Blog Archives

Adam Smith, Where are You?

8/27/2026

Let me please clarify, I am not a scholarly economist.

But there are certain principles of economic theory that I observe.  When supply is short and the demand is high, the price of an item increases, and the reverse is true when the supply is great and the demand is low, the price of an item decreases as well.

There is a big difference between “wants” and “needs.”  I would imagine those two ideas become confusing at times.

I also am aware how high interest rates for credit effects price of housing and transportation.  That in itself has contributed to the thought of “affordability” now being bandied about by many.

What we as a nation are now experiencing in the economic policy coming out of Washington DC, be it good or bad, and how it is directly and indirectly effecting our pocketbooks.  So, with that in mind, I thought it would be good for me to review the works of the “father” of capitalism, Adam Smith.

Here is what I found.  Adam Smith published “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776.  Yes, the same year the colonies broke from Great Britain.  In his book, Smith wrote about the “invisible hand” and how it helped shape individual economic policy…after all, as individuals we determine what we need, what we want, what we can afford.

But Smith’s work goes a bit farther than that simple supposition.

In his work, Smith lays out these basic principles:

Core Concepts

Division of Labor: Breaking a big job down into tiny, specialized tasks makes workers much faster and more productive. (For example, making pins goes much faster if one person cuts the wire, another sharpens it, and a third puts on the head).
Self-Interest: People work hard and trade with others not out of charity, but because it benefits them. (The butcher sells you meat because he wants to make a profit, which in turn gives you the food you need).
The Invisible Hand: When everyone is allowed to freely buy, sell, and chase their own honest goals in a competitive market, an unseen "invisible hand" guides the economy to benefit society as a whole.
Free Markets (Laissez-Faire): Governments should mostly stay out of the economy, keep taxes low, and let trade happen freely without heavy rules or monopolies

In examination of these core concepts, one may understand how the economics of our nation has developed.

The division of labor creates jobs and expertise.  Instead of one person performing all tasks to complete a job, several people perform individual tasks with greater expertise allowing the job to be completed in a more rapid fashion.

One must understand how the core concept of self-interest applies to the economic system.  People work to acquire capital to exchange for goods, those needed and those wanted.  But I contend this basic core goes a bit deeper than that.  The individual is allowed to CHOOSE where to work, where to live, in what to invest, and what to purchase.  Everyone has that opportunity…sometimes that opportunity is taken, other times it is not.

As the “the invisible hand” of the economy silently has operated in my lifetime I have seen air travel evolve from four propeller Tri-Star TWA airliners to a four-jet engine jumbo Boeing 747.  I have seen automobiles fitted with the most current technology, when 50 years ago, a backyard mechanic could set the points in a distributor using a matchbook cover.  What is most evident is the “invisible hand” is determined by the consumer wants and needs, and with that, the cost of living and lifestyle has risen.

While many would say the economy should be classified as capitalism, in truth, it is often called a mixed economy; one that requires governmental intervention on behalf of the citizenry.  The government intervention is an evil necessity.  The time frame from 1870 to 1900 is characterized as the era of Robber Barons.  Men called “Robber Barons” were powerful industrialists and financiers who amassed immense fortunes through monopolistic control of heavy industries, ruthless competition, and the exploitation of workers, though supporters also viewed them as vital "captains of industry" who modernized the nation.  These men accomplished this without governmental restraints.

Enter President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican President.  If memory serves me correctly, Roosevelt used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break up monopolies, with the Northern Securities Company being the first to fall.  In all Roosevelt sued 47 companies and won.

All of this action of Roosevelt would be consistent with Adam Smith’s thoughts about capitalism.  With capitalism, there needs to be small governmental regulation to prevent large businesses we call monopolies;  monopolies created to take advantage of labor and create large sums of wealth for a few.

It would appear the current administration in Washington is not quite in line with Smith.  In my opinion, the single most important part of Smith’s book is the idea of free trade.  And I believe, with the evolution of the standard of living, the economic system of the United States is actually an international system of trade as well as a domestic trade.  This is driven by the wants and needs (the invisible hand) of the consumer.

So, when the President of the United States imposes tariffs on foreign nations as they trade with the United States, how does that jell with the idea of Laissez-Faire and that government should mostly stay out of the economy?  The tariffs are to “protect American businesses or farmers or cattlemen”…but in reality, does it?  If the President believes those tariffs placed on a foreign nation will result in lower prices for the American consumer, then, in my opinion he is wrong.

On August 27th, the Associated Press reported Iran’s economy, already strained by high inflation, years of Western sanctions and a war that has sharply reduced oil revenue, is poised for more instability as the Trump administration tries to coerce other countries into ending all financial dealings with the Islamic Republic.  So far, the United Arab Emirates has suspended all trade with Iran…and that is a big deal for Iran.  BUT the caveat is China.  China is one of, if not the largest buyers of Iranian crude.  The result of the sanctions imposed by the United States is yet to be seen.
Treasury Secretary Bessent recently said “Those who stand with the United States will reap the rewards of our partnership,” while outlining the plan he called “Operation Economic Outcast.” “Those who tether themselves to the Iranian regime should expect to share in the isolation.”

How does all of this effect the American consumer?  All one has to do is look at the price of gasoline at the nearest filling station.  The President can tie his actions to Iran in the name of national security, but the fact remains, the American consumer is paying for more for gasoline than they should be.

The President is instituting a plan to import up to 300,000 metric tons of ground beef (or lean beef trimmings) to be imported with reduced or removed tariffs.

Key Details of the Plan

Amount: Up to 300,000 metric tons.
Timeframe: Over a 90-day (3-month) period.
Tariff Status: Waived out-of-quota tariffs.
Price Target: Importers committed to selling the beef 25% below current market prices to help lower grocery costs for consumers.

This plan is supposed to ease the price of beef in the United States as well as help ranchers “grow the herd”.  The national herd of cattle is at an all-time low in numbers and experts predict it will take at least 24 months to get the herd somewhere close to the previous size it was.  There are several factors regarding the lack of production due to a small herd, drought, and feed constraints.

The United States generally produces about 11 million metric tons of beef a year.  The 300000 metric tons of imported beef represents about 2.75 percent of the annual production of beef in the United States.  With that in mind, are the consumers of the US to expect prices of beef to go down in price by 2.75 percent?  Think about what that means…2.75 percent of 10 dollars is a mere 27/28 cents.

One a side note, I also would like to know who and where the inspection of the imported beef will take place.  That information needs to be known so the public can rest assure the imported beef is not tainted.

Finally, the President is placing more tariffs on Canadian products…with lumber being one of the largest imports to the United States.  That may seem to be insignificant to some, but Canada delivers about 28 percent of softwood lumber used in the United States.  And, of all of the foreign lumber brought into the United States, Canada accounts for about 82 percent of all imported lumber.

I will ask of you, what industry uses more lumber than any other industry in the United States?  Answer:  The construction industry…the building of new homes, the repair and remodeling of existing homes, and non-residential buildings (think commercial, schools, hospitals for a few examples).  The term “affordability” comes to mind.

What I know about tariffs:  The nation paying the tariff to trade in the United States will pass that cost on to the consumers of America.  Some call it an indirect tax.  Who gains from the tariffs?  The government of the United States.  Who pays more for need goods?  The American consumer.

As I wrote earlier, I’m not a scholarly economist, but I understand cost of living, affordability, indirect taxes call tariffs, supply and demand, and how price is determined.  I understand “wants and needs”.  I also understand how oil is tied to most everything the average American purchases.  With that being said, just what in the hell is this administration doing to help John Q. Citizen?   It is my position if the current economic trend continues as Washington D.C. wishes, the separation of those who are wealthy and those who are not will be as wide as the Grand Canyon, and it may be impossible to bridge that gap.  Maybe members of this administration should read the works of Adam Smith.  It is a good blueprint for economic prosperity for all.

