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

Goldmoney: Real Money Purposed for the Future

The institution of money entered the minds of sophisticated traders several millennia ago, when instead of bartering with limited numbers of people within the cumbersome double coincidence of wants, large-scale economies developed from the reach and transparency of commodity money which was scarce, durable, fungible, transportable, divisible, recognizable, and usable in and of itself. 

While we may appear to have transcended those primitive times and those so-called barbarous relics, the truth is that we have merely mutilated the concept of money by clandestinely replacing it with its more manipulable and abstract representative, the proverbial coat check without the coat. 

This is but the device of a large-scale social experiment run in real time, and we are its unwitting and unconsenting subjects who’ve largely never heard of the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate, much less its missions of “maximum employment” and 2-percent annual inflation.

Yet there is hope after all.

Finally, after deca…

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

Bitcoin: Are You Feeling Lucky?

The popular cryptocurrency, bitcoin, has tumbled greater than 50 percent since its all-time high set just a month ago near $20,000. 

Since then, it has traded as low as $9,000 before rebounding modestly back over the $10,000 mark. 
The short story of bitcoin (XBT) is powerfully illustrated by its graduation from its initial use case as an easy, inexpensive medium of exchange to an erratic and highly speculative risk asset which scarcely resembles anything more. 
And despite the chance that it regains steam, it is steeped equivalently in bubble territory at $9k as it is at $20k or even $100 or $100k. 
Plainly, it is a bubble at nearly any price. 
The only difference is the anchoring effect which seduces the investor into interpreting the drop as a buying opportunity. 
So while the fundamentals and the use case haven't dramatically changed since the decline, the greedy investor assumes that the price has dropped because of reasons unrelated to its future viability. 
This is wishful thinkin…