Your 'Rights' are natural, the Constitution does not grant us rights it protects our natural rights from government interference. It binds the government and forbids it from certain actions.

The Right to Free Speech - I've discussed this one before. The protects the citizen speaker from prosecution BY THE GOVERNMENT for speaking against the government. It does not protect the speaker from the repercussions of what they say by other private citizens (provided those citizens don't cause harm). If I walk into a business and start spouting off about how the business owner is a bad person and no one should shop there because their prices are higher than I think they should be. The business is well within it's rights to remove me (even force-ably as once they ask me to leave I'm trespassing on private property if I stay) and can call the police to have me removed (due to the trespassing mentioned previously) and they are not violating my right to free speech.

Students at a college or university certainly have the Right to protest a speaker, though once they start becoming violent and creating a hazardous situation they have exited the realm of free speech. Students in such situations, however, would be better served to welcome the free flow and discussion of ideas, and particularly ideas that they may currently disagree with. This is part of learning - accepting the fact that you do not know everything. There are many in this country now, however, that dislike the idea of free speech or who support free speech .... as long as they approve of the speech. (That is to say they think that's what they want until someone else has the power and no longer approves of their speech)

Likewise, the right to free speech does not mean that the government or any individual has to GIVE me the means of expressing that speech. No one has to provide a microphone, megaphone, or stage for me. No one has to listen to me and are free to ignore me as they please. Even the government doesn't have to listen they just aren't allowed to punish me for expressing my opinion.

The Right to Bare Arms - I've also talked about this one I believe. I have the right to own weapons to protect myself, my property, and others, from all threats including the government itself. The government can not take that away (though many in the government would love to do so) but neither the government nor any other citizen has to GIVE me the weapons in question. It's up to ME to obtain them, maintain them, and be able to use them.

The 'Right' to Health Care (or Health Insurance) - I put this one in quotes as it is technically not protected directly in the Constitution, but I will agree that it is not the governments job to prevent or stop anyone from receiving health care or health insurance. But it's also not the government's job to PROVIDE health care or health insurance either, just as the government does not provide Weapons for the Right to Bare Arms or the stage for the Right to Free Speech. The only way for them to do so would be to FORCE another citizen to provide it ... no 'Right' can include the compulsion of another person to provide services to another. None of us has a 'Right' to the life or services of another human period.

I suspect by now that you've probably noticed a trend in the conversation.....

The 'Right' to Immigration - This just flat doesn't exist. Every country has the right to control its boarders. Including, but not limited to the ability to CLOSE THEM to immigration completely. However, no one wants to do that in the US. Neither side of the argument wants to stop immigrants from being able to come to this country and live and work for a better life. What many of us want, however, is an end to ILLEGAL immigration. Which is to say that we want ALL people from outside this country that wish to come here and live and work to go through the properly defined legal procedures and checks to make sure that they would be a solid citizen, a positive addition to the country.

I highlight the 'all' above because there is a perception in the media that Mexican or Hispanic illegals are the only ones anyone is concerned about. And owing to conditions in Mexico and Central and South America, that is a large percentage of the illegal population in the US, but they are not all by any means and all illegal immigration needs to be addressed. We will not stop all illegal immigration, but we need to find a much better means of dealing with it, and giving amnesty is not the answer.

There is no easy answer to such a question, there never is. No matter what the press will be full of heart wrenching stories of families being broken up, or loved ones being left out and facing hardships. Some will even be true while others nothing more than attempts to sway public opinion through emotion rather than rational application of law / logic.

Decisions, however, should rarely be made on emotion, and law is rarely a good one size fits all solution. (Zero tolerance = zero thought). Each case is decision that should be approached with logic and thought on its own. Those who want to come here, who want to work and be responsible for their own future should be welcomed, if they originally came here illegally that needs to be considered and they should not be placed (as they currently often are) in front of people who have shown the respect to the laws of this land and followed the proper legal channels.

No one has the Right to just go and live in whatever country they want. Don't believe me? Try going into Iran illegally. Heck try France or Italy, and try to live there as an illegal immigrant and see how that works for you. While many of these countries are welcoming of foreign visitors, most of them have strict immigration policies with very definite penalties for people that over stay their visa or cross the boarder illegally. Borders and laws are what defines a Country, do away with our borders and we'll very quickly find that we no longer have a country .... part of having a border means controlling it ... part of controlling it is defining who is allowed to cross that border, when, and for how long.

I personally am sick of being called 'anti-immigration' because I believe that we need to find a way to curtail ILLEGAL immigration. I'm sick of being called a 'racist' because I believe that as a country we need to exercise control over our border. I am sick of being called 'hate filled' because I don't believe that people who have broken our laws should be subject to the penalties of breaking those laws. .... That is how we ended up with the President we did, because I'm not alone, and while I didn't vote for him, a lot of people fed up with the idea that if you aren't 'pro-illegal-immigration' you're 'anti-immigration' or 'racist' or worse.

In the end, the media is to blame. They play their game of manipulation pitting friend against friend over the stupidest of differences and the masses dance to their tune every day.

A Fool and His Money

To a degree this belongs over at my Gaming Corner but I'll write a post over there that's more related to gaming later. In this case my rant is more about people so I'll Ramble here on the Path. Recently I picked up Total War: Warhammer on Steam (I'll leave the game details and such to the Game Corner Post later) and having been a fan of the Total War series for a while and a long time fan of the Games Workshop tabletop games I had been looking forward to this incarnation of the series. I was happy with the game play but I noticed a concerted effort on the part of players to stack the ratings for the game negative.

The complaint by the people throwing negative reviews up like they were candy, however, wasn't because the game was buggy, or that it was a bad game in any real fashion. Rather the complaint was about the DLC. Now, I've been gaming a long time and I've seen this change over the years. In general it's a good thing, yes I think there are some companies that take the DLC stuff too far, and I often think stuff is over priced for what it is, but I understand a fundamental aspect of the seller/buyer relationship. If I don't like the price, I don't buy.

One of the DLC for the game is a blood and gore pack, to add ... you guessed it ... blood and gore to the battles of the game. It is priced at $2.99. Now it's more than I'm going to pay for it, but then again I don't have a burning desire to see blood and gore in the game. It's a strategy game, not an action game, most of the time I'm zoomed out at a level to give me a birds eye view of the battle field paying attention to multiple enemy units and managing my own. I don't care about the fine details of the fight, that's largely irrelevant. I can see if the unit is doing well, or dying pathetically with the information already given from the game.

In reading over the reviews (on the main game) a person was giving a negative review to the over all game because of the greed of the developers in charging for this option that should have been included free in the base game. In his complaint he said that he had already bought the Blood and Gore DLC but wanted to express his displeasure that they were so greedy and didn't include it.

Here is where the title of the post comes from. Businesses price their products at a point that they believe people will pay the price. In this case this reviewer has proven them right, he bought the DLC (as did a lot of other players) showing the company that people are willing to pay extra for that content. As a developer if you are shown that people are willing to pay extra for something, why on earth would you not charge for it.

He can get on forums, post reviews, and tell the company as many ways as he likes that 'charging for this is unacceptable' but if he backs that up by buying the product they are not going to change what they are doing, there is no reason to.

