Economics for Dummies - Left vs Right

There is a growing misconception in America concerning economics. On one side you have people like Bernie Sanders and others on the left who believe the economy is a sum total thing that needs to support all people equally, and on the other side you have people like Donald Trump and others on the right who believe the economy is not sum total - that it can be expanded to "raise all boats". The simple, glaring fact that the American economy has expanded exponentially since the Declaration of Independence only proves that capitalism is the economic engine that works. During that same time period, countless socialist and communist economies - in fact, every one -  have failed miserably.


Think of the economy as if it were a pie, and everyone grabs a piece. Some people only get a small piece while others get larger pieces,  determined primarily upon ones education and personal effort. The left sees this as unfair to those with a small piece, so they want to take from those with bigger pieces and redistribute it among the less fortunate, in an effort to create "equality". The left equates equality with fairness, though one has nothing to do with the other. It simply is not "fair" to take from someone who spent years in higher education, worked hard for 25 years and risked everything he or she had, and give it to someone who did little or nothing to earn it, having spent their life doing none of that. It may make things more "equal", but it is anything but "fair".


The economic theory of the left also does not consider unintended consequences - when you take productive wealth that is typically used by the wealthy to create jobs, develop new products etc. and turn it into unproductive wealth that is not used to make society better and richer, you effectively REDUCE the amount of pie available by stifling an expansion of the amount of pie available. You simply cannot make more pie without adding more of the ingredients - investing in growth, production, jobs.


Capitalists like Trump understand that the best way to insure everyone has enough pie is to make the pie bigger, or to bake more pies. Certainly, the less fortunate will always have less than others, but they will still have MORE PIE! If you doubt that, just take a look at Americas poor compared to the poor in socialist "single pie" nations. Where once even our own poor were truly living in poverty, dying in sweat shops and starving, most of our poor today have cell phones, iPads, microwave ovens, internet access and widescreen TV. Americas poor are wealthier than many "middle class" families in other countries. They have been raised up through capitalism, where those who earn great wealth are permitted to reinvest it into baking more pies, rather than have their wealth confiscated and tossed onto barren ground.


In America, Republicans believe a person is entitled only to that which he or she earns as long as they are physically and/or mentally capable of supporting themselves. Those who are handicapped to a point where they are unable to do so should be provided for by those of us who are able. This excludes those who are capable, but unwilling. The unwilling should be allowed to wallow in the misery of their own making. "All men are created equal", but they must work and do their part to maintain their equality. As my dad used to tell us kids, "Yes, the world DOES owe you a living. But you have to work like Hell to collect!"


Democrats on the other hand believe not in fairness, but equality.  The mistake they make is in believing that the two are one in the same. They also mistakenly believe that "equal" means "same" - that to be equal, we must all have the same amount of everything. Again, the two are not synonymous - a pound of feathers is equal in weight to s pound of gold, but they certainly are not the same.


If a person fails to get educated, and fails to put in the effort required to succeed, they will assuredly have less than others, but what they have will be equal to the effort put into it. And THAT is fair.


Now, Democrats and Socialists will, perhaps rightfully claim that many people do not have the same access to education and opportunity as some others may have. That is true - but it does not change anything. Such persons must try harder than others. Abe Lincoln never went to school - he educated himself and became President. Henry Ford only had a 4th grade education but went on to build one of the biggest companies in America, and in doing so, transformed America. In an era where blacks had little access to opportunity, people like Sidney Poitier worked harder and created his own opportunity. Certainly, some of us face greater obstacles than other, but that just means you have to try harder, and it makes a person stronger, which is one ingredient for greatness. Adversity is a positive, not the negative that the left assumes with their "victim" mentality. It does not give you a right to take from others. Stealing is stealing, whether you do it yourself or let the government do it for you. [As a side note, it is the Democrats who always vote against school choice, which would help level the road to a good education for the less fortunate]


Here is the short take - fair does not mean equal, and equal does not mean same. A person can complain about the size of their piece of the pie, and attempt to steal from another, or that person can get to work and bake his own damned pie. He is the only one standing in his way. Like one of my earlier bosses said, "I don't want excuses and I don't want reasons. I want RESULTS!"


