My friend is part of a team who goes to Burning Man every year. They have a tent on the playa, and invite people in to interpret their dreams. It's cutting edge stuff, perhaps even controversial.
Rather than beat them over the head with the Gospel, they love these people, they listen to them, they minister to them at their point of need.
Read on:
-----------------------------------
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Strange Fire Conference - by John MacArthur
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------------------
We always find it dangerous for pastors and ministry leaders to single out and criticize and condemn other groups or ministers from the pulpit. The danger is to those pastors and ministry leaders, for they are tearing down, not edifying. They are creating enmity, not restoring. They are driving their followers to an ideology, not encouraging them to pray.
Dr. MacArthur does this, and in a most egregious fashion, for he lumps everyone who disagrees with his doctrine into the same category, all of them having the same practices, understandings, failings, and motives. He seems to believe charismatics are all deceived, all are preaching false doctrine, and all are believing unbiblical things. And there is absolutely no good at all that comes from charismatic churches.
This is cultic thinking. It is a fear of someone having an independent thought. It is an intellectual and spiritual rigidity that demands that everyone who calls themselves Christian to walk in lock-step conformity with his ideas and practices. Any deviation invites condemnation, exclusion, derision, and persistent attack.
We'll be deleting (...) large sections of his presentation which do not come to bear on his argument.
Finally, we'll note that Dr. MacArthur will rarely quote or even reference Scripture in this long missive. For the most part, he will level unsubstantiated charges and make undocumented claims as well as broad generalizations.
It is a truly embarrassing presentation.
--------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
We always find it dangerous for pastors and ministry leaders to single out and criticize and condemn other groups or ministers from the pulpit. The danger is to those pastors and ministry leaders, for they are tearing down, not edifying. They are creating enmity, not restoring. They are driving their followers to an ideology, not encouraging them to pray.
Dr. MacArthur does this, and in a most egregious fashion, for he lumps everyone who disagrees with his doctrine into the same category, all of them having the same practices, understandings, failings, and motives. He seems to believe charismatics are all deceived, all are preaching false doctrine, and all are believing unbiblical things. And there is absolutely no good at all that comes from charismatic churches.
This is cultic thinking. It is a fear of someone having an independent thought. It is an intellectual and spiritual rigidity that demands that everyone who calls themselves Christian to walk in lock-step conformity with his ideas and practices. Any deviation invites condemnation, exclusion, derision, and persistent attack.
We'll be deleting (...) large sections of his presentation which do not come to bear on his argument.
Finally, we'll note that Dr. MacArthur will rarely quote or even reference Scripture in this long missive. For the most part, he will level unsubstantiated charges and make undocumented claims as well as broad generalizations.
It is a truly embarrassing presentation.
--------------------------------------------
Monday, September 28, 2015
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN - sermon notes
I
apologize for too many Scriptures. Each is worth a sermon. I'm focusing on concept, the
Kingdom, and how these connect.
I
will point out where there is gold, you go dig for it!
PART
ONE:
Kingdoms
have kings. Brief history. Ancient kings were kings of cities, sometimes an
area, less frequently a region, or even a nation. Barbaric. A king holds life
and death in his hands.
The kings of the O.T. speak of promises of a
coming king, a warrior king, a savior king, a priest-king.
Early important O.T. King: Ge. 14
Melchizedek king of Salem Jerusalem
God
makes Abraham a promise, that his kingdom would never cease: Ge. 17:6-7
I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come
from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me
and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your
God and the God of your descendants after you.
Moses
on the Holy Mountain
An
interesting parallel for us: 1Pe. 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may
declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful
light. Are you destined?
I HAVE A DESTINY – BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN CALLED
Sunday, September 27, 2015
30 Common Fallacies Used Against Libertarians - by BlameThe1st
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. THIS IS GOOD STUFF.
------------------------------------------
I have all but given up on arguing against statists and anti-libertarians. It’s clear that they do not want an honest debate, especially since most of their arguments amount to strawman and ignorance.
If I have to hear someone ask “who will build the roads?” or tell me to “move to Somalia!” or call me a “Koch Brother shill!” for the umpteenth time, I would sooner bitch slap them senseless rather than waste my time replying to their ignorance. They’d only end up plugging their ears and screaming “la, la, la! I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!”
But for those with the patience of a saint to argue with this subspecies of human beings we sadly have to share the planet with, Max Borders from The Freeman compiled a list of 30 common fallacies used against libertarians and the rational responses to counter them.
I doubt statists would heed them. They love to plug their ears and scream like little children when people rationally demolish their arguments with logic and evidence. Most die-hard ideologues are that way!
I have all but given up on arguing against statists and anti-libertarians. It’s clear that they do not want an honest debate, especially since most of their arguments amount to strawman and ignorance.
If I have to hear someone ask “who will build the roads?” or tell me to “move to Somalia!” or call me a “Koch Brother shill!” for the umpteenth time, I would sooner bitch slap them senseless rather than waste my time replying to their ignorance. They’d only end up plugging their ears and screaming “la, la, la! I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!”
But for those with the patience of a saint to argue with this subspecies of human beings we sadly have to share the planet with, Max Borders from The Freeman compiled a list of 30 common fallacies used against libertarians and the rational responses to counter them.
I doubt statists would heed them. They love to plug their ears and scream like little children when people rationally demolish their arguments with logic and evidence. Most die-hard ideologues are that way!
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Those against ordinance should mind own business - By Guy Crawford
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------------
True believer Guy Crawford steps up yet again to obscure the issues and misdirect.
Read on:
-----------------------------------
I read with interest your recent story in reference to the lawsuit that attempted to overturn Bozeman's LGBT non-discrimination ordinance.
The irony of a group of entitled non-LGBT individuals (The writer assumes they are non-LGBT, but he doesn't know this.)
------------------------------------
True believer Guy Crawford steps up yet again to obscure the issues and misdirect.
Read on:
-----------------------------------
I read with interest your recent story in reference to the lawsuit that attempted to overturn Bozeman's LGBT non-discrimination ordinance.
The irony of a group of entitled non-LGBT individuals (The writer assumes they are non-LGBT, but he doesn't know this.)
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Why Do Kindergarten Teachers Pay More Taxes Than Hedge Fund Managers? - by Theresa Riley
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------------------
A popular meme that made the rounds last year revealed that the top 25 hedge fund managers in America made more money than all the kindergarten teachers combined. That’s right — just 25 men managed to take home more money in a year than all 157,800 kindergarten teachers in the entire country. (The author never explains why this is bad.)
These hedge fund managers make millions — sometimes billions — of dollars investing other people’s money with the expectation of realizing large capital gains. (The author never explains why this is bad.)
And a new video produced by Brave New Films points out an even greater absurdity: These millionaires and billionaires pay a lower tax rate than those teachers — and almost surely a lower rate than you, unless you’re part of the top .01 percent. (The author never explains why this is bad.
These types of investments gains are taxed at 20%, while income is taxed at rates up to 39.6%. Thus the author is comparing the income tax rate of kindergarten teachers with the capital gains tax rate of investors.
-------------------------------------------
A popular meme that made the rounds last year revealed that the top 25 hedge fund managers in America made more money than all the kindergarten teachers combined. That’s right — just 25 men managed to take home more money in a year than all 157,800 kindergarten teachers in the entire country. (The author never explains why this is bad.)
These hedge fund managers make millions — sometimes billions — of dollars investing other people’s money with the expectation of realizing large capital gains. (The author never explains why this is bad.)
And a new video produced by Brave New Films points out an even greater absurdity: These millionaires and billionaires pay a lower tax rate than those teachers — and almost surely a lower rate than you, unless you’re part of the top .01 percent. (The author never explains why this is bad.
These types of investments gains are taxed at 20%, while income is taxed at rates up to 39.6%. Thus the author is comparing the income tax rate of kindergarten teachers with the capital gains tax rate of investors.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
The right’s deeply misleading new gun-control meme: America should be more like… Switzerland? -- by HEATHER DIGBY PARTON
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------------
I'm going to delete the first half of this piece, because it's obsessed with trivial matters.
Read on:
----------------------------------------
If you follow gun rights and gun safety issues at all, you’ve undoubtedly seen this viral meme in your social media stream:
(...)
The second part of the argument, that large scale gun ownership doesn’t cause a high crime rate is more complicated. Certainly nobody is saying that guns fire bullets all by themselves. What most people who seek restrictions on gun ownership believe is that having easy access to firearms makes it too easy for flawed humans to make lethal choices in situations that do not have to be lethal. (I have to hand it to the author. This cleverly phrased statement deceptively sidesteps the issues at hand with an obfuscation. This statement is meaningless.
"It's too easy for flawed humans..." "Flawed humans" is a emotionally manipulative statement that does not advance the logic. One could pick any topic at random and insert "flawed humans" as justification. "We need dietary controls because of our flawed humanity." "I favor internet censorship because we are flawed humans." Try it. It works for any topic you are arguing for.
"...make lethal choices in situations that do not have to be lethal." Ok, so you're bent on murder. You're making a choice to be lethal. Does it matter what weapon you choose to inflict your desires? Does it matter if you kill with a cinderblock as opposed to a pistol?
These kinds of statements, typical for leftists, are emotional fluff for lazy intellects.)
-----------------------------------------
I'm going to delete the first half of this piece, because it's obsessed with trivial matters.
Read on:
----------------------------------------
If you follow gun rights and gun safety issues at all, you’ve undoubtedly seen this viral meme in your social media stream:
(...)
The second part of the argument, that large scale gun ownership doesn’t cause a high crime rate is more complicated. Certainly nobody is saying that guns fire bullets all by themselves. What most people who seek restrictions on gun ownership believe is that having easy access to firearms makes it too easy for flawed humans to make lethal choices in situations that do not have to be lethal. (I have to hand it to the author. This cleverly phrased statement deceptively sidesteps the issues at hand with an obfuscation. This statement is meaningless.
"It's too easy for flawed humans..." "Flawed humans" is a emotionally manipulative statement that does not advance the logic. One could pick any topic at random and insert "flawed humans" as justification. "We need dietary controls because of our flawed humanity." "I favor internet censorship because we are flawed humans." Try it. It works for any topic you are arguing for.
"...make lethal choices in situations that do not have to be lethal." Ok, so you're bent on murder. You're making a choice to be lethal. Does it matter what weapon you choose to inflict your desires? Does it matter if you kill with a cinderblock as opposed to a pistol?
These kinds of statements, typical for leftists, are emotional fluff for lazy intellects.)
Monday, September 21, 2015
Signs you might be brainwashed by corporate media
A FB friend posted this:
So I came up with my own list:
So I came up with my own list:
How Well Does Your Church Understand the Role of the Pastor? - by DAN REILAND
Found here. Excellent article.
---------------------------------
Whenever I hear someone say ... "I'm helping my pastor get his ministry accomplished" ... I cringe a little. I know that comes from a good heart, but there is a better and biblical principle still to be discovered.
Ephesians 4:11-13 seems clear enough, but a striking number of churches don't fully understand, embrace and practice this biblical plan.
There are three interpretations commonly practiced within the local church when it comes to understanding the role of pastor and the congregation:
1. The church hires the pastor to do the ministry. This is common in long-standing small churches, almost always under 100 people. The church board has long been established and owns the real authority in the church. It's the group who "runs" the church and hires the pastor to "preach and visit." Other than a few of the most dedicated people who do a few things like help in the nursery, serve as an usher, or play the piano, the pastor does the work. This is a very difficult scenario in which to lead change and move forward.
2. The people help the pastor do his or her ministry. This is the next level and better than the "Hired Gun" illustrated in the first point. In this scenario, there are some, sometimes many, people who eagerly jump in to serve in all the ministries of the church. The pastor is the encouraging shepherd who expresses gratitude for helping him carry the load. But the pastor is still the spiritual hero of the church. It's often a positive environment, willing to embrace change. It has potential to grow, but sometimes slowly. It is a friendly environment, but has not yet embraced the biblical model in Ephesians 4.
3. The pastor helps the people do their ministry. This approach represents the biblical principle found in Ephesians 4:11-13. The pastor is the leader who equips the people to do the work of ministry that God called them to do! The pastor is the coach and the people are the spiritual heroes who build the church! The pastor expresses gratitude to the people not for helping him or her, (although I'm sure, like me, they are appreciative) but for serving Jesus and advancing the kingdom vision of the church. In this model the people are empowered to serve and lead according to their gifts and calling, and the potential for change and growth is significantly higher.
"He gave some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers,for the equipping of the saints, for the work of service, and for the building up of the body of Christ, until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, into a complete man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ," (Eph. 4:11-13, MEV).
Verses 12-13 reveal the purpose: We are to build the body of Christ until we become mature in our faith and experience unity in the fullness of Christ!
Whenever I hear someone say ... "I'm helping my pastor get his ministry accomplished" ... I cringe a little. I know that comes from a good heart, but there is a better and biblical principle still to be discovered.
Ephesians 4:11-13 seems clear enough, but a striking number of churches don't fully understand, embrace and practice this biblical plan.
There are three interpretations commonly practiced within the local church when it comes to understanding the role of pastor and the congregation:
1. The church hires the pastor to do the ministry. This is common in long-standing small churches, almost always under 100 people. The church board has long been established and owns the real authority in the church. It's the group who "runs" the church and hires the pastor to "preach and visit." Other than a few of the most dedicated people who do a few things like help in the nursery, serve as an usher, or play the piano, the pastor does the work. This is a very difficult scenario in which to lead change and move forward.
2. The people help the pastor do his or her ministry. This is the next level and better than the "Hired Gun" illustrated in the first point. In this scenario, there are some, sometimes many, people who eagerly jump in to serve in all the ministries of the church. The pastor is the encouraging shepherd who expresses gratitude for helping him carry the load. But the pastor is still the spiritual hero of the church. It's often a positive environment, willing to embrace change. It has potential to grow, but sometimes slowly. It is a friendly environment, but has not yet embraced the biblical model in Ephesians 4.
3. The pastor helps the people do their ministry. This approach represents the biblical principle found in Ephesians 4:11-13. The pastor is the leader who equips the people to do the work of ministry that God called them to do! The pastor is the coach and the people are the spiritual heroes who build the church! The pastor expresses gratitude to the people not for helping him or her, (although I'm sure, like me, they are appreciative) but for serving Jesus and advancing the kingdom vision of the church. In this model the people are empowered to serve and lead according to their gifts and calling, and the potential for change and growth is significantly higher.
"He gave some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers,for the equipping of the saints, for the work of service, and for the building up of the body of Christ, until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, into a complete man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ," (Eph. 4:11-13, MEV).
Verses 12-13 reveal the purpose: We are to build the body of Christ until we become mature in our faith and experience unity in the fullness of Christ!
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Hillary Clinton Is Speaking At Her Former Church This Weekend. Here’s Why That Matters. BY GUTHRIE GRAVES-FITZSIMMONS
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------------
It appears the author thinks that religion is a useful political tool. Will speaking at a church help Ms. Clinton's image? What will she talk about? Will she remind these hateful Christians that gays love each other too? Will she talk about climate change? Will she talk about the universal truths shared by various faith traditions?
Mind you, I have not actually read the article yet as I type this introduction.
Oh, and I need to ask. Why isn't the Left howling about the separation of church and state? Why aren't the media vilifying Hillary for her quaint belief in mythical god or gods? Why aren't they questioning her character in that she might be making presidential decisions that are influenced by her faith?
And this: It was highly promoted in the media that Ms. Clinton would be speaking at this church. Today, I can find no record of her actual remarks. No transcript. No press at all. Strange.
Read on:
-------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
It appears the author thinks that religion is a useful political tool. Will speaking at a church help Ms. Clinton's image? What will she talk about? Will she remind these hateful Christians that gays love each other too? Will she talk about climate change? Will she talk about the universal truths shared by various faith traditions?
Mind you, I have not actually read the article yet as I type this introduction.
Oh, and I need to ask. Why isn't the Left howling about the separation of church and state? Why aren't the media vilifying Hillary for her quaint belief in mythical god or gods? Why aren't they questioning her character in that she might be making presidential decisions that are influenced by her faith?
And this: It was highly promoted in the media that Ms. Clinton would be speaking at this church. Today, I can find no record of her actual remarks. No transcript. No press at all. Strange.
Read on:
-------------------------------
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Conservatives Reject Common Core Standards, An Idea First Championed By Reagan and Bush Sr. - BY CASEY QUINLAN
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------------------------
The Common Core standards have earned much hatred on the right, (um, yeah. There are a lot of Democrats who don't like it either. Thus, the author sets up a false premise.)
-------------------------------------------------
The Common Core standards have earned much hatred on the right, (um, yeah. There are a lot of Democrats who don't like it either. Thus, the author sets up a false premise.)
Monday, September 14, 2015
Anti-Discrimination Statutes Vs The First Amendment - By Brian Ferguson
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. Interesting article.
------------------------------------------------
A clever analogy can be a valuable aid to rational thinking, and consequently a great force for good. a false analogy can be just as destructive to clear thinking and understanding if it is allowed to take root. The most effective type of false analogies do not ultimately appeal to an individual’s sense of logic but to his emotion. Two situations with some superficial similarity are compared to one another, and the emotions that are associated with one of them is exploited in order to bolster the case for the other. What influences the listener is not a legitimate logical parallel, but an emotional reminder of what has occurred in some other situation, and a fear of the possibility of that scenario being repeated again. But this fear is irrational and meaningless until one is able to demonstrate through sheer logic that the two things in question can be legitimately compared to one another in the first place.
The current debate over the rights of business owners to refuse to cater to certain kinds of events on the basis of religious conviction has been dominated by a false analogy with the American segregation era. Now what is the obvious difference between these two cases? It is that the Jim Crow laws of the segregation era were in fact laws that required all businesses to discriminate against a particular group of people. It did not matter what an individual business owner actually wanted to do, he had to comply with the laws.
A clever analogy can be a valuable aid to rational thinking, and consequently a great force for good. a false analogy can be just as destructive to clear thinking and understanding if it is allowed to take root. The most effective type of false analogies do not ultimately appeal to an individual’s sense of logic but to his emotion. Two situations with some superficial similarity are compared to one another, and the emotions that are associated with one of them is exploited in order to bolster the case for the other. What influences the listener is not a legitimate logical parallel, but an emotional reminder of what has occurred in some other situation, and a fear of the possibility of that scenario being repeated again. But this fear is irrational and meaningless until one is able to demonstrate through sheer logic that the two things in question can be legitimately compared to one another in the first place.
The current debate over the rights of business owners to refuse to cater to certain kinds of events on the basis of religious conviction has been dominated by a false analogy with the American segregation era. Now what is the obvious difference between these two cases? It is that the Jim Crow laws of the segregation era were in fact laws that required all businesses to discriminate against a particular group of people. It did not matter what an individual business owner actually wanted to do, he had to comply with the laws.
This scenario is of course the complete opposite of what we are dealing with in the current debate. The uniquely oppressive nature of state sponsored legal discrimination is what is missed here by Progressives. It is the universal scope of those laws that renders the particular group in question second class citizens within the society as a whole. a decision by a private individual not to serve a cake for a particular kind of event does not remotely compare to this; for the prospective client may merely move on to the next bakery. The only actual harm that he suffers, as other commentators have have pointed out, is that he is offended.
Friday, September 11, 2015
So you want the government to "Stop giving poor people free stuff?"
Recently found posted on FB:
Here's the transcript:
Couple that with a tendency to misstate the position of their adversaries, and you have all the ingredients that constitute leftist thought in the U.S.. So let's look at the claims one by one and see where the Occupiers go astray.
So you want the government to "Stop giving poor people free stuff?" Funny how you don't care about the $70 billion a year we spend on subsidizing Wall St. banks, the $38 billion in subsidies given to oil companies, the $2.1 trillion that Fortune 500 companies are stashing abroad to avoid paying U.S. taxes, and the $153 billion a year we spend to subsidize McDonald's & Walmart's low-wage earners?There's been a lot of Occupy memes posted on FB lately, and they are invariably misleading, misinformed, or deliberately obfuscating. They are presented through the lens of socialism, a perspective that seems to make the Occupiers unable to accurately evaluate economics.
Couple that with a tendency to misstate the position of their adversaries, and you have all the ingredients that constitute leftist thought in the U.S.. So let's look at the claims one by one and see where the Occupiers go astray.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Economic Myths: The 5 Day Work Week And The 8 Hour Day
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. Interesting article.
------------------------------------------
How many times have you been in an economic discussion with someone, discussing the benefits of competition, the power of markets, and the overall benefits of capitalism when someone blurts out that in any competitive system, unions and regulations are necessary, for without them, without their interference, we wouldn’t have a middle class, we wouldn’t have a five day work week or eight hour work days? I hear this all the time, I see it on bumper stickers, and it is so often repeated that I thought I’d blog on it and give the readers of my blog an edge on what really happened, and how to respond if they encounter the same topic.
So, who gave us the 5 day, 8 hours per day, work week? Was it really the unions, was it really higher regulations? No, the historical answer is that it was Heny Ford who gave us the 5 day, 8 hours per day, work week. Ford was tired of continuously losing good employees, he was trying to increase employee retention and at the same time increase profits, so he basically doubled wages and implemented a 5-day work week, and in the process effectively invented the modern weekend. It is Henry Ford who is widely credited with contributing to the creation of a middle class in the United States.
In addition, if you look at why Henry Ford did this, you will see that his reasons had nothing to do with charity, and everything to do with increasing profits and dealing with the forces of competition.
What makes those who believe it was unions look even more ridiculous is the fact that Henry Ford despised unions. The tensions were so strong, that Ford hired a former Navy boxer to help him stop the unions from unionizing Ford Motor Company.
Many of those who hold the view that it was unions – or regulations – who gave us the middle class, often hold outdated fears against ‘unfettered markets’, still repeating the now fully debunked Karl Marx view that capitalism, through competition, will bring exploitation of workers, will be a ‘race to the bottom’, and will eventually, at least according to Marx, result in class warfare blah blah blah blah. However, if you come back to the real world, you will see that competition does the exact opposite, it increases the standard of living, it increases working standards, it increases pay, and it is overall the working person’s best weapon, not its enemy. This is why unions and the minimum wage have the opposite result, since by reducing competition they don’t make the working person’s standard of living better; on net balance, they make it worse.
So in conclusion, it wasn’t because of unions or regulations that we have a middle class, it was in spite of them that we do, and the next time you hear otherwise, correct them immediately, the working class will thank you.
------------------------------------------
How many times have you been in an economic discussion with someone, discussing the benefits of competition, the power of markets, and the overall benefits of capitalism when someone blurts out that in any competitive system, unions and regulations are necessary, for without them, without their interference, we wouldn’t have a middle class, we wouldn’t have a five day work week or eight hour work days? I hear this all the time, I see it on bumper stickers, and it is so often repeated that I thought I’d blog on it and give the readers of my blog an edge on what really happened, and how to respond if they encounter the same topic.
So, who gave us the 5 day, 8 hours per day, work week? Was it really the unions, was it really higher regulations? No, the historical answer is that it was Heny Ford who gave us the 5 day, 8 hours per day, work week. Ford was tired of continuously losing good employees, he was trying to increase employee retention and at the same time increase profits, so he basically doubled wages and implemented a 5-day work week, and in the process effectively invented the modern weekend. It is Henry Ford who is widely credited with contributing to the creation of a middle class in the United States.
In addition, if you look at why Henry Ford did this, you will see that his reasons had nothing to do with charity, and everything to do with increasing profits and dealing with the forces of competition.
What makes those who believe it was unions look even more ridiculous is the fact that Henry Ford despised unions. The tensions were so strong, that Ford hired a former Navy boxer to help him stop the unions from unionizing Ford Motor Company.
