Are the working class laborers being systematically exploited by managers and white collar workers? Is it the case that white collar workers are making money at the expense of blue collar workers, or is there a better explanation?

Value Does Not Come From Labor

If labor created value, then society (and all of its members) could get rich by having everyone use their bare hands to dig large holes in the desert and then fill them back up. After all, this would be extremely hard work of a very physical nature. However, this would create no wealth for society—in fact, it would represent a destruction of wealth (imagine what the laborers could have actually produced if they were not hired to complete this task).  Generally, this destruction of wealth takes place in the form of an absence of economic activity which would have otherwise occurred.

The value of a product does not come solely from the labor of the workers. The value of a product is measured subjectively; a product is essentially worth what people are willing to pay for it.

A laborer in turn receives payment for his services based on the value that his work adds to the product or service. A janitor in a shoe factory adds relatively little value to the shoes that are being created. There is likely more value being added by the designer who designs the shoes, by the worker who sews the shoes together, and by the person who manages the distribution network which allows for the shoes to be sold in thousands of stores around the world. These workers add more value to the product, despite the fact that the janitor undoubtedly exerts more physical effort to do his job.

Scarcity

While value added by workers is an important reason for the existence of disparities in income, scarcity tells much more of the story.

As Thomas Sowell put it, economics is the allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses. With the exception of air, just about all resources are scarce. Similarly, nearly all resources have alternative uses (should this rubber be used to make tires or shoes?, should this glass be used to make a window or a beer bottle?, should my time be spent watching a movie or cleaning the house?).

Scarcity doesnt just mean that there isnt a lot of a certain good. Scarcity means that the good is limited. Even in America, bread is a scarce resource.

Diamonds and Water

Think of diamonds and water. Which of the two resources is absolutely essential to life, and which could we live without? Water is infinitely important: without water we will all die very quickly. Diamonds are nice and sparkly and women love them, but they are hardly essential to our lives. However, water is very cheap and diamonds are very expensive. This phenomenon is known as the “diamond/water” paradox. The reason for the differences in the costs of these goods is scarcity; water is abundant, while diamonds are scarce.

For example, I live in unincorporated DeKalb County [in Georgia] where my water is provided by a government monopoly (and hence is likely more expensive than would be the case under a free market system). Yet, the monthly bill for my 3 bedroom house has averaged $61.17 per month since April of 2007. In other words, over the past 4 years, it has cost about two dollars per day to provide the 2-3 people living in my house at various times with the most important resource that we need for survival. In fact, water is so cheap that I can do more than just use it for survival needs—I use it for showering, cooking, watering my plants, and even brewing beer.

What does this have to do with janitors and CEO’s?

Well, the same principles which lead to the diamond/water paradox also apply to compensation for labor. Please keep in mind that my intent is not to belittle the work that janitors do. I know that this type of work is physically demanding and dirty work. However, there is little skill involved and little intelligence required. The fact of the matter is that nearly every able-bodied person above the age of 13 or so is probably qualified to be a janitor. In contrast, there are only a very limited number of people who have the intelligence, experience, and ability necessary to be a successful CEO of Coca-Cola. Janitors are replaceable and easily trained. High-level executives are not. In other words, the pool of available janitors is relatively unscarce when compared to the pool of available CEO’s of Fortune 100 companies.

Bringing it all together

Disparities in income are hardly the result of exploitation by the white collar class against blue collar workers or the working poor. Compensation results from several factors including the value added by the worker, as well as the relative scarcity of the pool of workers available to fill that position.

There is no Federally mandated wage scale requiring certain salaries for certain types of workers. Decisions on how to pay employees—be they janitors, CEO’s, or something in between—are generally made on a company by company basis. Those in the position to hire janitors will pay them according to the value that they believe will be added to the firm. They will likely tend to pay the janitor at levels similar to that of other janitors in related fields. This is because a janitor is likely to add similar levels of value at which ever company he works. The range of compensation for CEO’s is very large, with CEO’s of smaller companies earning drastically less than do CEO’s at large multi-national firms. This is because of the differences in the amount of value that can be added by different CEO’s in different fields at different companies. The CEO of Wal-Mart is responsible for running a worldwide distribution network, ensuring that over a million employees get paid, and in a broader sense—ensuring that society is fed and clothed. In contrast, the CEO of a small but delicious pizza chain has responsibilities which are much greater than his employees, but which do not compare to that of the CEO of Wal-Mart.