"When you spend as many years getting educated as I have; spend as many years busting your butt 100+ hours a week to build a business; and risk every cent you have, or ever will have to make it all work, then and only then will you be entitled to have what I have". - Bill Vaughn



/

Combatting Homelessness - Doing Everything Wrong?

by Bill Vaughn

For several years I ran the largest homeless shelter in New Hampshire - New Horizons for New Hampshire - which usually housed up to 120 people each night. Our shelter also included a soup kitchen and a community food pantry. Before that I was a resident at that shelter, having been homeless for three years after a very traumatic event. And from those experiences, and statistics I gathered, I believe I have a pretty fair idea as to what can and what cannot help combat homelessness effectively. But even so, this is still not a complete solution.

When a mayor like DeBlasio (or even a governor) tries to "solve" the problem by shipping the homeless to other states, the only problem he is solving is his own. And when other lawmakers like those in California try to solve the problem by putting millions of taxpayer funds into "low cost housing", they simply do not understand homelessness at all - they may as well throw all that money right into the dumpster for all the good it will do.

The first step is to determine, and then separate the usual "causes". You cannot cure something if you do not know what causes it. Here are some stats from my tenure running the shelter, for the major issues. Bear in mind that some suffered more than one causation. For example, an alcoholic might also have a mental issue. The following are the primary causes:

• Alcohol/drug addiction - 61%
• Mental impairment - 32%
• Just want a free ride and no obligations - 4%
• Temporarily dispossessed - 3% (often marital or family issues)

Each of the above would naturally require a different type of intervention. A one-size-fits-all solution such as increasing low-cost housing is both absurd and ignorant. Low cost housing or subsidies would only be helpful for the 3% dispossessed, with a smattering of the less hardcore addicts and those with only minor mental issues.

At New Horizons we had case workers during the day who would attempt to help the residents overcome whatever issues they had, and referred residents to medical or mental health professionals as needed. For those temporarily dispossed, they would assist is "smoothing" out the path forward - bus tickets to get back and forth to a job; finding temporary, low cost housing; finding jobs - whatever  was needed, including family counseling. For those who were simply avoiding responsibility (lazy) they were given 60 days to find and keep a job, and get a place of their own. Failure to do so would result in being denied further shelter services (except the soup kitchen).

About 1/3 of the addicted residents (drugs or alcohol) were beyond help. They were provided all the basic needs without any strings attached, usually until they died.

And those with severe mental impairments were also cared for with the basics - when a leftist Supreme Court ordered the closing of mental institutions nationwide, hundreds of thousands of seriously ill people were just put onto the streets, most without benefit of any follow-up or out-patient care. The best and most compassionate intervention for those people would be for the states to reopen facilities for such individuals. They cannot be be incarcerated by force, but they should still have access to a "home" under supervision where they can be cared for and provided with medical needs.

Homelessness, therefore, is not the problem. It is the result of some other, less obvious problem. Root out the core problem(s) for a homeless person and you greatly increase the chance of being able to help.

[Brought to you as a PSA by "The Simple Man's Guide top Real Estate Investing"] 

The Dirty Little Secret About Free Tuition

By Bill Vaughn

It is a popular political cry on the left these days - Free College Tuition. And while it seems like a great idea at first blush, there's a lot more wrong with it than just the extreme cost to taxpayers. I'll let others hammer at that point. Here, we will examine the not-so-well understood "unintended consequences" of such a rabid idea.

First, the more obvious, and lesser problems with free tuition...

Most sane and reasonable people (this leaves out AOC, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and several other politicians on the left)understand that not everyone is suited for college - or even want it. Moreover, a growing number of high school graduates are not even educated well enough to be able to cut it in college. But because it's free, they might waste taxpayer money and try anyway, only to drop out in the first semester. We would be far better off to find ways to instill a better education in our public schools.

Along those same lines, many students are far better suited to attending a good trade school - we have a dire shortage of tradespeople in America, and they make as much - if not more - than a college educated snowflake.

