There are many things to dislike about the new Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, his anti-enlightenment socialism, antisemitism and open borders mentality are just to name a few. That said, one thing that you can’t blame him for, is so called “poverty sweat shops”, which in reality -while clearly paying its workers far below Western levels/standards- are paying them a wage that they themselves (the workers) see as worthwhile.

NOTE: Ironically, it is anti-enlightenment throwbacks, like Corbyn, who would in fact erase job opportunities like this if they could, in spite of having lifted tens of billions of people out of desperate poverty over the past century and a half, to actually earn enough money, to get by.

Corbyn’s sweatshop T-shirts: Poverty-stricken workers paid just 49p an hour to make clothes that boosted his coffers by £100,000

Jeremy Corbyn t-shirt workers paid 49p an hour in Nicaragua

Jeremy Corbyn swept to victory backed by cash raised from the sale of T-shirts made by factory workers earning just 49p an hour. The Socialist firebrand’s fighting fund got a £100,000 boost from the ‘Team Corbyn’ garments, which sold out on his official website. Moments after taking over the Labour leadership, Corbyn spoke of his determination to combat poverty and inequality in an impassioned victory speech. But an investigation by The Mail on Sunday reveals that scores of workers in Nicaragua and Haiti toiled to produce the T-shirts, which cost supporters £10, plus £3.50 postage. MORE HERE


I’ve had enough of the economic Marxist moron of a pontiff.

How about more liberty and economic freedom?

‘When money becomes an idol, it commands the choices of man. And thus it ruins man and condemns him. It makes him a slave,’ he said.

The pope has it all back asswards as a Marxist is apt to do. More accurately, when statism (centralized government control) becomes the idol, the choices end up being few and are dictated to man, and thus ruins and condemns him. It makes him a slave.

NOTE: He should be championing free market capitalism, that wherever applied, create wealth for billions of people, lifting tens of billions out desperate poverty, which is far more than the Catholic Church has ever been able to, or will ever achieve.

Pope Francis in attack on ‘throwaway’ culture of world economy and financial inequality

  • Pope Francis launches scathing attack on ‘throwaway’ economic culture
  • He said the current economic system is designed to ‘suffocate hope’
  • Italy in particular is suffering from record levels of youth unemployment
  • He claimed economic success should only be secondary to human needs
Pope Francis today launched a scathing attack on economic injustice and the 'throwaway culture' of globalisation

Pope Francis today launched a scathing attack on economic injustice and the ‘throwaway culture’ of globalisation

Pope Francis has launched a fresh attack on economic injustice, condemning the ‘throwaway culture’ of globalisation and calling for new ways of thinking about poverty, welfare, employment and society.

In a speech to the association of Italian cooperative movements, he pointed to the ‘dizzying rise in unemployment’ and the problems that existing welfare systems had in meeting healthcare needs.

For those living ‘at the existential margins’ the current social and political system ‘seems fatally destined to suffocate hope and increase risks and threats,’ he said.

The Argentinian-born pope, who has often criticised orthodox market economics for fostering unfairness and inequality, said people were forced to work long hours, sometimes in the black economy, for a few hundred euros a month because they were seen as easily replaceable.

”You don’t like it? Go home then. What can you do in a world that works like this? Because there’s a queue of people looking for work. If you don’t like it, someone else will,’ he said in an unscripted change from the text of his speech.

‘It’s hunger, hunger that makes us accept what they give us,’ he said.

His remarks have special resonance in Italy, where unemployment, particularly among young people, is running at record levels after years of economic recession.

Read more:



I’m sick to death with these ridiculous stories about evil sweatshops in the 3rd world, ”taking advantage of workers, who are getting mere pittances of what people earn in the West”, bla bla bla bla bla.

MILTON FRIEDMAN: Sweatshops and child labor were conditions that resulted more from poverty than from laissez-faire economics. Wretched working conditions still exist in nations with all sorts of enlightened social legislation but where poverty is still extreme. We in the United States no longer suffer that kind of poverty because the free-enterprise system has allowed us to become wealthy.

Everybody does take the line that laissez faire is heartless. But when do you suppose we had the highest level of private charitable activity in this country? In the 19th century. That’s when we had the great movement toward private nonprofit hospitals. The missions abroad. The library movement. Even the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. That was also the era in which the ordinary man, the low-income man, achieved the greatest improvement in his standard of living and his status. During that period, millions of penniless immigrants came in from abroad, with nothing but their hands, and enjoyed an enormous rise in their standard of living.

