Tagged: business Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • feedwordpress 20:00:41 on 2017/08/16 Permalink
    Tags: business, , ,   

    Stop cheering about business leaders leaving Trump’s councils 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    I’ll keep this very brief. There seems to be many who are opposed to the President’s weak remarks about the Charlottesville attack that are happy about business leaders leaving his councils as well as their subsequent dissolution. This is not a good thing. We WANT people from the private sector in his ear. This just pushes the President further away from connecting with the people he’s supposed to serve.

    In case you’re unaware, several members of Trump’s various civilian advisory councils quit after he essentially blamed multiple groups, not just white nationalists, for the Charlottesville attack. This prompted a Tweet yesterday:

    Today, more names jumped on the dump-Trump bandwagon, prompting a new Tweet:

    Here’s the thing. I realize most believe these councils were for show and couldn’t actually influence him, but we have to remember something very important about the President. He’s malleable. His perspectives ebb and flow based upon moon cycles, wind direction, and the voices in his ear. While I don’t think these councils could have made him a better President, I believe having voices of reason that he respected keeping him in touch with reality was a positive thing. Hey, it couldn’t hurt, right?

    What I would have loved to have heard from these council members was strong opposition to Trump’s words and actions followed by a stated intention of keeping the President accountable by staying in the councils. It’s easy to say, “I disagree and I quit.” It’s much harder to say, “I disagree, but I’m willing to stick it out in order to guide a man who clearly needs guidance.”

    The dissolution of these councils is not a good thing for Trump’s opponents. It’s great for the companies of the CEOs who left as they’ll get lauded by many. For America, this was counterproductive. They should have stayed the course, even if doing so meant dealing with someone they don’t respect.

     
  • feedwordpress 11:30:08 on 2016/01/20 Permalink
    Tags: business, , , , Flat Tax, ,   

    Why a Flat Tax is the Only Way to Go 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    On one side, we have Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump proposing redistribution of wealth through progressive tax plans. On the other side, we have Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Ben Carson proposing a flat tax plan. Which direction is better for America?

    Let’s take out of the equation which would be better for the individual. All of the plans have safeguards to prevent an unfair tax burden on the poor. Cruz’s plan, for example, has the lowest incomes paying literally zero taxes, so even though he has a flat tax plan it doesn’t kick in until people reach a certain income threshold.  Rather than addressing the individuals, let’s explore which is better for the country.

    One of the contentions by Sanders and Trump is that a progressive tax plan allows for more revenues to be brought into the coffers in Washington DC because it would take from the middle- and upper-class earners and redistribute it to the poor. On the surface, this seems like a novel idea. The problem is that it doesn’t work. It has never worked properly. In a perfect world, it might work, but what ends up happening is redistributing takes away from key private sector components such as more meaningful employment, charitable giving, and economy-driving expenditures by those who make more. The poor have been shown to conspicuously receive less overall with a Trump/Sanders progressive tax plan.

    On the other hand, a flat tax enables more money to flow in based upon increased personal incomes without making it cost-prohibitive to succeed. One has to dig below the very carnal surface of psychology and ambition to see how the math plays out much better for everyone in the long run when everyone’s money is protected. Encouraging small- and medium-sized business growth is essential for everyone from the poor to the rich in order to make America work better from a fiscal perspective.

    Perhaps the easiest way to understand this is to watch this short video by Prager University.

     
  • feedwordpress 17:55:41 on 2015/12/15 Permalink
    Tags: business, , , , , ,   

    Parallels Between Presidency and Trump Air should Concern Americans 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Running an airline is difficult. It takes hard work, brilliance, great decisions, and an understanding of the landscape in order to find success. Despite the challenges, it’s still much easier than running the United States and that should concern Americans based upon the extreme confidence that preceded utter failure by Donald Trump.

    There are some very distinct parallels that can be drawn between his attempt at being a Chief Executive of an airline and his goal of being Chief Executive of the United States. The funny part is that his plans for running the country are very similar in their naivete as his plans to run Trump Air.

    Here are some of those similarities.

    “Airline Executives are out of touch with flyers.”

    This is one of the parallels that happened before he took control of an airline and coincides with what he’s saying to voters today. He felt like he could take his exceptional business experience and success and translate that into success in airlines. He felt that the airline executives were out of touch with what their customers wanted and that his knowledge would work extremely well in that business.

