Category: Evil Capitalists

What detail was missing from this story?

The LA Times ran a story titled “Looting and unrest continue roiling Venezuela as shortages persist and protesters demand food, where it provided details like this:

Venezuela, where anger over food shortages is still mounting, continued to be roiled this week by angry protests and break-ins of grocery stores and businesses that have left five dead, at least 30 injured and 200 arrested, according to various news reports.

The latest fatality came from the southwest city of Merida, where 17-year-old Jean Paul Omana died Wednesday after being shot Tuesday during a disturbance amid looting.

Widespread violence has been reported there, as well as an attack by protesters on the headquarters of President Nicolas Maduro’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela, or PSUV.

As consumers grow increasingly frustrated with ongoing food scarcities and lengthening lines outside stores, protests are turning more violent. A Social media reported protests on Wednesday in the Los Teques, Los Altos Mirandinos and Santa Teresa del Tuy suburbs of Caracas, the capital.

A common thread among protesters demanding the government provide food is that they are suffering from hunger and in some cases heat exposure from spending hours in line. Mired in economic crisis, Venezuela must import the bulk of its food items, but supplies have run short because of the government’s cash shortage, triggered by falling oil prices.

So, we are told that there are food shortages, caused because the government has to import most things in Venezuela these days, and they are unable to do this because of falling oil prices! Note what’s missing in all this detail? How about explaining why Venezuela, a country that once was a leading manufacturer in South America now ends up having to import practically everything, and why the government has to do this, and not the economy as a common course? I know, it’s obvious to those of us that know what evil scourge has been destroying Venezuela, but the usual idiots that lap up the left’s bullshit, are not going to connect the dots without someone telling them what the problem is.

And the problem is not that the US is fomenting an imperialist revolution and interfering with the affairs of state in Venezuela, after all, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to coddle tyrannical leftists and murderers all over the globe, but the very fact that Venezuela is now reaping the rewards of collectivism running its course. Things are now getting to the point where the government has to deploy troops to quell the unrest. I am sure Maduro and Chavez’s daughter don’t have these problems. After all, unlike under the evil capitalist system where the rich have power, in a collectivist system, <a href=”” target={_new”>only those with power are going to be rich or have the access to what being rich buys you.

And this is the way Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America will also play out: have no doubt about it. Collectivism is an evil failure. An excuse used by people that will prey on the basest and vilest of man’s instincts – greed and envy – to justify theft. Unfortunately for the dupes that go along, the masters soon realize the pie is limited and will never grown under the system they espouse, so they end up stealing most of it, leaving the people all in abject misery.

This crap has played itself out over and over, with the results always being the same: catastrophe. In most places the decent into hell has been swift and the results immediately apparent. Because of the immense wealth in the western world, wealth created by the very system the collectivists wish to destroy, the western nations that started down the collectivist road are taking longer getting here, but they will get there. The current crop of credentialed elites are so inept that they can’t help but break it all.

Pro-collectivist media can’t avoid making exuses

It came as no surprise to me that after a decade plus of favorable pro-collectivist media coverage of shit-holes that took hard left turns we found out Venezuela was following in the footsteps of illustrious collectivist success stories like Cuba, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. What is less known is that the other South American country that had also taken a hard left turn and was touted as a great success story, Brazil, is also heading in the same direction now that blatant corruption and mismanagement practices have come to the world’s attention.

As is always the case with progressive governments, the pretense that the shit they do is to help the less fortunate is just that: pretense. What they are really doing is creating a system that will allow the political aristocracy and those few lucky enough to be connected to them, to rob the people blind. The new masters tend to be worse than the old ones, and while they can temporarily hide the rot, eventually economic and human nature reality asserts itself. Big and powerful government, especially one that has successfully disarmed the masses and then pretends their wealth transfer schemes are to help the less fortunate, sooner than later results in abused people. Yeah, I know that this piece specifically was written about the Arab world, but the article does speak of other corruption failures in general. The problem with people that advocate for collectivism is the fact that they seem to miss that corruption is the norm, and having little or none of it, is actually an outlier. And the bigger an autocratic government that abrogates the duty of creating economic justice becomes, both in terms of actual size and the amount of money it now forces through its hands, the more corruption you will get.

For example, take China, which is still run by an authoritarian government that decided not to stick to the letter of marxist dogma. While the Wiki article tries its best to show how fucked up China is because of this corruption, it, because of the bias of the Wiki organization in general, does a lot to apologize and conceal that the problem there is the authoritarian and collectivist system that creates the framework that allows this corruption. When your government is all powerful and has its hands in everything, you can bet it will result in abuse and corruption by the very elite put in charge. Pick your country, check out how authoritative and big their government is, then look at how much wealth redistribution power said government has, and you will find corruption.

But back to what I wanted to point out: AP writing an article that tries hard to not tie the corruption now evident to the ideology or failures in Brazil. From the article:

Brazil’s Senate voted on Thursday to put leftist President Dilma Rousseff on trial in a historic decision brought on by a deep recession and a corruption scandal that will now confront her successor, Vice President Michel Temer.

With Rousseff to be suspended during the Senate trial for allegedly breaking budget rules, the centrist Temer will take the helm of a country that again finds itself mired in political and economic volatility after a recent decade of prosperity.

The 55-22 vote ends more than 13 years of rule by the left-wing Workers Party, which rose from Brazil’s labor movement and helped pull millions of people out of poverty before seeing many of its leaders tainted by corruption investigations.

My interpretation of this nonsense is that it almost sounds like AP is trying hard to tell readers we should give the corrupt officials a pass because they meant well. After all, they helped the poor people! I constantly see MSM stories saying how well off people in Brazil have it because of the wealth redistribution schemes of the leftists, but when I look the stuff that sticks with me is the rampant crime, the fact that economic promises are not materializing, and how despite the claims that the poor are better off, I see very few things that really show that to be the case. Especially when you look at the future. That’s not just me however, as this verya rticle points out:

In addition to the gaping deficit, equal to more than 10 percent of its annual economic output, Brazil is suffering from rising unemployment, plummeting investment and a projected economic contraction of more than 3 percent this year.

Basically the Brazilian success story was to borrow and print money, over spend, and put polities in practice that drastically hamper economic growth and result in rampant unemployment. Shit they are even looking at an economic contraction. Does this not sound kind of like the Obama economic plan to spend us out of a recession and even into prosperity? Don’t worry though, because the PA tells us people are on top of the crisis;

“Only major reforms can keep Brazil from moving from crisis to crisis,” says Eduardo Giannetti da Fonseca, an economist and author in São Paulo who has written extensively about the country’s socioeconomic problems.

While I am not very familiar with this individual, the fact that he is the one AP chose to quote tells me this guy is very likely to be the Brazilian Paul Krugman, whose usual retort when confronted with the failures of Keynesian wealth transfer schemes, advises that the the problem was not the fact that borrowing/printing more money/spending money you don’t have can’t buy your prosperity, but that government didn’t borrow/print/spend enough money. This shit doesn’t work. It never has, and never will, but the collectivist driven media still wants you to have faith in this crap. This AP article sure goes a long way to try and avoid making the point that these leftist SJW wealth redistribution policies failed Brazil despite the temporary bump they produced obvious.

Another tidbit from the article that I found interesting was the following:

Brazilian markets have for weeks rallied as investors welcomed the likely dismissal of a president they believe crippled the economy, but were largely unchanged on Wednesday.

Note that the AP avoids saying why investors felt Rousseff crippled the economy. One could come away thinking the only problem was the endemic corruption, but the fact is that this was just one of the symptoms of the real problem: the Keynesian economic practices leftists resort to in times of trouble to hide the problems caused by their wealth transfer schemes. Brazil is on the same path as Venezuela right now, only it might be slower to reach the end state because they didn’t choose to have a dictator hold all the power like the Venezuelan’s did. This shit don’t work people.

That idiotic pay gap thingy..

Want to see an article that should have stopped after the third paragraph? Well, here is a “Science Daily” article titled Young women in STEM fields earn up to one-third less than men which says exactly the opposite of the title’s claim. From the article:

One year after they graduate, women with Ph.D.s in science and engineering fields earn 31 percent less than do men, according to a new study using previously unavailable data.

The pay gap dropped to 11 percent when researchers took into account that women tended to graduate with degrees in fields that generally pay less than fields in which men got their degrees.

The rest of the pay gap disappeared when the researchers controlled for whether women were married and had children.

Seriously, you should have ended the article right here and the title correct title would have been that gender pay gap, at least according to this study, is a myth. But of course, since there is no money to be gotten by finding that this myth the SJW types in government fork over oodles of money for is bunk, they decide to contradict their own findings with politically motivated clap-trap.

“There’s a dramatic difference in how much early career men and women in the sciences are paid,” said Bruce Weinberg, co-author of the study and professor of economics at The Ohio State University.

“We can get a sense of some of the reasons behind the pay gap, but our study can’t speak to whether any of the gap is due to discrimination. Our results do suggest some lack of family-friendliness for women in these careers.”

WTF? Your first three paragraphs make it plenty clear that when you try to do an apple to apple comparison and control for type of degree and for choices related to family life, that there is no gap. It is fairly obvious to anyone that applies statistical methodology to any analysis of these claims that when you account for the types of careers women favor or life choices they make, that the entire gap argument vanishes. So then, why are we still getting a long winded article if it is obvious there really isn’t any nefarious reasons for this difference? Well here it is:

The importance of helpful family policies is supported by the fact that single and childless women tended to have less of a pay gap than those who were married and those who had children. About equal percentages of men and women were married or partnered. And more men than women in the study (24 versus 19 percent) had children. But it was the married women with children who saw the lower pay.

“Our results show a larger child-gap in salary among women Ph.D.s than among men,” Weinberg said.

Reading between the lines it is obvious that the study’s authors seem to feel that making the choice to focus on family and children shouldn’t impact women’s earning potential. Sure you can think this is quite noble since family units, and especially the children, are so important, but to me it is ludicrous. Lets start out by noting that these crusaders are currently only asking that employers pay women for less productivity than men. I wonder if they would demand the same for men that decide to stay at home and be the one dealing with the children. Somehow I don’t believe that is the priority of these SJW types, but it could well be that the end goal isn’t to make employers just pay more for less productive women, but to pay more for less productive people in general. The laws of economics and human nature be damned.

Look, like I told the crazy SJW type from the HR department of my company a few weeks ago during her rant about how unfair it was that the guys in the IT department made so much more money than she did, the reason is in the details. While she felt here women’s studies major and political history (WTF is this even) minor at an expensive school should earn her the same as the guys that got real engineering or computer science degrees at whatever institutions, employers who pay for the work obviously felt it was not worth the same. Similarly, if she took time of to spend it with her cats while these guys were totally career oriented, it wouldn’t be fair for either the employer or the guys that she ended up being paid more simply because of her plumbing.

Of course, she really didn’t like that reality and got all huffy at me and even insinuated I needed some PC reeducation, at which point I simply told her that I had no problem saying what I just said to her, even though she was in HR, because the value of the work I did was so important to my employer that I doubted they would make a fuss about it. After all, if they did, I could pack up and head somewhere else, because my particular skills, especially when combined with my work ethics and track record of producing results, were in very high demand.

My advice to people that feel they are not getting compensated enough was always to see how valuable the employer really felt about what they did and how quickly they could find somewhere else to work. In most cases, when you add value, they will pay you for that value. if not, someone else will. The gap comes when your productivity factors in, both because of your learned skills (degree and work experience) and the effort they get from you (are you there and working hard, or are you in need of taking time off too often).

This shit ain’t that complicated man. Of course, you factor in the government meddling, and everything goes out the window…

Study makes the wrong conclusion.

I was quite baffled when I saw the title for a study posted on science daily that reported that “Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy” because while I am certain that in good economic times people are less resistant to government fleecing, I still have a hard time believing people would buy the AGW lies. from the article I see the following declaration:

Americans may be more likely to accept the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change and its potentially devastating effects if they believe the economy is strong and stable, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

I could not fathom any study that would produce these results, and immediately suspected some kind of bullshit. My first inclination was that they very likely had loaded questions designed to illicit responses that would allow them to make this ludicrous claim. After all, there is a historical precedent that most people are willing to tolerate a heavier hand from Uncle Sam, the one going straight into their pockets where they keep their money, when their own income and potential for income looks good. I can see a study rigged to use that mechanism to make this idiotic claim that resistance to this nonsense and the political agenda is economic, but I wanted details, so I decided to take a closer look at the article, and the answer was right there. This was a bunch of bullshit wrapped in pretty paper to sell another lie. let’s start with this:

In an experiment conducted online, 187 Americans ranging from 18 to 70 years old watched a newscast with skeptical commentary about a NASA documentary on climate change. Participants who more enthusiastically supported the capitalist system were more dubious about climate change, and they misremembered facts from the newscast about the severity of climate change. Conversely, participants who were more critical of the capitalist system and more interested in social change recalled the information about climate change as being even more severe than the facts that were presented.

So first off, let me point out that the “mischaracterization” made by this idiot author about how supporters of the capitalist system were more likely to “misremember facts” or “not grasp the severity of the problem”, was nothing but his biased attempt to discredit people that pointed out what they were shown was a pile of bullshit. The likely scenario is that these people, less ruled by fucking feelings, pointed out that this cult is based on a well orchestrated campaign of falsehoods, flawed models and systems, manipulation of the facts and data to create a desired results, a peer review circle jerk, the demonization of anyone not willing to let them get away with this shit, and that not a single one of the horribly exaggerated effects have come to pass, isn’t “misremembering” or “not seeing the gravity of the situation”, but pointing out why this thing is a scam. Cultists don’t like that.

I also am not surprised people that saw the inherent value of the capitalist system were less prone to bullshit than their collectivist counterparts, because it has always been obvious to me that collectivists tend to be ruled by emotion and emotional appeal. Show a bunch of collectivist twits a fictional piece like Al Gore’s idiotic movie, hilariously titled “An inconvenient truth” of all things, that proposes draconian collectivism to deal with the coming apocalypse, and one shouldn’t be surprised these twits gobble up that shit sandwich either.

Anyway, back to the point here. The study, as practically every one of these pro AGW propaganda pieces tends to do, made a totally wrong conclusion from what they saw. The conclusion they should have made was that people inclined to believe the unwashed masses have a right to use government force to steal from the productive to benefit themselves are far more likely to buy a pack of lies when it pushes their agenda, while those that don’t buy theft by government and totalitarianism as good, are far less likely to fall for that bullshit.

Next we get the following doozy:

In another experiment, with 57 college students, participants were divided into two groups: One read a statement that the federal government had very broad power to influence the economy and the availability of jobs; the other, a statement that the government’s power was limited. The participants then read a news article that recounted some errors that were inadvertently included in a scientific report on climate change. Participants who thought the economy had a strong influence on their lives were more skeptical about climate change and were less likely to remember facts from the news article about the severity of climate change.

In a third experiment, with 203 college students, one group listened to a podcast that reported the U.S. economy had recovered from the recession, another group heard the recession was continuing, and a control group didn’t hear any podcast. All of the participants then watched a NASA documentary about scientific evidence of climate change before completing a survey about their support for the current U.S. economic system. Participants who more strongly endorsed the legitimacy of the economic system were more likely to believe in the severity of climate change only when they thought the economy was strong and stable.

Let me start by pointing out that when you pick a bunch of college students that are not in engineering, math, physics, chemistry, medicine, accounting, or something that actually involves not just regurgitating bullshit liberal dogma, for their opinion on things scientific, you shouldn’t be surprised to see the stupidity the experimenters did. I am sorry, but “Studies” or “Poli Sci” majors are neither hard science types nor – yes it is my opinion – really learning anything of value outside an artificial world created by the grand collectivist machine. They are a plague on the universe. I should have probably at the point of the realization how unscientific this scientifc study was, just moved on to something less brain damaging than this idiocy, but I couldn’t pass the opportunity to showcase what we are dealing with here.

In the first example, where they used some college students that were likely some 7 year geniuses of the humanities fields, we should begin with the fact that nobody with any common sense would buy the idiocy that government, by its very nature, has any form of control on economic activity, other than to impede, degrade, or piss away tons of tax payer dollars on it. But it remains baffling to me that this experiment led to the conclusion that good economic metrics influence people to dismiss the AGW bullshit. Again, I see that the correlation here isn’t faith in good economic times over AGW dystopia as much as how much more inclined someone was to accept the AGW nonsense as gospel if they lacked a solid grasp of economics and the impact of government on that activity.

If anything, the third experiment shows that the AGW cult is bull. Believers are far more likely to endorse the agenda while they felt they had little to lose and a lot to gain from the wealth transfer agenda behind the AGW movement. But as happens in real life, as soon as things got good for them, they were far likely to want that wealth transfer. Seriously, if you take a look at the supporters of Bernie Sanders and then at the supporters of Donald Trump, the big difference is the fact that the Sanders camp is comprised of people that are in deep debt and are looking for someone to bail them out (lots of jobless humanities students with big loan debt), while the other camp lacks that crowd.

These experiments should have concluded that collectivist are far more likely to like collectivist agendas when they gain from them, and much less likely to do anything but pay lip service to them when they find out they will foot the bill. Also that non-collectivists will focus on the reality of economics and human nature over some apocalyptic fantasies collectivists hope will convince people to let them fuck us all over.

That ain’t mayo, baby!

Talk about getting more than you paid for:

MAY 3–A woman last week contacted Florida cops to report that she believed a pair of chicken sandwiches purchased at KFC “contained semen,” according to a police report.

The unidentified customer went to the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office and told officials there that she bought the sandwiches from a Bradenton restaurant.

This reminds me of the girl in my junior year biology class that asked the teacher if cum had a high concentration of sugar (fructose) why it tasted salty, then realized she had just admitted to being a fun date. That or maybe this chick was just looking for a pay day.

I never worked in fast food, although I did a brief stint in a restaurant my parents owned, but I have plenty of friends that have told me stories that make it very clear that you avoid this stuff unless you can watch them make it. Sully was not available for comment…

Let it burn…

So as was expected, Puerto Rico defaulted on a debt payment for over $70 billion in outstanding debt. From the article:

Puerto Rico, whose residents are U.S. citizens, has been mired in recession for a decade and borrowed heavily to balance budgets. Despite the shaky economy, investors snapped up its debt for years thanks to generous tax incentives. The borrowing spree, however, did little to create economic opportunity on the island, and residents have steadily left for employment on the U.S. mainland, eroding Puerto Rico’s tax base.

So this problem was caused by leftist government that wanted to spend more than the economies they crippled could sustain, to buy votes of all reasons, borrowed massive amounts of money to balance their budgets. Does this sound familiar to you at all? At least some Puerto Ricans affected by this stupidity had the ability to skip town and go to the US, whether it was to find gainful employment or just move to some blue state and suck at the government’s teat there, to avoid the catastrophe. Where are those of us in the US going to go when we face this reality?

Government economic policy that is set up to make participants in any economy dependent on buying favors from the members of said governments, always end up producing pain and do little to produce economic growth. But it sure makes a lot of connected people wealthy and in turn puts a large amount of cash into the campaign coffers of the political class that has implemented this machine. Hence, despite the massive debt buyout in Puerto Rico, there was no economic benefit. Again I ask, does this all look familiar to anyone? It seems quite obvious that what we are seeing in Puerto Rico can directly be inferred as the future of many US blue states as well as the US economy in general under the Obama administration.

Back to this issue at hand. As the article points out, republicans rallied by Paul Ryan in congress are pushing legislation that would restructure Puerto Rico’s debt. My concern is that this is nothing more than a totally temporary bandaid solution, and that it will not only not fix the underlying issue, which is that these fuckers will keep borrowing to buy votes and do nothing that would fix their abysmal economic conditions, but just delay the inevitable: Puerto Rico basically asking the US tax payer to foot the bill for all the squandered money. I feel this way because of news like this. And once Puerto Rico gets what amounts to a bailout, you can bet that Illinois, California, and every other blue state out there that has the same model of borrowing so they can spend on vote buying while all that spent money does nothing to improve economic conditions in general, will all show up in DC and ask for the same.

Whatever crap congress puts together should also destroy the blue state economic model as it exists today. Without that, we are just pushing the problem out and increasing the final cost of bailing out these idiots. The blue state model needs to die before it kills the country as a whole.

Replace with Obamacare for a view of our future healthcare system

The future of Obamacare, which should have been repealed in toto had it not been for Obama’s veto in January of this year, and which now obviously after such abysmal failures and fiscal disasters shows clearly that it was intended from the start to destroy healthcare as we know it in the US so the left could force a single-payer system on us, will end up looking like this:

The UK has one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world according to a damning new report which said the nation has an “outstandingly poor” record of preventing ill health.

Hospitals are now so short-staffed and underequipped that people are also dying needlessly because of a chronic lack of investment. The verdict, from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), will make embarrassing reading for David Cameron who denied the cash-strapped NHS is heading for its worst winter crisis.

Staff are too rushed to improve levels of care that have in many areas fallen below countries such as Turkey, Portugal and Poland. Almost 75,000 more doctors and nurses are needed to match standards in similar countries the OECD said in its annual Health at a Glance study comparing the quality of healthcare across 34 countries.

While access to care is “generally good” the quality of care in the UK is “poor to mediocre” across several key health areas, obesity levels are “dire” and the NHS struggles to get even the “basics” right, the report said citing a lack of investment over the last six years.

Britain was placed on a par with Chile and Poland as countries still lagging behind the best performers in survival following diagnosis for different types of cancer. The UK came 21st out of 23 countries on cervical cancer survival, 20th out of 23 countries on breast and bowel cancer survival and 19th out of 31 countries on stroke.

Here is the takeaway from this obvious revelation of fact: in a system that measures success of a given healthcare system with metrics that are heavily skewed/biased to favor collectivist bullshit over actual performance, the British healthcare system, which is a collectivist government controlled healthcare’s dream state, fails abysmally. It always comes down to the fact that there are limited resources and cash, and too many people that want free shit. When government takes over allocation of the limited resources, it always goes bad. Fucking always. In places where abundance masks the fact that there is an economic reality it might take longer to show that, but eventually it will be shown, as is the case here.

Things are going to go from bad to worse in this country because of the direction forced on us. Obama, was our Lenin. If Hillary wins, she will be our Stalin, and she is gonna do it with gusto. The problem is that whatever it may be we are fucked with these people.

Reality always bites…

Back in the day the collectivist cheerleaders told us this to sell their garbage. Reality is things like this, and then things like this.

Collectivist, SJW type revolutions are sold as trying to make it better for the masses, but the truth is that it is about replacing the people in charge with new ones whom practically always take abuse and misery of the masses to new levels. I hope Venezuelans know how to make pruno, cause life is about to get even worse for the masses without that Polar crap swill.

Collectivism is evil, but I am sure this is somehow Boosh’s fault…

I bet the LSM will not blame this on the crooks in charge…

Can I ask if you are surprised to find out that now that we have experienced Black Jesus’ “Hope and Fundamental Change” in action, that we are seeing European level of anemic economic performance and being snowed into thinking it is not the fault of the bullshit policies of these crooks? From the article:

The U.S. economy expanded in the first quarter at the slowest pace in two years as American consumers reined in spending and companies tightened their belts in response to weak global financial conditions and a plunge in oil prices.

Gross domestic product rose at a 0.5 percent annualized rate after a 1.4 percent fourth-quarter advance, Commerce Department data showed Thursday. The increase was less than the 0.7 percent median projection in a Bloomberg survey and marked the third straight disappointing start to a year.

Shaky global markets and oil’s tumble resulted in the biggest business-investment slump in almost seven years, and household purchases climbed the least since early 2015, the data showed. While Federal Reserve officials on Wednesday acknowledged the softness, they also indicated strong hiring and income gains have the potential to reignite consumer spending and propel economic growth.

First off, low oil prices, unless you are in the criminal green industry or in the oil business itself, are awesome for any business. Lower oil costs means lower fuel costs, which for every business that moves shit around means lower costs period, and more profits. Investments are slumping, not because of the drop in oil prices – I have made a killing myself investing in oil companies right now – but because too many people are catching on that the stock market rise is mostly from devaluation of the dollar (makes assets worth more on paper) and because there was nothing else that was safe to invest in. The problem is that since the 2008 crash any growth has come without a growth in employment numbers, and whenever it happened otherwise, because government pissed money propping up junk industries that will die sooner than later. We have had morons lie to us that the economy was growing when all it did was stay on life support while massive government spending and borrowing tried to hide that fact.

“The fact that personal consumption is a bit on the soft side is a disappointment, especially in light of the low gasoline prices,” said Thomas Costerg, senior economist at Standard Chartered Bank in New York, who correctly projected first-quarter growth. “Consumption seems to be stuck in a low gear.”

Yeah, that slump happens because fewer people are employed you moron, hence less cash to spend, and those of us that are still employed realizing we better hide our money in assets that government can’t fuck us over for having. Yeah, I know the LSM has been touting the stupid unemployment numbers that totally hide the fact so many people have dropped off the rolls and so many more are working part time because they can’t get full time employment, but I remind you that when these numbers were lower during a republican president, they were then falsely touted as signs of an abysmal economy. We have that now, but because of Black Jesus and the fear of pointing out this Keynesian shit doesn’t work, nobody wants to say we are fucked.

Businesses are also aware of the existing shitstorm and the potential doubling down of this shitstorm. Can you blame them when you have a party where the 2 candidates, one a criminal and the other a prime example of life’s losers with a grudge against his betters, competing about whom will steal the most from the productive sector to buy votes with? If I was one of these companies, I would definitely be looking at how to hide assets. Especially when the LSM never reports on how full of shit these vote buying collectivist scumbags really are screwing us. Bernie, whom sadly is the lesser of the donkey evils, wants to give us free college, but nobody points out how well government controlled free lower education has worked out for us. The criminal on the other hand is trying to out communist the communist. Who do you think will pay for all this free shit?

None of this stops the cheerleaders from trying to convince the serfs that despite the abysmal reality, that improvement they have been telling us was just around the corner or had arrived, for more than 7 years now, is just around the corner:

The dismal performance in the first quarter, however, is unlikely to carry over in the spring, most economists contend. They view the labor market as a better indicator of where the economy is headed than the more backward-looking GDP report and they point to strong job creation early in the year as evidence that growth is stable.

The case for a spring rebound will get the first big test next week when the government issues the employment report for April. Economists predict an increase of around 200,000 new jobs, matching recent gains. Only a big shortfall in new jobs is likely to set off alarms about the second quarter.

Here is my bet on how this plays out: they tell us that we have finally made it, only to revise the numbers – always downward and indicating things are terrible -some months later. And when they do this, it will all be “unexpected”. And we are all supposed to believe them despite the fact that we have seen this same shit for close to 8 years now. We have never recovered, and if you look at home ownership trends, it is obvious that these morons have been lying to us. The real estate sector doing well is basically Chinese oligarchs gobbling up everything still of value. And for all their talk about social justice and sticking it to the “haves”, the Obama SJW machine seems to have really created some serious imbalance between the rich and the poor, but definitely not in the direction they pretend they want to move it. The fact is that friends of the crime syndicate in power now are rolling in the dough, while others are not doing so well.

Things suck because the people in charge have made it far worse. That’s the facts, Jack.

This is what Bernie’s America will end up looking like

Despite the fact that it looks like the ‘gimme free shit party’ is not doing well with voter turnout, there are a lot of people that are backing donkey candidate Bernie Sanders, a man that never held a real job in his life (his first full time job was one working in government and happened when he was 40), and whom seems angry at the world because he never got what he feels he was due. Like Obama, the community organizer, and for that matter that criminal Clinton, Bernie is a man of no real accomplishments, but at least unlike Obama and Hillary, he seems to not be a down right crime syndicate boss.

I suspect a lot of Bernie’s backers are donkeys that have some conscience and simply can’t make themselves vote for that criminal Clinton. But then, there are many people that are true believers in the wealth redistribution bullshit Bernie peddles too, despite the historical evidence that this shit always ends badly for the people that put it in practice. Collectivism doesn’t work when it goes beyond the family unit, and the reason is very simple, even if the people that espouse it don’t want to admit it: the jealousy and greed that makes this philosophy that advocates taking from others attractive also blinds the followers to the fact that the leaders that promise to do this for them simply are looking to replace the existing haves, and will not really worry much about the “have nots” once they do so. From the USSR, to communist China to North Korea, Cuba or any other of the failed shit, it always ends bad. Sure the marxist backing Bernie will point to Europe, and especially Sweden, as their models, but they are not being honest when they do so. Europe, because of the wealth and mediocre collectivist leadership it has had, has not yet completed the full transition to what always comes from this dark ideology.

Want a look at the end result? Well, take a good look at what is happening in Venezuela or for that matter to Brazil, yeah Brazil, countries that have let this ideology run its course. One went super totalitarian, while the other is almost there. Shit, keep an eye on our neighbor to the north. I have a feeling they are going to be doing some real stupid shit that will hurt them real bad in the next few years, all in the name of social justice or whatever. And Europe, unfortunately for the Europeans, because of the corruption in Brussels and despite the many changes being made to delay the inevitable, will run out of other people’s money sooner than later, as well. Of course this will not dissuade people that feel they have a right to what others have – especially when they justify that right by claiming the others got what they have through nefarious means – from feeling that they will go along as long as the getting is good. To them having the whole thing burn down seems like justice, I guess.