My mother came to this country when she was 14 years old. She worked in a sweatshop as a seamstress, and it was only because there was such a sweatshop in which she could get a job that she was able to come to the U.S. But she didn’t stay in the sweatshop and neither did most of the others. It was a way station for them, and a far better one than anything available to them in the old country. And she never thought it was anything else. I must say that I find it slightly revolting that people sneer at a system that’s made it possible for them to sneer at it.

62p AN HOUR: What women sleeping 16 to a room get paid to make Ed and Harriet’s £45 ‘This Is What A Feminist Looks Like’ T-shirts

The workers paid just 62p an hour: Machinists at the CMT factory in Mauritius with one of the 'feminist' shirts it would take nearly two weeks' of their wages to buy

  • Feminist T-shirts worn by politicians are made in ‘sweatshop’ conditions
  • Migrant women in Mauritius are making the £45 tops for 62p an hour
  • They say: ‘We don’t feel like feminists. We don’t feel equal. We feel trapped’
  • Machinists sleep 16 to a room and earn less than average wage on island
  • T-shirt is sold in Whistles in aid of activism group The Fawcett Society 
  • Deputy chief executive of the charity Dr Neitzert said they had originally been assured the garments would be produced ethically in the UK
  • When they received samples they noted they had been made in Mauritius
  • She added that if evidence emerges Whistles will have to withdraw range
  • Harriet Harman wore shirt on front bench of the Commons during PMQs

Feminist T-shirts proudly worn by Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Harriet Harman are made in ‘sweatshop’ conditions by migrant women paid just 62p an hour, a Mail on Sunday investigation has revealed.

The women machinists on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius sleep 16 to a room – and earn much less than the average wage on the island.

The £45 T-shirts carry the defiant slogan ‘This is what a feminist looks like’. But one of the thousands of machinists declared: ‘We do not see ourselves as feminists. We see ourselves as trapped.’

In this special investigation by the Mail On Sunday, Ben Ellery reveals exactly what is like for these women…

They are the T-shirts designed to make a political statement about women’s rights – but the female workers making them are paid just 62p an hour in an Indian Ocean ‘sweatshop’.

Between shifts women making garments emblazoned with the slogan ‘This is what a feminist looks like’ sleep in spartan dormitories, 16 to a room.

The workers paid just 62p an hour: Machinists at the CMT factory in Mauritius with one of the ‘feminist’ shirts it would take nearly two weeks’ of their wages to buy

And critics say the low wages and long hours at the Mauritian factories amount to exploitation.

The shirts have been worn by Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Harriet Harman, all keen to display their feminist credentials – even though the Deputy Prime Minister last night admitted he had ‘no idea’ where the garments were made.

But The Mail on Sunday has toured a factory producing the T-shirts, where workers earn just 6,000 rupees a month – equivalent to £120.

The figure is just a quarter of the country’s average monthly wage, and around half of what a waiter earns. Each ‘feminist’ T-shirt costs just £9 to make, but high street chain Whistles sells them for £45 each – a figure it would take the women a week and a half to earn.

Read more:



I love free market capitalism, this isn’t, because it comes at the expense of the consumer.

It’s the heart of faux/crony/welfare capitalism, enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer/consumer, by eliminating or at the least, marginalizing the competition. The state supplants the role of the consumer in choosing the winners and losers in the economy, which in most cases, chooses wrong, since they haven’t the breadth and depth of knowledge of the vast civil society.

NOTE: This move away from the incandescent light bulb is a dim bulbed move.

Your light bulb loss is manufacturers’ gain

BY: Timothy P. Carney January 8, 2014 | 10:49 am | Modified: January 8, 2014 at 11:49 am

Next time you see some green group touting benefits to the planet of a new regulation to constrain your choices, ask yourself, “Which companies will benefit from this law?” (Photo: Thinkstock)

Big business lobbies for big government in order to profit in ways the free market would never allow. All the time. The light bulb law is a great example, as this stock report from Motley Fool lays out in a dispassionate manner:

Companies that will benefit

General Electric (NYSE: GE) and Philips, the sector leaders in the incandescent light bulb market, also manufacture CFLs and LEDs.

The incandescent light bulb phase out will increase their lighting revenues in the short term because LEDs and CFLs cost more than the incandescent bulbs.

