Checkbook Economics, Household Expenses Rise $961 Per Month, $11,532/yr, While Incomes Remain Flat

Checkbook Economics, Household Expenses Rise $961 Per Month, $11,532/yr, While Incomes Remain Flat

With most financial media being intentionally obtuse with the Biden economic impact upon Main Street, it is refreshing to see analysis that cuts to the heart of the matter.  HatTip to ZeroHedge who provides a link to a great article outlining reality for blue and white-collar working families.

The folks at NerdWallet have taken the inflation date from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) and applied the math to real life.  The result is a good encapsulation of checkbook economics and how the Biden economy is painful for the working class.

In total, Joe Biden’s energy policy driven inflation has added $961/month to preexisting expenses.  That’s $11,532 a year just to retain the status quo standard of living.

(NerdWallet) – […] In all of 2020, American households spent $61,300, on average. This number includes everything we spend our money on: housing, food, entertainment, clothing, transportation and everything else. In 2022, it stands to reach $72,900, a difference of more than $11,500 if consumers want to maintain the same standard of living. Keep in mind, this is an average, a number that represents an approximation across all Americans, but one that’s exact to a very few. Those who earn (and therefore spend) more will see more dramatic dollar increases. Those who earn less may see less dramatic dollar jumps, but the impact of these rising prices could be more significantly felt. (read more)

If the average household spent $61,300 and inflation is adding $11,500 to the expense, that means we now have to spend 18.7% more just to maintain the current standard of living.  That average is in line with what we are seeing in the real world.


What Hinders Revival

What are the signs of genuine revival, and what is the purpose of revival? Though we claim to seek renewal, are we in fact putting up roadblocks to God’s grace at the same time?

There has been a real focus on revival recently here at the Daily Declaration. That’s primarily because it’s part of the organisation’s DNA.

In particular, I’ve been fascinated with discovering the history of the Moravians by watching the interviews Warwick Marsh conducted with Dr Jason Hubbard. These inspired an article I wrote a couple of months ago, as well as my reading Dr Hubbard’s excellent book, Moravian Miracle: The 100 Year Prayer Meeting that Changed the World.

Also recently, Kurt Mahlburg interviewed Dr Barry Chant on revival, where he made the point that “revival” should be our normal state as Christians, as it implies a consistent increase of growth. But what we see as revival he called “divine visitation”, which he also showed was the more accurate definition from Scripture.

But for the sake of the more familiar, I’ll stick with “revival” unless there’s a direct application of “divine visitation”.

Now, I’m also looking forward to the book that Warwick is writing with Kurt Mahlburg on the rich history of revival in Australia, which I’m praying will be “for such a time as this”.

God’s Heart

Historically, though, when we look to God during challenging times for the Body of Christ (as we’re certainly experiencing now in the West), we are prone to look to past outpourings as a model for what God will do in the future. Then when we pray for revival, we’re often asking God to “do it again, Lord, as You did before”.

But from past revivals, what we won’t find is what the Spirit will do in and through us, what revival “looks like”. But what we always find is His heart, primarily for the lost, and the specific nature of His desires in that situation.

It’s vital, therefore, that we practise right thinking about God’s purposes for revival. Do we, for example, get carried away with the notion that we are the primary beneficiaries of revival, that we get to party with the Holy Spirit? Because that’s been tried and found wanting.

I recall vividly the ’90s, post-Toronto, when all we succeeded in doing was to isolate the outpouring inside our four walls, reducing its scope to our own fascination with the physical and emotional manifestations.

In relation to this kind of fleshly response, Dr Michael L Brown, in his 1996 book From Holy Laughter to Holy Fire (now out of print), quotes the great healing ministry leader of the early 20th century, John G Lake:

“We have treated the precious Spirit of God as though He is a method of providing a means of spiritual entertainment for our souls. God’s purpose is far mightier than that. God’s purpose is that our spirit be tuned to heaven, our heart capable of hearing and realizing the songs of glory, appreciating the companionship with God and feeling flames of His divine love, expressing and revealing it to the hungry world that knows not God.”

And there you have the overarching purpose of revival: to miraculously energise the church to miraculously attract and convict those outside the church of their lost state and their need of a Saviour.

In other words, it’s not the “how” that’s the focus, but the “who”.

In  Two Minds

But so often, and on so many issues, we are not “tuned to heaven” to anywhere near the extent that we are tuned in to exalting our own pet issues and opinions. This creates division in our thinking, and ultimately in our relationships, creating sharp divisions within the Body of Christ.