Ceteris Peribus

This article does not deal with things like corporate welfare or other special privileges which are often received by corporations from the State. While special privileges will likely skew the distribution of income away from the bottom of the and towards the top, the principles at hand do not change. In a truly free society with no governmental grants of limited liability, no business licensing requirements, corporate welfare, and private control of the currency, income is likely to be somewhat more evenly distributed among the productive members of society. However, as long as there is any level of freedom of choice, there will always be disparities in income.  Income disparities are not always bad–in fact, they are very important.  Differences in income give us something to strive for.  If we all earned the same wages, no matter how hard we worked, no matter how much value we added to society, and no matter what type of work we did, no matter our ages, or no matter how much experience we had, there would be little reason for people to put much effort into their jobs.  There would be little incentive for anyone to be productive beyond the subsistence level–after all, any additional effort that they did would have to be shared equally with all of society.  If we were all the exact same, there would be no reason for trade, or even for society to exist.  It is our differences which encourage people to interact and trade with each other.  No society larger than a small tribe could survive for long if wages were distributed equally.

As long as there are people with different skills, levels of intelligence, backgrounds, lifestyles, and so on, there will be differences in income. People are different from each other, and as such, will seek out different goods and services. They will also find themselves qualified for different types of employment than their friends and neighbors. Typically, those who are employed in positions that create a lot of value and are relatively scarce will earn higher incomes than those who are employed in positions that create little value and are relatively common.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

For confirmation of this, check out the C-SPAN coverage of this issue, especially the speeches starting from around 70 minutes until they begin voting on the rule.

President Obama promised that American people that he would pursue a bipartisan approach to health care reform.  Unfortunately for the American people, President Obama did no such thing.  Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) and several other Republicans have been begging President Obama and the Democratic leadership to listen to other ideas and to move to attack some of the problems with health care that the vast majority of Americans agree on.  This bill is not bipartisan in any remote sense of the word.  In a clear sign of both idiocy and doublespeak, Nancy Pelosi disagreed and declared that a “bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes.” The argument here was that because Democrats have included a few small ideas that Republicans and independents support in the bill that it can be called bipartisan.

In fact, the only thing that can even be said to be bipartisan about this bill is the opposition to it.  There are no Republicans supporting this bill; it is opposed by every single Congressional Republican and a number of Congressional Democrats.

But, even if this bill had been a perfect example of bipartisan compromise, it is still wrong.  On top of being immoral and undemocratic, this bill is blatantly unconstitutional.

Alas, they have passed it and the battle is over.  What do we do now, you ask?:

Well, we have three choices here.  We can:

1)  Admit the fight is over, accept this new national health care system, its immense costs and potential to result in a level of care much lower than the current level.  Accepting this option is akin to tacitly accepting that our federal government no longer has any limits and thus, is no longer bound to the contractual restraints placed upon it by the Constitution.

2)  Accept that the battle is over, but focus our efforts on repealing this bill.  Republicans have little chance of retaking the Congress in November, and given their history of supporting big government programs, there is little if any reason to believe that they will seek to implement a health care system based on the principles of freedom.

3)  Take the passage of this bill as a setback and as the loss of a major battle, but regroup and get ready for a major guerrilla offensive.  The centralized approach to fighting this bill should be abandoned for now.  This battle simply cannot be fought on the national level right now.  The answer is for a number of different methods of attacking this plan.

Clearly, I favor option 3.  Under this option, we must urge our State legislators to nullify this and all future health care bills coming from D.C.  We must urge our State to follow the lead of Idaho and sue the federal government (however, we should also realize that it is unreasonable to expect federal courts to curb federal power).  Individuals and groups must follow a similar strategy and file lawsuits against the implementation of this bill.  One good thing about this bill is that many of its provisions do not take effect until 2013 and 2014, giving us plenty of time to try out various strategies

The important thing here is to not rely on only one strategy.  We must favor a decentralized strategy for fighting this bill for the same reason that we must facor a decentralized system of government.  The consequences of failure in a “one size fits all” system are too great.  By fighting a number of separate battles against the bill, we can be sure that the failure of one strategy will not lead to our total failure.  Additionally, the beauty of this strategy is that the success of any one of the single strategies that we are using to fight this bill could result in the death of this bill.