Cree (NASDAQ: CREE) , the leading LED light bulb pure-play, will also benefit. Due to its vertical integration, Cree is one of the lowest cost LED bulb makers.

Due to the fact that LEDs comprise only 1% of the U.S. lighting market, Cree also has a lot of growth ahead.

Because bubbles often grow with extra media coverage, the retirement of the incandescent light bulb could be a catalyst to send Cree stock higher.

Of course, GE and Philips lobbied for the law, and Philips partnered with the Natural Resources Defense Council to launch the serious push for it.

So next time you see some green group touting benefits to the planet of a new regulation to constrain your choices, ask yourself, “Which companies will benefit from this law?”

Washington Examiner H/T: Teemu Asikainen



If you fail to state the case, statist opportunists will fill in the blanks with their lies and obfuscations.

ron reagan on socialism

NOTE: Truth be told, many within the GOP simply do not understand it either, they’d prefer to micromanage the state with their supposed opposition on the Left, and impose their will upon the free market. George W.Bush is a prime example.

H/T: Alexis Worlock via Mark Bernstein

So what is the moral case for capitalism? It lies in recognition that socialism isn’t a great idea gone wrong — it’s an evil philosophy in action. It isn’t driven by altruism; it’s driven by greed and jealousy. Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I exist. Capitalism, by contrast, results in a sort of reality-forced altruism: I may not want to help you, I may dislike you, but if I don’t give you a product or service you want, I will starve. Voluntary exchange is more moral than forced redistribution. Socialism violates at least three of the Ten Commandments: It turns government into God, it legalizes thievery and it elevates covetousness. Discussions of income inequality, after all, aren’t about prosperity but about petty spite. Why should you care how much money I make, so long as you are happy?

SHAPIRO: Why Socialism Is on the Rise

 Ben Shapiro

It took capitalism half a century to come back from the Great Depression. It’s taken socialism half that time to come back from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In New York City, avowed socialist Mayor Bill de Blasio has declared that his goal is to take “dead aim at the Tale of Two Cities” — the gap between rich and poor. In Seattle, newly elected socialist city Councilmember Kshama Sawant addressed supporters, explaining, “I wear the badge of socialist with honor.” To great acclaim from the left, columnist Jesse Myerson of Rolling Stone put out a column telling millennials that they ought to fight for government-guaranteed employment, a universal basic income, collectivization of private property, nationalization of private assets and public banks.

The newly flowering buds of Marxism no longer reside on the fringes. Not when the president of the United States has declared fighting income inequality his chief task as commander in chief. Not when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said that America faces “no greater challenge” than income disparity. Not when MSNBC, The New York Times and the amalgamated pro-Obama media outlets have all declared their mission for 2014 a campaign against rich people.

Less than 20 years ago, former President Bill Clinton, facing reelection, declared “the era of big government” over. By 2011, Clinton reversed himself, declaring that it was government’s role to “give people the tools and create the conditions to make the most of our lives.”

So what happened?

Capitalism failed to make a case for itself. Back in 1998, shortly after the world seemed to reach a consensus on the ineffectiveness of socialist schemes, economists Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw wrote that the free market required something beyond mere success: It required “legitimacy.” But, said Yergin and Stanislaw, “a system that takes the pursuit of self-interest and profit as its guiding light does not necessarily satisfy the yearning in the human soul for belief and some higher meaning beyond materialism.” In other words, they wrote, while Spanish communists would die with the word “Stalin” on their lips, “few people would die with the words ‘free markets’ on their lips.”

More here.



Shame on the Pope.

I’ve dealt in prior postings (here also) on the sanctimonious ramblings of religious leaders railing against the very system (capitalism) that has lifted tens of billions of people out of bone crushing poverty over the past 150 years or so. The very people who haven’t created any wealth, feel that they’re the ones who should ‘pontificate’ on how the private economy is to behave, as if the participants in the free market (meaning you and I) are somehow less moral, less just and less virtuous than those in the clergy and in elected office.

The pope’s message should be rejected out-of-hand as a product of socialist psychobabble, for being not grounded in the rational and real world, void of any practical working knowledge of how capitalism really works. It’s a shame really, but not unexpected, for many religious figures use their supposed disdain for the material world to underline and elevate their lofty ideals of the after life. But it’s all self defeating really, for they themselves need capitalism to create the very wealth that drive the engines of their institutions, without it, they’ll be just like the rest of ”the masses” with hat in hand begging for a handout with crime becoming an everyday feature in most people’s lives.