Now for the biggest reason to avoid free college for all who want it. Throughout history, and without regard for any specific economic situation, there have always been a limited number of "slots at the top". In fact, statistics show that only 4% of a population will ever achieve substantial financial success and wealth. For every few hundred employees, there are only a handful of salaried, "college-educated" management positions. What this means is that college education would become virtually useless, as it would be watered down with many students who are barely average and will never land a great job.

In the 1940's few people had any college degrees. In the '50's, that rose substantially as parents began to push their kids to get  a Bachelor's Degree, and it grew even further in the '60's. By that time so many students were graduating college that there were not enough well-paying jobs for all of them. So businesses began requiring not a Bachelor's, but a Masters Degree. The Bachelor's Degree lost most of it's power. By the late '80's and into today, the Bachelor's is nothing more than window dressing as businesses are forced to weed out the wheat from the chaff. And now even the Masters is just beginning to lose its punch, as more and more professions are requiring a doctorate.

In short, only 4% can be at the top of the work pyramid, and with 20% of the population is graduating college, three-quarters of them STILL end up working at WalMart, or flipping burgers. Imagine when 50% are graduating because callege was free!

The question then becomes: is it worth having taxpayers who are already heavily burdened to pay for "college for all" if it accomplishes nothing of value?

As proof, just check out any successful business. You will find that it takes at least 100 high-school grads and drop-outs to support 10 supervisors, who support  3 managers who support one top dog. The managers and boss represent the 4%. In other words, we NEED a lot of people who do not require a college degree in order to do the job they will end up with, anyway. After all, if everyone were a boss or a manager, how could they earn a living if there are no workers to manage? Who will MAKE the products, or PERFORM the services?

The short take for people like AOC who cannot seem to understand reality: It is not sane or reasonable to have already over-burdened taxpayers pay for the college education of other peoples' children only to have those young men and women working for minimum wage. No matter how much money you spend, you cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

What DOES make sense: Have businesses "scout" high schools, just like sports scouts do, and offer to pay for a promising students' college provided they work for that business for a specified time, at a good salary. If Microsoft is going to benefit from a talented smart kid's education, then perhaps Microsoft should pay for that education.

And the taxpayers could more easily afford to "subsidize" (only) the most promising students who do not have the means to pay college. Those from poorer families and communities, who excel in school, would contribute more to our society from a college education than it would cost us to fund it. After all, if you need a lawyer, would you rather have one who barely passed the bar, or one who graduated top of the class?

Then we could take some of the money saved by not providing free college for all and use it to "funnel" high school students into two different scholastic groups - one geared for those who prefer to learn a trade, or otherwise have a limited scholastic ability, and a  college preparatory group designed to give the best-of-the-best a head start, maybe to even include internship. And that could easily reduce the number of years - and the cost - of their secondary education.


/

Crunchy, Nutty Caramel Apple Pie

Hope some of my readers enjoy this recipe - it once took first place at the fair. Topping, however, my be too sweet for diabetics, so maybe you can adjust that a bit if needed.

Enjoy! And Happy Holidays to your home from ours.

BILL'S CRUNCHY, NUTTY CARAMEL APPLE PIE

Ingredients:

1 pastry crust, deep-dish 9 inch
1/2 cup sugar
3 Tbsp all-purpose flour
1 Tsp ground cinnamon
1/8 Tsp salt
6 cups thinly sliced apples - I prefer a mix of Golden Delicious & Fuji

1 recipe for crumb topping (below)
1/2 cup chopped pecans
1/4 cup caramel topping

Ingredients for crumb topping

1 cup packed brown sugar
1/2 cup all-purpose flour
1/2 cup quick-cook rolled oats
1/2 cup butter

Directions for crumb topping:

1. Stir together brown sugar, flour, rolled oats
2. Cut in 1/2 cup butter until topping is course crumbs. Set aside

DIRECTIONS:

1. In large mixing bowl stir together sugar, flour, cinnamon, salt
2. Add apple slices & gently toss until coated
3. Transfer apple mixture to pie shell
4. Sprinkle crumb topping over apple mixture
5. Place pie on cookie sheet
6. Cover edges with aluminum foil
7. Bake in preheated 375 degree oven 25 minutes. Remove foil, bake for another 25 minutes
8. Remove from oven, sprinkle pie with pecans then drizzle caramel on top
9. Cool on wire rack

God Winks...

 

 

by Bill Vaughn

Belief in God MUST be taken as a matter of faith, not as a matter of provable fact.

And anyone who cares to open their eyes would find all the evidence needed for faith. Take my own experiences as an example.

As a homeless person in '91 I needed $5 to buy a suit at Goodwill for an interview. I certainly did not have $5. Instead, I went to the clothing room at the homeless shelter and got a pair of clean pants. In the pocket I found a $5 bill - exactly the amount I needed to buy the suit!

God winked...

My wife was told by two doctors that her multiple operations rendered her incapable of having children of her own. When she asked God if I was the right person for her, she got pregnant that very night (by me, of course).

God winked...

My Dad, born in 1898 went off to WWI in 1917, leaving his fiance behind until the war was over. After the war, she was gone, her family had moved away. In 1983 Dad was visiting my Mother's grave. A woman was across from him, visiting her husband's grave. She saw the last name on my mother's stone and asked if my father was related to the man she had been engaged to over 65 years earlier - it was her! It wasn't possible for such a one in a billion shot to happen, but it did!

God winked ...They finally married in 1985.

I tried quitting smoking for over 40 years to no avail. One night I prayed and asked God to help. I have not smoked since (it's been 17 years) [UPDATE - now 24 years], and I have never suffered any withdrawal symptoms or any cravings!

God winked...

I can list dozens of such "coincidences". But I do not believe much in coincidence. Especially the convoluted ones that are so improbable. A coincidence is just God, winking...

Yes, I know these things do not prove there is a God. But that's the point - if God can be proved, faith would have no value. And that would make our "free will" rather pointless - if the existence of God could be proved, we would have no choice but to believe in Him. And then God would have a difficult time trying to figure out which of us are worthy because we CHOOSE to believe, and not because we had no choice.

Atheists also like to say they do not fear God because you cannot fear that which does not exist - which is precisely why they fear God more than believers do. You see, they cannot prove God does NOT exist any more than believers can prove He does. Since they cannot prove God does not exist, deep down they know that there is a possibility that He does. They BELIEVE He does not exist, but believing it does not make it a fact. Naturally, to any person spending their life denying God, the possibility He may actually exist scares the Hell out of them.

I fear God because I may not measure up. The atheist fears God because he doesn't even try.

/

The REAL Reason Trump Is Pulling Troops From Syria

It appears that a majority of pundits, military people, the media, Democrats and even some Republicans are up in arms (pardon the pun) about Trump pulling our troops from Syria, leaving our "friends", the Kurds, at the mercy of the Turks and everyone else.

But here is what Trump knows that all those others may not have considered...

Turkey had already begun to set the stage on their border to invade Syria and squash the Kurds. We know this to be true. If our troops remained, the Turkish army would be firing on them since the U.S. forces would be in their way. And if  that were to occur, our forces would have a choice - either fire back, or just roll over and die with the Kurds. Neither is a viable option, because Turkey is a NATO ally and under the NATO treaty, we must defend other NATO allies. We CANNOT make war against them unless or until they make war with us. 

If faced with the choice of killing Turks or Kurds, we would have no choice - we must, by treaty, side with Turkey, even though they are not our friend. If we were to stay, we would be required to fight on the side of our enemy, and fight against our friend.

Imagine what the media and pundits would say about that!

As much as it pains me that we are abandoning the Kurds, it is the only thing we can do at this point, as Turkey, a NATO "ally", was going to invade whether we were there or not. And the choice was clear - pull out, or go to war with a NATO member, which would virtually undo NATO altogether, as all other NATO countries would be forced, by treaty, to go to war with the U.S. for attacking a NATO member - which is the ultimate dream of Vladimir Putin and Iranian leaders. 

So, to those pundits, the media, the generals and the politicians that think Trump had made a huge blunder, I say they need a reality check, and they should extrapolate it out to its logical conclusion. And then either support Trump's decision, or just shut up.

/