Democratic socialism is an unsustainable experiment.

 

THE COMING COLLAPSE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

THE QUESTION IS NOT IF, BUT WHEN? 

 

The Biden administration has just proposed a 2022 budget of over $6 trillion, with current revenues of around $4 trillion that leaves a massive deficit. This is supposed to be filled with tax increases on the wealthy. If anyone believes that the federal government will be able to harvest $2 trillion from the so called wealthy, well think about it, taxes will need to be increased by 50% on taxpayers in general. If you only target the wealthy you will need a 100% tax increase. Does anyone really believe that the wealthy got wealthy by being stupid. We can expect massive shifting of assets, income and other lawful activity to avoid any such taxes. If that becomes impossible, we could even see many decide to opt out and take extended vacations overseas. Think about who will be holding the bag to pay for all the promised benefits. 

Of course the problem is that there has been an accumulation of extraordinary debt by all governments, corporations, and individuals. There is not a precedent for this situation in human history. While the housing bubble was the symptom that was burst, when gas rose to $4.00 a gallon, in the US the massive debts held by everyone was the real problem. After covid, the savings rate among the more well situated has actually reached an all time high. We can bet bureacrats see this largress as an opportnity to be pounced on as soon as possible.　

A far bigger problem is the debt of governments, particularly in Western Europe and the US.
These debts are a direct result of massive spending and the whole idea of democratic socialism where votes were bought by promising unsustainable benefits...to individuals, spending on projects, surveys, studies, ad nauseum... to the well connected. When fulfilling these promises could not be sustained by raising taxes they just borrowed the money to be consumed. The spending on projects, etc. is more easily addressed by just saying "NO"...BUT the spending on benefits is much more difficult to address. The real culprit in all this is that socialism has been a dismal failure whenever it has been tried. I should qualify that by distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary socialism.

Voluntary socialism is self limiting. An example is fire insurance. If the incidence of loss becomes
excessive, premiums go up and some people may refuse to buy insurance. If losses become excessive insurance companies may refuse to enter that market. There are natural limits for both parties.

The first instance of collectivist failure was recorded in the New Testament. The early Christians, thinking that the end was near, sold there possessions, dined together and shared with each other. It was not long till Paul, hearing complaints from the responsible members of the community, wrote to them saying, “He who does not work shall not eat.” Human nature and the voluntary basis of this experiment was a natural remedy.

Another example was the Puritans who landed in Plymouth in 1620. They formed the, "Mayflower Compact," an agreement to share all property and work in common. After 3 years of this experiment, they were barely able to survive. The Puritan's endeavor had been financed by investors in Europe who hoped they would reap a profit by the Puritans repaying their debts with furs and other goods. After 3 years of no return, investors refused to send any more support and the idea was scrapped. The Puritans then distributed land to each family and they were on their own - the result was the beginning of prosperity for all.  It was chronicled by William Bradford that while the number of people who were either too weak or incapable of work grew, and the young and motivated were increasingly unhappy with the communal arrangement, many who formally were unable to add much to the community instantly became more productive when they were able to keep the fruits of their labor.

Remember the 1960’s communes, where a few self motivated people bought a ranch and lived off the land? It was not long until they were supporting a larger and larger number of new disciples, who agreed it was wonderful, except for the motivation part. Again it ended in a natural turn of events and human nature.

Now to involuntary socialism. Of course the greatest example has to be the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics. This experiment was immediate total government control that in the end was a dramatic failure. It may take Russia several generations to recover from the debacle. While touted by Socialists as the wonderful system of the future, (including Eleanor Roosevelt who visited the country many times in the 1930s when the worst atrocities were being committed), Solzhenitsyn and others saw and reported the true nature of the experiment. It's interesting to note that from the revolution in the USSR in 1917 to its collapse in 1989 was 72 years. If we take 1935 as the "embrace of socialism" in western Europe and the US, we end up at 2007. Does it take roughly this long for the failures of socialism to become unsustainable? While we have not had total control by the governments of western Europe or the US, we have been progressing in that direction for decades...hence the term progressivism. It has been a slow incremental movement that has taken control of most industries through regulation and has encouraged dependency by promising a safety net to those displaced by their policies. The part of the private sector that has not been effectively controlled by the government is the food and energy sector. They are in the process of taking over the energy sector and when they can control food they will have complete control of the economy and the people. Remember the winners of socialist economies are the ruling class who often live well off on what they skim off of the redistribution schemes. Even in the Soviet Union they lived well in their dachaus and had access to  travel and benefits that could only be dreamed of by the rest of the population.

