Saturday, July 22, 2017


Here is an excerpt of a DISQUS chat between someone and myself over the latest proposal to repeal ObamaScam / ObamaCare. The chat reinforces what I published back on Sunday, February 15, 2015 in AMERICANS EXPRESS ENDLESS STUPIDITY IN THEIR DEBATE OVER MEDICAL ECONOMICS.

Let's treat Healthcare like a utility, like gas and water. Heathcare profits should be controlled.

Healthcare does not mean medicine. It's not a synonym.

The word healthcare was coined by a bureaucrat in 1940. It means Congress pays the bills. Medicaid and Medicare are examples of healthcare.

Medicine is a product.

Would you treat the manufacture and sale of smartphones and cellular telephone service as a utility? Would you treat the manufacture and sale of cars as a utility?
Would you treat the manufacture and sale of houses a utility?

No? So why would you advocate for medicine to be done so?

Instead, advocate for hyper-competition. If you enjoy low prices on other products because of competition, you would enjoy low prices on medicine for the same reasons.

Let's start with your conservative free-market nirvana, where buyer and seller each armed with perfect information come together in a voluntary transaction.

With your lame attempt at ad hominem through innuendo — "Let's start with your conservative free-market nirvana" — you have announced that you don't really desire to talk about this rationally. Also, you have committed the fallacy of ad hominem through innuendo.

But from the get-go, the patient-as-consumer faces a knowledge asymmetry almost impossible to overcome. Americans' general deference to physicians isn't just a cultural trait, it simply reflects the expertise and training regarding diagnoses, possible treatments, and likely outcomes doctors possess and their patients do not.

For some cases and for some conditions, the layman can narrow that yawning information gap. But WebMD or no, it can't be eliminated.

But even if the diagnoses, treatments and cures for heart disease, diabetes or depression could be purchased in a free market, in the United States the buyer simply doesn't—or—can't know what price he or she will pay. Hospital prices for drugs, supplies, and procedures are completely opaque.

Before 1965, hospitals routinely produced price lists for known services like pregnancy.

Because third parties pay for most Americans, doctors fail to advertise their prices.

However, when Americans buy elective medicine and surgery, Americans buy from sellers of elective medicine and surgery who not only advertise on prices but compete rigorously on price and quality.

Americans defer to the expertise of lawyers and yet lawyers reveal their prices. Americans defer to the expertise of car mechanics and yet mechanics reveal their prices.

Congress has a near monopsony and thus sets the prices on all medicine. In fact, $6.50 of every $10 spent on medicine is spent by Congress through Medicaid, Medicare and Veteran's Administration.

Get Congress out of medicine — end Medicaid and Medicare — and prices will fall.

"Health" is not a commodity. Those who believe that choosing a health care product or service is no different than buying a car, television, or cell phone might feel differently after, say, developing colon cancer.

Health isn't product at all. Health is a state of the individual. Health exists independent of medicine.

Medicine doesn't make health. Medicine eradicates disease. Medicine and surgery are not healthcare.

As it turns out, that mystery pricing is one of the hallmarks of the American model that spends $2.8 trillion a year (over 17 percent of GDP) on health care, more than Japan, Germany, France, China, the U.K., Italy, Canada, Brazil, Spain, and Australia combined."

Americans subsidize medicine worldwide. The drugs are developed here. The machines are developed here. Foreigners enjoy a windfall.

I know how much my cell phone, car and house insurance cost.

You seem to be like most. You're confusing costs with prices. Costs are outlays. Prices are rates.

You have made a complaint about the lack of transparency of prices and then you blather about costs.

Have you ever been to a doctor in your life?

Do you see how your question lacks relevancy?

Typical deflection. Again... Have you ever been to a doctor or used healthcare insurance or Medicare or Medicaid?

Your expression reveals that you fail to understand reality. The right question is this: Have you ever hired a doctor?

There is no such thing as healthcare insurance. Healthcare means Congress pays the medical bills. Medicaid and Medicare is how Congress does that.

Those programs are specific welfare given based on qualification (income and age respectively). Welfare isn't insurance.

You have asked the equivalent to this: Have you ever gone to a mechanic. But mechanics fix cars and not people.

So the right question is this: Have you ever hired a car mechanic to fix your car?

People hire doctors. Doctors sell the product of medicine.

Why do you believe malpractice can exist as a concept?

Anyone hires a doctor to sell medicine. Any doctor claims to know medicine (the practice of medical arts).

If a doctor does something that is not what he claimed he could do, he has liability (subject to lawsuit and upon loss, subject to damages).

How do you hire a doctor if you're in a car crash and unconscious?

If a 17-year old driver ends up in a car crash and unconscious, his custodial parent has authority and capacity.

In every state, there are provisions in law, which account for such matters.

It's likely that you do not know what authority means and what capacity means.

But what if someone has no family or next of kin. Tell me again how someone, who is in a car accident and is unconscious can "hire" a doctor.

In every state, there are provisions in law, which account for such matters.

In all states, law authorizes agents of the state to hire doctors on behalf anyone who temporarily lacks capacity because the presumption made lawgivers in all of the states awhile ago is simply this: if any individual were conscious and of sound mind in an emergency situation, that individual would put himself in liability to buy medicine and surgery on automatically given credit.

As a proviso of providing medicine, lawgivers require doctors, surgeons, hospital operators and other allied personnel to provide medicine and surgery in exchange for debt owed.

Your word salad explanation means you're running away from the question.

Your lame attempt at ad hominem "word salad" amuses.

Meanwhile my writing is precise. My words express precision and clarity not seen in almost all.

As I lie under that bus in the road, what if my insurance company refuses to pay for my care? What if the insurer tried to intervene in my care to their own benefit instead of mine? What if the company with which I contracted for insurance services collapses and cannot pay for my medical care when I need it?

There is provision in law for all of these matters. That is why we have courts to adjudicate matters.

Under an insurance system without effective, powerful regulation, the market forces that would exist in a face to face transaction between consumer (patient) and supplier (doctor) disappear, replaced with a grim gamble in which the insurance company has every incentive to cheat.

We cannot maintain an insurance-based system of health care unless there is some force aligned with the consumer that has the superior authority and financial backing to hold the insurance providers to their end of the deal.

Insurers are risk specialists who work on behalf of their risk pool participants. Insurers are a boon to mankind.

The medical industry exists almost entirely to serve people who have been rendered incapable of representing their own interests in an adversarial transaction.

Like any industry, participants of the medical industry exist only to serve their own self-interests. Yet, because they have become adept at crony politics, unlike participants of competitive industries, no longer do they need to serve the recipients of medicine and surgery with respect to price and quality. Instead, they operate in collusion with politicians.
Read more ...
Blogger Tricks

Thursday, July 20, 2017


On July 18, 2017, in Do Tax Deductions Violate the Non-Aggression Principle?, published a work by Laurence M. Vance in which Vance struggles at rebuttal to my work, CALIFORNIAN SCHEMING. CALIFORNIANS AND RESIDENTS OF A FEW OTHER BUM STATES ARE THE ULTIMATE FEDERAL TAX FREELOADERS AND LIBERTARIANS CHEER FOR THEM.

Amusingly, Vance refers to me as "one guy—a blogger" in a lame at ad hominem as if blogger is a pejorative and Vance someone how must be my superior because he is a writer. Vance seems to be one of those over-educated guys — too many college degrees — who lacks an intellect strong enough for rational, independent, original thinking.

In my original work, which prompted Vance's weak attempt at rebuttal, I revealed how residents of states whose lawgivers impose high income taxes are free-riding on residents of states with no or low income taxes precisely because Congress lets high-tax state residents pay less in federal taxes. In effect, high-tax state residents get to enjoy the benefits of the U.S. Congress and its agencies while letting residents of low-tax states pay the bills.

Vance ponders:

Are tax deductions subsidies? Do tax deductions violate the libertarian non-aggression principle?

And then he claims to have answered such questions previously with a resounding "no."

Vance spews a long silly list of examples about deductions and anoints himself the winner by declaring "I think my point is clear." In truth, Vance lacks a point. Vance has scored none.

If five co-workers eat lunch at their local haunt and each eat and drink about $20 worth, but three only have $10 each to ante up for the bill, the other two must shell out $35 each to cover the bill otherwise they're all washing dishes. Each of the two who pay 3.5 times as much as any of the other three are subsidizing each of the other three. All five enjoyed the equivalent amount of service and product, $20 worth, but three have engaged in free-riding at the expense of the other two.