Now if he had said everything that he said but had not bought the product, and refused to pay extra for the content that he claims should be part of the base game, and enough other people did the same, then the developers would have learned that the market is not willing to pay extra for that extra content and either they include it in the next game (and likely make it a free DLC) or they don't offer it at all on the next game if it increases development costs significantly.

The lesson is 'Don't piss and moan about the price of something but then pay the price anyway.' Either a product or service is worth the price to you and you pay it and obtain the product or service offered, or it isn't and you shouldn't pay the price. The seller can not FORCE you to buy it, yes they can not lower their price, but you still have the option to not pay it. In most cases they will eventually lower the price or offer the item at a discount for a limited time (aka put it on sale) and you can decide if you want it at that reduced price or not.

Like voting (see the previous ramble) buying an item tells the seller that your are willing to pay THAT amount for THAT product (or service) ... because that is what you just did. You can grumble and complain all you want, but at the end of the day YOU were willing to pay that price.

I know that when I buy games when they release that I'm going to pay more for that game than I would if I waited to buy the game later. The games that I choose to do that on are the games that I am willing to pay that premium to have the game sooner rather than wait to get it later. If I buy DLC for a game it is because the DLC adds something that I want in the game, if I don't feel that it is something that the game needs, or if I think the price for what the DLC adds is too high ... I don't buy it. It really is that simple.

The Third Party Dilemma

Okay ... I think it is obvious at this point that the system we have has begun to melt down. Trump got the nomination not because he got most of the Republican primary voters to vote for him, but because he had so much competition early on that he could 'win' with 30% and then by the end everyone had pretty much given up. He didn't start getting over 40% of the Republican primary votes until after the field dropped to 3 AND voter turn out dropped to 10-12% of registered Republicans.

Had the Republican primary been 3 from the start I think The Donald would have been hard pressed to win and to be honest I don't think he would have gotten in. He got in because with that many candidates he could win early on due to name recognition alone. In the end Trump ended up with the delegates needed to secure the nomination despite having much lower than 50% approval among Republican voters. They don't want him, but they got him because he won enough delegates and no one else did.

Hillary, on the other hand, only had a couple of opponents early, and Bernie really turned out to be a thorn in her side. In the end their in fighting (not directly as opponents, but more their supporters) have left the Democratic party as deeply divided as the Republican party at the moment. The Democrat system of Super Delegates is doing exactly what it was always designed to do ... protect the party from the will of the people.

In that regard they have the opposite problem of the Republicans their system is putting forward a candidate that a large portion, even a majority, of the party voters consider unqualified for the position because the 'insiders' are supporting the candidate that the PARTY wants rather than the candidate that the PEOPLE want.

So we have a situation here I don't have the actual numbers but my recollection of the last time I looked Republicans and Democrats each had roughly 35% of the voter and 30% were independent. This is why both parties are always heavily trying to sway the independent vote to their side. Now if we say half of the Democrats don't like Hillary (will call that 17% of the over all voters) and the same with Republicans. Independents are a little harder but in general they don't like either Hillary or Trump either.

That gives us 18% of voters still liking Hillary, and about 18% liking Trump ... let's assume that there are some independents that like them too and make it 25% / 25% for the two of them. That leaves 50% of voters out there in limbo. You would think that this would be the prime opportunity for one or more of the other parties to make a move. There is, after all, a significant portion of the voting public that doesn't like either of the two options from the 'Big 2'.

And really it is. I think it's high time that we picked up a 3rd or even 4th 'major' party in this country. Competition is good, it is the force that drives improvement, creates discussion and leads change. The 'Big 2' haven't had any significant competition in ages, they have stagnated in the echo chambers with their supporters, entrenched in their ideals and opposed to change.

But here is the dilemma, those 3rd parties can't get votes without being seen as risking one of the hated 'Big 2' candidates getting elected. So Republicans that detest Trump might consider a Gary Johnson (Libertarian) ticket, but voting for Johnson means Trump looses a vote and that is one vote less that Hillary needs to win. Likewise a Bernie Sanders supporter that doesn't like Hillary may consider a Jill Stein (Green) ticket, but voting Stein means potentially seeing Trump win.

As a result the disgruntled Republican and Democrat voters are, more likely, going to vote for a candidate that they dislike out of fear of one they dislike more ... so now we're at something akin to 42% Rep / 42% Dem and 16% third party split between Libertarian and Green parties and in the end the map doesn't look much different than it would normally and people will continue with the 'Third Parties aren't viable' line that we hear every election.

The Media and Election system don't help matters. The media spends next to no time covering 3rd party candidates (because they 'aren't contenders') and the Election system puts major road blocks to any party other than Republican and Democrat getting on the ballot at all. Meaning those candidates have to struggle to even get listed, and if they don't get listed in all 50 states the chances of them winning (or even showing in any significant %) is slim to none.

Can a Hillary or Trump hurt this country ... yes, and I'm positive that if either one of them is elected the effects will be significant. But in the end that's WHY I'm voting 3rd party ... maybe it means Hillary gets elected ... maybe it means Trump does. I no longer care in either case, I have reached a point where I can no longer hold my nose and vote for a pile of garbage because the other pile of garbage is slightly more smelly.

That kind of thing is what got us where we are in politics today, and it is never going to get us out of it. Because if I vote for Trump I'm telling the system that I want a loose cannon, say anything, huckster. And you know what we'll get next election cycle if Trump gets a large % of votes? More loose cannon, say anything hucksters ... because that is what we will have told the system that we want. There is no way to say 'I am casting this vote against Hillery and her corruption' or 'I'm casting this vote because I think we need a business minded President, but I am concerned about Trump's rhetoric.' all the system sees is that X% of people AGREE with Trump ... if X% is high enough then the logical conclusion is that if you want those votes you need to BE LIKE Trump.

I fully expect that one of the 'Big 2' will ultimately get elected .... but I'll be damned if my vote is going to help them get to that point. Rather I would like my vote to try and lift up the Libertarian party in the hopes that maybe if we can get that % up high enough to be noticed maybe ... if nothing else ... one (or both) of the 'Big 2' will be forced to go 'Hmmmm, maybe we need to change something .... '

Obvious Disclaimers

"Earnings vary based on effort." 
 


This is a simple disclaimer at the start of an ad for some 'build wealth' seminar, but should they really NEED to put that kind of disclaimer there? Really? I mean shouldn't that be obvious? Isn't that true with EVERYTHING in life? 
 


Have people really gotten to the point where the idea that working harder increases earning potential is so foreign to them that they have to put a disclaimer to say that if you don't work very hard at this you aren't going to earn as much as someone that works harder? Do people expect to earn the same as someone working 60 hours a week by working 2 hours a week? The sad part about it is that yes, some people do.

I don't know anything about the seminar in question, but there aren't any real methods of wealth building that just let you do nothing and make money. One could argue that proper stock investment allows you to build wealth while doing nothing, and to some degree that is true. Stocks, particularly dividend stocks, pay you regardless of your effort. But someone that invests X amount and then does nothing will NOT earn as much as someone that invests X amount and then spends the time to research and manage those investments to minimize risk and maximize profit.

It's a no brainer. Someone that works at something more is going to do better at it, there's just no getting around that fact. And yet, you know as well as I do that if they didn't prominently state that 'earnings vary based on effort' someone (or more likely lots of someones) would sue them because they thought that they would suddenly just start making more money without any work on their part.