The Constitution was a contract between the States to create a federal government.  In creating the federal government, the Constitution also served as a contract between the States and the federal government.  The Constitution delegated certain powers to the federal government and reserved the remaining powers to the States (and to the individual people).

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution delegated certain powers to the federal government.  The 9th and 10th amendments to that Constitution placed every power not given to the federal government in the hands of the States and the people.

[The 9th Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."]

[The 10th Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."]

This is the plain and simple truth.  Anyone who argues that the Constitution must adapt to changing times is ignoring the fact that the Constitution contains the mechanisms for this adaption in the amendment process. Any expanse of federal power that is not covered by the Constitution or by subsequent amendments is a direct violation of the Constitutional contract.  Thus, if the federal government wanted to lawfully implement a national health care system, Congress and the States would need to ratify a Constitutional Amendment granting this power to the federal government.

A contract obviously cannot be expected to enforce itself–Party A must be vigilant to ensure that Party B does not ignore the provisions of the contract and take advantage of Party A.  But, suppose that Party B does take advantage of Party A–what now?

The States as sovereign actors must do their parts to reject the improper violations of the Constitutional contract by the federal government.  This means that State governments must refuse to implement–or to allow the implementation of–this violation of the Constitutional contract by one party.

An illegal law is no law at all.  A law that expressly violates the Constitutional contract is invalid and can be ignored by the States.

37 of the 50 States are considering bills to nullify this health care bill.  That is, these States are refusing to allow the federal usurpation of local power to continue (at least in the area of health care).  Several days ago, Idaho became the first State to sign a bill into law requiring the State’s Attorney General to sue to federal government over this bill.  States like Virginia, Arizona, and Utah have also passed nullification bills and are only awaiting the signature of their governor.  Many of these States are considering laws that would lead to the imprisonment of any federal official attempting to enforce any law which is not explicitly authorized under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

There has been a long history of nullification to prevent the federal government from implementing unconstitutional or unjust violations of the Constitutional contract.  This history has included but is not limited to the following:  attempts by Northern States to nullify the propsed military draft in the War of 1812 and actions by Maryland and Wisconsin to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act (and to charge anyone who took an escaped slave back into captivity with the crime of kidnapping).

More recent examples of nullification include (but are certainly not limited to) the nullification of the REAL ID Act by 25 States (effectively blocking the federal government from implementing a national identification card) and the nullification of federal marijuana laws by thirteen States.

We can and must apply these same principles to this unwanted health care bill.  Many people have taken time in the last year plus to contact their Congressmen and Senators to tell them to vote against national health care.  This approach has failed, but the fight is far from over.  We can win this fight!

We need to put the pressure on our State officials to consider nullifying this and all other unconstitutional violations of our rights.  Please take some time this week to contact your State representatives to tell them to support nullifying this and any other federal health care bills.

Just as in any contract, one side could not grant himself the right to edit the terms of the contract and do as he pleased, the federal government cannot ignore the terms of the Constitutional contract and do as it pleases.  The States must do all that they can to prevent any further violations of the Constitutional contract by the federal government.

Nullifying unconstitutional laws will show the federal government that the States are serious upholding the Constitutional contract and its balance of power.  The federal government will be less likely to pass unlawful laws if they know that these laws will not be enforced on the State level.

Enough violations of a contract–any contract–by one party eventually render that contract null and void.  If the federal government continues to violate the Constitutional contract and encroach on the domain of the States, the States must reserve the right to peacefully withdraw from the contract and fully control their own affairs.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Americanly Yours,
Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook Become a fan on Facebook

In other words, this plan is extremely expensive and will only accomplish around 1/3 of its goal.

