Umm… it should depend on the nature of the event. Suppose all the electors came out, and said, “we decided to go Hillary; some of us are returning to our states to report for ninety days in jail; but it was our own free will that led us to this”… I’d call that a white swan. Despite the fact that I might loathe the result.
Suppose the CIA had threatened their families: I’d call that a gray swan.
Suppose “Russian paratroopers” or “muslim militants” slaughtered them or something? That would be a black swan.
Either way, I don’t do revolution. I don’t do guns. I don’t do killing. Even at cost to my and my family’s lives.
[quote=reflector]
not sure He is undoubtedly deliberately trolling and something isn't quite right in his head, but, not my problem any more, ignored him now and better to focus on real issues.
[/quote] There. Fixed it for you.
If the rest of you would please use that ignore button, those of us who use the Recent Comments column to keep up would not have to keep hitting the More button and wade through your wasted energy.
To be fair to you, rhetoric is the final stage of trivium learning and you've all done marvelously at solidifying your knowledge by crafting your responses to the Ignore this user so well. I have learned from those responses.
Cheers,
Tycer
Luke,
On that particular link, I was in hurry and didn’t read over it as carefully as I should. I was mostly shooting from the hip from old research. Now that I pulled out my old files, please allow me to clarify. Mises approved of Italian fascism, especially for suppressing the leftist elements. But he viewed it as an emergency makeshift and said it would prove fatal if it grew into something more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises
Unfortunately for Mises, that’s exactly what happened when Hitler took over the fascist movement later. Being Jewish he was forced to flee Europe to America where he became very critical of Hitler's fascism. The same story can be said for the American industrialist that originally supported Hitler. They were afraid of the Soviet Union expanding into Germany so that financed a strong man into power and made a lot of money doing so (the American stock market sucked during the 30’s, plus the German dividends paid extraordinarily well, considering they had free labor with the slave camps). It didn’t end well for them either when Hitler made a deal with the Soviet Union to split Poland instead.
One documentary I watched said that economics was a secondary issue to Hitler, he was much more interested in controlling people politically and socially. His economic policies tended to drift from one thing to the next. That would explain why Mises and the American industrialist that liked Mussolini's corporately controlled state (which is what the US has today) were interested in fascism at first, but when Hitler took it over and it went too far, it turned into the fatal error Mises warned about.
Hitler may have suspended the gold standard in Germany like Roosevelt did. But the American industrialists wanted that gold standard back. So in 1933, they tried to raise a 500,000 private army made of disgruntled WWI veterans to overthrow Roosevelt, just like Mussolini and Hitler had done. Fortunately the person they got to head their army, Smedley Butler was secretly appalled by their plans and ultimately turned them in. Butler said that they wanted to make him a dictator and that they wanted him to return the United States to the gold standard. (references on previous post)
Like many on this site, Mises didn’t care for democracy either, he felt that it was incompatible with wealth creation and limited the degree of liberty individuals in society actually enjoyed. I prefer more balanced views myself, the democratic republic thing where it is a blend. I don’t really see the Austrian school of economics being the exact opposite of Keynesian economics. Sure, Mises and Hayek’s free market model will create more wealth, but it will be in a boom and bust fashion that ultimately concentrates the wealth even more. The main idea behind Keynesian economics as I understand it is to smooth out that boom and bust of the business cycle. Yes, it creates debt during the bust, but it’s supposed to be paid back during the booms. As a member of the middle class that sounds like a good idea to me. If we paid the debt off during the booms like we should, maybe the system would work. (Actually Clinton and Obama greatly reduced the annual deficits, they just aren't given credit for it.)
