Quote :

"Some people complain that he ruins the primaries by relying too much on independents, crossover democrats, and the disaffected. Others complain that he can't beat Obama and would kill the party. They can't both be true."

Actually, yes, then can both be true. Relying on crossover democrats does not equal having enough of them to beat Obama. Especially when that reliance is due to positions that the GOP base (evangelicals, neocons) consider completely unpalatable. It doesn't matter if Paul snags 20% of Independents if he loses 60% of conservatives.

[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2011 2:26:11 PM

Quote :

"I could see myself voting for Paul for what i imagine would be the chaos that would ensue from his presidency."

As I mentioned, regardless of how the elections turn out, I genuinely believe there will be no Paul presidency. I'm only a conspiracy theorist on a few minor things, but you just can't have all the money in the world hating you and live to tell the tale.

^^If that were true, yes, but the GOP joes won't stay home. You put Obama on the ballot after this term, and they will come. Church ladies might be cursing, but they'll come.

Maybe if I can make my argument appeal to someone who hates Republicans, how could you believe that the GOP won't come out to support any white guy against not just a black guy, but that black guy? Of course they'll come.

[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM. Reason : a]

12/20/2011 2:30:27 PM

Paul is to the left of Obama on foreign policy, which happens to be a key lynchpin for the GOP. It doesn't matter how much they hate Obama if Paul is even worse in their eyes on one of the GOP's most important issues. They wont support Obama, but they wont feel compelled to get off their asses and vote against him either. Reminder, again, PPP found only 9% would vote for Paul if their guy lost. That's not a meaningless statistic, and Paul is among the worst for that part of the poll.

He's not one of them and they know it, and since they're a party that operates almost entirely on us-vs-them dynamics, they'll be far more likely to just stay home and bitch to anyone who'll listen. It takes enthusiasm to vote, and they wont have enthusiasm if they switched the TV off months ago because they couldn't handle Paul discussing the concept of blowback, or suggesting gay people aren't subhuman.

You're oh so willing to believe Democrats feeling disenfranchised will gladly switch to Paul (who is complete anathema to liberals outside of foreign policy and the drug war) but can't even imagine a Republican feeling disenfranchised just staying home. You either have access to some information nobody else does, or your optimism for Paul is seriously clouding your judgement.

Quote :

"I'm only a conspiracy theorist on a few minor things, but you just can't have all the money in the world hating you and live to tell the tale."

Give me a break. The guy wants as few taxes and regulations as possible. He'd be a wet dream for big business and finance if not for the electability issues I mentioned above.

[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2011 2:40:13 PM

Quote :

"Give me a break. The guy wants as few taxes and regulations as possible. He'd be a wet dream for big business and finance if not for the electability issues I mentioned above."

Big business wants the regulation; it gives them protection from the little guy who can't bear the costs like they can. Why did the CEO of Wal-Mart call for a hike in the minimum wage? Because it hurts mom and pop more than it hurts them. The permutations are endless, but big government helps big business. Heavy regulation and taxation make life tougher for the little guy, while the big guys can handle it. Such barriers to entry are a net positive for them.

There are thousands of institutions and individuals with trillions of dollars on the line who have paid big money to make Washington exactly the way it is - an in-bred cesspool of yes-men.

I see you weren't swayed by my racial argument. Oh well, I thought you'd go for that.

If Paul is to the left of Obama....when has any leftist ever advocated Paul's foreign policy? I really can't think of one, but I can think of quite a few conservatives from the last century. Maybe I'm missing the massive non-interventionist movement on the left.

Regardless of those things, Hannity and Limbaugh have both repeatedly said that they would take any of the Republican candidates over Obama. They go out of their way to hate on Paul, sure, but they've both clearly stated that in Paul vs. Obama, they will vomit in the booth while checking Paul's name.

If Hannity and Limbaugh will do it, so will the rest of them.

[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 2:59 PM. Reason : a]

12/20/2011 2:56:56 PM

Quote :

"Big business wants the regulation; it gives them protection from the little guy who can't bear the costs like they can. "

Oh fucking yawn, this old canard. Last time I checked, it's not mom and pop gas stations that are fighting fracking regulation. Last time I checked, it's not mom and pop stores that fight against labor and safety laws at every turn. Last time I checked, nobody bitches about regulation more than the big businesses. I know in libertarian fantasy land, big business only exists because of regulation, but here in reality, big business does just fine thanks to the economics of scale. They don't need a regulation to beat a smaller company into pulp. Having the size and capital to take advantage of global markets for labor and goods is more than enough.

Quote :

"Why did the CEO of Wal-Mart call for a hike in the minimum wage? Because it hurts mom and pop more than it hurts them."

It's more like because their sales have been fucking plummeting because people are too poor to buy as much as they used to. The CEO of Walmart has himself commented on the extreme demand constriction that's occurred and how it's killing them. Not small fucking business, who can rarely even afford to import cheap goods from East Asia. It's not contest. Not to mention Walmart itself employes a shitload of people on minimum wage, your theory makes no sense.

Quote :

" The permutations are endless, but big government helps big business. Heavy regulation and taxation make life tougher for the little guy, while the big guys can handle it. Such barriers to entry are a net positive for them."

