Summary

Racism. Racial. Let’s understand and get comfortable with the vital differences between these two useful terms. Importantly, if something is simply racial, let’s not brand it racist.

Links and References

School Funding

“We Must All Hang Together…”

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Racial or Racist. Let’s understand and get comfortable with the vital differences between these two useful terms. Importantly, if something is simply racial, let’s not brand it racist. Racism--both vocal and physical--is ignorant at best, often ugly, and can be criminal. Racial can be very useful; for example, if you know a criminal suspect is white, then you can eliminate all minorities from the search. This will make for a much better use of always limited resources. Let’s take a look at some statements, facts, people and organizations and decide if we think they are racial or racist--or neither:

Averaging the 2008 and 2012 elections, 94% of blacks voted for Obama; 6% voted for his opponents, McCain and Romney.

Averaging the 2008 and 2012 elections, 57% of whites voted for the Republican.

Congressional Black Caucus.

One in 12 blacks have sickle cell anemia; it is rare amongst whites.

Seventy-five percent of NBA players are black.

Two percent of NBA owners are black.

Black men with wealth and/or fame, often prefer lighter-skinned women.

The KKK.

Affirmative Action

Nation of Islam

Trump

Louis Farrakhan

Skinheads

Keith Ellison

School vouchers--for

School vouchers--against

The Movie, “White Men Can’t Jump”

Five percent of the black population is in jail or prison; one percent of the white population is incarcerated.

Seventy-two percent of black births are out of wedlock; twenty-five percent of white births are.

Churches

Some of these are wonderfully easy to classify. For example, the KKK is racist--and hateful; the statistics about sickle cell anemia are racial--and helpful. The Nation of Islam is racist, as are skinheads. I would maintain that the stats on incarceration and out of wedlock births are racial--and should be helpful. But too many people are ready to label anyone, well-intentioned and wanting to improve things or not, who merely cite these stats as being racist.

Hurling the “racist” accusation is all-too common. As a result, too many people become intimidated and take a hands off approach in areas where they might have done some real good. It is much easier to accuse others than it is to do your homework on the facts, come up with non agenda-based logic, and make an actual argument. Accusing and character assassination is much easier. And does major and lasting damage. I posit that it is borderline evil to take racial statistics, which in the right hands could lead to positive change, and drive away the good people and the good they might do away by accusing them of being racists. A cheap copout, and a destructive one at that.

Okay, Will, why did you include churches? The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, “It is appalling that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o’clock on Sunday morning.” Is this at least partly self-segregation? If yes, is self-segregation an example of racism? Or simply personal preference?

If you are on the fence about any of the above or the many similar questions (my list is hardly exhaustive), try this test: Switch the statement around. For example, if 94% of whites had voted for McCain and Romney,

Summary

Should people who accept welfare be required to work? Seems like a fair question. (Note that I did not add qualifiers like “able-bodied” or “working age.”) What is your answer?

Links and References

Statue of Responsibility (Blog only)

Money and Dignity

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Should people who accept welfare be required to work? Seems like a fair question. (Note that I did not add qualifiers like “able-bodied” or “working age.”)

You have heard observations like, “That is a First World problem.” generally after someone says something along these lines, “Not only was it raining as I drove to work, but the line at Starbucks was almost out the door. And they had run out of my favorite breakfast snack.” That is indeed a First World problem.

Asking the question, even leaving out references to age, physical condition and welfare status, “Should people work?” is a 21st Century question. This is a very new question. How did we get here?

For thousands of years, life for most people on the planet was short, lacking in even the basic freedoms, and generally spent being subservient--not just working for--subservient to--those in the classes above them. The unspoken assumption was not just that people should work, but they had to work, or they were beaten until they did. In the early years of immigration to the US from Europe, many came over as indentured servants, forced to work for poverty wages until they had repaid their passage across the Atlantic. There were no labor laws to speak of, including a lack of child labor laws, and unscrupulous employers took advantage. Work correctly, was the assumed default, but this correct assumption was badly--often cruelly--implemented.

Our social thinking has advanced, as it needed to; we now have protective labor laws, full employment, a rising middle class and a steady decline of those in poverty, and so much more. Invoking a popular phrase, we have cleaned the baby, but have we thrown the baby out with the bath water? What happened to the assumption that everyone should work? Kids can do chores, babysit, mow lawns and shovel snow; adults with children can work part-time from home; handicapped adults can do limited--but valuable to themselves and others--work. Of course there will be some exceptions, so please don’t take the time to list them. The point here is that the default condition--the assumption--should be that everyone works. Work makes a contribution to the society as a whole; perhaps more importantly, it is invaluable as a confidence and dignity booster for the worker--for the person doing the work.