NOTE: He should have voiced a strong objection to a ruling political/economic oligarchy that seeks to strip the voice and economic clout of the people, by transforming  society back to an earlier age that existed prior to the industrial revolution, another aristocracy where a ruling elite manages society for us.


by MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY 28 Nov 2013, 7:31 PM

On Tuesday, Pope Francis I issued a 50,000-word statement, officially referred to as an “apostolic exhortation” titled Evangelii Gaudium, attacking capitalism and embracing Latin American “liberation theology.”

In February, a month before he was selected as pope, Breitbart News wrote this about then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina:

[T]he chances of the leading Latin American contenders–Cardinal Leonardo Sandri of Argentina, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras, Cardinal Odilo Scherer of Brazil, and Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina [Note: A month later he was selected Pope Francis I]–are diminished by the prevalence of the left wing “liberation theology” among many Roman Catholic clergy members in Latin America. Cardinals outside of Latin America may be leery that the election of a Latin American pope may lead to the exporting of that theology–considered heretical by many–to the rest of the world.

Eight months after Pope Francis I was elevated to the papacy, he has, in effect, placed the worldwide apparatus of the Roman Catholic Church on record in favor of statism and in opposition to free markets. The pope’s statement on Tuesday showed a remarkable ignorance of free market capitalism. Indeed, his judgmental rejection of the economic system that has delivered billions of people throughout the world from poverty is chilling.

“Today,” the pope wrote in his statement, “everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized.”

“[S]ome people,” the statement added, “continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” [emphasis added]

Francis I is the first pope who is a member of the Jesuit order. His statement that the benefits of free-market systems have “never been confirmed by the facts” is the sort of extreme assertion Jesuits are known to make when presenting an argument. As R.R. Reno, editor of First Things, the blog of the Institution on Religion and Public Life, wrote in September:

When Pope Francis was elected a friend asked me what to expect. “Strap on your seatbelt,” I replied. The comment didn’t reflect any special knowledge of Jorge Bergoglio. But I know Jesuits. They tend to be extremists of one sort or another.

Pope Francis I is clearly unfamiliar with the works of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises, among others, each of whom have provided voluminous evidence supporting the benefits to all of free markets.

This development is troubling for all Americans, and especially so for the many millions of Roman Catholics in America who strongly reject the “liberation theology” the pope has now endorsed.

One major effort in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States—The Catholic Campaign for Human Development—has been promoting projects that align with “liberation theology” for over four decades.

More here.



A world figure in need of an economics 101 course.

pope francis

Such nonsense will be seen by many (who are as economic illiterate as the pontiff) as both ‘moral’ and deep thinking, but in reality it shows a sheer ignorance of the economic system he’s bashing. The free enterprise system is the most humane, and moral, economic system ever devised, responsible for raising generations (untold billions) of people out of bone crushing poverty, lifting the average modern person’s well being to a level which rivals that of the ruling elite of over a century (and past centuries) ago.

That is greatness of the system.

What should have been his message, if he had to wander into the economic discussion, is the immorality of massive government wealth redistribution schemes, (read socialism/statism) that routinely robs its citizens of their private earnings and liberty (read=property rights). Such bare knuckled policies reduce the ability for wealth creation within any given society, which ends up with more and more people competing for a slice of an ever shrinking economic pie. In other words, systemic unemployment.

The schizophrenic pope 

On the hand he rails against the free enterprise system, (which is based upon Adam Smith’s proven theory of individuals pursuing their own private interests, are in the end, highly beneficial to society as a whole. His theory also coincides with the Judeo-Christian ethic of man being a free agent. Such an economic system within a state that protects an individual’s property rights, results in massive spurts of wealth creation.) while on the other hand, he encourages the unemployed to simply fight for work.

A valid point of criticism missed by the pontiff, is state crony capitalism, or welfare corporatism, in which the marriage of the state teat and failed and/or monopoly minded business forge bonds to limit economic freedom of new business and competition. That marriage awards failure at the taxpayer expense (loans and subsidies) as well as forcing unwanted expenses onto the consumer due to the lack of competition.

You see, there’s lot to be critical of, you just have to find the right target. Thinking like a socialist will take you down the wrong path every time.

NOTE: The desire or need of something is not evil, it creates motivation for someone to fill that need, which in turn creates markets and industries, which in turn creates jobs, which in turn creates wealth and upward trends in standards of living across the board.

