Perhaps the greatest benefit for more than a few within the private sector is the dawn of a new generational economic awakening coming soon amid an electorate suffering from forty years of severe battered conservative syndrome.

For approximately four decades the progressive left, the Fabian crews writ large, have been working diligently, mostly through pop culture and academia, to undermine the very essence of capitalism.

Both “academia” and “Hollywood” have aided the globalist cause to undermine American capitalism and exceptionalism by presenting an entirely false construct within economic discussion; specifically within the production value of labor, ie earned income or money.

Terms like “tax expenditure” and “government spending” have become so commonplace people don’t even give a second glance when they are uttered. The bottom line of such acceptances is an electorate who no longer realize they are being, and have been, subjected to professional economic gaslighting.

Within capitalistic markets, free markets, the government doesn’t technically own money. In its purest sense money/currency is the evaluation and appraisal of labor. Labor is not owned by government (at least not yet), therefore money is not owned by government.

If you begin to accept terms like governmental “tax expenditure“, ie. the government allowing you to keep your own money, as the norm – then you are allowing the state to determine your ability to allow your own labor. There is nothing remotely associated with freedom within this principle. It should never be accepted. Ever.

Taxation, or the collection of a tariff, is the confiscation and later distribution of the labor that generates the value. While it is necessary in a functioning society for a modest about of labor to be confiscated by the state in order to provide aggregated benefit, such as common defense etc., it should never be accepted that the state entity controls the ultimate right to the disposition and exchange of that labor (money).

Determinations of distribution should be left to the individual during their free and independent exercise of commerce. If an entity gives up their independence to the state they necessarily become dependent. As such you find the ultimate goal of the Fabian Socialists. The interests of the state replace the interests of the individual.

This fundamental economic distinction is what underpins the modern Democrat party, and the modern “social justice” movement. Additionally, through the use of academia and pop culture, this economic distinction has become rooted in mainstream economic discussion. No-one even questions it any more.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, and those of like-minded political affiliation, rail against the principles of capitalism without ever accounting for, or being questioned about, how her own net worth has climbed to over $70 million without ever actually creating anything.

The indulgences of academia itself exist only as a direct outcome of governmental distribution of labor via policies that underwrite the cost of education (student loans). This becomes a self-fulfilling ideological enterprise.

If academia had to fund its own existence through direct (non subsidized) payments from the consuming student, the cost of education would necessarily drop by staggering magnitudes. It is a simple economic principle: • Any behavior that is subsidized and insured can continue regardless of production value. • Any behavior that must support itself either disappears or diminishes, until it self balances at a level the participant can afford.

This is a standard economic truism, however it is also a natural roadblock for those who prefer to engage in social justice endeavors. Ultimately this is the principle difference between the Law of the School (man made rules/laws), and the Law of the Farm (natural laws).

The Fabian Socialists understood this natural economic roadblock and set about formations of societal governance that allowed the less productive to benefit from distribution of the more industrious, or more apt. The social engineers then establish themselves as the arbiters of the distribution within the economic system they create (ex. think about Jonathan Gruber here).

Now, if you’ve read this far and wondered why I’ve written all that, watch this interview:

(disclaimer – don’t watch it if you have a low threshold for the economically stupid. Also, you might want to take breaks to avoid blood pressure issues)