I have my opinion…I hope you have one as well.

0 Comments

Re-iteration Again

8/19/2026

0 Comments

As you may very well notice, I authored this piece ...to Protect and Preserve...a year ago today. With the midterms shortly arriving, I thought it might be an opportune time to review what our leader has said regarding the "corrupted" election process in our nation.

As it is, there have been a miniscule amount of illegal votes recorded in past elections...if one chooses to read more about this, visit this website:

https://fairelectionscenter.org/voting-by-noncitizens-is-a-non-issue/

So without any apologies, here is my work from a year ago...and in my opinion, it still rings true today.

8/19/2025
0 Comments

When a person assumes the office of the President of the United States, on inauguration day, the elected official takes the oath of office.  The oath is found in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States.  The oath is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In my opinion, the President is failing to “preserve, protect” the Constitution.  The defense of the Constitution is subject to definition, but it would be my hope the President would protect our country from invasion from an enemy force, other than what the President has referred to as “an invasion” of undocumented citizens.

To be clear, I want to present some facts that may indicate my opinion is correct.

Reported on August 18 2025 by the New York Post among other reporting news agencies…

President Trump unveiled plans Monday (August 18th) to sign an executive order claiming to “help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections” by banning both mail-in voting and electronic tabulation machines.

“I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly ‘Inaccurate,’ Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES,” Trump declared on Truth Social.

The president did not provide any evidence to back up his claims that voting machines are “highly inaccurate.” Most voters live in municipalities where they cast paper ballots that are scanned by voting machines and are subject to multiple checks to ensure accuracy.

“WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections,” Trump went on.

This proposed action is in direct conflict with the Constitution.  Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 states The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

This clause of the Constitution intentionally leaves the election process to the states and not the federal government.  For the President to sign an Executive Order to “get rid of MAIL-BALLOTS…Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES” is overstepping his authority.  In plain sense, the President cannot force the individual states to conform to a system of voting prescribed by the federal government or even the President.  In fact, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.

Historically, from colonial times through the 1880s, elections in the US were conducted through a method called viva voce, meaning "with the living voice", where votes were openly stated. Paper ballots, often printed by political parties, were also used during this time, where voters would obtain a ballot and deposit it into a ballot box at the polling place.

The invention of the Acme Voting Machine in the late 1880s marked a shift in election technology. It was designed to enhance vote integrity by providing a mechanism to detect voter fraud and ensure that only one vote was cast per person. The Acme machine, and others like the Automatic Booth invented by Jacob Myers in 1889 and introduced in 1892, were among the first mechanical voting machines used in US elections.  And by the mid 20 century voting machines were used in metropolitan areas of the United States.

Let me also clear, I am not sticking up for the Democratic Party, but let’s once again delve into a bit of US Presidential history and examine the election of 1876.  To say that it was a controversial election is an understatement.  The 1876 Presidential Election presented problems with several states sending conflicting Electoral College votes to Congress.  Oregon, Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina all did so.  Samuel Tilden, a Democrat won the popular vote, however he did not win the electoral vote.  The Republican candidate was Rutherford B. Hayes, who was a very close second to Tilden.  But because of the 20 controversial Electoral votes not being awarded, no winner was determined.

Now one may wonder what this has to do with Trump’s statement, the Democrats will cheat at any level…well let’s see how this election of 1876 plays out.  According to the Constitution, if no candidate receives the necessary electoral votes, the House of Representatives would decide the outcome of the election.  But wait…that is not what happened.

The outcome of the disputed 1876 presidential election was ultimately decided by an Electoral Commission created by Congress
.
Here's how it unfolded:

Disputed Votes: The election between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden resulted in a stalemate, with disputed electoral votes from Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon. Tilden won the popular vote but lacked the necessary electoral votes without those contested states.
Creation of the Electoral Commission: To resolve this crisis and avoid potential civil unrest, Congress established a 15-member Electoral Commission in January 1877.
Commission Composition: The commission was comprised of five members from the House of Representatives, five from the Senate, and five Supreme Court justices.
Decision and Outcome: The Commission ultimately voted along party lines (8 Republicans to 7 Democrats) to award all 20 disputed electoral votes to Hayes, securing his victory by a single electoral vote (185 to 184).
Supposedly, an independent was to be on this commission, but died before the commission could decide the outcome, and was replaced by…a Republican. As you may have read, the vote went along party lines and Rutherford “Old Eight to Seven” Hayes, was declared the winner. This took place two days before his inauguration, March 5, 1877.

Was there a fix in this election, as Trump has declared so many times after his loss in 2020? Was there controversy over the commission when the Constitution details the procedure to declare a winner of a Presidential Election should no one receive the necessary Electoral College votes to win? Was there controversy over the Electoral Votes of four states that sent in conflicting electoral college vote tabulations…(Sound familiar Arizona and other states; the false electors of the 2024 election)? Was there a political party cheating during this election? If there was, I don’t think it was Samuel Tilden’s party, or he would have been declared the winner.

Now, in the Presidential Election of 1948, it was widely expected Thomas Dewey would defeat the incumbent, Harry Truman. In fact, the Chicago Tribune printed its daily paper with the headline, DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.

The 1948 election showcased a mix of mechanical voting systems and traditional paper ballot counting, with results progressively compiled at the local and state levels before the final electoral count and declaration in Congress. The election is also remembered for the significant upset victory achieved by Truman despite early polling predictions to the contrary

Counting the votes in the 1948 US presidential election was a lengthy process, as it was primarily done manually
.

Election Day: November 2, 1948
Early Confusion and Concession: Despite initial erroneous reports of Thomas Dewey's victory (e.g., the infamous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline), Harry Truman had a narrow lead on election night. By mid-morning on November 3, Dewey conceded the election to Truman.
Vote Counting Duration: While the initial results were reported on Election Night and the following day, the complete and final tallying of votes took a longer period, possibly several days, to be finalized as results came in from across the nation. Therefore, while the outcome was generally known and conceded the day after the election, the manual vote counting process for the 1948 election extended beyond Election Day, taking several days for the final tallies to be confirmed and months until the official count in Congress.

I will agree there have been difficulties with our voting process.  In Phoenix we have seen long lines on election day; we have seen mail in ballots dropped off on election day become the last votes to be counted and sway an election.  We have seen voting machines accuracy questioned, audited, with no real irregularities noted.

Arizona is trying to improve the process for every election.  So are all other states.  History will teach us a manual count of the Presidential vote will consume time.  On the Presidential ballot, there are other candidates and referendums to be considered, and all of those would also be manually counted.  This is time intensive at a best definition.  Is that what our country needs…a repeat of 1876, or 1948?  A manual counting of votes does not insure better accuracy than what is on display with the current system.

The problem is the President and his motivation to get rid of voting machines and mail in ballots.  At one time his lawyers had filed over 60 lawsuits concerning voter fraud in the 2020 election, yet none were adjudicated for a lack of evidence.  It has been said he wants to send more responsibility to the states…i.e., the dismantling of the Department of Education, yet he wants to control the election process, to “help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections”.  The question that needs to be asked is why?  And it needs to be answered.

I have an opinion that would answer that question…so should you.

0 Comments

My World of Thought

8/11/2026

0 Comments

I have given much thought about the current climate of politics in the United States.  I have tried to understand the great divide between the two parties, and I am having difficulty making any kind of sense of it.

Why?

In my world, the definition of a group is a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together; a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.  More importantly, the members of the group must give permission for the group to exist as one; and just as important, if a member of the group leaves, then the original group no longer exists.

For example, think back to graduation day from high school…a group of kids all celebrating their accomplishments.  However, what may be lost in the moment is, that is the very last day that group of kids will exist as one, because that group will never meet as one again.

In my world, the definition of a country is an area of land that has some sort of boundaries, be it political such as a line in the sand or geographical, such as an ocean, river, or mountain range.  In other words, a country deals with land.