Pope attacks global economics for worshipping ‘god of money’

By Philip Pullella

CAGLIARI, Sardinia (Reuters) – Pope Francis made one of his strongest attacks on the global economic system on Sunday, saying it could no longer be based on a “god called money” and urged the unemployed to fight for work.

Francis, at the start of a day-long trip to the Sardinian capital, Cagliari, put aside his prepared text at a meeting with unemployed workers, including miners in hard hats who told him of their situation, and improvised for nearly 20 minutes.

“I find suffering here … It weakens you and robs you of hope,” he said. “Excuse me if I use strong words, but where there is no work there is no dignity.”

He discarded his prepared speech after listening to Francesco Mattana, a 45-year-old married father of three who lost his job with an alternative energy company four years ago.

Mattana, his voice trembling, told the pope that unemployment “oppresses you and wears you out to the depths of your soul”.

The crowd of about 20,000 people in a square near the city port chanted what Francis called a prayer for “work, work, work”. They cheered each time he spoke of the rights of workers and the personal devastation caused by joblessness.

More here.



Corporate welfare / crony capitalism is the enemy of every conservative who believes in the true free enterprise system. Not all big business acts that way, but those who do, do so to the detriment of the health of the nation, through the corruption of officials and government institutions and the subverting free market principles.

Excerpt: I think that Mexico is exactly what you want. Sometimes in business you have to take yes for an answer. And I think that in this case yes is the answer. You want a closed system where there is no competition and cronyism is the only way things get done, where the corporate taxes are a bit lower, but the difference is more than made up by bribes, a society sharply divided between the vast armies of the unprotesting poor who are resigned to their fate and a small wealthy elite that enjoys its superiority in ways that it can’t on this side of the border.
You don’t really want to build things. You want to keep other people from building them while you enjoy a monopoly on the things that someone innovative built twenty years ago before he was forced to leave the country.

welfare capitalism

Dear Corporate America

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 

Dear Corporate America,

I haven’t written to you in a while. At least not since my television broke down, my toaster developed a taste for human flesh and my phone company ran away with my phone number to Mexico.

Rachel Maddow says we’re both on the right and are really close together. But then again Rachel Maddow also says the Republican Party drinks the blood of small children. So she can be a little factually challenged on occasion.

Still I’m on the right and you’re occasionally sort of, but not really, on the right. I support lower taxes. So do you. At least for yourself. I support deregulation. You only support deregulation when it suits your narrow interests, but not when it lets smaller businesses and freelancers compete against you.

What you seem to want is a country with low taxes, your preferred forms of deregulation and the population of Mexico.

These things are not compatible. Mexico is currently governed by the Institutional Revolutionary Party; a member of the Socialist International. It has a multi-generational teachers’ union whose members pass on their jobs to their children and whose riots have to be put down by armed force.

When it comes to ease of doing business, the United States is ranked 4th, Mexico is ranked 48th, coming in ahead of Kazakhstan. A Comparmex report showed that companies spend 10% of their revenue on bribes.

Is this what you really want for America?

Your lobbies and associations keep pushing for amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens even while your companies keep fleeing California.

If you don’t like doing business in California, which is turning into the American version of Mexico, why do you want to turn the rest of America into California?

More here.



A hero!

marget thatcher 1925-2013

A richly laden tribute to this wonderful woman and to free market capitalism.  The first two minutes into the Maggie documentary underlines George Watson’s basic thesis that I’ve signed on to a long time ago, that Marxist socialism is a reactionary ideology to counter upstart free market capitalism.

Many within the artistocracy saw the same danger  as the Marxists did, that the lower classes posed a direct threat to their monopoly on power, thereby upsetting the economic apple cart of society, and were more than willing to damn the new found prosperty it afforded to countless millions in order to reestablish their superiority.

Maggie understood that. The Tory party of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, instead of reacting to the rise in public economic mobility, with enacting more liberty freeing policies, chose nanny statism instead, they were the ones who initiated the HHS. A simply stunning documentary to see. Maggie Thatcher should be praised on both the Left and Right, instead of being demonized as being solely for the wealthy. It simply wan’t so.

Click here for the video. H/T: Gaia

UPDATE: Vlad found a torrent seed for the video:

For anyone interested in the real legacy of Margaret Thatcher and the revolution she created in England to actually enrich the working class and make Britain vibrant, please use this link to a bit torrent of an excellent documentary.



The ignoramus Left looks for ways to exploit the unexploited.

Being both economic and free market illiterates, it’s no wonder that free market orientated people have to take time to spell out the obvious to Leftist ideologues. All they (the Left) know, is that capitalism, profit, property rights, as well as the right to restructure one’s own business to stay profitable, is evil, and they’ll keep repeating it like a person afflicted with Tourette’s syndrome til they’re blue in the face.


Enbuske: Gripping forced entrepreneurs

The Helsingin Sanomat reported last week that immigrants are more eager to establish businesses than Finns, and that they have become “forced entrepreneurs” in Finland. A Forced entrepreneur is one who is forced to work as an entrepreneur, because otherwise there would be no work to do.

Let’s think about what would happen in Finland, if there wasn’t any kind of “forced entrepreneurship”. It would mean that everyone would have an absolute right to get a job.

How would this right work in reality? Of course, it means that some other entrepreneur would be forced to employ an unemployed person. So, being forced, would be transferred from the employee to the employer.

This is not the only way real “non-forced entrepreneurs” are looked down upon.

Entrepreneurs are also blamed, if ”every single person in Finland hasn’t a job made available to them for what they were schooled for”

If someone wants to be a filmmaker, and as such will seek training, for some reason, he should have the right to make movies, even though no one would want to watch them.

Real entrepreneurs should, therefore, sacrifice, and be forced to offer up that desired similar work.

Thirdly, entrepreneurs are in trouble because of the prejudices of basic human thinking that deems all kinds of middlemen as thieves. And the middlemen are the ones who set up companies or trade in the products made by others. It seems that others believe they don’t do anything at all..

Sartre (Jean-Paul Charles Aymard) deemed merchants as useless as the laborer. Marx argued that the worker’s employer stole the extra value of the worker’s labor.

That’s awful. But it’s even more wrong, if the employer terminates the stealing of the extra value (profit) and fires them. Each option for the employer is therefore wrong in the mindset of the philosophers and researchers.

The fourth is a real example of bullying the entrepreneur.

Last summer, some ordinary summer reporter asked me, how come I can defend the market economy, when Nokia has just laid off a great number of people.

The journalist left my response unpublished. My answer was that of course Nokia – and any other company – who originally employed those people, can also let them go.

Without these firms being able to fire those people, there would never have been a workplace to begin with. Nor would the company have brought prosperity to the state. Worst of all, there would not have even been the firm’s product.

Going back to the ‘forced entrepreneurs.’

The Helsingin Sanomat’s immigrants had established a quite of ordinary companies, such as home-based business. They would hardly have thought themselves as being victims, unless the Finnish researchers in the story would have told them so.

Behind the Finnish “forced entrepreneurship” stories is often a freelance journalist, for example, which is a big media house that does not want to hire, but which buys, however, regular material.

In such a forced entrepreneurship as this, in fact, there’s much less force than in real entrepreneurship. A real entrepreneur, for example, the home-based kind of business being run by an immigrant, will have to put on his sales hat, brush his teeth, pry a smile on his face, and approach new customers.

This means the client for who the Finnish “forced entrepreneurs” are already in place for.

Via H/T: Wille Rydman



Utter nonsense.

The mind of a socialist is a terrible waste of space.

In what’s meant to horrify the reader, I however take a different approach. First ask yourself, why is it that the journalist writing this story for the Daily Mail, fails to report what are the overall wages of other Chinese workers:

Shenzhen’s overall high, median and low monthly wages are RMB25,830, RMB3,087 and RMB1,600, respectively, with an average of RMB3,892. According to the Salary Guide, the high and median wage figures have increased a respective 1.7 percent and 3.9 percent compared to last year, while the average and low wage figures increased by a respective 17 percent and 12.4 percent. The relatively large increase in the latter two can be attributed to the increase in minimum wages over the past few years.

For an example, 2011’s wage average in the Shenzhen area, low wage earners across the board earned roughly the same amount a month as the workers in the factory in this Daily Mail article (EUR185), EUR200, middle wage earners EUR370, and high income earners around EUR3000. 

Lets go to Europe for a comparison.

The average monthly salary for Serbians in the processing industry for 2011 was EUR353, in Croatia EUR385. In Bulgaria, the average wage in 2011 was EUR354, which is basically the same average in Serbia and Croatia. The point here is, while differences do exist in wage scales around the globe, it’s not ”evil capitalism” taking advantage of the poor, on the contrary, the poorer of the world are gaining employment and opportunity, in spite of wage disparity, to build themselves a living and a future.

Back to China

What’s also not discussed is the cost of living, which differs greatly with the developed world. Are we to moan and complain that food and clothing is less expensive to purchase elsewhere, and demand that they increase their pricing to make us feel more at ease, or is it better to realize that all nations go through similar phases on their way to a modern society, and that the free market and the individual knows better than the masterminds and geniuses who want to implement a cookie cutter one size fits all approach to the economy?

Watch Milton Friedman’s ”Free to Choose” series.

The REAL Toy Story: Chinese factory workers forced to sleep among piles of doll parts as they churn out Christmas presents

  • Human rights campaigners have raised concerns over the conditions of Chinese factory workers who make an estimated £150 a month
  • Chinese factories produce 75 per cent of the world’s toys
  • In China there are an estimated 8,000 factories employing 3.5m people


PUBLISHED: 16:56 GMT, 8 December 2012 | UPDATED: 07:56 GMT, 10 December 2012

With the demand to produce toys in time for Christmas, Chinese factory workers are being forced to work long hours and sleep on factory floors, among piles of doll parts.

In recent years, human rights campaigners have frequently raised concerns over the conditions of Chinese factory workers who make an estimated £150 a month.

These images give a stark insight into the monotonous life endured by thousands of Chinese factory workers in the country which makes 75 per cent of the world’s toys, including well-known characters such as Mickey Mouse and SpongeBob SquarePants.

With the pressure to produce toys in time for Christmas, factory workers in China are forced to work long hours and sleep in the factoryAbuses: With the pressure to produce toys in time for Christmas, factory workers in China are forced to work long hours and sleep in the factory

report in 2010 reported that the average monthly salary, including overtime, for a migrant worker was estimated to be just £150.

Across China there are an estimated 8,000 toy-making factories employing 3.5 million people.

According to New York-based China Labour Watch Chinese factory workers often work an extra 36.5 hours a week but are paid only 59 per cent of the minimum wage.

The non-profit organisation that assesses production factories say that while conditions have improved for workers after factories implemented a code of conduct, the abuses still continue.

A report in 2009 revealed that one million Chinese factory workers suffered industrial accidents in that year alone.

Read more:



We need to familiarize ourselves with the great thinkers of times past, who knew what they were talking about. Today’s ‘geniuses’ talk as if history began just a few decades ago, they still need to ‘experiment’ when the tried and true of free market capitalism (tied to individual liberty) has already proven to have benefited more people than any other system in the history of the world.

Henry Hazlitt also said this:

 “The times call for courage. The times call for hard work. But if the demands are high, it is because the stakes are even higher. They are nothing less than the future of liberty, which means the future of civilization.

H/T: Stefan Metzeler



Scandinavian socialist head implosion

A Scandinavian economist once said to Milton Friedman: “In Scandinavia, we have no poverty.” Milton Friedman replied: “That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either.”


Proof that capitalism is responsible for whatever successes a welfare state boasts. Like Mark Levin says, it thrives in spite of socialism. The socialist welfare state is a leach upon the free market system, but in spite of the hindrance it creates, by sucking wealth creation money from the private sector, free market capitalism is resilient enough to overcome the burden, up to a point.

Big government planners cannot make up for the wealth of knowledge and experience that exists within society as a whole. It is that vast knowledge that is the calibrator for the free market system, able to react in intricate detail to the subtle shifts and trends, as well as compensate for the economic bubbles that will occur, and right them, far better than any one government can do, which the latter has a long history of prolonging the misery.

“Since the start of the social democratic era in Sweden, the country’s growth trajectory has been lower,” says Sanandaji. “Sweden has done best when it has had a small welfare state. When the welfare state expanded, it crowded up private sector jobs and growth.”

The Reality about the Swedish Welfare State

Sweden is often used by social democrats and other statists as an example of a country whose welfare policies lead to more equality and greater wealth, and they assert the Swedish model should therefore be copied by other countries around the world. Sweden is usually illustrated as a country with a high public share on GDP and, at the same, time low crime rates, high life expectancy, and a high degree of social cohesion.