Because some people want to believe that there is some way of making large sums of money that doesn't involve any real effort on their part. And, generally speaking, that's what most seminars of this type are playing on. The idea that you can go to this seminar, likely buy a starter kit for a couple hundred bucks and start raking in money. I'm not saying that seminars are scams, many of them offer legitimate ways of making money, even a LOT of money, but ultimately the people that will make the most money are the people that put in the most effort. 

Because regardless if it's a stock buying system, home flipping, or selling widgets you're going to have to put in the effort if you want to get the most out of it. There is no easy, fast, secure way to make a big income, there's just work. That's why if you want a good income, find a way to make money doing what you love, and love what you do, because earnings vary based on effort.

The war on freedom of Expression

It seems lately that a lot of factions have been taking a shot at freedom of artistic impression. From the North Korean Cyber-Attack over the movie "The Interview" to the terrorist attack on Charley Hebdo in Paris just yesterday. These aren't the first time that such groups have resorted to threats and violence over opinions and views that they don't want to see expressed. What I find almost more disturbing than these attacks is the responses to them.

With the hack attack on Sony Pictures over "The Interview" their response was 'okay, you win, we're not going to release the movie ... just don't hurt us.' And it wasn't just Sony, several movies related to North Korea have been shut down including a documentary about life in a North Korean internment camp based on the life of someone that escaped.

No! Wrong answer ... BAD Hollywood, no cookie for you.

Now Sony did (I suspect under pressure from the Administration) release the film to theaters on schedule, but the canceled movies are still canceled. While the attackers may not have prevented that particular film from being released they still managed to STOP THE DEVELOPMENT of several other projects, one of which was a TRUE STORY. Yes, that's right, with nothing really more than a THREAT they have stopped the truth.

They won. They told the film companies that making movies that they disapproved of would not be allowed, and they got the movie companies to SELF CENSOR themselves so as to not 'offend' the North Korean government.

Likewise news agencies around the globe are now self censoring the cartoons that prompted the attack on Charley Hebdo in Paris yesterday. They're saying, on the one hand, that they stand with the magazine against this oppression. But on the other hand saying 'but we won't show the images because that might upset people and cause US to get attacked too.'

In other words 'Yeah! You stand up to them Charley! We've got your back! From over here, under the table where we hope the bad guys don't look. If you get attacked we'll feel bad for you while we say that you asked for it by provoking them in the first place.'

Yeah, that's right, some are saying, in essence, that they deserved to be attacked because they chose to print material that they knew that Muslims would find offensive. (Mind you it's okay that the magazine also published things that OTHER religions frequently found offensive, those religions don't attack, murder and behead people when they get offended.) Yes they published those cartoons, they were (and are) a satirical magazine ... they made satire from news headlines. Just like political cartoonists here in the US often OFFEND different groups of people with their Satire it was natural that they offended people from time to time. That they wouldn't be intimidated into 'protecting' a particular group or religion was their strength and what we should respect most.

Some people say 'is nothing sacred' ... and the answer is in a multicultural world such as we live in, no. Because what is 'sacred' to my culture isn't sacred to another. Should they be 'banned' from commentary on it because I or others from MY culture might be offended by it? If you do that then we're very quickly going to run out of topics of discussion, because anything has the potential to offend someone, particularly someone of a different culture.

If you're going to set aside a group and say that 'we can't offend these people' then to be honest and fair then you have to treat ALL groups the same. If you can't offend Muslims then you can't offend Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus, or or or or or or or .... and on and on.

It is one thing to respect a people or culture. It is something completely different to FEAR them to the point that you won't allow something to be printed because it might offend a minority of them. And remember that's mainly what we're dealing with ... a MINORITY of Muslims. The radical minority, but still, realistically a minority. They just happen to be a minority that has no qualms about killing indiscriminately, that does not in any way value the lives of themselves or anyone else, and has zero respect for anyone else's opinions or rights. These are people that if you show them that they can push you around and that you'll let them, they'll just push harder and more frequently ... the answer isn't to fear them, the answer is to show them that you will not fear them and that they have no power over you.

Be louder.

First real Ramble of the New Year

Well ... I'm not going to talk about things in the past. Ferguson, and the protests surrounding it seem like ripe grounds for a rant, but you know what. It's done. I'm sick of it and the people around it. What I will say about it (and some other incidents) is that we in this country need to look at the media as a whole. They a quick to judge and slow to correct themselves even when shown to be absolutely wrong. (And often times even if they DO correct themselves no one sees it and so the 'false' information keeps getting quoted and passed around anyway.) There was a time when the news was just that, news. It was the events both local and national that you NEEDED to know about; you might not LIKE to read/hear it, but they weren't reporting it for you to like or dislike, they were reporting it so that you would KNOW about it. Then it became something more like entertainment and sensationalist. Go over the top, hit our emotions to get us mad, or sad, or sympathetic about an issue. Now it has taken the next step ... in many cases it is trying to get us to think a certain way. The media plays loose with the facts because it know that almost no one is going to check up on them. It will pick a side in a story and do everything it can to make that SEEM like the right side, even when evidence is brought up to show that the narrative that the media is pushing is a lie.

Now 'journalism' is about the 'narrative' and young journalists, when it's pointed out that the facts don't support the story and that the whole thing is a fabrication, say things like 'Well I don't think that it's a good idea to let the facts of a story dictate the narrative.' (This was said by a journalism student a month or so ago in regard to the fact that a gang rape story published by Rolling Stone was debunked.)

Wait ... what?

Did you not just say that you don't think that a 'journalist' should report the truth and the facts. Did you not just say that you believe that a 'journalist' should LIE to people if it better fits the narrative that you're trying to push?

Let me give you a hint. If the FACTS don't support the narrative then you don't HAVE a narrative, you have a work of fiction. Fiction comes from 'creative writing' classes not 'journalism' classes. Maybe you've been attending the wrong courses at your school. Or maybe you've been mixing the two and getting confused about which is which.

I mean, how am I supposed to take them seriously if they're just going to make up stuff to fit the agenda that they're trying to push? Want to say that a minority is oppressed by greedy corporations that exploit their hard work and pay them pennies but can't actually find any evidence of this? No problem! Just make up a 'story' and get it published (or better yet post it on the internet and then use it as a 'source' on Wikipedia or get quoted in a magazine or 'news' paper site. You're golden then.)

No one will question it ... and if they do, you can just smear them by saying that they're part of the oppression. That they are 'victim shaming' or racist for suggesting that the story might not be factual or accurate. Again, you don't need facts to back any of that up, you just need to further the narrative. Get enough traction and maybe you can get Michael Moore to make a documentary about it.

 Okay apparently I lied ... I did end up ranting about things in the past .... deal with it.

Look ... when I'm not rambling here or over on the Gaming Corner I write fiction ... I don't need to be competing with 'journalists' too.

Wow

Not a single post in 2014 ... that's actually kind of sad.

However, I do intend to write more in 2015 (though technically with this one post I've already achieved that goal). Both here and over at my Game Corner. 'The Wife' and I have decided that it's time to get serious about some things, and I think that getting back to writing here will, hopefully, help me focus some. I'll be writing over at the Game Corner more as well since part of what we're trying to get serious about is game design and, hopefully, development. (No don't expect to see a MMO announcement from us any time soon....)