    If that sounds familiar, it’s because he’s been saying the same thing about being President. He says that his opponents are out of touch with what the American people want and that his knowledge would work extremely well in the White House. Unfortunately, running an airline is much more in line with his previous business experiences than running the country is.

    “Believe me, we’ll be very successful.”

    As a seasoned sales professional, Donald Trump knows the power of uttering the words “believe me” with conviction and complete confidence. It worked on the airline executives, the employees, and for a short time it worked on the flyers as well.

    While I couldn’t track down a time when he used those exact words on the campaign trail, we’ve all heard something very similar. We’ve also heard multiple times in every speech how he invokes the power of “believe me” when pitching voters and journalists.

    “I’ll negotiate the best deals for the airline.”

    Whether it’s the Iran nuclear deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or NAFTA, Trump is always reminding everyone how great he is at making deals. It has been accepted as a given that he’s the ultimate deal maker even if negotiating treaties and foreign relations agreements require completely different perspectives than negotiating business deals.

    However, he was often criticized at his airline for making many bad deals, even being called “foolish” by one of his own executives when he decided to use gold coverings on his airplane’s fixtures. It was a laughable decision, one that not only cost much more than it should have but also because his changes shifted the weight distribution in the plane and forced them to leave four seats unoccupied and eventually removed from the planes altogether to compensate.

    “The players will change by the time we get bigger.”

    When failing to recognize the names of some important world leaders during an interview, Trump countered by saying that the players would change by the time he was in office and he would learn about them all then. If that response sounded rehearsed or at least previously spoken, it’s because he said the same thing about important people at other airlines and in the FAA when he was trying to buy his airline.

    As in the airline business, people matter in politics. If anything, it’s more important to have an understanding of the personalities and tendencies of world leaders (or at least know their names) when trying to be President of the United States.

    Nobody can say that Trump is not a capable businessman despite his debacle in the airline business. He’s been extremely successful with real estate and reality television and should be commended. However, those skills didn’t translate to success running an airline and they won’t translate into success running the free world.

     
  • feedwordpress 19:26:16 on 2015/12/02 Permalink
    Tags: business, , , , Mainstream Republicans, , , ,   

    How Ted Cruz Bridges the Gap Between the Tea Party and Mainstream Republicans 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has a reputation as being a staunch conservative, one who always votes to the right in his role as a Senator and who believes in conservative principles like small government, limiting taxes, and strong national defense. That’s the perception. The reality is that he’s conservative in all the right places, leaving room for pragmatic doctrine in situations when right versus left is really a question of right versus wrong.

    On taxes, there are no plans that are as squarely rooted in Tea Party values. His flat tax is pro-small- and medium-sized business, low enough to give every American a tax break but sensible enough to help the economy grow and still pay our bills. It’s liked by Forbes, who said with the Cruz tax plan “we’re all richer while still being able to fund the government.”

    It’s liked by former Reagan economic adviser Art Laffer who said of the Cruz plan and the very similar plan by Rand Paul that, “these would be the lowest tax rates since the income tax was devised 100 years ago. Both are estimated by the Tax Foundation to grow the economy by a gigantic $2 trillion in extra GDP per year after 10 years.”

     

    Even the Tax Foundation determined that it would improve GDP growth, wages across the board, and investment in American companies while creating 4 million jobs.

    All of this seems very aligned with the Tea Party, of course. That’s the reason the Tea Party came into existence in the first place as mainstream Republicans started abandoning the tenets of Ronald Reagan in order to act more like tax-and-spend Democrats. Enough is enough.

    Then, there’s national security where Cruz seems to be less of a hawk than his less conservative friends and foes in Washington DC. In fact, he’s even less hawkish than the Republican Establishment’s poster boy, Marco Rubio. This is where he’s able to bridge the gap with mainstream Republicans and even with Democrats who view the nation-building concepts of the “neocons” as detrimental to the United States and the rest of the world.

    He’s not an isolationist, though. Cruz has positioned himself nicely between Rand Paul’s desire to never fight and Rubio’s desire to seek out fights. For Cruz, the right foreign policy in any situation is what will be best for Americans. If that means leaving Bashar al-Assad in power over Syria rather than having al Qaeda or other radical Islamic groups seize control of the country, so be it.

