How Gov’t Licensing Works

You have a big business or even a bunch of smaller business that form a cartel. Businesses don’t like competition. They prefer to a monopoly on a product or service or to own a big market share of the product or service (which I will call “output” for brevity for lack of a better term). So, the business(es) decide to do something about this output problem.

They contact their local gov’t official—state, city or even federal lawmaker. The lobbyist for the business(es) tell this lawmaker that their particular business is really technical or it is really complicated and that no-one else can do it unless they get a license from the gov’t.* Oh, yea of course there will be a big fee for the license plus whatever education you have to do in addition to the license.

After all the customers have to be protected right? That’s what the license is for. So, the customer knows this business is legitimate. This is what the lawmaker is being told. What the lobbyist is actually thinking is: It’s not the customer I am concerned about it’s other competitors. I want to make it hard for other competitors to start a business. To persuade the lawmaker even more the business(es) tell the lawmaker if you get this license into law they will monetarily support you in the next election.

Now, am I being cynical? Possibly. Not every business lobbies for licenses of course.  But licenses (especially the stupid one) happen for two reasons: One, the business(es) who want the license  are too stupid or too lazy to compete with other businesses. So, they have the gov’t do their work for them. Two, the lawmaker believes the argument the business is making. Since most lawmakers are not businesspeople they probably will fall for the argument. Add to this that if the lawmaker believes the business is some sort of Elite that has to be protected then the license will be introduced.

People complain that life is unfair. That’s true. But it is really unfair when gov’t starts issuing dumb licenses.

 

 

*Never mind that these business(es) didn’t have to have a license in the first place. 

Socialism 101 Part 4: The Philosophy of Plato

Plato is the father of collectivism in the West. He is the first thinker to formulate a systematic view of reality, with a collectivist politics as its culmination.

What follows in regard to human action, according to Plato, is a life of self-sacrificial service. When men gather in society, says Plato, the unit of reality, and the standard of value, is the “community as a whole.” Each man therefore must strive, as far as he can, to wipe out his individuality (his personal desires, ambitions, etc.) and merge himself into the community, becoming one with it and living only to serve its welfare.

The function and authority of the state, according to Plato, should be unlimited. The state should indoctrinate the citizens with government-approved ideas in government-run schools, censor all art and literature and philosophy, assign men their vocations as they come of age, regulate their economic—and in certain cases even their sexual—activities, etc.

The blueprint [of the totalitarian ideal] includes the view that the state should be ruled by a special elite: the philosophers. Their title to absolute power, Plato explains, is their special wisdom, a wisdom which derives from their insight into true reality, and especially into its supreme, governing principle: the so-called “Form of the Good.”

[The Form of the Good] can be grasped, after years of an ascetic preparation, only by an ineffable mystic experience—a kind of sudden, incommunicable revelation or intuition, which is reserved to the philosophical elite. The mass of men, by contrast, are entangled in the personal concerns of this life. They are enslaved to the lower world revealed to them by their senses. They are incapable of achieving mystic contact with a supernatural principle. They are fit only to obey orders.

Source: Ominous Parallels.

If you don’t believe Plato influences the socialists and the Left, there is a magazine/website called “The New Republic.” Plato wrote a book called “The Republic.” That’s where he talks about the Form of the Good. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Yea, I know there is a conservative blog called “The Free Republic.” But it is the Left who always wants to change the structure of society and make the economic system “fair.” At least their definition of “fair.” That’s where you get the “new” in “New Republic.”

Interesting Facts about the National Socialist Party

The Nazis were not a tribe of prehistoric savages. Their crimes were the official, legal acts and policies of modern Germany—an educated, industrialized, civilized Western European nation, a nation renowned throughout the world for the luster of its Intellectual and cultural achievements.

The German university students were among the earliest groups to back Hitler. The intellectuals were among his regime’s most ardent supporters. Professors with distinguished academic credentials, eager to pronounce their benediction on the Führer’s cause, put their scholarship to work full time; they turned out a library of admiring volumes, adorned with obscure allusions and learned references.

The political implementation of “subservience to the Whole,” according to the Nazis, is subservience to the state—which requires of every German the opposite of self-assertion. Hence the ruling principle of Nazism, as defined by a group of Nazi youth leaders. The principle is: “We will.” “And, if anyone were still to ask: ‘What do we will?’—the answer is given by the basic idea of National Socialism: ‘Sacrifice!’ ”¹

[The idealism] is expressed in the slogan “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz” (“The common good comes before private good”).

“Du bist nichts; dein Volk ist alles” (“You are nothing; your people is everything”), states another Nazi slogan, summarizing the essence of the Nazi moral viewpoint.

To liberate humanity from intelligence, Hitler counted on the doctrines of irrationalism. To rid men of conscience, he counted on the morality of altruism. To free the world of freedom, he counted on the idea of collectivism.²

These three theories together constitute the essence of the Nazi philosophy, which never changed from the start of the movement to its end.

“Do you know what I am hoping?” a girl in a Nazi breeding home told an American interviewer, her eyes shining. “I am hoping that I will have pain, much pain when my child is born. I want to feel that I am going through a real ordeal—for the Führer!”

And about the gas chambers….

“For there was light music. An orchestra of ‘young and pretty girls all dressed in white blouses and navy-blue skirts,’ as one survivor remembered, had been formed from among the inmates. While the selection was being made for the gas chambers this unique musical ensemble played gay tunes from The Merry Widow and Tales of Hoffmann. Nothing solemn and somber from Beethoven. The death marches at Auschwitz were sprightly and merry tunes, straight out of Viennese and Parisian operetta.

“To such music, recalling as it did happier and more frivolous times, the men, women and children were led into the ‘bath houses,’ where they were told to undress preparatory to taking a ‘shower.’ Sometimes they were even given towels.

Once they were inside the ‘shower-room’—and perhaps this was the first moment that they may have suspected something was amiss, for as many as two thousand of them were packed into the chamber like sardines, making it difficult to take a bath—the massive door was slid shut, locked and hermetically sealed….”

Source: Ominous Parallels. The End of Freedom in America (1982) by Leonard Peikoff,

 

¹Sort of sounds like the “Yes we can!” slogan.

²”Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s what the Left especially the far-Left is trying to accomplish today. By the way if you did not know, “Collectivism” is the same as socialism. Just like progressivism is the same as liberalism. President Reagan used the term “collectivism” a lot.

"Dr. Hussein's Uncle Sam" Poem

This poem is printed on T-shirts you can purchase from the Patriot Depot.com website:

I do not like this Uncle Sam,
I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks,
or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals
I do not like this Speaker, Nan.
I do not like this "YES WE CAN."
I do not like this spending spree.
I'm smart, I know that nothing's free.
I do not like this kind of hope.
I do not like it, Nope, nope, nope!
I do not like your smug replies
when I complain about your lies.
So for the future make a note:
"I do intend to vote, vote, VOTE!"

My exact sentiments.

Socialism 101 Part 3

You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner.. 

-- Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw

 

In the world wide theater where Marxists wage class war, the Communists can be regarded as front line troops; while the Socialists serve as the big guns in the rear, firing over the heads of the men in forward positions and enabling them at a well-chosen moment to seize their objective rapidly.

Politically, it was the pattern of events in Czechoslovakia, in the Hungary of Bela Kun, even· in Russia itself, where Socialist governments prepared the ground for a Communist seizure of power.

While Woodrow Wilson could not actually be named a Socialist, he was the first Chief Executive of the United States to accept Socialist minded intellectuals as aides and advisers and to present Fabian Socialist programs as his own.

Source: Fabian Freeway (1966) by Rose L. Martin.

-----------------------------------------

In fact, the scheme of government-business partnerships and economic regulation set up by FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) could easily have served as a model for how Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were addressing the Great Depression in their countries. That’s why Hitler and Mussolini admired FDR. Mussolini put it well when he said that he admired FDR because he, like Mussolini, was a “social fascist.”

The NIRA empowered representatives from management and labor in industries all across America to set their own wages, prices, and working conditions within their respective industries. Once a code was established for a particular industry, it would be submitted to the president, whose signature on the code would give it the force of law. All the businesses within that industry were expected to abide by the terms of the code, on pain of criminal prosecution by the feds.

Financial manipulation by the federal government’s central bank, the Federal Reserve System, caused the stock-market crash in 1929. That led to the Great Depression. Rather than admit that government [my emphasis] was the root cause of the economic crisis, Roosevelt and his cohorts blamed it on “the failure of free enterprise.”*

Then, they used the economic emergency (that the feds caused) as an excuse to implement the most revolutionary change in American history — the adoption of an economic system that combined features of both socialism (such as Social Security, which originated among German socialists in the late 1800s) and fascism (such as government-business partnerships, which were important both in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy). And it was all sold to the American people as “saving free enterprise,” which obviously was an easier sell than “embracing socialism and fascism.”

Adding to the pressure to “go along” with the cartels and codes was a powerful political campaign led by a former U.S. army general named Hugh Johnson, whom FDR had appointed to serve as chairman of the National Recovery Administration, which put the NIRA into effect. The general immediately made it clear that those who opposed the NRA and its famous symbol “the Blue Eagle” were not true, patriotic Americans. Everyone was encouraged to display the Blue Eagle in their store windows, and consumers were expected to boycott unpatriotic Americans who refused to go along with the new scheme.

Source: Economic Liberty and the Constitution by Jacob G. Hornberger.

 

*Sounds like our current president. Then again most if not all Leftists think like this. They always believe gov’t can never do wrong. (Yea, another footnote. I am trying them out.)

Union Violence Exposed

 

This video is from the Right to Work Committee. What they are talking about sounds more like mob extortion. It should be against the law. I signed the petition.

Abortion Questions

In total, China aborted 160 million girls because boys are valued more than girls. Where are the feminists in this country protesting this number?

If in the near future mankind discovers a homosexual gene and China (or anyone or any other country)  decides to abort gays and lesbians will the gay community protest that action?

Or a white woman aborts a fetus of another race if she is raped for instance. Is this okay for the pr0-choice person who happens to be that race? I mean that is her choice right? Or it could be she dated a black man, they had intercourse, and later on they broke up. In the meantime she got pregnant with the man’s baby. Since, her parents are racists they objected to her dating any black guys. Now, they want her to abort the baby. For all you pro-choice advocates is this situation okay?

How about any anti-life person protesting any of those scenarios? Or is the so-called pro-choice stance sacrosanct? Just curious.

The Left’s Vision vs. America’s Founding Principles

1. In the early 20th century a group of intellectuals known as progressives rejected the founding principles [of America].
2. In response to the challenges of industrialization and urbanization, progressives sought to transform society.
3. Progressivism denies the possibility of self-evident eternal truths.
4. Progressivism also denies the limits on government and sees separation of powers as an obstacle to reform.
5. Because of their rejection of the declaration, progressives understand a right as something government grants to a citizen, rather than something a citizen has by nature, which government protects.
6. In order to increase their power to remake society, progressives have tried to undermine private associations in which morality is shaped, and used schools for this end.
7. Progressives have promoted the idea of a “living” Constitution, a doctrine that strips the document of any original meaning and allows it to be interpreted in any way a judge sees fit.

Source: We Still Hold These Truth. A Leader’s Guide. (2010) by The Heritage Foundation.

The Heart of Ronald Reagan’s “Three-legged Stool”

President Reagan talked about the “three-legged stool”of conservatism: Strong free-market system, strong traditional/family values, and a strong military. He said if one leg was missing the stool could not stand on its own. His three-legged stool analogy is a good analogy for America too.  If one of those attributes are missing America won’t survive for long.
At the heart of all those factors is freedom. The free-market system (capitalism if you prefer) is a by product of freedom. Traditional/family values teaches that mankind is the only creature with free will and morals*. Traditionalists cherishes freedom but freedom without morality is just anarchy. That’s why the Founding Fathers always talked about liberty instead of just freedom.
A strong military protects freedom from tyrannical powers. Which keeps the free-market system alive. The free-market system make all our lives better and easier. Traditional values keeps society from going into chaos. Otherwise it would just be a jungle.  That’s why we need all three legs.

*Actually, the two are linked together. Without free will there would be no morals, because you couldn’t choose between right and wrong like the non-human animals. They operate completely on instinct.

An Example of Price Fixation by a Union

From Capitalism and Freedom (1982) by Milton Friedman:

To some extent, labor unions have served as a means of enforcing monopoly in the sale of a product. The clearest example is in coal. The Guffey Coal Act was an attempt to provide legal support for a price-fixing cartel of coal-mine operators. When, in the mid-thirties, this Act was declared unconstitutional, John L. Lewis and the United Mine Workers stepped into the breach. By calling strikes or work stoppages whenever the amount of coal above the ground got so large as to threaten to force down prices, Lewis controlled output and thereby prices with the unspoken co- operation of the industry. The gains from this cartel management were divided between the coal mine operators and the miners. The gain to the miners was in the form of higher wage rates, which of course meant fewer miners employed. Hence only those miners who retained employment shared the cartel gains and even they took a large part of the gain in the form of greater leisure. The possibility of the unions playing this role derives from their exemption from the Sherman Antitrust Act.

This price fixation was great for the union members and especially great for the union leaders (they could continue to exact the same level of union dues) but not so for the coal-mine customers. Then again unions only care about their members not the customers or anyone else outside the union. That’s where union bosses drive their income from---the members.

The Coal Act was FDR’s attempt to nationalize the coal industry. That’s probably why the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. Then in 1937 the act got a face lift and was passed in Congress. It was basically the same as the 1935 act but had some minor changes. Later on in 1943 it was allowed to expire.

Global Warming Models Called Into Question By New Study

From Investors.com (Nov. 25):

Climate: The left's proposed solutions for the world's ills are based on the idea that carbon dioxide is a climate-heating poison that must be scrubbed from the global economy at all cost. Yet another study shows this is foolish.

The study in the journal Science found that global temperatures appear to be far less sensitive to the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere than originally estimated.

The study's findings are simple and devastating. "This implies that the effect of CO₂ on climate is less than previously thought," said Oregon State University's Andreas Schmittner, the study's main author. [read more]

That scientist of the study sounds like one of those “global warming deniers.” At least that’s what the environmental extremists would call him.  The study in the journal Science  is an abstract. You have to pay for the rest of the study or go to the author’s website and read the pdf version. A word of warning: The study is very technical. You would have to have a masters in meteorology to understand most of it. Even the title of the study (as usual) is wordy: “Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum.” Really? Could the authors shortened it up a little?

Let’s face it the only global warming we get is caused by the sun. It’s called summer.

The Agendas of the 1930s Fascists

According to Thomas Sowell’s 2009 book Intellectuals and Society here was the agenda of the Nazis and Mussolini’s Italy:

1. Government control of wages and hours of work.
2. Higher taxes on the wealthy.
3. Government-set limits on profits.
4. Government care for the elderly.
5. A decreased emphasis on the role of religion and the family in personal or social decisions.
6. Government taking on the role of changing the nature of people, usually beginning in early childhood.

And the Left and the Nazis have nothing in common? Really? Did you know that the evil German guy with the mustache back in the 1930’s once belonged to the Communist party for a short time? He considered Communism not as an adversary but as a competitor. You know like two countries are economic competitors. Or two sports teams as competitors.

