Posted to Salon
November 18, 2013
Capitalism is a “dirty word”: America’s new socialist councilmember talks to Salon
On November 5, Seattle voters made Occupy activist and economics professor Kshama Sawant the first avowed socialist city council member in their city’s history – and the country’s first big city socialist council member in decades. In an interview Thursday – one day before her vote count lead spurred her opponent to concede the race – Sawant slammed Obama economics, suggested she could live to see the end of U.S. capitalism, and offered a socialist vision for transforming Boeing. A condensed version of our conversation follows.
It appears you’re on the cusp of winning a major city’s council race as a socialist. How did that happen?
I think the basis for everything that’s happening in Seattle, and everywhere else, is the fallout of the economic crisis … In Seattle, we are seeing a city that is very wealthy but is very unequal, and has become unaffordable for the vast majority of people …
Along with our [state Legislature] campaign last year and [city council] this year, we’ve seen a movement towards $15 an hour through the fast food movement … workers have courageously gone out on one-day strikes … The workers of [nearby airport city] SeaTac and the labor movement, they put a $15 an hour minimum wage initiative on the ballot for SeaTac city, and that is now leading …
All of this is happening in the cauldron of the economic crisis and the burden placed on the shoulders of working people … The conditions that shape people’s consciousness in Seattle are not different from anywhere else. And in fact, there is a deep frustration and disgust with the political system … This is the background in which our campaign has had a resounding echo.
Read interview here
Pope Paulie> “Don’t blame me,”
Poor PP, when you speak with the authority of the Pontiff, you are responsible for everything,
good OR bad. Maybe you should post all of his ravings in RED INK!
I’m saving his post for my attorney, just in case. I could not have written a better defense.
Could you re-post it again and THIS time include a reference to PTSD?
Thanks,
JD> “To the thinkers on the board I would like to make a motion that the subject be abandoned for the time being. Do I have a second?
I’ll second that motion. It is unfortunate that you are several inane posts too late to save face.
For the record, JD did NOT write my response to his gibberish…
Orlando, Florida. Memorial day weekend, IIRC.
My wife and I are going to Wisconsin Dells in July. They have roller coasters and are not in Ohio. If the 2014 convention had those two things going for it then we would be there.
Any idea about 2016?
No, I didn’t. At this point I’m not sure if I’ll make it up there myself. I haven’t missed one since Portland, so maybe I need a break.
Well then, it’s settled 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs7f3ssuEjA
BTW, it doesn’t matter if Dave attends the national LP conventions. I am boycotting 2014, remember? lol
I was really just trying to be polite to anyone else that might have something to say on the subject. I don’t like to occupy full discussions myself but if something I say happens to become the topic I like for everyone to have their say on it before I abandon the discussion. It was really just you and I discussing it and I think all that could be said has been said. I knew you wouldn’t mind I just didn’t want to be rude to the others who might be following.
As for Dave it is obvious he is crazy. I don’t have to prove him wrong about anything. So there’s really not much going on with that.
If you feel you need one, but you don’t. Just stop engaging him, it is really that simple.
JD,
Don’t blame me, I’ve repeatedly warned you and everyone else not to read, and especially not engage, Dave Terry. He has cognitive problems and/or mental degeneration, misquotes and misconstrues people constantly, and frequently turns belligerent. Unlike a lot of internet loudmouths who are meek in person, despite his advanced age, Mr. Terry is still prone to physical violence in person which he has exhibited on more than one known occassion and threatens many other times. He has a military background and, combined with the lack of impulse control that results from his often deranged and confused mental state, this can make him dangerous. He could also draw on the element of surprise since you might not expect an old man to initiate physical violence. Also, since he has lived out the better part of his life no matter what happens, he has very little fear, which is just not good in someone so mentally unbalanced. He does attend national LP conventions as well. Even if you never meet him in person, there is simply nothing to be gained from responding to anything he says, as you will simply be led down a path of continuous distortion and context-shifting resulting from his attention deficit disorder (or perhaps early senility). Your best bet is to pretend he does not exist, other than to pass along this warning to others.
I’ve learned the hard way to stop reading his comments, but I trust other people here will let me know if he really crosses the line and starts issuing physical threats or something else similar to cause his removal from participating here. As of this time I don’t know of him having crossed that line, so I haven’t had him removed, only stopped reading whatever dribbles out of his diseased mind.