    Some Republicans might view this as harmful, but the reality is that we’ve demonstrated as a country over the last four Presidential terms that interfering with stable governments invariably leads to a worse situation for both the people in the countries affected and the United States itself. If you asked Libyans whether they liked Muammar Gaddafi when he was Prime Minister, they would have said no. If you ask them today whether things are better now that he’s dead, they would also say no. Many have said they wish things would go back to the way they were rather than the turmoil that has engulfed the country ever since.

    The same can be said about Egypt. The same can be said about Iraq. The same will be said about Syria if Assad is ousted. At this point, that’s unlikely with Russia’s support in place, so all of the turmoil that we attempted to stimulate by supporting the rebels to allegedly fight Assad and the Islamic State has been for naught.

    A thorough review of the concepts that Ted Cruz has put forth in regards to foreign policy sound an awful lot like Ronald Reagan when the largest country we invaded was Granada. We were strong back then. We led from a position of power. We were respected and the world was changed as a result. That hasn’t been the case for a long time. Cruz is the only candidate on either side of the aisle with a tangible plan to strengthen the military and defend the country without isolating us or sending troops everywhere across the globe.

    On immigration, his ideas are close to those of Donald Trump but do not go so far as to call for immediate and logistically impossible mass deportations. Secure the borders. That’s something that every Republican can appreciate. E-Verify is a technique to establish a deportation plan without going so far off the map that his ideas cannot appeal to the majority of Americans. Trump’s plan sounds great on the campaign trail to the most illiterate GOP voters, but it will not fly with the Republican base and would be vehemently opposed by Democrats and Independents.

    It would be easy for Cruz to adopt the Trump talking points, but he’s not just trying to stay ahead on the GOP polls like Trump. He has a pragmatic approach to immigration that is tangible, realistic, and has the same end goals of securing the border and removing illegal immigrants in an appropriate amount of time. This is, of course, very different from the Republican Establishment candidates of Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie while still being within an acceptable bridging point for the entire party.

    It’s only three issues: the economy, foreign policy, and illegal immigration, but in these three areas his views are the most effective possible plans to solve the problems the right way. Cruz is the conservative that can initiate real change without alienating huge parts of the electorate. He can win the nomination. More importantly, he can win the general election.

    The majority of Republicans are looking for conservatism that is blanketed in tangible reality. When it comes to the Constitution, nobody is further to the right. When it comes to policy, Cruz is the bridge to common sense reforms that all can embrace.

     
  • feedwordpress 09:13:47 on 2015/11/18 Permalink
    Tags: business, , Gawker, , , , Progressives   

    Gawker Follows Our Lead, Switches to Political Focus 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Back in August of this year, I decided to switch gears with this site and make it focused on two things that represent my passions: Christianity and politics. With the slant being very much to the right, I knew that there would have to be a left-leaning site that followed in order to keep the balance. That site turned out to be Gawker, a site that has been doing left-wing politics as a hobby for a while but that is now devoting all of their resources towards spreading a progressive agenda.

    I’m being facetious, of course. We get tens of thousands of visitors per month while they get millions. No, they’re not countering my move or following our lead. In fact, they have no idea who we are. That’s okay. It makes for a self-satisfying headline.

    Nevertheless, Gawker has decided to skip out on their original calling and shift to politics in an attempt to save a sinking ship. Their style of quick-post link-jacking “journalism” was doomed ever since Google rolled out their Panda algorithm which hurts sites that offer low-quality content. As page views went down, so did influence. As influence went down, so did much of their scooping ability. They made enemies and fresh stories were getting harder to come by as a result. This made for a reduction in advertising dollars which has precipitated this move.

    Despite my annoyance about their origins and techniques, the shift itself is righteous. This is, after all, Presidential campaign season and if you’re going to latch your wagon onto something in order to save a high-cost online publication, it might as well be on the topic that has the best chance to keep on giving. Gawker will, of course, make their living off of low-quality link-jacking just as they always have. The only difference is that now they have a wider range of sources.

