Everyone
One topic that gets lots of repeated attention and discussion and lots of words
seemingly non stop for ever
is Socialism. Now go analyse that. Yuk, yuk, yuk.
Happy House Socialist
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ristad <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, Sep 21, 2016 2:55 pm
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Why Socialism is Here to Stay
(Until it collapses. -RR)
by Jeff Thomas
“[T]he government has to take resources from someone before it can dole them
out to others. This act of taking destroys an economy. The more you take from
the productive members of society, the less productive they become. That’s the
primary lesson of the history of socialism.”
The above quote is from Porter Stansberry – from his book, America 2020: The
Survival Blueprint. It states a concept I’ve described for years, but Porter
states it more succinctly than I ever have. In particular, it negates the
argument by many “progressives” that, even if they don’t recommend full-on
socialism, they believe in getting “just the right mix” of socialism and
capitalism to create the ideal system.
Unfortunately, as viable as this concept may sound, even moderate socialistic
national policies result in moderate deterioration of the system. It’s not
unlike being “just a little” addicted to heroin.
It may be argued that, “That’s different. With heroin, the addict will always
end up wanting more and he’ll become even more dependent.” Exactly so – and
that’s unquestionably true for socialism as well. Once the concept of “free
stuff” is part of a nation’s governing system, the desire for more free stuff
will inexorably rise.
And, of course, historically, we have seen that governments always step up to
the plate whenever the demand for more free stuff is suggested. But why should
this be so? Wouldn’t a more conservative government be less likely to proffer
entitlements than a more liberal government?
Actually, no. To believe this is to misunderstand the very nature of
governance. Those who are governed like to believe that their government exists
to serve them, and all political leaders are quick to encourage this
perception. However, amongst themselves, political leaders fully understand
that they exist primarily to feed off of and dominate the electorate. Of
course, they can’t actually admit this, but, regardless of party affiliation,
that is their very raison d'tre.
In a free-market society, a government is not especially necessary. It may be
needed to defend the country if it’s invaded, or, arguably, it may be useful in
creating a national currency, building national highways, etc. (But even these
needs may be argued.)
A free-market society is beneficial, as it creates prosperity. It enriches the
population with money, goods, and services. It also rewards those who are most
productive. However, it does tend to leave behind those who are less
productive, and here’s where political leaders find their opportunity to cash
in.
Let’s say we have a country that’s made up of five voters, with their
respective net worth as follows:
Voter A: $1
Voter B: $10
Voter C: $100
Voter D: $1,000
Voter E: $10,000
If I were running for office and declared that no one should own more than $10,
I would not be elected, as most voters would quite rightfully regard me as a
threat. But if I were to declare that “the greedy rich” have too much money and
should be required to “give some back,” I might get all voters except Voter E
to vote for me.
Why should this be so? Because no one thinks of himself as being amongst “the
greedy rich.” For the man who is worth $1,000, the greedy rich are those who
are worth $10,000 or more. But, likewise, the man worth $100 thinks of the
greedy rich as those worth $1,000 or more. Human nature dictates that we don’t
see ourselves as greedy, but it’s not too difficult for politicians to convince
us that those who have more than us are greedy. Further, once we’re convinced
of this, it’s not too difficult to fool us into believing that the greedy rich
have, in some way, achieved this wealth by swindling us out of it. And, now
that you mention it, yes, we would like to have some of it back, thank you.
So, any population becomes an easy target for leaders who promise to take from
the rich and “give back” to the less rich, like a modern-day Robin Hood. But
what of that claim that “just the right mix” of socialism could take some away
from the rich, but leave prosperity intact? Well, here’s why that will never
happen in any country…
Political leaders, as stated above, do not exist to serve the populace, they
exist to feed off of and dominate them. They cannot do this without the wealth
of the electorate passing through their hands. The more of the electorate’s
wealth passes through their hands, the greater the amount that can be skimmed
off to both enrich themselves and increase their power. (Only in Uruguay does
the President leave office driving the same Volkswagen he did when he took
office.)
And so, it’s the nature of governments (whether they claim to be conservative
or liberal) to seek to increase the size of government annually (requiring
ever-more revenue to pass through their hands) and to take an ever-greater part
in the hands-on distribution of the nation’s wealth. All governments will do
all they can to grow themselves, as it’s very much in their interest to do so.
All governments will, regardless of their party rhetoric, continually pursue a
greater level of socialistic policies. In this regard, political parties are
interchangeable.
So, where does that leave the individual voter? Well, the vast majority will
vote for the candidate whose rhetoric most closely follows his own ideals, but
he will surely be the loser as a result. (Campaign rhetoric almost always
proves to be a lie.)
The choice, really, is whether the individual is living in a jurisdiction where
he believes the government has already become so socialistic that he’s a net
loser, rather than a net recipient. Beyond this point, his future can only be
on a downward trajectory.
This is a most unpleasant conclusion to come to grips with, as it informs the
individual not only of his current situation, but the rest of his life. In
standing back and observing his entire future from a greater vantage point, he
realises that, increasingly, he will be beating his head against the wall if he
remains where he is.
Those who internationalise do so with the understanding that, if they choose
one country because it’s the most ideal to do banking in and choose another
because it’s the most productive to invest in, they will prosper. At some
point, they additionally realise that it’s also beneficial to apply that logic
to their choice of country of residence.
Throughout the life of anyone who advances himself, there’s a tendency to
change neighbourhoods from time to time to attain a better quality of life. Yet
most people drop this logic as soon as they reach the borders of the country
they were born in. In truth, the decision to move beyond national borders to
choose a neighbourhood – one where the system has not deteriorated to the point
that it’s dramatically usurping the wealth of the individual – is not such a
great leap. In fact, it’s relatively easy to do.
In much of the former “free world,” socialism is here to stay, but the
individual citizen needn’t be. He may vote with his feet and move to a better
neighbourhood.
Editor’s Note: Socialism often leads to economic and societal collapse,
hyperinflation, shortages, and shrinking personal freedom.
This has happened most recently in Venezuela.
The truth is, it can happen anywhere. The U.S. is not immune. In fact, it’s
extremely vulnerable.
Increasing socialism, bad financial decisions, and massive debt levels will
cause another financial crisis sooner rather than later.
We believe the coming crash is going to be much worse, much longer, and very
different than what we saw in 2008 and 2009.
Unfortunately, most people have no idea what really happens when an economy
collapses, let alone how to prepare…