Wow, then I'm still very confused as to why big business spends billions on lobbyists trying to lower taxes and eliminate regulation

Quote :

"There are thousands of institutions and individuals with trillions of dollars on the line who have paid big money to make Washington exactly the way it is - an in-bred cesspool of yes-men."

This circular reasoning is pretty common from libertarians. Big business is rich because of regulations, and they were able to create the regulations because they were rich!

Quote :

"I see you weren't swayed by my racial argument. Oh well, I thought you'd go for that. "

That's because you clearly don't talk to actual people on the left and are going on the caricatures that Beck, Limbaugh, and the rest sling about that liberals are convinced every objection to Obama is rooted in racism.

Quote :

"If Paul is to the left of Obama....when has any leftist ever advocated Paul's foreign policy? I really can't think of one, but I can think of quite a few conservatives from the last century. "

You must have been asleep the last 50 fucking years during which Anti-War sentiments and scaling back of the military has been one of the biggest uniting factors for the entire left. Non-interventionism? What the fuck do you think the Vietnam war protests amounted to?

Seriously, here's 5 positions. Tell me if they are Paul positions or liberal positions:
-Cut the DoD budget
-Stop meddling in the middle east
-Stop using our military to subjugate the globe
-anti-War on Terror/Iraq/Afghanistan
-don't intervene unless people are literally being mass-murdered

If you think any of those are unique to Paul and not the general liberal sentiment, you just aren't listening.

Quote :

"Regardless of those things, Hannity and Limbaugh have both repeatedly said that they would take any of the Republican candidates over Obama. They go out of their way to hate on Paul, sure, but they've both clearly stated that in Paul vs. Obama, they will vomit in the booth while checking Paul's name. If Hannity and Limbaugh will do it, so will the rest of them."

If they go to the booth at all. This is the kind of confirmation bias I'm talking about. You'll believe any fucking story that ends with Paul winning, even if that story involves making a shitload of assumptions about Democrats (they're easily disenfranchised into staying home) but exactly opposite ones about Republicans, as though the people making them up are different species.


[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 3:15 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2011 3:13:28 PM

Where are all the liberals who say bring every soldier home from every foreign country in which they are stationed?

What liberal could you possibly hear saying, "The hungry African kid is not our military's problem. The victim of ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe is not our military's problem. The small, innocent, minding-its-own-business nation invaded by that large nation is not our military's problem. The drug lords coming to power in that nation to our South is not our military's problem. The rape victim who must marry her rapist after getting her clitoris cut off is not our military's problem. That group of fledgling feminists killed while protesting their tyrant is not our military's problem. Our military is for our borders, and our people, period. Our military does nothing abroad except kick-ass in our most urgent (and not pre-emptive) defense, and then come home without nation-building."

Show me a liberal who would say that, and I'll submit the point. That's non-interventionism.

Quote :

"You'll believe any fucking story that ends with Paul winning,"

I don't believe Paul will win, and I won't vote for him. I am cheering for it, though.

[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 3:35 PM. Reason : a]

12/20/2011 3:30:48 PM

^^Big businesses spend big money on lobbying to influence regulation in their favor. Dramatically reducing the scope of the government will effectively limit how much influence can be bought.

Yea, economies of scale help certain industries create a competitive advantage. But so does influencing regulation in your favor. Lowering the barriers to entry and increasing new business contenders' ability to compete should have a net effect of increasing value to the consumer and regulating fair market prices. Furthermore, Economies of scale are affected by regulation, they are intertwined and not mutually exclusive.

You've got to realize the big businesses are investing $billions influencing regulation and taxation in their favor. Not necessary trying to end it. For example, I have a client who's a big dog at Ernst and Young, he's told me several stories of how GE's tax department are the elite of the elite in twisting tax law and lobbying so they pay nothing.

Are you contending that the "circular reasoning" that money from big corporations used to buy political influence is not making the playing field unfair? That it is not preventing the free market to function correctly?

I've come to the conclusion that there is an emerging shift within the GOP... Mainly with the younger generation who are slanted towards a much more non-interventionist foreign policy. Is that a leftist position? Maybe. Are there still a large group of Repub's that are warhawks and xenophobes? Yes. However, IMO, most of these people will still come out in droves to vote against Obama.

Ron Paul has a legitimate chance to change the course of our country. I stand for his principles of liberty and I implore you to reevaluate your positions so we can start making progress in the right direction.


[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 3:40 PM. Reason : ;]

12/20/2011 3:38:04 PM

Okay so I'm gathering that liberals occasionally support using the military to stop genocide, famine, or mass rape whereas Paul is against that too. Any other way in which they differ?

12/20/2011 3:48:04 PM

Quote :

"Give me a break. The guy wants as few taxes and regulations as possible. He'd be a wet dream for big business and finance if not for the electability issues I mentioned above."

He might be a wet dream for businesses that actual create something of value. You carry a seething hatred for any institution that operates off of profit motive and not by holding the population at large at gunpoint, so your opinion is pretty fucking irrelevant.

For the institutions that are only profitable because the government has given them special privileges, Ron Paul is scary as hell. They're scrambling, because their empire - built on dishonesty and skimming off the top - would collapse with Ron Paul in the white house.

I agree with other sentiments on this page. They will not allow Ron Paul to take office - there are too many people that would sooner pay to have him killed. They would rather take that risk than lose everything.