    They no longer have to rely on relationships to get the scoop. They don’t need the scoop. As sites like WND on the right and Salon on the left have learned, you don’t have to put out the best investigative journalism to get page views in politics. You just have to put out crazy headlines with outrageously polarizing content.

    Is it too little, too late? It certainly would have been nice if they’d made the move a few months earlier. We thought we were a little late by making the move in August instead of our original plan of May, but then again we don’t rely on page views. We don’t have a ton of money invested into the site which means we don’t have to generate a bunch of revenue.

    We wish them luck despite the opposing political views. That’s the beauty of running a conservative site. You don’t necessarily need luck. Good content will suffice. Still, we’re hedging our bets by putting a conservative “watchdog” publication on their Kinja property to be able to keep tabs on them just in case they get too far out of line.

     
  • feedwordpress 12:35:24 on 2015/11/17 Permalink
    Tags: business, , , , NBC News, , , , Syrian Refugee Crisis   

    One Syrian Refugee Picture Shows How the Liberal Media’s Spin Machine Operates 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    For the last four decades, mainstream media has shifted to become the tip of the spear for the liberal mindset, often called the progressive movement. With few exceptions, there is a preponderance of left-leaning and even far-left ideologies at work in the major news publications that shift thoughts in the United States. We no longer live in a land of free journalism. We live in a land of spin doctoring.

    It’s not the clear examples of bias that should concern conservatives. Sites like Slate and Salon are so slanted that they don’t try to hide it anymore. It’s the allegedly unbiased mainstream media that does the real heavy lifting to shift the hearts and minds of the American people towards a leftist agenda. Let’s take a look at this story:

    It should have been clear by the fact that this story was propped up ahead of all other perspectives on Google News for an extended period of time that the agenda machine was in full operation. In most cases, a story remains at the top for an hour, two at the most. This story has remained at the top since midday yesterday.

    The image they carefully selected to point out the evil Republican governors and their heinous reaction to the Paris terrorist attacks is a ringer. Look at those women. Look at those children! How can anyone believe that terrorists could ever possibly be in this group of refugees?

    Syrian Refugee Propaganda

    Of course, you have to read the fine print to see that these aren’t refugees in the United States. They’re in Greece. They also don’t mention that they’re not in line to come to America. This is a food line at the reception center where women and children are sent to collect food for the men waiting back at camp. The truth will never be allowed to get in the way of the agenda and NBC wants everyone to believe that these are the poor souls that are being turned away by heartless Republicans.

    They could have used one of these images of actual Syrian refugees if they wanted to, but that wouldn’t fit their agenda.

    Syrian Refugee Politics

    Syrian Refugee Men

    Male Syrian Refugees

    Syrian Refugee Males

    I’ve given up on the concept that Americans will someday wake up to the insane slant that’s put on mainstream media. Instead, my only realistic hope is that enough Americans will see the truth in order to keep a balanced perspective. If that means I have to push hard to the right, so be it.

     
  • feedwordpress 00:03:04 on 2015/11/14 Permalink
    Tags: business, , Remote Company   

    7 Tips for Growing a Remote Company 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    In the last decade, the remote workforce has experienced tremendous growth and it shows no signs of slowing. By 2016, 63 million workers -more than a third of the total workforce– are expected to be working remotely. Not only are more people working at least occasionally from home, but more companies are staffing entirely distributed teams.

    Being a remote company comes with obvious benefits when it comes to growth: you can interview and hire anyone anywhere, which not only speeds up the hiring process but means you can recruit top talent all around the world. But it also comes with its unique set of challenges about which you need to be aware. Here is some advice to help distributed companies manage growth most effectively.

    1. Hire the right remote candidate.

    Not every person well-suited for a job is also well-suited to take on that job remotely. Setting one’s own hours can be really exciting, especially to the first-time remote worker who is sick of the 9-5 office routine. However, you need to make sure that that excitement is also backed by a self-motivated work ethic. Some people thrive most when their boss is physically breathing down their neck; these aren’t going to make the best candidates for your remote company. You therefore need to screen for specific personality traits and drive. If you employ someone with the right skills but the wrong work ethic, you’ll have wasted money and time. Find the right remote candidate, and you’ll save those resources to invest in further growth.

