Skip to main content

Is Business Responsible for Your Well-Being?

Business isn’t naturally responsible for the well-being of anyone, nor is it responsible for finding ways to make people productive.

It tends to incidentally achieve this end, but it is not out of obligation, but rather due to the perception of mutual advantage, something which is sought consensually by free and independent parties.

Rather, it is the responsibility of the parents, then later the mature offspring, to care for the individual. Bringing a life form into this world entitles it to nothing beyond the mere opportunity to survive of its own might, or in some cases to decidedly reject it.

The failures of such human experiments can then justifiably be traced back to a failure of individual adaptability, or one of incompatibility with the given environment, or that of parental capacity to ensure survival of their offspring.

It is neither the assumed failure of business nor the dearth of identifiable employment options which is to blame.

This is all too often the game played by grandstanding demagogues of the Left who condition the masses to expect so much from fabricated abstractions that are composed of nothing more than sheer human beings.

For this reason, champions of the Left, such as Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, avoid naming names and instead point to meaningless generalities, such as faceless corporate entities, broad-brush demographics, hyperbolized personality types, socioeconomic caricatures, tenuous moral absolutes, and unprovable reports of endemic wrongdoings.

When pressed, the core of their untenable argument begins to leak out profusely, unveiling itself as nothing more than ornately-dressed envy and disappointment.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters.  In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity.  Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility.  Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue. What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the f