Many of those who hold the view that it was unions – or regulations – who gave us the middle class, often hold outdated fears against ‘unfettered markets’, still repeating the now fully debunked Karl Marx view that capitalism, through competition, will bring exploitation of workers, will be a ‘race to the bottom’, and will eventually, at least according to Marx, result in class warfare blah blah blah blah. However, if you come back to the real world, you will see that competition does the exact opposite, it increases the standard of living, it increases working standards, it increases pay, and it is overall the working person’s best weapon, not its enemy. This is why unions and the minimum wage have the opposite result, since by reducing competition they don’t make the working person’s standard of living better; on net balance, they make it worse.
So in conclusion, it wasn’t because of unions or regulations that we have a middle class, it was in spite of them that we do, and the next time you hear otherwise, correct them immediately, the working class will thank you.
Monday, September 7, 2015
Labor Day 2028 - by Robert Reich
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------
In 1928, famed British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would advance so far in a hundred years – by 2028 – that it will replace all work, and no one will need to worry about making money.
“For the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.” (Keynes, the hero of the Left, was wrong about this, and just about everything else. His economic ideas have been at work in our country for decades, and have nearly destroyed us.)
We still have thirteen years to go before we reach Keynes’ prophetic year, but we’re not exactly on the way to it. Americans are working harder than ever. (Are Americans really working harder than ever? By what measure? Dr. Reich throws out this statement as if it were self-evident.
Surprisingly, his statement, if true, contradicts Keynes. With all the technology we have, we should be working less if Keynes is correct. So which is it, Dr. Reich?)
Keynes may be proven right about technological progress. We’re on the verge of 3-D printing, driverless cars, delivery drones, and robots that can serve us coffee in the morning and make our beds.
But he overlooked one big question: How to redistribute the profits from these marvelous labor-saving inventions, so we’ll have the money to buy the free time they provide? (It's not a big question for those of us who believe that the person who earned his money owns his money. There is nothing to redistribute, because redistribution means taking money from some to give it to others. That is known as theft.)
Without such a mechanism, most of us are condemned to work ever harder in order to compensate for lost earnings due to the labor-replacing technologies. (We have such a mechanism. The income tax code, and it is oppressive, confiscatory, and so complex that the average person cannot comply with it. This is what Dr. Reich want more of?)
-----------------------------------
In 1928, famed British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would advance so far in a hundred years – by 2028 – that it will replace all work, and no one will need to worry about making money.
“For the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.” (Keynes, the hero of the Left, was wrong about this, and just about everything else. His economic ideas have been at work in our country for decades, and have nearly destroyed us.)
We still have thirteen years to go before we reach Keynes’ prophetic year, but we’re not exactly on the way to it. Americans are working harder than ever. (Are Americans really working harder than ever? By what measure? Dr. Reich throws out this statement as if it were self-evident.
Surprisingly, his statement, if true, contradicts Keynes. With all the technology we have, we should be working less if Keynes is correct. So which is it, Dr. Reich?)
Keynes may be proven right about technological progress. We’re on the verge of 3-D printing, driverless cars, delivery drones, and robots that can serve us coffee in the morning and make our beds.
But he overlooked one big question: How to redistribute the profits from these marvelous labor-saving inventions, so we’ll have the money to buy the free time they provide? (It's not a big question for those of us who believe that the person who earned his money owns his money. There is nothing to redistribute, because redistribution means taking money from some to give it to others. That is known as theft.)
Without such a mechanism, most of us are condemned to work ever harder in order to compensate for lost earnings due to the labor-replacing technologies. (We have such a mechanism. The income tax code, and it is oppressive, confiscatory, and so complex that the average person cannot comply with it. This is what Dr. Reich want more of?)
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? - By Joel Achenbach
Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------------------
(Hot on the heels of our prior post, we have yet another person anguishing over why they can't get people to believe in climate change. Joel Achenbach represents himself as a reporter, but he's actually a PR man. He's an advocate, a pusher of agitprop, a partisan with an agenda. So when he writes, you have to remember he's pushing a point of view, not giving you facts.
---------------------------------------
(Hot on the heels of our prior post, we have yet another person anguishing over why they can't get people to believe in climate change. Joel Achenbach represents himself as a reporter, but he's actually a PR man. He's an advocate, a pusher of agitprop, a partisan with an agenda. So when he writes, you have to remember he's pushing a point of view, not giving you facts.
---------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)