How can we even pray for, let alone expect, revival if we are hopelessly double-minded (James 1:6-7 NASB)? And are we not double-minded when we are so divided on recent and current issues? Take, for example, those relating to the pandemic concerning trust (or lack of it) in governance, truth (and who’s telling it), and the balance between individual rights and communal responsibility.

Or when in one breath we say, “Revive us, O Lord”, yet in the next, we’re commenting on issues like the globalist intentions of groups like the UN or the WEF, and we pine for the Rapture, crying, “Come quickly, Lord Jesus!”

Why do we act as though our rescue is more important than revival and the harvest of souls that is its natural fruit? Can we really expect God’s fiery blessing to fall on us when we see the kind of fear-induced division these and other similar issues foster?

After all, these are the kinds of issues Jesus told us to expect, yet not to fear:

“But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them. These things I have spoken to you so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.”
~ John 16:4, 33 (NASB)

In relation to that double-mindedness, a few months ago the Holy Spirit gave me three words that highlight this current attack on the Body of Christ: Diversion, Deception, Division. Satan is attempting to divert Christians from their true devotion, development and direction by deception in relation to false narratives and fear about world events. This leads to the division that is a consequence of the conjoined dominating mindsets of cynicism and scepticism, which are the antithesis of faith and trust in our good God.

Are we not double-minded when we focus too intently on these issues at the expense of other issues, for example, those relating to social welfare? Are these not equally issues of concern for Christian Conservatives?

To go one step further, are these not the very issues which, along with the “culture war” issues, where we find the corrective to the slow drift to the Left of Conservative parties in Australia? These together lead to the only true repudiation of the vague and empty Utopianism of the Progressive Left. So why do we often treat them as though they’re mutually exclusive?

In my very first article here at the Daily Declaration, I made that precise point:

“Conservatism cannot be what it claims to be — ‘conservative’ — for just one class in society. Conservatism is all about conserving the best for all, seeking to improve the lot of all.”

It was such an issue — the national rental crisis — through which the Holy Spirit touched me deeply and prompted me to write this article.

Selfishness vs Cultural Change

I firmly believe that not only should engaging with such issues be a defining characteristic of Christian Conservatism, but it is actually a defining characteristic of true revival. Revival doesn’t just transform lives and see large numbers brought into the Kingdom, but revival transforms culture.

In fact, it’s fair to say that if we claim we’re in revival, yet the surrounding culture remains unchanged, then it’s not really revival.

As Dr Brown puts it in From Holy Laughter to Holy Fire,

“… we can roll on the floor and laugh every night until three in the morning, but if the world around us remains unchanged, that is not revival. If the way we live outside the building does not become characterized by holiness and sacrificial love for the Lord and the lost, that is not revival.

And if everything that happens in our revival meetings comes through the hands of human vessels — without the supernatural visitations outside the Church, without the abiding Presence, without the clear evidence that God Himself has stepped down from heaven in power — that is not revival.”

In that case, it’s fair to ask if we in Australia are prepared for revival. Are we moved to more than a brief pang of sadness by the plight of the new “middle-class poor”? Will we even notice when their ranks swell due to the multiple pressures of stagnant wage growth, sharply rising interest rates and high inflation? Because, sadly, most of us see something like that story on the news about the rental crisis and it’s pushed out of our minds by the very next story.

This is because our age is marked by what I call apathetic insularity. Similarly, Francis Schaeffer, over 50 years ago, prophetically identified the two ruling aspirations of people in the future: peace and prosperity. Peace, Schaeffer defined as the overriding desire for a life unruffled by trouble; and prosperity, he explained, is the affluence achieved by acquiring more and more material goods. When this attitude takes hold of a person, their hearts are effectively locked shut to any outside influence of anything beyond their own situation.

And as those aspirations become a greater influence over our mindset, we’re also locked shut to our need to grow spiritually. But because the Holy Spirit continues to speak into our spirits, while we continue to heed our material aspirations, isn’t this the root cause of our double-minded condition? I think one of my favourite Christian singer/songwriters, Mark Heard, defined this most eloquently in his song, We Believe So Well:

“But we believe so well, don’t we tell ourselves?
Don’t we take exclusive pride that we abide so far from hell?
We might laugh together, but don’t we cry alone
For the ashes and the dust we’ve swept beneath the holy throne.”