If two start out with a tax bill of $1,000 and the law givers set the rules so that one pays the full $1,000 but another pays $500 and yet both benefit from $1,500 of spending by law givers, the one paying less is free-riding on the one paying more.

So from Vance's silly long list — the blind, the qualified aged, educators,  performing artists, alimony payers, movers, lenders of defaulted student loans, purchasers of higher education enrollment, purchasers of medical bills savings plans, purchases of medicine and dentistry beyond a specified sum, those who donate to charities, custodial parents, purchasers of mortgages, dues-paying union members, those who have suffered specified losses, purchasers of tax preparation services, those with dependents  — all are being subsidized by those who can not otherwise get themselves out from their compulsory tax burden.

Vance seems to be daft for failing to see that those who get to reduce their tax burdens are free-riding on those who can not. Both get interstate highways, NOAA weather forecasts, military defense, and a million of other things, but one pays more.

Vance argues that residents of high-tax states are right to compel residents of low-tax states disproportionately to fund Congress. If that fails to violate the NAP, then was does?

To justify his silliness, Vance cites his demi-God of libertarianism, Murray Rothbard. Rothbard defined the non-agression principle (NAP) so:

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. 
And it is from the NAP, that Vance and other dopey libertarians claim this:

Taxation is theft. It is theft on a grand scale. 

Libertarians simply reveal their stupidity with respect to law. They do not know what theft means. They are as stupid as the anarchists and socialists who claim property is theft.

So what is theft?
Theft is the act of dealing from any motive whatever unlawfully and without claim of right with anything capable of being stolen in any of the ways in which theft can be committed with the intention of permanently converting that thing to the use of any person other than the general or special owner thereof. 

By the rules upon which Americans have agreed, Congress has the right to impose taxation on whomever by the rules Congress devises. Those who Congress imposes taxes upon have a duty to Congress to pay those taxes.

Congress' taxing authority is not theft. It's law.

It fails to surprise that Vance would be misled by Murray Rothbard. While a solid historian, Rothbard was a fool with respect to commercial banking. The libertarian-beloved Rothbard misled far too many because Rothbard suffered from many intellectual fallacies.

Throughout the relevant part of his life, Rothbard foolishly claimed there exists double claims of ownership on deposits. Rothbard simply did not understand commercial banking precisely because Rothbard failed to understand jurisprudence.

Anyone who knows about Commercial Law knows that a banker is a trader who buys cash and debt by selling bank credits. In a purchase and sale, a customer, known as a depositor sells property in cash or receivables to a banker and buys property in bank credits.

With property in bank credits, the bank customer has a right of action to demand an amount of cash from his banker at a future date. Evidences of such right includes checking account bank statements and passbook savings books. In commercial banking law, a deposit isn't a depositum, but actually a mutuum in law of a purchase and sale of cash for deposits.

There are no double claims of ownership as the commerce-illiterate Rothbard believed. Bankers own deposits. Depositors own rights of action.

All the same, Vance contradicts himself by supporting the idea that taxation is theft. If taxation is theft, the NAP gets violated upon those residents of states with no or low state income taxes as they get forced to relinquish unearned shares of profits and income while residents as represented by politicians of high state income tax states have their representatives colluding to impose a higher rate of Congressional taxation upon residents of states of low or no income taxes.

In the end of his failed rebuttal, Vance commits the fallacies of appeal to emotion by this gem:

It doesn’t matter the amount of the tax deduction, what it is for, whom it benefits, or why it was instituted—the result is the same: Government takes less of Americans’ money to fund its bureaucrats, agencies, departments, bureaus, military adventures, global empire, corporate welfare, subsidies, welfare programs, income redistribution schemes, and myriad of wasteful, inefficient, and unconstitutional programs that shouldn’t exist. Because the income tax isn’t likely to be eliminated or tax rates substantially reduced, Americans need all the tax deductions they can get.

The overly educated, Lew Rockwell (ranked 8,528th by Alexa) writer Vance seems to be confused about too many concepts, which holds true for adherents of libertarianism. Thus, Vance seemingly does not know key concepts of jurisprudence:

  1. property means the right of ownership and never the thing owned
  2. for every law, there must be a duty and a matching right, a right and a matching duty

As well, Vance seems not to know at least one key concept of commerce: taxation is an unearned share of profit.

Vance even fails to know that Americans lack money. Cash is evidence of bank deposits in circulation. Bank deposits are credits. Doing the work of money isn't the same as money.

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. Americans have lacked money for decades. Money, if it were to exist, could exist without bankers or government. Cash requires bankers. Legal tender cash requires bankers, law givers and their agents.

Also, Vance could be right in at least one aspect if he had written something like this: Americans ought hardly to pay taxes precisely because there should be a preference for freedom — living by the absence of law in the presence of law givers — over officialdom law  — duties and rights.

Libertarians suffer from much contradiction precisely because they lack a proper understanding of jurisprudence as well as commerce. Here are a few of my works on dopey libertarians and their fallacious beliefs:

President Calvin Coolidge had it right when he said:

The collection of taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this Republic the rewards of industry belong to those who earn them.

I say it thus: We're living in the 21st century. The goal should be to have the least governance as needed rather than the most governance as tolerable (before revolution happens).

Read more ...

Monday, July 3, 2017


NOTE: To read the True Dollar Journal rebuttal to Vance, go here:


The other day, the editors of published The SALT Deduction, a work by Laurence M. Vance, a libertarian guy who has earned college degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics.  In the work, Vance decries a proposal by the Trump administration to eliminate the federal tax deduction for state taxes paid.

Vance mentions a letter written by a couple of House members from New Jersey who claim that eliminating the federal deduction for state and local taxes paid would, "unfairly penalizes residents in high-tax states like New York, California, Illinois, and New Jersey."

Yet, reality reveals otherwise. Residents of no-tax / low-tax states are the ones being penalized right now. They have been penalized for years by Congress.

In truth, residents of states with no income taxes or low marginal rates actually subsidize the residents of the high marginal rate states.

There are no bigger freeloaders than Californians. At every marginal state tax rate in California, Americans of almost every other state subsidize Californians. If Californians had to feel the full effects of paying taxes to Congress, likely there would be a state tax revolt by Californians. Under a tax revolt, Californian lawgivers would find themselves pressed to make hard decisions. Yet, because Americans pay for Californians, the dopey lawgivers of California can push for high-speed rail to nowhere and highly subsidized solar electricity.

Along with paying for Californians, for those earning between $75,000 and $99,999, every federal taxpaying American also subsidizes the federal tax bill of Iowans, Mainers, Oregonians and residents of D.C. When Californians, Hawaiians, Iowans, Mainers, Minnesotans, Oregonians, and DC residents earn above $100,000, they get their federal tax bill subsidized by others. And at the highest incomes, the same freeloaders get joined by New Jerseyans and New Yorkers.

The residents of Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas, Florida and Alaska all are hit hard as they do not pay state income taxes. As well, the residents of North Dakota (2.9%), Pennsylvania (3.0%) and Indiana (3.23%) make it possible for the legislators in high tax states to live it up.

The residents of these states are carrying Californians and the other bums of the profligate high-tax states.

According to Vance, "the SALT deduction keeps almost $100 billion a year out of the hands of Uncle Sam." Vance believes this to be good because by Vance's simplistic, libertarian view, anything that lets Americans "keep more of their money in their pockets and out of the hands of Uncle Sam" is good.

Yet, Vance advocates violation of the non-aggression principle of libertarianism when he pushes for the residents of some states to beggar their neighbors.

Without the SALT deduction, lawgivers of high-tax states would find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Likely, quality of life would fall in states like California, Oregon, New York and New Jersey. Americans would have even more reason to move to states offering better tax laws.

If Americans are serious about putting an end to creeping socialism in the USA, Americans will push to end the deduction for state and local taxes. Let the legislators of high tax states experience the wrath of their residents.

Read more ...

Thursday, June 22, 2017


Before the special election to fill the House seat vacated by President Trump's HHS secretary, Tom Price, the establishment's media, which is the voice of the Democratic Party, claimed the election would be a referendum on President Trump. After the election, these same people claimed Handel won because District 6 is a deep red district.

Three counties comprise District 6 — DeKalb, Cobb and Fulton though only north of Fulton and northeast of Cobb. District 6 falls within metro Atlanta.

