I wonder if the voters of New York City are clear on this...
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 4, 2025
Saturday, December 31, 2022
Socialism to blame for making American workers "lazy, fat, stupid"
So says Bernie Marcus, who, together with Arthur Blank [seriously, that's his name. Ed.] founded Home Depot. In an interview with the Financial Times (reported from behind the paywall by Breitbart News), Mr Marcus said that "Nobody works. Nobody gives a damn. 'Just give it to me. Send me money. I don't want to work — I'm too lazy, I'm too fat, I'm too stupid." Like this, maybe?
How did things get like that? Mr Marcus puts it down to the economic agenda of socialism. He recommends capitalism as the better alternative, because capitalism is based not on entitlement, but on merit.
"Capitalism is the basis of Home Depot [and] millions of people have earned this success and had success," said the entrepreneur. "I'm talking manufacturers, vendors and distributors and people that work for us able to enrich themselves by the journey of Home Depot. That’s the success. That’s why capitalism works."
Mr Marcus argued that business is meant to make a profit from offering a service or product, explaining that a business's ability to generate profit benefits employees and customers. He also slammed those who believe business exists for “social purposes. "The role of a business is to sell a product and make a profit. The whole idea that a business is set up for social purposes doesn't make sense to me."
He added that if the founders of Home Depot tried to launch such a business in the society and regulatory environment of Brandon's America, it would be less successful, "ending up with 15, 16 stores." That's because big government's love of red tape, along with a lackluster labor force, especially hurts small businesses’ ability to compete with big business.
A longtime conservative donor, Bernie Marcus supported President Donald Trump and became one of his largest donors. His continued support of Trump in the 2020 election cycle triggered a boycott of Home Depot, even though Mr Marcus no longer worked with the company.
Mr Marcus told FT he makes no apologies for backing Republicans such as Mr Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis, saying, "I give money to them because I hope they’re going to do the right thing."
He described President Trump's policies as "spot on"” but did not say if he would support one man over the other for the GOP nomination. "It's going to be very interesting in `24." Mr Marcus said, "because I think DeSantis will challenge [Trump]. And may the better man win!"
Monday, December 22, 2014
Book review: "A Better World for All"
"A Better World for All" -- great title for the Christmas season, even better as a resolution for the New Year. But how to achieve a better world for all? Is the power of prayer our only hope? NO! says Ron McPherson, the author of a new book (or booklet -- just 64 pages) bearing the aforementioned title.
A Better World for All is the "Reader's Digest version" of Mr. McPherson's first opus, Freedom's Dawning, reviewed by Walt way back in 2010. See "'Facilitism': a better answer?"
What Mr. McPherson articulates in these books is a modern version of the Utopian ideal propounded nearly five centuries ago by St. Thomas More. Mr. McPherson argues that his system, Facilitism, can deliver to us a world without poverty, with far less stress, free healthcare, free education and... wait for it... no taxes! It will be, he tells us, a healthier world, a friendlier world, a happier world.
Skeptical? Sure. But we've tried everything else -- capitalism, socialism, communism and every combination and variant of those "isms" -- and nothing has worked. But, you may say, isn't capitalism working? Even in one of the few remaining Communist countries, China, they're now practising "capitalism with Chinese characteristics". Whereas in the United States it's socialism with Democratic characteristics. How's that working out?
The root of the problem, Mr. McPherson argues -- indeed, the root of all evil -- is money! [Haven't we seen this movie before? Ed.] Yes, others have said that if there were only more money, everyone would be fat and happy. Major C.H. Douglas, the pioneer of the British "Social Credit" economic reform movement, proposed a "National Dividend" to distribute more money (in the form of debt-free credit) equally to all citizens, to help bridge the gap between purchasing power and prices. This would be coupled with a price adjustment mechanism, which he called the "Just Price", which would forestall any possibility of inflation.
Printing more money turned out to be the wrong answer. In 1936, the Social Credit government of the Canadian province of Alberta, printed "prosperity certificates" in an attempt to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression. The federal government took umbrage, saying only it had the right to print (and thus create) money. Canada's Supreme Court agreed and that was that.
But printing money is not Mr. McPherson proposes in A Better World for All. Think about it. Who uses cash money nowadays? The world runs on credit, which is to say, bookkeeping entries made by the banks. The "dollars" created by the Fed, for instance, don't really exist in the form of cash. Can you imagine how many dollar bills it would take to stand for the trillions of dollars in the USA's national debt?
Nor are US dollars back by anything. Once upon a time you could exchange a paper dollar for a silver dollar, or even a (very small) piece of gold. Not any more. It's all credit -- more accurately, debits and credits on bank computers all over the world.
