Mediaboss Marketing

Joshua Wong is running late for lunch but can we blame him? The 20-year-old political activist just finished a final exam, and hes heading into town via the MTR, Hong Kongs metro, which is packed during the midday rush. And besides, hes jetlagged: only 24 hours earlier he got back from a week in the U.S., where he met with such high-profile political figures as Marco Rubio and Nancy Pelosi, who have been actively sympathetic to his fight for democracy in the semi-autonomous Chinese city.

All of this serves to underscore the most improbable life of the face of protest, as TIME dubbed Wong in 2014 , when his role as a figurehead of the pro-democracy Umbrella Revolution here earned him a spot on the magazines cover. Two and a half years have passed. The primary demand of the Umbrella protests Hong Kongs right to directly elect its top official, who is known as the Chief Executive went unheeded. Beijings interference in Hong Kongs affairs has only increased . This summer marks the twentieth anniversary of whats known in China as reunification but locally, and tellingly, as the Handover when the U.K. relinquished its subtropical colony to Chinese rule under a political dynamic known as one country, two systems, intended to preserve the city's capitalist liberties while allowing it to become part of the Chinese nation.

But now its more like one country, one and a half systems, Wong says.

In the time that has passed since the Umbrella Revolution, Wong and his colleagues in the pro-democracy activist camp here have not given up their fight. One of them, 23-year-old Nathan Law, was elected to Hong Kongs Legislative Council last September, the youngest lawmaker in the territorys history . Wong has kept up with his university studies he has three more exams left this term but moonlights as a globetrotting spokesperson for democracy: giving speeches on college campuses; meeting with prominent political figures; penning op-eds for TIME and the New York Times .

In January, he flew to Utah for the Sundance Film Festival, for the premiere of a documentary about the Hong Kong protests called Joshua: Teenager versus Superpower. In its treatment of the protests, the film presents Wong as something between a general and a martyr, a characterization he disagrees with. The Hongkongers who confronted tear gas in the streets are the real heroes.

TIME caught up with Wong over lunch at a bistro across the street from Hong Kongs government headquarters to catch up on the film, his travels to the U.S., and what will come next in the fight for democracy in Chinas freest city.

Nearly three years have passed since the Umbrella Movement. Have things gotten better or worse in Hong Kong, and are you optimistic for the future of democracy here? Freedom of press and speech have been eroded. People who have criticized the Chinese government have been kidnapped. Even some business people who support Beijing have faced abduction. But Im still optimistic. The fight against the largest authoritarian regime in the world is a long-term battle.

A lot of people overseas are somewhat confused by Hong Kong: they dont know if its a city in China, or an autonomous city-state like Singapore. Whats the most important thing they should know? Hong Kong was promised democracy under the framework known as one country, two systems, and China is ignoring this promise. The international community should be more attuned to this. It matters. Im hoping this documentary brings more attention to it.

The documentary portrays you as the hero and leader of the Umbrella protests. Is this fair? Im not a hero. The Hongkongers who confronted tear gas in the streets are the heroes. But of course the reality when making a documentary like this is that its hard to focus on everyone.

You just returned from Washington, where you met with some high-profile U.S. politicians who support your fight. But does the current state of U.S. politics make you second-guess the merits of democracy? Not at all. At the end of the day, people in the U.S. can still go to the polls and choose their leader every four years. People in the U.S. are downhearted right now. Under Chinese rule, were also depressed but we cant even vote.

Hong Kong was for years one of the worlds great financial capitals, but many people are now saying its on the decline. The quality of life has fallen; the cost of living has climbed; the rise of cities like Shanghai has made it less important in the global marketplace. Do you agree? If Hong Kong people keep silent and do nothing, of course Hong Kong will become just another second-tier Chinese city. But Hong Kong is unique, and weve been lucky that Hong Kong people have been trying their best to fight for our core values. We still have hope.

What will it take for Hong Kong to achieve the sort of democratic system you and your peers are fighting for? Weve organized the largest public disobedience movement in China since Tiananmen Square in 1989. But apart from straight activism, we need to increase our influence within institutions, especially global institutions. The support of the international community really matters to us. This is why Ive been going to Washington. Before the Handover in 1997, the world really endorsed the implementation of one country, two systems, and now it is being eroded. People should not keep silent.