12/20/2011 4:01:20 PM

Quote :

"Okay so I'm gathering that liberals occasionally support using the military to stop genocide, famine, or mass rape whereas Paul is against that too. Any other way in which they differ?"

That's enough right there, but yes, there is more.

It also means withdrawal from the UN, as pretty much all they do is intervene in other people's affairs. It means we don't broker peace treaties between nations we aren't fighting. It means we don't send "advisors" or "trainers" to aid a side in a conflict we aren't a part of. It means we don't give foreign aid, with or without strings, because that is also intervention. It means we don't enact trade sanctions or blockades except as an actual, intended act of war and defense.

Should I make a top ten list for you? Occasionally-anti-war liberals and non-interventionists have almost nothing in common in principle. Their prescriptions overlap every now and then in very limited ways, as a fluke of two party politics and current events.

Edit, and by the way: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/12/20/rel20c.pdf

Among registered voters:
Obama 52, Paul 45
Obama 52, Romney 45

[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 4:15 PM. Reason : s]

12/20/2011 4:03:28 PM

Quote :

"For the institutions that are only profitable because the government has given them special privileges, Ron Paul is scary as hell. They're scrambling, because their empire - built on dishonesty and skimming off the top - would collapse with Ron Paul in the white house. "

Sounds like a vote for Ron Paul is a vote to kill jobs, and a vote against American businesses.

12/20/2011 6:46:38 PM

Quote :

"Why did the CEO of Wal-Mart call for a hike in the minimum wage? Because it hurts mom and pop more than it hurts them. The permutations are endless, but big government helps big business. Heavy regulation and taxation make life tougher for the little guy, while the big guys can handle it. Such barriers to entry are a net positive for them. "

So your solution to stop corporations who have enough power and wealth to weather burdensome gov. regulations is to give them even more power by removing those regulations...?

lol...

12/20/2011 6:49:19 PM

It's a vote to kill shitty, unproductive jobs.

I saw a bumper sticker today that said something like, "Save jobs, stop the cuts". Want to save jobs? Keep the money in the private sector. Stop taking money from real businesses that improve our lives and giving it to incompetent bureaucrats. Stop giving it to police that trample our rights and throw us in jail for doing drugs. Stop giving it to the military so they can maintain an overseas empire.

Yeah, people are going to be out of a job initially, and they'll have to retool. Sucks, but you can't leech off the productive class forever.

[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 6:50 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2011 6:49:33 PM

You mean the private sector that has been increasingly hoarding and concentrating wealth for the past few decades?

Do you seriously not pay attention to ANY of the data that you come across?

We've given the private sector some of the lowest tax rates and regulatory environment in decades, and they aren't doing very much to "save jobs." It's not only naive to think that the reason unemployment is so high is because the private sector doesn't have the money, it is ignorant of reality.

The tech boom of the late 90s that gave us google and facebook was done under higher taxes and stiffer regulation than what exists now. The problem isn't that the private sector doesn't have money, and giving them more money is obviously not the solution.

12/20/2011 6:56:34 PM

You mean the private sector that has been increasingly hoarding and concentrating wealth for the past few decades?

Do you seriously not pay attention to ANY of the data that you come across?

We've given the private sector some of the lowest tax rates and regulatory environment in decades, and they aren't doing very much to "save jobs." It's not only naive to think that the reason unemployment is so high is because the private sector doesn't have the money, it is ignorant of reality.

The tech boom of the late 90s that gave us google and facebook was done under higher taxes and stiffer regulation than what exists now. The problem isn't that the private sector doesn't have money, and giving them more money is obviously not the solution.

12/20/2011 6:58:27 PM

Quote :

" is to give them even more power by removing those regulations...?"

Removing the things that gives rent seekers the government granted monopolies they lobby so hard for gives them more power? This is the liberal thought process at its finest here. And by thought process, I mean no thinking whatsoever.

Just post whatever drivel seems to fit with your ideology.

Think corporations are evil? Post how I think something a conservative would do would make a corporation eviler whether it makes a damn fucking bit of sense or not. If a conservative wants to do it, it has to be bad.

12/20/2011 7:01:30 PM

Quote :

"So your solution to stop corporations who have enough power and wealth to weather burdensome gov. regulations is to give them even more power by removing those regulations...? lol..."

I think you need to understand what exactly regulations are doing to business and market competition.

You can't make a blanket statement saying that all regulations do this or that. There's different types that do different things.

Generally, the larger the scope of power the government has, the more incentive large corporations have to invest in lobbying/corrupting. Reducing the power of the governmentwill reduce the amount of influence that can be bought.

This shitty economy and a large part of income disparity is because of government meddling with the free market. This has caused booms, and subsequent busts...Whenever the government plays a role in influencing the market, a power game can be played to influence that regulation unfairly. Generally this comes in the way of privatizing profits, while shifting risks and liabilities on to the public. If you can't see how this creates moral hazard and stimulates greed, not sure how else to spell it out.

12/20/2011 7:02:20 PM

Quote :

"You mean the private sector that has been increasingly hoarding and concentrating wealth for the past few decades? Do you seriously not pay attention to ANY of the data that you come across?"

A talking point with no frame of reference is worthless.

Oh noes, rich people are relatively richerer. Fuck, these iPods they brought to market and all this shit that makes quality of life go up year after year is like...I don't know man but it aint cool if the richer are richerer because I'm saying so

12/20/2011 7:04:34 PM

Quote :

"You mean the private sector that has been increasingly hoarding and concentrating wealth for the past few decades?"

You're delusional.

You do realize that "the private sector" is everything that isn't the government, right? That means start ups. That means mom and pops. And, yes, that means Wal-mart.

What is it in you that causes you to despise those that attempt to provide goods and services to the community? Why do you think what they're doing is evil?

12/20/2011 7:04:49 PM

Quote :

"I think you need to understand what exactly regulations are doing to business and market competition. You can't make a blanket statement saying that all regulations do this or that. There's different types that do different things. "

Of course, but the Ron Paul zombies generally talk about blowing away all regulations.

12/20/2011 7:05:07 PM

Quote :

"Why do you think what they're doing is evil?"

Because they send jobs overseas. Don't you get it, it aint cool to buy electronics and stuff at cheaper prices if people don't have jobs. And don't you understand, well over 50% of the country doesn't work. All the rich people have all the money and command the Asians to make the shit that only they can afford and buy.

I used to laugh when I heard the whole Liberalism is a Disease line and laugh at how conservatives said they had brain damage. But the more I hear arguments from liberals the more I tend to believe that they really have no fucking idea what is going on.

[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 7:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2011 7:08:05 PM

Quote :

"Of course, but the Ron Paul zombies generally talk about blowing away all regulations. "

Do you really think that every aspect of RP's platform will go in to effect immediately?

He will get a lot done in the name of liberty and the constitution. However, with the way our government is set up there will be some checking and balancing.

RP's ideas do more to restore power to the people than any regulation can. It's the individuals who can capitalize and provide value to the market that will succeed. And rightly so.

12/20/2011 8:06:41 PM

I honestly think that Ron Paul is doing so well simply because of his economic principles. He's been preaching and the Federal Reserve, the creation of financial bubbles and inflation for years. People are finally seeing that he is right and he is the only candidate with real solutions.

12/20/2011 8:16:15 PM

Quote :

"I honestly think that Ron Paul is doing so well simply because of his economic principles. He's been preaching and the Federal Reserve, the creation of financial bubbles and inflation for years. People are finally seeing that he is right and he is the only candidate with real solutions."

You do have a point. Take the most consistent candidate on his most consistent principle. He is 100% completely wrong about the affect of stimulus but otherwise I can see why he is the only viable candidate out of both fields, because he has not been caught performing contrary to his publicized beliefs unlike everyone else. Its hard to trust a Romney or a Cain, or to put your faith in a dimwit like Perry. The corporate ladder is for pricks and dumbasses and cunts like Michelle Bachman. Gingrich is almost as flexible as Romney but has none of the appearance. I'm looking forward to crossing over parties and voting for Paul (I am officially independent but regularly vote liberal).

12/20/2011 10:16:19 PM

Is he wrong? If he's wrong, shouldn't the Fed print up a few hundred trillion of stimulus? That'll really get the economy moving.

12/20/2011 11:00:08 PM

Wayne: Hey Tiny who's posting tonight?

Tiny: We got the jolly green giants and moron

Wayne: Moron, is he any good?

Tiny: No, he sucks.

Wayne: Oh, so it's not just a clever name




Dude your posts don't make any fucking sense. Societies collapse under socialism. Grow up already, the liberal shit is fine on college campuses but it makes you look like an idiot when you get in the real world.

12/21/2011 3:03:53 AM

^^That would cause hyperinflation

unlike the Paultards, we have a sense of balance


^The "real world" does not mean "the megachurch"

12/21/2011 3:40:54 AM

Quote :

"unlike the Paultards, we have a sense of balance"

Absurd statement is absurd.

12/21/2011 7:18:27 AM

i know this is OLD, but I giggled a bit at Paul's appearance on Leno the other night where he said Bachmann really hates the muslims and then said Santorum hates the gays and the muslims. There was a bit of comedic timing there that I didn't expect.

12/21/2011 10:20:22 AM

yeah that was a great interview

12/21/2011 10:53:30 AM

Quote :

"Is he wrong? If he's wrong, shouldn't the Fed print up a few hundred trillion of stimulus? That'll really get the economy moving."

Very few Keynesians are advocating that, but you wouldn't know because you only apparently talk to caricatures of Keynesians that appear in your head. Most Keynesian-sympathetic economists agree that we're in a liquidity trap, and if you knew what a liquidity trap was you'd know that Keynesianism dictates that printing money wont have much affect for better or for worse. When businesses are withholding capital because of low sales projections, printing more money will neither stimulate job creation nor cause inflation.

Instead, Keynesians generally advocate deficit spending that goes toward public works projects, business subsidies or startup funds, or anything else that puts the money into the pockets of consumers so they can go out and create demand by spending. Anyone who tells you Keynesians just advocate "PRINT MOAR MONEY ALWAYS AND EVERYTHING GETS BETTER" don't actually know shit about what they're talking about.

Are you ever going to argue against actual people, or just the cartoons that dance around your imagination?

[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

12/21/2011 11:38:45 AM

Quote :

" You do realize that "the private sector" is everything that isn't the government, right? That means start ups. That means mom and pops. And, yes, that means Wal-mart. What is it in you that causes you to despise those that attempt to provide goods and services to the community? Why do you think what they're doing is evil?"

I don't think they're doing anything evil. That's the main difference between you and I, you assume your enemies are motivated by irrational or evil intentions (for example, liberals/leftists wanting to control pand micromanage you because we hate freedom or simply love being in control).

I think what they're doing (conserving capital during low sales) is entirely rational. Problem is, there are consequences to that. By hoarding capital, they guarantee no new jobs, which guarantees continued low sales, which guarantees they'll keep hoarding their capital. If nobody steps in to spend or redistribute money in a way that increases demand, the economy will continue lagging and we'll be looking at a lost decade like Japans.

As far as concentration goes, that is once again just people getting money when they can. It's not evil, it's just rational, but that doesn't make it good for society as a whole. When capital is too concentrated, the average consumer's purchasing power becomes reduced, and we get the situation I described above, low demand and the paradox of thrift among investors causing an ongoing stagnation.

I know you wont agree with my diagnosis or analysis or prescription, but hopefully reading this at least helps you see that I'm not making moral judgements here so much as seeing individual rational choices leading to collective consequences that are bad for everybody. My explanation and description of the problems in this country don't require any invocation of "evil" at all. So again, even if you disagree with every part of my analysis here, at least try to see how it's not reliant on the moralizing you're accusing me of so we can go on to argue against each other instead of strawmen shaped like each other.

[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

12/21/2011 11:47:45 AM

Do you really think that taking money from the producers, giving it back to consumers with the intention for them to give it back to the producers is an efficient way of managing our economy?

12/21/2011 11:48:58 AM

During a liquidity trap, yes, absolutely.

I assume by "producers" you mean the very rich who have lots of capital, even though every person who works is a producer as well.

Working class consumers spend a higher percentage of their income than the upper class. If you take liquidity from that upper class and move it to the lower class (possibly through handouts, but public works programs are preferable for their multiplier effect), that money will have a much higher chance of being spent. Once that money's being spent, demand increases, and the private sector has incentive to start expanding again, which means demand starts expanding on its own, independent of the government. At the end of the day, everybody's richer, even the "producers" from whom money was taken earlier, than if no action had been taken and the economy was left to stagnate for 5 or 10 more years.

[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2011 11:58:07 AM

Quote :

"I don't think they're doing anything evil. That's the main difference between you and I, you assume your enemies are motivated by irrational or evil intentions (for example, liberals/leftists wanting to control pand micromanage you because we hate freedom or simply love being in control)."

I don't think you're evil, I just think you're dumb for believing that central planning works.

Quote :

"I think what they're doing (conserving capital during low sales) is entirely rational. Problem is, there are consequences to that. By hoarding capital, they guarantee no new jobs, which guarantees continued low sales, which guarantees they'll keep hoarding their capital. If nobody steps in to spend or redistribute money in a way that increases demand, the economy will continue lagging and we'll be looking at a lost decade like Japans. "

Who is hoarding capital, aside from the the banks and GSEs that you frequently shill for on here? It makes no sense to hoard capital. If I'm very rich, what good does it do me to have an empty, idle factory? I want to hire people to work the machines in order to produce goods, which I can then bring to market.

The rich are not trying to maintain the same level of wealth or get poor. They want to get richer. You don't get rich by "hoarding capital". You get rich by having people operate capital, i.e. hiring. You can't bitch about unemployment when you advocate policies that have chased all the capital out of the country.

12/21/2011 11:59:53 AM

Quote :

"I don't think you're evil, I just think you're dumb for believing that central planning works."

You do a lot of defending of corporations, which are the most rigidly centrally-planned organizations on the planet, so I can't take this criticism too seriously, sorry.

Quote :

"Who is hoarding capital, aside from the the banks and GSEs that you frequently shill for on here? It makes no sense to hoard capital. If I'm very rich, what good does it do me to have an empty, idle factory? I want to hire people to work the machines in order to produce goods, which I can then bring to market."

If there is insufficient demand to clear your goods from market, then you will lose money by doing this. Do I have to teach you the fucking basics of your own ideology?

Quote :

"The rich are not trying to maintain the same level of wealth or get poor. They want to get richer. You don't get rich by "hoarding capital". You get rich by having people operate capital, i.e. hiring. "

You get rich by knowing when to hold them, when to fold them, when to bet, when to bluff, etc. Sometimes liquidity is a better bet than investment, sometimes vice versa. When demand is low, putting your capital into business expansion is suicide. Once again, I'm amazed I have to explain this to you.

Quote :

"You can't bitch about unemployment when you advocate policies that have chased all the capital out of the country."

The country is full of capital, it's being conserved because depressed demand does not motivate business expansion.



HMMM NOBODY'S BUYING STUFF, BETTER PUT MY MONEY INTO PRODUCTION IMMEDIATELY - destroyer, captain of industry


[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 12:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2011 12:03:39 PM

Quote :

"You do a lot of defending of corporations, which are the most rigidly centrally-planned organizations on the planet, so I can't take this criticism too seriously, sorry."

You haven't been reading, but that isn't surprising. I have railed against LLC status granted by government. Individuals are responsible for 100% of the damage they cause. Why do corporations get a break?

Corporations are just as bad as government when they use force or infringe upon rights.

Quote :

"If there is insufficient demand to clear your goods from market, then you will lose money by doing this. Do I have to teach you the fucking basics of your own ideology?"

You don't understand my ideology. You've made this clear on a number of occasions. If there is a lack of demand for your goods, you lower your price. That is how the market clears. You advocate policies that put floors or ceilings on prices, which creates shortages or surpluses.

Quote :

"You get rich by knowing when to hold them and when to fold them. Sometimes liquidity is a better bet than investment, sometimes vice versa. When demand is low, putting your capital into business expansion is suicide. Once again, I'm amazed I have to explain this to you. "

I'm not convinced you have a clue how actual businesses operate. Demand is elastic. You also haven't provided any solution to this problem except more government. Government is the cancer that is preventing economic growth from taking place.

[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 12:13 PM. Reason : ]

12/21/2011 12:09:31 PM

Is there not a risk of people becoming dependent on these entitlements?

You set a pretty risky precedent when you basically tell society: "Too broke to buy products? Here's some free money, now go out and shop!"

What happens when you end the hand outs?

Is the capital hoarding due to low demand? Or is it because at the moment it's too risky due to potential taxation and regulation?

IMO, the big savior to our economy will be technology and innovation. This is how value is created and the standard of living is increased.

How can we stimulate that? IMO, cheaper energy. Not to get off topic, but I think this is where nuclear power and domestic drilling/mining can be very beneficial.

12/21/2011 12:15:18 PM

Quote :

"You don't understand my ideology. You've made this clear on a number of occasions. If there is a lack of demand for your goods, you lower your price. That is how the market clears. "

You can't just lower prices indefinitely until someone buys it. At a certain point it becomes unprofitable to produce the goods. That's when you close the factory, suck up your capital, and wait for demand to pick up again. Which is exactly what's been happening in this country since demand started dropping.

Quote :

" You advocate policies that put floors or ceilings on prices, which creates shortages or surpluses."

When have I ever advocated price controls? Please cite a post or shut up on this strawman.

Quote :

"I'm not convinced you have a clue how actual businesses operate. Demand is elastic. "

You can only lower your prices so far before you stop profiting and start losing money. That is when it becomes cheaper to sit on that factory, empty, rather than light it and staff it to produce unprofitable goods.

Quote :

"You also haven't provided any solution to this problem except more government. "

What other solution can there by? Either the solution involves doing something (more government) or cutting government and government employees (reducing demand even more). I'm not even proposing expansions of government power, just more substantial stimulus programs.

You can cut the entire Federal Government budget down to $0. It wont make a lick of difference in the economy until consumers magically have more money in their pockets such that they can stimulate demand again.

Quote :

"Government is the cancer that is preventing economic growth from taking place."

And yet all recent surveys report businesses complaining less about government regulation and taxation, and more about low demand, moreso than at any time in the last 40 years.

Also it's cute that you're turning to moralized language like "gubmint is a cancer on the economy...". Give me a break.

[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2011 12:18:39 PM

Quote :

"You can't just lower prices indefinitely until someone buys it. At a certain point it becomes unprofitable to produce the goods. That's when you close the factory, suck up your capital, and wait for demand to pick up again. Which is exactly what's been happening in this country since demand started dropping."

What's your solution to this problem?

Quote :

"When have I ever advocated price controls? Please cite a post or shut up on this strawman."

I'm almost certain I've seen you arguing for minimum wage. Am I wrong?

Quote :

"Also it's cute that you're turning to moralized language like "gubmint is a cancer on the economy...". Give me a break."

The government can only spend what it confiscates from the population. That's why it's a cancer.

12/21/2011 12:23:07 PM

Quote :

"Is there not a risk of people becoming dependent on these entitlements?"

Is there not a risk of these people losing all their savings and being reduced to poverty, because there are no fucking jobs and they couldn't work if they wanted to? All because of economic machinations entirely beyond their personal fault or control?

Quote :

"You set a pretty risky precedent when you basically tell society: "Too broke to buy products? Here's some free money, now go out and shop!""

That's why you do public works projects and employ people, paying them to do work. At the end you get higher demand AND new infrastructure that makes the economy run more efficiently.

Quote :

"What happens when you end the hand outs?"

What happened after the New Deal wound down? The economy was awesome and high paying jobs were abundant for everybody. People, not just rich people, like to be richer tomorrow than they are today. If it were so easy to get dependent on handouts, why is EVERYBODY not on welfare? Why? Because living on the edge of poverty isn't much better than living in poverty.

Quote :

"Is the capital hoarding due to low demand? Or is it because at the moment it's too risky due to potential taxation and regulation?"

It is due to low demand. Surveys of businesses show that concern rising substantially, while concerns for taxation and regulation have fallen to record lows.

Quote :

"IMO, the big savior to our economy will be technology and innovation. This is how value is created and the standard of living is increased."

So maybe a good public works project would be a nationwide broadband or wireless internet network, or better public transit, to reduce costs for everybody involved in communication and transit, making the market closer to frictionless.

Quote :

"How can we stimulate that? IMO, cheaper energy. Not to get off topic, but I think this is where nuclear power and domestic drilling/mining can be very beneficial."

Domestic drilling is utterly pointless. All of that which is dug up will be sold on the world market at world market prices. There is not enough in the US to drive down those prices. You need to understand: That oil, gas, and coal does not belong to you, or me, or to this country at all. It belongs to the person who digs it up. They'll sell it to Russia if Russia will pay more than you or I.