There was a pact between Germany and the Soviet Union when WWII first started. The German gov’t  broke the pact because it’s evil ruler wanted to have all the power to himself. The selfish bastard! Didn’t he know that the nice Soviet Union wanted to dominate the world too? Geez. This pact is something Russia would like to forget. The war might have ended differently if Germany hadn’t broken the pact.

All the bullet points in the agenda were part of the old Soviet Union and are still espoused by the Left today. Point 4 is social security and Medicare. Point 6 is right out of Marxism when Marx talked about creating a “New Man.”

When you come down to it, the common denominator among  fascism, socialism, and communism is less individual freedom until eventually you have tyranny.

The State as Organ Harvester

From WND.com (Nov. 15):

Officials running a federal program that is considering redefining death are going to be seeking further public comment after members of the Christian Medical Association raised alarms about several problems, including what they believe would be an open door to pressure families to donate organs before their loved one has died.

The proposal could move the federal government closer into alignment with what has been proposed by longtime Barack Obama adviser Cass Sunstein.

Obama's "regulatory czar" was revealed in 2009 to have pushed strongly for the removal of organs from those who did not give their consent to becoming an organ donor.

In his book, "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness," Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler presented the possibility of the "routine removal" of organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission." [read more]

Under Obamacare this is perfectly logical in a twisted way. When the State owns your body it owns your organs. Therefore it doesn’t need permission from anybody to harvest them even if it has good intentions.  Your “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” not mention your rights are now controlled by the State.

Here is something else to think about. If the State owns your body what happens to any “do not resuscitate” orders? Are they now mandatory? Especially if the State doesn’t want to cover your medical bills anymore and wants your organs. It might allow DNRs for the “important” people or the elites though.

The Judeo-Christian Philosophy and The Free-Market

Here’s how the Judeo-Christian philosophy influenced the free-market:

1. The Judeo-Christian respect for manual labor, summed up in a number of biblical injunctions. One example: When God warns Noah of the coming flood and tells him he will be saved, it is not God who saves him. “Build thee an ark of gopher wood,” he says, and Noah builds an ark to divine specifications.   
2. The Judeo-Christian subordination of nature to man. This is a sharp departure from widespread animistic belief and practices that saw something of the divine in every tree and stream (hence naiads and dryads). Ecologists today might think these animistic beliefs preferable to what replaced them, but no one was listening to pagan nature wor­shippers in Christian Europe. 
3. The Judeo-Christian sense of linear time. Other societies thought of time as cyclical, returning to earlier stages and starting over again. Linear time is progressive or regressive, moving on to better things or declining from some earlier, happier state. For Europeans in our period  the progressive view prevailed. 
4. In the last analysis, however, I would stress the market. Enterprise was free in  Europe [of the past]. Innovation worked and paid, and rulers and vested interests were limited in their ability to prevent or discourage innova­tion. Success bred imitation and emulation; also a sense of power that would in the long run raise men almost to the level of gods. The old legends remained—the expulsion from the Garden, Icarus who flew too high, Prometheus in chains—to warn against hubris. (The very no­tion of hubris—cosmic insolence—is testimony to some men’s preten­sions and the efforts of others to curb them.)

Source: The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. (1998) by David S. Landes.

As for the first point, if the gov’t gave Noah specs to build the arc, the arc would have sunk or worse fell apart. The gov’t would have given Noah the materials for the ark at a cost of $100,000,000,000 or more. Heck, if big gov’t would have warned Noah of the flood it probably would not have come.

Referring to the 2nd point, the enviro-fascists are lot more like the pagans back then—worshiping mother nature than God.

Ancient China and the Free-Market

David S. Landes talks in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (1998) why sinologists say ancient China did not reach its economic potential:

• The absence of a free market and institutionalized property rights.  The Chinese state was always interfering with private enterprise—taking over lucrative activities, prohibiting others, manipulating prices, exacting bribes curtailing private enrichment. Bad government strangled initiative, increased the cost of transactions, diverted talent from commerce and industry.
• The quasi-confinement of women to the home made it impossible, for example, to exploit textile machinery profitably in a factory setting.
• Sinologist Etienne Balazs would stress the larger context. He sees China’s abortive technology as part of a larger pattern of totalitarian control. The author quotes Mr. Balazs saying: “The ingenuity and inventiveness of the Chinese, which have
  given so much to mankind—silk, tea, porcelain, paper, printing, and more—would no doubt have enriched China further and probably brought it to the threshold of modern industry, had it not been for this stifling state control…. It is a regime of paper work and harassment….. It is the State [my emphasis] that kills technological progress in China.”

In my humble opinion, is the State in any country that can kill technological progress. The State doesn’t understand technology and/or business when it tries to control the economy. Since the State will probably never understand technology and economics it would be better off to leave hands off. But since the State contains people who are usually controlling  and arrogant (a nasty combination) this probably will never happen unless you get legislatures who are not power hungry and who are humble. Good luck with that.
The Chinese gov’t now is not much better. They have now what they call “state capitalism.” This is just another name for national socialism. If this sounds familiar think back to Germany in the 1930’s. You know the evil guy with the mustache who we’re not supposed to mention in polite company anymore. Yea, that guy. He created national socialism. It’s not a new idea.

The Four Roles of Leadership

In his book The 8th Habit. From Effectiveness to Greatness. (2004), Stephen R. Covey describes the four roles of leadership which are:

1. Modeling. Inspires trust without expecting it. (Personal moral authority)
2. Pathfinding. Creates order without demanding it. (Visionary moral authority)
3. Aligning. Nourishes both vision and empowerment without proclaiming them. (Institutional moral authority)
4. Empowering. Unleashes human potential without externally motivating it. (Cultural moral authority)

What’s interesting is President Ronald Reagan had everyone of those roles. Why? Because he believed that man can rule himself. Which is what the four roles are about. People choose to follow the vision and therefore order is created (role # 2).  If the vision is morally good for the country they will believe and follow it.

The progressives like Obama will never have those roles because they believe that man cannot rule himself and therefore cannot be trusted to make choices for themselves. Because of that belief people have to be treated like a children or worse like sheep. The Ruling Class will expect trust (after all they are the elite), demand order, proclaim a vision, and try to motivate people. But if the vision is false all that will be to no avail.

The Downward Spiral of Codependency

What happens when you manage people like things? They stop believing that leadership can become a choice. Most people think of leadership as a position and therefore, don’t see themselves as leaders. Making personal leadership (influence) a choice is like the freedom to play the piano. It is a freedom that has to be earned-only then can leadership become a choice.

Until then, people think that only those in positions of authority should decide what must be done. They have consented perhaps unconsciously, to being controlled like a thing. Even if they perceive a need, they don't take the initiative to act. They wait to be told what to do by the person with the formal title, and then they respond as directed. Consequently, they blame the formal leader when things go wrong and give him or her the credit when things go well. And they are thanked for their 'cooperation and support."

This widespread reluctance to take initiative, to act independently, only fuels formal leader' imperative to direct or manage their subordinates. This, they believe, is what they must do in order to get followers to act. And this cycle quickly escalates into codependency. Each party's weakness reinforces and ultimately justifies the other's behavior. The more a manager (bishop, church leader) controls, the more he/she evokes behaviors that necessitate greater control or managing. The codependent culture that develops is eventually institutionalized to the point that no one takes responsibility. Over time, both leaders and followers confirm their roles in an unconscious pact. They disempower themselves by believing that others must change before their own circumstances can improve. The same cycle reappears in families between parents and children (neighborhoods, church congregations, school clubs, etc.).

Source: The 8th Habit. From Effectiveness to Greatness. (2004) by Stephen R. Covey.

I agree with what Mr. Covey said. Not only does this happen in neighborhoods and churches, but can happen with gov’t too. The Ruling Class (RC) creates social security which tells people they don’t have to save for their old age. The RC creates welfare so people don’t have to look after their families. And when gov’t can’t afford programs like these (like in Greece) people riot because there is very little personal responsibility left.

When a leader treats his subordinates or constituents like children that’s what they will become in the end. And maybe that’s what the leader wants too. That’s the whole point of Mr. Covey’s essay.

Government as Venture Capitalist

Since the Obama administration wants to act like venture capitalist I wanted to learn more about these venture capitalists. So, I did a little research on the subject.

First, what is a venture capitalist? Investopedia.com defines a venture capitalist (VC) as “an investor who either provides capital to startup ventures or supports small companies that wish to expand but do not have access to public funding.” The entry continues by saying “venture capitalists usually expect higher [my emphasis] returns for the additional risks [my emphasis] taken.” In other words a VC is not investing in the company so much to help the company but to make money themselves. Otherwise they wouldn’t be risking their own money. When gov’t invests in a company it’s different. Gov’t isn’t in the business to make a profit. They invest in a company to create jobs. And since Washington can print money there is not much risk for them to invest in a company like Solyndra. Whatever they lose they can make up by raising taxes.

When you are investing in a startup or small company who wishes to expand there’s a risk involved. With a established small company there is fewer risks than with a startup. That’s just basic reasoning. A smart VC looks at the management of the company. He or she wants to know if the management can run a business that generates high return for its investors. The VC also wants a list of experienced, qualified people who will play central roles in the company's development. As the article where I got this info says: “they [the VCs] prefer to invest in a bad idea led by accomplished management than a great business plan supported by a team of inexperienced managers.”

Also, a VC wants a market size that is $1 billion or more in revenues. Because of this VCs want a detailed market size analysis as part of the company’s business plan.

Thirdly, VCs want a company that produces a great product and can compete with other businesses similar to themselves. They look for a company that solves a problem that no-one else has solved in the market place. They look for a company that can make product or do a service that no-one can do without. And if they find a business that is a near monopoly all the better.

Finally, the VC has to be aware of any risks the company has. Like for example:

• Could regulatory or legal issues pop up?
• Is this the right product for today or 10 years from today? 
• Is there enough money in the fund to fully meet the opportunity?
• Is there an eventual exit from the investment and a chance to see a return?

Keep in mind it is the VC’s money he is investing. He doesn’t want to make reckless investment and lose it all.

If you ever watch the reality show Shark Tank all five of those “sharks” on the show are VCs. Just about everything I described above, the sharks ask about people coming to them for money they want for their business. What’s funny is that most entrepreneurs on the show ask for a lot of money from the sharks but at a low rate of return. The sharks almost always tell these people you are not giving me enough return for the risk involved. What’s the moral of the story? The sharks just want to make money. Period. It’s that simple.

The reason the Obama administration make lousy VCs is because they have no business experience. They don’t even have a business mind-set and never will get one. Everything I described above they probably think is mean, cruel, and exploitive. Making money just for the sake of making money. That’s just plain greed to them. And the VCs are taking advantage of the small business owner.

Like I said, since the money the gov’t is risking  isn’t really their own and they can always get more from taxes do you think they are going to research a company and ask the right questions? Why should they when there is no incentive for them to do that. And if they think investing in a business so it can create jobs is a noble deed whether or not the business is prosperous or not just compounds the problems. Yes, a business hiring people is great. But if it goes out of business (and fires everyone) because of bad management or just not enough customers then that is worse. So much about being noble. 

One last note. In his blog The Venture Capitalist Aptitude Test, Guy Kawasaki describes a test that a wannabe VC can take to see if he can succeed as a VC. First, if you have work background in engineering and/or sales that’s a plus. Obama doesn’t. If you are in managing consulting, or are a investment banker, an account or have an MBA that counts against you. Well, Obama thinks he is an investment banker. Or is at least acting like one. The author explains more in his blog about why having a background in engineering and sales is a good thing to have. Basically, you have to know about what you are investing in. Also, remember this: The two occupations most important to any business is engineering and marketing. That is, for a business to succeed it has to make a product (or a service) and sell it. Otherwise, the business fails. 

Then the author goes into first-hand experiences like “worked at a failed startup, so that you understand three things: first, how hard it is to achieve success; second, that the world doesn’t owe you a thing; and third, what it’s like to be fired or laid off.”

Finally, he talks about having necessary knowledge about a business to be a successful VC.

If you could sum up this interesting article it would be this: Know your product or service you want to invest in and know how a successful business works. If you don’t have either knowledge then you better think twice about being a venture capitalist.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

These rights are overall pretty good like for example Article 17. Some of the rights mirror what’s in the Constitution: Articles 11, 18 through 20. These rights come from the United Nations. But there are some articles I question like:

Article 23: The right to work and form unions.

Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25: Right to a standard of living.

Article 26: Right to free education.

Article 27:

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 29: Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

Articles 23 through 26 looked it was influenced by communists and/or socialists.

Is Article 27 needed (especially the first part)? I mean Article 20 should take care of that. Part 2 is talking about intellectual property rights. I am currently reading an e-book (The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind (2008) by James Boyle) on that topic. It is really a complex subject to grasp.

What is Article 29 about? “Duties to the community”? That would make Ayn Rand spin in her grave. Sounds like the “it takes a village” nonsense. That smacks of socialism.

Jon Huntsman’s American Jobs Plan

1. Tax Reform.
   • Individual Taxes.
     • “Zero Plan”. Rates of 8%, 14% and 23%.
     • Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
   • Corporate Taxes.
     • Reduce the Corporate Rate from 35% to 25%.
     • Shift from a Worldwide System of Taxation to a Territorial System.
     • Implement a Tax Holiday for Repatriation of Corporate Profits.
   • Eliminate the Taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends.
2. Regulatory Reform.
   • Repeal President Obama's Unconstitutional and Unaffordable Health Care Plan.
   • Repeal Dodd-Frank.
   • Streamline the Food and Drug Administration's Approval Process.
   • Enact Comprehensive Patent Reform.
   • Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley.
   • End the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Gross Regulatory Overreach.
     • Roll-back Ozone Standard Revision.
     • Roll-back Joint Fuel-Efficiency Rules.
   • Expedite the Environmental Permitting Process.
   • Gov. Huntsman will immediately instruct the NLRB to stop pursuing this politically-motivated attack on free enterprise, and if they fail to do so, he will replace them.
   • As President, Gov. Huntsman will demand the Commodities Future Trading Commission undertake serious cost-benefit analysis before implementing any regulations.
   • Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
   • Mandate Cost-Benefit Fundamentals at Agencies.
3. Energy Independence.
   • We must expedite the review and approval of safe and environmentally-sound energy projects, including the development of North American oil and gas reserves; oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska; shale gas and oil in the U.S.; and Canadian oil sands.
   • We must eliminate subsidies and regulations that support foreign oil and inhibit clean, domestic alternatives such as natural gas, biofuels and coal-to-liquid fuel.
4. Trade.
   • The United States should take the lead in initiating free trade agreements with Japan, India and Taiwan, among others. We must begin to send a message to the world that we will once again lead on trade liberalization.
   • Support the Doha Development Round of World Trade Organization Negotiations.
   • Lead in Reaching a Successful Conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Not too bad a plan. The three-tier zero plan sounds progressive too me. Although, less progressive than what we have now. Since it is three-tier I suppose the rates correspond to the lower-class, middle-class and upper-class. Getting rid of the AMT is a good idea. I like reducing the corporate tax and getting rid of capital gain taxes and dividend taxes, although the corporate tax could be lower like 15%.

Interesting idea to reform patent regulations. First candidate to suggest that.

He does have a foreign policy. Huntsman supports Israel and considers Iran a threat.