I understand the system’s need for perpetual growth which is a central problem, but it seems like we could develop some sort of system that could smooth the business cycle for a slowing economy too. Instead of a gold standard, I like to toy with the idea of a resource standard. Why just value gold, why not all of earth’s resources? That way the amount of money is linked with the planetary resources themselves. To me a balanced approach seems to work best. Government works best for things like roads, schools, and health care. But most everything else is best served by the private sector. Getting the Evangelicals to start caring about the poor like Jesus told them to do would help a lot too.In 1998, the Mises Institute moved to Auburn because of the lower cost of living, that “good ol’ Southern hospitality” and the fact that the “Southerners have always been distrustful of government.” In 2000, the Southern Poverty Law Center “Intelligence Report” categorized the Institute as Neo-Confederate because it “devoted to a radical libertarian view of government and economics” for publishing a revisionist history of the Civil War saying the conflict was more about tariffs than slavery. Growing up in the South myself I can say that the accusation is definitely true. I’ve heard Southerners say that since the Confederate flag campaigns of the 70’s in response to the Civil Right movement of the 60’s. I heard fellow classmates and some teachers repeat the propaganda saying that the war was over State’s rights, not slavery, when it was definitely over slavery. If you look at each state’s Declaration of Succession they say nothing about state’s rights and everything about slavery. Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point, is the best one to settle that debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
The Mises Institute moved down South to help reaggravated the left over hatred of the Civil War, just like Nixon’s Southern Strategy intended to do. Shame on them. That’s a really bad idea. You just might rekindle a Civil War if that is your strategy. And look where we are now. People on this site talking about marching on Washington with their guns tomorrow if the election doesn’t go their way with the Electoral College.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf
Michael,
I always liked Socrates that I see as right-brained and more inductive. I don’t particularly care for Plato’s left-brain deductive control freak ways. But my favorite is Aristotle because he was the first scientist and he used a balance of both. I used to repeat his lessons on induction and deduction so that the students would be able to recognize which one they were using in the scientific process. Using induction to dream up ideas and a hypothesis, then using deduction to test those ideas.
I view democracy more from the perspective of the enlightenment. The main leaders of the enlightenment like Voltaire were big fans of Confuses China and its reasoned based government. Many of our founding fathers wanted to recreate a nation based upon reason like Confuses did, instead of religious dogma. So in that view, democracy is a scientific exercise in government. When you start digging into it, it’s scary to learn that a lot of the religious right’s attack upon science is directed at the very heart of enlightenment ideals.
How about you? Would you prefer to live in a reasoned based democracy, or a dogma based theocracy? To me we are way better off with the reasoned based democracy, but like our founding fathers saw, that there is a need for balance.
Jim,
Yes I meant egged instead of edged. I’m surprised that’s my only typo.
Glenn Beck revealed that the Matrix is really big among the Russian propaganda crowd. To be honest with you, I’ve never watched the entire trilogy. The first one was interesting, but the others didn’t hold my attention long to watch the whole movie. Lot’s of special effects I suppose, but I prefer content myself. I would much rather build my reality upon documentaries, which I have watched a lot of.
You guys have me stereotyped all wrong. I don’t support any of the war crimes you talked about or blindly support Hillary and Obama. I voted with my feet because of those war crimes to a country that has a much better human rights record. Obama should have ended the Bush Tax cuts when he could, not try further privatize our public schools, and definitely shouldn’t have killed people from the sky with drones. But most of the Conservatives I know down South are constantly complaining that the Democrats are weak on defense. I remember hearing Fox News blame Clinton for not killing Bin Laden with a drone, when armed drones didn’t even exist yet. And now the Conservatives are blaming Obama for using them.
Now I’m hearing Conservatives saying that Trump is tough and will straighten Putin out, when Trump is making deals with Putin. Talk about twisting the truth out of perspective. Bush cheated to get elected, lied us into two unnecessary wars, and blew the budget giving tax cuts to the war profiteers. Iraq asked us to leave because Erik Prince’s private army was allowed to shoot up anyone they pleased with immunity, which they did. When Obama pulled out of Iraq according to the plan, the Republican blame Obama for leaving Iraq and destabilizing the region. Then they blamed Obama for being too weak on Russia and Syria. Now he’s blamed for being too rough on Russian and Syria. It makes as much sense as the Matrix. Multitudes of special effects propaganda, but no real substance. You’re right that both are ultimately to blame and that’s why I migrated, but you’re wrong to place the majority of the blame on the Democrats when the Republicans pride themselves to be the warmongering party.
