CAPITALISM; Good or bad for America?

The answer is; it’s both, and can either be used to exploit or benefit the country and it’s people depending on how it’s applied.


A titan of American industry and a die hard capitalist believed this to be the best system for Americans;


“There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible”.  Henry Ford     

Ford believed that when everyone shared the profits generated this form of “social” capitalism allowed everyone to prosper; from the bottom up. And, as a result, the country to grow more wealth which would continue to be shared by those who created and in turn promote perpetual growth.   

“Social” capitalism is practiced when it looks like this;   as reported in the NYT in 1914…….. you can read the entire article here;

Ford Gives $10,000,000 To 26,000 Employees

Ford to Run Automobile Plant 24 Hours Daily in Profit-Sharing Plan

MINIMUM WAGE $5 A DAY ($22.00 in today’s dollars)

No Employee to be Discharged Except for Unfaithfulness or Hopeless Inefficiency

Special to The New York Times

Detroit, Mich., Jan. 5. — Henry Ford, head of the Ford Motor Company, announced today one of the most remarkable business moves of his entire remarkable career. In brief it is:

To give to the employees of the company $10,000,000 of the profits of the 1914 business, the payments to be made semi-monthly and added to the pay checks.

To run the factory continuously instead of only eighteen hours a day, giving employment to several thousand more men by employing three shifts of eight hours each, instead of only two nine-hour shifts, as at present.

To establish a minimum wage scale of $5 per day. Even the boy who sweeps up the floors will get that much.

Before any man in any department of the company who does not seem to be doing good work shall be discharged, an opportunity will be given to him to try to make good in every other department. No man shall be discharged except for proved unfaithfulness or irremediable inefficiency.

The Ford Company’s financial statement of Sept. 20, 1912, showed assets of $20,815,785.63, and surplus of $14,745,095.57. One year later it showed assets of $35,033,919.86 and surplus of $28,124,173.68. Dividends paid out during the year, it is understood, aggregated $10,000,000. The indicated profits for the year, therefore, were about $37,597,312. The company’s capital stock authorized and outstanding, is $2,000,000. There is no bond issue.

About 10 per cent of the employees, boys and women, will not be affected by the profit sharing, but all will have the benefit of the $5 minimum wage. Those among them who are supporting families, however, will have a share similar to the men of more than 22 years of age.

In all, about 26,000 employees will be affected. Fifteen thousand now are at work in the Detroit factories. Four thousand more will be added by the institution of the eight-hour shift. The other seven thousand employees are scattered all over the world, in the Ford branches. They will share the same as the Detroit employees.

Personal statements were made by Henry Ford and James Couzens, Treasurer of the company, regarding the move.

“It is our belief,” said Mr. Couzens, “that social justice begins at home. We want those who have helped us to produce this great institution and are helping to maintain it to share our prosperity. We want them to have present profits and future prospects. Thrift and good service and sobriety, all will be enforced and recognized.

“Believing as we do, that a division of our earnings between capital and labor is unequal, we have sought a plan of relief suitable for our business. We do not feel sure that it is the best, but we have felt impelled to make a start, and make it now. We do not agree with those employers who declare, as did a recent writer in a magazine in excusing himself for not practicing what he preached, that ‘movement toward the bettering of society must be universal.’ We think that one concern can make a start and create an example for other employers. That is our chief object.”

“If we are obliged,” said Mr. Ford, “to lay men off for want of sufficient work at any season we purpose to so plan our year’s work that the lay-off shall be in the harvest time, July, August, and September, not in the Winter. We hope in such case to induce our men to respond to the calls of the farmers for harvest hands, and not to lie idle and dissipate their savings. We shall make it our business to get in touch with the farmers and to induce our employees to answer calls for harvest help.

“No man will be discharged if we can help it, except for unfaithfulness or inefficiency. No foreman in the Ford Company has the power to discharge a man. He may send him out of his department if he does not make good. The man is then sent to our ‘clearing house,’ covering all the departments, and is tried repeatedly in other work, until we find the job he is suited for, provided he is honestly trying to render good service.”

Looking back, history consistently shows that this form of capitalism is “good” for America.

Now, compare this with today’s system of “crony” capitalism; and we can see that the results speak for themselves.



In addition to literally destroying the countries economy and it’s middle class we are left with a debt estimated to be around $6 trillion which future generations of Americans will be saddled with. 

This is how “crony capitalism looks;

The richest 85 people in the world own more wealth than the bottom half of the entire global population.

Yes, that equation works out to: 85 > 3,000,000,000.

Before we dig into the document, a programming note about wealth inequality. Wealth isn’t income. Salary is income. But investments—stocks, houses, or equity in a business—build wealth. Wealth comes from the money you don’t immediately spend. Since poor people spend more of their income immediately, and rich people save/invest more of their income immediately, it’s predictable that wealth inequality be much worse than income inequality.

That said, the document is full of figures that will make your head explode if you are about income inequality. Here are five.

1) Seven in ten people live in countries where inequality has increased, and the United States is leading the wave. This graph from the report looks at nationalincome (not wealth) accumulation to the top one percent, but it makes a clear point that inequality is rising everywhere, but nowhere more than the U.S.



2) The richest 1 percent saw its share of income rise in 24 out of 26 countries for which Oxfam collected data between 1980 and 2012. Again, the story here is the U.S. leading a global trend.



3) Related to the graph above: In the US, the wealthiest one percent “captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009,” Oxfam reports. The bottom 90 percent actually lost wealth.


4) Every high-income G20 country is experiencing rising inequality except for South Korea. Meanwhile, numerous Latin American countries, including Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina, are seeing inequality levels decline thanks to a combination of income graph and high taxation and public spending.


5) The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion—15x more than the wealth held by the bottom 70 percent.


The rise in wealth inequality isn’t a measure of the poor getting poorer. It’s a measure of the rich getting fantastically richer thanks to the cascading benefits of privilege and the tremendous growth in stock wealth in the last decade. (Even in the U.S., 75 percent of household wealth is held by the richest 5 percent.)


On that note; if 75% America’s household wealth is in the hands of 5 percent of the population it’s painfully obvious that Ford’s idea on how to grow America and make it great has long disappeared from our marketplace. 

Now, the question is; which form of capitalism do you want in America? Which one is good for you, AND the country?



These are the very same A-holes who whine and moan about spending “too much” on healthcare, food stamps and social security. The infrastructure? Absolutely not. 


Talking about raising taxes on the people who invested and heavily profited on these wars is considered heresy. 


There’s no question the this country is in a terrible financial mess and there’s no indication that the elite minoritynis about to foot the bill to clean it up.


Maybe the 2014 mid-terms and the 2016 Presidential can still save what’s left of what was once a prosperous and powerful nation.

Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost U.S. Over $4 Trillion

This figure includes direct outlays for America’s three main military operations: 
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) – The official name for America’s war in Afghanistan.
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) – The official name for America’s war in Iraq (which some may remember by its original title: Operation Iraqi Liberation, or OIL).
Operation New Dawn (OND) – The official title for America’s war in Iraq under President Obama’s command (2010 to present).

These operations were implemented under the umbrella of America’s Global War on Terror. In 2006, President George W. Bush would tell CNBC that the war on terror was nothing less than “the first counter-attack to World War III.” 

That counter-attack, or World War III, continues through the present day, twelve years after the first and only attack on America’s home soil since the turn of the century. In that time, America has financed its $2 trillion war mainly by borrowing from foreign lenders. It has in fact only paid $260 billion of that so far, which is merely the interest accrued on our debt. 

Yet the ultimate costs of America’s wars in the Middle East will accumulate long after they have officially ended. Medical care and disability benefits will be due to their veterans for a generation to come, damaged equipment will need to be replaced, and Obama has promised to build a “Strategic Partnership” with Afghanistan. This will likely include American management of its police and military forces. 

All told, Harvard calculates that the price tag for these conflicts will double and potentially triple. That means $4 trillion at its most conservative and $6 trillion at its highest.


That’s the kind of justice doled out on the southern side of the Mason-Dixon line.


It’s not about justice per se’ ,but more about skin color.






This is how it works.


If you are white person and kill a black person; even if it just for playing music too loud, you are “not guilty” of murder.  If there are no witnesses you are free to go. If there are witnesses and they take the oath to tell the truth seriously, you may end up with probation or a little jail time.


If you are a black person and kill a white person for any reason; “guilty” hands down and it’s only a matter of deciding on the death penalty or life behind bars.





Many of my learned friends (hypocrites that they are) will argue that’s not true. I’m over-reacting, playing the racist card, being unfair. To them I say; please cite how many blacks have been found not guilty when the charge involved killing a white person.  I ask that you please don’t play the “juice” card since we all know that was a fluke. So, anyone other than OJ please.


As for the rest of us, justice works about the same regardless of geography;


Black on black crime; everyone’s guilty.


White on white crime; depends on who you can afford to defend you.



Jury Reaches Partial Verdict in Florida Killing Over Loud Music



The signs may have dissappeared but the attitudes and beliefs remain and this is another example of it.



Only in America can a person now need to be concerned about playing music too loud or throwing popcorn at someone.


The NRA and the gun nuts that feed on the BS they spew would just say it was the “good guys” defending themselves against the “bad” movie popcorn throwers and those “bad” people playing their music too loud. What next? Farting in a super market? Picking your nose in church?


Hard to know. So my advice is, be prepared to duck for cover.



This is where the loud music murder trial earns its name. While Dunn waited in his vehicle he became annoyed by the heavy bass booming from a nearby SUV and asked the four teens to turn it down. While they did comply, the situation escalated quickly into an argument in which Dunn says he was verbally harassed with death threats. When Dunn felt threatened by what he thought was a single barreled shotgun, he pulled a 9mm gun from his glove compartment and fired four times into the SUV:

“I was still scared and so I shot four more times… trying to keep their heads down to not catch any return fire. And that was it. I went over this a million times, and what I should’ve done is put the car in reverse. It was fight or flight. I don’t think there was any time for flight at that moment. I was going to get shot.”

Dunn then picked up his girlfriend, fled the scene to their hotel room, and ordered pizza… all without notifying police about the shooting. Dunn claims he was waiting until he reached his home in Brevard County, which was another 130 miles south. He said he wanted to have friends around him and was afraid of bringing a “s**tstorm” down on them in Jacksonville.

The picture painted by the prosecutor John Guy is quite different, telling of four innocent teens whose only “crime” was disrespecting Dunn by saying, “F*** that n****r.” The verbal insult is supposedly what triggered the shooting, nothing more. Guy also claim Davis and Dunn “exchanged f-bombs back and forth” while Dunn claims he never cursed at all.





Here’s the scenario;


The case of a Texas teen supposedly afflicted with “affluenza,” who killed four people and critically injured two others while driving drunk, triggered new outrage a day after a judge refused to send him to jail.

In June, the 16-year-old had seven passengers in his Ford F-350. He was speeding and had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit when the accident happened on a rural road, according to testimony at the trial in December.


He struck and killed four pedestrians. Two 15-year-olds who were riding in the bed of his pickup were ejected and severely injured, according to a statement from prosecutors.


The case drew national outrage after an expert psychologist for his defense testified that the teen had “affluenza”: He was so rich and spoiled that he couldn’t connect his actions with their consequences.,0,1914470.story#ixzz2scLcapFW




Let’s assume the judge is not insane and/or bought and paid for by the kids family and apply the same logic when teens living in poverty commit the same crime.


The scenario would read like this;


Poor kid kills 4 people and injures 2 others.


 An expert psychologist for his defense testified that the teen had “poveritis”: He was so poor and desperate that he couldn’t connect his actions with their consequences. 

If we are to believe that everyone is innocent and equal in the eyes of the law, and justice is blind, this would be the best way to demonstrate it in action. 

Do I hear any objections?


Americans have a unique way of turning violence and abuse of children into a form of entertainment;and which I thought there were laws on the books to prohibit this kind of behavior. Any adult that takes pleasure in subjecting children to abuse and danger should be not only accountable and responsible for the consequences but also criminally prosecuted


Gun Parties! For 8yr olds?

The gun range now offers children as young as 8 the chance to celebrate their special day by pumping bullets out of cold, hard steel.


And, if you want to really have fun and watch children pummel each other into unconsciousness sign up for  



Please tell me how any sane person can justify promoting the abuse of children and not feel even a little bit guilty?


How can a parent knowingly and willfully have a birthday party for their child by handing them loaded guns to unload at a gun range?


What is going through a parents mind as they watch their children pummeling each other on a football field knowing that they are subjecting themselves to brain damage and other serious injuries?  Even animals know better and do better at protecting their young. 



The Texas Youth Football Association is shocked, shocked to find that coaches of 8- and 9-year-old players — who participate in tackle football, with no limits on size of players, in spring and fall leagues — have coaches who advocate violence and profanity.

Parents and TYFA officials have done various interviews to defend the league and the coaches in “Friday Night Tykes,” saying that the show isn’t the whole picture on the TYFA experience, and that the coaches do the right thing in pushing kids harder, at an earlier age, to be better football 

Better people? Really?


In the very first line of the debut episode of “Friday Night Tykes,” a Texas youth football coach screams to his players, “You have the opportunity today to rip their freakin’ head off and let them bleed!” 


Friday Night Tykes




The gun nuts went nuts when the ABC young guns piece got so much feedback from people waking up to the fact that guns are dangerous and deadly; especially when in the hands of children. 


As expected the gun nut hate machine went into overdrive. The show was biased. The questions were skewed. The interviews were staged. The classroom experiment was bogus. Blah, blah, blah.


Nothing seems to stir the fear and paranoia more that shinning a light on what is going on behind the scenes like one wacko that; as crazy as it may sound, hosts “gun parties” for children as young as 3 years old. 


Wow! Why didn’t I think of that when I was raising my kids! Gun parties! BYOG and ammo. 



In a one-hour special, hidden cameras reveal shocking examples of what children do when left alone with a gun in the house. “Young Guns,” a “20/20″ report, airs Friday, January 31 at 10:00 p.m., ET on the ABC Television Network. ABC Anchors Diane Sawyer and David Muir explore the issue of kids and guns in interviews across America with parents who expose their young children to guns to demystify them, and parents who believe a gun is only secure from kids when it is in a safe.

Sawyer goes to a New Jersey neighborhood to talk to families about their attitudes on gun safety in the home. She also finds out whether or not they know if their neighbors have any unsecured guns and if this factor could pose a risk to their child during play dates.

The special includes interviews with parents who have lost their children to unsecured guns in their own home or at their neighbor’s house, and kids who surprise their parents by showing them where guns are “hidden.”

On the other end of the spectrum, Muir travels the country talking to parents who own guns who are convinced that educating a child about the dangers of guns is part of the solution. Many of those parents believe that teaching their children how to shoot at a young age will diminish curiosity and ensure their children’s safety around firearms.

Muir interviews a man who hosts gun parties for children as young as 3-years-old and a family who teaches their 14-year-old and 4-year-old daughters to shoot guns as an introduction to gun safety.

This special will shine a light on whether or not keeping a gun in the home can successfully thwart a home intruder and if a family can protect itself if the gun is locked away.

Sawyer and Muir will be having a live conversation around “Young Guns” on Twitter before, during and after the broadcast.