When Peter Schiff, CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., approached Vance Jones at the Democrat National Convention for an interview, Jones declined. He was smart. Undeterred, Mr. Schiff went on to interview a number of delegates about corporate profits. Their responses were shocking. Well, not really. These were Democrats. And so many of them with the same views. Scary

When Schiff asked a delegated whether corporations should lose money, she said, “Yeah, I think so.” Another delegate agreed: “Maybe we should have corporate losses.”

These interviews took place in the Time Warner Cable Arena. The last night, September 6th, was originally scheduled to be held at the 72,000-seat Bank of America Stadium, where President Obama was to deliver his acceptance speech. It was moved inside the arena in order to accommodate a smaller crowd.

There wouldn’t be an arena or a stadium if corporations didn’t make profits. Who would risk investing in equipment, hiring employees, and paying their insurance, Workman’s Compensation, Social Security, and Medicare and then spend millions of dollars to build either of these venues if there wasn’t a sizeable profit in it for them?

The cost of the Time Warner Cable Arena was estimated to cost around $260 million. The Bank of America Stadium cost $368 million. Time Warner Cable employed 48,500 people in 2011.The only corporations that have enough money to rent these venues are those that make a lot of money. They, too, are in business to make a profit.

If you want to know what a nation looks like when people are not allowed to make a profit, go to North Korea. Cuba’s closer.

What do people do with profits? They spend them, invest them, distribute them to share holders, and save them. If they invest them, the money goes to help other companies to build things. To build things means that they’ll need to hire people.

There is an economic ripple effect in the profit motive. Spending also means that other people benefit with no need of government. Liberals believe that taxation is a better distributor of wealth. This is nonsense since the wealth is only redistributed to groups that will vote for the tax confiscators. Since the money was not earned, politicians have no concern for what government programs cost. Any time they need more money for a new program or to prop up a failed one, they pass laws to tax more people at a higher rate.

Ronald Reagan understood how government works:

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Corporations don’t have this authority and power.

A dependent class of voters is created in order to keep the redistribution process going. The bureaucracy that is needed to confiscate and then redistribute the money costs a multi-million-dollar fortune.

Schiff then asked some of the delegates if they would be in favor of a law that would put a cap on corporate profits. Do these people have any idea what would happen if such a law were to pass? People would only work up to the profit level allowed by the government and then close up shop for the rest of the year. This would mean fewer items produced at a higher cost to consumers.

One delegate said that she would support anything her president wanted to do. Schiff asked, “Anything?” She said, “Anything.”  People always wonder how the sane people in Germany went insane in electing Adolf Hitler. Wonder no longer.

There’s a lesson here for people who claim there’s no difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. The major difference is in the people who support each man.