You just turned 20 a few months ago. You have a long way to go and so does Hong Kong. Where do you see yourself 10, 20, even 30 years from now? I will try my best to fight for democracy in Hong Kong however I can. I hope to get a chance to run for office here. As far as the international community goes, I think I can be the one to stand up and explain to the world whats going on in Hong Kong.

Many people are cynical about Hong Kongs future. But whats been the most promising change youve witnessed here in your lifetime? Hong Kong was once just an economic animal a financial hub, a business city. But weve proven that we want and deserve democracy. Weve proven that we dont just care about money.

Go here to see the original:
8 Questions for Hong Kong Democracy Activist Joshua Wong - TIME

My GOP cronies bridled. "This is America," one insisted. "When one side gets into power, they let the other side retire quietly -- they don't stick their predecessors' heads on spikes. We don't use the law as a tool to punish political opponents. That's what makes us different from banana republics in Africa. That's what makes us the greatest democracy in the world."

Regardless of what you think about George W. Bush -- or this characterization of the entire African continent -- my friend summed up what many Americans believe about their nation's strengths. From Thomas Jefferson onward, the rhetoric of the democratic example has been fundamental to the mythology of American exceptionalism.

Central to this reverence is the faith Americans have in their Constitution: a document which promises to punish corrupt representatives, constrain executive overreach and protect judicial independence. But beyond America's borders, even its greatest admirers reserve a dose of skepticism. America's confidence that its Constitution uniquely protects against abuse of power feels, at best, nave.

People are concerned about traveling to the US, even concerned about doing business in a country that no longer seems to uphold the rule of law. No longer is America a shining example, as my college friends would have it, to the tin pot dictatorships of Africa.

It seems much more revealing that Comey's firing took place a day after he reportedly stepped up his own inquiry into the Trump campaign's alleged links to Russia. (It is worth noting, too, that Rosenstein, an Obama appointee, does not explicitly call in his memo for Comey's dismissal -- just as Comey himself criticized Hillary, but declined to recommend charges. Precision matters in high-stakes legal inquiries.)

None of this makes comfortable watching for America's allies. Should British Prime Minister Theresa May trust her friend Donald to treat her as professionally as he has treated James Comey? Should she direct her intelligence agencies to share with American colleagues their information on Vladimir Putin's activities?

If there is a scrap of hope to be gleaned from President Trump's obvious misdirection this week, it is that Trump has veiled his attack on his own FBI director in the language of bipartisan constitutionalism. The attempt to present this sacking as a favor to Democrats -- who blame Comey for styming Clinton's campaign -- at least suggests that he knows the directors of major civic infrastructure should command bipartisan support.

Or does it? The problem with being European, looking at America, is that we know dictators have always used the language of constitutionalism to camouflage their land grabs.

If there's a single question on every European's lips, it is: How long can Trump last? To those of us who've heard Americans wax lyrical about the legacy of the Founding Fathers, now is the time when we expect to see the US Constitution's checks and balances swing into action. We know that Americans are good at getting rid of presidents: In the American TV series that form our stable diet, it happens all the time, from "Veep" to "24." It's happened in living memory, too. If you can impeach a president simply for lying about sex, surely you can impeach a president who sacks the person investigating him?

Now, however, it's American observers who sound more skeptical. If you're actually living in America, you know that it'll be hard to get much of the congressional GOP on board for an impeachment; that nothing really constrains the executive branch's power over civic appointments.

It is evident that separation of powers only truly exists in the United States when separate parties control the executive and legislature.

Smug Europeans are congratulating themselves that Americans were always wrong about their exceptional democracy. Those of us with a foot in both continents are not so much smug as heartbroken.

Original post:
Europe view: American democracy isn't as strong as you think - CNN

Communism doesnt heal all suffering, but only the suffering caused by capitalism. Bini Adamczak, Communism for Kids (MIT Press, 2017)

I am in Seoul, South Korea, to give a lecture on gross output (GO) at the Mont Pelerin Society meetings. As part of our conference, we visit the de-militarized zone (DMZ) to see the face of tyranny firsthand.