$1,000,000,000,000 [$1 trillion] over 10 years comes out to $100,000,000,000 [$100 billion] in new debt per year from this program.  If you divide that up amongst the $304 million people living in this country, the cost of this program in new debt per person per year is $328.95… BUT…

Not everyone pays (ie, the poor) or even files for taxes (ie, children) .  According to the IRS, 132,276,000 individual tax returns were filed in 2006.  Of these returns, 43,400,000 had no tax liability (and many actually had a negative tax liability).  This means that taxes were paid on 88,876,000 tax returns. [Note:  i used the 2006 IRS numbers because I was unable to find a percentage of returns that didnt pay taxes in 2007]

Now, if we take the $100,000,000,000 [$100 billion] and divide it up among the 88,876,000 income tax returns that paid taxes, we find that those Americans who do pay taxes will be forced to pay an average of $1125.16 per person per year to finance President Obama’s healthcare plan. Remember, this is an average–many Americans will be forced to pay much more than this.

And remember, this $1125.16 per taxpayer will only cover about 1/3 of those Americans who do not currently have health insurance.  Covering the other 2/3 will undoubtedly be much more expensive.

As a taxpayer, are you OK with the government telling you that you HAVE TO pay $1125.16 per year to pay for someone else’s healthcare?  If not, you need to call or email your representative and tell them that you oppose this plan–before it is too late.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Presidents Bush and Obama gave General Motors billions of dollars to help it avoid bankruptcy, yet the inevitable still happened. No matter what your stance on bailouts and government interventions are, you probably agree that this money was wasted.  If you support bailouts and nationalizations, then you would probably argue that the money was wasted because the government could have and should have) bailed out and taken over GM six months ago.  If you are opposed to bailouts and nationalizations, then you would be opposed to any and all government assistance for GM.  More money will be wasted on GM in the future.

According to the Washington Post:  “During the GM bankruptcy, the United States aims to raise its investment in the company to $50 billion, take a majority stake in it and name most of its directors, giving the government unprecedented control over one of the nation’s largest manufacturers.”

I dont think that you can seriously deny that the United States is no longer a Capitalist Nation.  We have now officially morphed into a socialist country.  Yesterday was another sad day for Capitalists who again were forced to watch while the government continued to destroy this once great Nation.

President Obama and other supporters of these interventions have promised that they will be temporary.  I dont believe this and neither should you.  Thomas Sowell says that “nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”  Historically this has proven again and again to be true.  There are still programs in effect from the Great Depression which were said to be temporary at the time.  A 3% excise tax on phone use was enacted as a temporary measure in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American War.  This “temporary” tax lasted 108 years until it was finally ended in 2006.

Government programs, actions, and interventions tend not to end.  It is important to oppose them as they happen, while these actions are still fresh in the minds of the public.  If the government does not sell its stake in General Motors within the next few years the vast majority of people will cease to care, opposition will subside, and the government will continue to control General Motors forever (or at least for quite a long time).

Even if our government sells its stake in General Motors within the next few years, there will still be a tendency for future administrations to use Presidents Bush and Obama’s actions as precedents for future interventions and nationalizations.

President Obama told NBC’s Brian Williams that the government would be taking a controlling stake in General Motors. He also said that he essentially had no choice but to do so.

But, President Obama did have a choice.  A liquidation bankruptcy of GM might have caused temporary stress for the economy, but this stress would have been temporary and would have smoothed out in the long run.  Under a liquidation bankruptcy, General Motors would have been broken into pieces and sold off piece by piece to the highest bidder.  Every brand name, factory, patent, and all real estate owned by GM would have been sold off.  The money recovered from these sales would have gone to pay as much of the money owed to GM bondholders–who  to the company in good faith–as possible.

The brand names would have been sold–probably to existing car companies, although they possibly would have been sold to venture capitalists who were looking to start a new car company.  The factories would have been sold to new owners (or the same venture capitalists) who would either continue to make cars in them or would refit them for some other kind of production.  GM’s patents would have fetched lucrative amounts of money at auction.  Purchasing these patents at a discounted auction price could have helped move other automakers years forward in their research and development, saving them billions of dollars.  For example, GM was years ahead of the competition in developing fuel cell cars.

The auction process might have been stressful while it was being sorted out, but it would have been an efficient way to deal with General Motors.  Instead, our government has pledged to loan GM an additional $50,000,000,000 [$50 billion].  However, GM owes creditors $172,800,000,000 [$172.8 billion], meaning that the government’s invenstment will be unlikely to stop at $50,000,000,000 [$50 billion], just as AIG’s initial $85,000,000,000 [$85 billion] bailout ended up doubling.