Dave says ” > a.”Whether it is established by private initiative or by government is irrelevant.”
> b. “Who manages it and who pays for it is the most important.”
a. & b. are contradictory.”
If they are contradictory then it doesn’t matter whether the U.S. government sells off the land it owns or the military bases it built. The government built them so I guess, in your mind, then it is irrelevent that the government still spends billions maintaining them. Would it be contradictory if a Libertarian president had them sold off? Guess so in your diseased old mind. Is it contradictory that two healthy people made you and cared for you, then you grew up and cared for yourself? I guess so. Is it also contradictory that you were once a self sufficient man and now you are a slobbering incoherent case of incontinence? In your mind yes. In truth it is evolutionary development.
“The ONLY void, I can discern here is the one between your ears.”
Look everyone the limp dicked crazy old man tossed in a zinger. Did the teenager that washes the dried shit off your as help you write that one old timer?
Grow up Dave.
To the thinkers on the board I would like to make a motion that the subject be abandoned for the time being. Do I have a second?
JD> “By all means stop what you are doing but do so responsibly.
This is absurd. IF what one is doing is wrong, destructive or counter productive, STOPPING, without ANY conditions IS responsible.
> “Only a real coward would leave an absolute void in a mess that they created.”
The ONLY void, I can discern here is the one between your ears. IF there is a “MESS” regardless of who created it, THERE IS NO VOID!
> “It really makes no sense and wreaks of a lack of morals and leadership.”
In the case of government run service, “leadership” IS THE PROBLEM! Morality is letting someone else pick up the gauntlet and carry it forward.
> “Of course someone with a complete lack of orginality will mention “the void” in Iraq and > Afghanistan so I will go ahead and explain why it’s an ignorant argument. There was never a > void before or after the invasions. There was never a lack of governmental replacements nor > was there a lack of trained fighting men. The civil services were also intact.
So, WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Why do you see “voids” in some places but not in others. The closest thing to a “void” (subjectively defined) was after our departure from Vietnam.
As ANYONE could see, the North Vietnamese were ready willing and able to fill the “VOID”!
An unpleasant development, of course; but an unpleasant development IS NOT A VOID!!!!
Again my analogy about the formerly government run public utility states my opinion succinctly. By all means stop what you are doing but do so responsibly. Only a real coward would leave an absolute void in a mess that they created. It really makes no sense and wreaks of a lack of morals and leadership.
Of course someone with a complete lack of orginality will mention “the void” in Iraq and Afghanistan so I will go ahead and explain why it’s an ignorant argument. There was never a void before or after the invasions. There was never a lack of governmental replacements nor was there a lack of trained fighting men. The civil services were also intact.
Our healthcare system would be left with a void if the government just said they were done. Those who get EMTALA care would be out cold until a replacement was found. Those who use medicare and medicaid would be out cold until a replacement was found. Even if they all immediately signed up for private insurance or formed co-ops there would be a delay. This delay is the void. It makes no sense to not at least announce the change well ahead of time so that way everything has time to become effective. If it is irresponsible to wait until your insurance is expired until you start looking for a new policy then why wouldn’t it be irresponsible to force the situation on others? How would it not be coercive?
If this circular conversation is about a preference between one step or incremental approaches to liberty then you may consider me an incrementalist. If two steps can actually be considered incremental.
JD> “Chicken and the egg discussion. One must come first.”
NONSENSE!!! We have been enjoying Chicken and eggs for a hundred thousand years without having a clue which came first.
> “My philosophy is the system must be in place before deregulation.”
You have an extremely mechanistic view of the world. In reality systems “evolve”. Sometimes over long periods of time and sometimes in extremely short periods.
> a.”Whether it is established by private initiative or by government is irrelevant.”
> b. “Who manages it and who pays for it is the most important.”
a. & b. are contradictory.
JD> “I was just talking about how it would remove itself. It can remove itself entirely without being responsible for its mess or it can ensure that there are alternatives in place.
It goes without saying that there are those who willing to step up and provide the services that government had heretofore provided. If there ISN’T, no amount government preparation would be sufficient.
Further, IF government mismanagement is the cause of the mess, it goes WITHOUT saying that government should NOT have a major voice in “ensuring what alternatives should replace it.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2013/11/los-angeles-times-story-on-kshama-sawant/
PP> “I just don’t think the LP saying deregulate and then do nothing appeals to people.
