Taxation on the Knife’s Edge: The Lower Half Will Always Vote for Higher Taxes.

In political theory there is a theoretical concept whereby your vote has some intrinsic value in any given election.[1] This value depends on the relative sizes and number of political parties in the fray. As such, if you vote in a system that allows only one party, your vote is meaningless. When the number of parties increases your vote may increase in value but only when parties approach an equal size. Frequently, splinter parties may jockey for favors and position and minor concessions and join in with one of two near-equal parties and become king makers.

The value of your vote is shown in the following table:

[2] On the Value[less] of Your Vote

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/01/12/on_the_value[lessness]_of_your_vote.thtml

We certainly do not have two equally divided parties in this country as independents, arguably, may form the largest party although they are not a party in the usual definition. But, we do have an approximately 50% split in a different dimension, and one that directly influences votes and that is the tax base. It turns out that the top half in terms of earnings pays, now, 97% of the federal taxes.  Most of the non-taxpayers [read ‘poor’ or marginalized here] reside in the Party of Democrats, my party, and pay little tax. The independents seem to be split as most elections on the national level seem to be populated evenly, or so, by these non party members. The polls show that the preference for left versus right wing politics is almost exactly 50:50.  So, we are nearly equally divided between those who make their living by capitalism and those who live on government largess.

Now, the right wing has been the party of the corporations, business, growth, wealth and prosperity marked prominently by home ownership. The lower classes were traditionally renters and held menial jobs or were unemployed.  This split can drift to favor the low classes and that allows the tax mechanisms to run at top throttle toward confiscation of wealth. The low classes do not pay the high taxes so why should they complain about getting wealth for nothing but their votes?

So, how do the two groups, which must transcend actual political party membership in fact, vote on tax matters where one group gets a financial break from legislation? The answer comes from the analysis of who pays the tax burden. An arguing point, and somewhat valid, is that the corporations get the equivalent of ‘corporate welfare’ as they get government perks that benefit them in the tax sense. Of course, since the corporations and business pay nearly 100% of the federal and state tax revenues derived directly from the corporations, the taxes and fees they pay and similar proceeds from their employees, there really is no ‘welfare’ here.  There is only a tax level. No matter, as the specter of such a bias in government favors a general tendency to drive various groups, mostly determined by income, into one or other of the two parties. The opposite argument can be made by the upper half when welfare and other social programs arise in the voter options.

The current question then arises concerning who will vote and how they will vote for the mortgage bailout legislation.[3]

“A massive mortgage rescue bill advanced in Congress on Wednesday, powered by President Bush’s endorsement but leaving House Republicans and the administration badly split over the government’s response to the current housing crisis. -- Housing flip puts Bush in GOP doghouse By David Rogers 7/24/08.

The right wing point of view:

I am very disappointed,” Minority Leader John A. Boehner told Politico. The Ohio Republican said he did not learn until Tuesday night of Bush’s decision to drop his earlier veto threats and embrace the bill.”-- Housing flip puts Bush in GOP doghouse By David Rogers 7/24/08. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]This link references all quotes in this essay unless otherwise stated.

This should not come as a surprise, except, possibly, for the Bush endorsement. Many think this legislation is just a new socialist program.[4] What it calls for is the rescue of persons who could not, for assorted reasons, pay their monthly mortgage payments and will, or have, lose their homes or investments.  Their rescue is a cause célèbre for the left. Here is a grand opportunity to trade tax money for votes.

Basic economics tells us that in an economy driven by supply and demand functions prices will rise and fall according to the current economic environment. Housing prices fell because there were fewer buyers and more sellers and an excess supply of houses.  The difficulty here is that when a market falls, the investor or buyer is usually forced to take the loss. There were no howls of protest when housing and real estate values increased steadily since 1900 with few exceptions. But, when the low class was promised The American Dream and it has now vanished, for some, the political alarms sounded with foam and froth and a ‘solution’ to the losses generated a political hurricane. That solution is to subsidize failure with more taxes.

““Owning a home lies at the heart of the American dream.””[5]—President George Bush 2002

“Oops. While homeownership rose as the housing bubble inflated, temporarily giving Mr. Bush something to boast about, it plunged — especially for African-Americans — when the bubble popped.” [6]--Paul Krugman.

