When Less is Greater Than More

The first three months of each year are horrifically slow for me in my business. As an entertainer the opportunities to do shows at parties and events are just fewer and farther between events than at any other time of the year.

This creates a series of problems, mostly financially of course. It is why you will see, the 6 of you who follow me at all, that I am always involved in other activities. Of late I have been working on trying to build a new business helping other entertainers promote and sell their work on one of the sites where I try to sell my line of hypnotherapy recordings.

The trouble with being a struggling entertainer is finding things to do to earn money which are flexible. So, if I need extra money to pay a bill…or eat…I’d be happy to take any job doing anything. I referee sports, for example and beat the shit out of my aging body running up and down a basketball court for 5-12 games a week. 

Scheduling for a regular job is always an issue because if I get a late-booked show, I have to take it because it would pay more than any other job I could realistically get. Employers won’t stand for someone who says they can’t work because their other job came up on a busy Saturday. 

Consequently this means that, for me, I end up incurring a stack of debt and this year it’s particularly bad. The new business is taking time to develop and is only costing me money right now. That is very discouraging. Since I am not setting February on fire, hypnosis-show wise, I begin to wonder if I simply just don’t have what it takes to succeed the way that I would like to succeed. 

It’s very mentally challenging on a day-to-day basis. As someone who has fought a life-long battle with depression it's doubly challenging. The most difficult part is that it makes me think that I just flat-out suck. When I am not getting hired, when I face rejection, or if someone cancels something on me, I take that very personally even though I know, deep inside, that it’s really the economy, a bad time of year, or whatever other valid reason. 

What tends to make it worse is that I see completely unskilled, untalented, and stupid people not struggle at all. That just makes it worse for me. I then wonder if I am not seeing something that other people do…do I really suck THAT much? Do people just not like me? Do they think that I am crazy? Some combination of all of the above?

I wonder why people who are in business don’t write back to me when I am trying to give them my business. Then I shake my head and wonder WHY and HOW they are in business when they don’t respond to a potential customer.

I jump when my phone rings or if I get a note when someone wants some information from me.

It’s so baffling.

I see one of the more successful stage hypnotists out there running a business with over 100 other hypnotists in his agency operating his business claiming he is a doctor and it turns out he is a fake and HE STILL GETS WORK. I’ve seen highlights of that same clown’s show and its flat bad compared to mine.

And I just don’t get it.

But I then I recall a story from this past week. Now, I am just not a rap music fan to start so keep that in mind. But Kanye West sucks and sucks bad. There is nothing I have heard that even remotely could be said has any value. If there is one thing I am good at in life it’s recognizing talent. Many people are, I know; I’m not claiming any special skill there, really. Let’s face facts though….Kanye West blows.

So I wonder…how the hell does someone who sucks this bad have a career in the music industry? Shouldn’t he be driving for Uber, like I might have to starting next week? How the hell is that ass clown making a living?

Then I find out that he is 53 million dollars in debt and suddenly I realize that I just don’t suck that bad. The value of my suck is not negative 53 million dollars.

What a relief that is!

I can walk around much happier today knowing that I don’t have that much suck burden. Just the burden of knowing that my show is 5 million times better than a Kanye West show but for some reason I have a 2-month gap in my show schedule.

Yes, I will say straight up that I have more talent than that tool, Kanye West. I am even a better musician and singer than he is. Truth. Let’s put it this way…if a record company signed me to record an album this year…in ANY style including hip hop or suck suck (West’s style of “music”)…they, and I, would not end up 53 million dollars in debt. 

I have mentioned before that I believe that I am either legitimately insane and the only one who doesn’t realize it or I am living in the actual Twilight Zone. 

So the moral of this story is that, indeed, there are times when less is better than more. I have less debt than Kanye West, which is completely justified, and gives me a glimmer of hope that not EVERYTHING is totally backwards here in the Zone.

Done.

Marshal's Bank

As the debate continues over socialism and capitalism and as I have started to get more vocal and have had some feedback about my thoughts I thought I would start by saying we don’t even really live in a fully capitalist country right now.

I remember during the last election watching the Stossel show, with one of my heroes John Stossel, who had a few of the fringe candidates on one evening. One of them was the Socialist candidate, whatever his name was. He came right out and said we are a socialist country now.

It was hard to really disagree. The government has its tentacles into everything we do and now as just the 16^th most economically free country in the world there is increasing evidence of that.

My underlying point with most everything I mention here and anywhere else I mention politics is that this increasing level of socialism is the problem and not capitalism. What we need is an infusion of true free-market capitalism to fix the problems in this country.

Now, it would be sophistry to suggest that 100% of any idea is 100% bad. There is, for example, The Tennessee Valley Authority which was offered as a shining example of “Democratic Socialism.”

Here is a description of the TVA.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (T.V.A.) is a federally owned corporation in the United States created by congressional charter in May 1933 to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, and economic development in the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly affected by the Great Depression. The enterprise was a result of the efforts of Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska. TVA was envisioned not only as a provider, but also as a regional economic development agency that would use federal experts and electricity to rapidly modernize the region's economy and society.

F.D.R., America’s first real socialist President, claimed that private utilities had "selfish purposes" and said, "Never shall the federal government part with its sovereignty or with its control of its power resources while I'm president of the United States."

So, the government bought many of the private power entities in that region, and then PASSED REGULATIONS THAT WERE MEANT TO PREVENT COMPETITION WITH THE TVA.

First, this was NOT “Democratic” Socialism. That would imply that people voted for this. While it is certain that there were people who DID want the government to run all of this there were certainly many people who didn’t and there were court challenges.

One of the hypocrisies of Socialism is that they don’t want any business to get too big, or become a monopoly. But for some reason they are totally happy with the government getting too big and becoming a monopoly.

Now, the TVA, as far as I can find is not an entity which is hated by the people in that region. They provide power and decent service as far as I can find.

But does that mean it’s the best way to deal with everything it does?

One of the fears at the time of this take over was that private enterprises would conspire to keep rates high, for one example.

Has that been a problem in the past? Sure. I think we can agree that someplace in the middle can be found and we can agree that that one company shouldn’t be able to own everything so they can charge whatever they want.

Oh, wait…but…the…um…democratic socialists still want the government to do all of that and…um…decide which companies should be allowed to do this.

And therein lies the inherent problem with this democratic socialist stuff. Ultimately the complaint is that they have is what they despise and then is what they provide as an alternative.

I think the proof that the government knows the TVA is not the best alternative for people in the region is that they made laws preventing competition. If the government truly wanted the best for those people why would they not allow a company to come in and provide better service at better rates?

In my state I have ONE choice for a power company. In the last 10 years my monthly bill has shot up 400%. I NEED COMPETITION TO LOWER MY PRICES.

Chew on that and chew long and slow on it and keep your mind wide open as you chew.

Because as you are chewing you are getting hungry and suppose that in your town there was only one place to eat. 

Say your town had 5000 people in it and the eatery had a good amount of seat at 250.

What would you think would be the potential problems with that?

I will list them as questions anyway...

How long would you have to wait to eat? 

Would there still be food when you got there?

How much would the food cost? Let's recall a basic law of supply and demand. If supply is low and demand is high, prices are high. If supply is high and demand is low then prices are low.

Would the service be good? Why would anyone care about service there? They know that its the only place where anyone can go so why do little things like work hard to keep it clean? People would have NO CHOICE so they HAD to go there. Who cares if there were mice running around, or there was a lot of bugs in the food?

I could continue with questions but that's enough for now.

Suppose I am allowed to open up a place to eat across the street. I am an entrepreneur, let's say, and would like to employ the concept of Capitalism and capitalize on an opportunity I see to help people in that line who are hungry, provide a place for them where they don't have to spend so much money and don't have to eat bugs for dinner. I can help them and make some money doing so in the meantime.

I build my place and on day one I pass out flyers to the people in line that say something like, "Come across the street to eat. Your food will only cost $80 instead of $100. The place will be clean, there won't be any bugs in your soup, and the people serving you will smile and treat you nicely."

My place will fill in about 30 seconds.

Now the original place has a decision to make. Either continue doing what they are doing to see if they can continue to keep the place filled or do something to keep their customers from going across the street. 

We know what they will do if they want to stay in business. 

Now when my place is filled and the old place begins to compete both sides will continue to do whatever it takes to keep their customers. 

If a third place is allowed to build a place and compete things get even better for the eaters. 

We do see this all over the place, don't we? We certainly like all of the choices we have in eateries, right?

Why then, would ANYONE, ANYWHERE, suggest that there only be ONE place to get their power, their utilities (remember the break up of AT&T?) and THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE?

I would bet that 95% of people who would read this would think, "Duh, of COURSE, there has to be more than one place to eat." But half of them are still voting for people who think its a great idea to only have ONE place to buy health insurance or get electricity.

Here in Delaware we used to only have one choice for Cable TV. Now we have two. People go back and forth to these companies as they do battle for our dollars. We really need a few more because two are just not enough. They both basically suck when it comes to prices. They are a LITTLE better service-wise (I know some who read this will vehemently disagree with that) but truly need real competition here.

I once tried to buy health insurance online and found a company in Pennsylvania with a plan I wanted which cost HALF of the exact same plan here in Delaware. I WASN'T ALLOWED TO BUY IT....HERE IN AMERICA. 

If EVERY insurance company, which was solvent, was allowed to compete in EVERY state, our health insurance would be cheaper, the service would be better, we would have better coverage and MORE people would be covered. 

"Oh," you say, "but the insurance companies just rip you off." Well, I am sure that some do. But if you only have 1 or 2 or 3 choices, and one rips you off then you have even less choices. If there are 1500 choices and one rips you off, they are out of business and believe me that NO BUSINESS that is doing business properly wants to go out of business. I GUARANTEE that if the 1500 insurance companies were allowed to compete for your dollars everyone would find out REAL quick which are the honest and solid companies and which weren't. 

How does it come to the point where we only have a few choices of health insurance and utility companies? Because government is involved in making sure that only a chosen few get to have that business. That is because both those businesses and the government collude to make sure it works that way.

Call that crony capitalism or fascism, or what have you, if you are a socialism lover. I don't even know for sure. But its not Capitalism, that is for sure. Capitalism has NEVER been the problem. THIEVES are problems. We can create laws to stop thieves but should NEVER create them to stop Capitalists. 

Every time the government gets involved to stop "evil big businesses" they stomp on every small business out there. The big businesses can afford the new regulations penned to keep businesses from "screwing" the little guy, but only the little guy and business gets screwed. 

Don't think that's true? Don't think the government and the businesses they choose to succeed (which is exactly what they are doing...RIGHT GE?) What do you think of banks?

If you are a home owner or need to borrow money and have a loan or a credit card you probably really hate banks, right?

I would like to start a bank. No...really. I would like to start a bank. It's an actual goal

Why? Because if you borrow 200,000 for 30 years at today's rate of 5.25% you are going to pay 197,000 in interest. That 197,000 in interest is not 5.25%, now, is it? It's almost 100% over the life of the loan.

I would like to start a bank and charge 15% interest...period...for a house. A borrower at my bank would only pay a total of 30,000 in interest. They will pay it off more quickly and have more of their hard-earned money to pump into the economy and not into the bank.

Great idea, right? Of course it is. But if you want to open a bank guess who you have to deal with?

THE GOVERNMENT. You know, that non-Socialist, evil Capitalist government we have now, right?

Take a little peek into what it takes to open up a bank in AMERICA.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12779.htm Trust me...press a few of the links in there and find out.

Let me just put this out there...

Allow me to open a bank. Just allow me to do it without all of this hassle. I will do exactly what I just said I would do...loan money at that basic rate. You can watch me every day. The money will not get stolen...because, after all, its a crime to steal.

More people will own homes in this country than ever before. More people will be able to take vacations, probably work a little less, invest in other businesses, etc., etc. 

But it will never happen unless I am allowed to compete on a level playing field. If you think those bank regulations provide an open playing field you are stupid. Yes, you are. 

Socialists want MORE government. That is their bottom line. They believe that the government will run everything better. Listen to Hillary Clinton and Barnie Sanders speak about banks. They want to regulate them MORE, not less. That means, by default, that they DO NOT WANT ME TO BE ABLE TO OPEN A BANK because I can't meet the current regulations, let alone any additional regulations.

We MUST have a free-market, capitalist system in this country and it is my not-so-humble opinion that its VERY obvious that Bernie Stalin and Hillary Clinton won't allow it. Frankly, I'm not even sure if there is anyone on the other side who would allow it either...certainly not anyone considered to be part of the "establishment."

LESS government, not MORE government. ONLY.

Done.

Exodus

Now we have to add on to what was written just the other day.

Look how prolific this become suddenly!
What happens when there is a new tax on millionaires? After all, taking more of their money should improve roads, health care, and launch a brand-new unicorn sanctuary in every state where that happens, right?
Here is one example from Maryland, where failed Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley tried this in 2009.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124329282377252471

Here is one of the important paragraphs…
“One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.”
I wonder if socialist/progressive/economically liberal/communists reading that take a moment to let that soak in to the processing center of their brains.

NJ Governor, and now failed Presidential candidate, Chris Christie mentioned that the same thing happened in his state before he took the reins of the Garden State Sled. In this past Saturday’s debate he stated that 70 BILLION dollars of wealth left the state in a five-year period as a result of that state’s millionaire tax. That meant that NONE of any of those people's incomes could have generated any revenue for NJ.
I sort of doubted that number at first but found it quoted in this piece...

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/10000_millionaire_households_fled_nj_last_year_study_says.html

Here is an important paragraph from that story…
“Last year, a report by the Morristown-based Regent Atlantic wealth management firm released a report entitled "Exodus on the Parkway" that claimed so-called "tax migration" began in 2004, with the state's passage of the "millionaire's tax." The report found that a couple with an income of $650,000 who moved to Pennsylvania would save some $21,000 per year in taxes, adding up to $1.65 million over 25 years, if invested. Most families with incomes of $500,000 per year or more were departing New Jersey for either the Keystone State or Florida, the Regent Atlantic authors added.”

Now, what lessons can we learn from this?
One- In this country we have a certain amount of freedom and a certain amount of economic freedom.

I say certain amount of economic freedom because while the US was ranked #2 just as recently as 2000, it has dropped to  16^th with its decline beginning in 2010 under this current administration.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/u.s.-drops-to-16th-on-economic-freedom-list-behind-canada-chile/article/2571968

Within that summary is the 257 page report. Here is an important pull…

"Economic freedom breeds prosperity and economically free countries like Canada offer the highest quality of life while the lowest-ranked countries are usually burdened by oppressive regimes that limit the freedom and opportunity of their citizens."

“Oppressive regimes.” 

Now other factors are considered in the US such as the war on terrorism and the drug laws but over and confused regulation was one of the biggest factors for the US.

Anyway…so we have a certain amount of economic freedom in this country. One of those freedoms is the ability to move to another state which has more favorable tax rates.

When I become a billionaire, rest assured that I am going to move to the state where I will pay the lowest amount of taxes. Why? Because it will be MY money. Not yours, not the states, not Bernie Stalin's. (Thanks Bob.)
So moving to a state which actually wants me to live there and won’t steal from me because they believe I don’t deserve to make so much or somehow I have acquired it illegally, is what I will do.

Now, I haven’t forgotten the FEDERAL tax rates here, no…no…no. Remember that if I make a million dollars a year (lowering my bar just a little) my federal rate would be 39.6%. That is currently unavoidable.

But what if Barnie Stalin increases that 39.6% to a 45% rate or even the 90% rate he has thrown out there? What do you think will happen then?
That’s right, I’m gone. I will move to a country which will not steal from me.
So, that is really lesson number two for this post.
Here is the basic math. If I make a million dollars a year and get taxed at 39.6% I will owe 396,000 in federal taxes, which goes to all sorts of causes with which I don’t agree after military expenditures.

Now, if I get taxed at 45%, how much does the Federal government get?

450,000?
WRONG. They will get ZERO, because I will be gone.
See the difference?
Now think about a big business for a moment. Have you ever  heard anyone complaining about how businesses keep moving out of the United States and taking jobs with them?
Why do you think that happens?
ITS FOR THE SAME REASON!!!!!!!!!    ARARRHGHGHHGHGHGHGH!!!!  What don’t these economically illiterate fools understand about this?

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world right now. We have a government that believes they know how to spend everyone else’s money better than you and other companies do.

Yes, we know there has to be taxes to take care of things like the military and infrastructure (oh that reminds me that Obama wants to add a $10 per barrel tax on oil…that’s a whole other blog post) and we can take care of those who CAN’T take care of themselves.
But let’s say we lower that tax rate to 20% and place it somewhere in the middle of the other rates in the world. NOW it might be stupid to leave the US. NOW the US can get $200,000 of my million every year instead of zero. Maybe at that rate other companies from higher taxed countries move HERE and bring their JOBS with them.

THAT is how it works. It has NEVER worked successfully at those confiscatory tax rates. Communist and socialist countries know two things when they do this…that most of the people in their countries CANNOT afford to move so their people have no choice but to take what their country does to them (or they can flee on cars made into boats like they have done in Cuba.) Or, their military will make sure that no one leaves…like Cuba, the old Soviet Union and other Utopian unicorn havens like North Korea.

It’s all basic math and basic human nature and it still baffles me that I have to read…every day…that people are feeling “The Bern” or “Climbing the Hill.”

Without this economy being the strongest it can possibly be with the most economic freedom possible, EVERY single social issue becomes secondary in importance. I know many people who are single-issue social-issue voters and will even argue otherwise DESPITE the basic truths. But I will state, categorically, that until these monetary concerns are fixed and we have tax rates and tax codes that provide opportunity to earn and keep wealth, and our regulatory systems are revised, that not a single social issue will ultimately matter. Not gay marriage, not abortion, not having unicorn painting classes in school, nothing…because there are going to be far more people jobless, homeless and helpless and even more dependent upon the government which did that to them and that will create far more difficult problems than we have right now.

Done.