It may not appeal to those folks who have no plan or no clue, but others are just begging for an opportunity to cut loose.
Visualize a million people standing at an almost infinite “starting line”. Thousands are so eager to start they jump the gun. Many thousands more are raring to go the very second the gun goes off. The vast multitude after 4 generations of of paternalism hear the gun, stand there looking at each other wondering what they are supposed to do next.
Change often happens along the punctated equilibrium model, so I would not rule out the possibility of wholesale changes by any means.
I think a complete replacement would be a bit of a stretch. It would be nice though.
Honestly, I don’t trust the government to competently find a replacement for itself.
I didn’t say government could or should fix the problem. I was just talking about how it would remove itself. It can remove itself entirely without being responsible for its mess or it can ensure that there are alternatives in place.
Let’s say we are talking about a public utility. The local government does not want to operate it anymore. It should at least see to it that there is a replacement ready before it shuts the lights off.
Government interference has caused nothing but a price spiral and more and more decreased options for consumers and providers alike.
Not saying they aren’t there. I read them. I am saying that the government should confirm that there is a replacement in place prior to letting things go. As for the LP all you ever hear is let the free market work. The libertarian philosophers always give better answers than the LP candidates. In my opinion.
There are several ideas discussed at Roderick Long’s link, among other libertarian approaches to making medical care affordable.
Chicken and the egg discussion. One must come first. My philosophy is the system must be in place before deregulation. Whether it is established by private initiative or by government is irrelevant. Who manages it and who pays for it is the most important. My idea was never meant to be taken as an actual attempt at formulating governmental policy. It was just thrown out there to show that you could have a percentage based healthcare system, available to all, that did not violate any non-agression principles.
JD, you may be interested in http://praxeology.net/aotp.htm#1
I can tell you Jim Gray’s idea. It was a garbage plan that called for dual health care systems. It was basically EMTALA with hospitals specifically made for the poor. There was no payment mechanism either.
Money is a medium of exchange. If there are competing media of exchange, they can be traded for one another, and thus the amount of money in the economy is not some total of all of them added together (in what measure?). If one currency proves to be inflationary, it can lose its market share to a more stable one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JxjUW9VFrHE
They do. Lots of successful nonprofits and charities out there, and there were more before government ripped up much of the fabric of civic society by inadequately trying to replace it.
Seattle City Councilmember-elect shares radical idea with Boeing workers
http://m.kirotv.com/news/news/seattle-city-councilmember-elect-shares-radical-id/nbxbC/
The article that Jill posted also was critical of putting more money into the economy. The idea being that prices will rise. This is inflation. Ed Clark is incredibly scathing of it in his book. I understand that.
What I don’t understand is how competitive currencies would not also increase the amount of money in the economy? If we have U.S. dollars, bit coin, and wampum then that would be more. Would this create an excessive amount of currency? I really would like to know.
I was hoping people had a little more to live for than money but you are correct. The fact of the matter is the LP must come up with a real alternative to the current ideas being kicked around. I just don’t think the LP saying deregulate and then do nothing appeals to people.
All I was trying to do was say that there can be a variety of libertarian ideas that do not involve coercion or direct government control.
> If it is paid for by the users why do you need government to run it?
If there is no profit, there is no incentive for people to run it…….
The idea of UBI has been kicked around for years. Nixon even talked about it. The government has sponsored few experiments with it over the years and discovered that in every case the will to work was reduced.
Why stop at healthcare?
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/establishment-proposes-have-the-government-give-every-adult-a-basic-income_11182013
The same advantage government gives to paper that they choose to call money, faith. The idea would have instant credibility in the eyes of many because of faith. Again I threw this idea together as a quick compromise.
So the point of government creating lifeline was that only government could assess a tax. I’m not sure what advantage government would give your plan.
Government would not run it. Government would help found it. Government would do this because there is no system in place at all right now except EMTALA and Obamacare. Both EMTALA and Obamacare should be done away with but there must be a replacement plan. If another not for profit had the clout of a national government and chose to do something similar it could. If you are trying to make a point about the overall role of government then you are talking to the wrong person. I already believe that governments should not be one size fits all monoliths.
The same could be argued about the Lifeline program. There is a perceived need and the government formed the not for profit that operates it. The difference with lifeline is that it is payed for with a fee that is added to your phone bill and not voluntarily assessed. Of course you can choose to not have a phone but that isn’t a real choice.
If it is paid for by the users why do you need government to run it?
My system would be payed for based on a percentage of income and would be not for profit. Institution of a plan like this would also help those with private insurance by preventing them from being charged for EMTALA. EMTALA would be abolished.
Dave, I don’t think even a majority of those on the extreme left wing use the term free to describe universal health systems. Remember, I said universal health care was happening. I didn’t say I approved. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. system is a terrible system. So are the Canadian, U.K. and French systems. All systems that allow free at point of service care, like ours, are doomed to failure.
Then I don’t understand why it requires government or differs from any private plan.
> “For instance create a system and allow people to opt in or out of it as they choose” “the LP may have to come up with a mixed healthcare plan instead of a pay for it yourself plan” “By doing this the health sytem is opened up by not requiring people to go to the doctor for every little thing.” “This would be a health system paid for by taxes on those that opt in and kept affordable by price controls but it would not be forced on anyone because of the opt out. “Some semblance of universal healthcare is going to happen. The LP should do everything it can to limit the coerciveness of the new system.”<
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranks Canada in the bottom third of its 29 member countries for availability of certain medical technological devices, such as magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scanners, yet places it fifth in national health expenditures (1997 data). Life-saving high-tech medicine is rationed out of reach of some Canadians.
This means that the Canadian people can not get adequate care in their own country under their own FABULOUS-FREE GOVERNMENT RUN health care plan. The same thing will happen in America under Obamacare the exception being that we have no where to go for better care unless we want to stand in line in Mexico
As for the price controls the system would say this is what we are paying and that is it. I am guessing a large chunk of people would sign up for the system. If doctors wanted those people as patients they would accept the insurance plan. If they didn’t want them they wouldn’t have to take them.
The same would apply to eveyone that produced medical equipment, pills, etc. they wouldn’t have to sell. They could if they wanted the market. Also consider that an LP government would actually create free trade. With real free trade the stuff required to create a functioning medical system could be had for much cheaper.
People who enrolled in the program would be charged. Those who chose to opt out of the system would not be charged. This would be 100% voluntary.
Would those be voluntary?
I’m confused. Could people choose not to pay at all, or would it be a coerced payment?
It would use price controls and would not be paid based on a fee. It would be removed via a percentage tax assessed. There would also be co-pays so those that actually use it would actually pay more. If I am not mistaken the health tax in Australia is 1.5%. This system could use a similar rate. If we said it’s $500 a month not everyone could afford it but even the extremely poor can afford a small percentage asessment especially if we remove the payroll tax.
In my plan you would be given general options and sub-options based on how you want to actually opt in or out. If you would like I could explain it further.
Similar trade offs and options could be made available in other economic areas to lessen the impact of left wing demands while actually making it easier to do business.
So you are talking about a public option that would not use any money that is coercively collected? If so, how would it differ from any private option?
Big Government can only be completely anti-libertarian if it is coercive. The mechanism by which force is applied has to be removed and then the government services that are voluntarily entered into and apply only to those that chose to use and pay for them are compatable with the voluntary aspects of libertarianism.
When I said people should be allowed to opt out I didn’t just mean in health care. I like to think that everyone could choose voluntary associations using whatever system they wanted.
I have never and never will endorse any system that forces you into something you don’t want. That is why I think the Socialist and the Greens are wrong.
No, I don’t think we should endorse big government economic solutions. But we definitely could do a better job of explaining how small government economic solutions are bottom up and compassionate, and beneficial to folks other than just those already well off.
Dave, I think somewhere along the line the LP is gonna have to make some concessions economically or it is going to max out its potential. There isn’t a good way to say this but the LP may have to come up with a mixed healthcare plan instead of a pay for it yourself plan. For instance create a system and allow people to opt in or out of it as they choose. Combine that plan with the libertarian plan to make all drugs available on demand. By doing this the health sytem is opened up by not requiring people to go to the doctor for every little thing. When fewer people are going to doctors for routine things we eliminate rationing which has occured in this country since the 1970’s. This would be a health system paid for by taxes on those that opt in and kept affordable by price controls but it would not be forced on anyone because of the opt out.
Outside of the public option completely deregulate health care and allow people to choose which system works best for them.
I mentioned health care because that is the area where the country has move the most to the left. Just about everyone wants a public system. I had a hard core Romney supporter say to me that he wanted a Canadian style health sytem. Some semblance of universal healthcare is going to happen. The LP should do everything it can to limit the coerciveness of the new system.
JD> ” Gary Johnson did a good job of actually going to college campuses and meeting the future. Now the LP must formulate a stategy to show how Libertarianism fits into that future.
Paulie> Right again!
Yes, but NOT by appealing to the economic left wing, but to the social left; civil liberties, etc
Judging by the rhetorical questions he asks Deran, CLEARLY has no academic background in Economics.
Rephrasing his first question: What makes anyone think the accountants and managers in Chicago would be less competent at fabricating aircraft than the people who do the actual work at Boeing now?
“Excuse me, what IS the difference between a pop rivet and pop corn?
>”One of her other mjor issues was rent control, but the state has outlawed that, if libertarian capitalists are gainst state control, why not support letting which ever localities that want to stabilize rents do so?””Why hasn’t Dallas or some such elected a Libertarian to city office?
POSSIBLY, because there are a lot more people desirous of living at the expense of others than completely on their own resources???????????
INCIDENTALLY, Nationwide, there are 155 Libertarians holding elected offices: 45 partisan offices, and 110 nonpartisan offices.
Agreed.
Right again!
Because a lot of jobs would disappear and a lot of people would find themselves no longer working for a living. Or, at best, commuting further to get to jobs which may be relocated to the suburbs without any increase in pay.
In many cases rent control leads to landlords losing money and abandoning or destroying the rental properties. That in turn leads to many other problems, including homelessness and crime. I’ve seen it up close and personal. Another thing that happens with rent control is abuse of the system by politically connected well off people who use their connections to get rent controlled apartments.
Sounds a bit hard to believe.
I’m not aware of any such cities. However, for a while we had a Libertarian (elected non-partisan) as the leader of the opposition on the city council in Birmingham, Alabama – Dr. Jimmy Blake. He had some allies, although I’m not sure if they were libertarians. I believe Springfield, Missouri has a Libertarian city councilman. I’m not sure if you would consider that a major city.
I’m not aware of Dallas being a hotbed of libertarianism. It’s probably more conservative.
I have been saying this for years now that the U.S. is moving in a leftward direction. I don’t think that many people actually want full on communism but this country is changing. The LP has made a terrible mistake over the last few years not making a concerted effort to appeal to the “new” left.
In Indiana LP candidates only seem to talk to 2nd amendment groups, which is ok but they wont vote for LP candidates. 2nd amendment groups are almost always straight Republican and will always be. Gary Johnson did a good job of actually going to college campuses and meeting the future. Now the LP must formulate a stategy to show how Libertarianism fits into that future.
As for the Green Party endorsing her, okay fine. There are areas where I can show you the LP is actually much more left wing than the GP. Check the green platform. Look at military and you will see the greens support a 50% reduction in spending, increased combat and support payments, and upholding U.N treaty obligations. How does one actually reduce military spending 50% if you increase pay and continue playing world police? The LP says 60% cut openly and several candidates have said 70% at least. Also the LP has a strict non-intervention foreign policy. The LP is more left wing in this case.
Look at drugs. The greens say hemp and marijuana but don’t mention any other drugs in their platform. When the LP says lagalization they mean it. The LP wins again.
There is room to grow on the left. Take your place and dictate the terms of the conversation LP.
I’m not sure that they would or would not be, although it would stand to reason that, at least on average, accountants would be better at accounting than machinists would be, just as machinists would be better at what they do than accountants would be. But the question is not really wether Boeing would be better off as this or that type of business model – it’s more whether government force will be used to change what type of business model it follows.
Actually I don’t classify my ideology as capitalist, but I guess you do. Regardless of what you call it, we oppose “society” helping corporations. I think you know that.
What makes anyone think the people who do the actual work at Boeing would be less commpetent in running the enterprise than the accountants and managers in Chicago? If you look at what Sawant is saying she is supporting Beoing become a “worker self-directed enterprise” essentially. And besides, the Democrtat governor just prodded the Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature to give Boeing $9 billion in tax breaks, reduces rates on this and that. I call that central planning, top down direction.
I realize libertarian capitalists that the capitalism we have today is not “true” capitalism or whatever. But, if you look at how capitalism works in the rpesent real world, there is lots of public money, lot’s of public pain if the enterprise fails or is in trouble, and no [public profit from the enterprise. Wages are not what I am talking abt. If society is going to help a corporation, why not have society reap some benfits whn the corporation profits.
The first thing Swant is talking abt is a $15 minimum wage for Seattle. The City Council will never go for that so there will be a municipal citizen initiative most likely. And why shouldn’t people who work for a living get paid so they can afford to live above the poverty line?
One of her other mjor issues was rent control, but the state has outlawed that, if libertarian capitalists are gainst state control, why not support letting which ever localities that want to stabilize rents do so? Make owning a rental property more like an old-school bond that pays a slow and steady amount of money to the owner rather than rental property as speculatory chits?
The key will be this. Along with Sawant being elected, a municipal citizen initiative changing Seattle’s city council from all members being elected city wide, to members being elected from districts. The change to districts, and new wlelections will begin in 2015. If Sawant can not flop and get reelected then, I think she ahs a solid shot at either the US 7th or 9th Congressional Districts in 2016.
And as far as a socialist being elected in pinko Seattle ( a major US city by any measure) – that’s true, but where are the libertarian capitalists/Libertarians that are elected to the city councils of a a major US city that is a hotbed of libertarian capitalist sentiment? Why hasn’t Dallas or some such elected a Libertarian to city office?
From my perspective, I worry more that her Leninism, and the Socialist Alternative’s Leninism (vanguardism) may well wreck her chances if they can not keep their impulse to see their tiny organization as the vanguard. If she and they can keep from getting all high and mighty because they are upholders of the true correct line, then Sawant has a real chance of being innovative and effective and the campaign could build itself into a multitendency socialist political party.
From Forbes Magazine;
I have two questions to which I will never expect to receive a rational answer.
First, why would Seattle Central Community College allow Dr. Sawant (yes, she actually has a Ph.D. in economics) anywhere near students? And second, to the citizens of Seattle, how does one of the most educated cities in America allow themselves to get duped?
http://peaceandfreedom.org/home/articles/general/1138-socialism-in-seattle
> ” It is encouraging for Green Party candidates in 2014″ <
LOL! That is why they call them 'watermelons"; Green on the outside, RED on the inside"
.
http://www.thesocialist.us/statement-on-kshama-sawants-historic-victory-in-seattle/
Thanks for the story. The Green Party endorsement, Green Party donations, Green Party get out the vote support was crucial in her election. It is encouraging for Green Party candidates in 2014.
The people of Seattle elected this clueless academia nut?
Well, I guess they’re gonna reap what they sow…
Well, Boeing can “move” say to Texas or South Carolina. Her idea of living to see the end of U.S. Capitalism is silly. Even in closed Cuba and North Korea people have some type of trade. Of course you may get shot by Kim Jong-un but commerce does happen. If she runs for Mayor of Seattle her utopia would be closer to her vision, with power. However, I doubt she can take the capital out of Starbucks, or any other business in Seattle. Even though she’ll try.
Maybe if she had the power to actually do it.
You frighten WAY to easily. The attempt will be highly entertaining as well as educational.
Not to Worry!
Of course taking over Boeing “democratically” means “by force”. Scary, scary woman.
Too bad! Sometimes the BEST example is a “bad” example!
I see it as a good thing that someone outside the duopoly got elected. I doubt she will have enough clout to pass a $15 minimum wage or anything like that.
So a socialist got elected in a pinko-liberal haven like Seattle. What a shock, they actually elected open socialist over a closet socialist.
It is natural law to go from one to the other when the original fails to live up to expectation. Central Planning has never worked long term. The learning curve in Seattle should be the same everywhere else.
“On November 5, Seattle voters made….Kshama Sawant…,the country’s first big city socialist council member in decades.”
Growing up in southern California, I never really appreciated the mild and warm climate…that is
until I spent a winter in Minnesota. One must periodically experience the really negative side of reality in order to fully appreciate the positive.
Thus, it is that I welcome the opportunity for the people of Seattle to fully experience the dregs of economic winter. Hopefully, MOST of you will survive the $15.00 minimum wage and all the other egalitarian nonsense and learn to again love freedom and the free-enterprise system.