So how "deep red" is District 6 of Georgia anyway?  In 2012, Obama took Fulton decisively, 64.2% to 34.6% over lame candidate Mitt Romney. As well, Obama trounced Romney in DeKalb, 77.9% to 21.1%. Romney managed to score a solid win in Cobb, 55.5% vs 42.9%.

Likewise, in 2008, Obama scored slightly better results against even lamer John "Songbird" McCain. Obama took Fulton, 67.2% vs 33.2%. Obama trounced McCain in DeKalb, 79.0% vs 20.4%, Like Romney, McCain scored a win in Cobb, 54.2% vs 44.8%.

As well, in 2004, Kerry took both Fulton and DeKalb while George W. Bush took Cobb.

Yesterday, I shared with you the results of the 2016 election in THE ESTABLISHMENT'S MEDIA CALLED THE 2017 GEORGIA DISTRICT 6 REPLACEMENT ELECTION A REFERENDUM ON PRESIDENT TRUMP. REPUBLICAN HANDEL WON. WHY DOES ANYONE STILL TAKE SLANTED #FAKENEWS FROM CNN? In the 2016 presidential election, all three counties went for Hillary Clinton. Clinton won Cobb, 47.9% to 45.8%. In DeKalb and Fulton, Clinton destroyed President Trump. Clinton won Fulton, 67.7% vs 26.8%. Clinton won DeKalb by a lopsided 79.1% vs 16.2%.

It is laughable that anyone could call District 6 of Georgia, "deep red."

Read more ...


It turns out that Elon Musk's batteries in his battery-electric Tesla cars generate as much CO2 as driving a gasoline-powered car for eight years. This disaster has been revealed by a study funded by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency. Anthony Watts reported this on June 20 (see: Tesla Car Battery Production Releases as Much CO2 as 8 Years of Gasoline Driving).

Elon Musk seems to be little more than a phony businessman. Peter Thiel made Musk rich. Successive congresses have made Musk far, far richer by subsidizing his Tesla and SpaceX businesses.

Musk never engineered anything himself. Musk seems to be a promoter, a con man, merely. Yet, Musk gives celebrity cache to the electric car and his Tesla brand. That seems to be fueling unwarranted interest in electric cars.

The electric car is late 1800s folly. The fuel cell car is a 21st century advance.


Battery-electric cars are old, failed technology. The vastly superior, mass-produced internal-combustion-engine put the electric car out of business by the end of the 19th century.

An inferior battery-electric car needs a massive battery to store electricity. Electricity powers a motor.

Battery-electric cars suffer from crippling range limits. You can drive only so far a battery charge. Batteries are too heavy. As well, charging takes a long time.

Musk's supercharger for the Tesla Model S requires 30 minutes to give you only 170 miles in range.

Cold-weather cripples battery-electric cars. Musk and his battery-electric car friends keep this truth from you.

Batteries perform best around 100 °F. However, when temperatures fall below zero, batteries begin to fail. The charge amount drops along with the rate at which batteries can supply that charge to a motor.  Battery-electric cars can take twice as long to charge in cold weather.

And if you turn on the heat while driving in winter, the heating system will decrease the range of your battery-electric car.


The superior fuel cell car gets free oxygen taken from the free air and combines that with safe hydrogen onboard to generate electricity in real-time. Electricity powers a motor.

In a fuel cell car, hydrogen is an energy store. Hydrogen is not an energy source.

Oxygen and hydrogen produce only water and heat. Fuel cell cars are zero-emissions.

Hydrogen can come from a variety of fuels. Even methane from sewage can get turned into hydrogen.

The most common hydrogen source is natural gas. Americans are the number one producers of natural gas. Our neighbors to the north, the Canadians, are the number three producers (see: Natural Gas by Country).

Fuel cell cars lack range limits since fuel cell cars work alike to internal combustion engine cars. Simply, you add more hydrogen fuel as needed. You can drive over 300 miles and refuel in about three minutes with a fuel cell car.

It is the lack of fueling infrastructure and vehicle production that holds back fuel cell cars from mass adoption.

Read more ...

Wednesday, June 21, 2017


When Tom Price vacated his seat in the House of Representatives from Georgia District 6 to become the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in the cabinet of President Trump, the State of Georgia held a special election in that District to seat his replacement.  The Establishment's media, that is, the anti-Trump, left-leaning voice of the Democratic Party, reported incessantly that this election should be viewed as a referendum on President Trump himself.

After the victory by Republican Karen Handel in the special election for Georgia District 6, CNN anchor Don Lemon said, "What’s interesting is that, breaking news, a Republican wins in Georgia, it shouldn’t be breaking news. This is the way it should happen."

Three counties comprise District 6 in Georgia, Cobb, DeKalb and Fulton. Republican Handel destroyed Ossoff 61% to 39% in Cobb while also winning handily in Fulton, 53% to 47%. In DeKalb, Ossoff beat Handel soundly 58% to 42%.

In the 2016 presidential election, all three counties went for Hillary Clinton. Clinton won Cobb, 47.9% to 45.8%. In DeKalb and Fulton, Clinton destroyed President Trump. Clinton won Fulton, 67.7% vs 26.8%. Clinton won DeKalb by a lopsided 79.1% vs 16.2%.

So it is a rather big deal that Handel won this special election considering the demographics make-up and voting pattern in this district.

From 2000 to 2013, 78 counties in 19 states, from California to Kansas to North Carolina, flipped from majority white to counties where no single racial or ethnic group is a majority, according to a new Pew Research Center. Of these counties, those in Georgia stand out for having four of the five biggest percentage-point swings in their white-population share.
For example, in Henry County (pop. 211,000 in 2013), 35 miles south of Atlanta, the population’s white share fell from 80.1% in 2000 to 49.8% in 2013. In Gwinnett County (pop. 859,000 in 2013), also near Atlanta, the population dropped from 67.0% white to 41.6% over the same time period.
This trend stems from a flat or declining number of whites in each of these four Georgia counties (Douglas and Rockdale are the other two), combined with a large and growing black population and a smaller Hispanic population that is also increasing in number. (In recent years, many blacks have moved to the Atlanta area from Northern states as part of a return migration to the South.) 

According to facts presented in a Washington Post article from 2014

  • Nonwhites are more Democratic than whites. 
  • The Georgia electorate is becoming more nonwhite. 
  • The share of registered voters in Georgia that is white declined from 72 to 59 percent over the past decade.  
  • Nearly 3 of 4 active registered voters older than 65 are white while less than half of those under 30 are white. 

According to AOL News, May 2016,  eighty-one percent of Georgia's population growth in the past decade came from minorities.

Read more ...

Tuesday, June 20, 2017


Today, Intellectual Takeout published a work by Daniel Lattier, titled
This is What Happens When Education Loses Its Purpose. In the work, Lattier assailed the foolish administrators of Evergreen State for their indulgence of Social Justice Warrior kiddies. Dan Lattier had been doing all right until he attacked individualism.

"The West has substituted its metaphysical foundations for relativism, individualism, and pragmatism." ~ Dan Lattier

Dan, likely who is Catholic, fails to realize that it is from post-Luther, post-Calvin, North Sea Germanic (Englishmen, Dutchmen, Plattdeutsch) Protestant individualism alone that Modern Civilization arose, or what Dan mistakenly calls "The West".  Modern Civilization organized upon a system of international exchange made possible by currency, credit and capitalism (property put to production in hopes of profit) and a freed man.

Without post-Luther, post-Calvin Protestant individualism we would still be living in Medieval Civilization as defined by the Roman Catholic Church. Medieval Civilization, also called Church Civilization was an all-encompassing totalitarianism.

In Medieval Civilization , all polity was focused upon the construction and maintenance of the rulers. Medieval Civilization organized economic life around household and slave production. Anyone had to accept living with his station in life. That is what the Roman Catholics gave to the people of Western Europe from about 450 AD to about 1550 AD.

Post-Luther, post-Calvin Protestantism put into anyone a sense of individual responsibility. That impelled him to assert his right to liberty. After all, a man needed liberty in his personal duty to God. The right of ownership in himself provided the means that gave rise to modern progress.

It is from post-Luther, post-Calvin Protestant individualism that made men challenge all power over their consciences and wills held by Medieval Civilization institutions. Moreover Protestant individualism made its adherents resist ecclesiastical authority over their minds and bodies.

Post-Luther, post-Calvin Protestant individualism gave men the means to overthrow kingdoms and dethrone monarchs. This doctrine resulted from the doctrine of Jesus — that men should not render what belongs to God to other men.

All other ethical systems have proven to be inferior to Protestant individualism and not merely inferior but vastly inferior. Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and especially Judaism, Mohammadism, Confucianism, atheism and communism all have been proven to be vastly inferior to post-Luther, post-Calvin North Sea Germanic Protestant individualism.

It has been the relentless attack on post-Luther, post-Calvin Protestant individualism by the descendants of the great unwashed Catholics from Ireland, Italy, Poland and Germany along with Russian / Ukrainian Slav Jews that has brought the USA and "The West" to its pitiful decline.

It is not merely relativism as Dan has written, but moral relativism,  which is at the heart of the matter. Moral relativists claim that all ethical systems (rules of behavior for a good life) are equal in standing and thus equally valid. To the moral relativists, there are no absolutes, no invariant rights and wrongs. They adhere to situational ethics.

The SJW students not only of Evergreen State but also of every institution of higher education in the USA today are advocates of socialism and not individualism. They perceive their enemy to be the great white male, their Moby Dick.

For a timeline on the decline of the USA, see my work: HOW DID WE GET HERE? IS THE USA OVER? THE BEATS OF AMERICAN HISTORY.

For clarity of the meaning of Modern Civilization vs "The West," check out my work: MORE CONFUSION ABOUT THE WEST AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

And for more on the importance of individualism, see my work: MANY OF THE ALT-RIGHT ARE AS DOPEY AS SOCIALISTS.

Read more ...

Sunday, June 18, 2017


Last Friday, the Jeff Bezos led announced a $14 billion purchase of Whole Foods Market, Inc. That deal reveals the intention of Bezos to grab a big chunk of the $700 billion a year grocery bill Americans pay.

Right now, Wal-Mart takes about 22% of that bill. Wal-Mart's take accounts for 56% of its gross revenue.

With the Whole Foods deal, Amazon acquires 460 stores. Right now, Wal-Mart has over ten times as many stores (4,700) yielding a footprint that brings groceries with 10 miles of 90% of all Americans.

Bezos' move looks shrewd. However, with the likes of Uber, Lyft and forth-coming self-driving cars, what looks a smart move will seem to be a price-y investment that likely will yield low returns.

In a few years, all of the major players will be delivering groceries door-to-door. That said, such innovation (changing behavior) still requires people to change.

While it seemed relatively easy to train Americans to order from online laptops, a books, pairs of cross-trainers, and even airline tickets, it is another thing to get Americans to order fresh groceries. When it comes to fresh kill food, people like to look first.

Also, Whole Food stores typically are standalone box stores of a certain footprint, which even if cleared and used for warehouses, would be quite small compared to the typical Costco store.

Supermarket chains already are served by regional distribution centers. They have expertise in this area, especially in produce and meats.

It is cheaper to increase the density of those while shuttering comparatively smaller supermarket stores than it is to try to force supermarket stores into the roll of distribution center.

As it is, Wal-Mart offers curbside pickup of groceries ordered online at 1.5 times stores (700) as Whole Foods has locations. Wal-Mart expects to add 300 more stores by 2018.

On the upside, Amazon gained over $14 billion on its market capitalization after announcing the $13.6 billion deal. Some will claim that Amazon acquired the deal for free. However, that market cap can disappear as quickly as it materialized.

Many believe this deal is a game changer.

"The Whole Foods purchase changes the landscape dramatically." ~ Will Oremus, Slate
"Amazon agreed to buy the upscale grocery chain Whole Foods for $13.4 billion, in a deal that will instantly transform the company that pioneered online shopping into a merchant with physical outposts in hundreds of neighborhoods across the country." ~ Nick Wingfield and Michael J. de la Merced, New York Times
"For anyone in the business of selling, supplying or hauling groceries: Things just got real.'s $13.7 billion purchase of Whole Foods instantly makes it a major player in the U.S. grocery industry and that leaves a lot for shoppers, retailers and other companies involved in the industry to chew on." ~ Zlati Meyer, USA Today
Combined, Amazon and Whole Foods might account for about 3.5% grocery spending in the United States, making the combined firm the country’s fifth-largest grocery retailer.

The long run on this Amazon-Whole Foods deal looks pedestrian.

Read more ...