Also in my world, the definition of nation refers to a group of people who share land that has boundaries and have similar beliefs.  In that sense, the people who share the country known as the United States would be known as the American Nation.

With that being said, it must be realized the people who live in the United States must have similar beliefs, customs, and traditions.  Those beliefs, customs, and traditions would be political, educational, faith based, tailgating at sporting events…the list goes on and on. However, the common denominator of all of these aspects of life is freedom or opportunity to make a choice.

If the aforementioned is all true, then why does one group of our nation paint another group of our nation opposed to the similar beliefs which are the basic principles of our country’s existence?

Communists, radicals, cheaters, unpatriotic, lazy, lunatics, and party of crime are all descriptors used by one group of people to describe another group of Americans.  Why?  What is the purpose, the real purpose of doing so?

Better yet, why do people of our country believe what is being said?   What ever happened to “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”, or has the “American Way” gone away?

Certainly, ancient Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle have opinions regarding the demise of government structures.  Rather than include excerpts from Plato’s, Republic, I would recommend conducting a brief search for a synopsis of the thoughts of those three.(https://www.history.com/articles/what-are-platos-5-forms-of-government)

I am of the opinion the answer to some of my questions will expose the real state of American politics and our republic.

0 Comments

Reiteration

8/2/2026

0 Comments

I posted this a year ago. I find it only appropriate to do so again because of the accusations coming out of Washington regarding Socialism and Communism. If one has read my previous post regarding the accusations, then I hope this offers some clarity to what may be really happening.

A very long time ago, while I was attending Northern Arizona University, a political science class discussion centered around the difference between Socialism and Communism.  To some, the confusion was because the words are almost interchangeable and are often used as a descriptive term of a form of government.  This discussion led many to begin to understand both Socialism and Communism are forms of economic theory, and truly not a form of government.

In a nutshell, the difference between Socialism and Communism is quite simple.  A Socialist economic system requires the government to own the means of production that are of vital interest to the country.  All utilities would be owned and operated by the government.  Any commodity that is not of vital importance to the country can be owned by private individuals.  What that may mean is one could own a tv of choice, but the tv station and media is owned and operated by the government.  This type of economic system allows for social classes to exist because of the ability to own private property that is not deemed to be “of vital interest” by the government.

In a pure Communist economic system, the government owns ALL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.  The government controls all aspects of the economic system, determines a five-year economic plan, determines where workers are needed, and determines what will be paid to the workers.  Farms are state owned; and the government determines what crops will be grown. Under a Communist economic system, all citizens are treated the same; supposedly, there are no social classes.

I bring this to your attention because of some troubling activity that took place earlier this week.  I found this article published by the Intel Newsroom to be “of vital interest” to the country.

Intel and Trump Administration Reach Historic Agreement to Accelerate American Technology and Manufacturing Leadership

AUGUST 22, 2025Published

SANTA CLARA, Calif.-- Intel Corporation today announced an agreement with the Trump Administration to support the continued expansion of American technology and manufacturing leadership. Under terms of the agreement, the United States government will make an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock, reflecting the confidence the Administration has in Intel to advance key national priorities and the critically important role the company plays in expanding the domestic semiconductor industry.

The government’s equity stake will be funded by the remaining $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded, but not yet paid, to Intel under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of the Secure Enclave program. Intel will continue to deliver on its Secure Enclave obligations and reaffirmed its commitment to delivering trusted and secure semiconductors to the U.S. Department of Defense. The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion.

I’m not one to jump to conclusions, but the phrase “to advance key national priorities” is close in meaning to “of vital interests”.

And to me what is even more disturbing was the following I found when reading NBC News as well as other news outlets:

U.S. could take stakes in more companies, Trump adviser says

Kevin Hassett said the Trump administration's piece of chipmaker Intel is "like a down payment on a sovereign wealth fund."

Aug. 25, 2025, 6:33 AM MST / Updated Aug. 25, 2025, 11:40 AM MST
By Steve Kopack and Gabe Gutierrez

The U.S. government could take equity stakes in more companies, potentially through an American sovereign wealth fund, according to one of President Donald Trump's top economic advisers.

