You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.
Grading Free Market Capitalism and "The Invisible Hand"
Free market capitalism is based on the idea that "the invisible
hand" of the market will create the best possible outcome for the most
people.
But as I noted a couple of weeks ago, the man who came up
with idea of the invisible hand did not believe in unrestrained free
market capitalism:
Americans have
traditionally believed that the "invisible hand of the market" means
that capitalism will benefit us all without requiring any oversight.
However, as the New York Times notes, the real Adam
Smith did not believe in a magically benevolent market which operates
for the benefit of all without any checks and balances:Smith railed against monopolies and the political influence that accompanies economic power ...
Smith worried about the encroachment of government on economic
activity, but his concerns were directed at least as much toward parish
councils, church wardens, big corporations, guilds and
religious institutions as to the national government; these
institutions were part and parcel of 18th-century government...
Smith was sometimes tolerant of government intervention,
''especially when the object is to reduce poverty.'' Smith passionately
argued, ''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman,
it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in
favour of the masters.'' He saw a tacit conspiracy on the part of
employers ''always and everywhere'' to keep wages as low as possible.
Moreover, as I pointed out in September:
One
of the leaders of the new science of financial modeling - Rama Cont -
points out that Adam Smith was wrong about the "Invisible Hand".Specifically, investors in financial markets rationally pursuing individual profit can produce outcomes that are bad for almost everyone.
As an article in City Journal notes:
Simple
forecasts can also be mistaken if they fail to account for the actions
of market participants themselves: investor strategies can influence
prices, which in turn influence future strategies in a feedback loop
that can cause considerable instability. Cont recalls the severe
stock-market crash of October 1987, which seemed to strike out of the
blue, since nothing significant was happening in the real economy.
Subsequent research, though, blamed the crash in part on a new
investment strategy, “portfolio insurance,” which a large number of
fund managers had simultaneously adopted. Based on the famous
Black-Scholes options-pricing model, this strategy recommended that
fund managers reduce their risks by automatically selling shares
whenever their values fell. But the approach didn’t take into account
what would happen if many investors followed it simultaneously: a
massive sell-off that could send the market plummeting. The 1987 crash
was thus not provoked by events in the real economy but by a supposedly
smart risk-management strategy—and the current downturn, of course,
also derives at least partly from a global craze for a seemingly
foolproof financial innovation...Investors
in financial markets rationally pursuing individual profit, then, can
produce outcomes that are globally negative. Doesn’t that contradict
classical economic theory? “Both theory and empirical facts do tend to
show that, on the financial markets, the Invisible Hand does not always
lead to welfare-improving general outcomes,” Cont replies.
Does this mean that free market capitalism is dead?
No. And I'm not sure that there is any better system.
But
capitalism has to grow up and become less naive, relying less
on a blind faith in "the invisible hand" and more on an understanding
of human nature, including insights from the field of behavioral economics.
It must include sophisticated checks and balances to make sure that the system is not gamed, instead of childish ideas about the "inherent stability" of the market.
And it must make sure that the poker game doesn't suddenly end when one of the players gets all of the chips.
Of course, with high-frequency trading dominating the market (and see this), frontrunning, permanent bailouts (and see this), government-sponsored credit rating scams and enterprises, the creation and maintenance by the government of banks so big that their very size warps the entire system, socialism for the big boys, and all of the other shenanigans going on, we don't currently have free market capitalism.
Mr. Washington,
Your point is taken,
capitalism has to grow up and become less naive, relying less on a blind faith in "the invisible hand" and more on an understanding of human nature, including insights from the field of behavioral economics.
It seems to me you are suggesting that a more modern look at the market is needed. Mad King Ludwig had already taken huge strides in praxeology: "Human Action" is a sensational source of human behavior in regards to economics, as I'm sure you are already aware.
We should allow for the fact that this discipline was in it's infancy at Smith's time. Having said that, the "Invisible Hand" concept stands. Relativity didn't banish Newton's laws of motion, it merely elaborated on an existing, valid observation with more sophisticated ideas- but the laws of motion still stand on their own.
You list a host of problems in the system, all interventionist, but your prescription seems to be- "different" intervention...?