While it all appears wonderful in theory, Unchangeable Human Nature has not been taken into account. Humans will help each other to some extent, but most will not jeopardize their or their families well-being for others. On a voluntary basis, many are willing to help those in need, in danger, etc. but as soon as it becomes involuntary, there will be resistance. This is just the nature of human survival instincts. While it may not measure up to the expectations of the idealogues of socialism, it is probably superior to all other organisms on earth. The Soviet experiment ended when there were no longer any incentives left. The Russians who have weathered some form of dictatorship for their whole existence were noted to remark to each other, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." In the end the only prospering part of the economy was the black market and flea markets.

So what has happened in every case of involuntary socialism?  Those who believe they are taxed too
much will resist by finding ways to pay less; those who believe they are restricted in some way will find ways around the restrictions. Too much tax will usually create less revenue, etc. At first this is accepted or minimally enforced, but as the deficits grow, enforcement must increase and we see a cycle of increased enforcement, then less activity, then less revenue and if left to follow a linear path to forced labor and slavery.

In the U.S. there was once a work ethic and pride of self reliance - many would not accept charity, but after decades of increasing regulation and taxation it seems all restraint has fallen off and everyone will take and pursue more benefits, even if liquidating assets and claiming poverty is necessary. The dam has broken. The tipping point has been reached. It will not likely be restored by government action, or by acts of Congress; the same applies to Western Europe.

So what is the solution? At this point there is no easy solution. All solutions will require much pain and suffering. It may be limited by economic suffering and the necessary austerity to liquidate the debt and begin a new start with liberty and self reliance the foundation...OR...it may be that more enforcement will be needed until we return to feudal type society where basic necessities will be provided to the productive and compliant and those that do not conform will be eliminated from society by the powers that be.

This is the question that will be answered when the coming collapse reaches its fulfillment.

originally published 6/8/21

Fear, major tool of politics. Who should you fear?

 FEAR AND GREED TWO MOST EFFECTIVE EMOTIONS USED BY POLITICIANS

WHO IS TO BE FEARED?

Fear and greed are the two most used emotions by political operatives ever since some humans have been ruling over other humans. While greed is continually used, either by promising some kind of financial benefit if you will elect them, special treatment of your way of making a living or some other angle, it seems fear is moving to be the top emotion in today's political world.

We see it escalating in the last 12 years particularly, first with the use of incidents involving black males and violence by police or white subjects, all in an attempt to motive black voters, that their life is continually in danger from white racism.  The Trayvon Martin incident was the first, followed by the Michael Brown, incidents, both piled on by the complicit media to edit 911 tapes, flood the air waves with false narratives, all part of a coordinated effort to sow race division for political purposes. The results were riots, destruction of property and a successful political campaign. Even though after due deliberation, both accused were exonerated, the damage and the political success was noted.

Then the scourge of White Supremacy, a vague sort of term, with little real organized or real threat in the problems in the country. It was made to look that there were conspiracy's all over the country to threaten Blacks, Jews and any other groups that could be used as a target. Words like "lynching" and "putting blacks back in chains" by Joe Biden were really way out of line with the realities of American life. The damage to race relations by these opportunist politicians may never be repaired in our lifetimes, and they will be happy to continue with the race baiting, as long as it effective.

