Dictators Are Not Communists

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPoliticsSocial Issues

Not that Communism is the best system to have as the primary economic engine, but it’s important to note that no economic system exists in a vacuum. So when someone points to the failures of a particular country’s economy as “proof their system does not work,” it seems a bit misguided; especially when said country is in actuality a dictatorship.

When the dictators are doing right by the people, the country flourishes. When they are making bad decisions for their people, nothing can stop them and the country suffers. When the people attempt to rebel, they are squashed, imprisoned, executed.

Much of Cuba’s current economic crisis is being blamed on the US Trade Embargo. This obviously factors into the country’s current shortage of food and medical supplies, but at the heart of Cuba’s current misfortune is a government that values power more than its people.

A centralized economy (like a dictatorship) can function if it is making the right choices for its citizens. However, considering how susceptible a government-run economy is to corruption and favoritism, decisions aren’t always made in the best interests of the entire country. A free market is meant to mitigate the poor judgment of political leaders: the people know best what and who is needed so they sort out jobs, resources, supply, and demand on their own.

Vietnam found a way to maintain a Communist government, but embrace some free market enterprise in the mid 80s. It’s reported 30,000+ private businesses were created since then, their economy has flourished, and relations with the US started to normalize in the 90s.

So, where Vietnam succeeded, Cuba seems to be failing. The Castros have “good intentions” for their… people (is “subjects” too cynical?). But when they needed the foresight to understand how a global pandemic would damage their economy and possibly require some major changes, they maintained their status quo. This is why their people are protesting; they have no power to demand accountability from their government (dictators). They can’t vote to change their system. They can’t do anything except literally live and die by the whims of their leaders.

And so maybe Communism isn’t the enemy. Maybe trying to exist outside of the influence of Multi-National Corporations isn’t the enemy. Perhaps Malignant Narcissism is the enemy. Anyone that is not accountable to anyone and believes themselves to be infallible, that person is dangerous and whether they are the leader of a Communist Country, or the President of the United States, they can do serious damage to a multitude of people.

The economic system of the country matters not if the leader is self serving and uses their political position to consolidate power, destroy enemies, and enrich themselves and their allies. As more and more information comes to light, it seems this was happening in the very Capitalist United States of America under the Trump regime.

Now, perhaps Capitalism is the system least susceptible to corruption and so Trump is an anomaly, but to view the U.S. as purely Capitalist is a misconception.

Here’s why: 

-A large amount of our manufacturing and debt come from China (a Communist country). This means we are at least in that regard participating in a Communist system to some extent – we are x percent Communist.

-The entire concept of Insurance is communist in nature: “From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.”

-Any tax-funded job is technically Socialism (army, police, fire, infrastructure, social work, etc.).

The point is: We should be very specific about what is working and what is not so we can create the best situation for everyone.

It is truly malignant narcissism in leadership that ruins countries and economies (as well as families and businesses).

The Free Market has proven to be an incredible mechanism when not being abused or corrupted. Communist and Socialist mechanisms can be implemented efficiently when overseen by Democratic institutions.

Dictatorships are never the best system as they prevent accountability and change for the better. Cuba’s current protests are happening for that reason.

A Center-Right Response to Climate Change

by with 4 Comments FeaturedPolitics

“And I’m like, ‘You try! You do it’,” Ocasio-Cortez exclaimed. “‘Cause you’re not. ‘Cause you’re not. So, until you do it, I’m the boss. How ’bout that?”  – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 

The Freshman Congresswoman laid down the gauntlet to her critics after vocal bipartisan criticism surfaced. The official details of the proposal have been taken down, so it is possible, if not likely, that the key bullet points have changed. Ignoring the more dubious items like cow flatulence and ending airplane traffic that spawned a litany of viral memes, there are opportunities to make meaningful changes to combat climate change that a broad coalition of voters can get behind. To responsibly address climate change, we must address the economic costs and opportunities for working and middle-class citizens to transition and embrace green alternatives via taxes, free market principles and access, and cost-efficient technologies.

In 2010, President Obama attempted to push a carbon tax bill through Congress. At the time, it faced broad opposition due to new taxes and energy costs consumers/taxpayers would be forced to absorb. The idea, in that form, would be traded and sold as a Wall Street commodity, and not something average Americans would benefit from. Taxing carbon emissions disproportionately affects lower-income constituents because, for the most part, they cannot afford most new technologies. Energy-efficient refrigerators and fuel-efficient hybrids are not realistic purchases for people living paycheck-to-paycheck. To make carbon taxes remotely plausible, there needs to be a revenue-neutral offset for sales and income tax rates so that taxpayers are not out additional income. If the tax burden is not revenue neutral, the burden will be indirectly shouldered by the lowest income bracket. But, if income and other tax rates are offset, and taxpayers can potentially come out ahead by taking the initiative, you create the opportunity for meaningful change of habits that benefit our environment. Using the LEED Certifications from the US Green Building Council, we can propose several tax incentives that most taxpayers can readily qualify for that are both green and fiscally responsible.

First, we should provide meaningful tax breaks for property owners based on the energy efficiency of their buildings. When construction jobs are applying for LEED certification, one of the main focal points is the level of energy efficiency. Creating the incentive for homeowners or landlords to improve the energy efficiency of their property through insulation and other materials lowers energy costs and carbon output. These incentives can also apply to renters living in energy efficient complexes.

Second, we should provide tax breaks on the use of local raw materials and hydrologically efficient vegetation. This cuts down on the transportation costs for shipping materials, and it lowers water bills. The reality is most people want to be environmentally-friendly, but the dedication to this cause is directly related to the additional costs associated with this.

The dirty little secret about most environmental policies is the companies and industries that most environmental activists target are strong supporters of most climate change policies. Corporations like Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and hundreds more were all sponsors and supporters of the Paris Climate Accord. The biggest misnomer of the entire debate is these corporations are actively opposing these agreements. In most cases, these corporations are equipped for these policy changes, and are more interested in protecting their market share of their industry. This presents an opportunity to remove industrial barriers that prevent startup companies from entering the market place. Our capitalistic system is built on the competition. Removing the barriers of entry into the industries where customers have choices will spur new innovations. There is a market demand for cleaner technologies, and the only way to feed this demand is to remove the bureaucratic red tape that keeps these products from reaching the marketplace.

We live in an era of constant technological breakthroughs: smartphones, drones, video game consoles that function as entertainment hubs. Through universal Wi-fi access and 4G technologies, you can use an app to access, communicate, or purchase anything you want with a simple click of the button. The app’s viability is completely dependent on the convenience and affordability it provides. Leveraging this mentality is the key to making incremental, sustainable progress for combating climate change. Most people, regardless of party affiliation, will choose the greenest alternative if it is cost-competitive. In the last 15 years, we witnessed an explosion of green cost-competitive products, which lead to the average American having a smaller carbon footprint each year. To continue this trend, it is important to free up our markets so that new ideas and new businesses can enter and compete to make the fundamental changes that we need. 

This article was originally published on 1 March 2019.

Similar Read: Human Extinction (Brought to You by Capitalism)