I don't think too many people harbor any illusions about childish ideas about the "inherent stability" of the market. Having said that, would it really be prudent to discard a valid concept like the invisible hand? You yourself seem to realize that this notion hasn't been allowed to work unfettered as a mechanism. Would it be fair to say that perhaps the invisible hand isn't the problem- but too many government hands interfering?
It is hoped that was not a cheap attempt to naturalize economic dogmas?
Big news, gravity, movement exist outside the existence of a human society. Their formalization is and will always stays a model convenient for human beings to use.
Economics does not exist outside the existence of a human society.
Take your economy for what it is and dont mix it with science.
The Bible, too, is filled with mathematics, you know.
Anon,
It was not an attempt to "naturalize economic dogmas", cheap or otherwise. What was employed here was what we call an analogy to compare two concepts. The point being, the concept being elaborated on stands alone and is not necessarily nullified by that elaboration.
Big news: concepts of gravity and movement do not exist outside of human existence, i.e., human consciousness. An observer is required to make sense of these things, or even to recognize them at all. But you seem to have already grasped that:
Their formalization is and will always stays a model convenient for human beings to use.
...the same as economics...
Take your economy for what it is and dont mix it with science.
I was under the impression that economics was a science (social, but a science non the less).
Have you formaulated a better "dogma"? Even if an attempt was made to naturalize a concept of a social science, why should this ruin your day?
Funny.
Gravity requires an observer to make sense of these things?
But sense is totally a human concept. The natural world does not need sense to be. The natural world is. Gravity existed way before the coming of man kind. It existed way before being named or understood.
A javelin thrown by a prehistoric hunter has the same kind of path as a javelin launched by a modern athlete.
That is the point to be taken into account when drawing conclusions on the evolution of scientific knowledge.
That is why the scientific knowledge can be inclusive.
Trying to misportray the human requirement to observe the natural world to understand it... Comical at best.
Yes, economics is a science, in PC world. You have an ever growing crowd of economists to satisfy. At best, an art, at worst, a religion. And the priest trade does not die even when the religion is proven wrong.
As to providing a better dogma, are you kidding me?
The possibility of showing something false is not connected to the necessity of proving something true.
Ruin my day? Crookery per se does not ruin my day.
Exposing crooks might ruin their day though. And economists or associated trying to naturalize their dogma are crooks.
This response is incorherent at best.
While trying to clarify one point, I seem to have confused you with yet another one.
I'm going to "go stand over there now"...
Feel free to consider the answer incoherent.
Actually, was an answer needed?
Fact is naturalization of economics laws fails. It will always fail. Because economics dogmas are not natural laws.
Comparing economic dogmas to natural laws will always lead to flawed analogies.
That's all.
Excellent comment. The problem with interventionalists is that their brains are wired to expect that the next intervention will be beneficial. You can't really reasons with them. The biggest problem with liberals, socialists, and other assorted leftists is that they never consider the cost of their proposals, in monetary terms as well as in human terms. When you discover that someone is a leftist, treat them like an enemy and act accordingly. Yes, a few of them will become old disillusioned leftists and write books like David Horowitz but such rare conversions are not worth the emotional investment in believing any particular leftist degenerate can be redeemed through logic.
Poll (top right)
Who's in control of government?
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/
ok, lets stop for a second and first realize, yes Adam Smith was a dude who started telling about how great capitalism is, and invented nice ways to quantify it's effectiveness. But he's not the God of Capitalism, so we don't study capitalism by analyzing his opinion as some gospel truth. Continue your discussion.
Since we live in the modern age, why not apply a more apt label to the phenomena Smith called 'the invisible hand'?
Spontaneous self-organisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
In economics
In economics, a market economy is sometimes said to be self-organizing. Friedrich Hayek coined the term catallaxy to describe a "self-organizing system of voluntary co-operation," in regard to capitalism. Most modern economists hold that imposing central planning usually makes the self-organized economic system less efficient. By contrast, some socialist economists consider that market failures are so significant that self-organization produces bad results and that the state should direct production and pricing. Many economists adopt an intermediate position and recommend a mixture of market economy and command economy characteristics (sometimes called a mixed economy). When applied to economics, the concept of self-organization can quickly become ideologically-imbued (as explained in chapter 5 of A. Marshall, The Unity of Nature, Imperial College Press, 2002).