The essay here is that everybody must be entitled to participate in the American Dream. But the question arises: who will pay for this? Certainly, the population of the US is very closely divided and near the 50% level for each half and that correlates with the tax levels.  Can the upper half pay for the lower half to have a standard of living like they do? We can ask the following questions if Bush signs this legislation:

What is next? What other loses can we subsidize? Can we ensure failure with hefty tax subsidies?

A thought: Do people want some money back when their cars depreciate? Why not?

When people invest in equities there is yearly tax profit and loss reconciliation option so that investors only pay taxes on net profits. But, but what could we say about pension funds that suffer a financial loss during a stock market correction? Should the pension funds be guaranteed so that retirees get their money?  Maybe the government Social Security system, a terminal cancer upon our society and a slush fund for the legislators, that has been broke for decades, but is propped up by taxation be expanded. Why not include illegal aliens? They work and vote, or should as some liberals think.  Do we need more programs like that? SS is a political program to trade money for votes. It is a financial failure, but is a political success.

When GM and Ford go bankrupt, as they certainly will given the pressures against the automobile by the EcoNazis [7] and unions, should we subsidize the lost wages of the auto workers? Cars made in Michigan are not currently price competitive with those produced in Japan, India or in other production facilities (non union of course) in the US. Why not subsidize labor and pay the automakers, say, fifteen dollars per hour for each hour worked so that GM and Ford can lower prices to compete with other car makers? That is what Europe does with steel, cars and other items. We could expand our union work force with mere subsidies and achieve political kudos from many sectors.  The US government only takes about 26% of the GDP now and France and Sweden take about twice that. Does that mean that there is the means to double taxes in the US? Yes, for a socialist that is possible and very desirable.

If an employee takes drugs, tears up the office and puts a few fellow employees into the hospital and loses his or her job should this person’s wages be guaranteed? Why not just subsidize salaries once a person is hired? If they are fired then they would continue to draw their salaries.  Whose fault is it when some druggie goes berserk? Whose fault is it if some company goes broke? The government can guarantee salaries just like Fannie Mae does for mortgages. The government can guarantee business success as well. Why not?  Why not make work optional? There is no reason not to make welfare payments equal to the median income in the US to ‘be fair.’ That is brilliant socialism. That notion will get votes from the lower half.

In education, when a minority group fails to complete high school, to the level of 50% or more as some do now, they are penalized because their education was not ‘successful.’ They cannot get high-paying jobs. Is it their fault if they failed? Perhaps the system is at fault, biased and in need of change. Is it fair that others can get through high school and get good jobs and buy homes and make their mortgage payments until their homes are paid off? Not necessarily. Is it fair if about half the people fall in the lower half of any average?  They should be compensated if you believe in the current leftist dogma. If you flunk out of high school or college then society has failed you and thus owes you a living. 

We are at the brink at this time. The American Dream cannot be funded from only the upper half of earners in this country for very long as their numbers will soon decrease with increasing taxes and infernal government rules and regulations. Once the mathematical ratio of the haves-to have-nots drops to 0.48 or so the low class majority will have the winning votes in all cases. That is the end of the American Dream as we know it. With the psychotic spending, enormous debt, pending tax-funded bailouts of mortgages, high fuel costs[8] and wild expansion of the money supply there is nothing but inflation on the horizon.  The phony notion of EcoNazi carbon taxes will sink our economy for no good reason. [9] Global temperatures do not follow CO₂ levels and that is a fact.[10] That means that business failures and layoffs and high inflation. Stagflation is looming on the horizon. The only solutions to relieve a given occurrence of national inflation are either some foreign subsidy program as we did for the Germans, twice, or to raise interest rates and that kills off business.  Just printing money will not work.

Adam Smith was asked if democracy would be successful and he replies that it could work until people found a way to vote money for themselves. We are at that point.

“As much as $300 billion in new loan guarantees would be authorized, with a mandate for the Federal Housing Administration to step forward to define a floor for the housing market and help homeowners refinance and avoid foreclosure. Cities and states are promised nearly $4 billion in direct cash to buy up the foreclosed homes already affecting neighborhoods. And a $15 billion package of tax breaks includes provisions targeted to first-time homebuyers and working-class taxpayers who now can’t claim any deduction on their property taxes.”

There is no end to this. Add on 200 bln on socialized medicine, the high price of oil, the need for more social programs, the burden of illegal aliens and the costs of the War on Terrorism, our debt for 2009 will soar from the current 450 bln to a trillion dollars or more.