So, Mr. McPherson asks, why don't we just do away with money? It's the kind of question that might provoke a certain amount of skepticism, not to say laughter, but the author thoughtfully provides a methodology for doing just that.
When I say "thoughtfully", I mean that literally. Facilitism is a system that Mr. McPherson has been thinking about and writing about for years. It deserves consideration. Walt recommends that you get A Better World for All -- click here to explore the Facilitism website -- and give it yours.
A Better World for All is the "Reader's Digest version" of Mr. McPherson's first opus, Freedom's Dawning, reviewed by Walt way back in 2010. See "'Facilitism': a better answer?"
What Mr. McPherson articulates in these books is a modern version of the Utopian ideal propounded nearly five centuries ago by St. Thomas More. Mr. McPherson argues that his system, Facilitism, can deliver to us a world without poverty, with far less stress, free healthcare, free education and... wait for it... no taxes! It will be, he tells us, a healthier world, a friendlier world, a happier world.
Skeptical? Sure. But we've tried everything else -- capitalism, socialism, communism and every combination and variant of those "isms" -- and nothing has worked. But, you may say, isn't capitalism working? Even in one of the few remaining Communist countries, China, they're now practising "capitalism with Chinese characteristics". Whereas in the United States it's socialism with Democratic characteristics. How's that working out?
The root of the problem, Mr. McPherson argues -- indeed, the root of all evil -- is money! [Haven't we seen this movie before? Ed.] Yes, others have said that if there were only more money, everyone would be fat and happy. Major C.H. Douglas, the pioneer of the British "Social Credit" economic reform movement, proposed a "National Dividend" to distribute more money (in the form of debt-free credit) equally to all citizens, to help bridge the gap between purchasing power and prices. This would be coupled with a price adjustment mechanism, which he called the "Just Price", which would forestall any possibility of inflation.
Printing more money turned out to be the wrong answer. In 1936, the Social Credit government of the Canadian province of Alberta, printed "prosperity certificates" in an attempt to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression. The federal government took umbrage, saying only it had the right to print (and thus create) money. Canada's Supreme Court agreed and that was that.
But printing money is not Mr. McPherson proposes in A Better World for All. Think about it. Who uses cash money nowadays? The world runs on credit, which is to say, bookkeeping entries made by the banks. The "dollars" created by the Fed, for instance, don't really exist in the form of cash. Can you imagine how many dollar bills it would take to stand for the trillions of dollars in the USA's national debt?
Nor are US dollars back by anything. Once upon a time you could exchange a paper dollar for a silver dollar, or even a (very small) piece of gold. Not any more. It's all credit -- more accurately, debits and credits on bank computers all over the world.
So, Mr. McPherson asks, why don't we just do away with money? It's the kind of question that might provoke a certain amount of skepticism, not to say laughter, but the author thoughtfully provides a methodology for doing just that.
When I say "thoughtfully", I mean that literally. Facilitism is a system that Mr. McPherson has been thinking about and writing about for years. It deserves consideration. Walt recommends that you get A Better World for All -- click here to explore the Facilitism website -- and give it yours.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
VIDEO: Enslaved by our banks: 12-year-old Canuck explains
Canada’s banks have been called the safest in the world. Better than American banks, and certainly better than the banks of Europe. But safe for whom? For shareholders and bank executives, that's who!
A Canadian student, 12-year-old Victoria Grant of Cambridge ON, has gained incredible fame (or, in banking circles, notoriety) for stating the obvious, i.e. that the banks -- Canadian, American, and European -- are the fattest of all capitalist cats, amassing riches of which Croesus could only dream on the banks of us "ordinary people".
There are probably no more than eight people on the planet who haven't seen Victoria's rant on the Internet, but in case you're one of them, here's a video of her address to the Public Banking in America Conference in Philadelphia at the end of April.
Victoria talks about money -- wealth -- being created by a few keyboard strokes on the central bankers' computers. Sounds as if she's been thinking about the concept Ron McPherson calls Facilitism, mentioned here before.
We continue to be frightened this week by "news" that Europe is still teetering on the brink of a financial crisis. We common folk -- not just Greeks but all of us -- will have to tighten our belts still further because if we don't, Greece and other fiscally imprudent countries may not be able to pay the debt they owe to... errr... the banks. What will be the result? Our taxes will go up, our standard of living (especially health care) will go down... and the banks will be paid.
In Freedom's Dawning, Ron McPherson claims Facilitism can eliminate taxes, eeradicate poverty, produce jobs for all, and give us free education and health care. Maybe it's time to read it, and give some more thought to the whole concept of banking and artificially created debt.
A Canadian student, 12-year-old Victoria Grant of Cambridge ON, has gained incredible fame (or, in banking circles, notoriety) for stating the obvious, i.e. that the banks -- Canadian, American, and European -- are the fattest of all capitalist cats, amassing riches of which Croesus could only dream on the banks of us "ordinary people".
There are probably no more than eight people on the planet who haven't seen Victoria's rant on the Internet, but in case you're one of them, here's a video of her address to the Public Banking in America Conference in Philadelphia at the end of April.
Victoria talks about money -- wealth -- being created by a few keyboard strokes on the central bankers' computers. Sounds as if she's been thinking about the concept Ron McPherson calls Facilitism, mentioned here before.
We continue to be frightened this week by "news" that Europe is still teetering on the brink of a financial crisis. We common folk -- not just Greeks but all of us -- will have to tighten our belts still further because if we don't, Greece and other fiscally imprudent countries may not be able to pay the debt they owe to... errr... the banks. What will be the result? Our taxes will go up, our standard of living (especially health care) will go down... and the banks will be paid.
In Freedom's Dawning, Ron McPherson claims Facilitism can eliminate taxes, eeradicate poverty, produce jobs for all, and give us free education and health care. Maybe it's time to read it, and give some more thought to the whole concept of banking and artificially created debt.
Monday, November 8, 2010
"Facilitism": a better answer?
The posts on "How to fix the economy" -- my adaptation of an essay by Stephen Leacock -- elicited a lengthy response from Ron McPherson, an accountant and present-day resident of Leacock's hometown, Orillia, Ontario.
Ron agrees that the world's economy is broken, but doesn't think laissez-faire capitalism is the answer. He puts the blame on governments, banks, and the whole concept of debt and the charging of interest. The fix, according to his book Freedom's Dawning, is a new economic system which he calls Facilitism.
Here's what Ron has to say about Leacock's idea...
I’ve never appreciated Stephen Leacock's writings anywhere near the extent to which they're promoted. We do, however, have a few things in common: living in Orillia, awareness of excessive government and taxes, idle industry and workers, and recognition that people seem to believe their government should look after them.
The latter belief, in my opinion, is impossible to achieve. However, no-one should be without the basics for living. Our planet has far more than enough for all of us to have great lives without the stress imposed by our present enslaving structures.
Capitalism has proven over and over again throughout the last 300 years or so that it doesn’t work, except for the benefit of a few. Even Leacock admits this when he suggests that although we need these few profiteers to get things turned around that when the profiteer has finished his work; “We can always put him back into the penitentiary if we like”.
Communism, of course, also functions with an elite class ruling over their oppressed masses.
The farce of democracy, with its supposed representatives of the people voting in Parliament as demanded by party leaders, who in turn impose the dictums they themselves receive from the controllers of the money supply, progressively advance the enslavement of the people while expanding the confiscation of the peoples’ earnings through taxes and fees to pay for wars and interest charges on government borrowings. Absolutely disgusting! And the people have accepted these shenanigans. Ugh! But they are waking up.
The world needs a better system, one that can eliminate taxes and poverty, one that allows those who desire more than the basics to earn more, one that provides incentives for all people to contribute. One that also provides free heath care and education. Such a system exists. It is called Facilitism. Its time has come.
Our politicians here in Canada, or any other country that has sufficient resources to function independently until other countries come on stream, if they had the gumption and daring, could quickly implement Facilitism’s funding methodology and eliminate taxes by modifying the country’s computerized tax and benefit data base of their residents.
Click on the link to Ron's book to have a look at the Facilitism website. You can contact Ron at ron@facilitism.com.
Ron agrees that the world's economy is broken, but doesn't think laissez-faire capitalism is the answer. He puts the blame on governments, banks, and the whole concept of debt and the charging of interest. The fix, according to his book Freedom's Dawning, is a new economic system which he calls Facilitism.
Here's what Ron has to say about Leacock's idea...
I’ve never appreciated Stephen Leacock's writings anywhere near the extent to which they're promoted. We do, however, have a few things in common: living in Orillia, awareness of excessive government and taxes, idle industry and workers, and recognition that people seem to believe their government should look after them.
The latter belief, in my opinion, is impossible to achieve. However, no-one should be without the basics for living. Our planet has far more than enough for all of us to have great lives without the stress imposed by our present enslaving structures.
Capitalism has proven over and over again throughout the last 300 years or so that it doesn’t work, except for the benefit of a few. Even Leacock admits this when he suggests that although we need these few profiteers to get things turned around that when the profiteer has finished his work; “We can always put him back into the penitentiary if we like”.
Communism, of course, also functions with an elite class ruling over their oppressed masses.
The farce of democracy, with its supposed representatives of the people voting in Parliament as demanded by party leaders, who in turn impose the dictums they themselves receive from the controllers of the money supply, progressively advance the enslavement of the people while expanding the confiscation of the peoples’ earnings through taxes and fees to pay for wars and interest charges on government borrowings. Absolutely disgusting! And the people have accepted these shenanigans. Ugh! But they are waking up.
The world needs a better system, one that can eliminate taxes and poverty, one that allows those who desire more than the basics to earn more, one that provides incentives for all people to contribute. One that also provides free heath care and education. Such a system exists. It is called Facilitism. Its time has come.
Our politicians here in Canada, or any other country that has sufficient resources to function independently until other countries come on stream, if they had the gumption and daring, could quickly implement Facilitism’s funding methodology and eliminate taxes by modifying the country’s computerized tax and benefit data base of their residents.
Click on the link to Ron's book to have a look at the Facilitism website. You can contact Ron at ron@facilitism.com.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
What else ya got?
Walt likes Michael Moore. Apart from being an American who recognizes the superiority of Canadian civilization (not an oxymoron? ed.), he's a genuine, grade-A, certified, bona fide shit-disturber, thus an honorary citizen of Walt Whiteman's World.
Mind you, MM's politics are just a teensy bit leftish for this small-c conservative. Had I been eligible to vote in the USA, I certainly wouldn't have cast my ballot for "the hope machine" (although the alternative didn't exactly inspire confidence either). And I cherish no illusion that America is going to adopt Canadian-style universal health care or regulation of the financial sector until there are reliable reports of ground frost in Hades.
Moore's latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story, is, as you would expect, a polemic against the capitalist system that has made America what it is today. (Pause and let the full import of that last clause sink in.) It's not hard to satirize capitalism and capitalists. It's been done very well by others, for instance SCTV's Martin Short in the guise of industrialist and art patron Bradley P. Allen.
But Moore does a skillful job of hoisting the captialists on their own petard. One of the best scenes in the movie is a sequence in which "experts" make a hash of attempting to explain derivatives. And there are trademark Moore stunts, like wrapping yellow police tape around the headquarters of bailed-out Wall Street firms.
It's all very entertaining, as usual, but there is a fundamental problem of philosophy. Moore points the finger of fun at the excesses and nonsenses of capitalism, but he fails to make the case for any other economic system. In fact he doesn't even suggest any alternative.
He speaks of "more democracy" but what does that mean in the world of business and finance? Should we let Joe Sixpack vote on every economic issue that arises? The great unwashed don't know a debit from a credit! (Neither does the finance minister, it seems, but that's another matter.)
Democracy and capitalism have this in common. To paraphrase Churchill, they both look pretty awful -- sometimes spectacularly so -- until one compares them with the alternatives.
Mind you, MM's politics are just a teensy bit leftish for this small-c conservative. Had I been eligible to vote in the USA, I certainly wouldn't have cast my ballot for "the hope machine" (although the alternative didn't exactly inspire confidence either). And I cherish no illusion that America is going to adopt Canadian-style universal health care or regulation of the financial sector until there are reliable reports of ground frost in Hades.
Moore's latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story, is, as you would expect, a polemic against the capitalist system that has made America what it is today. (Pause and let the full import of that last clause sink in.) It's not hard to satirize capitalism and capitalists. It's been done very well by others, for instance SCTV's Martin Short in the guise of industrialist and art patron Bradley P. Allen.
But Moore does a skillful job of hoisting the captialists on their own petard. One of the best scenes in the movie is a sequence in which "experts" make a hash of attempting to explain derivatives. And there are trademark Moore stunts, like wrapping yellow police tape around the headquarters of bailed-out Wall Street firms.
It's all very entertaining, as usual, but there is a fundamental problem of philosophy. Moore points the finger of fun at the excesses and nonsenses of capitalism, but he fails to make the case for any other economic system. In fact he doesn't even suggest any alternative.
He speaks of "more democracy" but what does that mean in the world of business and finance? Should we let Joe Sixpack vote on every economic issue that arises? The great unwashed don't know a debit from a credit! (Neither does the finance minister, it seems, but that's another matter.)
Democracy and capitalism have this in common. To paraphrase Churchill, they both look pretty awful -- sometimes spectacularly so -- until one compares them with the alternatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)