Here I'll still be posting my views opinions and rants on various events and life and people in general. The contents of both blogs are my opinions formed through my life experiences. I don't expect everyone to like them or agree with them. Hell most people won't even read them, but that's not the point of writing these. It's a way to vent and express myself and celebrate the fact that I can do so.

Feel free to join me ... discuss, argue, agree, disagree, etc in the comments. I ask only that you leave personal attacks (toward me or any other commenters) out of it. Keep it civil and on topic and we'll all get along fine.

2015 is just getting started ... and so am I.

Happy New Year everyone.

Gun control means using both hands...

Gun control, gun control, we need more gun controls to protect innocents. *Runs around waving hands in the air and repeats himself.*

Okay ... sorry ... I claim temporary insanity there from listening to too much news.

I would hope that anyone that used to read this already knows my stance on this issue ... but to be clear:

WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IN THIS COUNTRY.

Actually, I would personally argue that there are currently gun control laws on the books that we should get rid of .... but that's not likely to happen any time soon. Once you allow an encroachment of liberty, it becomes harder and harder to get those liberties back.

I know that there have been several tragedies lately involving shooters, there are several such events scattered through our history. And my sympathies go out to the families of those who lost children or other loved ones in these terrible events. Gun control, however, isn't the answer to the problem, because the problem isn't guns. The problem is people that have no regard for life OR laws, and you can not write a gun control law that will fix THAT problem.

We need to protect people by banning 'Assault' weapons....

There are a couple of problems with this argument. First there technically is no weapon classification of 'assault' weapon. It was a legal definition that was created by a legislature looking at weapons and selecting aspects of weapons that they considered 'scary'. Secondly, we have, in the past, had an 'Assault' weapons ban in this country, and yet we still had innocent people killed in mass shooting, the shooting in Columbine in 1999 being a one of the more prominent incidents.

Also, let's look at some of the shootings, including Columbine. In most of these cases the shooter did not have any weapon that was (or is in the current legislation either) considered an 'assault' weapon. The exception being the shooter in the Colorado theater who I believe did have a AR-15 style rifle (plus several pistols, and a shotgun iirc). The shooters in Columbine used shotguns and pistols, the school shooting in Newtown was carried out with pistols (he had a rifle in the trunk of his car, but it was not used in the shooting) not 'assault' weapons. The shooting of Representative Giffords was done with a pistol, not an 'assault' weapon. In fact, 'assault' weapons usually aren't used because they are difficult to conceal in the first place.

The fact is simply that they are trying to ban them not because they are causing a lot of the shootings, but rather because they don't like them. Should we let them ban something just because they don't like it? Are we going to start letting them put people in jail just because they don't like them too? Wake up.

People don't need all these bullets, extended mags should be banned...

This has got to be one of the dumbest. This is the same type of idea that leads to the passing of laws that say that you can't buy a soda larger than 16 oz. Fine ... I can't buy a large, I'll but two mediums. Likewise all a shooter has to do is bring a couple more magazines. This is going to do NOTHING to stop shootings, at most you can say that it may give people a chance to escape while the shooter reloads. Except, again, in many cases these shooters have brought multiple weapons and rather than reloading they simply switch weapons ... they also tend to carry out shootings in areas that they are reasonably certain that there is not going to be any immediate armed response.

The logic is basically, shooting 6 people is okay, but 7 is too many. It's not a law designed to stop the shootings, it is a law designed for the sole purpose of limiting peoples options. A person more inclined toward conspiracy thoughts than I am might even draw the conclusion that the intent is specifically to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the government. I don't believe that is the intent, consciously at least, as I don't think that the people pushing such legislation are smart enough to think that far ahead in the first place.

Every gun purchase needs to go through a background check (and all states should have to report to the federal database)....

This one looks innocent enough, and I don't specifically have an issue with reasonable background checks for buying a firearm. There are, however, many issues with the ideas about this as well. Requiring background checks for private sales is nigh on unenforceable without some means of tracking the sale of the weapon without weapon registration. So either they are going to have to institute weapon registry (we'll leave off the multitudes of problems with this for another ramble) or they are going to ultimately ban private sales by making them so much of a hassle for the average gun owner that most people won't bother - though I'm sure that gun store owners would love this aspect.

Keep in mind that the Newtown shooter failed a background check and wasn't allowed to buy firearms so he killed his mother and stole hers. The background check did it's job, and yet this failed to prevent the shooting. Many of the other shooters did go through background checks, but there was nothing in their background that prevented them from owning a firearm. If anything, THAT is the issue that needs to be looked into, but there are a lot of dangers there as well. Who can put you into the database, what definitions are they using, and what means does an individual have to appeal if they find that the information in the federal database is incorrect? Currently there is no requirement for the government to correct inaccuracies in the database even if you can PROVE that the information about you is in error.

In the end the biggest problem with gun control legislation is ... CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY LAWS. Do you really think that someone planning on going to a theater with the INTENT of shooting people and killing them is going to CARE that the extended magazine in his assault rifle, the armor piercing rounds, and the tear gas and body armor he's wearing can not be legally owned? Is he going to see the 'gun free' zone sign and turn around foiled in his plan because it's illegal to take a gun in there?

Why are we seeing a rise in these types of incidents? Because people don't value life, they don't respect the rights of others, nor do they respect themselves. We live in a culture that promotes the victim mentality ... everyone is a victim, no one is to blame. If someone does something wrong it's not their fault. That's what we need to fix ... and until we do the only thing gun control laws are going to do is let people smile and puff out their chest and say 'we DID something'. Only to start the whole process again after the next shooting.

Things go a lot easier when you fix the right problem instead of playing politics with tragic events and rushing around trying to pass your agenda. Of course the real reason that they won't do that, is that it's a social problem, not a legal one ... it's society that needs to change.

To use the term 'illegal immigrant' or not....

Look ... political correctness is simply a way to hide behind words and not something that I have ever subscribed to. If people get offended that's their problem. With that said I will say that the term needs to be used correctly, but if it is accurate then it is the term that should be used.

If they came into this country illegally ... then they illegally immigrated and are, by definition illegal immigrants and should be called such. They are not 'undocumented workers' they do not have 'no legal status' and are not 'non-status alians'.

But calling them 'illegal immigrants' makes it sound like they broke the law ....

Guess what ... THEY DID. There is a legal process to immigrate into this country if it is not followed then they broke the law. Not all of them do it intentionally, and the system is messed up, convoluted, and out dated I will grant you, but if I fail to pay my taxes ... even unintentionally ... I still broke the law and can be punished to the full extent of that law. I can reasonably be called a tax cheat, or tax evader.

Are we going to start calling bank robbers 'unauthorized withdrawers' to make the act seem less 'criminal'? Come on people, wake up.

I do, however, have sympathy for those that were brought into this country by their parents illegally when they were little. They did not, through any action of their own, break the law. Many were infants, or toddlers and should not (by any reasonable human being) be punished for their parents choices. Most of these grow up knowing nothing of their 'home country' and forcefully deporting them to such is not fair to them in any stretch of the imagination. These are the people that should be helped through the process and allowed a means to become citizens with all rights and responsibilities that such citizenship includes.

I know that many of those that come here illegally do so to try and get a better life for themselves and their families and either feel that the proper paths are too restrictive or cumbersome, or simply don't know how. But while 'intent' should mitigate things, it does not change the fact that they have, in fact, broken the law and continue to do so every day that they remain in this county.

But they aren't hurting anyone, we shouldn't criminalize them ....

Tell that to the people who are unable to get work because an employer has hired someone who is here illegally. Tell that to the tax payers that are often paying for benefits claimed (illegally in some cases) by these illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants do, in fact, cause harm in many ways, but it is often 'unintentional' or 'indirect' so certain groups feel it should just be over looked and ignored. And that's not even talking about the ones that do come over here and commit other crimes, sometimes violent crimes.

Also, in some cases the efforts that they go through to gain employment can cause a lot of grief to innocent people if their SSN or other identifying information is used. Even if that wasn't the intent of the illegal immigrant that did it (or in many cases they may know nothing about it because they got the information from another party who is really to blame for the theft of the identity) it is still a felony offense and can cause a completely innocent person a huge headache getting everything straightened out.

The bottom line is ... if they immigrated illegally (they aren't trying to get rid of the term illegal immigration, so they recognize that it IS illegal) then they are, by definition, illegal immigrants - people that immigrated into a country illegally.

Also ... for the record ... not all illegal immigrants are Hispanic. Some are British, Canadian, German, Dutch, Australian, or any other country of the world. Regardless of their origin, if they illegally immigrated into this country they are 'illegal immigrants'.

I would, however, like to ask the AP ... if there aren't illegal immigrants then who is it that commits illegal immigration?

Seriously?

I can't believe that it's really been over two years since I last posted here. Guess I've been pretty slack because there has been plenty in the news and such to rant about, and even more to ramble over for no reason other than to ramble .... I've written several in my head, I think I even typed a few out, but I guess I never got around to actually throwing them up here.

I'd like to say that I was busy with other work ... and late 2010 and through 2011 that was probably true, but 2012 was slow at best and I was unemployed for the beginning of 2013 ... and may be again if I don't manage to turn this contract into a full time position, or land another contract to extend it.

Having spent the last 3 months in the unemployment system I can see how completely screwed up that program has become.

It is a system that does little to nothing to assist an unemployed person in finding a job, and in certain respects discourages taking 'small jobs' while you're looking.

Leaving aside the benefit calculation and length of the benefit as both a confusing mess and for professional workers like myself, a grossly inadequate level of compensation ... if I take a job that earns less than my benefit ... my benefit is reduced by my pre-tax earnings .... so if I were to take a job where I earned less per week than my benefit ... I would be working for free. (Example the max benefit is $330 / Week (pre-tax) ... so if I were to take a temp job that earned me $230 (pre-tax) ... my benefit for the week would only be $100 to bring me to a total of $330 for the week. Since I could have earned $330 for the week without so much as getting out of bed(1), I worked the week for free.)

[(1) - Okay, not technically true as you have to be 'actively looking for a job' and turn in a work search report every week with at least 3 new job contacts ... but since emailing resumes or calling employers counts ... in this day that CAN be done from bed.]

The DoL (Department of Labor) does at least have a website that helps you find contacts .. kind of ... but I got better results using standard job search engines and good ole fashioned networking. And in fact it was networking that landed me the contract I have now. Going into the office, however, is less fruitful ... unless your goal was to waste most of your day to talk to someone that will a) give you a pamphlet that essentially tells you to do what you have already been doing, b) tell you to go to the website, c) give you paperwork that, when processed, will tell you what you already knew if you've gone to the website, and d) smile insincerely and encourage you to keep plugging away at it.

I could cut the DoL budget in about half by getting rid of most of the 'councelors' that don't do anything productive and just stop pretending to offer that at all. They already have a room full of computers so that people that don't have Internet access at home can use the website, and every time I went 60% of those weren't being used, and half of the ones that were were surfing facebook, not job hunting(2).

[(2) - I recognize that I didn't really do a count of the computers that were being used, or how they were being used. This was just the impression glancing around the room while sitting there with nothing else to do while waiting for the counselor to call me.]

The problem is, like so many other government handled programs, it has become a bureaucracy that is heavy on personnel and light on actual service. A bunch of people, pushing papers around, sending letters, emails, and the like. Many of whom may have even gone into the job with the desire to help people only to find themselves ground down by the bureaucratic machine and sheer number of people. Trust me ... for the most part it is not the individuals that I think are the problem.

Inefficiency is the nature of a bureaucracy as you tend to end up with a large number of people doing little more than overseeing people. The government school system is a great example of this often being very administration heavy with some districts having as many as 2 administrators for each teacher in the system. And those overseers are often pulling down hefty government salaries and benefits while having limited impact on the actual goal of the department. This in turn strangles the department budget leaving less and less money to actually go toward achieving the department's goal.

The governmental answer to this problem is usually to create more regulations and hire more administration to determine what the problem is and suggest a course of action to the committee in charge of the department that usually amounts to 'give us more money.'

Which brings us to the current problems with the Federal budget .... much of the problems of our budget could be solved by increasing the EFFICIENCY of the programs involved. Remember folks, it takes roughly 2 tax payers making the same salary (plus the taxes payed by the government employee) to pay the salary of each government employee ... it should be relatively obvious that the larger government grows the more and more impossible it becomes to maintain. This is why only $0.05 to $0.10 of every tax dollar collected actually makes it back out of the government in terms of benefits. Salaries and operational expenses are the biggest expenses that face our government ... and they aren't talking about any REAL long term cuts in those ... in fact they aren't really talking about cuts in anything ... they aren't cutting they're reducing planned increases ... so a department that got 100 million this year is only going to get 105 million next year instead of the 110 million that they were going to get under the previous budget projection. .... mind you we don't have enough money to pay for the 100 million they got THIS year and if we FROZE their budget at 100 million we wouldn't have that next year either so giving them 105 million is 5 more million dollars we have to borrow...

But let's just keep spending ... somewhere down the line I'm sure that money will just fall from the sky and solve our debt problems. Oh ... I know ... we'll find it collectively in between our sofa cushions. I'm sure that planning will work out very well for us in the future....

Welcome to your future

Heard about the riots in France? Greece? Demonstrations in the UK and Ireland? I can't say that I've looked everywhere, but in looking over the national news lately I can't say that these stories have been highlighted by media outlets around here. And why not? The media doesn't want to make a big deal about these stories because they are a glimpse of what we have to look forward to here. They are the stark images of what lays down the road of big government and socialist policies ... a road that we seem to be skipping happily down blindfolded to all of the pitfalls and potholes that litter its path.

The problem in Greece is, of course, that the government is BROKE ... they have no money ... but the government unions are rioting in protest of pay and benefit cuts, other groups are protesting and rioting against cutting spending (benefits) to social programs. The problem in France is that Government Retirement pensions are reaching critical mass and to try and stave of problems the government is trying to raise the retirement age to 62 from 60.

These governments are looking down the barrel of financial trouble and are trying to take the steps needed to get their financial house in order, but their opposition chooses to use violence and fear as their tactic to influence the situation. In France they have shut down public transportation, blockaded fuel depots causing a fuel shortage, barricaded access to airports disrupting passengers and flights, smashed store windows, burned cars, and become increasingly violent over the last week inuring 62 police officers.

Why? Because they feel that raising the retirement age could be the first step in eroding their other benefits ... which include long vacations, contracts that make it hard (or impossible) for an employer to fire employees, and a state subsidized health system that is draining the economy, in favor of a more 'American style' capitalist system.

Except here in America we're heading the opposite direction. We're heading straight down the road to those riots ... we are seeing a glimpse of our future, but we're turning a blind eye to it in the hopes that if we don't recognize it or acknowledge it that somehow we'll avoid it.

The government of the US is already essentially broke, we are spending much more than the government receives .... running much of our social programs and even essential government functions with borrowed money. This is an unsustainable policy, in many cases we are borrowing money to pay the interest on the loans we already had .... the national debt has increased every year since before Carter ... the much touted Clinton 'surplus' was a projection that assumed that nothing in the economy would change over the fifteen years following the report. Of course the report was before the 'dot com' bust that lead to the economic recession that started in Clinton's last year.

We have got to get spending under control in this country or we will be forced to when our economy crashes like Greece's. This is going to require some tough decisions and, more than likely, the elimination or drastic reduction in many if not all social programs. This is not going to be popular with the recipients of those programs, many of whom are proud career government leaches. These people, and the government unions whose over inflated salaries and pensions will likely come under the knife as well tend to be of a more mob mentality; a mentality that justifies and exonerates the tactics currently being used in France.

The longer we travel down the road of socialism the harder it is going to be to turn around and get our country back on track and in line with the goals of our founding fathers. We need to turn it around sooner rather than later ... it needs to start on November 2nd with these mid-term elections ... and it needs to start with an informed voting base.

DON'T just vote for Republicans just because they're not Democrats .... admittedly the Democrats (and particularly the top leadership of this Democrat administration) are largely responsible for accelerating this trip down the road we're on, but that doesn't mean that Republicans have all the answers either. Know the issues and the candidates stances on them ... Don't vote based on party, but on policy. Likewise don't vote for Democrats just because they aren't Republicans ... and don't vote for any candidate just because they are in a particular party.

DON'T just vote for someone just because they are running against an incumbent. There is a major anti-incumbent mentality out there, and I do believe that many of those that are currently in office (in both parties) need to be thrown out on their ears. But voting against an incumbent for no reason other than the fact that they are an incumbent is as just as bad as voting FOR him just because he is currently in the office. You need to know their voting record, know their opponent's stance, make sure that the person that you are voting for is, in your opinion at least, the person that is BEST suited for the job, if it so happens that they currently already have the job, then maybe they need to stay after all.

If you can not be bothered to make the effort to make an informed vote then please don't make the effort to go to the polls and vote, because it is uniformed votes that are the most dangerous to this country.

"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy

Man

I need to blog more ... lately though I've actually been avoiding the news it's just too depressing that so many people are so out of touch in this country. Though I suppose it shouldn't really be that surprising. I saw a poll that had been done recently (of course I can't find the article now), but in generic terms what it found was that 70% of Americans over the age of (I think it was) 50 had a favorable view of Capitalism and the Free-Market economy and an unfavorable view of Socialism and a Centrally-Planned economy. Under the age of 30 (or so), however, the numbers were more akin to 80% in favor of Socialism and Centrally-Planned economy ... and yet let's step back and take a look at something:

Specifically the USSR (for those youngsters among us that is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the poster child for a Centrally-Planned, Socialist style government) was founded in 1922 and dissolved in 1991.

Likewise it was in 1921 that the Communist Party of China (CPC) was founded and it wasn't until 1943 that it actually came to power by defeating the Nationalist Party in a long and bloody civil war. The CPC is still the ruling body of the Peoples Republic of China, but in recent years has been moving more toward a more Free-Market approach to their economy.

The two largest Communist/Socialist 'empires' if you will ... One collapsed almost 20 years ago, bankrupt, and the other is moving away from a Centrally-Planned economy. The USSR lasted 69 years ... if you take it back to the start of the revolution then it lasted 74 years, maybe a little longer. The People's Republic of China is only 67 years old (89 if you go back to the CPC's founding) and is no longer a purely Socialist / Centrally-Planned economic model.

Conversely, the USA founded upon individual liberty, Capitalism, and the Free-Market was founded in 1776. To date it has stood roughly 234 years. When the USSR and CPC were founded the USA's model of Capitalism had been operating for 145 years.

This is where some people point out that we aren't a purely Capitalist economy anymore either, and that is true. Since the Great Depression (and FDR's 'New Deal') socialism has been eating away at the capitalist structure of this country and since then we have seen the greatest losses of economic liberty, the greatest growths of government, and the greatest decline in power. The New Deal and many of the later growths and mutations of the policies that stemmed from it contain some of the biggest problems in American government today ... Social Security (which was known at the time to be unsustainable and only meant to be a temporary system until a better version could be enacted), the FHA (which would eventually lead to FreddyMac/FannieMae), the SEC, and eventually Medicare.

Whether we would have survived had we not incorporated some of these socialist systems into our economic model is impossible to say. I believe that operating on a pure, or nearly pure, Capitalist/Free-Market system is possible ... and I believe that it is infinitely more likely than a purely Socialist/Centrally-Planned system operating successfully for any significant length of time.

In any case ... why is it that so many seem more than willing to move away from the system that has worked the longest and brought more people out of poverty than any other system in history, in favor of a system that seems to burn itself out in about 70 years. Why are we trying to become more like a system that failed? Do we want long bread lines, longer hours and lower pay? Because that's what the USSR was best known for ... and that isn't from text books or propaganda reels, that's from talking to some clients here at work that lived over there before the fall.

Maybe part of the reason that the young ones do have a more favorable view of Communism/Socialism is simply the fact that the USSR fell almost 20 years ago. They didn't see and hear about the problems, about the living conditions of anyone not in the political class, and things of that nature. They've heard stories, sure, but those are just propaganda, and besides they have all the answers, they'll do it right.

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath ......

Myth of Corporate Greed

Corporate Greed ... I'm sure that you've all heard the term. It seems to get thrown around a lot, particularly when economic troubles are in the air ... it is used as the explanation of what is wrong with everything in our economy. Companies laying off workers? Corporate Greed. Companies raising prices or fees? Corporate Greed. Companies going bankrupt? Yup, Corporate Greed.

There's a problem though ... the people using the term can't define it. Basically ... someone else is making more than they are and they don't like it, because if you ask them and press the issue they will likely tell you that the problem is 'greedy' CEOs.

Here's the thing though ... CEOs are employees. Hired ultimately by the shareholders of the corporation. Their pay (and bonuses) are defined by a contract negotiated, often by the board of directors, but ultimately approved by the shareholders of the corporation. Their job (for which they earns the pay and bonuses defined in the contract) is to make as much profit for the shareholders as he possibly can.

You see ... a corporation is basically an elaborate legal structure which exists for one single purpose ... to make a profit. It does not exist to employ people, it does not exist to produce a product, it exists to make money. Employees and Products (or services) are a means to that end.

When the cost of employment starts lowering profit the CEO has a problem ... his job is at stake. He has to make some choices. An over simplified version of the choices available to him are to 1) Pass the cost on to the end user of the product (raise the cost of his product/service to compensate for the additional labor costs) ... probably not a good idea in a down economy as it may result in drastically reduced sales. 2) find ways of lowering costs in other areas (advertising less, etc.) .. these can also have consequences on sales or other aspects of the company itself). 3)Go to the source of the problem and cut employment or compensation packages ... generally the most effective direct result though for a large company it can be a PR nightmare and the effect on production/services does need to be considered heavily.

Most often, of course, it is some combination of all available options that is going to be taken. No matter what the CEO does many of his decisions may be unpopular and very few of them are going to be easy. But that is why they makes the money that they do ... because their experience and business sense has taught them how to make those decisions and what the best road is likely to be for the short and long term health of the company; and more specifically for the shareholders of the company.

It's funny that often if a CEO is given a raise (by the board of directors, or the shareholders) it is because he's greedy, it can't possibly be because ... oh ... I don't know ... that he did a good freaking job. If the employees (or employee union), however, demand a raise ... it's not because they're greedy ... no ... they are the victims of the greedy corporation, enslaved to their pitiful paycheck and benefits.

You see ... the fact of the matter is that in many areas US workers have priced themselves out of the market. A company hiring US employees typically has to pay a lot more in benefits and wages than they would pay someone with the same level of skills in other countries. (Or in some cases even in other States within the US.) .... This effect can usually be traced back to 2 factors - Government Regulation (interference) and Labor Unions. Doing this isn't 'greedy' it's good business sense ... the CEO has a responsibility to the shareholders of the company, not the employees ... the employees exist to assist the company in making a profit, the company does not exist in order to provide them a job and means of income.

Let's take a moment and take a step back .... let's look at who the shareholders are in many of the 'big' companies. The largest holder of many of the large corporations in the US are ... retirement funds ... so, Teachers, Police, Fire, Employee Unions ... in other words 'every day workers'. (It's actually kind of ironic that Unions are often working against the best interests of the retirement funds of the very people that they are supposed to be representing ... but then again the Unions have generally had more of a 'now' outlook so they probably would prefer the 100 now instead of the 1000 later....)

These people have a vested interest in the corporation making as much profit and making it for as many years as possible ... to do this they have a vested interest to hire the best CEO and officers that they can find ... like any market there is a limited supply of people that can reasonably perform that role, as such, experience, track record, all of that is going to come with a price tag.

Are there CEOs (and/or other corporate officers) that are making more than they should be, perhaps, but then again if they were offered the contract, or if the terms that they offered to the corporation were accepted then the shareholders agreed to it and it's up to them to correct the situation for their own good.

Now, of course, many CEOs are also shareholders themselves ... but that doesn't make them greedy either. Yes, it means that they are, in part, making the decisions for their own profit, but that just means that they too have a vested interest in making the best choices possible for the health and profit of the company .... and face it ... would you, as a shareholder, trust a CEO that had no such interest?

People need to realize that there is not a single company on this planet that exists for any purpose than to make a profit for someone; be it the company owner, the partners, or the shareholders. Calling them 'greedy' for looking after their own best interests ... while praising employees for looking after their own is what one typically calls 'hypocrisy'.

Capitalism

As most of you know I play computer games as a hobby (some might say as an addiction). Frequently I play those often maligned games known as MMORPGs or MMOGs (Massively Multiplayer Online (RolePlaying) Games). One of the more interesting aspects of MMOGs in general is the aspect of anonymity ... which is to say that since there is little to no real world repercussions to any given action people will tend to speak or act more freely.

Aside from the fact that it often gives you an unfiltered view of true human nature it also means that people are more apt to speak their minds in regard to politics and economics ... whether or not they have any understanding of the subject. One common such subject is Capitalism.

Specifically the fact that capitalism is to 'blame' for high market prices because it inevitably leads to inflation, profiteering and price gouging. Yup the only reason people put a high price on an item is greedy capitalism (yes I've seen that spelled out in no uncertain terms)

I'm sorry ... but capitalism itself is not to blame for inflation, inflation is a function of devalued currency for a number of reasons ... in an MMO this is most often caused by a higher supply of money into economic system than there is a drain of money out of the system. As the amount of game currency that you can make in a period of time increases so do the prices of items that can be gained in a similar period of time because people will 'price' an item at what they feel is a reasonable compensation for their time invested in obtaining it. Likewise buyers are more likely to spend in higher amounts as they have more money; buying tomorrow for 25 coins what they would only have been willing to pay 20 for yesterday.

Profiteering and Price gouging don't exist, it's an emotional attack on someone making a profit or charging more than a some party (often external to the sale completely) feels that the item is worth. I think I've been through this here before ... if they buyer BOUGHT the item, then, on some level, the buyer felt that it was worth the price asked.

In all transactions it is ultimately the buyer that sets the price; he does this by buying. If he buys at the current price he is telling the seller that it is worth that price to him to have the item now rather than spending the time to find it at a lower price or wait for the seller to offer a lower price.

The seller asks for what he feels that the item is worth ... the buyer can say yes, no, or counter with an offer of their own. If the buyer makes an offer then the seller has the same options. This continues until either the buyer buys the item or one of them decides that the deal is no longer worth the effort and says 'no'.

'But you just admited that the seller can reject an offer, so the buyer doesn't set the price.'

Yes ... the seller CAN refuse to sell at a lower price, at which point the buyer is left with two options: buy or don't buy ... the final choice is always the buyer's.

Capitalism is not responsible for impatient buyers, nor is it capitalism's fault if a buyer is uninformed (buyer beware).

That is not to say that I condone blatantly or purposefully taking advantage of a buyer ... that is fraud and is immoral, but it is a separate issue from the economic model of capitalism. There are ways of dealing with that among the player base, but that is really a discussion for my other blog.

The fact of the matter is ... that the greatest failing in modern capitalist systems is the ignorance of the buyers ... if buyers realized their strength in the system and exorcised it more rather than just accepting the idea of the 'monopoly' of the seller ... that is what creates and drives competition which creates lower and more stable prices. No matter how the buyer feels they always OWN half of the "supply/demand" equation.

Departing on a new Path

... but not leaving this one either. I just recently (as of a few minutes ago) decided to get off my duff and do something that I've been meaning to do for a while now ... start a blog in order to talk about things less related to this world and more related to the virtual worlds of computer games.

Not going to say much here other than to let you know that I'm adding a link in the link section to it and I'll post one here as well it is Klik's Game Corner.

I'll have more news stuff to rant about here soon though.... there's certainly enough idiocy in DC lately....

Ranting about Healthcare

Most of you are probably sick of it ... and others probably won't bother to read it. But I've been seeing and hearing the same counter arguments repeatedly so I figured I'd write my response in a central place.

'Government makes you buy car insurance, it's the same thing.'

No ... actually there are several differences. First, driving is not a basic human right, life is. There is nowhere I need to go that I can't get to by some other means, thus I can choose not to drive, and therefore I don't need car insurance. Many people do this, particularly in large cities. Also ... I don't actually have to have car insurance unless I drive on public roads ... IE - if I only drive on private property I don't need car insurance (or a license for that matter).

The auto insurance issue also fails in the fact that the government does not penalize me if I choose to have more coverage than they 'deem' appropriate. If I choose to pay more to have a lower deductible, or higher coverage in the case of an accident that is my choice. With health insurance, however, the federal government has chosen to place a ceiling above which you will be taxed if you choose to exceed what they 'deem' to be sufficient. They are attempting to mandate not only minimum coverage, but maximum as well ... determining that if you can afford better health coverage than 'average' you should be punished for that success ... it's simply wealth envy, nothing more.

Second off ... and this may sound minor ... but that law is a state law, not a federal law.

What's the difference? Simple ... one is the way this country was meant to run, the other isn't. That is to say, the Federal government was supposed to have very little direct impact/control of individuals, States were meant to have more impact, and cities/towns or other local communities were meant to have the majority of the direct effect on individual citizens ... this was to keep the politics local ... so that the people that passed the laws that effected you lived, shopped, worked directly in the community that they were effecting ... and were there, in the community when they did it.

Yes, the member of the House of Representatives 'live' in their districts, but many of them only do so part time. (As for much of the year they are in D.C. not in their home districts, and they are not in their districts when they cast their votes.)

Remember, the founding fathers were distrustful of strong central government ... they had, after all, just won their independence from one.

Which actually brings me to my next point, 'Opposing the government isn't American.'

Well, actually, one could easily argue that this country was founded on the principle of strongly opposing a government that is not listening to it's people. Much as many people feel that the current government is not listening to the people ... and is, in fact, flaunting the fact that they aren't going to listen to the people.

Now, I don't believe that we are yet to the point that open revolt is warranted, and I am completely against the use of threats and violence in this debate. The Courts and/or the ballot box is still the place to ultimately resolve this issue.

'people are going to get the care at the emergency room and everyone has to pay for that ...'

That is true ... and you know what ... it's not going to change. In fact I'd be willing to bet it gets worse.

The fact of the matter is that people without insurance (and since the CBO estimates that this plan will only cover 3/5ths of the uninsured there will still be plenty of them, mainly illegal aliens) will still get care at the emergency room ... and that will still be paid for the same way it is now ... through insurance premiums and tax money. Only now I'll be paying HIGHER premiums and HIGHER taxes than I was before! Bonus!!

The CBO originally reported that the plan would likely cause a 25% increase to the cost of the average health insurance policy. Add to that an increased tax burden (yes on much of the middle class) and an increased tax burden on employers (this will ultimately hit the working class both in terms of higher price of goods and lower pay) and what you've got is a higher cost to get to the same place.

In fact several groups that opposed the bill did so on the ground that it realistically does nothing to lower the cost of health care or insurance. The hope is that a majority of the 'uninsured' that will be put into the insurance system will be healthy and, therefore, need little to no care and as a result can carry the additional cost of other people's care ... the fact of the matter is that many will be people that will need substantial health care at significant cost, costs that the insurance companies do not have the spare cash to absorb and will therefore have to raise premiums to cover.

'It lowers the deficit'

Um ... no ... not even close. The CBO report said that it would cut the deficit by about 132 billion over 10 years .... BUT ... in another report it estimated the budget for the administrative and oversight agencies that the bill establishes (but does not fund) would be aproximately 16o billion over the same 10 year period, but that amount was not included in the report because the funding for those agencies was not included in the bill. Also the numbers in the CBO assume that the 'Doc Fix' to prevent a scheduled 21% cut in medicare payments to doctors does not get passed ... except Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have assured people that it would be passed (and is currently part of the extension of unemployment bill working it's way through the congress now) which would put another 400 billion or so back on the cost of the bill.

And all of that assumes, of course, that the estimates are anything remotely close to reality ... which the government doesn't exactly have a good track record on.

The fact is that when boiled down the bill spends a lot, to achieve a little. Will it be better than where we were? Possibly, but I highly doubt it. The better question, however, is will the result be worth the price? There is a point in any project or endeavor there is a point past which the effort and cost is no longer worth the return ....

In the end ... Health insurance is not the providence of the Federal Government. Neither to control nor to mandate. The Government has grown and expanded, reaching far beyond it's intended role in many aspects ... this, I believe, is where we need to draw the line; we need to stop this growth and, if possible, reverse the trend or the freedoms of America may disappear into the pages of history.... I will not accept the right of the federal government to dictate what I must buy for my own well being any more than I would accept their ability to tell me what type of car I must buy, or where I must work, or for how much; Nor will I stand by quietly about it.

In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." and this is something that I feel matters, because as our rights and freedoms erode so to do our lives ... stolen away never to be returned ... seized for the crime of success and hard work.

Peace?

"For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want." - President Barack Obama, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.

I do have to give President Obama credit for writing a good speech (or at least hiring a good speech writer), but I do have to take exception to the above line because of the message that it sends ... and the message that I believe that Obama fully intended for it to send.

Setting aside for a moment the whole impropriety of the award going to President Obama in the first place, a point that he actually brings up at the beginning of his speech, we have to look into what he said.

I'm picking on this particular line because it lies at what I consider to be the heart of Obama's philosophy ... and his problem as a President.

The problem ... of course ... is his choice of wording. To be alive is to want ... there is no real way around that. A tree 'wants' air and sun and water ... it may not have a conscious understanding of that as we do, but it still wants them. Likewise ... even if you gave me everything I wanted right now, I'd want something else once you were done.

"Freedom from want" is impossible ... and if you could somehow free someone from 'want' you will have taken away from them any possible motivation to improve ... or even live. Because at the heart of all motivation there must be a 'want' to drive it ... you strive to improve your income because you 'want' nicer things, you work out because you 'want' to look/feel better, you go out to a party with your friends because you 'want' to have fun.

Everything that you do in life, you do because of a want. Hell, you could say that you continue breathing because you want to live!

Now ... I hear it already ... 'well he meant freedom from the want of necessities, you're taking it too literally.'

No ... Obama is not dumb, he knows that there is a word for the want of necessities ... it's a very simple one in fact ... 'needs'. He choose to use 'wants' for a reason, and that is, in fact, the problem.

Had he choose to say that 'For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from need.' I would have accepted and even agreed with him. It is true that anyone that lacks what they 'need' to survive will in fact fight to obtain it ... that is part of our basic animalistic nature ... so yes, while there is need in the world we will not see any true and lasting peace. But that isn't what he choose to say ... that isn't the message that he choose to convey with his language. Because, in the end, it's not what he believes.

More and more I believe that Obama believes in a government that sees to and manages every persons wants and desires. A government that wraps you in a blanket as you come out of the womb and buries you in the grave when you die ... a government that controls your life in every aspect.

Don't get me wrong ... I don't believe that Obama is himself an evil man, I don't believe that he is doing this with evil or malicious intent. I do, however, believe that he is doing it because he believes that it is what is the right thing to do, and that it is good ... the problem is that there is an old saying that may prove very very true:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Now I'm going to ramble a bit ... but it does have a point:

As I'm sure that by now you all know that I'm a gamer ... I love playing computer and video games ... and there was something in the game 'Jade Empire' that I think is relavant here, and it has to do with philosophy. No doubt my summery of it will not do justice to the concept but I'll at least try to get the basics across.

I have heard, both in the game and elsewhere, of the eastern philosophies of the 'Path of the Open Palm' and the 'Path of the Closed Fist' ... The first is often seen and depicted as the philosophy of the benevolent protector, while the latter is portrayed as the overbearing tyrant. As the game made a point to remark on, however, the follower of the 'Open Palm' must be vigilant lest his benevolence itself oppress those he seeks to help, making him a tyrant in his own right.

In other words ... it's possible to help people too much. Sometimes people need to fall, sometimes people need to fail, sometimes helping someone is really just holding them down with a smiling face, enslaving them with silken whips.

And that, I believe is the mistake Obama is making in his personal philosophy and political decisions ... he is trying to help people ... out of a true desire to help people ... to such an extent that in the end they end up totally dependent and enslaved to government. A position, it seems, that all too many Americans are willing to accept.