The direction of our economy is clear and it is clearly downward. Oblivion is the next economic event for us. The current political basis for wealth redistribution is now only in the income tax realm now, but could easily be expanded to include a general wealth tax. There is no reason not to calculate an imputed wealth tax on home owner real estate taxes and the value of IRAs and other equity holdings and place a tax on those. Why not? Why not put a 100% tax on inheritances?  If you get praise and votes for such an action, as in Europe, who are going broke because of their stupidity[11] and collapse of their society after several major world wars, then why not vote for that?

The only way to escape this current trap is to put your earnings and assets and wealth basis in a position as to avoid or minimize taxes. Equities must be selected carefully so that they do not generate high taxes. High salaries need to be replaced with perks, probably similar to what the Europeans do in their hyper tax environment. Holding gold bullion is an excellent way to beat inflation.

There is no current way to avoid high inflation, unemployment and a stock market crash punctuated with bank failures. The only hope to correct this mess is to raise interest rates and curtail this psychotic spending and quit subsidizing failure with tax hikes. Our economy is now balanced on a knife’s edge and could fall soon. More taxes can push it over into recession and depression.

We don’t want to fail like Europe. They are idiots.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

The Redistribution of Wealth by Subsidizing Urban Mortgage Debt. Raise Taxes!

Karl Marx’s maxims[1] are assembled in the general notion that there was always an eternal battle between those with property and wealth and the ‘poor’ and this defined his class struggle politics and has prompted the search for ways to spread around the wealth among the nations. There can be no dispute that there are rich and poor and always have been at odds; only the remedy is in question. The efforts of the Leninists, Marxists and other variants of the far left, as mirrored by the Terror of the French Revolution, were not successful as most of ‘revolutions’ were spontaneously ignited in peasant environments while being summarily crushed in the indicated industrialized countries. This initial outcome argued against the basic Marxian precept that the proletariat can conquer capitalism and run industries while returning the excess [profits] to the workers and other peoples. That concept has not been demonstrated as yet. While Russia seemed to respond to the surge, modulated by World War I, Germany and Italy and later Spain halted the wild rush forward to grab property and industrial production and give them ‘to the people.’ Dedicated revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg^[2],[3]  and her political allies attempted to grab as much as they could before they were murdered.^[4] Counter revolutionaries from the socialist wings of Italy, Germany and Spain [erroneously labeled as right wing] wrestled control from the Bolsheviks in the streets and restricted Marxism to the peasant world. There, the corpse of revolutionary Marxism lies today.

But, since the ‘problem’ of equal outcomes has not been materialized by any mechanism, we are faced with the ongoing search for solutions. Progressive taxation and confiscation of most private property[5] and inheritances remain about the only ways to level the wealth in most industrialized countries to date. Marxism morphed into ‘socialism’ at the behest of many like Bernard Shaw, but even the peaceful Fabians could not ‘talk’ the wealthy into voluntarily sharing their profits and loot with the masses.

The theories of anti-capitalism are snarled by history, disputes over the extent of private property that would be allowed, the role of collectivization of agriculture and later redactions.[6] The net result was the Russian Revolution and the rise of the ‘right’ to counterbalance the errors of the left. Today, this theatre is played upon the stage of modern communication with pleas for assistance for the poor and such.

The results of Marxian revolutions, however, are clearly recorded by history with unparalleled murder, corruption and failure. We can clearly inspect the results of the last 200-300 Marxist dictatorships in Africa and note that they have resorted to tribalism in nearly all cases in order to grab wealth while ignoring even the most remote precepts of socialism. This mentality, mirrored in New Orleans, Baltimore and Detroit, is the current expectation when unbridled left-liberalism is allowed to infect any society. The murder rate soars as the tolerance of drug addiction increases by the left. Let us all feel good—no matter the cost. The low-class phenomenon is currently exemplified by Jesse Jackson[7] and Kamau Kambon [“…exterminate white people off the face of the planet [8] Racism is the most important aspect of leftist politics.

The history of the far left is ugly and defenseless, but the notion that they had the ‘correct view’ of how wealth should be distributed has remained firm in their thoughts. The desired outcome in many cities and countries is not that the outcome of the confiscation of wealth should result in a viable economic society—rather the physical act of confiscating property and political power by any means is justified by the desirable outcome. The leftists still hold that view.  They feel good about wrecking economies. It is proper in the warped logic of the far left that if the capitalists crash along with the rest of society that is okay  as long as their money and wealth are destroyed. Revolution and confiscation of property didn’t work yet, but we can still keep trying until we get to the solution. We can see all this in the outcomes of the Great Society, War on Poverty, revolutions in Cuba, etc: failure.

From the Manifesto:

“The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property

generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois

private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of

producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on

the exploitation of the many by the few.”[9]

The difficulties with the unsophisticated and political property divisions among the peoples resemble the problem of Ockham’s razor[10] where we know that the masses cannot generate sufficient goods and services to form a decent society so there must be controls on how the profits are used. They don’t have the skills. This is not a simple issue and given the pyramid system [e.g. Bell Curve[11]] of the distribution of cognitive skills and talents in the world, the ‘average’ person, and certainly those on the bottom of the intelligence ladder, cannot accomplish the tasks. They will fail. If we rely on the notions of egalitarianism where leftist leaders have professed ‘concern’ for the masses then we need to ask the left to explain the Khmer Rouge, The Great Leap Forward, numerous African Marxist Dictatorships, Islamo-Fascism and others. There is no regard for the very poor in any of these cases.  The left will not apologize for the 100,000,000 dead in the last century due to Marxism. They seem to have no history. The poor starved in those times or were crushed by military machines, as they do today, under these systems as they do today in North Korea and the Sudan today. Tribalism remains the strongest societal force in Africa and the Middle East today and given the opportunity, most of the tribal types would massacre their fraternal enemies because they know that their counterparts would do the same if the power fell to them. The cognitively mediocre cannot perform even the basic tasks of society beyond the hunter-gatherer level. They can grunt and grab but not set up a vibrant business. History shows this clearly.

So, the quest for wealth grinds forward by the left as they cannot form a decent society by themselves. Every time they make an attempt, they fail or create some showcase state with major defects [Sweden, in the dirty gun business for 200 years while telling the world they were ‘neutral’ or the case of Switzerland, in the dirty money business, where they shelter the loot of dictators and despots.] and the phony Soviet Showcase of Cuba.

Of the many schemes to spread around the wealth, one of the most recent is the strange notion of private home ownership by the lower classes of our society. Somewhere, the criterion of home ownership, the fulcrum of the American Dream, have been diluted or ignored so that ‘everybody’ is entitled to have a house. This must be some new ‘right.’ This notion is so foolish as to be refuted by the simple observation that many people cannot even get past high school, mandatory since 1960. A full 15% of our society are felons, drug addicts, in jail, on welfare or suffer from a myriad of mental disorders, but, we learn, these people deserve to own their own homes. Now, ignoring credit ratings and earnings potential, refuted and made obsolete by political organizations like Greenling Institute[12] here, the usual criteria for property owners in terms of loans was trashed for political reasons.

The Bell Curve findings clearly refute the notion that everybody is ‘equal’ or even deserve ‘equal outcomes’ and this fraud was forced upon banks and lending institutions to the point where anybody could get a loan, particularly if they were minorities. Bad credit ratings, drug addiction, jail histories and worse were hidden from banks and such and the inevitable occurred: many people could not afford their own homes or could not even approximate the average citizen who could afford one. We saw drug addicts, felons, welfare recipients, illegal aliens and others given homes with very low interest mortgages and they defaulted. We are surprised?

But, where is the American Dream and who should pay for it? The answer is that those who defaulted on their loans for any reason must be rescued by the taxpayers. Thus we have the expected:

You deserve a home and the ‘rich’ will pay for one for you. It is your ‘right.’ Vote for us.

Today, the New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[13]--cobbles up a solution to the problem of redistribution of wealth veiled in sorrow, repressed hate and more in this article:

“Mortgage rates are rising because of the troubles at the loan finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, threatening to deal another blow to the faltering housing market.” [14]Woes Afflicting Mortgage Giants Raise Loan Rates By Vikas Bajaj Published: July 23, 2008

Really? Who would have thought?

“Loan rates are rising because of concern in the financial markets about the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which own or guarantee nearly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage market. The federal government has proposed a rescue, and has urged Congress to approve it quickly.”

