Here’s the issue:

President Obama is attacking the banks, encouraging them to “lend more.”  He says (to banks) “you are making too much money and “you guys caused the problems.”

In my discussions with small business owners, its not “bank lending” that is at the core of their issues but its

1. how can I get more customers in the door — I’d be fine if I could get that fixed; and

2. I’m not sure what the rules will be next year (i.e. will health care costs and/or increased taxes affect my bottom line)  so I’m not going to risk a bunch this year on increased marketing and/or hiring.

So I wonder….if you are a small business owner….which is it for you?

If its “none of the above,” then maybe you are having a break out year and will share what you have done.

What a bunch of morons. Hey…didn’t anyone in Europe notice that all these internet browsers are free downloads. Why not teach people how to download free software. Oh no, that would take the government out of the regulation business.

Know what I would do if I were Gates. I’d pull the plug. Disable the Microsoft operating system in all computers in Europe. Lets see how well the EU develops an alternative. Give ‘em back their money and pull out.

Anti-trust, in whatever form, is immoral. Its stifles competition and development. If someone has got a better browser, let them develop it, improve it and market it.

Big problem: our current adminstration probably thinks that what the EU is doing is a good idea.

“Remember that you are blessed — remember that in exchange for those blessings you must give something back,” Obama told the crowd. “You must reach back and pull someone up. You must bend down and let someone else stand on your shoulders so that they can see a brighter future.”

Wrong…that’s slavery to suggest that one MUST bend down to another.

I’d say to go out and produce something. Take your idea,  and in furtherance of your own self interest, go and produce or create something of value that someone else will want to trade the dollars they earn from their work to you for what you have produced. Then, help someone by hiring them. But hire them not out of any ethical or moral obligation to do so but because they have a skill to trade to you for your dollars.

That’s capitalism…something some in government are trying to erase from memory.

Apparently, if what CVS does disadvantages the independents, then, somehow, this is a cause for government intervention.

How so?

It is CVS Caremark’s job to compete in the market place and to figure out ways to drive customers to its stores. Its the role of the independent pharmacist to figure out how to compete or get out of the game. Probably a good idea to not try to compete on price, though.

Gee, don’t you think that an indepedent pharmacist could figure out something that he/she does that is better than what a giant like CVS does? If not, well, good riddance.

But its not the role of government to step into protect any business from its competition.

The Washington Post has an editorial today that reinforces my remarks to the young people at CNU.

The report is out from the Congressional budget office about who is earning what and how much in taxes they pay.

Here it is, for anyone who doubts what I told the students:

The top 20% of earners earn 70% of all the money and pay 70% of all taxes. The top 1% of earners (earning more than $332,000) earn 28% of all of the money and pay a whopping 28% of America’s taxes.

I told the students that far from being “unfair” or something that needed to be “fixed” (i.e. inequality of earnings) this simply reflects that fact that 80% of any group are making personal decisions to not do the things that lead to an extraordinary life. Twenty percent do make those decisions and are financially benefiting from those decisions.

The Washington Post editorial does however miss the point of why so much earning power is accomplished by so few.

The paper makes these two statements:

(1) Nor is the system egregiously stacked against the wealthy — who, after, all, receive the bulk of the inc0me.

(2) Income inequality has widened for the past three decades, and it only makes sense for those who have benefited to pay more.

Here’s Post’s error:

The wealthy don’t receive anything or benefit from anything. The editorial makes it sound like a lottery.

By and large the wealthy earn income by producing something of value that someone else wants. It might be an idea…it might be a product… it might be a service…but the high wage earners are producers. This is what capitalism is all about.

The inequality is not an inequlity of opportunity. It is a difference, by and large, of life choices. Its not to be fixed but applauded…modelled…aspired to…