The newest use of fear is now "Christian Nationalist", again I know of no such organization, but it is being used against anyone who opposes their political agenda, and these people, whoever they are, are now a threat to the country, the democrats and to democracy. This is the first time in this country that Christians have been targeted as threats to the country. So, if you have religious beliefs and are a believer in the sovereignty of this country as an independent country you are now a threat to other citizens of the country and democracy, as they define it. While these tactics are new to the United States, they have been repeatedly used by other authoritarian governments for centuries.

We will not go back any further than the 20th century to note that most SOCIALIST governments have been the perpetrators of the worst atrocities in their demonizing and dividing the electorate, even when they had no elections and were in effect dictatorships. 

The National SOCIALISTS, of the 1930's and 40's Germany, used the fear of Jews to divert attention and subjugate the country and engage in actual genocide, against not only Jews, by any group that was considered a threat to the state and their political power..The use of propaganda, censorship of opinions and national police that threatened, killed and imprisoned their political opponents.

Then of course, there was the ultimate experiment in Totalitarian SOCIALISM, in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They did not use race so much as political enemies, but ideology, anyone who even thought or spoke in private against the socialist state was considered a "Reactionary"and could be taken away to a work camp or just plain disappear. Socialism is always an ideology that needs to to protected from those that do not agree. The ideology is to be forced on everyone, from kindergarten to college and in the work place, those that resist are to be destroyed by any means possible and often cheered on by their neighbors as, "must have done something."

In the former Soviet Union, the Kulaks, were the small independent farmers, the state decided they wanted collective farmers and not private independent farmers. The Kulaks resisted and hid some of their produce for themselves and their community, the Socialist state then raided the farms of everything and the Kulaks mostly starved to death. I suspected other rejoiced in the death of these reactionaries.

So the point is, we as Americans do not need to fear our neighbors, whether they are White, Black Asian or whatever, nor do we need to fear free speech from those that disagree with government policy, no matter if it is about foreign relations, COVID or any social or economic policy. WE NEED TO FEAR, AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT, that wants to control everything, including your thoughts and stop at nothing to silence anyone who they consider a threat to their power.

Historically, government and particularly socialist governments have been the greatest threat to individuals and groups in world history, from the Soviet Union, to Cambodia and NAZI Germany, only the government has the power to confiscate all that you own, take your freedom and your life. Beware, once the population allows them this unlimited power they will eliminate anyone who attempt to limit that power.

The extortion and money laundering just keeps happening.

 

BANK OF AMERICA FORCED TO FINANCE LIBERAL ACTIVIST GROUPS

EXTORTION USED TO BE ILLEGAL

This story begins in 1977 with the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act. This law was passed in an effort to make home ownership more easily accessible to low income citizens. The original law encouraged banks to lower lending standards so that more minority and low income people could qualify for mortgages.  Initially there was resistance by the banks, but as time went by the foreclosure rate was low and banks became accustomed to lowering standards in some neighborhoods. The real estate market at the time was stable with just normal growth in market values, but as time went on more pressure was exerted on banks to lower down payment requirements and to overlook poor credit ratings. The lowering of standards was encouraged by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. In 2000 HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo promised to buy 2 trillion dollars worth of affordable mortgages through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack. This led to competition between all lenders to lower standards till eventually there were no down payments required. It also lowered standards on all mortgages as real estate values were increasing and those that got in trouble could usually unload the properties with minimal losses. This led to the packaging of mortgages into collateralized mortgage obligations. These mortgage-backed securities were then traded and purchased by many pension funds and other entities who wanted to participate in the housing boom. When mortgages could be had for less interest than banks were paying on CD's, it became obvious to some that there was a growing problem. I also remember Alan Greenspan stating that all was well and he saw no problems on the horizon.  He stated he was shocked when all went bust, but keep in mind that he resigned in 2006 just before the market collapsed.

As home prices skyrocketed, and everyone was convinced that the best investment was real estate, many knew that the end was near. The hysteria over the real estate market came to an end when gas prices rose to $4.00 a gallon and crimped the already tight budgets of many over-mortgaged home owners. It started with the sub-prime mortgages and soon spread to many other mortgages. Investments in mortgage-backed securities plunged in value and the collapse of investment companies began.

 After Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, Countrywide and Merrill Lynch were the next in line to fail. Henry Paulson, Treasury Secretary, and Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, pressured Bank of America to buy Countrywide and Merrill Lynch to stop the implosion. The executives at Bank of America looked at the financials and considered backing out of the deal. The Feds then pressured them so they could not back out and assured them they needed to do this to save the financial system; furthermore, the Fed guaranteed they would help Bank of America with this deal. Bank of America lost an estimated $40 billion on the Countrywide deal alone. But that was just the beginning of their problems. When Barack Obama was elected, he did not feel he owed anyone for deals made by the former administration. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, then indicted Bank of America for fraud in the investments of Countrywide. They threatened criminal charges against the executives if they would not agree to a settlement. Bank of America executives agreed to pay 16.6 billion in August 2014.

It has now been reported by several newspapers that part of this settlement was a side deal arranged by Holder that would allow the bank to make contributions to non profit organizations specified by the administration rather than pay the settlement to the Treasury Department as required by law. The deal would allow Bank of America to take a $2 credit for every $1 they contributed to the list of several hundred qualifying organizations. This required Bank of America to contribute a minimum of $50 million to community development organizations, $20 million to affordable housing groups, and $30 million to legal aid groups. This was the minimum; there is no limit to the amount they can give.  The administration claims this is all legal because they allowed Bank of America to choose who on the list that they contributed to. This arrangement is similar to the deals that have been given to CitiGroup and probably other banks.

Now some may say that the banks deserve this ill treatment and these non-profit groups are all good causes. In reality, this is an example of government corruption at its worst. This is the type of behavior seen in third world countries and dictatorships. You have coercion and the threat of government legal and/or criminal suits if you do not lower standards, then when it all goes bust you use coercion to buy the worst companies, and then extortion to take money and give it to the administration's political supporters. This is in effect exactly what has been done. Congress is supposedly investigating this, and those who have asked to see what groups have received these funds have been told it is confidential. These are the acts of lawless politicians who now believe they can do whatever they want and it seems they may be right.

This article was originally published 1/26/16

The above article was written during the Obama administration, the money was all funneled to non-profits that then could funnel the money to Democrat political organizations, since then, we have seen the money laundering done through Hunter Biden through Ukraine and now a connection to the collapsed Crypto exchange that funneled more money to Democrats from Ukraine. 

Of course, there was the Clinton foundation, that also received money from foreign countries often after receiving aid and grants from the U.S., this money was also after a few layers to be used for political purposes. It is classic money laundering and extortion that it seems is now more blatant than ever, no wonder, no one has ever been held accountable.

I suspect that we are only looking at the tip of enormous corruption in Washington that if left unchecked and without accountability will destroy this nation. 

Many of these deals had the approval and knowledge of our intelligence officials, they know what is going on, and obviously are making no effort to stop these transactions.

Twitter, and Musk's vision for the future.

 BANKRUPTCY, AND PREDICTED COLLAPSE OF TWITTER IS PREMATURE

IF ANYTHING, DON'T DOUBT MUSK'S ABILITY

Last week saw an exodus of many workers from twitter. Musk had made the announcement that they should prepare to work long hours or leave and many left. They believe that company will not survive without them. I expect that Musk is using several different means of eliminating the dead wood and the over-partisan workers at Twitter. First the out right firing of the top executives, the departure of some technicians just on the word that Musk bought the company. The process is just the first step into making the company into just a small part of Musk's vision of his media companies of the future.

Whether you like or dislike Musk, no one can deny he has a unique ability and vision in his enterprises. This coupled with he ability to hire people who can put that vision into reality. I doubt that Musk really knows the in and outs of social media, but we can expect after some time he will know what and how to use it to accomplish his goals.

One must take note, that his electric car company is the most successful and best of the lot. He has competed against GM, Ford and the foreign makers and excelled. His Space-x rockets are without a doubt a step into the future and continually maker advances. While some of his hopes seem to be on the front edge of science fiction he has been able to show many of his doubters what is possible.

Then there is STAR-Link satellite company that is without a doubt the future of internet access. By using Space-X he is able to put satellites up in  amazing time. He will indeed be able to provide internet access to every corner of the globe in the near future.

I expect that Twitter is just a means to enter into this social media network. It will allow him to find the best and brightest engineers and technicians to be used in implementing his broader vision of a technology, social media and entertainment company that will be a challenge to much of the existing cable media, telephone, internet, electronic payment and whatever the future can be using the infrastructure that he his building. 

It is now appearing his success has aroused the notice of the government, who may fear that Musk is a threat to their control of all these platforms. It would be a shame for the government 's fear of Musk's vision to attempt to squash someone who compares to the some of the greatest innovators in history.

See previous article over 4 years ago. https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/219171338015504465/3763656690376060102

Russia, oops, Ukraine strikes Poland

 SADLY, DESPERATION RESULTS IN ULTIMATE POWER PLAY

MANY BELIEVE NATO/RUSSIAN WAR WILL BE BIG STORY

The big story of the week was that Russia had struck Poland with a missile attack. The Media quickly ran with the story with the usual "Breaking News" report that Russia had struck Poland with a missile and killed Polish citizens. While it was true that Poland was struck by a missile and yes, Polish farmers were killed, it was made clear within an hour on the internet that the missile was S300 air defense missile. Even the U.S. quickly dismissed the idea that Russia had attacked Poland, but the story continued until finally saner heads prevailed and then claimed that the missile was intended to stop incoming Russian missiles but went astray.

Zelensky continued to claim it was a Russian missile for a few more days, until finally walking it back, probably due to a reprimand from his benefactor the U.S. 

Several things to consider about this missile. The S300 missile has around a 100 mile range. Poland to Russia is 714 miles. Then of course the missiles incoming into Ukraine are traveling from east to west. Air-defense missiles would be traveling west to east to intercept incoming missiles. It is very unlikely that any air-defense missile could go astray and travel in the opposite direction.

It seems that the U.S. is capable of tracking any missiles that are flying over, into and from Ukraine. It is very likely that Ukraine intentionally fired this missile into Poland to bring about an article 5 NATO response and possibly WW3.

No matter what, this was a very dangerous move, Poland is not happy, U.S. is not happy and Russia is going to use this as a political weapon against Zelensky. It is likely Ukraine believed that this missile would land in some empty farm field, but sadly some very unlucky farmers were in that field at the time. Many are now worried about the possibility of other such attempts in the future.

It is beginning to appear that all the NATO readiness is meant to intimidate Russia into backing down in this conflict. It may also be now clear that actual NATO entering this conflict is not as imminent as some may have thought, including Ukraine. While victory has been predicted by the WEST for near 10 months, it is becoming clear that will not be the case.

General Miley remarked this week, I am sure with White House approval, that Ukraine will not be able to recapture their lost territory. This message may just be the first that the U.S. and other NATO members are nearing the limit of their ability to change the direction of this conflict without considerable risk to themselves.

This will be a very serious political risk for Zelensky, because he has gone all in, at the direction of the Biden administration in his unwillingness to negotiate both before and after the start of this conflict. 

Any compromise will also have political risk for the U.S.,who has led the handling of this crisis and has insisted that Russia must be defeated. While the cost to the U.S. is immense and growing larger, it is mostly money and weapons, which can be replaced. The rest of NATO is most likely becoming increasingly skeptical about the direction of this conflict, their risk is now becoming critical as winter approaches.

Now we can understand why Democrats had no fear of overreach.

 FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION IS NOW IN REACH

JUST NEED TO SQUASH REACTIONARIES

It should now be clear, why the Democrat leadership had little fear of implementing an overreaching agenda. I recall many old type Democrats voicing their opinion that they viewed the policies of the Biden administration a giant overreach and predicted heavy losses in the mid-terms. Of course, we now see that it did not happen. 

Were the more traditional Democrats wrong? Were all the polls in late October wrong? Were the exit polls even wrong? Well, that is the politically correct way that you are to view this election, because of course, the woke democrats would never commit fraud in an election. They are of course, of too high a moral caliber to stoop that low. 

The cause of the election losses for Republicans is that their candidates were of poor qualifications  compared to the democrat candidates. Their candidates were too radical in desiring to preserve America as they know it and most of all the Republican just don't support abortion on demand. The fact is, that to win any elections in the future, Republicans must adopt democrat policies.

This trend in elections has been underway for a long time. California was the trial campaign to make the country a one party country, it is now in fact in place in most so called swing states, including Pennsylvania. The effort to change elections was a dedicated effort from Obama and Holder to make elections fungible in the future. They started with redistricting, then moved to early voting and finally mail in voting. They have now made enough changes that their dream of a one party country is almost complete and likely irreversible.

If you can control the governorship's and keep mail in voting there will never be a move for honest elections. Pennsylvania is good example, I predict that a Republican will never win a state wide election in Pennsylvania again. That will also go for Arizona and any state were the urban centers are under Democrat control. They can and will manufacture enough votes to win any election, no matter the candidate. In fact, Fetterman was more of a statement that they proved to the doubters that they have this.

Florida is the opposite example, of course DeSantis has done a great job in Florida, but the real difference is that they have an honest election system in Florida and had their votes counted in hours, not weeks.

When Obama made the statement on his inauguration day that the "Fundamental Transformation has Begun" he was not prophetic, he just knew what they had planned. It was the division, the chaos and the rigging of elections for the future. They have now taken that control, and all that is left is to make examples of and squash the reactionaries who will not submit.

So what is the hope, if that is the case. No need to hope, the policies that this country is implementing, will bring down the whole experiment in limited government. There really are  real laws of economics and social make-up that are just as real as gravity. They can all be broken for a time, but eventually gravity will prevail. All we can do is teach are children and grandchildren the truth about what they are witnessing. 

Zelensky's victory celebration premature.

 RUSSIA WILL NOT GIVE UP THE ANNEXED TERRITORY

DNEIPER RIVER TO BE UKRAINE'S EASTERN BORDER

As reported earlier Russia's withdrawal from Kherson city to the eastern bank of the Dneiper river was just a strategic move to a more defensible position. Beginning this week, the Russian's advanced and captured several cities north of Kherson, It could be expected that they will continue to move west to the natural boundary of the Dneiper river. They will not give up the annexed territory unless they lose WW3. 

In the meantime, they will likely contuse to degrade the infrastructure of Ukraine until it it is willing to consider serious negotiations. It is looking like it will be a cold dark winter in Ukraine and possibly Western Europe. 

One has to wonder, does Zelensky believe that the end of the war is at hand? Is someone assuring him that they are going to win? Does he believe NATO is going to step in and save the day? Does the U.S. still believe that they can wear out the Russians in this proxy war with Ukraine? Or is becoming clear that others will be worn out before Russia.

The economic warfare that has been going on for years is failing. Russia is doing quite well with its new markets to its south. Much better that Europe without access to Russian energy. Its new markets are prospering due to a strong access to affordable energy.

There are some in the U.S. itching to go to war with Russia. They believe they can prevail as they did in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Is it a fools dream and a threat to the world that is all unnecessary?

Russia considers NATO expansion an existential threat to its national security. It is willing to go all out to make sure that this expansion goes no further. 

Ukraine could have been the most prosperous country in Europe, neutral, non-aligned, able to trade with the EU, Russia and the world. Instead our genius foreign policy experts in Washington envision a world dominated by themselves and their cronies. They believe they can rule the world. A dream that has brought down every nation that have gone down that path. It did not have to happen.