Borrowing a key concept from the law, we must start with the assumption that everyone should work, unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they can’t. Dangerously, we are moving toward reversing that assumption; folks don’t need to work unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they can. We need to see that we are shifting the burden of proof in the wrong direction. Programs that started out as social safety nets are rapidly becoming cradle-to-grave welfare programs. As these programs continue to expand, they rob recipients of motivation, and, more insidiously, lure the recipients--and future generations--into the false belief that all of this is okay. No need to change. Welfare then goes from being a needed and temporary medicine to being a debilitating and addictive drug. And as with all drugs, it always takes more and more to keep the user content. Please do check out “Bread and Circuses…” (Blog only) Are we replicating one of the worst parts of ancient Rome?

Summary

There is a lot of talk from some quarters supporting giving people what they need in areas like healthcare and housing, as well as in cash, with a growing call for a guaranteed income. The reasons given include these benefits being “human rights” and that conferring these benefits and cash will allow the recipients to live in “dignity.” The truth: like a feeling of accomplishment, dignity cannot be granted, it can only be earned.

Links and References

Life is Hard

Brother’s Keeper

Give a Man a Fish

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

 

Money and dignity are connected: Dignity comes from working hard to earn it. You have heard the expression that, “Money is the root of all evil.” That’s not at all correct. The original text in the bible is, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” This is a key distinction. Let’s make another vital distinction: It is not money that confers dignity, it is doing your absolute best to earn it that does. Money confers the ability to buy things; doing your best confers dignity. John Wooden, three-time collegiate basketball champion as a player, professional player, and the best college coach of all time, said, “Focus on effort, not winning. Winning is a byproduct of effort.” He consistently emphasized the importance of doing your best over winning. Here’s another, “Success is never final; failure is never fatal. It's courage that counts." Isn’t Coach Wooden saying that dignity comes from the courage to do your best whether you are succeeding or failing at the moment?

Telling people that giving them money gives them dignity does two terrible things:

It robs them of learning that working for that cash is the only money-connected path to dignity and

The recipients will develop a vague but powerful and deep-seated emptiness where that deeply satisfying earned dignity feeling should be. What will they fill that emptiness with? Nothing good. It is irreplaceable.

Truths:

Like a feeling of accomplishment, dignity cannot be granted, it can only be earned.

Whenever at all warranted, we should treat each other with dignity. The key here is that the people treating others with dignity are honoring themselves, casting dignity upon themselves, not bestowing dignity on the other person. Dignity cannot be granted, it can only be earned.

Now, let’s apply the two Revolution 2.0 main tenets to today's podcast. The two main tenets that we believe at Revolution 2.0 are:

Personal Responsibility; practice it, teach it and

Be Your Brother’s Keeper.

Paraphrasing St. Francis, “Always teach personal responsibility, and when you must, use words.” Practicing personal responsibility is hard. As is anything worthwhile. After all, Life is Hard. But more than worth doing well. Paraphrasing Will Luden, teaching through example is a powerful, and often thankless, way of being your Brother's Keeper. Do it anyway.

We often fail--I often fail--and our brothers and sisters often fail. That’s why we are called to be our brother’s and sister’s keepers. Encourage them, love them; hold them accountable when necessary, love them; teach them, love them. Note where the emphasis is. Speaking of teaching, I invite you to check out, “Give A Man A Fish…”

We will unpack this and more in future podcasts starting with the next cast on Tuesday the 31st: “Workfare.”. Revolution 2.0 publishes two podcasts and related blogs each week; midday on Tuesdays and Fridays. Twice a week, every week.

Summary

With all of the conversation about capitalism vs. socialism, healthcare and housing being human rights vs. doing things for yourself, and redistributing wealth vs. keeping what you make, there is one thing glaringly missing: Simple, basic economic lessons.

Links and References

Ratchet Effect

Socialism Works

Moral Compass

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Let’s start today’s Economics 101 conversation with two simple truths:

All societies levy taxes and redistribute wealth.

Before there is any wealth to redistribute, somebody has to make a profit.