Efficient market economies?
http://koreyking.com/images/starvation1.jpg
http://www.hayley-westenra-international.com/microsite_unicef/images/Kea_Yqpu0Arba.jpg
http://pediatricendocrinology.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/obesity.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SqhhJb_P3Kk/SfEwiusI3JI/AAAAAAAAGl4/U4Q_E-N6Wdo/s400/two+victims+of+war.jpg
Your photos are testament to the depravities and nature of the political process, not that of free people buying and selling in the market place. Go toss your guilt ridden ideological tripe elsewhere, such tactics are meaningless to me.
Capitalism may be the best economic system we have but its natural direction is to exponentially consume and pool limited resourses, thus enequality, poverty, war, environmental degridation, corruption etc...
Recycle then bulldoze the suburbs/slums/non useful or historically insignificant buildings, replace with recreational areas, nature reserves, community gardens, schools, hospitals, museums, theatres etc. etc. Replace all personal vehicles with rail Everything is within walking distance)... build residentials up and not out, centrally located... abolish all land and realestate ownership, create electronic currency that is freely and equally distributed to all on a weekly basis but which expires and is non transferable (basically food money as we won't have any other living expences). Create product pricing system based on energy input allowing energy efficiency, innovation and productivity to increase the wealth of all (productivity destroys capitalism from the inside out when wealth can only be obtained through work/labor) ... Create physical secondary (discretionary spending) currency earned through community services and private business, resourses used in product manufacture are priced on a shared global resourse reserve/supply basis... abolish all copyright and patent laws, which become useless as no one can become wealthier than anyone else as we have no expences other than eg, skateboards, latte's, guitars, holidays, electronic goods etc... Hoarding the discretional spending currency is useless except when donated to community projects that require larger expenditure (remember we cannot own property or ferrari's)
Life = Education, art, community service and self realization and they will become the only goals left to aspire too, despite what everyone believes, personal wealth is not the driving force of innovation, creation bla bla bla...
Yep, crazy hey?
One more crazed commie discovers Utopia through confiscation. The good news? "we cannot own property or ferrari's (sic)". The bad news? We still have "expences" for "latte's (sic)" and "skateboards". The big unknown? How to deal with the few troublemakers whose real estate ownership is "abolished". "But Mommy I don't want our house to be abolished!" "Shut up and sing the Young Communist Lulliby".
Reservoir Hogs: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wkgIzuqJM0w/S4peq8V0BoI/AAAAAAAACsQ/Fdi7c8sjoT...
And looking at the invisible hand....
oh look at those futures take off in the middle of the night.... got some shorts to gun and ramp the market on next to nothing volume by triggering those shorts and forced buying when the silly punters are fast asleep... easy peasy and they won't know they have been fleeced until they wake up!
This is going to go a long way to stirring up a whole bunch of apathy.
Game Theory has plenty of holes in it. There was a RAND study that tried to prove Game Theory by assigning puzzles to Clerical staff... instead of fiercely competing with each other, they all worked together to find the right answers and then split their winnings evenly.
Naturally, the paranoid math experts behind Game Theory declared the test flawed "somehow" like many dedicated scholars who fall in love with their theory and develop cognitive dissonance. Game Theory is fine for contests between countries or economists or psychopaths, but fails to predict outcomes accurately when applied to interactions within humanity in general.
Also, with money comes power. Who distorts the free market? Not just 'leftwingers' but also powerful market actors, who lobby themselves subsidies and regulations against entrepreneurial competitors. These same actors will than sing the praises of the free market.
this dovetails well with an article by leo k currently running here.....the economic oligarchs must be destroyed if free enterprise is to be preserved....
asshole rahm emmanuel believes in creating crises to justify massive interventions - just like his indonesian nominal boss - whose only beneficiaries are the totalitarian creeps as hayek warned....
americans must fight back against these monsters....ALL incumbants must be removed from office....goldman sachs along with its colleagues must be destroyed...this includes bank of america, morgan stanley, jp morgan chase, wells fargo and too many to name....
some bureaucrats need to be in a grave...
The most important part of Wealth of Nations is the page that states the publication date....1776.
and that is precisely the very most you could understand lol
the only finger of the governments regulatory hand that remains visible is the middle one.
