••• The Big Brother's, oops, i mean Apple's Gazette ••• A Sophisticated Periodical with Panache and a Sense of Humor
I’m a capitalist. I believe that someone who likes to bake, and becomes a baker, should have the opportunity to open up his own bakery shop. Unlike communists, whose fundamental platform it is that the state should own the bakery shops, employing bakers. I believe in the shoemaker’s right to own his own shoe store, the tailor his own tailor shop, and so on. THAT is capitalism simply put.
A baker owning his own bakery shop has to bake the very best breads he can possibly bake to be able to keep up his business – because in a capitalist structure he faces competition, which is a ” good” thing = to support himself he needs to face the “challenge” of competition, and come up with delicious bread recipes, otherwise the costumers will go some place else.
The harder this baker works, the more money he can put aside, saving it for his retirement, or live a lavish life style, for all i care – it’s his hard earned money and he may do with it, whatever he pleases. He need be courteous to his costumers, too, otherwise, regardless of how delicious the bread may be, they won’t come back.
I’ve never been to a communist country, but from what i understand took place in the former USSR, the DDR ( eastern Germany), Poland, etc. was based on the Philosophy that all businesses are owned by the state, the “commune”, with the citizens not being able to own their own business, rather find employment, being employed by the state.
Thus a baker in a communist environment working for the state, doesn’t have to come up with terrific ideas for a bread, nor work hard to withstand competition – he’s not facing any challenges, and all that’s asked of him is to work his 8 hours a day. He’ll make the same amount of money as all the other bakers, thus there’s no need for him to work harder.
The only success the former USSR had to show for were their ” Athletes”, because they had to engage in something the rest of the public never even faced, and that’s “competition”.
Thus when observing that the success of Mitt Romney’s career is used ” against” him – which is something that deserves our respect, considering his achievement is the American Dream – i was a bit what baffled, thus wondered why “Americans” would use something against him for which this country stands ? To use the success of a man against him sounds a lot like communist-rhetoric.
Democrats didn’t seem to have had a problem with JFK coming from a wealthy family. Nor did they have a problem with FDR. Thus why would people suddenly have a problem with Mitt Romney having been a successful business man ? Or are those propagating anti-capitalism rhetoric *89ers ?
*89ers are those who’ve moved from eastern European countries to western countries after the fall of the Berlin wall on 11-9-1989.
I feel very comfortable with a man who believes in capitalism – someone who’s made the American dream his own. Mitt Romney, from what i can see, seems very much a gentleman – i just wish he wouldn’t mind flaunting it a bit what.
You’re a gentleman, Mister Romney, Sir, the reason why the great majority of people believing in the “American Dream”, The Constitution of the United States, and its capitalist structure, which stands for Freedom, Equality and Prosperity, will be voting for you.
There is nothing wrong with setting oneself apart and continue to be a gentleman. It’s essentially what America is craving. Someone whose demeanor, carriage, bearing and conduct one can respect and look up to. A Gentleman businessman in the oval office, who looks Presidential AND is handsome; and i’m talking ” handsome” = look at his hands. Nice hands – no crookedness – his fingers are proportionate.
And so what he is a Mormon. That, too, is the American Dream. Freedom of Religion is the first Amendment of the United States of America.
We’re still in America, aren’t we ?
Or,… and here comes a “stereo typing” joke, forgive me, 😉
Whats the biggest embarrassment that could possibly happen to any country in the world ?
No, not being overpowered by an Italian army.
To be overtaken by Polish Strategists.