Friday, May 28, 2010

Profits By Any Other Name

Whether it's big pharmaceutical, big oil, big insurance, or a small plumbing company, the idea that there are billions of dollars in profits being made in this big government political age is unacceptable. This hearkens back to the Marxist roots of socialism where profit was seen as the unfair taking from the laborer the fruit of his labor that was rightfully his.

For all the caterwauling about this "problem" of profits from the most compassionate amongst us-(whisper)and fabulously well to do too-there seems to be a huge blind spot by those singing the loudest.

Keeping with St. Marx's idea of profit-the difference between the value that the worker has created and the wage that the worker receives from his employer-there is an entity, the same entity in fact that Marx saw as the savior for the oppressed proletariat, that seems to be getting away with a little profit action in their own right. That entity would be the state. And as Shakespeare once alluded, you can change the name of your irk, but that doesn't change the fact that your a hypocrite.

So how is this so? Well consider Marx's definition-that I got here by the way. The next time you look at your pay stub look at the difference in the wealth that you have created by the sweat of your brow, minus of coarse what your employer has taken for himself. That would be your gross. Then look at the amount that you received from your employer. Or the next time you purchase an item that "costs" ten dollars, pay attention to how much of the tender representing your labor you must hand over at the cash register. Upon a little reflection you will begin to realize that your employer is not the only one feeding at the trough of your labor.

Now go home and turn on the TV and watch your president, the most flagrant example of such, living like a king, vacationing, flying to and fro making important speeches, and batting spheres around. His ability to do this comes from non other than the taking of the sweat of your, and millions of other's, brow. While some prefer to call this taxing, according to Marx, it is profits.

11 comments:

christian soldier said...

Great take on communist - socialism--
the commune system has never worked since the beginning of time...
as to watching bho-I can't-I just cannot!!!

Happy Memorial Day week-end-my Christian friend---

to our BEST!!!
C-CS

Susan said...

As always BG said so well!!! The worse part is there is no end in sight until "they" accomplish their purposes. Then it will be too late. Why can't America wake up and see what is happening?!!!

Mary Lee said...

yeah, ditto of what Susan said.

the malcontent said...

Obama vows 'we will not rest' until oil spill cleaned up ..

Did he not Rest on the first Vacation he took since this Spill?
Now he's on his second vacation since the spill over a month ago and he decided since it was finally getting fixed he'd drop by and claim credit... I don't care who you are... If you complained about the Bush response to Katrina then you should be OUTRAGED at this... Are you?

Z said...

oooh, SUBLIME, BG..SUBLIME thinking. Yes it IS profits...
Oh ,and yes, Obama IS on vacation during this oil disaster...oh, my.
By the way, that'd mean he's dissing Arlington's wreath laying ceremonies for his Chicago get-away.

Man. Have a good weekend xx

Joe said...

Soon, President BO will propose taking every dollar earned, both individual and corporate, and dividing it out among the people, according to their worth in his eyes.

That way we will all be equal.

Starving, but equal starving.

timothymatters said...

Dan,
You're in my Top 25 list! :)
Timothy

Z said...

okay...a few days have passed since I read this and commented and I want to know now why did you say you're for "equitable wealth distribution" at my place? I'm so curious..I hope you come back and answer there! Thanks...

Beth said...

Agreed, well said.
One of my favorite presidents, on a personal basis, at the time I was voting for him, was Jimmy Carter. He was a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher who went to church every week and refused to have a fancy inaugeration because it would cost too much. He spent free time working on homes for the poor with Habitat With Humanity. I toured their headquarters during college and went on a mission trip to India with them. The houses were sold to owners, not given, and donated materials and labor were used to make the homes affordable. The new homeowners where required to work on their homes. A great concept of helping with poor while requiring them to be responsible at the same time. Fast forward to Ronald Reagan, darling of the conservatives and religious right. He didn't go to church (said it was dangerous or something). His wife consulted an astrologer. He had a very fancy inaugeration at great cost which was celebrated by his followers as appropriate. I realize that Reagan's economic policies fared much better than Carter's. Once again you will probably say that my point is only tangential to your point, which is true. Just the way I see things I guess. I just thought it interesting what you brought up about BO's spending.
Blessings, Beth

Dan said...

I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here or how it's related to this post. Sounds like you've been listening to too much PBS propaganda to me. Too bad PBS didn't get into all the Judges Carter appointed that have helped make Jesus in the school house illegal and the dismemberment of children in the womb legal. If God overlooks this because one helps a few people get into houses, then I've grossly overestimated price paid on my behalf on the cross. But... I'm sure you don't have time to explain yourself, so I'll leave it at that.

Beth said...

Hi Danny, I am reminded of your post "A Multi-faceted beauty" and wonder if the reason my posts make no sense to you is because of our different giftings. I can see how you could be confused because my points, of which there were two, could seem unimportant to you. My points were: 1) In your post you criticized Obama for being extravagant, yet Ronald Reagan was cheered for the same (because it was "presidential", whereas Jimmy Carter was put down for being frugal which was described by the media as "non-presidential". The 2nd point therefore, is that whether a person is extravagant or frugal, it can be argued as either good or bad, just as statistics can be. I understand your point about Jimmy Carter's body of work in general: "by their fruit you shall know them". Also, my knowledge of Habitat for Humanity did not come from PBS, but from my personal experience of visiting their headquarters in college and going on a mission trip with them to India for 3 weeks in 1991. It was on that trip that I realized that I firmly believed Jesus to be the only way to God (something some in my Presbyterian church did not affirm). I left the Presbyterian church and became charismatic, which has been quite a journey. I regret that my posts are annoying to you, and as I said, I can see why they are. I will refrain from posting again. Blessings, Beth