You can argue that government control of General Motors will save American jobs, although this argument is tenuous at best. General Motors is losing money for several reasons including: their cars are not up to par with those of Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Ford, their union contracts force them to pay their current and former workers much more money than similar workers at Honda, Toyota, and Nissan, and they have been slower to innovate than have their Asian rivals.

Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have been continually building more and more of their cars in America, while General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford have been building less. Last November, I wrote an article detailing my opposition to all bailouts, but said that if the government had to bailout auto companies, I would rather it bailout the successful ones (ie Toyota and Honda).  At least this way money would be flowing to innovative companies who have a chance of paying back the loans, rather than to sluggish companies who refuse to adapt and will be unlikely to repay any loans.

The United States government now has a controlling stake in General Motors and a very large stake in Chrysler.  General Motors, the world’s second largest automaker, is now owned by the United States government (with a minority stake being held by the UAW).  Chrysler is now owned by the UAW (with a sizable minority stake being held by the US government).  Additionally, a significant percentage of Nissan is owned by the French government (the French government owns 15.7% of Renault which owns 44.4% of Nissan).  This is not fair to Ford, Honda, and Toyota. These three companies have to compete with three large automakers who are owned by large and powerful governments who have made it a matter of public policy to ensure that the automakers they own do not disappear.  As a Ford stockholder, I’m pretty mad that a company that I have invested in (because I believe in its products and its management) now has to compete with a powerful government which can print money to pump into Ford’s competitors as it sees fit.  Additionally, the US government also had the right to increase regulations on the auto industry which can hurt Ford and benefit its government owned competitors.

As unfair as this is to Ford’s shareholders, this is extremely unfair to the taxpayers who will have to foot the bill for these bailouts.  The tens of billions of dollars in additional funding for GM are not the whole picture.  American consumers will have to pay thousands more for their cars in the future due to the inefficiencies being created by the government bailiuts.  The United States government is keeping car companies in business which have no business being in business.  It is also mandating that certain GM models now be produced in America, rather than in foreign countries.  While this may sound like a good thing in an economy that is hemorrhaging jobs, it is not.  GM has chosen to produce cars overseas becaue it is cheaper to do so.  Simply put, forcing GM to produce cars here will raise the cost of those cars and will make American consumers poorer.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

“People who talk incessantly about “change” are often dogmatically set in their ways.  They want to change other people.”

“Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good.  In area after area – crime, education, housing, race relations – the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation.  The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them.”

“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

“The next time some academics tell you how important ‘diversity’ is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.”

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it.  The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

“Prices are important not because money is considered paramount but because prices are a fast and effective conveyor of information through a vast society in which fragmented knowledge must be coordinated.”

“A recently reprinted memoir by Frederick Douglass has footnotes explaining what words like ‘arraigned,’ ‘curried’ and ‘exculpate’ meant, and explaining who Job was.   In other words, this man who was born a slave and never went to school educated himself to the point where his words now have to be explained to today’s expensively under-educated generation.”

“No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: “But what would you replace it with?”  When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?”

“Capitalism knows only one color: that color is green; all else is necessarily subservient to it, hence, race, gender and ethnicity cannot be considered within it.“

“Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.”

“If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.”

“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.”

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”

“Liberals seem to assume that, if you don’t believe in their particular political solutions, then you don’t really care about the people that they claim to want to help.”

“Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision.”

“Mystical references to society and its programs to help may warm the hearts of the gullible but what it really means is putting more power in the hands of bureaucrats.”

“Prices are important not because money is considered paramount but because prices are a fast and effective conveyor of information through a vast society in which fragmented knowledge must be coordinated.”

“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”

“Tariffs that save jobs in the steel industry mean higher steel prices, which in turn means fewer sales of American steel products around the world and losses of far more jobs than are saved.”

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.”

“The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work.   Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”

“The real goal should be reduced government spending, rather than balanced budgets achieved by ever rising tax rates to cover ever rising spending.”

“Too much of what is called “education” is little more than an expensive isolation from reality.”

“What ‘multiculturalism’ boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture – and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.”

“Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow?  If not, then why should this country bet billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation?”

“The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer’s money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse.   The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to “help.””

“Most people who read “The Communist Manifesto” probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of “the workers”.”

“Despite a voluminous and often fervent literature on “income distribution,” the cold fact is that most income is not distributed: It is earned.”

“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” [bureaucrats]

What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don’t like something to saying that the government should forbid it.  When you go down that road, don’t expect freedom to survive very long.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

That cover made me so angry at first, but then it made me feel sad and mournful for the loss of the free market system which is what made this country so great in the first place.

Heres what the inside had to say (I kept the title, but blacked out the article because I dont wanna get sued):

But we are not all socialists now.  Maybe our leaders are, but the American people are not.  According to a recent Rasmussen poll, a large percentage of Americans were opposed to the “stimulus” plan that President Obama is going to sign today.  A much higher percentage opposed the bank and automaker bailouts. Over the past year, the Bush and Obama administrations have supervised unprecedented levels of government intervention and control–and often even nationalization–of private sector industries. Just because the American people have not yet organized mass protests and demonstrations against this does not mean that we agree with it.

To the Democrats and Republicans:  The American people do not want your socialism.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

When Nikita Khrushchev was forced out of power in the Soviet Union he left his successor (Leonid Brezhnev) with two letters.  He told his successor to open the first letter when he came to his first major crisis and follow the instructions.   He was told that following the instructions would get him through the crisis.   He was also told that when a second major crisis stuck, he should open the second letter from Khrushchev and follow its instructions.

The inevitable crisis happened and Brezhnev became worried that the crisis could cause him to be removed from power.   He opened Khrushchev’s first letter which said “Blame everything on me.  The only way that you can stay in power is to blame everything on my poor leadership and announce that you have to reverse my policies in order to save the State.”

So, Brezhnev followed the instructions in the letter and things in the Soviet Union got better for a while.   However, after a few more years, the economy began to stagnate and Brezhnev once again became worried that he would lose power.  He realized that the advice from Khrushchev’s first letter had saved him once and that maybe it could do so again.

Brezhnev opened the second letter and it read “Sit down and write two letters.”

As I said above, this is not a true story.  It is however, a useful lesson on political survival.

I would argue that President Obama began reading his first letter during the campaign when he blamed everything wrong in the world on President Bush.  He has continued to beat up on President Bush’s record in a constant attempt to convince the public that the current crisis is not his fault.

He will likely continue to read from this letter for several years.

For example, if the situation in Iraq continues to improve and we can pull our troops out, Mr. Obama will undoubtedly take all of the credit, despite the fact that President Bush’s controversial Surge plan was a complete success and has effectively won us the war.  If on the other hand, the situation in Iraq deteriorates and we either do not leave within Mr. Obama’s promised 16 months or we end up leaving in disgrace, there can be no doubt that President Obama will blame Mr. Bush.

Similarly, if the economy turns around in the next year or two, Mr. Obama will take all of the credit.  If however, the situation worsens, the economy continues to contract, and unemployment approaches or reaches double digits, President Obama will claim that he inherited this mess.  In his speech last night President Obama said “I can’t tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope, but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis as well as the pain felt by millions of Americans.  My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing a little or nothing at all will result in even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income, and even greater loss of confidence.” This was effectively Mr. Obama hedging his bet:  if the economy turns around, he can take credit, but if it doesnt work, he will say that things are still better than they would have been if the bill wasnt passed and besides, it is still President Bush’s fault.

This is why President Obama still sounds like his is running for President, rather than holding the office.  It is safe to say that President Obama was not elected to office based any past accomplishments that he had.   He was also not elected based on any future plans that he had.  Rather, he was elected because the American public was (and still is) fed up with President Bush.  The fact that Mr. Obama was elected President is really only an externality of the perceived failure of the Bush Administration.  Mr. Obama really didnt run against John McCain; he really ran against President Bush. How many times did you hear Mr. Obama refer to “8 years of failed policies?”   Because Mr. Obama was elected as an opposition candidate–a reactive candidate rather than a proactive candidate– he is likely to continue this course of acton.  Expect him to continue to beat up on President Bush’s record.  Furthermore, you can expect him to denounce Republicans who vote against his programs (in a manner that will probably become much more hostile in the near future).