There was a similar time in Israel’s past when they “believed so well”, and as a consequence, the prophet Isaiah delivered a stinging rebuke from God:

“Cry loudly, do not hold back;
Raise your voice like a trumpet,
And declare to My people their wrongdoing,
And to the house of Jacob their sins.

Yet they seek Me day by day and delight to know My ways,
As a nation that has done righteousness
And has not forsaken the ordinance of their God.
They ask Me for just decisions,
They delight in the nearness of God. ‘Why have we fasted and You do not see?
Why have we humbled ourselves and You do not notice?’

Behold, on the day of your fast you find your desire,
And oppress all your workers.
Behold, you fast for contention and strife, and to strike with a wicked fist.
You do not fast like you have done today to make your voice heard on high!

Is it a fast like this that I choose, a day for a person to humble himself?
Is it for bowing one’s head like a reed
And for spreading out sackcloth and ashes as a bed?
Will you call this a fast, even an acceptable day to the Lord?

Is this not the fast that I choose:
To release the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the ropes of the yoke,
And to let the oppressed go free,
And break every yoke?

Is it not to break your bread with the hungry
And bring the homeless poor into the house;
When you see the naked, to cover him;
And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Then your light will break out like the dawn,

And your recovery will spring up quickly;
And your righteousness will go before you;
The glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.
Then you will call, and the Lord will answer;
You will cry for help, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’

If you remove the yoke from your midst,
The pointing of the finger and speaking wickedness,
And if you offer yourself to the hungry
And satisfy the need of the afflicted,
Then your light will rise in darkness,
And your gloom will become like midday.

And the Lord will continually guide you,
And satisfy your desire in scorched places,
And give strength to your bones;
And you will be like a watered garden,
And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail.
Those from among you will rebuild the ancient ruins;
You will raise up the age-old foundations;
And you will be called the repairer of the breach,
The restorer of the streets in which to dwell.

~ Isaiah 58:1-12 (NASB)

More recently, Keith Green gave us a similarly prophetic wake-up call:

Just like Judah in Isaiah’s time, we too “ask… for just decisions” on issues that directly impact us. We also “delight in the nearness of God” in our meetings. But we fail to recognise God’s heart and focus for the lost and “the least of these”:

“To release the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the ropes of the yoke,
And to let the oppressed go free,
And break every yoke”

This is why we as Christians need to be so very careful that we do not absorb elements from the surrounding fallen culture, ruled as it is by “the spirit of the age” (Ephesians 2:1-2). When we do, it effectively dulls us to the needs of “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40).

Paying the Price

These attributes have now come to define the culture in fulfilment of Schaeffer’s prediction. And as politics is assuredly downstream from culture, then the kinds of social infrastructure our politicians are able to bring to fruition are limited by what we are prepared to pay. There are always complaints about not enough schools, hospitals, and too much traffic congestion, among other grievances. We also complain about taxes being too high.

So let’s be honest: who among us would be willing to pay more in tax to see those needs realised in the shortest possible time? Or are we, even as Christians, like the rest of society, too wedded to our material aspirations to even consider it?

I was reminded of this when I read the recent article here by former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General Ramesh Thakur, where he made an excellent point:

“Pandemics have long been identified as one of many global challenges for which the world should have prepared in advance.”

But the problem I see is that if any government announced that they needed to, for example, massively increase the hospital capacity to cover such a future challenge. This would involve a cost of many tens of billions of dollars, requiring an increase in the income or GST tax rate. Would we be supportive of that?

If any proof were needed that such forward planning would provoke a negative response, you don’t need to look any further than the issue regarding the dedicated quarantine centres built for returning travellers during the pandemic. These are now empty, and being labelled as “white elephants”.

Yet there was so much criticism of governments for not being prepared for the influx of citizens wanting to come home from overseas. So these now empty quarantine centres are the exact thing that many were criticising governments for not having ready at that time.

More double-mindedness!

On this basis, think again about the plight of those caught in the rental crisis. Even if you are moved by their plight, would you applaud moves by governments to undertake the kind of program that could alleviate the problem in the shortest possible time? What if it meant a fast-tracked public housing program that required increased taxation?

So, if we have, to any extent, imbibed “the spirit of the age”, and become indistinguishable from the culture, then before we can experience an outpouring of revival should we not expect the Spirit to come to correct and purify us?

If that’s the case, then the words God spoke through the prophet Malachi come to mind here:

“Behold, I am sending My messenger, and he will clear a way before Me. And the Lord, whom you are seeking, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the Lord of armies.

“But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire, and like launderer’s soap. And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord offerings in righteousness.”
~ Malachi 3:1-3 (NASB)

Again, this from Dr Brown’s book:

“This is a picture of revival too. He brings judgment, not just joy. He comes with claims, not just charisma. He is demanding, not just delightful. He is the Lord of all, not just lovely and adorable. He refuses to merely “fit in”… He died for us all, and He died for all of each of us. He expects all in return. Encountering the Son of God is radical. Surrender is total and absolute.”

I don’t know about you, but for myself, I find this incredibly challenging just reading it as I type! But Dr Brown has more to say:

“Yet we often drift from this truth. We serve God out of habit and worship Him by rote. We divide our life into little compartments. We give Jesus a nice compartment of His own! But when He comes in revival power, when He is glorified in the midst of His people, then He stakes His claims and renews His rights over the flock He purchased with His blood…

He is the fullness of God in bodily form (Col. 2:9), the all-consuming fire, the Lord of glory. And when we cry, ‘Come, Lord, consume me!’, He just might do that very thing.

Do we grasp the meaning of those words? “Come Lord” — the King in His majesty; the Creator in His splendour; the Master in His holiness; the Son of God in His might. Do we really want Him to come?

“Consume me” — in fire, in flames, in a blaze of purity; until my carnal flesh is burned beyond recognition and a new creature shines forth; until my will is totally absorbed in my Maker’s; until the unseen is far more real than the seen; until I am utterly dominated by my God.

Is that what we want, or are we merely seeking a little brushfire to warm and cheer us, or a Holy Ghost cookout that will satisfy our cravings? Once you pray, “Consume me, Lord”, you can’t negotiate with the flames.”

Dr Brown’s sobering judgement raises some questions that we need to consider: what do we need to change to be prepared for this kind of divine visitation? Are we prepared for it to involve God’s purifying Presence? Will we submit everything to Him? Are we prepared to, as Graham Cooke describes it, “kiss the Hand that hurts”?

I think that a good example from Scripture of this, of the alternative to division or apathetic insularity, or both, is found in the kind of devotion displayed by Mary of Bethany. She sat at Jesus’ feet, soaking up His teaching, which He described as “the good part” which was the “one thing… necessary, … which shall not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:42 NASB). That devotion to His teaching led to a sacrifice at great personal cost:

“Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.”
~ John 12:3 (NASB)

This beautiful song by Rend Collective gives this act even greater relevance for us:

So, what comes after this? As I mentioned, God never uses the same kind of circumstances, and no two revival outpourings are similar. The one common denominator in all of them is a burning desire among God’s people to see God bring transformation to the whole culture, which I will address in another article in the coming days.

In the meantime, here’s another Rend Collective anthem that I think is a fitting prayer to take us from here to there.


Photo by George Webster.

Thank the Source

Labor Replaces Wokism with Workers in Soviet-Lite Housing Cash Splash

Labor Replaces Wokism with Workers in Soviet-Lite Housing Cash Splash

Labor is trying to entice voters with a tempting social housing programme, but a closer look reveals several pitfalls. There are better ways to ensure housing affordability.

Alongside his noir new look, Opposition leader Anthony Albanese has unveiled a raft of what appeared to be “Australia first” policies.

The opposition leader declared on Sunday that a Labor government would ‘buy Australian’, manufacture precious metals in Australia, stand up for Australian workers, and help Australian women earn more.

Labor’s biggest enticement? A radical shakeup of housing affordability for lower-middle-income earners.

Government Housing

In 2021, Albanese promised a ‘five-year plan’ to save Australians afflicted by an over-inflated property market.

A Labor government, he petitioned, would cap property prices, and devote $10 billion of taxpayer funds to open up 30,000 new social housing dwellings.

This will be — a summary provided by Labor asserted — paid for by ‘investment returns from the Housing Australia Future Fund,’ which is to be created by an Albanese government.

Additionally, The Sydney Morning Herald explained,

‘A Labor government would contribute up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of a new home and up to 30 per cent of the purchase price for an existing home, with people being able to buy out the Government’s stake over time.’

This includes a property cap on market prices in metropolitan and regional centres.

For example,

‘The property price would be capped at $950,000 and could save homebuyers up to $380,000 on a new house and $285,000 on an existing house.’

Albo’s affordability model also promises to build on the current Morrison (LNP) program whereby the Government goes guarantor for first home buyers ‘of up to 15%, helping 10,000 eligible owners, per year, ‘avoid paying mortgage insurance [which can cost] up to $32,000.’

However, the gloss is lost in the small print.


Eligibility criteria for the extended guarantor program pretty much exclude low-income earners, primarily single-income families.

Labor’s plan only applies to locals who ‘have a taxable income of up to $125,000 per year for singles and $200,000 a year for couples.’

Countering Albanese’ vote-catcher promises, Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s finance minister, Simon Birmingham (LNP-SA) told the ABC:

“Our [current] policies are delivering outcomes for Australians, and importantly you get to own your own home. You don’t have Mr Albanese at the kitchen table with you owning part of your home.”

When Australians look at the choice between what Labor is offering and the Coalition’s current and future plans, Birmingham added, Australians fully owning their own home, rather only owning a part of their own home, “makes the Coalition’s policy a far more compelling” choice.

Birmingham, noting the success with the LNP’s own housing affordability programs, stated that if re-elected the Morrison government will be expanding the current guarantor program from 10,000 places to 50,000 per year.

Thus negating the ridiculous cost of mortgage insurance, which when pinned alongside ludicrous rental prices makes saving a decent deposit for homeownership in Australia unattainable.

Stealthy Socialism

One Nation’s Pauline Hanson called the voter candy, “another step closer to socialism; the first step to fulfilling the World Economic Forums ‘Great Reset’.”

Adding, “If we’re to make housing affordable for Australians, start by closing the door to foreign ownership, and lower immigration numbers — it’s not rocket science.”

To those paying close attention, it’s been obvious for a while that the Australian real estate market has outpaced wage growth, and the goalposts keep moving.

Coincided with strict subjective lending criteria, this has made it almost impossible for young people and working-class families to enter the housing market.

Labor’s latest electioneering “promissory note” to voters is a serious temptation to those who’ve been left behind by real estates, bankers and debt-crazed investors.

This is why it’s no stretch to state that Labor’s proto-socialist (Frankfurt school-esque) promises, to well-positioned-but-not-quite-there first home buyers (read Aussie battlers), puts Labor back in the race to Kirribilli.


Thanks to gaffes, and a woke defence of radical-leftist politicking, Albanese has been on the back foot since campaigning for the election began.

Shifting the election narrative to housing affordability away from an embattled defence of transgenderism over and against women’s rights is a smart manoeuvre by Labor party strategists.

Putting Australian workers before wokism will regain traction, and legitimacy with Australian voters who have ditched the Labor party because of its far-left lean.

The fresh, politically sober, “back to basics” look — the secure a “better future, better government” for Australians — platform could be an election-winning formula.

Ultimately though, Albanese’s “five-year” plan is a trap.

Behind Labor’s polished image of Anthony Albanese as a neo-noir “working-class” man, higher taxation waits like a ravenous wolf.

Hidden behind his promises sits another blatant reminder: vote Labor, get Socialism.

Better Options

There are far better proactive steps government can take without increasing its reach into our lives.

Instead of increasing the gruelling government overreach, politicians serious about solving housing affordability should be aiming to:

  1. Increase incomes by reducing income and payroll tax.
  2. Remove all “no jab, no job” mandates.
  3. Secure jobs by cementing protection for informed consent into the constitution, as part of wider constitutional reform. One which serves the people, by unblurring the lines between the separation of powers, caused by political manipulation of the language in the construction.
  4. Allow people to use their own money.
  5. Free up superannuation, so that first home buyers, per person, can withdraw up to $20,000 from their super accounts to add towards their home loan deposits.
  6. Release more land for residential development, with water capture infrastructure attached.
  7. Freeze foreign investment in residential zones. Cancel all, and stop any, future plans for Net Zero; which end in hidden carbon taxes.
  8. Set up a Royal Commission into the Real Estate industry, and the apparent monopolisation of the property market.

Don’t be seduced by the dazzle. Labor’s newfound pro-worker proposals only serve Labor’s woke ideals.

The long-term approach to solving housing affordability is creating opportunity, raising incomes, allowing workers access to their own money, limiting foreign investment in residential zones, improving building approval turnaround times, reducing land, and insurance taxes — all of which hinder homeownership.

Albanese’s vote-grab will lead to an expanded government. A government that has already proven that in the right environment, it has no problem with abusing its power.

Soviet-lite socialism isn’t the solution.

There’s a big difference between politicians doing something, and politicians making it look like they’re doing something.