The Finnish Libera Foundation just published the report The Swedish Model Reassessed written by the Swedish researcher Nima Sanandaji. The report offers a new perspective on the development of the Swedish economy and elaborates on the reasons why Sweden is a relatively rich and peaceful country. Sanandaji states that the success of Swedish society is not due to the welfare state but caused by informal institutions in Lutheran Sweden such as honesty, frugality, and thrift. He sees those informal institutions (moral capital) as the key drivers of entrepreneurship, inventiveness, and economic growth.

He also refers to the situation of Swedish immigrants in the US (which were mainly poor Swedes leaving Europe to seek out better opportunities). The report illustrates that Americans with Swedish ancestry have a GDP per capita of 56,900 USD, whereas the Swedish GDP per capita (excluding immigrants) is just 36,600 USD. Furthermore Swedish immigrants in the US earn about 10,000 USD more than the average American.

More here.

This also as well:

‘Free markets to thank for Swedish model success’

Published: 10 Sep 12 15:46 CET |

While Sweden is often held up as a shining example of the benefits of a generous welfare state, a new paper argues that free markets, rather than a large state sector, are the real key to Sweden’s economic success.

“Sweden’s success has had nothing to do with the welfare state,” the report’s author, Nima Sanandaji, tells The Local.

“If you want to argue for the benefits of a free market economy, Sweden is a great example.”

Sanandaji, an Iranian-born Kurd who came to Sweden as a child, lays out his contrarian case in a paper published recently by the Institute of Economic Affairs in the UK.

The “Swedish model” of high taxes and generous welfare benefits has long been held up by parties on the left in the UK and the United States as an example of a high-tax society with solid economic growth.

In recent years, Sweden has also received a great deal of attention for the way in which the country has successfully navigated the global financial crisis without suffering from a prolonged rise in unemployment or negative growth.

But Sanandaji, who founded the liberal Swedish think tank Captus, explains that much of the praise for Sweden’s economic model is misplaced.

“The idea of Sweden being some sort of socialist utopia is very widespread. Sweden has a lot of positive social outcomes and is known as a social democracy with high taxes. But this myth is more a product of correlation rather than causation,” he says.

According to Sanandaji, the ingredients that have contributed to Sweden’s success – high social trust and an embrace of free-market ideology – were in place well before the country’s welfare state expanded in late 1960s and 1970s.

More here.



They hate wealth creation in the private sector.

 Individual sovereignty and protection of property rights is an anathema to socialists, who view income as de facto property of the state and it’s up to them to decide how much the subject is entitled to keep as they redistribute the rest the way they see fit. There is no respect for successful people as long as it happens outside big government.

Crony capitalism/welfare capitalism is the marriage of business interests with that of the state’s and they award each other in much the same way big unions award politicians with the votes of their rank ad file for continued largess.

The ”wealth tax” is nothing more than the stealing of private poverty and crippling a free market economy, for as I’ve said here repeatedly, every single note of currency taken from the private sector and redistributed by big government, is one note of currency taken from wealth creation.

NOTE: Sad thing is, she speaks the obvious to a heavily socialized people who view it like it’s something from another planet.

The SV parliamentarian also rejected Skogen Lund’s calls for the country’s wealth tax to be ditched, instead heralding the efforts of former Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen, who stepped down as SV party leader earlier this year.

“There are more than 600,000 fewer people paying wealth tax since Kristin Halvorsen gave huge tax cuts to ordinary people and clamped down on the wealthiest. Wealth tax represents sound distributive politics,” said Valen.

At the opposite end of the political spectrum, the conservative Progress Party welcomed Skogen Lund’s opening political salvos.

A day after her appointment as NHO chief, the former Telenor vice president immediately called for the abolition of wealth tax, while arguing that society benefits from having more wealthy people operating businesses and creating jobs.

“I don’t think we should be so afraid of letting people get rich,” she said in an interview with newspaper Aftenposten, arguing that creators of wealth also act as driving forces for the economy.

 She further contended that business leaders are often unfairly targeted for their high wages.

“Being a leader can be quite thankless. It’s a difficult task and one has to do some unpopular things. What perhaps annoys me the most is that we’re not very good at getting behind the business sector,” said Skogen Lund.

In a comment that enraged Snorre Valen of the Socialist Left (SV), she also called for greater moderation on behalf of employees in collective wage agreements.

“I think we should be honest enough to say that we are not fully satisfied, especially with the settlements of the last couple of years. It has been very difficult to get approval and acceptance for moderation.”

More here.