The problem is that Mr. Obama cannot continue on this course for too long.  The American people are fickle and grow tired of things quickly.  Remember that when the War in Iraq started Bush (who was cheered on to war by the American public as well as the media) had an approval rating of near 70%.  At some point, the American public will grow tired of hearing Mr. Obama blame all of the country’s problems on the previous administration–especially if things get worse.  The people want solutions and when President Obama realizes that he cannot deliver them, he may have to reach for that second letter.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

We should, however, worry about our economy now.  The national debt is rapidly marching towards ten trillion dollars ($10,000,000,000,000).  Our unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare now total an additional sixty-seven trillion dollars ($67,000,000,000,000).  By 2012 the Medicare fund will be going into a deficit and we will be forced to spend tax dollars to keep up with Medicare payments.  By 2017, the same thing happens with Social Security.  American families now owe over $15 trillion in household debt.  We have nothing left.  We are witnessing the slow, painful fall of the American Empire.  It hurts me to watch because I love this Nation so much.

For years we threw money at problems without ever trying to really solve them (poverty, drugs, education, health care).  Now we have no money and things are getting worse in all of these areas.

Iconic American companies are being swallowed up by foreign firms at an unprecedented rate.  Budweiser is being bought out by a Dutch firm, Miller is now owned by South Africans, and Coors is owned by Canadians.  Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors are now on the brink of extinction and are closing down American plants to move to other nations.

Sovereign wealth funds (companies owned by foreign governments) have been buying up large stakes in American companies—these sovereign wealth funds now own about 10% of Citigroup, 20% of the NASDAQ stock exchange, 9% of UBS, 10% of Morgan Stanley.  They own 7.5% of the Carlyle Group (which owns major defense contractors, telecommunications and technology companies, CSX railroads’’ domestic container lines, and consumer companies like Baskin-Robbins and Dunkin’ Donuts).  China owns 10% of the Blackstone Group (which owns Hilton Hotels, American textbook publisher Houghton-Mifflin, Universal Studios Parks, and is in the process of purchasing a large stake in The Weather Channel).  These wealth funds also own well over 10% of Merril Lynch (RIP), 2% of Barclays (which controls large portions of the stock of many large companies—go here and put in any symbol and you will see that Barclay’s owns a large stake), 7.5% in Diamler, AG, and several hundred million dollars worth of Visa.

The German government owns 35.5% of DHL, 20.3% of Volkswagen, and 32% of T-Mobile.  Through its stake in Renault, the French government owns 6.9% of Nissan.  Any time that you buy a product or a service from one of those companies, you are essentially paying a tax to a foreign government.  For example, if you stay at a Hilton hotel, 10% of the profit made from your visit goes to the Chinese government.  If you buy a new Mercedes, 7.5% of the profits made subsidize the Dubai government.  Do you think that American text books will continue to criticize the policies of Mao, now that China owns 10% of the company that makes our history books?

This is socialism, but at least in traditional socialism, Americans would see some benefit from their dollars going to state-owned enterprises.  In this case however, American dollars are going directly into the hands of foreign governments.  Would foreign nations tolerate the American government coming in and buying up stakes in their countries?  think not.

Do you remember mercantilism from history class?  That is what is happening in this country.  We export food, chemicals, plastic, cigarettes, cotton, and many other raw materials, only to import these goods back into the country later as finished goods: the cotton comes back as clothing, the plastic comes back in the form of goods made in China, and so on.   We produce nothing here.   We consume foreign goods like the world is ending tomorrow.  We now have the import/export profile of a 3rd world nation.

Rome is burning while Congress is playing the fiddle.  Be scared.  You should be.  Your children will know a different America.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

President Bush, thanks for Socialism!

The government that is supposed to represent you has taken your money through taxes on your hard work and is using this money–without your permission or even your approval–to purchase stock in two failing auto companies.

Do you still think Robin Hood was a great man?

This act completely violates the basic core principles of both Democracy and Capitalism.  The principles of Democracy are violated because the government is acting without the consent of the people, and is in fact acting opposite of the desires of the people.  The principles of Capitalism are violated because the government is taking ownership in two more American companies, placing factors of production directly under its control.

Does anyone really think that $17.4 billion can save the automakers?  This money is just an excuse for the government to put more money into the companies in the future to protect their initial investment.  In poker, you are called “pot committed” when you have a large enough amount of money in the pot to justify calling a bet that you know you will lose.  In the investing world, this is called throwing good money after bad money.  I thik the investors have it right this time.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet