Carrier Blinks, Jobs Stay, Trump Wins |

(AP Photo/Nati Harnik, file)

(AP Photo/Nati Harnik, file)

Well, well, well, look at that, Carrier with all the noise about domestic manufacturing jobs decided it would be a good idea to stay in Indianapolis. Undoubtedly they are correct. From the NY Times

From the earliest days of his campaign, Donald J. Trump made keeping manufacturing jobs in the United States his signature economic issue, and the decision by Carrier, the big air-conditioner company, to move over 2,000 of them from Indiana to Mexico was a tailor-made talking point for him on the stump.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump and Mike Pence, Indiana’s governor and the vice president-elect, plan to appear at Carrier’s Indianapolis factory to announce a deal with the company to keep roughly 1,000 jobs in the state, according to officials with the transition team as well as Carrier.

Mr. Trump will be hard-pressed to alter the economic forces that have hammered the Rust Belt for decades, but forcing Carrier and its parent company, United Technologies, to reverse course is a powerful tactical strike that will hearten his followers even before he takes office.

“I’m ready for him to come,” said Robin Maynard, a 24-year veteran of Carrier who builds high-efficiency furnaces and earns almost $24 an hour as a team leader. “Now I can put my daughter through college without having to look for another job.”

It also signals that Mr. Trump is a different kind of Republican, willing to take on Big Business, at least in individual cases.

And just as only a confirmed anti-Communist like Richard Nixon could go to China, so only a businessman like Mr. Trump could take on corporate America without being called a Bernie Sanders-style socialist. If Barack Obama had tried the same maneuver, he’d probably have drawn criticism for intervening in the free market.

via Carrier Blinks, Jobs Stay, Trump Wins |

The Times goes on with comments from Robert Reich and such. I don’t disagree, part of the reason it worked this time for Trump/Pence is that pence is Indiana’s Governor, and Trump speaks business. I suspect part of it is also that Carrier is owned by United Technologies, one of the big defense contractors, who undoubtedly don’t want any troubles with the administration, if they can help it.

All that said, it’s good news, and it goes to the point that relocating to Mexico is a rather marginal cost-savings, usually. I can remember when we had a Monroe shock absorber plant here, it was the old Rancho suspension plant, built in the 50s or 60s, a few years ago it moved to Mexico, now it’s off in Asia somewhere. Apparently, the Mexicans didn’t work cheap enough either. By the way, they couldn’t get the plant sold, so a few weeks ago they bulldozed it, it ain’t coming back. The tax breaks weren’t good enough, likely.

He won’t win them all, but it’s a good start: when you can save 1000 jobs in December before you are even inaugurated. That’s a thousand jobs that Obama couldn’t have saved.


signing-constitutionI’m just going to give you a taste of this. The article is fairly long, it’s also of a piece, and not susceptible of abstracting. (At least by me!)

The GOP needs more than cosmetic surgery. It’s either showing signs of great health or is in crisis, or perhaps a little of both. The party controls both houses of Congress and is hitting historic highs in governorships and state legislatures. An array of bright, young, plausible Republican Presidents campaigns for the Oval Office—a far cry. Read More

It’s important to note that the party would be in much worse shape than it otherwise would be  without the Tea Party. And that’s even taking into account that the disgruntled insurgents have cost the GOP some winnable elections, most notably by blocking the Senate candidacy of former Representative and Governor Michael Castle in Delaware. (GOP insiders also conveniently blame non-Tea Party losses on the Tea Party—Todd Aiken, for example, was not a Tea Party guy.) Establishment figures don’t have the greatest record, otherwise we would have Senator Tommy Thompson, and a re-elected Connie Mack and George Allen.

Meanwhile, as Ben Domenech notes, the Tea Party has, in fact, begun to redirect the GOP, even if most Tea Party people express frustration at not accomplishing more. (Granted, his comments on the budget deal might qualify that judgment.) The most recent debate might indicate that a majority of Republicans are starting to understand that our elite media are, as Glenn Reynolds says, “Democratic operatives with bylines,” and Republicans should treat them as such.

Source: RINO-plasty – Online Library of Law & Liberty

That great quote from James Madison is also in there. You know: this one

This disproportionate increase of prerogative and patronage must, evidently . . . [foster] the transformation of the republican system of the United States into a monarchy,  . . .whether it would be into a mixed or an absolute monarchy might depend on too many contingencies to admit of any certain foresight.

Crony Capitalism, Subsidiarity, iDemocracy, Corruption, and a Dichotomy

We’ll start today with an article from Cranmer by Brother Ivo and note that we are jumping back and forth between the UK and US here, so pay attention, the problems and solutions will be much the same.

Cranmer: It is time to confront crony capitalism

From Brother Ivo:

The growth of massive ‘logistics’ firms like Capita, Serco and G4S has occurred under both Labour and Conservative/Liberal Democrat administrations. They are employed in a variety of circumstances across a wide range of Government departments from Education, Justice, Defence and Immigration to Transport, Health and Leisure.

They are specialists in outsourcing and, as such, have built massive contacts with central government in this country and abroad. Serco, for example, is contracted inter alia to assist the implementation of Obamacare in the USA; G4S is the world’s third largest private employer; and Capita ‘s turnover for 2012 was £3,352,000,000.

These are big companies by any standard and measure, which makes it all the more difficult for any government when their honesty and integrity comes legitimately into question. They have become unassailable in the public space, and so fall foul of Brother Ivo’s dictum – ‘When people/companies become indispensable, you have to let them go.’ [“An excellent rule, I think,” Neo]


It was bad enough when we realised that we could not allow certain banks to fail, but MPs from all parties were able then to puff themselves up with outrage as nobody could easily associate them with complicity. But this scandal is worse. Our entire political class has allowed the outsourcing/data/logistics industry to become the elephant in the room. We cannot discuss it because the consequences of their disgrace or failure would paralyse government of any description.

This is what crony capitalism looks like.

Government needs the out-sourcers; the out-sourcers need government. They have close, necessary and easy access to each other. There are consultants and consultancies to complicate the story.

It will surprise no one if I say that I consider it a positive good for government to out source many of the (especially the many, many, illegitimate) functions that our governments perform now. But, and this is a huge but, it must always be done by an open competitive bid, awarded without fear or favor. Otherwise it may well be worse than the government doing it force-account simply because a noncompetitive bid is by definition fraudulent, one has no way to know if the job could be done for a fraction of the cost, or can not be done at all. All we know is that we are paying some person or organization X dollars to do something.

Our experience with semi-legitimate government projects, say road building, is that it could be done to the same standard for far less by the private sector not least because of political clauses inserted into the contract. Davis-Bacon comes to mind, where in my neighborhood a laborer worth perhaps $13/hour will be paid something on the order of $50/hour because the contract is written by the government.

And here is where the principle of subsidiarity (or its political twin, federalism) enters into the equation. The government in Washington is far away and remote (and slow moving) while my county can move quite quickly indeed when necessary, as well as knowing things like what a laborer in our community is worth. And it is entirely in it’s competence to realize that it would be a good thing for the towns of A and Z to be connected with an all weather highway, if (and only if) it could be done at a price that would lead to benefits outweighing the cost. Note that writing these down in a coherent manner might be difficult, and in the local arena might in truth be a waste of time and resources in and of itself. The problem is that we have skewed the tax system to make Washington our local fairy godmother where all golden eggs come from.

That same argument holds in all spheres, except national defense, and constitutional guarantees, and true interstate commerce. And even there it can be overdone.

We have come a long way from the days of EF Shumacher and his ‘small is beautiful’ philosophy – a way of thinking that influenced those on the Left and Right alike, and, indeed, the then emergent Green Party before they, too, fell in love with big government.

Schumacher drew his inspiration from an earlier thinker whose approach was slightly more nuanced. The right approach, thought Leopold Kohr, was appropriate scale: ‘Whenever something is wrong something is too big.’ {Hear, Hear}

Brother Ivo does not know if Douglas Carswell has read Kohr or Schumacher, but his thinking on I-Democracy is plainly along the same line of thought.

I don’t know if you have heard much about iDemocracy yet, here’s a bit

Throughout history, we have been impeded in doing this by physical barriers, such as distance, and by artificial ones, such as priesthoods of bureaucrats and experts. Today, i-this and e-that are cutting out these middlemen. He quotes the internet sage, Clay Shirky: “Here comes everybody”. Mr Carswell directs magnificent scorn at the aides to David Cameron who briefed the media that the Prime Minister now has an iPad app which will allow him, at a stroke of his finger, “to judge the success or failure of ministers with reference to performance-related data”.

The effect of the digital revolution is exactly the opposite of what the aides imagine. Far from now being able to survey everything, always, like God, the Prime Minister – any prime minister – is now in an unprecedentedly weak position in relation to the average citizen: “Digital technology is starting to allow us to choose for ourselves things that until recently Digital Dave and Co decided for us.”

A non-physical business, for instance, can often decide pretty freely where, for the purposes of taxation, it wants to live. Naturally, it will choose benign jurisdictions. Governments can try to ban it from doing so, but they will either fail, or find that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. The very idea of a “tax base”, on which treasuries depend, wobbles when so much value lies in intellectual property and intellectual property is mobile. So taxes need to be flatter to keep their revenues up. If they are flatter, they will be paid by more people.

Therefore it becomes much harder for government to grow, since most people do not want to pay more.¹

Which is true enough, although it doesn’t go far enough. What we are really seeing, I think is a return to the old familial organization that held sway before the industrial revolution, because while I obviously have to be on site to do my physical work, for me that is less than half of my time, and is somewhat predictable as well as delegatable, and the rest of my work I can do from anywhere in the world where I can obtain a reasonable internet connection, which if we include satellite is nearly anywhere in the world. For the most part, if I don’t want to interact with the people around me, I no longer have to. That is a fundamental change in society. The obvious example is this blog, which is a small one, was read yesterday in five countries all the way around the world, in this case they found my take on Political Correctness but we could just as easily been renewing plans for a large or small project, even collaborating on the detailed plans for it. See how say the taxes in the UK don’t really matter anymore, I can sit here in Nebraska, or the beach in Belize, for that matter, and do everything but the physical installation, and I can supervise that as well, if desired.


Un-evictable bedfellows make Brother Ivo very suspicious. {Neo, too}

 Read all of Cranmer: It is time to confront crony capitalism. Emphasis is mine and my comments are in green.

¹  Douglas Carswell: How technology will create true democracy

As a sort of coda to this, the dichotomy of the title is the Obama regime. Here we have an American presidency with unheard of sophistication in the use of the internet and social media, which is pushing with all it strength for industrial solutions which aggrandize power to them without regard to the desires of the electorate. It won’t work in today’s society and is most likely going to be very expensive to deconstruct. Why? It is the old Model T model, you can get it in any color you want, as long as that color is black, but maybe I want blue, so I’ll spend the bit extra for a Chevrolet. The worst mistake one can ever make is to underestimate the power of the marketplace, because it is the paramount power in our society.

Always has been; Always will be, at least in a reasonably free society.

Crony capitalism=Corporatism=Corruption=Failure

“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.”  Ayn Rand

We haven’t discussed this for a while, so let’s cover it again. In a capitalist system you are free to trade with anyone for anything (within very broad limits).

When you introduce elements of corporatism or crony-capitalism or corruption it introduces anomalies in the market. It could be ridiculous (almost all of them) licensing requirements, it could be restrictions upon hours, it could be the inability to finance a company, it could be excessive taxation, either excise or income. Actually, anything that interferes with the market is detrimental to all participants, some however, Like defense, police, roads and such. You know these “…in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty…” when strictly applied, confer more benefit than harm on a free people.

Why Government Bestowal of Economic Privileges is Pathological – John Malcolm

Matt Mitchell, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, has written an important paper called “The Pathology of Privilege: The Economic Consequences of Government Favoritism.” We have discussed such favoritism, which also goes by the names “crony capitalism” and “corporatism,” from time to time. But Mitchell’s paper provides an economic analysis and unified theory of the phenomenon.

What are the privileges that governments bestow on particular firms or industries? Bailouts, such as the financial bailouts of 2008, are obvious examples. But such privileges have also included monopoly status, favorable regulations, subsidies, loan guarantees, targeted tax breaks, protection from foreign competition, and noncompetitive contracts.