I'm with you on Nuclear though, also Solar, Geo, Hydro, and Wind. All of those produce electricity on site, rather than rely on a fuel that gets sold on the world market. (edit, well, nuclear requires fuel but nothing like how oil or coal based energy does).

[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 12:34 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2011 12:24:43 PM

Quote :

"What's your solution to this problem?"

For the 500th time ON THIS PAGE ALONE: Invest heavily in public works, job training, education, and anything else that pays people to do things that make our economic infrastructure and workforce more capable. Simply by getting that money out there, demand will grow, and the private sector will expand because demand = market to make money off of.

Plus, suddenly commute and shipping times are faster because the roads are better, internet is cheaper because of an updated grid, and you have cheaper access to broader markets of both labor and consumers because travel and communication is more seamless. Plus, if your programs include job training, not only do those job trainers get paid, but the workers themselves get trained, costing businesses less to train themselves. It's a win-win for businesses, they get reduced costs of operations because of beneficial public works PLUS higher demand.

Quote :

"I'm almost certain I've seen you arguing for minimum wage. Am I wrong?"

Ohhh and you turned that into a general advocacy of price controls? Are you even trying to be fair or objective or judicious, or are you really just on here to snarl and quibble?

Quote :

"The government can only spend what it confiscates from the population. That's why it's a cancer."

And a CEO can only invest what he confiscates from a laborer's productivity. All methods of allocations rely on somehow taking a portion of value produced by working people and concentrating it. These stupid moralization can go both ways and ultimately go nowhere, please abandon them if for no other reason than they're cliche.


[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2011 12:34:10 PM

Your solution operates under the premise that the government can accomplish this with efficiency and without corruption.

Unfortunately, whenever the government dolls out money, a power grab scenario is created and special interests nibble, nip and lobby to get more than their fair share of the entitlement pie.

I contend that it's practically impossible for the government to do this efficiently. In a true free market this redistribution of wealth and value takes care of itself.

Unfortunately, given the current system, we are a far cry from true free market capitalism.

12/21/2011 12:41:49 PM

Oh so your trump card is "government is inherently capable of doing a good thing, markets are capable of everything". Okay. That's a very nuanced and substantial opinion that contributes a lot to this conversation and opens up many new avenues for this conversation to take. Thanks for that. I was worried this conversation was way too dogmatic and ideological but you've made sure we stay pragmatic.

[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2011 12:43:45 PM

Do you honestly think the government is altruistic? That the policy and legislation passed do not get manipulated by power hungry special interests? When you reduce the size and scope of the central government, the ability to buy influence is greatly diminished.

The only power in our land that can legally detain you, steal your money, or mandate your behavior is the government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And, IMO, granting more power/entitlements/spending to the gov't hurts your liberties as an individual.

Markets are simply the emergent organization of individual interactions.

When the rights of individuals are protected, and government doesn't create artificial protections, bubbles, or incentives; markets reward producers who create value, punishes malinvestments and allows risk to function as a regulator of behavior.

The big reason we are in a economic mess is because of government and the fed meddling with the markets. I am simply not confident that the government can effectively handle the ideas you are advocating.

12/21/2011 12:58:41 PM

Quote :

"Do you honestly think the government is altruistic?"

I honestly believe government, democratic government, is entirely capable of injecting altruism into a system that is otherwise disincentivizes it.

Quote :

" That the policy and legislation passed do not get manipulated by power hungry special interests? When you reduce the size and scope of the central government, the ability to buy influence is greatly diminished."

This is like arguing that the solution to police forces making concessions to wealthy crime lords is to cut the police department so it has no concessions to give. The solution is to make the crime lords less powerful, not the police department.

Notice that your concern amounts to fear that government will be corrupted by wealthy interests, but you have no interest whatsoever in doing anything about them, the corrupting factor.

Quote :

"The only power in our land that can legally detain you, steal your money, or mandate your behavior is the government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Money is power, so much of the same can be said of business interests. They're the ones who control whether or not you can have a job if you want to work, or if you do have a job if you get paid a fair share. It's not hard to draw a parallel between government taxation and the corporate profit margin that comes from paying a worker less than what he produces. Both are forces that organize and allocate productive resources and labor, except one is democratic and the other is dictatorial.

In either event, I'm serious when I say I'm not interested in moralized debates on this. I can just as easily say, with as little nuance as you, that "Business is inherently evil and inefficient" as you can say "government is inherently evil and inefficient". But I'm not interested in that kind of talk at all. If all you were going to do was revert to "Gubmint always bad. Market always good." then why bother discussing policy at all? Why'd you even enter this conversation pretending to read what I was saying and consider my policy ideas, if your mindset boils down to such a simple dichotomy?

Quote :

" And, IMO, granting more power/entitlements/spending to the gov't hurts your liberties as an individual."

I think the past few years have shown that what still affects peoples lives most is the private economy. The bank you keep your money in, the job you rely on to feed your family and pay your rent, the companies that choose to offshore to grab a higher profit margin. When these forces decide to suck their capital up to weather the storm, millions of people suffer.

If you want to work, but there are no jobs, what's the point of civil liberties? Who cares if you have free speech if you live in a ditch because, despite being able and willing, the factories you could work in are shut down?

Quote :

"Markets are simply the emergent organization of individual interactions."

Yes, that is simply what they are. But their long term machinations, how they move wealth around, who they exalt and who they fuck over, are more complex than that.

Quote :

"When the rights of individuals are protected, and government doesn't create artificial protections, bubbles, or incentives; markets reward producers who create value, punishes malinvestments and allows risk to function as a regulator of behavior."

You're just reciting textbook, idealized market dogma at this point. You could respond to absolutely any remark on markets with this and it'd be equally useful. I know what a market is, I think I know much better than you actually.

Quote :

"The big reason we are in a economic mess is because of government and the fed meddling with the markets. "

Well, this is just a disagreement. I and many others believe this economic mess was created precisely by the trend of deregulation and tax reduction for the rich that's been going on since Reagan.

Quote :

"I am simply not confident that the government can effectively handle the ideas you are advocating."

That's because you're blinded by ideology. I'm not even advocating Socialism or anything hard line here, just pragmatic ways to make Capitalism work with some tweaking. You and a few others on this board have border magical conceptions of the capabilities of markets, and seem to think them more infallible than God himself.

[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 2:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2011 2:00:23 PM

I'm trying hard to be more patient than I have been lately, and I'm not even harping on Socialism now, what I'm talking about now is strictly how to make Capitalism not run itself into the ground. So basically I'm arguing from the standpoint of a liberal, not a leftist, so this is very painful for me....

12/21/2011 2:05:30 PM

I'm going to write-in a vote for FDR.

That crippled bastard would mop the floor with todays Democrats

[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM. Reason : ]

12/21/2011 2:59:54 PM

The bottom line is that we have fundamental differences on where we hold personal responsibility and how important liberty is... You think the state should redistribute wealth and be responsible for the welfare of society. I think the individual should buck the fuck up, learn how to serve the market and stand on their own two feet.

I played the corporate cog game where I pissed away 40-50hours a week in return for a steady paycheck. I was miserable, so what did I decide to do? I honed a skill-set and did what I had to do to monetize my skills by bringing them to market.

I want to point out, and you can call me stupid or noble, that I quit my job. I didn't dick off to get fired so I can collect unemployment. I quit because I think parasitic living is shameful.

Quote :

"I honestly believe government, democratic government, is entirely capable of injecting altruism into a system that is otherwise disincentivizes it."

Capable? Possibly. But strongly doubt the majority can decide what's best for all. I'd much rather put the government in charge of protecting my liberties rather than it systematically taking them away by popular vote.

There' a moral hazard when the people voting and influencing politics don't even contribute the money to run the show.

Quote :

"This is like arguing that the solution to police forces making concessions to wealthy crime lords is to cut the police department so it has no concessions to give. The solution is to make the crime lords less powerful, not the police department. Notice that your concern amounts to fear that government will be corrupted by wealthy interests, but you have no interest whatsoever in doing anything about them, the corrupting factor. "

non sequitur. My concern is that special interests will always manipulate legislation; and that is why I want to minimize the scope and impact of legislation.

The "corrupting factor" should be held liable for whatever damages they cause to individuals liberty or property. Your precious regulations can cause just as much harm as it prevents.

Quote :

"Money is power, so much of the same can be said of business interests. They're the ones who control whether or not you can have a job if you want to work, or if you do have a job if you get paid a fair share. It's not hard to draw a parallel between government taxation and the corporate profit margin that comes from paying a worker less than what he produces. Both are forces that organize and allocate productive resources and labor, except one is democratic and the other is dictatorial. "

Now this is a load of shit...

Corporations don't force me to work for them through coercion and/or mandate. If don't like my compensation, instead of crying about it, I take my skills to where I will be paid the market rate. If I can't provide enough value given my current skillset to make the money I want, I develop them to become more competitive and able to successfully demand a higher rate.

Life isn't fair. And no one is responsible for your well being, other than you.

Quote :

"I think the past few years have shown that what still affects peoples lives most is the private economy. The bank you keep your money in, the job you rely on to feed your family and pay your rent, the companies that choose to offshore to grab a higher profit margin. When these forces decide to suck their capital up to weather the storm, millions of people suffer. "

You are right. The private economy does dictate our general standard of living. And the past few years have shown the shit storm that rises when the government and the fed meddle with the private economy.

Are you willfully ignorant that the current conditions causing businesses to hold on to capital, were caused by government and fed meddling?

Perhaps, you thought that the government subsidizing mortgages, so that everyone can live in a nice home, was a good idea too?

Or, maybe you also believe that government sponsored student loans with practically no oversight on risk management, was also a good idea?

Is it not painfully obvious that when the government gets involved in practically anything, it gets FUBAR?

Quote :

" You're just reciting textbook, idealized market dogma at this point. You could respond to absolutely any remark on markets with this and it'd be equally useful. I know what a market is, I think I know much better than you actually. "

I'm sure you think you know much better than me.

But let's get real... What do you do for a living? What business management experience do you have?

I am very curious to get a frame of reference for your ideologies.

Quote :

"...Capitalism work with some tweaking."

This is the problem. And I'll say again, whenever the government gets its hands on something, special interests will be able to influence it and that's usually for the short term gain of a few at the long term detriment of society.

12/21/2011 3:45:30 PM

Quote :

"Most Keynesian-sympathetic economists agree that we're in a liquidity trap"

Please for the love of Marx support this fucking statement with a shred of anything. And the DeLong/Krugman circle jerk on this one doesn't count.

12/21/2011 6:38:47 PM