Grading Our Government
"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things." -- Adam Smith
Peace "F"
Easy Taxes "F"
Administration of justice "F"
Lowest of barbarisms, our United States. Thank you, our government.
The real Adam Smith advocated for colonization.
Would you mind, M. George Washington, reminding his reasons for?
""The mode of government which is the most propitious for the full development of the class war, is the demagogic regime which is equally favorable to the two fold intrigues of Finance and Revolution. When this struggle is let loose in a violent form, the leaders of the masses are kings, but money is god: the demagogues are the masters of the passions of the mob, but the financiers are the master of the demagogues, and it is in the last resort the widely spread riches of the country, rural property, real estate, which, for as long as they last, must pay for the movement.
When the demagogues prosper amongst the ruins of social and political order, and overthrown traditions, gold is the only power which counts, it is the measure of everything; it can do everything and reigns without hindrance in opposition to all countries, to the detriment of the city of the nation, or of the empire which are finally ruined.
In doing this do not financiers work against themselves? It may be asked: in destroying the established order do not they destroy the source of all riches? This is perhaps true in the end; but whilst states which count their years by human generations, are obliged in order to insure their existence to conceive and conduct a far-sighted policy in view of a distant future, Finance which gets its living from what is present and tangible, always follows a short-sighted policy, in view of rapid results and success without troubling itself about the morrows of history." Make no mistake about it, The god of the Jews is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. And if it were the same God -- the manner in which the Jews worship is administered is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord our God. Many people think this sort of thing may have happened in the past but did not exist after the Babylonian captivity."
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/jewish_sacrifice.htm
Ignorant of history you are condemned to repeat it
The concentration of economic power in the hands of corporation, shaebol etc do corrupt governments.
Hence Hitler.
I bet lobbyist would love to get rid of elections.
Carry on that train of thought and the few who monopolize wealth will be even more wealthy and being incapable to manage a country will have to resort to state of emergency.
You are getting there.
What we have does not resemble free market capitalism. Furthermore, the "invisible hand" primarily refers to the allocative interactions between price, personal preferences, and production. If you want free market capitalism in the investment markets, get rid of all the regulatory rules on stock accumulation, takeovers etc.
By the way, Adam Smith missed the boat on quite a few economic topics, and contradicted himself from time to time--after all, he was a pioneer.
thank you for describing the shorthand of the
invisible hand...i had no patience for
f-tards above who equated it with deus ex machina...
adam smith's free market did not envision the
deistic viewpoint you suggest....and his defects
in no way diminish his stature any more than
edison's primitive lightbulb or bell's paleolithic
phones denigrate them...although i don't think
that was your intent...
Free markets are distorted by any concentration of power, which is not necessarily government power. The largest players eventually figure out how to crush competition without competing, using market dominance and deep pockets to eliminate pesky upstarts. Well meaning governments try to restore the balance but inevitably overplay their hand. So what's the answer? If there was an easy one we would have found it by now.
You got it backwards. Businesses in a free market don't have the kind of power you imbue in them. Your example of "using market dominance and deep pockets to eliminate pesky upstarts" is a non-sequitur. Reality does not conform to what you believe. In the end, the only way a business can make money is by supplying the demand of its consumers. Even monopolies that may manage to exist without government coercion are bound by the laws of supply and demand and the resulting price mechanism to service consumers lest their greed make it more appealing for one of those pesky upstarts to come in and offer a lower price.
I won't disagree with you that governments are well-meaning, but they don't overplay any sort of hand. The only avenue opened to politics is interventionism, the system ensures that economic imbalances are created. There is no "middle ground", the process is a slow an inexorable march towards more control until the Leviathan collapses under its own oppressive girth.
Lets sign for the dictatorship of the consumers then. After the scrap communist dictatorship of the proletariat, that is the new show brought to you by the economists...
Consumers dont determine fully their demand. If they did, stuff like marketing would not work.
As to the ever rising competitors, incredible to state that stuff in the current state of the world.
Well-meaning governments?? You both must be mad.
State and National Governments don't give a fuck about anything but themselves, their own sycophantic, obscene, malignant growth, no different than Goldman Sucks, or some other corporatocracy.
What's the matter with you two? Excellent analysis destroyed by naivete?
Benefit of the doubt? lol What I'm trying to do is illustrate the flaws that are inherent in any system of coercion and compulsion regardless of how honest or just the person who holds the reigns of power is. I try to avoid giving other people the opportunity to fall back on the belief that "it'll work if we just get the right people into office."
In a nutshell, I believe the people can be well-meaning, it's the apparatus of government itself that is incorrigible.
@ Rama Cont:
"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." - Ludwig von Mises
The difference, in theory, is that a government consists of both laws and men. Without the restraint of laws, the race goes not to the swift or the strong, but the ruthless and amoral. You can argue until you're blue in the face about particular laws, but on the whole, the human condition is improved by the presence of written and public limits on behaviour.
Let's simplify this....
There is a construct of basic events/items better than others....never perfect....just better....meaning higher overall numerical outcomes....
This is simple ...choose which packet of events would result in larger future economies...
1)All very expensive and beyond the economic reach of 80% of the population....
Education
Medicine
Markets
Legal largesse
Elections
Taxes
Executive compensation
2)Improvements to the above
Education....internet based ...free....paid by 2% of the 15% consumption tax....
Medicine.....paid by 2% of 15% consumption tax
Medicine divides the 2%
Markets....Seamless worldwide...fact based wiki style information....20 cents transaction costs per hundred units...no outside matching ...all on the exchange...no minimum account size....no short sale rule but is restricted by outstanding shares available via electronic tag....4:1 margin intraday/overnight....all securities....
All employees have a right to own part of the pie that they create....
Legal largesse....eliminated....no more ambulance chasers.....everyone must face the world's risks and chances....
Taxes.....both corporate and individual taxes eliminated....replaced by 15% consumption tax...
Executive compensation...cannot exceed 50x the average annual company wage....must be paid in restricted stock....
Innovation awards will be decided by the employees .....
I like the education idea. Only on the university level though, we need it to be very interactive. kids have too many "why"s... put the best teachers we can find to mold that catergory. At this time the lobbyists for the education sector will not allow it even though the technology is in place. Medicine..yes. Executive compensation..yes. Taxes, I don't know yet what we will end up with after the deluge. Capitalism has killed itself. We had no hand in. What we will end up with is something beyond all the isms we have learnt. None of them made the grade.
Greenspan had the belief that markets would take care of itself and that fraud was just a part of the system and didn't need to be controlled or regulated (Frontline : The Warning ) . Well we know how that turned out.
There is enough regulation it just isn't being utilized and enforced. The SEC didn't prosecute Madoff after being handed a folder outlining everything twice by Markopolos well that is just blatant corruption. There are numerous examples of this and no accountability.
"One of the leaders of the new science of financial modeling - Rama Cont - points out that Adam Smith was wrong about the 'Invisible Hand'. Specifically, investors in financial markets rationally pursuing individual profit can produce outcomes that are bad for almost everyone."
Why do all these scientists fail at basic philosophy. You can not have good without bad. There are always going to be periods of failure in any pursuit. The hubris of them to think they know what the best possible outcome should have been for a particular event or period.
To paraphrase Durden "Stop trying to control everything. Just let go"
Regards to Adam Smith....
But...there is a reason for any action....
To state...An Invisible Hand....
Is another way of saying ...I do not know why....
on the one hand horse shit and on the other
it is far better to speak of an invisible hand
than the idiot savant crap of the central
planners, keynesians, totalitarians and other
hangers ons whose nostrums have destroyed
western civilization....
the reason most do not no why . is they never do it.. thery grab all,,
the invisible hand works ,, but it is a product of as you sow you reap,,
Capitalism....
Is in its infancy....
Why ?
The means of wealth distribution with regards to barriers to entry.....has a long way to go....
The US capitalsim model does not observe its own laws with regards to companies growing too large and dominant....The US follows up on this on occassion....but mostly does not apply what is on the books....
What is true about capitalism....is that once a product producer dominates....and takes full advantage of barring others ...implicit or not...from entering as well....via legal largesse....patent rights...production costs....prices....then the issue becomes one of servitude versus ownership.....
.......................................
The future....
Wealth distribution is to be through stock distribution....
Although this means has come a long way....the best usage of stock has only just began....
When a company exists because of labor....the labor deserves ownership through shares.....The shares should be as good as currency.....In other words the mechanism for transferring stocks to cash should cost no more than 20 cents per hundred units....
Shares should trade publicly...seamlessly...worldwide....in the language and currency of choice....
Company facts should be made available in fact based wiki format....and it would be solely up to the buyer as to buying the risks....
....................................
Point being....
The internet has only just begun....as well as the securities trading direct access electronic exchanges....They need to become far more efficient and defragmented...and information needs to be far more accessible....
There should be no transfers allowed by any other means other than this central exchange....
......................................
Monopolies and oligopolies will only become even stronger....as the barriers to entry become even harder to overcome....in addition to overcoming legal largesse....
.....................................
Competition in terms of its regulation is not a govt. function....It is a product function....
Payments to people....
One must agree that it is not appropriate for 2% of the people in the US to control the majority of its wealth....
Payment rewards must be granted based on contribution and service in the form of stock....and should be distributed from 1x to 25x....
If this legal aspect is not enforced...then the top 1% will even move to the top 1/4% controlling the majority of wealth....
Financial reward aspects should be on a 1 to 25 scale or even lower....ie 10 to 1....
The acception would be innovation claims....but would be decided by the employees of the firm....
...................
And at the end of the day....the stock markets should be so simple to access and use that anyone could handily turn on their PC and buy/sell any domestic or foreign security...without the fear of being gamed by the likes of a GS...JPM....etc....
You may decry the failures of capitalism, but until you show me an example that works better over a long period of time, I'll stick with the presumption that more economic freedom is better than less. No system can avoid economic cycles, it's part of the human psyche to over react. Unfortunately, government interference in the economy tends to deepen economic cycles because government reacts slower than individuals, and carries more weight when it does react. Plus, individual biases tend to balance out, whereas government biases, which inevitably occur, do not.
Those billions of individual hands aren't perfect, but they have proven more adept at maximizing well being than any system which concentrates power (and subsequently wealth) in a few hands.
There has been a tendency from the socialist movement to associate capitalism with the wealthy oligarchs who currently wield undue influence over our government. Unfortunately, concentration of wealth and power and lack of social mobility are more emblematic of centralized economies than free market economies. The problem is that America has trended more and more toward a centralized economy over the last 80 years. The massive growth of the federal and state governments was bound to lead to influence buying, corruption, inefficiency, and eventually severe economic crises. If the government didn't have so much ability to distribute wealth, there would be less incentive for economic players to focus their efforts on influencing the government to their advantage.
You are a overlooking that the Rich are not victims of government they almost exclusively make the laws. They ARE the government, unless you have a country like ours which has a means for the citizens who are numerically more numerous to of occasionally elect enough representatives to enact laws to impede resource concentration.
There is a game that makes the point. The winner of each turn gets to change one rule for the next round. This is what is called a complex adaptive system and leads to a kind of geometrical distribution of resources with the one largest enity twice the size of the next two largest who are twice the size of the next four etc.
This size and numerical distribution is found over and over in nature, in the size of black holes, in city sizes, animal populations in environments from the ocean to the velt etc.
What it means is that absent regulation or morality, that a monopoly on resources will naturally emerge because of compounded initial advantage.
Capitalism fails? That is a scoop. The only achievement the capitalist priests managed is to label anything that works as capitalism.
If it works, that's capitalism. If it does not work, that is not capitalism.
So, yes, impossible to show an example of something working better as anything working better is immediately labelled as capitalism...
baloney analysis
of course you know zero about austrian economics ,, never read mises ,, and have not even taken the time to read a free reismans capitalism ,,
Sure. Let me see: Austrian economics, you mean that church of capitalism that wishes to derive all a system from (pseudo) postulates as in mathematics and get human beings to stick to the projected behaviours?
Lets ride.
I wonder what is baloney analysis: a guy spurting a simple observation or a guy spurting ad hominems?
Uh, no, I dont wonder.
Bingo! Nothing better, despite the underbelly the Left whines about in order to advance their Utopian "Fair" agenda where the caribou get free Starbucks gift cards, plasma TV's and multiple votes.
you are naive....an enabler of those seeking
to destroy you...or perhaps you are among the
destroyers....