Well, this is hardly news. I don't think there is a person living in America, who is so deluded as to believe we can simply print money and assume debt forever, who doesn't understand that financing a life on debt really gives one very little freedom. You can amass things but the price you pay may not be worth the limited joy derived from the things. Everyone knows we are in a financial crisis but depending on self interests, place what to do about it at a different priority level.
So here is a self-anointed Investment Guru painting a picture of real financial gloom and doom then offering solutions that, if one heeds his commentary, would have little value when the "end" comes. In a funny way, his spiel sounds a lot like Mormon survivalists who have been cautioning the loyal to store food, water, defense mechanisms and other miscellanea against the day when all of society breaks down. There are many companies established in Utah primarily that specialize in products to survive "end of the world" scenarios. One wonders whether Porter is one of their ilk.
I listened to his spiel and each time he made an argument based on real events to support his position, I checked it out. Surprisingly, many are factual in part. Yes, certain economies have collapsed, OPEC countries have met to discuss whether to start using different currencies as the "reserve" currency and there are other factual statements too.
But when we get to the end, Porter suggest reverting back to the Gold Standard which was abandoned by America in 1971. In fact, during that time we broke our currency from any commodity. Dollars used to be "Silver Certificates." Now they are "Federal Notes." These are two completely different things.
Let's give Porter the benefit of the doubt and say that he's right on about the ramifications of continuing the current policy of spending by government on all levels. The days where we used to elect federal offices based on the ability of the candidate to get to Washington and "Bring Home the Bacon," are over. The reason? We're running out of pigs.
Just as England suffered in the 1970s with the winter of discontent based on liberal government spending policies, we will probably suffer something similar. Ben Franklin cautioned about assuming national debt as did many other founders. But we have a situation where we have a system based on redistribution of wealth, reparations for past sins, guaranteeing an equality of outcome and out-and-out bribery, class warfare and coercion to get votes. America has changed from a country of, by and for the people to a country of, by and for special interest groups. This change is killing us and our ability to grow into the next phase of the republic.
Unions are a good thing in principle. When workers were slaving in factories run by greedy, self-interested barons who fancied themselves rulers of the people in their workplace, we needed unions to give the worker some kind of leverage. But, recently, we have unions moving into the public workplace. Why shouldn't government workers also be allowed to unionize and negotiate for benefits? What could be the harm? Unions helped establish a strong middle class for a lot of people in private industry. Why not the same for government? But more important questions go unanswered: In what way do private sector unions relate to public sector unions? What does a public sector union offer in mobility, job safety and promotional considerations?
There is more than one reason why government workers should have unions but those unions should be restricted in what they represent. There are a couple of reasons for this. First and most importantly is: Government workers do not produce anything and are not involved in capitalism in any other way than controlling business and enterprise, assessing fees and fines and limiting one's ability to start a business. The businesses they are controlling are paying the taxes for their salaries. Some government workers work for organizations that get operating budgets from fines levied against the people over which the organization has power. The Water Boards in California are such entities. We have seen other examples of this in Sakharov's and Solzhenitsyn's descriptions of "People's Committees." But these people are supposed to be working for the public good not to find ways to fine offenders to generate operating capital. And each of these organizations has a staff of lawyers hell bent on levying as many fines as they can and generate as much money as they can. After all, their promotions depend on success of their actions. So incentive is not on serving the public good but on generating capital. They work for the government which is supposed to be us. But where they are supposed to assist they have become punitive. This type of thinking permeates all government workers and work. The idea was that they would have safer jobs because they wouldn't be competing with private sector workers. To offset high salaries, they would get good benefits. The unions have perverted this so that private sector workers are destroying the very system they are supposed to be supporting. And they do not care. Interviews with them and casual discussions show a total indifference and even hostility towards anyone trying to start, run and manage a private business. We have thousands of government workers who despise the very people they are supposed to be assisting. How can that work out well?
Public sector unions, who were losing private sector members due to the rise of the Hi-Tech sector, saw a golden opportunity to get new members and dues. You see, government unions do not give you the right to not join. The way the contracts are written, your union dues comes right out of your paycheck which is administered by the government entity you happen to be working for. You don't have to be a member of the union but dues comes out at any rate. Supposedly, if you don't join the union, your dues doesn't go to the union. But where does it go and why does government take money out of your check without your approval? Does this sound like freedom? Does it sound like a principle on which America was founded? It doesn't to me.
Now we have several states operating with a huge deficit. The public unions in these states have empowered their members to strike. Now, I have a simple question: If you are a fireman and you go on strike and my house catches on fire and burns down can I sue you for striking instead of being at your workplace and responding to a fire? In another vein: You are a teacher. You go on strike. Because you are not in class, I miss a vital part of something you were teaching and I have to take the SAT test before your strike is resolved. I miss a better score on the test because you were not at your workplace doing your job. Do I have the right to sue you for dereliction of duty?
What I am doing here is tying Porter's video which is partly correct without the sales pitch with one of the reasons his video is correct and that is public service unions who have so overwhelmed the system that they have helped create a government class which is not working for the benefit of Americans but for the benefit of Government Workers and Government. Porter's facts lead one to question the direction we are taking as a country and what role government will play in competition with the private sector and the picture isn't pretty. Unfortunately, parasites like Porter Stansberry use crisis times like this to profiteer from the very people he purports to inform.
FB
No comments:
Post a Comment