By bestowing such privileges, the government diminishes the gains that accrue from exchanges. At the heart of modern economic theory lies the fact that in a market where no firm enjoys favoritism, free and voluntary trade results in gains for both sellers and buyers. As individuals expand the number of people with whom they exchange, they are able to consume a wider diversity of products while becoming more specialized in production. Specialized production, in turn, permits greater productive efficiency and allows us to do more with less.

But government-granted privileges diminish the gains from exchange. They do so because a firm receiving government-granted privileges gains pricing power that a competitive firm lacks. Thus, it need not accept the price that would emerge in a competitive market. Instead, it is free to set a higher price.

This means that the privileged firm gains more from exchange than it would if it were a competitive firm and consumers gain less than they would were the market subject to free competition. In addition, would-be competitors who are not blessed with monopoly privilege lose out on the opportunity to gain from exchange.

Continue reading Why Government Bestowal of Economic Privileges is Pathological – John Malcolm.

One of my favorite pieces of trivia is that alone in the world, the monogram of the United States is the sign for its currency, a sure and certain sign of a free people, or at least it used to be.

If you would be a free people, you must have free markets.

If you don’t, sooner or later, your best people will ask, “Who is John Galt?”

Wind Energy: The Next Green Black-Hole – Marita Noon – Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

Can you say crony capitalism at its worst? That’s exactly what this is.

I’ve featured Marita Noon before, she is extremely knowledgeable on energy so listen up:


The wind energy industry has been having a hard time. The taxpayer funding that has kept it alive for the last twenty years is coming to an end, and those promoting the industry are panicking.

Perhaps this current wave started when one of wind energy’s most noted supporters, T. Boone Pickens, “Mr. Wind,” in an April 12 interview on MSNBC said, “I’m in the wind business…I lost my ass in the business.”

The industry’s fortunes didn’t get any better when on May 4, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) wrote an editorial titled, “Gouged by the wind,” in which they stated: “With natural gases not far from $2 per million BTU, the competitiveness of wind power is highly suspect.” Citing a study on renewable energy mandates, the WSJ says: “The states with mandates paid 31.9% more for electricity than states without them.”

Then, last week the Financial Times did a comprehensive story: “US Renewables boom could turn into a bust” in which they predict the “enthusiasm for renewables” … “could fizzle out.” The article says: “US industry is stalling and may be about to go into reverse. …Governments all over the world have been curbing support for renewable energy.”

Michael Liebreich of the research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance says: “With a financially stressed electorate, it’s really hard to go to them and say: ‘Gas is cheap, but we’ve decided to build wind farms for no good reason that we can articulate.’” Christopher Blansett, who is a top analyst in the alternative-energy sector in the Best on the Street survey, says, “People want cheap energy. They don’t necessarily want clean energy.”

It all boils down to a production tax credit (PTC) that is set to expire at the end 2012. Four attempts to get it extended have already been beaten back so far this year—and we are only in the fifth month. The Financial Times reports: “Time-limited subsidy programmes…face an uphill battle. The biggest to expire this year is the production tax credit for onshore wind power, the most important factor behind the fourfold expansion of US wind generation since 2006. Re

Continue reading Wind Energy: The Next Green Black-Hole – Marita Noon – Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary.

Capitalism: The Only Choice for a Moral Person

"Capitalism Works for Me!" by Steve ...

"Capitalism Works for Me!" by Steve Lambert (Photo credit: SPACES Gallery)

I’ve written about this several times before but it bears repeating. Capitalism is the only moral economic system in existence. Does the phrase “If a man shall not work, neither shall he eat” ring a bell? It should it’s from Thessalonians 3:10. Nowhere in my Bible does it say: “give to Caesar that he may feed a few of the hungry after he enriches himself”. At least, I couldn’t find it.

Along the same line Audrey Pietrucha writing at Green Mountain Scribes has posted a piece that provides an excellent defense of capitalism:

For some time now capitalism has served as the world’s favorite piñata. The blame is misplaced since most of our economic troubles are not the result of laissez-faire economics but the antithesis: market intervention and manipulation. In reality, capitalism and free markets are responsible for and supportive of much of what we value in our lives, our relationships and our society. For those who love freedom, capitalism is the highest moral ground on which they can stand.

The most obvious evidence of capitalism’s constructive influence is the cooperation free markets produce among participants. When people engage in commerce there is an inclination to get along. Both parties want something from the other and both believe that exchange will somehow improve their lives. When I visit the Crazy Russian Girls bakery and buy a scone, I give them a couple of dollars because that scone is more valuable to me than the money. They accept my money because it is more valuable to them than the scone. We have both freely given to each other and the interaction has added value to our lives.

That peaceful exchange, like millions that are engaged in by people throughout the world every day, was prescribed by Thomas Jefferson as a good on the international level as well. “An exchange of surpluses and wants between neighbor nations is both a right and a duty under the moral law,” he said. He often linked peace and free commerce between nations, recognizing trading partners seldom declare war on one another.

Read her article here. She covers the subject very well.

In a related (sort of a bastard, unwanted relation, but there you go) we have Corporatism. This is pretty close to what we often refer to as Crony-Capitalism. When you get to this point it’s not so much doing whatever you do well, it’s more about who you know you will get you permission or money to do something. For examples, see Solyndra, bank bailouts, Government Motors and such.

To understand this better Before It’s News put an article up last week entitled: Corporatism Is Not Capitalism: 7 Things About The Monolithic Predator Corporations That Dominate Our Economy That Every American Should Know. I’ll tell you the seven things and then send you over there for the reasoning.

#1 Corporations not only completely dominate the U.S. economy, they also completely dominate the global economy as well.  A newly released University of Zurich study examined more than 43,000 major multinational corporations.  The study discovered a vast web of interlocking ownerships that is controlled by a “core” of 1,318 giant corporations.

#2 This dominance of the global economy by corporations has allowed global wealth to become concentrated to a very frightening degree.

#3 Since wealth has become concentrated in very few hands, that means that there are a whole lot of poor people out there.

#4 Giant corporations have become so dominant that it has become very hard for small businesses to compete and survive in the United States.

#5 Big corporations completely dominate the media.  Almost all of the news that you get and almost all of the entertainment that you enjoy is fed to you by giant corporations.

#6 Big corporations completely dominate our financial system.  Yes, there are hundreds of choices in the financial world, but just a handful control the vast majority of the assets.

#7 Big corporations completely dominate our political system.  Because they have so much wealth and power, corporations can exert an overwhelming amount of influence over our elections.  Studies have shown that in federal elections the candidate that raises the most money wins about 90 percent of the time.

Read the article, they do a pretty good job of documenting their assertions.

What have I had to say about this? Here are some excepts and linkage:

We’ve been hearing quite a bit about how a lot of the jobs created in Texas under Gov. Perry have been the low-end, McDonald’s burger flipping type jobs. I haven’t checked to see if it’s true or not and for my purposes here it doesn’t matter anyway.

What do these job entail. First we all know they pay something around minimum wage, don’t have a lot of future growth and are often in normal times (remember them?) held by teenagers. In fact they are often the very first real job a person has. By definition then, they are entry level jobs.

Some of those who profess themselves our betters tend to denigrate them particularly because, well, I don’t know.

Sure they aren’t prestigious, like being professor of (insert BS studies program) at a swanky Ivy League college, so what. They provide more real value to society than that professorship ever will.

Don’t believe me, if you’re hungry, go ask that professor for a burger. What’ll you get? Probably a lecture about how bad for you meat is. You’re still hungry.

Go to McDonald’s and what will you get? A meal that our ancestors would have had to work days for, if it was even possible. Remember that up until the industrial revolution people starved almost every year.

McDonald’s itself is an incredible accomplishment when you think about it. Top quality beef  (never available before the twentieth century); cheese, which was always a luxury food; lettuce, tomato, and onion, never available out of season; wheat bread, a holiday only luxury in 19th century Europe; Potatoes, remember in the late 1840′s, when, the potato crop failed, Ireland starved; and a Coke, that miracle beverage of modern America, or fresh milk, another unavailable luxury 150 years ago.

All of that for what? $5 or so, the equivalent of a few minutes of your time. Is it the best food available? No, certainly not. But it is amazingly better than what was available to our ancestors. If anything was.

OK, there’s that. McDonald’s doesn’t need me to defend them. (I prefer Wendy’s, anyway, think about all the choices we have, too.) Back to those jobs, yeah those demeaning entry level jobs. Say you are that high school student who just got that first job, what are you going to learn.

First, you’re going to learn to get to work on time, I know you should have learned that at home or in school but, you had best learn it somewhere and here you get paid to show up.

Then you are going to be part of a team, working towards a common goal.

You are going to learn how to handle food without contaminating it.

You might even learn how to make change.

You will learn how to deal with people, even the difficult ones. And be pleasant while doing so.

These are all life lessons, and there are others,that you will need throughout your life in our society. And you will probably learn to live within a budget, cause you surely aren’t going to get rich on this job.

Link Here.

We hear the free market damned everyday, lately. Problem is those damning the free market don’t have a clue what the free market is. America’s problem since 1890 or so has been that we haven’t had a free market.

What we have had is a semi free market distorted by whatever advantage could be bought from the Congress. (By the way, one of my favorite jokes is: If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?) Let’s look at a one industry example.

We had the most magnificent transportation system the world had ever seen for both passenger and freight (and mail). What did we do? We came very, very near to regulating it death. The remnants of this system are still the backbone that allows all our other systems of commerce, particularly steel and electricity to function. What am I talking about here? The American Railroad network.

During the First World War the government actually took over the railroads and ran them into the ground (and only paid for a fraction of the damage they did.) World War Two was a little better but not by much. Especially after the looting of the ’30s.

Link Here.

And one more:

In truth capitalists are just about everybody you know, the guy that owns the grocery store, your plumber, the florist, the butcher, the baker and even the candlestick maker. Some of them have big businesses like, GE, or Apple, or Exxon/Mobil (or a share of them; checked your 401K 201K lately). If you have one of those go look in the mirror, you are a capitalist, too. In truth, if you sell your time to somebody who doesn’t want to sweep their own floor you are engaging in capitalism.

In its basics that is what capitalism is: the original win-win system. You know how to do whatever it is you do, I know how to wire your house. It makes more sense for you to do what you do and trade some of what you get paid for it to me to get your house wired correctly so it won’t burn down. Usually we use money to keep score, but it’s not required. In the depression, doctors often were paid in eggs.

That’s the whole theory and practice of capitalism right there. We make an agreement that I will wire your house for what we both think is a fair price. We both win.

If I work in my own  interest, and you work in your own interest, and everybody else works in their own interest, we all get what we deserve. If we work hard (and smart), we get rich. If we screw off, we don’t; seems fair to me. The only problem is (if you consider it a problem, I think it is a feature) is that is if you deserve nothing, you get nothing. What’s the problem. You remember, of course, that the opposite of justice is mercy, right.

Where this elegant theory gets into trouble is when outside agencies try to regulate it. For instance, say the government says I have to give it 50% of what I make. Now I have to double my income for the same lifestyle I had before, so do you, so does everybody. So we all have to work twice as hard (or smart) to stay even. We are working half of the time for the government. That makes it harder for all of us to make a living. That’s one example.

Here’s another way the process gets corrupted. Say I wire houses for a living and I like working alone so I never try to be the big electrical contractor with all the problems of dozens of employees can cause. Shouldn’t be a problem right? My choice, my life.

Now let’s say Joe across town who also wires houses has decided that he wants to be the big contractor with the shiny new trucks and employees and all that. That’s cool, right? Sure is with me.

But what happens when people find out that I can do them a better job for less money, (within my capabilities) and they complain to Joe that he is too expensive. And he gets tired of hearing about it so he goes to the city council and gets an ordinance passed that you must have 5 employees to wire a house in the city limits.

Now, is that fair, either to me or to the people who want to wire their houses for the least amount of money for the same quality job? Nope, I sure don’t think so either. That is called crony capitalism and the problem is that it uses force (in other words people with guns and the right to use them) to distort the market. Obviously, this example is oversimplified but, this is a lot of what is wrong with our system these days.

Link Here.

And here is The Gipper on Capitalism and Socialism:

I’ll end here with a quote from Audrey Pietrucha that ended her article:

Just as Winston Churchill said of democracy, capitalism is the worst economic system – except for all the rest.


%d bloggers like this: