This is why the Electoral College is so important

electoral votes

Your answer will depend on whether or not you are — at heart and in spirit, mind you — a Capitalist or a Socialist. I saw this picture on a popular social feed where you can post answers longer than 140 characters and you can be friends. When I saw the first explanation — ANSWER ONE: The shop lost $100. $70 in merchandise + $30 in change — I replied with a logical math equation:

Original $100 stolen + $70 in stolen merch + $30 shop owner handed over in change + shipping to get merch there, inventory and stocking costs for merch that is eventually stolen + time to report the theft and go to court should (please, God) the perp be found + additional security measures paid for by the shop owner = Lost a whole lot more than most people think.

***Did you enjoy reading Angela's columns and/or find them helpful? Then buy Angela a cup of coffee when you reach the end of the article. She thanks you for your support.***

REPLY FROM ORIGINAL POSTER: I’m not sure it’s meant to be analyzed in that much depth, but, hey, why not?

I REPLIED: For those in business it would be analyzed that deep.

Others chimed in, none of which had read the original problem correctly nor understood the true nature of business, and all of which, if they were asked, would proudly say “I voted for HER!”

ANSWER TWO from a guy who had not read the original question correctly and so changed the parameters of the problem: If the same guy came in with his own $100, bought $70 worth of stuff and got $30 in change, then the shop didn’t lose anything. What is described is exactly the same but with $100 less in the register to begin with. So I agree, $100.

Note how straight-up theft is described as “$100 less in the register”? Socialism.

ANSWER THREE: Let us use the above situation while accounting for the approximately 25% profit margin on the $70 item purchased. The store owner then loses about $87.50 on the original $100 loss. The ideal situation would be for the robber spend all $100 thus resulting in a $75 loss for the store owner.

Note how, no matter what, the ideal situation is the capitalist store owner always loses? Socialism.

ANSWER FOUR: But the $70 worth of items already include a mark up. If we look at it that way, I would think the shop owner lost $70 – the 25% mark up, resulting in a loss of less than $100.

Note how the capitalist store owner’s markup — also known as the money that puts his kids through school and pays the mortgage — should be taken out of the equation? Socialism.

Does this type of thinking not horrify you? It does if you understand the power of profit based on private ownership and control of production and distribution.

Where do they think their government gets it’s money to operate? Why do they not understand that countries with socialist foundations have never been powerhouses of anything except wholesale theft and physical and ideological torture of their hard-working citizenry?

Why do they not understand that the life they lead here would not exist under socialist rule?

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the U.S., a republic, has a two-tier voting system unlike anything the world has: A marriage of the popular vote tallied by county/state earning one-by-one an elector vote with the winner getting a minimum of 270. This gives all states and their citizens an equal voice in the process. And isn’t that what Socialists all say they want? Yes it is. But this time around, they are whining like crazy.

Print Friendly
***Did you enjoy Angela's article? Are you finding her information helpful? Well, then...***
Keep Angela writing. Buy her some coffee.
Thanks for the coffee, y'all.

Comments are closed.

***Did you enjoy reading Angela's columns and/or find them helpful? Then buy Angela a cup of coffee when you reach the end of the article. She thanks you for your support.***