Communism and its ideological father, Karl Marx, is a topic Ive studied most of my life. My father, Leroy Skousen, was an FBI agent who was part of the anti-communist movement, along with my uncle Cleon Skousen, author of The Naked Communist.

There was a time when Communism was a major threat to our way of life, when over two-thirds of the worlds surface was controlled by Marxist governments. During this time, mainstream economists, relying on faulty CIA data, were convinced that the Soviet economy grew faster than the free countries of the West. As late as 1989, in their bestselling textbook, Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus wrote, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed the Soviet economy is proof that a socialist command economy can function and even thrive.

They were proven wrong when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and the Soviet central-planning model was discredited with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Socialist author Robert Heilbroner wrote a famous article in the New Yorker concluding, The battle between capitalism and socialism is over. Socialism is a failure. Capitalism has won! It was the end of history, as Francis Fukuyama wrote. The future belonged to capitalism. Socialist countries began to open their borders to foreign investment, cut taxes and reduce regulations.

Yet the lure of the romantic revolutionaries continues. Students wear Che Guevara t-shirts and professors teach Marxism in many university departments. I once presented an 1883 silver dollar to a Marxist professor at Rollins College in Florida. I told him, Ill give you this silver dollar if you can name the economist who died in the year this coin was minted.

Exclusive Have We Emerged from a Bear Market Yet?

Oh, thats easy, he said, Karl Marx.

Correct, I said. Dont ever forget it. Hes dead!

But he responded quickly, Yes, thats right. But Im alive and teaching your students the virtues of Marxism!

I see that MIT Press has just published a small book, Communism for Kids. Its written by a German communist who sees only the evils of capitalism, and says nothing about the evils of communism, which was responsible for 100 million deaths in the 20th century, and even today denies life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness for millions in Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea.

Today, students and many citizens are attracted to the benefits of a communist/socialist philosophy, especially the idea that education, medicine, and other basic needs should be provided free of charge by the government.

Every year, I ask my students at Chapman University if they agree with this statement:

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

At first glance, many students find the statement attractive.

Then I talk about incentives. How many of you would be willing to continue working for income beyond your needs?

Once students realize that this statement made originally by Karl Marx constitutes 100% marginal taxes, most reject the statement.

Sadly, Communism continues to be practiced in some areas of the world, including Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, all mired in poverty and even starvation for the general public. Look at the stark contrast between North and South Korea (see photo below). When will they ever learn?

Capitalism vs Communism: Whos Winning the War of Ideas?

Roughly 100 years ago, B. C. Forbes started his magazine in defense of capitalism when the world stood at a similar crossroad of ideas. No sooner had he published his first edition than Communism raised its hammer and sickle. The Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917 brought Marxism-Leninism front and center to the world.

Exclusive How George Soros Lost $1 Billion

The war of ideas between these two gigantic forces of good and evil has continued for 100 years, asarecent cover story of Economist magazine indicates.

FreedomFest is planning a major panel on Capitalism vs Communism: Whos Winning the 100 Year War of Ideas? This important session will be led by Lee Edwards of the Heritage foundation and founder of the Victims of Communism Memorial. Panelists include Steve Forbes and others.

Im also doing a special session on What Every Student and Citizen Should Know about Marxism-Leninism.

We are also showing several short films on the victims of communism at our Anthem film festival.

FreedomFest is only two months away. Now is the time to sign up, and take advantage of our $100 discount. Use code FS2017, and sign up at http://www.freedomfest.com, or call toll-free 1-855-850-3733, ext 202. Dont miss the excitement of our 10th anniversary including keynote speaker William Shatner and celebrating Steve Forbes 70th birthday party.

In case you missed it, I encourage you to read my e-letter from last week about how investing in gold can cost you in the long run.

Upcoming Conferences

Dont Miss the Big Fight in Vegas!

At this years Las Vegas MoneyShow, join me in the ring at Caesars Palace to see me knock out fellow newsletter writer Mike Turner! What is the best investment strategy? I will fight for buying good stocks for the long run while Mike will fight for short-term trading.If you cannot make it to theMoneyShow, make sure youlisten to the debate live online by clicking here.

I will also be the moderator of a general session in the opening ceremonies with Steve Forbes and Steve Moore on Trump and Your Portfolio. Not to be missed.

MoneyShow Las Vegas, May 15-18, 2017, Caesars Palace: Other speakers include Jeffrey Saut, Jim Stack, Pamela Aden, Marilyn Cohnand Matt McCall. I hope to see you there.If you wish to attend theLas Vegas MoneyShow in person, call1-800-970-4355 or 1-941-955-0323 and mention the priority code 042818 to register for free, or simplyclick here to sign up online.

Exclusive Why the Income Tax is Bad for America

You Blew It!

Charlie Munger Endorses Single-Payer Medical System

Having a basic level of care for everybody with no insurance aspect as a right I think is a good idea. Charlie Munger

Charlie Munger, Warren Buffetts long-term partner in Berkshire-Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK.B), usually offers a counter to Buffetts social democrat policy recommendations, such as higher progressive taxes.

But Munger, who says he is not a normal Republican, shocked people by endorsing a single-payer medical system similar to what operates in all of Europe and Canada.

A single-payer system sounds appealing citizens get free medical services, including expensive surgery, which is then paid for by the government. In other words, the taxpayers cover the expense.

As appealing as free medical care may sound, it is a clear violation of the A&W principle. A stands for accountability, which would have the user pay. W stands for the welfare principle, to aid those who need help, but not assist those who dont need help. Should we subsidize and pay for the medical bills of Charlie Munger and other wealthy people? I dont think so.

Once a policy violates the A&W principles, the market stops working efficiently. Doctors have poor incentives. You end up with waste, fraud and excessively higher costs and you overuse the medical system when you offer valuable services like medical services, technology and equipment for free, you are asking for trouble long lines, shortages, poor services and a slowdown in advancing medical technology. This is what has happened in Canada and Europe. If you want a system that works, see Singagores Medisave program, which Bloomberg calls the worlds most efficient medical system. Read about it.

Read more here:
Why Communism Doesn't Work, But Still Has Romantic Appeal - Stock Investor

Who is to blame for the failures of the current regime? A new play, Elites, presented at the Slovak National Theatre by the Czech director Ji Havelka, offers the same answer we have heard for almost twenty-eight years. Instead of the notion of the flawed character which is connected to real socialism, this new adaptation, however, focuses specifically on the current economic elite, which is firmly rooted in the Communist regime.

Elites is split into two parts. I will focus primarily on the ideological framework of the production in this review, rather than the theatrical technicalities of the adaptation itself. The first part of the play reveals the ways in which the StB (the communist secret police) recruited new agents and collaborators. Despite a one-sided image of the regime, one has to appreciate the multi-faceted characters: a wide range of motivations behind the collaboration of Czech citizens with the secret service is presented.

The second part features Ta Pauhofov as a journalist interviewing unnamed members of the current elite most likely Babi, irok or Lorenc. The moral authority of the play is the chairman of the Institute for National Memory, an institute dedicated to unveiling and publicizing the actions of repressive structures between 1939 and 1989. This part raises the central anti-communist message which aims to ideologically purge the capitalist system by laying the blame for current problems on the shoulders of an amoral elite whose power springs from their shady dealings pre-1989.

Holding up mirrors

Elites becomes a mirror for the creators of the play, and the anti-communist ideology they personify.

The play opens and closes with a mirror, in an original, although maybe rather unsubtle way, allowing the audience to see their own reflection. The somewhat clichd metaphor of holding up a mirror immortalized for (and ridiculed by) generations of Czechs and Slovaks by socialist-era news and movies gains new meaning in this context. Elites becomes a mirror for the creators of the play, and the anti-communist ideology they personify.

This mirror reveals that the victors of the 1989 revolution will maintain the story of how evil communism has spawned the amoral elite of today at any cost. One of the characters states declares that the worst thing about communism the way in which it erases the difference between good and evil. Communism is to blame for our amorality and the amorality of elites that rule us. That is why democracy (supposedly) does not work and why people have become so disillusioned maybe we are the last generation that can still enjoy it for this reason.

The play follows a basic narrative; the transformation from communism to democracy is unfinished or incomplete. According to this narrative, only a generation which has not been compromised by the corruption of communism in any way can make a success of democracy in a post-communist country. The problem is that we have already met this generation and societys flaws have not been resolved. Luckily, another guilty party is readily available, the StB-raised, Moscow-educated elite that rules us.

Anti-communism as a clich

This reference to disillusionment in democracy is where the play simply begs critics to tear it to pieces. If communism is really the root of all our problems, what explanation would the author provide for the presence of similar issues in old democracies?

The problem of the play is that it does not add anything new to the dominant anti-communist discourse.

One character mentions Germany, a country which has dealt with the legacy of Nazism and supposedly strictly enforces the rule of law but then, where does the corruption evident in the behavior of Siemens or the fraud committed by a Volkswagen executive spring from? Were these corporations infiltrated by former agents of the Stasi? When communism does not offer a convenient explanation, where can you find the roots of rising support for the extreme Right while traditional liberal-democratic parties lose ground all over Western Europe?

The corruption of capitalism of Slovakia definitely springs, in part, from the actions of an economic elite formed by the amoral environs of the secret services. But Slovakia shares such questions of inequality and poverty, the rise in psychological disorders and the devastation of the environment with countries not just to the east, but also the south and the west of its borders.

The problem of the play is that it does not add anything new to the dominant anti-communist discourse. Unlike Das Kapital, in the Arena theatre, or the National Theatres Carpathian Thriller, Elites remains a prisoner of the ideology of the transformative process that took place in the nineties. Where Gindl poked fun at the theory of lesser evil and Lomnick quoted Marx, even with its imaginative form and the amazing performances by the actors, Havelka offers only a well-worn clich.

We are engaged in an endless search for the roots of the issues plaguing society today everywhere but within this system itself.

A need to confirm ones own idea of truth is felt most by those who feel threatened. The anti-communist elite has been under threat since the economic crisis in 2008 which exposed the real impact of capitalism for all to see. While the crisis did give rise to a degree of self-reflection, the need to prove that democracy is a pillar of capitalism that succeeds where communism has failed, is still felt. The result is complete ignorance of the true foundations of the system. Instead we are engaged in an endless search for the roots of the issues plaguing society today everywhere but within this system itself.

Elites only reinforces this idea. This ideology replaces a thorough analysis of the systems current state by perpetuating the illusion that the past still determines the present.

Translation by Michal Chmela

Read the original:
Holding Up a Mirror to Anti-Communism - PoliticalCritique.org

Socialism believes in the redistribution the wealth. The Richer you get, the higher the taxes should be against you, so that the money can be distributed out to others. And yes, thanks to the left, America does practice a form of Socialism.

Fact -You must have capitalism first, for Socialism to even come about. Socialism is just a parasite that latches onto Capitalism, and feeds on its wealth. Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor through the government, can only happen when a society has at some point, allowed people to be rich.

The left believes socialism is morale, but the exact opposite is true. Socialism is immoral.

Here is a Simple example; If your child where to start their own lawn mowing business. That lawn mowing business keeps growing to where your child starts paying other kids around the neighborhood to help out. That is simple capitalism. Pretty basic, It benefits the boss as well as the employees.

Socialism then steps in and tells your kid, how dare you not pay the other kids in your neighborhood, even though they don't work for your child. Like a big bully, Socialism creates a law to force your kid to give their money to people who don't even work for him. The Socialism bully also will make a law that your child must pay the kids who do work for him more. Then the bully runs around the neighborhood pounding his chest saying see how wonderful and moral I am. Of course, the Bully keeps the biggest cut of the money for himself. Some of the neighborhood children who are jealous of your child cheer the bully. Other children in the neighborhood, who actually are morale, will feel bad for your child and defend your child's right to keep the money that they made through their business.

Socialism, truly is just a parasite onto capitalism, and uses bully tactics. If you support Socialism, You are not a moral person, you are a bully!

If it wasn't for American capitalism, and the little bit of capitalism that is practiced in Europe, Socialism would completely fail. Europe only sustains because of capitalism. And if American businesses we're not in Europe, They would of already collapsed. Also, if American capitalism didn't build up it's mighty military, Europe would already have been conquered by other nations. These are facts, not opinions.

You can't deny the facts, or ignore the facts, but it doesn't change the truth. You can argue against the facts, but it doesn't change the truth. Socialist ARE the Bully's!

Read the original post:
Fact, Socialist ARE the Bully's! Fact, Capitalism allows Socialism to even exist! - WSAU (blog)