This FM and FM organizations were a stupid idea from the New Deal FDR Era and was used as a dumping ground for bad loans. Banks could dump questionable mortgages on the government because they were allowed to and this sorry situation was created by the government in the first place. This is the expected political solution and looks like Social Security: They are going broke.

No matter, the leftist concern is how to make the taxpayer pay for this mess and allow the low class to keep their homes at all cost. That makes political sense so damn the economics.

“For borrowers with a $400,000 loan, such a jump could send their monthly payments to $2,338 from $1,417, estimates Louis S. Barnes, a mortgage broker at Boulder West Financial in Boulder, Colo.”

This is astonishing. We learn, from the Times, that interest rate changes might affect mortgage payments! Economics has been advanced by this. We are so proud.

Look at this:

“While mortgage rates approached these levels earlier this year and in 2007 during times of stress in the financial markets, the latest move adds urgency to the government’s efforts to restore confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lawmakers are expected to vote this week on a measure that would give the Treasury Department authority to lend more money to the companies and buy shares in them if they falter.”

So, the US Treasury might have to buy up shares in a mismanaged quasi-government corporation and stick the taxpayers with the bill. That subsidizes failure, as the left always advises.

The main idea here is that the victims of the left need more taxes and, since only the top half pay any taxes at all, we can just tax them and give the proceeds to the ‘poor’ for their votes and all will be well. Fannie Mae is just another leftist tax-whoring cluster that was headed by incompetents or just incompetents and money-hungry bureaucrats like Franklin D. Raines.[15]

Having the Treasury pick up devalued shares in these phony agencies points to a potential debt liability of some 5 trillion dollars. We know who pays taxes and who does not. It should be clear that if people default on their loans and are drug addicts, incompetents, or for any reason  that they can do it again!

Such is the ongoing grunting and grabbing of wealth by the left.

Our economy is very close to collapse and the left-liberals are waiting like vultures to tax what is left and institute more phony social programs like Fannie Mae and Social Security, Socialized Medicine and worse.

And, somehow these parasites stay in power. Vote accordingly.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Debt and Blame but Offers No Solution.

As we read the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- we look for new ideas from various   leftist perches. Problems must be solved by government as we know. Always replete with noisy praise and grand salutations for some misguided person’s replastered precept of socialism that must be summarily incorporated into our society with great haste and song, we must follow the clarion calls, hear the trumpets ring and scrounge for suitable social solutions for problems.   Taxes are the way. Such solutions are supplied daily by the New York Times. There is always some pressing grave threat to society than can be handily solved with a good stiff tax increase. We are recurrently offered detailed analyses of:  how we were steered into this swamp by capitalism, how the tax increase opportunity that will hoist us from the communal latrines, and, how we learn, anew, about the basics and root causes of our societal problems. Liberalism always provides a solution.  Capitalism and private property are always the culprits. Such is the mission and mantra of the Times and, today, our BabblingBrooks[2] examines the mechanism of credit abuse and offers us an explanation.

Frequently, the lessons learned from a narrow analysis of the actions and antics of a few persons can be extrapolated beyond the usual horizons of reason and geography and supply us with sober coaching for necessary change. Thus, the Old Gray Lady[3] offers us the best path forward. The instant case in point here is demonstrated with some video about the sad case of Diane McLeod [4] about the [mis]use of money. She solved her problems with credit cards starting in 1996. The ensuing (and unexpected?)debt she created, the mental stress and mandatory shopping was used as  a palliative. She could not pay off her cards after a time, but she felt better.  So, she rolled her debts into her home equity. From market value of her home was rising from $135,000 to $ 228, ooo she had equity to burn.  Shopping was the solution to her problems and she solved them neatly. Her home was later foreclosed with all the pomp and circumstance of a sheriff’s sale. Nobody bought her place; she now has an eviction notice. She cried.

Now, who can we blame here as blame must be placed?

According to Brooks:

“On the front page of Sunday’s Times, Gretchen Morgenson described Diane McLeod’s spiral into indebtedness, and now a debate has erupted over who is to blame.”[5]-- The Culture of Debt by David Brooks July 22, 2008. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

What else?  No liberals can be blamed here. We are offered these possible choices of the reasons from the hackneyed list:

[1] Predatory lenders, the evil scrooges of capitalism.

[2] McLeod’s lack of responsibility and handling of her financial matters.

[3] A third position [and novel] begins with the notion that people are driven by the desire to earn the respect of their fellows.

