●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
Let’s begin with the facts. Mitt Romney is a man who wishes to be President of the United States, but doesn’t really know why — other than ego. He has no plan for the country and he has no core beliefs. He just wants to be — tah dah! — *The President*.
The post, “Which of these three candidates do you support: Barack Obama, Flip Romney or Flop Romney” listed some of the opposing positions Romney has taken:
He loved Romneycare, but hates Obamacare, though the two essentially are identical.
He was for and against increasing the minimum wage. For and against stem cell research. For and against women’s pro-choice. For and against the individual mandate. For and against the auto industry bailout.
He loved and didn’t love Ronald Reagan. He was for and against — then for, again — a pathway to citizenship for immigrants. For and against G.W. Bush’s tax cut plan. For and against a ban on assault rifles.
He does and does not own a gun. He takes both sides of the global warming debate. For and against same-sex marriage. For and against a “no-new-taxes” pledge.
In short, he is the Zelig of American politics, a man who will assume the persona of whomever has a vote or a dollar that can help him be — Tah dah! — *The President*. If character were the sole criterion, Romney would be as fit to be President as Bozo the Clown.
That said, the criticism Romney has received about his role at Bain Capital reflects his critics’ remarkable misunderstanding about the purpose of business.
The fundamental purpose of the typical business is to make money for its owners. A business does this by creating a demand for its product/service and by meeting this demand efficiently.
Businesses do not succeed by employing unneeded people. Efficiency means not paying more than necessary for goods and services. If, as a business owner, you have the choice of buying a widget in the U.S., or buying a much less expensive, identical widget overseas, you would be business-wise to buy overseas.
Compassion and patriotism are praiseworthy traits, but a company’s balance sheet does not list them as line items. Walmart did not succeed by putting compassion and patriotism at the top of its “to-do” list. GE didn’t succeed by tolerating money-losing companies.
While I don’t subscribe to the more extreme forms of Gordon Gekko’s “Greed is Good” philosophy, only the business-ignorant, or those having an ax to grind, criticize Romney for “shipping jobs overseas,” or for firing unneeded people, or for closing unprofitable companies or for (oh my gosh!) making a profit. He was doing — successfully doing — what a good businessman does.
In business, competition means you win and someone else loses. Is that lack of compassion? Using Indian workers and Chinese products means Americans pay less for goods and services, and American shareholders make more money. Is that unpatriotic?
And so far as having money in offshore accounts, Romney was trying to minimize his taxes. God bless him for that. Would you respect him more if he didn’t try to minimize his taxes?
And then there’s the fact that he’s rich, which supposedly means he cannot be President, because everyone knows being poor is a good criterion for leadership — because a rich man doesn’t understand the common people. Right?
Of course, that criterion excludes wealthy Franklin D. Roosevelt, who created the New Deal and Social Security for the common people. And there was wealthy Lyndon B. Johnson, who passed the Civil Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid. And Jack Kennedy was our third wealthiest president, and the wealthiest of all was — George Washingon. Some pretty good men in that list.
Would Romney make a better President if he was a lousy (though patriotic and compassionate) businessman, who hired too many (American) people, paid them too much, bought too expensively, couldn’t turn a profit, paid too much tax and was broke? Is this the wisdom you would like to see in the Oval Office?
Bain Capital is the least of Romney’s “shortcomings.” Criticize him for being owned by the upper 1% income group. Criticize him for having no core beliefs, no reliable positions, no plans and no ideas not subject to change.
Criticize him for being a crass opportunist, who will say anything and do anything to satisfy his ego-driven urge to be — tah dah! *The President* — but don’t criticize him for being a good businessman.
Good businessmen built America.
[On second thought, not many good businessmen became good Presidents. In fact, almost none of America's best Presidents were good businessmen. In further fact, good businessmen became some of our worst Presidents: Carter, Harding, Hoover, Bush II.]
Hmmm . . .
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports