I have stated in the past that no one can successfully run a business using liberal ideology, policies, and practices.  If you look at any successful business today, even those run BY liberals, the policies and practices followed are conservative principles.

The success of any business depends on the supply and demand of the product and the correct pricing strategy of that product.  The goal of any business is to make a profit.  Profit allows a business to grow and expand.

Let’s look at the product of liberal talk radio.  Over the years, liberal talk radio has come and gone, failed.  The supply was presented to the public, but there was little to no demand for the product, at least not enough demand to create a profit.  The latest attempt has been Air America Radio.  With little to no demand for the product, Air America actually paid radio stations to air their programs.  This would be like McDonalds paying people to eat Big Macs.  Although Big Macs may be consumed, there would not be enough profit to sustain the business; it would be unsuccessful.  This is exactly what is happening with Air America; without an inflow of investor capital, this liberal radio business would fail.

The Air America situation has obviously not prohibited the liberals from practicing the same failed policies on a macro scale.  I am talking about the Democratic agenda for America from a business perspective.  Liberalism/socialism/communism as a philosophical and political ideology has failed the Democratic Party since the 1990’s.  Yet, it has not deterred the Dems from, not only pursuing this ideology, but moving ever closer to the communism side.

Recently, the Dems revealed their agenda to takeover America.  Some of the ideas including raising the minimum wage, raising taxes, lowering drug costs (subsidies?), and free (socialized) health care.  From a business perspective, let’s take a look at these “products” offered from the liberals from which they will try and create a demand.

What do all these products have in common?  All include a cost that far outweighs the value most consumers would normally find.  Raising minimum wage will increase the cost to the business owner though the value of the labor remains the same.  Raising taxes will increase the cost to the productive wage earner.  Lowering or mandating lower drug prices will lower profits to the pharmaceutical companies, or it will increase the cost of health insurance to the consumer, or if subsidized by the government, will increase the tax rate to the productive wage earner.  Finally, “free” or socialized health care will also cost the consumer a raise in tax rates or higher insurance costs.

The point is that all these “products” from the liberals will cost the consumers, the productive wage earners some amount of their money.  The Democratic agenda is basically an income redistribution agenda.  They propose taking money from the productive wage earner to pay for goods and services utilized and enjoyed by someone else.  It is McDonalds paying people to eat Big Macs simply to entice them to come to McDonalds.  In the liberal case, it is the liberals buying votes, enticing voters with the promise of a valuable product paid for by someone else.

It appears the business and marketing plan for the Democratic agenda is to redistribute income and buy votes, a very socialistic/communistic ideology.  The Dems have not created a real demand for their products, other than presenting a superficial payment to the voters in exchange for their votes.  Would McDonalds be successful if it had to pay consumers to eat their food?  Of course not, it would fail quickly.  So how is the Dems product different?  Democratic success must depend on more people with their hands out at the receiving end of the redistribution of wealth than on the productive end, the wage earners.  Is this a successful strategy?  It is ethical?  Is it even American?

Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of the Democratic agenda is behavior modification.  Work ethic is a learned behavior, and any behavior can be modified.  If a child exhibits bad behavior, the parents will punish that behavior until the child no longer exhibits that bad behavior.  Conversely, good behavior is rewarded to re-enforce that behavior, so it will continue.

Under the Democratic agenda of income redistribution, the behavior of creating wealth is punished by increasing the tax rate.  Eventually, higher taxation can deter the behavior of wealth creation.  On the other hand, the non-productive are rewarded for their behavior by increasing social goods and services, increasing the amount of wealth one received from the government.  This will foster the behavior of being non-productive and will increase said behavior.  This simple example shows why socialism and communism can not work, will never work, and has never worked.  As the wealth creation behavior diminishes due to increased taxation, and the non-productive behavior flourishes due to rewards, wealth will decrease, eventually leading to an economic collapse.

Is this really the road we want to travel?

Said cracker @ 3:52 pm | Permalink   

1. Odd, I would think that entrepreneurship, which is perhaps the catalyst for America’s unparalled economic success, belongs far more to the “liberal” side of the political ledger than “conservative”. Entrepreneurs have to think outside the box, they reject the status quo, they go against conventional wisdom and entrenched ideas. I’m sure your counterargument would be to argue that everything good is by definition conservative and everything bad is by definition liberal, but you didn’t define those two terms most likely because it would require you to defend that argument. Which is hard work.

   Your argument that Air America could never survive without investor capital is possibly true. But let’s not forget all those conservative think-tanks and magazines that exist solely because of deep-pocketed donors. Ever hear of Richard Mellon Scaife? In any case, using Air America (or, say, the National Review) as a metaphor for the American business world is a bit silly.

   “Raising minimum wage will increase the cost to the business owner though the value of the labor remains the same.”

   Let’s look at the reverse of this situation. There hasn’t been an increase in the minimum wage in ten years. In that time inflation has dramatically eroded the minimum wage’s purchasing power. Over those same ten years, the productivity of American workers has increased by about 120%.

   So your statement that the “value of the labor remains the same” is shockingly misinformed. It’s not just that what you say is stupid–it’s a direct insult to the hard-working citizens of this country, who are the most productive workers in the world. The “value of labor remains the same”. What a joke.

   Comment by Mean Gene — 6/24/2006 @ 7:40 pm

---

2. Good Lord, I just saw from your bio that you have an MBA. No wonder I never tell people I went to B-school.

   Comment by Mean Gene — 6/24/2006 @ 7:43 pm

---

3. If I were you, I wouldn’t admit that I went to a B-school either. Just by your nonsensical statement that productivity went up but minimum wage stayed the same. Do you actually think productivity increased because people just decided to work harder? Or perhaps it’s innovation and creativity in technology and the application thereof that makes the worker more productive? I would say the latter. And where does an employer get the money to invest in new technology? from his profits, profits earned by keeping costs down and supplying consumers with a product they want.

   Minimum wage artificially increases the cost of labor. The VALUE of that labor is realative to a free market economy. If one were to artificially raise the cost through minimum wage increases DOES NOT MEAN the value of that labor is increased.

   I suggest a few more classes in management, entrepreneurship, economics, and finance…in fact, let me know what school youo went to so I can tell everyone NOT to go there if you’re not learning anything.

   Conservatism is about the individual, much like entrepreneurship. Liberalism is about the state where everyone is “equal”, no one should have more than anyone else…perhaps you should take a class in political science as well…

   Comment by cracker — 6/25/2006 @ 8:23 am

---

4. Come now. I didn’t say that productivity went up while the minimum wage stayed the same. I said that productivity went up while inflation “dramatically eroded the minimum wage’s purchasing power“. What, you thought I wouldn’t remember what I wrote…in the post directly above? You do understand this point, don’t you–five bucks can’t buy as many goods and/or services as it did ten years ago. You call me “nonsensical” and yet you can’t even honestly reproduce what I wrote? Weak.

   “Do you actually think productivity increased because people just decided to work harder? Or perhaps it’s innovation and creativity in technology and the application thereof that makes the worker more productive? I would say the latter.”

   I would say it’s an impossibly complex mix of many, many factors. To say that it was just innovation and creativity in techonology is incredibly facile. Do I think workers “just decide to work harder”. Hell yes I do. They want to climb that ladder. They want to make more money, they want to get promoted. You actually think that it’s computers alone that made our economy grow so much, and not the hard work, ambition, and ability of the American work force? You don’t believe in the American Dream? You don’t believe in capitalism?

   “And where does an employer get the money to invest in new technology? from his profits…” Or they borrow the money. Or they issue stock. Or they sell assets and reinvest the money from the sale. You said you took finance?

   “Minimum wage artificially increases the cost of labor.” No, it doesn’t. If I’m a cardiologist the minimum wage doesn’t mean I get an extra few bucks in my paycheck. The minimum wage sets a floor for the cost of labor. It’s a political consideration as much as an economic one. The argument is that someone who works a minimum wage job should be paid in a manner that allows them a certain standard of living. The idea behind increasing the minimum wage is that the benefits to our society (decreases in crime, more time spent with children, better able to provide for oneself and not rely on social services, etc etc etc) would outweight the costs.

   Would raising the minimum wage decrease the number of jobs available? Almost certainly. But let’s not forget that as the minimum wage lost purchasing power over the last ten years, there was not an equal decrease in unemployment. It stands to reason that increasing the minimum wage would not result in an equal increase in unemployement. Also, people who work 2 jobs today because one isn’t enough to get by might be able to make do with just one job.

   “Conservatism is about the individual, much like entrepreneurship. Liberalism is about the state where everyone is “equal”, no one should have more than anyone else…perhaps you should take a class in political science as well…”

   You’re description of liberalism is more in line with communism, which is neither fair nor accurate. And your definition of conservatism is equally useless. But let’s go with them anyway. So you’re cool with homosexuals then. Gay people shouldn’t be singled out for discrimination, because the state shouldn’t get involved in their individual love lives. And abortion, that’s up to the conscience of the individual, the state should have no say in that either. Good, I agree with you there. Everyone should be allowed to do his own individual thing, without the Man hassling them about it. It sounds totally groovy.

   Comment by Mean Gene — 6/27/2006 @ 12:52 am

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website