The first two items seem to fall into some categories that might be influenced by reason, education and self control. But, in the third novel proposition ‘respect’ is a great leap backward in social science. One might assume that earning your own living and building a nice life f or yourself and family with property and vacations might gain some respect. Not necessarily so.

As to the predatory lender argument we read:

“In short, these predatory companies swooped down on a vulnerable woman, took what they could and left her careening toward bankruptcy.”

There outta be a law!

On the second point we read:

“Free societies depend on individual choice and responsibility, those in this camp argue. People have to be held accountable for their indulgences or there is no justice. As McLeod herself admirably told Morgenson: “I regret not dealing with my emotions instead of just shopping.”

Now, that sounds like sound advice. The salient question here, not addressed by the maudlin ones, the red-wine-and-uppers druggie crowds and social preceptors is this: what happens to society if there is no responsibility for choices and actions? Not discussed here, the point is mute as the need to whine and blame transcends reason and gets votes. Regrets cannot reverse poor decisions.  There must be a recompense to lack of respect, and that must involve government regulations and/or taxes.

Now, new ground is broken!

“If you go to the online comment section affixed to Morgenson’s article, you see advocates of these two positions talking past one another, one side talking the morality of social protection and the other the morality of personal responsibility.”

Gee, they just won’t listen! How sad. They need to be reeducated. The extrapolation is now revealed by Brooks!!

“According to this view, what happened to McLeod, and the nation’s financial system, is part of a larger social story. America once had a culture of thrift. But over the past decades, that unspoken code has been silently eroded.”

Woe is us!

“And now the reckoning has come. The turn in the market punishes many of those seduced by financial temptations. (Sometimes capitalism undermines the Puritan virtues, but sometimes it reinforces them.)”

So, what do we do?? How about we fix prices as FDR did and solve this problem? Let us repeals the laws of supply and demand and that will fix it!

“But the important shifts will be private, as people and communities learn and adopt different social standards. After the Depression, a savings mentality set in. After the dot-com bubble, a bit of sobriety hit Silicon Valley. Now it’s the borrowers’ and lenders’ turn. As the saying goes: People don’t change when they see the light. They change when they feel the heat.”

Frogs do not if the temperature changes slowly we are advised. Nothing in Silicon Valley was ever related to sobriety. They earned their profits and shut out the suckers.

Were we suddenly dropped on the sidewalk here? What do we do? Do we subsidize the debts of the irresponsible for their votes or not?  What about Greenling[6]? Wasn’t that a different social standard? Can’t we just forgive the debts of those who deserve some property? This is even more important if they vote for Democrats for their unearned gifts.  Should we hike taxes on lenders or given them ‘sensitivity’ courses so they can identify and not loan money to mental misfits or dead beats? Shall we put limits on credit cards? Should the government inspect shopping profiles and home expenses and issue summons to courts or force the financially reckless to take courses in home economy? We can buy back some respect for her with a good tax hike. It is amazing what remarkable things happen with hefty tax hikes.

Do we need the IRS to expand into the Credit Inspection and Certification Service?

Missing here is the oblivious: A command economy like the USSR and improvements upon the theme as we saw from the Cambodians is the obvious answer. Nobody there died in debt. We can control credit and debt!  Did we ever hear of a Russian peasant in bankruptcy?[7] The best goods and services in the New Russia were limited to the 4% party membership. Nobody who celebrated the social splendor of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia [8] ever went bankrupt or ate too much or bought frivolous goodies to appease their unhappiness. Apparently they had respect. They did get high praise from Noam Chomsky. They had little need for heart bypasses as well. No North Korean peasant ever died from the embarrassment of bankruptcy. There system is superior to ours in that respect.

This article just howls for this: The Brooks New Paradigm.

But, where is it? What do we do-- just ‘learn’ slowly and let things just happen as do goat droppings ripen in the sun?

The basis of liberalism is to showcase the losers and then create new way to force an ‘equal outcome’[9].  

From a previous essay:

“The very existence of citizens who have average wealth, above some arbitrary level, as defined by the left, of course, is necessary and sufficient proof of crimes against humanity such as economic violence, racism, starvation and worse.”-- Posted by rycK on Thursday, March 15, 2007.

There is nothing as unfair as noticing that the upper half of some average population has more wealth than those in the bottom half.  Mathematics is obviously capitalist and evil. This outrage begs for Fabianism <