But I think that the evangelical desire for manifest destiny drives America’s aggressions more than liberal globalism. I know that Nixon and Kissinger’s desire to create a world currency with the petrodollar has played a major role before the violence, but that’s driven by manifest destiny too. That is one of the biggest difference between the US and Canada. The US thinks that it needs to conquer the world to share its good, like Plato wanted. In Canada, they put their efforts into making a better Canada, and setting a good example. I estimate that it reduces the stress in society by about 30%. How would you like to have 30% more time to exercise or spend with your family?DP said,
But I think that the evangelical desire for manifest destiny drives America’s aggressions more than liberal globalism. I know that Nixon and Kissinger’s desire to create a world currency with the petrodollar has played a major role before the violence, but that’s driven by manifest destiny too. That is one of the biggest difference between the US and Canada. The US thinks that it needs to conquer the world to share its good, like Plato wanted. In Canada, they put their efforts into making a better Canada, and setting a good example. I estimate that it reduces the stress in society by about 30%. How would you like to have 30% more time to exercise or spend with your family?You are distracting blame for our warfare state away from the Neocon/Globalist deep state factions and toward anything else you can think of; Manifest destiny, spreading, "good", etc. I will follow the lead of others and put you on ignore sir.
As a counter to the prop. noise you offer DP, I will post this link which well explains the reality… I mean the REAL reality as seen by those who have been able to extract themselves from the (propaganda) matrix;
https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/12/16/must-read-of-the-day-sorry-not-sorry-neither-the-media-nor-their-owners-are-going-to-change/Despite some interesting caterwauling about identity politics and the white poor, the MSM continued to miss the connection between the anger of the working class and the imperialism of the ruling class. The former is made poorer because of the latter. Spending on war usually means not spending on society. And the media has done yeoman’s work enabling both, principally by justifying nearly every imperial war as humanitarian necessity and erasing the working class from the American tableaux (except when stereotyping them as illiterate bigots, the vieux jeu herd that Friedman warmly chides, “Suck on this!”). Not understanding populist indigestion to the rancid policy platter it’s been serving up for years, what does the establishment media do? Continue shilling for imperialism, largely by spreading misinformation about Syria and ratcheting up the Russian threat with libelous claims.
This is important because, short of sustained media support, backing for imperial warfare would collapse; no imperial war can sustain itself in the presence of a free press. The Syrian war, or at least our role in it, could’ve ended a long time ago if the MSM had done their job and challenged the White House on any number of fronts. They might have, and might still do if they wanted, pointed out how the Assad government’s rejection of a Qatari oil pipeline immediately preceded the eruption of violent “protests” in eastern Syria. Mr. President, was this mere coincidence or was this pipeline the backbone of our plan to unhitch Europe from Russian energy and destroy the Russian economy? They might have asked President Obama why the CIA was arming, training, and funding intolerant jihadist terrorists in Jordan
OK, final one for me and then I'm done like the others. From the whole chapter (and for those actually interested in Mises views on fascism);
Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect—better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property.I can't see anything there that says Mises approved of fascism (Italian or otherwise). And using the word "research" when all you're doing is smashing "Mises fascism" into google is really pathetic. Like the others, I'm bored of doing your critical thinking for you. Ignored...So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured.
Propaganda has a useful half-life. You will find most here have a low tolerance threshold for amateur hour.
Ignored.
To clarify, I am not trying to distract blame from the NeCon /Globalists deep state factions, but I would say that those are driven by manifest destiny too.
… I am religious right.
That said, I don’t support Trump; I have libertarian tendencies, but am not libertarian; I think AGW is a reality.
I do homeschool; I have shied away from several vaccines, including refusing the DTP until they brought in the DTAP (call me an early adopter).
Yet, I also support the right of creationists and ID’ers to pursue their theories. What gives? I find that science is best driven when everyone isn’t engaged in groupthink.
Sometimes it takes an ID person to say “eyes across the spectrum? Your theory doesn’t make sense” to drive evolution theory toward viral-DNA-transfer theory.
Your question misses the mark with me, though. I’m a Catholic: we believe that reason is only properly used in service of faith. So we can’t have a reason-based dictatorship. FWIW, such a dictatorship would be insanely limited in its ability to decide on anything, or in fact would be using reason in service of want.
Yet neither can I say I want a theocratic dictatorship, solely because our ability to get theology right is so limited and damaged. Therefore, I like freedom.
Here’s more on Mises from Wikipedia. In 1925, Mussolini dropped all pretense of democracy in Italy and established a dictatorship. Mises is criticized for approving of Mussolini’s dictatorship to suppress the left in his 1927 book entitled Liberalism. But he did warn of it growing out of control, which it did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises
The place where Mises's influence hits home for me is when they moved to the South where they are trying to rewrite the history of the Civil War. That's enough for me to show who they really are.
Michael,
I’m a big Jesus fan myself, but I see Christianity as something different that was developed more by Constantine 1,700 years ago. Jesus was a spread the wealth around pacifist, Constantine wanted to concentrate wealth and was more warlike.
Are you familiar with Sabbath Economics? It first originated with Moses, when he had to manage feeding thousand of people in the desert, teaching that there is great abundance if we only take what we need. A Jewish philosophy that values God's creation and encourages us to live in harmony with nature, and values community over individual profits.
To prevent the slavery they had just escaped from happening again, Sabbath Economics also called for debt forgiveness every 50 years with the Jewish tradition of a Jubilee. It essentially redistributes wealth every other generation, instead allowing wealth to concentrate to the point of enslaving others or bloody revolutions.
Many of Jesus's teachings come to light when viewed through the Jewish tradition of Sabbath Economics. Like in the Lord's Prayer when he says "Forgive our debts, as we forgive our debtors" and "On Earth as it is in Heaven." Another example is the "good news" Jesus spoke of was the Jubilee tradition of debt forgiveness. How many in today's world would view debt forgiveness as good news, especially if it was a big part of their religion tradition that they didn't know about?http://www.sabbatheconomics.org/Sabbath_Economics_Collaborative/Home.html
The difference can be seen in the word sin (hamartia) and how it is translated. In Greek hamartia means to “fall short,” like an arrow missing its target or a mortal who falls short of the perfection of God. But in the Aramaic language Jesus was speaking at the time, the word “sin” (hamartia) means “debt.” So when Jesus spoke of forgiving sin, he wasn’t talking about forgiving us for not being perfect, he was telling us to forgive debt and redistribute wealth for the common good with another jubilee.
Humanity has always longed for a “Messianic Age” or “Kingdom of Heaven” where there is universal peace without crime, war, and poverty. Humanity now has the knowledge to do that. It is as simple as reducing inequity as the graph shows below.
Just as humanity has always wished for in some future Messianic Age, where it is peaceful because the crime, war, and poverty issues that have forever riddled humanity, have finally been solved.
This however runs counter to what I hear from the Libertarians. I watch 3 - 4 documentaries and interviews of Mises, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul and all three went on and on saying that the concentration of wealth in a few hands was not to blame. One even went as far to say that industrialists like Rockefellers played no part in starting wars and that the government was to blame for WWI and WWII, which is completely false (notice how the government is always to blame with the libertarian crowd). American industrialists were the ones that financed Hitler into power. The Rockefeller at the time sold a gasoline additive throughout the war that the German air force couldn’t have gotten off the ground without. Most of their supply trucks had Ford engines in them and those early IBM punch cards were invented specifically for Nazi Germany to help keep up with its enormous prison population.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMKnH2BlkBA
As for myself, I’m going to trust the teachings of Jesus on this debate, and now see this Libertarian anti-government position as the exact opposite.
Woman: "What's it going to matter to him if we take just one apple off THAT tree?"
Serpent:" Ya, you're right. Besides, what has He done for you, lately"?
Perhaps the rot goes a little deeper than we all realize.
The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon and therefore a couple of hundred years after Jesus died. Original sin was added by Constantine when he rewrote the religion at the Council of Lycia in 325 AD. That’s when Jesus’s message was changed from a communal group of pacifist to wealth concentration and bloodthirsty religion it is today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
I have taught way too many kids and had two of my own. They aren’t naturally sinful and are way more genuinely friendly than the adults. But to tell someone, “there’s something wrong with you kid, you were born that way” is a great way brainwashing people and society as a whole, which is exactly Constantine’s intentions. If you withhold the actual truth from the public, then it is easy to manipulate with whatever false information you wish. Like saying the concentration of wealth has nothing to do with our predicament. Or to say that the industrials didn’t finance Hitler into power (when they did) and to continuously blame the government instead.I have yet to see a person healed of one leg being too short by Maynard Keynes. I HAVE had that happen to one of our family friends, in prayer according to what Jesus said.
I am completely unaware of my economic hero (as far as it can be) Freiderich Hayak, joining two places on opposite sides of the globe, so that he can be where two or more were gathered in his name (Germany), while he healed a man of MRSA that was already shutting down his organs. That did happen to a great uncle of mine, and his wife (with him here in America) therefore heard his charismatic German church praying for him. Right after that, his organs started turning back on one by one. But not by the hand of Hayak; it was Jesus who said, “where two or more are gathered in my name, there I will be; and whatever you ask will be granted” (paraphrased by memory).
I cannot conceive of a Jesus who is not the Son of God.
The things he said are not best interpreted as Jesus the Marxist; they are best interpreted as what he said.
That said, I’m surely willing to acknowledge that Constantine had some bad as well as good effects. But Christianity isn’t defined by a dead emporer; Christianity is defined by the Holy Spirit, and kept alive by the same.
Aside from that, there is every evidence that Jesus also spoke Greek. His words included quotes from the Book of Wisdom, which in turn was from the Septuagint–at the Greek Library of Alexander in Alexandria, Egypt.
So the bit about Greek/Aramaic isn’t that cut-and-dried.
Moreover, the CONCEPTS of sin as an offense extend all the way back through the Old Testament.
Regarding infants and sin, sin is an offense, and children do commit offenses; they do it because they have wickedness: the desire to rule, the deire to be admired, the desire to be self-made. And wickedness DOES go back to the very first.
I think the Bible might call it iniquity.
Micheal,
I’m glad your great uncle got better.The phrase “to each according to their need” originated with the apostles in the book of Acts, not Marx.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts%204%3A35
Jesus was invited into rich people’s homes where he asked them to give their wealth away to the people he brought in off the streets. Jesus also healed the sick for free. I’m sure that he could have made a pile of money with his skills, but to him, that wasn’t the pathway to the Kingdom of God. The early Christians followed his lead and were the welfare system in the Roman Empire, feeding the hungry and taking care of the less fortunate.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/showsreligion/
Many in this forum complain that they have been left behind by the elite. But the thing that would help the average person out the most, socialized health care, they reject because they have been led to believe that it’s evil. It's utter nonsense, considering Jesus offered his healing powers for free.I was paying $600/month for a family of four in the US with $1,000s of deductibles, and a 20% - 40% copay (if you include the denials). Financial planners figure that the average American will spend about $350,000 on medical expenses between retirement and passing on. In BC, the single-payer system cost $150/month for basic health care, with no deductibles or copays, and they don’t have to worry about coughing up that $350,000 that would bankrupt most families.
The doctors are of the same quality and my typical wait time to see a doctor is less than half as long as it was for me in the US. The people on this site seem to reject whatever the government does no matter what. But there are places it works well. Canada’s health plan is only about 14 pages long and is designed not to bankrupt people, like in the US. Don’t you think that $150/month for a family of four would help out the common folks in the US? Think of how much they would be able to save for retirement or their kid’s education.However, you will also note that they immediately ran into problems with this: the apostles felt that their entire apostleship should be praying and praising (and needing and eating); the work that their master had told them to do, they didn’t want to do. Moreover, they began showing favoritism. Therefore, they took on the deacon Stephen to do the work. But the judaizers among them got incredibly mad at this (gentile widows being treated equal to Jewish widows), and brought Stephen to the attention of the authoiities, who kindly consented to murder the guy.
But Stephen gets the approval of God–his master comes unexpectedly to put him in charge of all his household, and he sees the Lord.
That was a very gentle but firm rebuke. Thereafter, Paul says, if one will not work, let him not eat. And although he doesn’t argue that the apostles don’t have the right to do as they do, he rets a higher standard, and says, “therefore I do not take this liberty, that I may do my job of spreading the Gospel”.
So their communism didn’t save them.
Indeed, redistributing wealth from the haves to the have-nots can work massive environmental destruction, for the people never learn stewardship through the feedback of reality.
Not to say that everything you see and sense in this is untrue; but it isn’t the complete picture.
