Employment

Let me start with a trick question.

Are there currently enough jobs for everyone to be employed?  (hint: It's a trick question)

If you answer Yes or No, you've fallen for the bait and gotten it wrong.

When government, be that global, national, regional, or local, get out of the way of people to fairly trade goods and services with each other as they see fit, there don't need to be "enough jobs".

If every person expects to have some job provided for them, they are robbed of the freedom and creativity to look around and say, "Hey.  People would be better off if they could use widgets.  Maybe I should make and sell widgets." or, "Hey, that guy's lawn is thick.  Maybe he'd be interested in paying me to trim it for him." etcetera, so on, so forth.

Yes, within this analysis and creativity, there is plenty of room for someone to take the step further and say, "You know, I could hire others to do what I'm doing and we would mutually benefit. They would gain my reputation and I would get some part of the profits from their efforts."  THIS is the essence of what employment is (in the form of jobs).

When government starts "creating jobs" it is only because they are capable of extorting the money for said jobs from people that are actually producing something (a good or service). And you can bet your bottom dollar (and that's always the one the government wants, isn't it?) that the "job" they create will employ the least of the competent to do something that nobody wanted done in the first place.  

Did I recently hear about openings for dangerous furniture inspectors, or did I just nightmare that? 

Ghandi reconsidered

Once, I thought that Ghandi had screwed up the math about how to deal with the tyrannical regime with which he was dealing.

My thinking has shifted slightly and I'm thinking that he may not have been wrong.  

Some "leaders" (managers, "representatives", senators, so on) under whose authority we are currently placed are clearly oblivious to how hated they are.  This is unsurprising when it is considered from the outside and it is obvious that the mindless or misinformed followers of said "leaders" create an echo chamber where the "leaders" only hear what they want and never hear ... truth.  

This is systemic of tyrants...  I could call some out by name, but it would never get through their echo chamber or even cause them even a moment's pause if it did get to them.

In the end, I think that Ghandi's actions had little to no direct effect on the actual leaders he was trying to identify or the evils he was trying to point out.  I think his actions worked more indirectly by assisting others to realize the evils (both policy and persons) that were very wrongfully being permitted to continue.