Let’s take question No 1. All societies levy taxes and redistribute wealth. The basic function of any government, no matter how limited, includes providing for basics like defense, law enforcement and at least some infracture, for example, roads and bridges. And in any country, some people will pay more in taxes than others. If the use of what the government has provided from the unequally collected taxes is more equal than the taxes collected, that is clearly redistribution of wealth. For example, all the people in a given country are equally protected by the same military. Given that payment for that military is unequal, the tax money that goes for the mutual defense of all residents is redistributed. Same thing for law enforcement, infrastructure and fire protection. And so on.

Now for No. 2. Before there is any wealth to redistribute, somebody has to make money, that means somebody needs to make a profit, that is, money, revenue, in excess of all costs. Without somebody or something making a profit, there is nothing to tax. If a business does not make a profit, by definition there is nothing to tax, therefore there is nothing to redistribute. Business revenue by itself is not taxed. At least not yet. And without continuing profits, businesses cannot expand, and hire more people. And without those people, there are no wages to tax. Profitable businesses, and only profitable businesses, pay taxes, and employ people who in turn pay their own taxes. These same profitable businesses buy goods and services from other individuals and businesses, so this cycle of profits and hiring and tax paying and spending can productively go on and on.

Now, let’s look at some definitions:

Capitalism. The voluntary exchange of resources, typically money, for desired goods and services.

Socialism (modern usage). Heavy redistribution of taxed wealth. To the best of my knowledge, and I’d love to hear from others on this topic, this is what Bernie Sanders and others mean when they advocate for Democratic Socialism here in the US.

Socialism (traditional definition). Government ownership of the companies that create the goods and services in that country. Public schools in the US are an example of socialism. Public schools are enterprises that produce a service--education--are taxpayer supported, and government owned and operated. Venezuela gave us another example when Hugo Chavez nationalized the previously privately-owned oil industry in that country.

Communism. Socialism (traditional definition) along with the complete elimination of private property.

OK, now tackle two questions:

Is the US already socialist?

If not, do we want the US to be socialist?

Let’s start answering these two questions by discarding the original, the traditional, definition of socialism and stick with the definition that focuses on the heavy redistribution of wealth without government takeover of the means of producing that...

Summary

Personal freedom, opportunity, and an honest and non-meddling government mean far more to a society and it’s success than geography, climate and natural resources. Everyone, perhaps especially those who live south of our border, should be happy that Mexico lost the in 1848.

Links and References

The Dinner Table

“Give A Man A Fish…”

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

In the Mexican American war of 1846 to 1848, the US took New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California, Texas and Western Colorado from Mexico. And the US and Mexico are both the better for it. As is the rest of the world. Yes, I believe that President Polk picked the fight; he basically started the war. And at the time, the war was highly controversial, with Ralph Waldo Emerson famously not paying taxes to support what he saw as an unjust war. He wound up in jail, chiding his friend, Henry David Thoreau, for not being similarly committed. “Why are you here?” asked Thoreau of his friend while visiting him in jail. “Why are you not here?” responded Emerson, challenging his friend for continuing to pay taxes that in part supported the war.

Neither Thoreau nor Emerson could see what we see now. By picking--and winning--the fight, the US added huge amounts of land and resources, bringing them into a democratic, capitalist society with relatively little corruption and organized crime. And, at the same time, the US took that land away from Mexico, preventing the land, the people on the land, and the resources from winding up as part of a country, Mexico, with a failed economy, massive government corruption and even more massive organized crime--the drug cartels. With its fortuitous defeat, Mexico became smaller, and the US bigger. A key benefit is that fewer people now need to escape from a smaller Mexico, and have a larger US to escape to. If Mexico had the lack of foresight to lose, a much larger number of people would be trying to escape into a smaller US.

Let’s deal with a couple of possible counter arguments:

We “stole” the land.

If Mexico had been allowed to keep states like Texas and California, they would have done as well with them as the US did.

Let’s take the arguments in turn:

The “stolen” argument. We took it from the Mexico after the Mexicans had taken it from the people who already had lived there for many, many decades. Just as we did in the US. There’s no moral high ground here.

Then there is the “Mexico would have done as well” argument. This one is easy to expose. Take a look at San Diego and Tijuana; they share the same geography, climate and ocean, yet they are starkly different. San Diego is an open, free city, with an annual per capita income of $31K. Tijuana is a cesspool of drugs and crime, with an annual per capita income of $843. San Diegans have 37 times more income, yet live a few miles away. No one is trying to sneak across from San Diego to live in Tijuana. Why? Personal freedom, economic opportunity, personal safety and a relatively corruption free government. When the US took those several states away from Mexico, these huge advantages accrued to that entire geography that was taken. Would anyone seriously want California, Texas and the rest of the “stolen” states to be subject to the same corruption, economic devastation and major gang control as exists in Mexico today? What would the world--not just North America--be like if that many more people from South of our border--and all over the world--were trying to come into a dramatically smaller America?

Summary

Aesop tells us of a farmer who had a magical goose; one that would lay golden eggs. The farmer lived well enough selling the eggs, but he got impatient; in his ignorance of how things worked, he cut the goose open to get all the eggs at once. Is our society doing the same thing; killing the goose that lays the golden eggs?

Links and References

Moral Compass

Responsibility Flow (chart)

Ratchet Effect

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

My first guess is that we are all familiar with Aesop’s fable--a fictional story with a moral--about the farmer who had a goose that laid golden eggs. He and his family were living well by selling the eggs, but he lost patience with having to wait for the cash from the next egg, and in his ignorance of how things in the world work, cut the goose open to get at the stash.

My second guess is that most of us laugh at the farmer’s ignorance, and say to ourselves if he was that ignorant and greedy, well, he got what he deserved. Maybe. But what about his family; they suffered along with him when the goose died. And it wasn’t their fault. And is our society, in it’s ignorance, doing essentially the same thing?

In the fable the golden goose was the farmer’s dependable source of wealth. Not understanding--or caring to understand--how this wealth was produced, the farmer allowed his greed to destroy the goose, and the source of wealth for himself and his family. In our country, capitalism is the dependable source of wealth. In fact, entrepreneurial capitalism is the greatest wealth-producing engine the world has ever seen. Or ever will see.

This greatest wealth-producing engine needs two things to be complete:

Controls, guide rails, if you will and

A mechanism for distributing some of that wealth.

The guide rails start with the moral compasses of the people who participate in a capitalist economy; the people who are driving that engine, working in it and those benefiting from it. Along with those moral compasses, we need government regulation. Even if we were all perfect and never took advantage of each other, and that is far from the truth, some regulations would still be needed. The conversation about regulation starts with how many regulations are needed and in what sectors, not whether we need any at all.

The distribution conversation starts with who gets the money that someone else made, and how much of it do they get? It  does not start with do we distribute wealth at all in our society. Here are some clear examples, and some questions:

Take roads, bridges, military, fire protection and law enforcement. Governments must tax to pay for these needed services. Some people pay dramatically more in taxes than others, with their tax money distributed to those others by paying for these government services that everyone uses.

Some people are utterly incapable of providing for themselves, no matter how hard they try and no matter how long they try. There is no question that money from taxpayers should be distributed to these people. The question is what kind of lifestyle should this redistributed wealth provide? Healthcare, food, shelter and clothing are necessary and should be provided, but at what level? And are other things, entertainment for example, also necessary, and should they be paid for as well? Ah, and what is the role of family and friends, and community and charity with individuals who cannot do for themselves?

Then there is everyone and everything else.

Summary

Let’s not start out by declaring our opinions, e.g., “We need a big government. ” or, “A small government is exactly what we need.” Instead, ask two questions: 1. What needs to be done? and 2. Of those tasks, which are the ones that government does uniquely well?

and References

Common Sense and Politics

Revolution 2.0™: A Thought Revolution

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

When we start the discussion of the proper size of government with, “How big should government be?” it is inevitable that we will wind up in a verbal brawl with some people pitching for a small government, others arguing for a big government with the folks who see themselves as the reasonable peacemakers taking a middle position. And we’ll get nowhere. With apologies to Shakespeare, “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the answer, it lies in the question.”

An acquaintance of mine, a motivational speaker and author, is fond of saying, “If you want better answers, ask better questions.” When I first heard him say that, it made absolutely no sense. C’mon, most questions are direct and understandable, what could be wrong with a question like that? But I had enough respect for him that I experimented  and, over time, found that he is absolutely right. Let’s experiment a bit together and see if his recommendation works here.

Better questions:

What are the tasks that need--need--to be done, accomplished, in our community, state or country? And what are the priorities?

Of those tasks, which are the ones that government does uniquely well?

What are the resources needed for those defined and prioritized tasks that government does uniquely well? The answer to this question will tell us how a government, local, state or federal, needs to be. We are approaching the answer logically, by responding to a series of defined questions.

Answering Question 1. What are the tasks that need to be done, accomplished, in our community, state or country? And what is the priority? Laying out the tasks that need to be handled might take some amount of time--the list of tasks is long and getting longer--but that part will get done. Remember, this is a list of all the things that need to be done, whether by government, individuals, corporations, whatever. It’s a list of tasks that needs to need to be done, regardless of by whom or by what. Prioritizing is much harder, but vital. We will always live in a world where the list of wants and needs is endless, and the resources to meet those wants and needs have known limits. The process is straightforward, and hard; make the list, prioritize it, then apply the known resources to the list until the resources are exhausted. Yes, of course, from time-to-time you can find ways to add to the pile of resources, but with or without additions, resources are always finite. And the list of tasks, of wants and needs, is virtually infinite.

Answering Question 2. What are the tasks that government does uniquely well? Note that we are not asking what tasks can only government do, nor are we asking what is the complete list of things that a government is capable of doing; we are asking what are the tasks that government does uniquely well.  And who would want government--or any other entity--to do something that another organization can do better? That’s why we emphasize the phrase “uniquely well.” For most people, defense, law enforcement, and firefighting, all fall comfortably into the what government does uniquely well zone. And, for most, various forms of entertainment,

Summary

Some of the most valuable and enduring lessons that we need to learn are best taught at home. Conversations at the dinner table is one way, but activities and conversations in the car, during exercise, or while just hanging out are all wonderful opportunities. I include all of it under “The Dinner Table.”

Links and References

“Give a Man a Fish…”

“Am I My Brother’s Keeper?”

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions. You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

This podcast makes the case for the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture discussion. And let’s take the vs. part out; both are powerful influencers, and should not at all be looked at as being in opposition one to the other. Nature and nurture. And we are also going to talk about the different roles and responsibilities we all have around the dinner table--part of the nurture element. The family dinner table is the metaphor we’ll use, but the roles and responsibilities are transportable to other settings. Conversations at the dinner table can certainly be effective, as are doing activities together, conversations in the car, during exercise, and talking while just hanging out. I include all of this under “The Dinner Table.”

For the dinner table to work, to start with someone has to know something worthwhile. No, I am not talking about biases or opinions based on preconceived notions. And I am not talking about lecturing anyone, or trying to be right simply because you know, by God, you’re right. I am talking about things that will make the people around you better if they listen and take action on what you said or showed them by example. Making your case verbally with logic, making your case by example, making your case with care and with the other person’s benefit in mind can open a path for you to be heard. Share what you believe if you can also share, calmly and logically, why you believe it. And for the dinner table to work, someone else has to be willing to listen. Not be willing to buy into everything that’s said, but to be respectful enough to listen. Imagine that; a conversation where the speaker has something valuable to say, and the listener has enough intellectual curiosity and respect to actually listen.

The evidence of the power of the dinner table is all around us. I’ll pass along some examples I have read about, and some from my own experience. And, my guess is, you have examples of your own.

In sports, one of the first examples that comes to mind is the Manning family. Archie, Dad, and sons, Peyton and Eli, were all starting NFL quarterbacks; the sons have two Super Bowl rings each. Had the eldest son, Cooper, not been diagnosed with spinal stenosis the summer before he was to play football at his Dad’s alma mater, the University of Mississippi, he could easily have been the best of the three sons. How did that happen? Football, specifically quarterbacking, was discussed at the actual dinner table, and frequently practiced in the backyard and other settings. For many years.

Here’s another football family: the McCaffrey’s. Ed, the Dad, won three three Super Bowl Rings; one as a wide receiver with the 49ers, and two with the Denver Broncos. The oldest son, Max, is a wide receiver with the 49ers. Christian McCaffrey plays in the NFL for the Carolina Panthers. Dylan plays for the University of Michigan, and the youngest, Luke, is a rising Junior at football powerhouse Valor Christian High School, and has already received offers from two major football colleges. Why? The primary answer is the same as above. The dinner table.

We can see the same thing with families in politics and acting: Henry Fonda was Dad to Jane and Peter; Lloyd...

Summary

Delayed gratification is putting off what you’d like to have today to achieve your major goals tomorrow. Every major personal or societal goal demands a high degree of delayed gratification.

Links and References

Life is Hard

Passing Our Debts To Our Children

Charter Schools

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Most of the solutions to the issues we face personally and as a society are pretty straightforward. But hard to implement, requiring, among other things, delayed gratification. Most of us don’t want that for ourselves, and we have let our politicians know it. They know they cannot vote for any solutions that require any kind of delayed gratification, because we will not re-elect them if they do. And nothing gets fixed. Nothing gets done.

A Stanford professor conducted an experiment with 4- and 5-year-olds and marshmallows. He put a marshmallow in front of each kid, saying if they waited for 15 minutes, while he was gone, before eating the marshmallow, they could have a second one. If they ate it, that was it. One now, or two in 15 minutes. A few of the children made it and were tracked over the 40-years of this longitudinal study. Not surprisingly, this group had higher SAT scores, lower levels of abuse and obesity and achieved higher levels of overall success in life. The discipline of delayed gratification works.

Many of us as individuals and our society, our government, are eating the marshmallow. The government, which we get to vote on every two years, continues to back away from advocating the delayed gratification that it would take to solve any one of the many the issues facing our nation today.

National debt, you know, the one we continue to amass and leave to our children and grandchildren. Essentially, we are eating our marshmallow and theirs, leaving them without one. As of the moment, the Federal accounting shows that we owe $21T and it’s mounting fast.

Part of that debt is the money we owe to support Social Security. Life expectations have increased by at least 15 years since its inception, and we continue to add types of recipient and increase the amount paid to those recipients. Yet instead of fixing it, changing the rules so that it will be solvent and lasting, we continue to kick the can down the road. Afraid of even talking about delayed gratification.

Another part of why we are broke and getting broker is Medicaid, which has gone from $200B in 2000, to $600B last year. And it, too, is growing rapidly.

And then there is Medicare. We spent $700B in 2017, and are projected to spend $3T on Medicare alone in 2050. Yet there are calls from seemingly rational people for “Medicare for all!”

Free College. The national cry for free college and forgiven student loans is mounting. But there is no national conversation about working harder to get scholarships, going to a local community college while working 30 hours a week for those first two years, not going to that expensive dream school. And there are no thoughts or advice about spending 30 minutes on Google to see which schools offer the degrees that will pay enough so the graduate can find a well-paying job and meet their post-school debt obligations. Here, by demanding free college, we eating someone else’s marshmallow.

Infrastructure. We all know that our roads and bridges are suffering from lack of extensions even proper maintenance. Why aren’t we fixing them?

The politicians believe that if they talk about anything even remotely related to delayed gratific...

Summary

Socialism does indeed work--for a while. “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister.

Links and References

Karl Marx Was Right

Give a Man A Fish

Democratic Socialists of America NYC

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Socialism works...for a while. When a society chooses to adopt socialism, many things are now free that were not free before. Well, not free, because they still cost a ton of money, but are free to the recipients. It will take awhile before the added taxation, mounting debt--or both--that are required to pay for all of the now free stuff begins to be initially burdensome, and if unchecked, fatal. Whole countries have gone broke. And more are doing so today

Put simply, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister.

Not long ago, the US was engaged in fighting the Cold War, a war against both Soviet Russia’s geographic expansion and its desire to instill its political and economic way of life on conquered nations. Communist thinking, an imposed way of life, really, is the philosophical, social, political and economic ideology, whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society. com This is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes. BTW, if you don’t think Communism needs to be imposed, think back to the Berlin Wall. And this wall needed to be built to keep people in--not out.

This was a necessary fight. Imagine, if you will, that the USSR, Soviet Russia, had not collapsed, but instead had spread its failed economic and political philosophy to even more countries instead of fewer. Example of the destructive power of communism: As a result of the communist philosophy, that way of thinking, the reunification of West and East Germany, basically the rescue of East Germany, was time consuming, costly and painful. It took decades and $1T (trillion) to rescue East Germany from the miserable lifestyle they had: few freedoms, few and poor consumer products, near-empty grocery store shelves and cars so bad they are a running (pun intended) joke even today. While West Germany was producing VWs, Porsches, Audis and Mercedes Benz, East Germany was making the Trabant, a completely sub-standard car most often called, a “Spark plug with a roof.” And you had to wait to get one, even if you could afford it.

This historical reminder is important because there are many similarities between Democratic Socialism and communism. We’ll get to those similarities in a moment.

Recently, and much in the news, Rep. Joe Crowley of New York City, one of the top Democrats in the House of Representatives, lost his primary in a shocking upset on June 26th, 2018 to community organizer and avowed Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. When asked why she is a socialist, she replied, “I am a socialist because no one should be too poor to live in this country.” A statement, by the way, that many if not most people, capitalist or socialist, would find entirely acceptable. But her philosophy is far more complete than just that. Ms. Ocasio Cortez has claimed association with the New York City Democratic Socialists of America. Many Democratic leaders and party members have hailed the 28-year-old as a window into the future of the Democratic party.

Here are a few quotes from the New York City Democratic Soc...