Regarding healthcare, there have been 15% increases in total healthcare spending EVERY YEAR in the US since about 1972, with the exception of a few economic crash years where it rose less than fifteen percent. You can’t undo the damage of that instantly by switching your healthcare system.
Therefore, the problems are much deeper than your proposed solution.
I have been studiously avoiding the rantings of D Phillips and even tried to put a block on, but feel compelled to speak up about this healthcare nonsense.
People are spending way too much energy and time arguing a false Hegelian Dialectic (as usual) and missing the main point: America is a racketeering country.
There is no socialism or capitalism, just screwing others based on legal advantage and use whatever label you like. I am writing here as a trained attorney who has left "the belly of the beast" (as aptly labeled on "Redacted Tonight") by abandoning my law firm on K street in favor of community development in a small island in a country that is least patriotic and least bigoted (it helps to have lost WWII), and very welcoming to foreigners. I can also compare US practices with a world perspective and can confirm that the US is hopelessly screwed by racketeers that have jacked up prices and procedures something like 4-5 fold t o screw the maximum possible out of a helpless public. But FROM this perspective I have to disagree with the unhelpful din of "Commie!! or Capitalist!!!" arguments shouted out on both sides of a contrived Hegelian dialectic on this topic.
The US healthcare system became exempted from normal antitrust/monopoly/racketeering laws by legislation passed after WWII. Any sociopath worth his salt is salivating and striving his utmost at becoming a manager of a health care facility because he can set unknown,exorbitant, hidden prices and demand payment, even taking property rights of houses in payment for a service that is categorized as "how precious is your health/life… pay up!" I cant think of a better racket except maybe using the same doctors to prescribe synthetic heroin and get a few million Americans so hooked on legal opiates that are MORE expensive than the real thing (heroin) such that those Americans buy street heroin to save money… .but oh wait that is another uniquely American health/racketeering issue that must be ignored on pain of conspiracy theory or even terrorist labelling. I dont want to be labeled a terrorist or conspiracy theorist so will leave those facts alone for someone more brave than me…
Anyway, as I was saying, when we remove the racketeering insurance system and replace with a single payer the costs are MUCH lower but COMPETITION (is this "capitalism?" )is much higher, because the consumer knows what he has to pay and can shop around. Japan is condemned as a "socialist!!!–commie!!!" healthcare system because of single payer, but every train station has advertisements from private health clinics (there is more advertising of private healthcare in Japan than in the "good old capitalist!!!" USA). If I pay cash because I am out of the system, my cash payment is similar to the out of pocket costs that I had to pay in the US for the same treatment. I am sure of this because I have had miscellaneous runs to the hospital (for me and other foreigners) for a variety of treatments. Since I was in the industry for some years, I asked the health providers about how they purchase materials and services. Because their income (for most events) is fixed by government decree, t here is an extremely robust competitive supplies service where providers really have a huge selection of competing companies to efficiently provide medical materials and services such as diagnostics services. This is totally unlike the racketeering "capitalist!!!" system of the US where one sociopath owns both the health care facility AND tthe diagnostics service AND etc. and just makes up astronomical transfer pricing because he can get away with it (and become a billionare without contributing to society). Cant do that in a country where medical care is treated as an industry that has to follow anti trust/antimonopoly competitive rules.
The completely disfunctional and disgusting US health care issue is NOT a "me capitalist!!!.. you commie socialist!!!" issue although the billionare sociopaths who are laughing all the way to the bank would like you to think so.
Charles H Smith has discussed this topic several times and his observations and conclusions are right on.
Mots
MOTS,
You are 100% correct. The economy has devolved into what I call the "Skimming and Scamming Economy" where it is every participant's dream to be able to cream a percentage automatically off the top with no competition. Healthcare being the most obvious example, but reduced competition in many segments are almost as bad. For most of us: Just keep paying and STFU, you're too stupid to know we are screwing you.
"Management - the process of dealing with or controlling things or people"Sticking with Christmas theme(?), is it any wonder that the child born to save us all from our iniquities was crucified in the same week he threw the money changers out of the temple?
Whether you reference the Bible or Forbes, I think it all boils down to Integrity. What's your motive?
Merry Christmas