    1. Set clear expectations.

    Recall your first office experience: how many times did you employ the age-old advice of  “faking it ‘till you make it” by taking cues from those around you? New hires –especially those new to working remotely– will undoubtedly be confused about how many hours to work and when they should be available, especially when communicating across timezones. Be clear about what methods of communication are preferred (video conferencing, skype calls, gchat, email) and how often you expect them to check-in.

    1. Have great communication channels.

    Nothing can feel more frustrating than slow internet or a skype call that cuts out every thirty seconds. When this is not just for netflix but actually for your job, it can be that much more irksome, if not also debilitating for your productivity. As part of your onboarding process, make sure new hires are immediately clear on what technologies the company uses, how to test and strengthen your internet connection, and how the channels of communication operate within and between teams. This will save time, energy, and many headaches down the road.

    1. Err on over-communication.

    On that note, make sure all employees know that questions are always welcome, and that there are plenty of resources and people willing to discuss anything. And this doesn’t just go for new hires. Hopefully, your employees are über dedicated to their work, but everyone needs to be reminded to take a breather here and there. One of the best parts of working remotely is that it affords people the opportunity to foster a better work-life balance, but when you have the opportunity to work whenever, sometimes people forget about the latter part of that equation. Checking in with each other often not only helps the bottom line, but it also helps remote workers stay productive in the long term. Make sure employees communicate with each other, not just to get the task at hand done, but also as a way to check-in and prevent burnout down the road.

    1. Grow a community, not just a company.

    Entrepreneur Jay Shapiro argues that the watercooler is to blame for urbanization. What he means is that for so long, it was assumed that in order for people to produce good work, they must collaborate, and in order to collaborate, workers must be physically together. Cue the mass-migration to the city. Technology changes things– video conferencing and instant messaging makes collaboration worldwide a breeze. But there are other important aspects of the watercooler hangout that you need to foster as you grow your business. Put effort into making employees feel like their work is part of their identity, so much so that even if they aren’t physically around other employees, they feel pride in sharing the same outlook and goals. Employees who feel like they are part of a workplace community will be more productive in their work and more satisfied with company.

    1. Develop core values

    One way to grow your community is by defining and consistently returning to your core values. Employees at all levels of the company should be able to talk confidently to anyone within or outside of the company about these values. They should help drive work at each level, helping employees establish priorities and relate every task to the bottom line. A shared commitment to these principles will keep the small-team feel in an expanding company and will promote a unique and positive company culture.

    1. Create opportunities to engage in person

    While google hangouts and skype are great, it can be really nice to bounce ideas off of a co-worker over coffee or grab a beer together to unwind after a solo grind-session. Create community events for remote workers to meet up and socialize. If you’re workforce is completely distributed, chances are that at least some of your employees are using the opportunity to set their own schedule to also travel. While being in a new location is invigorating, it can also at times be lonely on the road and a company-organized meet-up can be a great way to connect with people.

    In many ways, growing a remote company is like growing any other company: you have to find the right people, train them well, and make sure they feel welcome in their new positions.  But with a remote company, the stakes are just that much higher – because it isn’t the norm to interact face-to-face, you must be more diligent with each of these steps.

     
  • feedwordpress 04:29:09 on 2015/11/13 Permalink
    Tags: business, , , , , ,   

    3 Unquestionable Reasons that a $15 National Minimum Wage is Idiotic 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Unlike most conservatives, I’m not against a $15 minimum wage… in some cities. In fact, it’s less conservative to oppose a city’s right to raise its minimum wage to $15 than to support it. Remember, the core of the conservative movement is more choice and less mandate on the federal level.

    Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles are bumping their minimum wages. New York appears to be next on the list. In those cities, it’s potentially correct to raise the minimum wage to such a level because the cost of living is so much higher than in other areas of the country. If you want to do business in the money pits of the country, then I see very little wrong with having to pay more if that’s what the city is requiring.

    Conservatives should support these efforts of choice as long as the economic fallout is minimized and the economic benefits are tenable. In reality, we will not know for sure whether it was a good idea or not in these high-cost-of-living cities until years down the line, but conservatives should appreciate the choice of the local area to make such plans. Granted, if I were a business owner in those cities I would have preferred an extended time frame to roll out the changes. Even the gradual increases are not giving business owners enough time to properly choose whether to continue doing business there or to transplant their business elsewhere. Otherwise, it’s an important step to protect the rights of local, city, county, and state governments to set their individual and business environments based upon the needs of their people. That’s practical conservatism at its core.

    With that said, the concept of a national $15 minimum wage is ludicrous and completely untenable. It defies every logical bone in a conscientious economist’s body (as compared to the liberal party-line economists who skew the math in order to support it). Unfortunately, it also buys votes which is why the Democratic party supports it. They don’t believe in it because they’re aware of the consequences, but they’re not going to allow common sense economics to get in the way of winning elections.

    Liberal Minimum Wage

    Here are the three basic arguments against a $15 national minimum wage that are unquestionable. That doesn’t mean that liberals won’t question them. It simply means that in their heart-of-hearts they know that these arguments are correct but they also realize that the general voting population won’t know enough about these arguments to realize how solid they are. Many will simply see the words “higher wages” and believe that they’ll get more money. That’s the saddest part about the liberal argument. They have to rely on the surface level reaction and hope that none of their voters will go a millimeter below the surface. If they do, they’ll realize how bad a national minimum wage hike of this degree is bad for nearly everyone.

    We Don’t Have Enough Data, Yet

    We’ll start with the easiest argument. I was impressed that economy professor Noah Smith, who supported the local minimum wage increases in Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, was willing to point this out.

    The argument is pretty straightforward. There simply isn’t enough data available yet to determine whether or not this is a good idea. I know that’s not a very conservative argument since all conservatives are absolutely certain that it’s a bad idea, but we have to look at it from a defensible perspective. If someone tries it and it fails, then we were right. If nobody tries it, then we’re instantly wrong in the eyes of many.

    If it’s going to work, then the places that have adopted it so far will be great places to see it work. It’s not too much to ask to wait and see rather than force a potentially disastrous situation for the country in order for Democrats to win elections.

    Equal Minimums Everywhere Creates Inequality

    The biggest argument against a huge national minimum wage hike (other than the arguable deficiencies it would create in an environment that is already business-unfriendly enough) is that different areas with different costs of living will experience dramatic differences as a result of the equalization.

    Again, we look to a far-left publication, Slate, to illustrate this in a very astute sentence:

    There are vast swaths of the United States where the cost of getting by is relatively reasonable, and where the risk of job losses posed by more than doubling the federal minimum may well outweigh the benefits of giving the remaining workers raises.

    $15 per hour in San Francisco is completely different than $15 in El Reno, Oklahoma. The conservative perspective of leaving wages and business environments up to the local areas and cities makes complete sense. Doubling the national minimum wage will hurt both high-cost and low-cost areas in completely different ways. The only certainty is that they would be hurt as a result. By allowing the local areas to decide how to do it and how much that minimum should be, you empower them to take their individual situations and better adjust to the problems that would arise.

    Everyone Who Currently Makes More than $15 Gets a Pay Cut. Everyone.

    This is one that requires ever-so-slightly deeper thought than the initial response. It doesn’t take much. Just scratching a little beneath the surface yields the very clearly seen truth that those who have worked hard, earned good wages, and advanced in their careers would be hurt by a national $15 minimum wage.

    The costs of many things will go up as a result. Not everything, but it’s simply inevitable that when you increase the cost to run a business, the only recourse is to recoup that money by increasing prices on products and services. This means that the $15.50 per hour that someone else was earning before is now unable to buy as much with their earnings.

    The folks who are pushing for $15/hour as a national minimum wage fall into three categories:

    • Those making less than $15/hour who cannot or do not want to do the work required to make more money.
    • Income equality folks who are not looking beyond the surface to realize how bad that would be for most in the country.
    • Democrats who have found a bad idea they can get behind for the sake of winning more elections.

    Keep in mind that I’m not demonizing any of these groups. In all three cases, it’s understandable, even justifiable to want to do this, However, it’s not a good idea by any stretch of the imagination if you’re willing to put partisan loyalty aside and look at the actual facts.

    One does not have to be an economist to realize that raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour would have dramatic negative effects on everyone. The funny part is that the enemy of income equality folks, namely rich individuals and big business, would be the ones least hurt by such a move.

    Think of doubling the minimum wage as a way to give everyone a super suit that gives them special powers.

