Managed economy or free markets? ~ By Henry Lamb

America has almost forgotten what a free market really is. Government's insidious expansion of control over business activity, while denying that its control is implementation of Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive principles, is steadily killing free-market capitalism in America.

It will continue under Barack Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress. If free-market capitalism is not restored in the next election, it may vanish from the earth.

When you finish reading Henry's column, I'm sure that you will know where Henry Lamb stands on capitalism and a free market economy. And by the time you read what I have to say, you'll definitely be aware of where I stand when it comes to not just free market economics and true capitalism, but also on the importance of free enterprise based on the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans that made this country great!

At my age, some events of my life are no longer coming back to me with absolute clarity. However, there was one event that changed my perspective forever, and I can actually recall enough of that time with enough accuracy to make a point. It was 30 years ago, so I shouldn't be expected to remember every detail perfectly, but I remember enough to get my point across, I hope.

I was in the USAF (U.S. Air Force). Just prior to going on leave, I had learned that I was going to be promoted to Staff Sergeant, which rarely happened with just under four years in service. It happened that I was good at taking tests, and did well in the test for my promotion. Well, that's part of the background to this story, because my transformation happened when my family and I returned back to Iowa for some well deserved R & R.

During my time back in Iowa, I took a day to hang out with my two best friends, Phil and Dave. We went up to the Mississippi river at Phil's parent's cabin. Dave, Phil and I had fun fishing, but I didn't do so well in catching anything. Well, not until I caught the entrepreneurial bug, as we talked about various business ventures to start. Well, you see, we were young and dumb, and we thought that we could actually live our dreams by someday starting our own business! We just couldn't unanimously agree on what would work for us. It didn't matter, I was infected with the desire to DREAM, to work for myself. I just didn't know what I'd do for a business.

That all changed when I returned after leave to my duty station at Eglin AFB. My boss had been out of town for several days. I found out where he went when he returned. He had just attended a huge convention of fired up people up in Washington D.C. (of all places!). He was excited to tell me about what he was doing there, and I was even more ready and excited to hear what he could tell me. Well, SMSgt Wagner found out how easy it was to recruit people when he talked to somebody like me, that was looking for an opportunity!

Yes, I joined Jim and Yolanda in the business venture, in the summer of '81. Nearly 30 years ago, I began learning about free enterprise. And I got to meet a great American patriot and entrepreneur by the name of Bill Britt, a very successful Amway distributor from North Carolina, and my upline Double-Diamond... It was his words, which I heard both at conventions and on tape, that taught me about the benefits of capitalism and the loss of freedom with socialism.

When I finished up with my commitment with the USAF, I returned with my family to Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I was fired up! The country was still trying to recover from the four years of Jimmy Carter. The economy here in Iowa was hurting. I just knew that I'd be highly successful after showing all my friends and relatives "the business." I already had my two friends that talked about getting a business going, at least in my mind. But, while I was out of town serving my country, they got busy in their lives. Dave got a job with a jewelry store and Phil became a firefighter. Okay, so I got two immediate "no's"! Hey, that's okay. But, the story became really sad after that.

After failing at convincing so many of my friends and relatives that there's a better way to live - with a dream - I became an expert at sharing the business with cold contacts, people that I met anywhere, anytime. Despite my lack of credibility, I forced myself to discuss the business opportunity with all kinds of successful professionals: Doctors, lawyers, realtors, insurance executives, and even a former Iowa Governor that was living in Cedar Rapids! They were all kind to me, but said, "no thanks." That was when I decided to try to help people that had not been so successful in life. And that is when I found out that socialist propaganda had already infected society. That was thirty years ago!

When the successful professionals I had talked to said, "not interested," in many cases it turned out to be a time issue. Yes, I knew all of the responses to that "excuse," and they all failed to convince anyone, but it was okay. They were succeeding, and by far, exceeded anything I've been able to do with my life. But none of those people put me down for having a dream. It was a different story when I discussed the business with people that were not professionals. Of course, some of them were in unions. They had things taken care of. And believe me, many of them that I still know aren't doing too bad (except for the ones that were working in manufacturing jobs that were moved overseas). Their lifelong careers at manufacturing plants, with great union benefits, have really paid off. Many are my age, and they are comfortably retired.

And the ones I contacted that were living in mobile home parks and apartments? Do I really need to say what their response was? Probably not, but I will tell you anyway, just so I can make the point clearer: I was told that 1) They deserved a better income in their jobs, and didn't feel obligated to have to work any harder than they were already, 2) They didn't think it was right that the owners of the companies they worked for made at least 100 times what they made (though, now it is thousands of times in many cases), and 3) If they made any more money, they'd lose their government benefits or pay more taxes!

Now, let's get back to what Henry Lamb tells us in his column. The government's managed economy system is all about confirming those afflicted with class envy. That's simply what is called Marxism. Really, had it been that I would rather have free health care rather than eventually flying in my own private jet, I would have stayed in the Air Force. Free or subsidized housing? Yep, that could have been taken care of too. Oh, but no, I had to go and start believing in free enterprise and Ronald Reagan economics... and true freedom - economic freedom. That seems to be long gone. I'm just sayin'... or dreamin'....

Managed economy or free markets?

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

June 11, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern


© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

America was once the envy of the world. Even the poorest people in America had far more than most of the rest of the people in the world. Throughout the first two centuries of her existence, America welcomed people from everywhere and supported their efforts to invent, to build, to create and to produce wealth from whatever enterprise struck their fancy. Labor unions and government regulations have put an end to that era.

For at least the last 50 years, government has continually tightened its grip on the economy by imposing ever-tighter controls over the activities of all businesses. Whether to promote safety or to protect the environment, government has made it nearly impossible for American business to compete with the rest of the world. In addition to this burden, labor unions, especially public employee labor unions, have fed Democrat candidates a healthy diet of campaign contributions in exchange for contracts that a free market would never tolerate.

The housing market crumbled because of government intervention. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and subsequent revisions imposed government management of the housing industry by forcing banks to issue loans to credit risks a free market would never tolerate. To entice banks to make these unjustified loans, the government guaranteed repayment. When some of the people couldn't, or wouldn't, repay their mortgages, the government took your tax money to make good the guarantee. This is the single most important cause of the current economic disaster, and the responsibility rests upon progressive Democrats who firmly believe that government must control and manage human activity.

Environmental regulations and government-mandated comprehensive land use plans have destroyed the concept of private property rights and elevated government to be the singular authority that controls the use of all land – regardless of who owns it. There are countless horror stories in which government destroyed the lives of enterprising Americans by preventing them from using their own land and resources. Ocie Mills and his son spent nearly two years in a federal prison for dumping 19 loads of building sand on his own property. Bob Brace fought through the courts for 12 years to win the right to convert his own pasture to a cabbage field; he lost. Wendy Birnbaum has been fighting for 12 years to use her 112 Washington acres as a campground. She still has to pay monstrous taxes on her land, but cannot use it to produce revenue. There are literally thousands and thousands of these cases in which government rolled over its citizens with no thought of being limited by their consent.

Marxists/communists/socialists/progressive Democrats are absolutely convinced that if left uncontrolled by government, people will destroy the planet, kill their neighbors with faulty products and force people to work for slave wages. Capitalists know that the conditions the progressives fear most are the inevitable consequences of the very policies they advocate. The former USSR and Cuba are but two very good examples to document this fact.

READ MORE at WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

I'm holding back the progression of mankind! ~ By Patrice Lewis

The depressing part is socialism spreads because people like their freebies. They like being dependent. They will passionately vote for the candidate, party and agenda that keeps those freebies flowing. If anyone objects, they are called racist, intolerant and – oh yeah – "holding back the progression of mankind."

Free people are responsible people. They have to be. And the more responsible the people, the fewer laws are needed. But when we stop acting responsibly and start relying on the government for everything, we become a nation of whining victims where nothing is ever our fault and the government assumes the responsibility that should have been ours.

Government interference and the enthusiastic redistribution of wealth will bring this nation to its knees. And it's hard to progress anywhere when you're crawling on your knees.

But socialists will never agree. They simply do not grasp that the advancement of 5,000 years will never PROgress under their form of government. Instead, it will REgress.

So to those who honestly think that socialism results in the progression of mankind, I offer the best intellectual reply I can muster:

Bwahahahahahahaha.

I was a college grad, in the Air Force, and trying to decide how to spend the rest of my life and career after I finished my 4 year commitment (which I extended for another 8 months). And then, in 1980, along came Ronald Reagan, who inspired me to understand why freedom is so important. I began to comprehend why America was the shining city on the hill. The United States was the beacon of freedom, where we had the opportunity to use our God given abilities to get ahead. Well, that was how I thought it was supposed to be. At the same time, I actually started learning about free enterprise, entrepreneurship, and capitalism, and in the same year, I joined Amway.

In the attempt to succeed at Amway, I learned about commitment. I found out that a lot of commitment was needed to succeed, no matter what vehicle you were going to use. I did all that I could to "share the plan by drawing the circles" to as many people as possible! In the process, I learned about failure despite our best efforts. Was it because I wasn't competent enough to teach people how to do the business? No. Was it because I just didn't have the charisma to lead an organization or to inspire people to do what it takes? Maybe.

But, before I explain what I think led to my failure in "the business," I need to assure you that I am not blaming anyone but myself. I'm only telling you about that experience because it fits perfectly with what Patrice explains in this column.

You see, my belief was in the American entrepreneurial spirit, and the precept that everyone has a dream, and if offered an opportunity, would do what ever it took. That was how I was raised. When I was a kid, if I wanted something bad enough, I'd mow a lawn. I did whatever it took. I had the impression that everybody knew that! So, I did my best to try to recruit (sponsor) people that didn't seem to have a way to get ahead. I knew that a lack of education or social status didn't mean that it was impossible to change our financial status if we wanted to bad enough. I believed that there were many people that just needed something that they could do (and I knew how "easy" Amway actually was!), and I was more than willing to help and teach and love them despite their current position in life, despite financial status, skin color or religion.

But when I learned how many people were thinking, it shattered my faith in the American spirit. It was disturbing how many people had lost their dream, and were "dead from the neck up." This was when I found out that if somebody was able to collect on some government entitlements, they weren't willing to even consider committing any effort toward bettering their lives. I found that their dreams were either never there, or had already been extinguished.

So, when you read this terrific column by Patrice, would you please keep in mind that if it was that way over 30 years ago, just how "progressive" are things now? Has "class envy" replaced the work ethic? Yes. And yes, it is really sad that somebody even tried to explain to Patrice why she is "holding back the progression of mankind."

So, how are we supposed to turn around a general societal attitude like that? Maybe there just needs to be a lot more Amway distributors out there, teaching a few people - or even ONE! - at a time about the differences between capitalism and socialism, and that we have to eventually choose between freedom or slavery. And that the truth is, freedom or slavery IS a choice! Nobody (yet) is holding a gun to anyone's head to make that choice. It's just about attitude and hanging out with people that will give you a hand up, rather than a hand out. I'm just sayin'...
 

*   *   *

I'm holding back the progression of mankind!

PATRICE LEWIS

By Patrice Lewis

May 21, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I got the funniest email this week. It seems someone found an older column of mine entitled "What is a socialist?" (I'll pause if you care to read it.) Then he sent the following: 

You're [sic] excerpt on socialism … is disgusting. Way to bend every little fact you can find to your bias. All you're doing is holding back the progression of mankind.

The sad part is the sender apparently believes what he wrote. Putting aside the amusing presumption that a north Idaho housewife is somehow responsible for arresting the development of the civilized world, I laughed heartily at his last statement.

If an aversion to socialism is holding back the progression of mankind, the corollary is that socialism will advance the progression of mankind. If this is the case, we need only to look at socialist countries, past and present, to gauge the success of how mankind is progressing under that form of government.

Let's see, there's the (former) USSR. North Korea. Venezuela. Cuba. Charming places, all of them. I can hardly wait to arrange my next vacation.

Then there are the (cough) "successful" socialist countries in Europe, which are slowly imploding because (to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher) they finally ran out of other peoples' money.

The usual progressive argument is, "Well, this time it will be different." Um, no. It can never be different because human nature never changes. Those in power will always wish to grow stronger and more in control. Those without power will, sooner or later, lose all incentive and motivation if the fruits of their labor are routinely taken from them. And those who are dependent on government entitlements will do everything they can to stay dependent, and demand more.

Ah, entitlements. That is the crux of the whole ugly scenario. Entitlements, as any sane person knows, means forcibly removing and redistributing personal wealth at the point of a gun. Far too many progressives are delighted to remove other peoples' money and pass it around. They cannot and will not admit that redistribution of wealth is a lose-lose scenario. The earner loses incentive to work harder because it only means more of his money is taken; and the receiver loses the incentive to earn his own because he is supplied with free money. Pretty obvious, right?

READ MORE at WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Why Marxism lives on ~ By Craige McMillan

Today we call capitalists entrepreneurs. By virtue of their capabilities, these individuals rise to positions of power and prominence. They create products people want to buy, which results in jobs for those whose work is needed to produce the product.

Thus the legacy of Marx lives on, from generation to generation. Why? Because the human failings of ego, conceit and the lust for power over others never die.

Craige enlightens us with his reasons why Marxism keeps on ticking. And no, the explanation doesn't involve people wanting to help the poor or eliminate poverty.

Why Marxism lives on

CRAIGE McMILLAN

By Craige McMillan

February 10, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

There's a reason Karl Marx is revered by so many academics. The reason is very simple. Marx made them respectable.

The secret lament of many academics goes something like this:

• There are lots of problems in the world

• We know – because we've studied them

• Because we've studied them, we know how to fix them

• We have the answer, yet nobody ever calls on us!

• Here! In the back row (waving hand furiously). I know the answer! Pick me!

In other words, "We're the best and the brightest. We have the answers. We should be running things!"

The genius of Karl Marx was not that he solved the world's economic problems. He didn't. The genius of Karl Marx was that he flipped the very old argument from, "Who should have the power?" and made it appear that the real question is, "Who should have the money?"

The great success of Marx is that he made the age-old vices of conceit and the lust for power seem legitimate; perhaps even honorable. Those who craved power over others could now cloak their lust in bland economic platitudes about the means of production and the voice of the proletariat.

The means of production – factories, jobs (and the money to pay for them) – would be owned in common by all the people. The decisions about what to produce (how to spend the money), how much to produce and who does what job would be made by those with political power (since they now controlled the assets). And these same elites would surely call on the academics for advice and implementation.

Two very different systems. Two very different inputs. And two very different results – as 90 years of communist history in various nations of the world has shown.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!