Friday, April 14, 2017

Why is President Trump Flip-Flopping - or IS He?

Critics of the president are accusing him of flip-flopping on issues such as NATO and China. But is he really flip-flopping, or is he simply employing "The Art of the Deal"?

Trump is a great negotiator. As such, he is all too aware that it is nearly impossible to get a good deal from an opponent who believes he is in a position of strength. If you meet an opponent, and tell him up front that he's really great and a credit to his position, you will be strengthening a belief he already has, and from that point on he will feel superior to you. If you then demand something from him, he has little reason to bow to your demands, and you have lost.

A good negotiator will first try to weaken the oppoenent by berating, belittling or otherwise calling their strength into question. In doing so, you at least make it appear that you are the one coming from a position of strength. In nature, it is the bluff and bluster between two opponents that helps to win the battle. Have you never seen the hackles raise and the baring of teeth on a dog?

So, you first weaken the opponent's resolve by instilling doubt. Only then can you approach them with some praise. This creates something not unlike the Stockholm Syndrome, where a kidnap victim comes to identify with, and even protect their abductor. By helping to replenish their feeling of self-worth, they are more apt to show a little gratitude, and they may even be anxious to do things for you, to get your approval.

And if you doubt any of this, think back to you and your father - did you ever find yourself bending over backward in order to gain Dad's approval? Or that of a strict teacher?

President Trump is already getting NATO to update, and getting NATO countries to carry their weight. And he is getting China to help with North Korea - things that previous presidents were unable to accomplish.

Is Trump flip-flopping? Or is he just putting America on the winning side?


Friday, March 24, 2017

Wholesaling Real Estate Made Easy

A new (and free) ebook by investor Bill Vaughn is being offered by IntelliBiz. "The Simple Man's Guide to Wholesaling Made Easy" is the definitive guide to assigning real estate and pocketing big assignment fess, quickly and easily.

The method referred to by many infomercial gurus as "wholesaling" is actually and accurately called "assigning". To set the record straight, and in an effort to teach the correct (and 100% legal) way to assign, "The Simple Man's Guide to Wholesaling Made Easy", is being provided  FREE to all customers.

"The Simple Man's Guide to Wholesaling Made Easy" takes the investor step-by-step through the entire process, from what type property to look for and how to find them, all the way to finding buyers to assign to, cashing out and taking the assignment fee to the bank.

And, as always, "The Simple Man's Guide to Real Estate" course includes free mentoring, just in case you need any further assistance.

 Just one more way that Bill Vaughn has your back, "The Simple Man's Guide to Wholesaling Made Easy" provides the most complete guide available. And it is but one of the 22 methods the course covers in detail, and the entire course is still under $100, complete. It even includes free mentoring by professional investors.

And with real estate now on the up-tick, and set to explode, there has never been a better time. Prices are relatively moderate, rates are still low and the population increasing daily - and everyone needs a place to live. And it certainly does not hurt to have a White House that is friendly to real estate and promises some overdue deregulation.

Maybe it's time to check it out...


Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Hey, Republicans, the Latino Vote is Not Hard to Get

I am perplexed by Republican's inability to figure out how to get the Latino vote, since it is a no-brainer.

First, seal the border except at legal check-points. All polls show Latinos want to prevent further illegal immigration, mostly because it is THEIR jobs that illegals go after. So, step one to pleasing Latinos is to prevent illegals from getting in. This is non-negotiable, not only for Latinos, but for most Americans nationwide. This also solves the "anchor baby" problem - if they can't get in, they can't give birth here.

Then comes the part where we need to deal with the illegals that are already here. While Latinos are opposed to more illegals coming in, they are also opposed to deporting those who are already here, as many of those are family members or friends. So, if you want to win the Latino vote, we need a fair way of dealing with the illegal population. And that, to, is simple.

First, make it public that illegals already here, provided they have no criminal record may stay, be issued a work visa and have legal status simply by coming in and signing up. They may NOT become citizens unless they go through all the same steps as any other legal immigrant, and must learn English. Otherwise, they are legal and may work here, and pay taxes. These special visas will be renewable every 2 or 3 years - if they have not committed a crime, their visa is renewed. And any illegal who does not sign up would be considered a criminal - why else would they not sign up and get a "free pass"? So, upon being located or arrested for anything else, see below.

Criminal illegals would first be tried for illegally entering the U.S., which would be made a felony, and if it is their first offense, they would be placed on probation and deported. If they return, they would automatically be arrested for violation of probation and sent to prison to serve their term, not less than 5 years for the first offense, and 10 for the second.

Republicans need to understand this simple concept - Latino Americans are just like any other segment of our society. They want to keep family and friends close; they want to keep their jobs to feed their families; and they do not want criminals roaming the streets. How do I figure this? I did what most Republican politicians never do - I asked legal Latinos on the street how THEY would deal with the issue. I did not ask illegals, nor Latino pundits like Geraldo. I asked the folks on the street, the ones who will vote.

To win the Latino vote is as simple as sealing the border, deporting or jailing criminals, and providing the current population of illegals a means for remaining here legally, to work.



Friday, January 2, 2015

The Dirty Little Secret About Minimum Wage

It is understood that many people in this country do not earn what some may call a "living" wage. To combat this, some believe it is necessary to increase the minimum wage, which will "lift those people out of poverty". One proponent of this is Bill O'Reilly, who says "$10.00 an hour won't hurt anyone." He's wrong - it will hurt everyone! Bill should stick with subjects he knows and comprehends, because he obviously does not understand the intricacies of economics, nor has he taken the time to figure out the unintended consequences.

I am not just talking about the jobs that will be lost. I am talking about how it hurts every person in America without doing so much as a penny's worth of good for the poor.

Here's the dirty little secret that few understand, and fewer will talk about...

Consider, for the sake of an example, the Ramen soup company. (I chose this because many poor people rely heavily on the low cost of Ramen in order to feed their families.)

Assume they have line workers at minimum wage - say, $7.50/hour. They also have line supers at $10.00/hour who oversee the line workers, and those line supers work for line managers who earn $15/hour.

In come the "do-gooders" like O'Reilly, clamoring to raise the minimum wage to $10.00 - a 33.3% raise. So now you have line workers earning the same as their bosses, which just is not right - the bosses have greater responsibilities, so now they, too, need a 33.3% raise. And now THEIR bosses, the managers, need a 33.3% raise, because they need to be paid more than those who work for them.

The result: every employee of the Ramen company has to get a 33.3% raise. There is absolutely no change in the "income disparity". But more important, whereas wages and benefits make up roughly 75% of the costs of running the business, the cost of making and marketing Ramen must now be increased by roughly 25% in order to pay the higher costs. This is because the employer only has two choices for making up the added cost of wages - lay people off, or raise prices. He cannot go into the basement and print money ,like the government can.

So, now poor people are making 33.3% more on their one wage, but the cost of living has increased 25% on every item they buy - not just the Ramen soup. Everything goes up. And though they are now earning more, they are also required to spend even more than their raise will cover. Meanwhile, every person in America is now paying more for everything.

Raising the minimum wage does not add to the economy - it simply adds cost, which in turn harms the economy. In fact, it CANNOT add to the economy because employers cannot print money - they can only transfer it from one place to another.

The short take - you cannot simply raise the minimum wage of low income employees and not expect every other employee in the company to require a similar increase. It's not "just" an extra $2.50/hour for a few people. It's an extra $2.50/hour for EVERY employee in the company. So, pundits like O'Reilly who do not fully understand economics are very, very wrong when they say "It won't break anyone." If a business has 200 employees, raising the minimum wage to $10/hour will increase that company's costs by a whopping $500 for every hour they operate.

Here's a clue, Mr. O'reilly - in real life, there are few things that are as they appear on the surface. I never would have thought Bill O'Reilly to be a "surface" thinker.

Examples of other things that are the opposite of what they appear to be:

PAIN - while it certainly does not feel good, it is a good thing. It tells us when something is wrong, so we can get treatment. Without pain to tell us when to take action, Mankind would have been extinct long ago.

WAR - Man has no superior predator to keep our numbers in check. If not for war and disease, we would have overburdened this planets resources hundreds of years ago, depleting all food and water supplies, bringing about extinction.

ANTI-BACTERIAL SOAP - Most bacteria are good, and necessary for health. Anti-bacterial soap kills more good bacteria than bad. And if you have a septic system that requires bacteria to do its job, flushing anti-bacterial agents can destroy your septic system, costing thousands in repairs.

REGULATIONS - while some are necessary, most are not, and only serve special interests. Regulation is the opposite of freedom - with each new regulation, we, the people lose freedom, and the government gains power OVER the people, which is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers.

It would certainly be helpful if more people would take the time to THINK about ALL the unintended consequences of things before they advocate for or against them.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Peace on Earth - Laudable, but Impossible

This is that wonderful time of the year when folks around the world (well, in free nations, anyway) proclaim a strong desire for "Peace on Earth". What a great sentiment - albeit impossible.

Don't get me wrong - Mankind should never stop trying to achieve peace on earth, as that is what keeps us reasonably civilized. But no one should ever be caught up in the belief that peace on earth could ever be a possibility - it cannot, and here is why...

The world is a natural place, and it is ruled by natural laws. For example, there are predators, and there is prey. Both are essential for the balance of nature. If not for herbivores (prey), plants would take over the world, creating an atmosphere of almost pure oxygen and depleting carbon dioxide. Such an atmosphere would spell extinction for the plants, and any other life on the planet.

To keep the herbivores in check, so they do not deplete the vegetation to the point that oxygen is no longer being created, there must be carnivores (predators) and omnivores (part carnivore, part herbivore). This creates a balance.

But nothing in nature can remain stagnant. As predators feed on an abundance of herbivores, the predator population grows, resulting in an eventual depletion of herbivores. As "prey" becomes harder to find, the predators begin to die off, as food is scarce. And as the population of predators shrinks, herbivores again proliferate. And the "life cycle" that keeps everything in balance is working as it should.

Enter Man.

Man, an omnivore, and the only one with the power to reason, build, create and otherwise control his environment to any extent arrives on the scene. Man is a predator, but he is also prey, and in an effort to insure his ultimate survival, he must compete with other predators. So, Man uses his human abilities to "remove" other predators from the scene. Man is the ultimate predator in that respect.

And this is where it becomes impossible to have "peace on earth". Mankind does not really have any superior predator to keep his numbers in check. So the population of Man just keeps growing and growing. The only natural means for keeping the human population in check are disease and war. Without them, Man would have made himself extinct hundreds of years ago - if no one ever died in any war, the population on earth would have outstripped the planet's ability to support us centuries ago - long before technology would make it possible to feed more people with less. We would have used up all of earth's resources centuries ago, which would cause extinction of nearly all life on the planet. That is because everything that lives, consumes. For one thing to live, something else must die.

Now think about that for a moment. Imagine 12 billion people on a planet capable of sustaining only 8 billion. Since no one would willingly sit back and watch their children die of starvation, war must inevitably ensue, as people fight and kill each other for the few resources available. What would YOU do if your children were dying of starvation, and someone else had food?

Man will not stop procreating. Yet, earth's resources are finite. If one country needs energy, food, water or any other resource, that country will go to war to take what others have. It is a matter of survival.

And we all want to survive.

War, like big game hunting, helps keep populations in balance. Man has no real natural enemies other than disease, that pose a threat to our survival. So we must prey upon each other.

As Jesus said, "The poor will always be among us." There will always be "haves" and "have nots". And both will always be ready to kill in order to survive.

In short, it is the First Rule of Nature - survival of the fittest.


Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Obama COULD Relieve Racial Tensions, But...

If the president were really interested in neutralizing the racial tension and angst in America, and help heal the country, there a a few things he has the power to do - but he refuses to do them, because to do them would be to break the stranglehold Democrats have on minorities and those in poverty.

He could, for example, push for school choice, which would allow those in poorer neighborhoods to go to better schools and get a better education. But he stands firmly against school choice, knowing full well that disallowing it harms the black community. He bows to votes and contributions of the teacher's union (and all other unions) rather than do what is right.

He could subsidize trades programs in the schools in urban areas, to provide hands-on experience and training for good paying trade occupations. But the only "occupation" our president is interested in is that which is perpetrated by the anarchists of the OCCUPY bunch.

He could reduce corporate taxes, encouraging business growth, producing more jobs. Nope! Won't do that, either.

He could stand strong for family values, and encourage black families to be WHOLE families, with two parents. And for children without fathers, he could build and strengthen a solid mentor program, where fatherless kids can find a father figure for guidance.

He could sign a couple of the jobs bills that Republicans have put forth, which would help take some black families out of poverty. But he won't do that, either.

Yeah, there are things Mr. Obama could easily do. But he won't, because the Democrats can only control the minority vote as long as they keep them dependent.