What looks good for us, isn’t always what’s good for us.

If the government can take your job under the guise of “the greater good”, with part ownership, they can take your house, and maybe the cat, kids, and the whole kaboodle too.


Originally published at Caldron Pool. Photo by Andrea Piacquadio.

Thank the Source

Communism is a Fashion Accessory for the Young Woke

Communism is a Fashion Accessory for the Young Woke

Teen Vogue’s recent article on abolishing private property is utterly wrongheaded. The columnist has no concept of basic economic principles.

Envy used to be one of the deadly sins. But it is no longer a sin, it’s a virtue. And it’s no longer called envy. It’s now called “social justice”.

Teen Vogue featured an article entitled: “Abolish Landlords. Housing is a Human Right” by which the editorial team really mean, “Give Us Your Place to Live Rent-Free”.

Teen Vogue - cancel rent

Communist, er, columnist Kandist Mallet wrote:

“While we’re working to abolish the police, we must also work to dismantle what the police were put here to protect: property. What is more evident of the legacy of settler colonialism and its violence than the idea of the ownership of land?”

Ignoring the fact that it’s disingenuous to argue against the abuse of indigenous people’s property rights while simultaneously arguing for the abolition of property rights in general — reading this, you couldn’t be blamed for thinking: “Wow, there’s free stuff up at the offices of Teen Vogue! Ignore security and the hipsters pedalling at their cycle desks, they want you to have that iMac Retina 5K.”

I’m not sure how Teen Vogue’s advertisers feel about the magazine encouraging its readers to eschew possessions, but if Kandist Mallet feels so strongly about abolishing the idea of private property, why doesn’t she lead by example and reassign her property to the collective?

Oh wait — Kandist doesn’t own any property!

Suddenly “abolish the police” makes sense.

Property Wrongs

Kandist wants to abolish police who, by her own admission, are the only ones standing between her greedy hands and your hard-earned property.

She writes:

“We need a housing movement based on a rejection of the construct that any one person should own this earth’s land.”

Her use of the phrase “housing movement” is revealing. She is arguing for a world in which your house moves to her. “Give me your stuff” was always the goal of Marxism.

I’m not sure when Teen Vogue — which is supposed to be a fashion magazine for young people with a cervix — became the Romper Room edition of Pravda, but Kandist Mallet is a typical collectivist, by which I mean, lazy, envious and entitled.

Unwilling to work and save so as to own a property, she demands that others who have worked and saved have their properties taken from them and given to her. Because “fairness”.

Wait until Kandist finds out that state-provided housing for all doesn’t mean luxury condos with pools and gymnasiums, but three families per unit with bedsheets to divide among them and elevators that don’t work.

Cancel Everything

Warming to her theme, the Teen Rogue writer continues:

“We should cancel rent outright as this pandemic rages. And we should work toward a world where landlords no longer hold this sort of power over people’s lives.”

Good idea. We should also cancel rental car fees and work toward a world where Hertz no longer holds that sort of power over people’s lives.

We should cancel grocery prices so we can work toward a world where Woolworths no longer hold that sort of power over people’s lives.

And let’s cancel room rates at the Hilton because five-star hotels shouldn’t hold that sort of power over people’s lives.

When Kandist argues that one group of people shouldn’t have power over another group, what she really means is that no one should be able to deny her anything she wants.

Illogical Equation

Kandist promoted her article on Twitter by asking:

“If my rent money is paying for my landlord’s mortgage, shouldn’t I be part owner?”

No, Comrade Kandist.

Your landlord owns the property because your landlord took the risk to build the house and your landlord lives with the responsibility to maintain the house. As a reward, your landlord gets to make a profit.

For paying rent, you get to live in a nice place without any risk that property prices might fall and without any responsibility for rates or maintenance.

And if you don’t like that, you could always try owning something.

But using Kandist’s logic, if for some crazy reason I used my money to buy a copy of Teen Vogue, shouldn’t I be her editor?

She ought be careful what she wishes for.

An article in Teen Vogue calling for the abolition of private property just goes to show that communism is a fashion accessory for the young woke. Hopefully, it goes out of style soon — like before we get to the millions of state executions part.

The good news for Teen Vogue and its journalists is that jellyfish have survived for millions of years without a brain.


Originally published at The James Macpherson Report.
Subscribe to his Substack here for daily witty commentary.
Photo by RODNAE Productions.

Thank the Source


Please help truthPeep spread the word :)