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett made the comments Monday, days after the United States took nearly 10% stake in Intel.  The government secured a piece of the semiconductor maker with money intended for grants as part of the CHIPS and Science Act, passed during the Biden administration.

And then, after reading what Hassett had to say, I read about this, being reported by CNBC, as well as other new outlets, the following:

Trump Pentagon weighing equity stakes in defense contractors like Lockheed, says Lutnick

PUBLISHED TUE, AUG 26 20258:20 KEVIN BREUNINGER

Top officials at the Pentagon are “thinking about” whether the U.S. should acquire equity stakes in leading defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Tuesday.

The Cabinet secretary, in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box”revealed the Defense Department’s interest in taking those stakes days after the U.S. government acquired 10% of Intel stock in a roughly $9 billion deal.

Lutnick was asked if the Trump administration would repeat that move with other companies that do business with the government.  “Oh there’s a monstrous discussion about defense,” Lutnick replied. "Lockheed, which makes most of its revenue from federal contracts, is “basically an arm of the U.S. government,” he said.

In my lifetime of 74 years, I cannot recall the federal government going into business with companies, shall we say, “of vital interest”?  Defense contracts have been awarded on a bid basis; that would include planes, ships, guns, and ammo.

Recently, President Trump, as reported by NPR, Reuters, Time Magazine, and Newsweek,  has called for the FCC to revoke the broadcast license of ABC and NBC because they have treated him badly.  And it has been speculated that Stephen Colbert was cancelled as part of a deal, possibly to gain favor for Paramount's pending merger with Skydance.  Colbert had been openly critical of Trump while hosting the Late Show.  Is there a move to control broadcast journalism as well as print journalism?

I believe the most profound statement to come out of Washington D.C. during the past week was from Sen. Rand Paul, Republican from Kentucky, wrote in an X post, “If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism?
”
The United States considers itself as a Capitalist economic nation.  The citizens of our nation are free to own the means of production.  The citizens of our nation are free to use their private property as they see fit, as long as it is within the confines of local ordinances.  The citizens of our nation are free to work where they wish, to purchase what they wish, to invest how they wish, to live where they wish…all integral parts of a Capitalist economy.

To be sure, there is governmental regulation in some areas of the economy.  That began with President Theodore Roosevelt taking on the Northern Securities Company using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1902.  Why did TR do this?  To break up a monopoly and create a more level playing field for all entrepreneurs.  Several other monopolies fell because of this…Standard Oil was split into 34 different companies to break up an economic monopoly.  All of this was done for the benefit of the common citizen…the action tried to prevent an aristocracy of rich robber barons who controlled the economy and held great influence in Washington D.C..

So, after reading the different accounts of the past week regarding the government purchase of a part of Intel, and the distinct possibility of the government purchasing part of other industries that are certainly of vital interest to our nation, I must agree with Senator Rand Paul.

What is fascinating about this governmental action, President Trump has said he wanted to help the common citizen.  He has reduced taxes for the common citizen to put more money in the pockets of Americans.  However, his tariff war will undoubtedly cause prices to rise for the common person who is operating from paycheck to paycheck.  Trump wants to bring industry back to the US…a noble idea, but if the government buys into a company that returns to the US, why would those companies return?  And just for knowing, which agency of the government would receive the dividends from the companies in which our national government has become an owner?

And on another note, it would be interesting to see who purchased Intel stock BEFORE the deal was completed with the White House.  It would be just as interesting to see who has purchased stock in Lockheed before the announcement from the White House.  Insider trading?  Who became even more wealthy?  I’m not going to say corruption, but it is what President Theodore Roosevelt fought.  The rich getting richer and the average citizen taking it in the shorts.

I have arrived at my opinion…have you reached yours?

0 Comments

One Man's Opinion

Adam Smith, Where are You?

Re-iteration Again

My World of Thought

Reiteration

Archives