California is experiencing a doctor shortage. So the obvious thing to do is to redefine what “doctor” means, carry on with all the policies that resulted in said shortage, and hope that everyone is too stupid to notice. Right?? Maybe it will just… go away? Who knows what they think. Like how they changed what “unemployed” means when they saw the economy wasn’t recovering, that unemployment is actually HIGHER than it ever was during the great depression. …but it can’t be our policies!! It must be the way we’re defining unemployment! Of course.
It’s the equivalent of sticking your index fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and going “LALALALALALALAIDONTCAREWHATYOUSAYLALALALALALAICANDOWHATIWANTLALALALALA” …it’s what Democrats do. It’s what liberals do. Wait, sorry, it’s what politicians do, and the people who support them. The difference between the left and right is that people dont take Christians serious enough to let them dictate policy, for the most part; we’ve separated church and state — but people still have yet to figure out that progressivism is just as asinine, destructive, and faith-based.
The efficient brilliance of statism, right before our eyes… what do you even say about this nonsense? To people with their eyes open, it looks a lot like witch-burning or virgin sacrifice.
It’s like this: Oh, the rain dance didn’t make it rain? Looks like we need to redefine what “rain” means then!! It can’t possibly be our policy of dancing to make it rain that’s wrong!
I got a better idea. Why don’t we take notice of the string of horrible results that happen whenever the government is in control of something, and then stop voting for people who believe government is the answer to every question.
Marxists define a ‘capitalist’ as he or she who owns capital or means of production.
Marxists have worked very hard to convince the uninterested, unthinking majority that the “capitalists” are the unfeeling cold-hearted exploiters of the “non-capitalists”(non-owners of means of production or capital) — aka the employed. They’ve worked very hard to place the two in direct moral opposition to each other, with the Capitalist playing the role of the bad guy. They advocate exorbitant high taxes and crippling regulations on the owners of capital/means of production. They claim that since the employed are being exploited for their labor by the Capitalists, a third party must step in to “keep them in line” and re-distribute their wealth. Of course the third party is… who else? The government.
Besides the moral/ethical questions this raises, the question is… who does this benefit? Who does it hurt? According to my calculations, the only ppl to benefit from this arrangement are the sociopaths that sit in their cushy state jobs, and union thugs.
To advocate exorbitant high taxes and regulations on employers(aka capitalists) is, in essence, the same as saying that the cleaning lady who cleans your house should be forced to use a washboard and clothesline to do your laundry, a toothbrush to scrub your floor, and wash all dishes by hand instead of having the use of a dishwasher, because she “has it too good” and is exploiting you by charging too much for her services, which she owns. If you think this analogy doesn’t work, consider this: capitalists, even as defined by marxists, satisfy a need for a fee — they trade their value(money) for your service — just like your cleaning lady serves your need, and you pay her — like you pay McDonalds, Apple, or WestJet Airlines. They are serving you. If they don’t serve you, you simply don’t pay them, you pay someone different.
In the end, if you take 30% of your cleaning lady’s wages, and place restrictions on the methods she uses to clean your house, you will receive less for your money — it becomes more expensive and takes longer for the same result. Besides which, there will be less and less cleaning ladies offering their services in the marketplace, simply because it’s not profitable to be a cleaning lady. Now imagine every single aspect of life hampered in this regard, from your grocery store to your car to your mechanic to your home builder to the restaurants you visit, on and on… yeah.
Try this simple math excercise: if it costs ‘Capitalist A’ $1000 to produce a computer, and the profit needed to keep the business running at a profit and pay employees is $500, the price you pay is $1500. If Capitalist A is taxed $350(35%), and complying with regulation costs them $400, and union thugs use state power to force them to pay workers $10/hr more than they’re worth and provide a month of paid sick days per year, adding another $500 to the cost… they don’t/can’t/won’t simply bend over and take the losses — first of all, they would go bankrupt. So this leaves them little choice but to pass the cost on to you, the consumer. You pay $2750. There’s no magical fairy dust way around this, reality doesn’t bend to the wishes of government regulators or lazy marxists. They can cut quality, in which case you get a computer that is significantly lower quality, for the same price of $1500, or they can pass the cost onto the consumer. Consumers then have less disposable income to spend on other things, like a new coat, or baseball cap, and those businesses suffer as a result. Remember — pay attention to what is not immediately seen as well as what is.
Considering all the different applications and implications this principle has in a complex marketplace, ask yourself… who is it that suffers because of government intervention in the market?? The answer is that everyone suffers, but the relative poor suffer the most — the employees, the non-owners of means of production, the non-owners of capital suffer the most when marxists and statists interfere in the marketplace.
The next time some liberal is squawking about soaking the rich, remember that you can’t soak the rich without double or triple soaking the poor.
And, this is only one aspect in which the “non-capitalists” lose(as a consumer). They also suffer directly as an employee due to regulation and other intervention.
The reason I specified the marxist definition of capitalist is that everyone who takes part in the market is a Capitalist, not just owners of capital — we all benefit immensely from it. You own your labor, your talents, your time, your effort, your ingenuity, and you trade them for money that you then exchange for goods and services to make your life better. Or you may own a factory, lending firm, etc — they are essentially no different — they have value, and you trade them for stuff you want. The difference to marxists is, if you own anything more than your labor and time, they define you as the enemy of everyone who doesn’t.
Ridiculous! Not to mention, an obvious and transparent attempt at hijacking unearned wealth and power — at an inconceivable, incalculable cost to everyone else.