     
  • feedwordpress 00:36:34 on 2015/11/12 Permalink
    Tags: Big Sugar, business, , , , , ,   

    Why Big Sugar Should Worry Every Republican About Marco Rubio 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    There was a moment in the Fox Business GOP Debate on Tuesday that may have seemed out of place to many viewers. Senator Ted Cruz brought up sugar subsidies as an example of cronyism and poor government policy that goes against the conservative movement and the Republican stance on government intervention in business.

    The upfront message was that Big Sugar means Big Government. The hidden message was that Marco Rubio is not a conservative. The biggest message is that Marco Rubio will sacrifice his ideology for the sake of political and personal economic gain.

    It was a statement that was likely lost on most viewers. That’s not a knock on the Republican voters. It has been a part of mainstream media’s willingness to shield an issue that falls squarely on the type of crony capitalism that they support. The general public isn’t aware of this huge part of Marco Rubio’s political resume because it’s one of the most liberal things that he’s done as a Senator. In essence, they don’t necessarily like him but they like the support he gives to Big Sugar because it helps its other major proponent, far-left Democratic Senator Al Franken from Minnesota.

    In a nutshell, Rubio supports subsidizing the US sugar industry with what Cruz called “corporate welfare.” The weak reasoning behind doing this… wait for it… national defense. Rubio contends that if you take away the subsidies, the Florida sugar industry would collapse and open up the doors for foreign sugar to come in. He says that he’s willing to end sugar subsidies if all other countries do. That’s like saying that he’ll end his support of sugar subsidies when the Chicago Bears win the World Series. It’s never going to happen.

    The real reasoning behind him doing this is twofold but connected. Long-time campaign contributor Florida Crystals has helped him since his time in the Florida state congress. They have been one of the biggest reasons for his rapid rise in the state and they continue to “buy him off” in a clear cut case of the cronyism that pervades Washington DC. The other aspect of his reasoning is much more honorable – he’s protecting his constituents. Many of his voters work on these farms that he claims will collapse and if he truly believes that will happen then he’s doing what his voters want. It makes for great state-level politics, but sacrificing more than the country gains from an action is not the right trait for a US Senator, let alone a President.

    The Wall Street Journal pointed to the problems that Rubio’s support creates for the country:

    The Coalition for Sugar Reform, which includes businesses that use sugar, says that for every U.S. sugar-growing job saved from high U.S. sugar prices, about three American manufacturing jobs are lost. The U.S. candy industry has been hollowed out as companies have fled to places like Guatemala and Thailand where they can remain competitive by buying sugar at world-market prices.

    This form of government subsidy is damaging to the country and points to a bigger problem with Rubio.

    Political Expediency

    Marco Rubio Big Sugar

    When one thinks of the phrase “political expediency,” we often look at Hillary Clinton, Mitch McConnell, and Harry Reid as the champions of their own causes. They do whatever they think will work best to benefit their own political ambitions even if it goes against their core principles. They’ll sacrifice the country to do two things: win elections and advance their political careers.

    Between Gang of Eight and Big Sugar, Marco Rubio is starting to establish a trend of bowing down to political expediency. He’s eventually going to change his tune on Big Sugar if mainstream media allows it by reporting on this big problem. If they don’t, he’ll continue sweep it under the rug despite it being a core principle of liberalism and a clear example of cronyism.

    He’ll go where he thinks he’ll be best positioned to win the election regardless of the cost. This should terrify Republican voters because it means that he won’t do what’s best for the country or the party. He’ll do what’s best for Marco Rubio.

    Another example of this comes in the form of his recent shift towards the middle. He was brought into power largely through the support of the Tea Party and his voting record resonates conservative. However, he’s been getting more and more liberal of late because he sees an easier path to the Presidency by beating down Jeb Bush and John Kasich in the moderate lane rather than taking on Cruz and Ben Carson in the conservative lane.

    Which is it, Marco? Are you a conservative or are you willing to let go of the values that brought you to where you are if it makes it easier for you to achieve personal glory?

    The Wall Street Journal continues to say:

    Mr. Rubio has many talents, but one trait the presidential campaign has exposed is a tendency to hedge on his principles when he thinks it’s politically beneficial. He’s walking away from his immigration reform record, and he’s pandered to social conservatives with his $2,500 tax credit per child. His sugar high is another low.

    The under-reported cause of Big Sugar that Rubio supports isn’t just a liberal perspective. It represents a willingness to do what campaign contributors want instead of what the country actual needs.

     
  • feedwordpress 22:08:32 on 2015/10/30 Permalink
    Tags: business, Debt Ceiling, Debt Limit, , , ,   

    What the Debt and Spending Hike Abomination Means in Layman’s Terms 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Since the economic crash of 2006-2009 (often called the downturn of 2008), two things have been clear to economists who are paying enough attention and politicians who care enough to gain true understanding of the situation: the United States economy is only alive through artificial means and there is no feasible way to fix it without extreme measures.

    They know this. They’ve been able to maintain a modicum of faux-stability through quantitative easing and the destructive effects of zero interest rates combined with an exceptional disinformation and propaganda campaign that has mysteriously (some would say supernaturally) kept the majority of Americans from feeling true negative effects. I’m not talking about people losing their jobs or living in poverty. Those things are bad enough and are clearly happening around us all. The true negative effects I mean would come from a complete and sudden “bursting of the bubble” upon which we’re riding that will have catastrophic consequences for every non-financial-elite American, not to mention in most countries around the world.

    The propaganda has been so strong that it’s almost admirable. After all, if Americans were allowed to look down and see the depth of the precipice we’re currently dangling ourselves over, we would panic. That panic would cause the very bursting of the bubble that we’re trying to avoid, so I understand the reasons for it. However, the continuous debt and spending increases, including the one that just passed in the Senate, have to stop. There is only one possible man-made solution to the problem and it’s the extremely unpopular notion of deep cuts to spending and a renegotiation of the debt situation. Both options are exceptionally ugly as they would have different negative consequences, but it’s the type of hard choice that very few in Washington DC seem willing to consider.

    Before anyone calls this a “scare piece” to rally support for Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio, we have to take a look at the situation. Here’s the best example I can think of in layman terms:

    It’s like a family deciding that they need to take out a high-interest loan to pay off a credit card in order to continue to use the credit card. The sad part is that the family is not cutting back on spending and in fact has decided to spend more with their “clean” credit card. What makes it even worse is that the interest that they have to pay on the high-interest loan is paid by the credit card. It’s a circle of dysfunction that would sink any family, company, or organization. It would also sink any other country that wasn’t the home of the world’s reserve currency, the petrodollar.

    Some might wonder how this has been allowed to continue if it’s so damaging. The reason is because we’re dealing with such a dramatic scale – trillions of dollars – that on the surface it seems insurmountable. The money to pay the debt would be borrowed from the lenders who own the debt in the first place. Sounds crazy, right? It’s one of those backdoor deals that only makes sense to those who are either in the middle of it or oblivious to it. In essence, the debtor (the US) is only allowed to keep borrowing money that it clearly cannot pay because the interest alone is so substantial that the lenders couldn’t imagine not receiving it. From the Federal Reserve to other countries, they’re all okay with getting the interest and letting the principle continue to grow. Yes, grow.

    Don’t even get me started on Social Security and other government black holes that are so deep in the debt pool that reconciliation is practically impossible. We owe trillions of dollars to Social Security, military retirement, government employee retirement, and disability. In other words, the US government has borrowed money from the US government in a paper shifting scheme that puts Ponzis to shame for not being that creative. We are literally borrowing money from ourselves that doesn’t even exist.

    This is worse than a scam. It’s worse than a racket. It’s worse than a con. At least with a scam there’s a winner and a loser. Raising debt ceilings and increasing spending is making today’s economy lose a great deal while making the future economy lose even more.

    It’s my contention that if the American people knew how all of this was working, that they would cry at the top of their lungs to make it stop immediately. That would have a humongous effect on current politicians and would cause a shakeup never seen before in the country. That’s the biggest reason that nobody is being told exactly how bad the situation is. This isn’t like Greece. This is much more akin to what’s currently happening in Venezuela.

    The greatest tool the government has is that everything is so utterly unfathomable that most people don’t know what’s happening while the vast majority of those who do know are unwilling to let the cat out of the bag.

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel