"They are not going to give up those profits easily"
Dionysus
HEAD: "PROFIT"-THE NEW DIRTY WORD
�Profit� and the �profit motive� have successfully been reclassified by the
American political Left as dirty words.
The word "profit" was formerly a measure of success, achievement, hard work,
and efficiency. It stood for accomplishment, and reward for prudent
risk-taking. Now, there is the insinuation that somehow certain profits,
usually determined by a politician, and often the mainstream media, are
unnecessary, illegitimate, and unearned and evil.
At a time when oil prices had temporarily spiked, last year�s easy target
was �Big Oil":
�ExxonMobil made $11 billion last quarter. They are not going to give up
those profits easily.� -- (Presidential Candidate) Barack Obama
�The other day. the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the
history of the world. I want to take those profits.� -- (Presidential
Candidate) Hillary Clinton
Let me repeat: "They are not going to give up those profits easily," and "I
want to take those profits."
Questions:
In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able to
take it from them because you feel they make "too much?" Wouldn't this be
considered theft?
Same scenario as above, except your motives are "pure." Suppose you promise
to give the money to another neighbor you define as needing it more than the
neighbor you stole it from (after taking your cut like the government does).
Does that make it anymore legal? Try explaining to the cops!
Who earned these profits? Who do they belong to? Who took the risk in order
to reap the rewards (profits)? Who worked for them?
Who produced the product (oil, drugs, health insurance, etc.) that the
public voluntarily purchases because it benefits them?
Hint: It's not the government. Only "Big Government," at the ultimate point
of a gun, can take money, property, and/or "profits" from someone else and
call it moral and legal. Anyone who talked about taking money that wasn't
theirs would be considered as planning a crime.
Last year�s target was �Big Oil,� this year it�s the full-scale assault on
the private health care industry profits. What is the evil profit margin of
the greedy health insurance industry? A paltry 2%, barely over break even.
"The outright greed of the health care industry in the United States
generates huge corporate profits on the one hand, and at the same time
increasingly excludes access to quality health care for millions of working
families across the nation."-- Communist Party USA
ExxonMobil�s �obscene� net profit margin is a rather mediocre 9%, ranking
them #185 out of Standard & Poor�s 500 companies. Microsoft�s is nearly
triple, at 25%, yet nobody complains about "Big Tech." Their profits seem to
be safe from confiscation since the government isn�t currently focusing on
taking over the software industry.
It's convenient for the government to demonize the word, "profit," since
they don't have to produce profit in order to stay in business. They have
the unique ability to produce a near perfect track record of failed,
bankrupt, or insolvent institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Medicare,
Medicaid, Amtrak, Social Security...I could continue, just insert your
favorite government bureaucracy. The government can always depend on a
coercive bailout from taxpayers.
The notion that the government can arbitrarily decide �how much is too much�
is an obliteration of individual freedom. Business earnings are the property
of the owners, i.e. people, the individuals, who made the investment and
took the risk.
Protecting citizens� rights, not championing the violation of them, is one
of the core reasons that the government exists. Forcefully seizing profits
earned by one individual, or group of individuals, for the distribution to
another, with the intention of securing their vote, is the ultimate of greed
and deceit. It commits precisely the same kind of injustice and tyranny our
Founding Fathers rebelled against two centuries ago.
�Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that
which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term
particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a
just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his
own.� -- James Madison
**************
That needs repeating: The notion that the government can arbitrarily decide
�how much is too much� is an obliteration of individual freedom.
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned
benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." --Ayn
Rand
"For many people, even today, high profits are often attributed to high
prices charged by those motivated by "greed." In reality most of the
fortunes in American history have resulted in someone's figuring out how to
reduce costs so as to be able to charge lower prices and therefore gain a
mass market for the product. Henry Ford did this with automobiles,
Rockefeller with oil, Carnegie with steel and Sears, Penney and Walton and
other department store chain founders with a variety of products." --Thomas
Sowell
"When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government
fears the people, there is liberty." --Thomas Jefferson
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not sacred as
the laws of God, there isn't a force of law to protect it, and anarchy and
tyranny commence." --John Adams
No Surrender!
Dionysus
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
"Dionysus" <no.sur...@never.net> wrote in message
news:laSdndXxPaxesJjW...@giganews.com...
> FROM THE FREEDOM POST
HAHAHAH!
Oh man, that's rich, thanks for the belly laffs!
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
> The word "profit" was formerly a measure of success, achievement, hard work,
> and efficiency.
No. Profit can only be made in two way: cheating consumers or cheating
workers.
> In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able to
> take it from them because you feel they make "too much?" Wouldn't this be
> considered theft?
What people earn from work is not profit. Profit is made by cheating
consumers or cheating workers; it is not earned by honest work.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5924, 1993
302 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
John Galt
> In our last episode, <laSdndXxPaxesJjW...@giganews.com>, the
> lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> The word "profit" was formerly a measure of success, achievement, hard work,
>> and efficiency.
>
> No. Profit can only be made in two way: cheating consumers or cheating
> workers.
Dude. You are SO living in the wrong country....... :-)
JG
Dionysus
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhgad75....@debranded.larseighner.com...
> In our last episode, <laSdndXxPaxesJjW...@giganews.com>, the
> lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> The word "profit" was formerly a measure of success, achievement, hard
>> work,
>> and efficiency.
>
> No. Profit can only be made in two way: cheating consumers or cheating
> workers.
You are a liar.
>
>> In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able
>> to
>> take it from them because you feel they make "too much?" Wouldn't this be
>> considered theft?
>
> What people earn from work is not profit. Profit is made by cheating
> consumers or cheating workers; it is not earned by honest work.
You are a liar.
No Surrender!
Dionysus
snakehawk
> FROM THE FREEDOM POST
>
> HEAD: "PROFIT"-THE NEW DIRTY WORD
>
> American political Left as dirty words.
>
>
> to reap the rewards (profits)? Who worked for them?
>
> Who produced the product (oil, drugs, health insurance, etc.) that the
> public voluntarily purchases because it benefits them?
The answers to those two questions expose the fallacies in this
defense of modern US capitalism. Who "earned" the profits? Well, who
earns the winnings in a poker game? And is poker good for the
nation? Should poker playing be protected and encouraged?
Because heavy gambling with existing debts and paper certificates were
the sources of most of the insane profits garnered by the big banks,
hedge funds, and investment houses. Like a giant game of poker, the
international gambling firms borrowed billions of dollars otherwise
needed for production of real goods and risked the money on enormous
bets on whether billions in other debts would be paid. The big money
firms bought and sold paper contracts guaranteeing other entities
would pay off other debt contracts timely, raking in billions of cash
and paying out billions in executive salaries and bonuses until the
game ended and they all sat looking at each other expecting someone to
pay off on the losing bets. In all the frenzy of money changing, they
didn't produce a single product.
And who produced for the US population? Well, it was the Chinese, the
Taiwanese, the Mexicans, and a host of other countries bursting with
cheap labor who actually produced much of the goods that the US
"public voluntarily purchases because it benefits them." Modern
Capitalism in the US means capital investments across the globe, not
investments in US companies.
US Capitalism is really global Capitalism, where companies--American
in name only--shift their capital investments to countries with hordes
of desperate semi-slaves who will work for subsistence wages while US
workers are dumped on the public sidewalki. Big oil companies cover
the world. The United States is merely the sale outlet for oil
produced in foreign countries by foreigners. For years US automakers
have been investing the bulk of their profits in foreign countries,
creating millions of jobs while American workers have not had a raise
in real buying power in over 40 years.
But those multinational companies demand access to US capital, demand
the right to siphon off US money for their international gambling and
labor arbitrage, demand the right to be treated just like any other
American company, demand lower taxes claiming that lower taxes will
spur still more investment (but in foreign lands), and demand to be
free of government interference. Unfortunately, they have the money to
push their agendas, and many Americans have been conditioned to
believe that big international business is good and that some day some
benefits will trickle down.
Old Pif
>
> Questions:
>
> In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able to
> take it from them because you feel they make "too much?" Wouldn't this be
> considered theft?
>
Answer:
No, if eminent domain used skillfully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
Dionysus
"Old Pif" <old...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddb9bfa8-45cb-4f1f...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Answer:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
*******************
Excellent point, satirically made.
Dionysus
John Galt
> On Nov 19, 6:36 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>> FROM THE FREEDOM POST
>>
>> HEAD: "PROFIT"-THE NEW DIRTY WORD
>>
>> American political Left as dirty words.
>>
>>
>> Who earned these profits? Who do they belong to? Who took the risk in order
>> to reap the rewards (profits)? Who worked for them?
>>
>> Who produced the product (oil, drugs, health insurance, etc.) that the
>> public voluntarily purchases because it benefits them?
>
> The answers to those two questions expose the fallacies in this
> defense of modern US capitalism. Who "earned" the profits? Well, who
> earns the winnings in a poker game? And is poker good for the
> nation? Should poker playing be protected and encouraged?
>
> Because heavy gambling with existing debts and paper certificates were
> the sources of most of the insane profits garnered by the big banks,
> hedge funds, and investment houses. Like a giant game of poker, the
> international gambling firms borrowed billions of dollars otherwise
> needed for production of real goods and risked the money on enormous
> bets on whether billions in other debts would be paid. The big money
> firms bought and sold paper contracts guaranteeing other entities
> would pay off other debt contracts timely, raking in billions of cash
> and paying out billions in executive salaries and bonuses until the
> game ended and they all sat looking at each other expecting someone to
> pay off on the losing bets. In all the frenzy of money changing, they
> didn't produce a single product.
I think that your analogy is a pretty good model for the situation.
However, like all analogies of a complex system, there's a tweak or two
that should be noted.
Gamblers in a poker game behave differently if they're at a table in
Vegas or if there in a tournament, where they've paid an entry fee but
are playing with fake money. In the former case, they are not divorced
from risk. There is no "I'm all in" when it's your own money; the play
is more prudent. In the latter case, you don't lose anything (but your
entry fee), so your risk is limited.
What happens, then, in the latter situation? Players take much higher
risks.
So, I'd suggest that your analogy must include, in a very clear fashion,
the fact that Wall Street had figured out a way to separate risk from
reward. Like the poker player playing with house money, they were free
to take more risk than their companies would normally permit them to.
JG
Beam Me Up Scotty
eminent domain requires Government to pay for what they are stealing.
You can't just take the neighbors money, you would have to pay for it
under eminent domain.
Me, again!
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Old Pif wrote:
> On Nov 19, 6:36 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able to
>> take it from them because you feel they make "too much?"
In anyplace on the planet, if your neighbor makes anything, and you want
to be a robber-barron, there are lots and lots of ways to do it legally,
but maybe not ethically.
Wouldn't this be
>> considered theft?
Why were the robber-barons called "Robber-Barrons"?
>
> Answer:
>
> No, if eminent domain used skillfully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
>
Large numbers of strategies exist to make the rich, richer. And, those
with power always seek to expand their power.
Did Hitler "steal" power from the groveling underlings?
>
Michael Coburn
> FROM THE FREEDOM POST
>
> HEAD: "PROFIT"-THE NEW DIRTY WORD
>
> “Profit” and the “profit motive” have successfully been reclassified by
> the American political Left as dirty words.
>
> The word "profit" was formerly a measure of success, achievement, hard
> work, and efficiency. It stood for accomplishment, and reward for
> prudent risk-taking. Now, there is the insinuation that somehow certain
> profits, usually determined by a politician, and often the mainstream
> media, are unnecessary, illegitimate, and unearned and evil.
Yup. True story. Tough shit.
> At a time when oil prices had temporarily spiked, last year’s easy
> target was “Big Oil":
Yup. True story. Tough shit.
> “ExxonMobil made $11 billion last quarter. They are not going to give up
> those profits easily.” -- (Presidential Candidate) Barack Obama
>
> “The other day. the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the
> history of the world. I want to take those profits.” -- (Presidential
> Candidate) Hillary Clinton
>
> Let me repeat: "They are not going to give up those profits easily," and
> "I want to take those profits."
>
> Questions:
>
> In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able
> to take it from them because you feel they make "too much?" Wouldn't
> this be considered theft?
Have you stopped beating your wife???
> Same scenario as above, except your motives are "pure." Suppose you
> promise to give the money to another neighbor you define as needing it
> more than the neighbor you stole it from (after taking your cut like the
> government does). Does that make it anymore legal? Try explaining to the
> cops!
The distinction between economic profit and economic rent is actually
pretty clear until it is turned over to neoclassical tap dancers and
conservative thieves. Economic rent is actually expropriation of value
based solely on amoral ownership claims. According to Mason Gaffney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_Gaffney
neoclassical economics seems to have been a well organized effort on the
part of the very wealthy to refute the economic truths concerning rent as
discovered by classical economists and popularized (public made aware) by
Henry George. Most of us are not into conspiracy theories, but the clear
distinction between rent and profits is clear to even the neoclassical
nut balls. The conservative lying pigs will EVER attempt to HIDE
economic rent under the banner of "accounting profits" so as to accuse
any person seeking justice of being a commie or a hater of "economic
profits" or true capitalism.
> Who earned these profits? Who do they belong to? Who took the risk in
> order to reap the rewards (profits)? Who worked for them?
All of these are good questions because in classical economics "economic
profits" are earned. The neoclassical school attempts to redefine
"EARNED profits" as "producer surplus" and then claim that there is no
such thing as profits in an ideal free market. The redefinition and
added trappings and contradictions are all actually designed to hide
_RENT_ and make it appear to be _earned_.
> Who produced the product (oil, drugs, health insurance, etc.) that the
> public voluntarily purchases because it benefits them?
And here we have a marvelous example of the conservative rightarded use
of the destroyed language. _OIL_ in and of itself, most unlike a
structure or a tractor or a factory or crops or steers and chickens is
_NOT_ produced. It is found and extracted and there are costs associated
with the finding and the extraction. Yet the oil itself has no _COST_ in
that it was not produced by any effort to any man. So all of the
financial reward to an "owner" of oil is actually _economic_ rent and NOT
profit or wages. So a tax imposed on the taker of _UNEARNED_ financial
gains from oil itself is _NOT_ a tax on EARNED PROFITS but, alas, a tax
on ECONOMIC RENT.
> Hint: It's not the government. Only "Big Government," at the ultimate
> point of a gun, can take money, property, and/or "profits" from someone
> else and call it moral and legal. Anyone who talked about taking money
> that wasn't theirs would be considered as planning a crime.
Oil in its natural state is not the EARNED PROPERTY of any person. When
the oil is "produced" then the ACCOUNTING PROFITS are composed of _EARNED
PROFITS_ that are the result of efficient extraction and processing, and
ECONOMIC RENT which is awarded to a Texas Oil man for not doing a dammed
thing but inheriting ownership of a land surface.
> Last year’s target was “Big Oil,” this year it’s the full-scale assault
> on the private health care industry profits. What is the evil profit
> margin of the greedy health insurance industry? A paltry 2%, barely over
> break even.
The accounting profits are irrelevant. If all the employees of "the
firm" suck up huge salaries and trips to the French Riviera and Leer Jets
then all of that is a cost of business and does not show up as profits.
But this is the continuation of lies that always ooze forth from the
conservative rightarded.
> "The outright greed of the health care industry in the United States
> generates huge corporate profits on the one hand, and at the same time
> increasingly excludes access to quality health care for millions of
> working families across the nation."-- Communist Party USA
Whatever you can find to associate the desire for justice with communism,
that is what you, as lying filth rightards will do.
> ExxonMobil’s “obscene” net profit margin is a rather mediocre 9%,
> ranking them #185 out of Standard & Poor’s 500 companies. Microsoft’s is
> nearly triple, at 25%, yet nobody complains about "Big Tech." Their
> profits seem to be safe from confiscation since the government isn’t
> currently focusing on taking over the software industry.
More lies and filth from the screech monkeys.
> It's convenient for the government to demonize the word, "profit," since
> they don't have to produce profit in order to stay in business.
You finally got something right. Government is not a business and is not
there to make a profit.
> They
> have the unique ability to produce a near perfect track record of
> failed, bankrupt, or insolvent institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie
> Mac, Medicare, Medicaid, Amtrak, Social Security...I could continue,
> just insert your favorite government bureaucracy. The government can
> always depend on a coercive bailout from taxpayers.
Government is _NOT_ measured based on "profits" nor on the amount of
money it can suck out of the economy with taxes. It is measured on its
ability to establish rules of order that allow THE VAST MAJORITY of the
people to see to the pursuit of their own comforts.
> The notion that the government can arbitrarily decide “how much is too
> much” is an obliteration of individual freedom. Business earnings are
> the property of the owners, i.e. people, the individuals, who made the
> investment and took the risk.
Hogwash. It is quite appropriate to identify economic rent as income
extremes. The fact is that NO individual can possibly _EARN_ huge
amounts of income relative to other human beings. We do not see people
running around wearing tights and cape bending steel bars and
constructing hydroelectric dams in a few hours.
> Protecting citizens’ rights, not championing the violation of them, is
> one of the core reasons that the government exists. Forcefully seizing
> profits earned by one individual, or group of individuals, for the
> distribution to another, with the intention of securing their vote, is
> the ultimate of greed and deceit. It commits precisely the same kind of
> injustice and tyranny our Founding Fathers rebelled against two
> centuries ago.
I agree. Yet when government promotes the privatization of economic rent
that is EXACTLY what is happening. That is actually _OUR_ oil. It is
being stolen by the Texas oil man as propped up by government. The
proceeds from the sale of that oil are only minimally _EARNED_PROFITS_.
All the rest is economic rent and should be used to fund Social Security
and Medicare for all.
> “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well
> that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the
> term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that
> alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man,
> whatever is his own.” -- James Madison
> **************
Right full _property_ and rightful _ownership_ comes into being in the
hands that _PRODUCE_ that which is to be _owned_. All naturally
occurring land and commodities are the rightful endowment of the almighty
to all persons equally as these are _NOT_ earned by any man.
> That needs repeating: The notion that the government can arbitrarily
> decide “how much is too much” is an obliteration of individual freedom.
What bears repeating is "Right full _property_ and rightful _ownership_
comes into being in the hands that _PRODUCE_ that which is to be _owned_."
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
ArmyOfDorkness
"Dionysus" <no.sur...@never.net> wrote in message
news:laSdndXxPaxesJjW...@giganews.com...
> FROM THE FREEDOM POST
>
> HEAD: "PROFIT"-THE NEW DIRTY WORD
>
> �Profit� and the �profit motive� have successfully been reclassified by
> the American political Left as dirty words.
Try "Obscene Profit" which is what the oil companies and insurance field
make.
snakehawk
> snakehawkwrote:
Of course, you're right. US Capitalism today is totally different
from Capitalism in the days when investors risked their own money
building railroads, steel mills, assembly plants, and buying into
risky oil leases. The big Capitalists today play with other people's
money, and they buy and sell smoke--paper debts, options, futures, and
guarantees. They produce nothing.
And they have managed to alter the rules to suit their ambitions.
Today we have naked short selling of equities, electronic trading and
arbitrage, instantaneous international markets, and unsecured
derivative trading. Witht he advent of electronic trading, no one
knows what is really going on.
Naked short selling has resulted in many producing companies
discovering that there are millions more stock being traded than the
company ever issued And the ghost stocks can be manipulated to raise
or lower stock prices regardless of the actions or the status of the
company itself. There are over $400 trillion in unregulated Credit
Default Swaps floating around the world with no one to back them
simply because there is not enough money in the world to back them.
The mess has been created by big Capitalist playing with other
people's money. It doesn't matter to the big Capitalist what happens--
the individual traders and executives get enormous salaries and
bonuses even if the company flops--it's not their money. Modern US
capitalism is a gigantic gambling casino with people like Bernie
Madoff and Hank Paulson conning the naive to hand over their savings
for the big Capitalists to gamble away while the executives skim off
lavish personal compensation for doing little more than losing other
people's money.
Michael Coburn
> snakehawk wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 6:36 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>>> FROM THE FREEDOM POST
>>>
>>> HEAD: "PROFIT"-THE NEW DIRTY WORD
>>>
>>> “Profit” and the “profit motive” have successfully been reclassified
But what has happened is that the fake money (the chips in the
tournament) are now being converted into the real stuff. And it happened
because there was an inadequate fire wall between the commercial banking
system (that SHOULD be supplying the credit used by main street and home
owners), and the futures market where the derivatives were used to make
wagers without _REAL_ money backing up the bets. The bailout was
necessitated because the commercial banking system had become involved in
the big poker tournament in the sky, i.e it was no longer possible to
save main street without saving Wall Street.
>> And who produced for the US population? Well, it was the Chinese, the
>> Taiwanese, the Mexicans, and a host of other countries bursting with
>> cheap labor who actually produced much of the goods that the US "public
>> voluntarily purchases because it benefits them." Modern Capitalism in
>> the US means capital investments across the globe, not investments in
>> US companies.
>>
>> US Capitalism is really global Capitalism, where companies--American in
>> name only--shift their capital investments to countries with hordes of
>> desperate semi-slaves who will work for subsistence wages while US
>> workers are dumped on the public sidewalki. Big oil companies cover
>> the world. The United States is merely the sale outlet for oil
>> produced in foreign countries by foreigners. For years US automakers
>> have been investing the bulk of their profits in foreign countries,
>> creating millions of jobs while American workers have not had a raise
>> in real buying power in over 40 years.
>>
>> But those multinational companies demand access to US capital, demand
>> the right to siphon off US money for their international gambling and
>> labor arbitrage, demand the right to be treated just like any other
>> American company, demand lower taxes claiming that lower taxes will
>> spur still more investment (but in foreign lands), and demand to be
>> free of government interference. Unfortunately, they have the money to
>> push their agendas, and many Americans have been conditioned to believe
>> that big international business is good and that some day some benefits
>> will trickle down.
--
John Galt
That's a larger point, but I agree. Even the ability to declare
bankruptcy introduces moral hazard, to some extent.
>
> And they have managed to alter the rules to suit their ambitions.
> Today we have naked short selling of equities, electronic trading and
> arbitrage, instantaneous international markets, and unsecured
> derivative trading. Witht he advent of electronic trading, no one
> knows what is really going on.
>
> Naked short selling has resulted in many producing companies
> discovering that there are millions more stock being traded than the
> company ever issued And the ghost stocks can be manipulated to raise
> or lower stock prices regardless of the actions or the status of the
> company itself. There are over $400 trillion in unregulated Credit
> Default Swaps floating around the world with no one to back them
> simply because there is not enough money in the world to back them.
You might pick up "Too Big To Fail" by Andrew Ross Sorkin. There are a
lot of people who deny that the naked shorts had no role in the meltdown
of the financial services firms. It was quite clear that the CEO's of
the investment firms and banks **DID** believe that the shorts had a role.
>
> The mess has been created by big Capitalist playing with other
> people's money. It doesn't matter to the big Capitalist what happens--
> the individual traders and executives get enormous salaries and
> bonuses even if the company flops--it's not their money. Modern US
> capitalism is a gigantic gambling casino with people like Bernie
> Madoff and Hank Paulson conning the naive to hand over their savings
> for the big Capitalists to gamble away while the executives skim off
> lavish personal compensation for doing little more than losing other
> people's money.
I don't think you're wrong --- a little hyperbolic. However, you are
correct that there was a day that our big industrialists running firms
doing manufacturing or providing brick and mortar services were people
who were raised with those firms they were running. They had pride and
skin in the game that exceeded their compensation or stock options.
Funny thing -- although you're right about the nature of the Wall Street
Casinos, most of those CEO's WERE people who had been with those
companies all their careers, and most of them are from very modest, if
not poor, backgrounds. IOW, they had the life resume of an old-school
industrialist (as opposed to being in the revolving door CEO biz), but
got into Wall Street.
JG
Dionysus
"ArmyOfDorkness" <DorkAs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D6ednWv3k_15NpjW...@giganews.com...
>
>
> "Dionysus" <no.sur...@never.net> wrote in message
> news:laSdndXxPaxesJjW...@giganews.com...
>> FROM THE FREEDOM POST
>>
>> HEAD: "PROFIT"-THE NEW DIRTY WORD
>>
>> �Profit� and the �profit motive� have successfully been reclassified by
>> the American political Left as dirty words.
>
> Try "Obscene Profit" which is what the oil companies and insurance field
> make.
Look below, unschooled fool, then apologize to all here for your crude
attempt at dissembling.
�It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a
specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a �dismal
science.� But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous
opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of
ignorance.� --Murray N. Rothbard
"When corporate earnings reach record levels, we should be celebrating. The
only way a firm can make money is to sell people what they want at a price
they are willing to pay. If a firm makes lots of money, lots of people are
getting what they want." --Stephen L. carter
No Surrender!
Dionysus
zzbu...@netscape.net
>
> HEAD: "PROFIT"-THE NEW DIRTY WORD
>
> American political Left as dirty words.
>
> The word "profit" was formerly a measure of success, achievement, hard work,
> and efficiency. It stood for accomplishment, and reward for prudent
> risk-taking. Now, there is the insinuation that somehow certain profits,
> usually determined by a politician, and often the mainstream media, are
> unnecessary, illegitimate, and unearned and evil.
>
> was “Big Oil":
>
> those profits easily.” -- (Presidential Candidate) Barack Obama
>
> “The other day. the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the
> history of the world. I want to take those profits.” -- (Presidential
> Candidate) Hillary Clinton
>
> Let me repeat: "They are not going to give up those profits easily," and "I
> want to take those profits."
>
> Questions:
>
> In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able to
> take it from them because you feel they make "too much?" Wouldn't this be
> considered theft?
>
> Same scenario as above, except your motives are "pure." Suppose you promise
> to give the money to another neighbor you define as needing it more than the
> neighbor you stole it from (after taking your cut like the government does).
> Does that make it anymore legal? Try explaining to the cops!
>
> Who earned these profits? Who do they belong to? Who took the risk in order
> to reap the rewards (profits)? Who worked for them?
>
> Who produced the product (oil, drugs, health insurance, etc.) that the
> public voluntarily purchases because it benefits them?
>
> Hint: It's not the government. Only "Big Government," at the ultimate point
> of a gun, can take money, property, and/or "profits" from someone else and
> call it moral and legal. Anyone who talked about taking money that wasn't
> theirs would be considered as planning a crime.
>
> the private health care industry profits. What is the evil profit margin of
> the greedy health insurance industry? A paltry 2%, barely over break even.
>
> "The outright greed of the health care industry in the United States
> generates huge corporate profits on the one hand, and at the same time
> increasingly excludes access to quality health care for millions of working
> families across the nation."-- Communist Party USA
>
> them #185 out of Standard & Poor’s 500 companies.
Well, but what idiot conservatives don't understand is that their
"Blurbs" about Oil has nothing to a Multinational Corpoartion like
Exxon.
So that's why the people with actual more than crap-for-brains
invented Drones and UAVs and GPS and Cruise Missiles
and Atomic Clock Wristwatches and Self-Replicating Machines
and Self-Assembling Robots and Microwave Ovens and Microwave
Cooling
and R-50, and Solar Energy, and Pv Cell Energy, and neo Wind
Energy,
and Hybrid-Electric Engines, rather than the Panama Canal.
And it's also they why invented Post idiot P=?NP AI, Multiplexed
Fiber Optics, Digital Books,
Distributed Processing Software, mp3, mpeg, PGP++, Flash Memory,
USB, Blue Ray, HDTV,
Compact Flourescent Lighting, Cyber Batteries, All-In-One
Printers, Desktop Publishing, Holograms,
On-Line Publishing, Rapid Prototyping, Post GM-nomics, and the
21st Century.
Microsoft’s is nearly
> triple, at 25%, yet nobody complains about "Big Tech." Their profits seem to
> be safe from confiscation since the government isn’t currently focusing on
> taking over the software industry.
>
> It's convenient for the government to demonize the word, "profit," since
> they don't have to produce profit in order to stay in business. They have
> the unique ability to produce a near perfect track record of failed,
> bankrupt, or insolvent institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Medicare,
> Medicaid, Amtrak, Social Security...I could continue, just insert your
> favorite government bureaucracy. The government can always depend on a
> coercive bailout from taxpayers.
>
> The notion that the government can arbitrarily decide “how much is too much”
> is an obliteration of individual freedom. Business earnings are the property
> of the owners, i.e. people, the individuals, who made the investment and
> took the risk.
>
> Protecting citizens’ rights, not championing the violation of them, is one
> of the core reasons that the government exists. Forcefully seizing profits
> earned by one individual, or group of individuals, for the distribution to
> another, with the intention of securing their vote, is the ultimate of greed
> and deceit. It commits precisely the same kind of injustice and tyranny our
> Founding Fathers rebelled against two centuries ago.
>
> “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that
> which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term
> particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a
> just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his
> own.” -- James Madison
> **************
> That needs repeating: The notion that the government can arbitrarily decide
> “how much is too much” is an obliteration of individual freedom.
Beam Me Up Scotty
give up those losses
ArmyOfDorkness wrote:
>
>
> "Dionysus" <no.sur...@never.net> wrote in message
> news:laSdndXxPaxesJjW...@giganews.com...
>> FROM THE FREEDOM POST
>>
>> HEAD: "PROFIT"-THE NEW DIRTY WORD
>>
>> �Profit� and the �profit motive� have successfully been reclassified
>> by the American political Left as dirty words.
>
> Try "Obscene Profit" which is what the oil companies and insurance field
> make.
How do you define "Obscene loss" or "obscene risk" do they offset the
obscene profit and make it obscenely legitimate?
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Government health care is back and Obama's perfuming the pig.
lorad
> FROM THE FREEDOM POST
>
> HEAD: "PROFIT"-THE NEW DIRTY WORD
>
> American political Left as dirty words.
>
> The word "profit" was formerly a measure of success, achievement, hard work,
> and efficiency. It stood for accomplishment, and reward for prudent
> risk-taking. Now, there is the insinuation that somehow certain profits,
> usually determined by a politician, and often the mainstream media, are
> unnecessary, illegitimate, and unearned and evil.
>
> was “Big Oil":
>
> those profits easily.” -- (Presidential Candidate) Barack Obama
>
> “The other day. the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the
> history of the world. I want to take those profits.” -- (Presidential
> Candidate) Hillary Clinton
>
> Let me repeat: "They are not going to give up those profits easily," and "I
> want to take those profits."
>
> Questions:
>
> In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able to
> take it from them because you feel they make "too much?" Wouldn't this be
> considered theft?
>
> Same scenario as above, except your motives are "pure." Suppose you promise
> to give the money to another neighbor you define as needing it more than the
> neighbor you stole it from (after taking your cut like the government does).
> Does that make it anymore legal? Try explaining to the cops!
>
> Who earned these profits? Who do they belong to? Who took the risk in order
Crooks did.. and mindless stooges like you cheered.
Read and learn (for educational purposes), lackey:
"$2.5 Trillion - That’s the size of the global oil scam.
It’s a number so large that, to put it in perspective, we will now
begin measuring the damage done to the global economy in "Madoff
Units" ($50Bn rip-offs). $2.5Tn is 50 times the amount of money that
Bernie Madoff scammed from investors in his lifetime, but it is less
than the monthly excess price the global population is being
manipulated into paying for a barrel of oil.
Where is the outrage? Where are the investigations?
Goldman Sachs (GS), Morgan Stanley (MS), BP (BP), Total (TOT), Shell
(RDS.A), Deutsche Bank (DB) and Societe Generale (SCGLY.PK) founded
the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in 2000. ICE is an online
commodities and futures marketplace. It is outside the US and operates
free from the constraints of US laws. The exchange was set up to
facilitate "dark pool" trading in the commodities markets. Billions of
dollars are being placed on oil futures contracts at the ICE and the
beauty of this scam is that they NEVER take delivery, per se. They
just ratchet up the price with leveraged speculation using your TARP
money. This year alone they ratcheted up the global cost of oil from
$40 to $80 per barrel.
A Congressional investigation into energy trading in 2003 discovered
that ICE was being used to facilitate "round-trip" trades. Round-trip
trades occur when one firm sells energy to another, and then the
second firm simultaneously sells the same amount of energy back to the
first company at exactly the same price. No commodity ever changes
hands. But when done on an exchange, these transactions send a price
signal to the market and they artificially boost revenue for the
company. This is nothing more than a massive fraud, pure and simple.
"Traders of the the ICE core membership (GS, MS, BP, DB, RDS.A, GLE &
TOT) wouldn’t really have to put much money at risk by their standards
in order to move or support the global market price via the BFOE
market. Indeed the evolution of the Brent market has been a response
to declining production and the fact that traders could not resist
manipulating the market by buying up contracts and “squeezing” those
who had sold oil they did not have. The fewer cargoes produced, the
easier the underlying market is to manipulate." - Chris Cook, Former
Director of the International Petroleum Exchange, which was bought by
ICE. ...."
"Over the course of an average month at the NYMEX, 5 billion barrels
of oil will be traded, with a fee collected on every single
transaction. That is ultimately passed down to US consumers, yet less
than 40M barrels will actually be delivered. That is just 8 tenths of
1 percent of actual demand for the product that is being traded - ie.
99.2% of the oil transaction fees being paid by the American people do
nothing more than create fees for the traders and record profits and
bonuses for the trading firms."
"Before ICE, the average American family spent 7% of their income on
food and fuel. Last year, that number topped 20%. That’s 13% of the
incomes of every man, woman and child in the United States of America,
over $1Tn EVERY SINGLE YEAR, stolen through market manipulation. On a
global scale, that number is over $4Tn per year - 80 Madoffs! Why is
there no outrage, why are there no investigations? Well, the answer is
the same - $4Tn per year buys you a lot of political clout. It pays to
have politicians all over the world look the other way while GS and
their merry men rob from the poor and give to the rich on such a vast
scale that it’s hard to grasp the damage they have done and continue
to do to the global economy."
Entire article at:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/172797-the-global-oil-scam-50-times-bigger-than-madoff?source=article_sb_popular
ArmyOfDorkness
"Dionysus" <no.sur...@never.net> wrote in message
news:x42dnQO0dLNfJpjW...@giganews.com...
>
> "ArmyOfDorkness" <DorkAs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:D6ednWv3k_15NpjW...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> "Dionysus" <no.sur...@never.net> wrote in message
>> news:laSdndXxPaxesJjW...@giganews.com...
>>> FROM THE FREEDOM POST
>>>
>>> HEAD: "PROFIT"-THE NEW DIRTY WORD
>>>
>>> �Profit� and the �profit motive� have successfully been reclassified by
>>> the American political Left as dirty words.
>>
>> Try "Obscene Profit" which is what the oil companies and insurance field
>> make.
> **************
> Look below, unschooled fool, then apologize to all here for your crude
> attempt at dissembling.
Fuck you. When we were paying over $4.00 a gallon for gas they blamed it on
the high price of a barrel of oil. And then they come out and show that they
were making RECORD profits. Well bullshit. You shouldn't be make excuses for
them.
>
> �It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a
> specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a �dismal
> science.� But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous
> opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of
> ignorance.� --Murray N. Rothbard
>
> "When corporate earnings reach record levels, we should be celebrating.
> The only way a firm can make money is to sell people what they want at a
> price they are willing to pay. If a firm makes lots of money, lots of
> people are getting what they want." --Stephen L. carter
People had to drive to work dickhead. They took advantage
>
> No Surrender!
Nope. You just bend over and take it and then thank them for the experience.
>
> Dionysus
snakehawk
> snakehawk wrote:
> > The mess has been created by big Capitalist playing with other
> > people's money. It doesn't matter to the big Capitalist what happens--
> > the individual traders and executives get enormous salaries and
> > bonuses even if the company flops--it's not their money. Modern US
> > capitalism is a gigantic gambling casino with people like Bernie
> > Madoff and Hank Paulson conning the naive to hand over their savings
> > for the big Capitalists to gamble away while the executives skim off
> > lavish personal compensation for doing little more than losing other
> > people's money.
>
> I don't think you're wrong --- a little hyperbolic.
Hyperbolic? How can anyone exaggerate the profound failure of
American Capitalism? How can any "juice" be added to the scandalous
scene of the US Secretary of the Treasury calling a special meeting of
leading members of Congress to inform them that the entire financial
edifice of the United States was crumbling because of the acts of the
high-rolling gamblers in major investment houses? Hyperbole? It's
difficult to convey the full depth of the failure of American
Capitalism in any language no matter what words are used or how often
repeated.
And what is most galling is that so many addle-brained wealth-
worshippers are still trumpeting the glories of free Capitalism even
while governments around the world pump trillions of dollars of public
money--the people's money-- into the accounts of the major Capitalists
just to keep them afloat. The United States now faces years of
struggle to regain economic stability, millions face unemployment,
producers of goods and services are strapped for cash and have been
frightened into paralysis, and still the hopelessly fooled foot
soldiers of the Captains of Capitalism, many facing unemployment
themselves, march in step and cheer their fabulously wealthy leaders.
How can anyone exaggerate that?
ArmyOfDorkness
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
message news:4B05D2DD...@Talk-n-dog.com...
> They are not going to give up those profits easily >>OR<< Will people
> give up those losses
>
> ArmyOfDorkness wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Dionysus" <no.sur...@never.net> wrote in message
>> news:laSdndXxPaxesJjW...@giganews.com...
>>> FROM THE FREEDOM POST
>>>
>>> HEAD: "PROFIT"-THE NEW DIRTY WORD
>>>
>>> �Profit� and the �profit motive� have successfully been reclassified
>>> by the American political Left as dirty words.
>>
>> Try "Obscene Profit" which is what the oil companies and insurance field
>> make.
>
> How do you define "Obscene loss" or "obscene risk" do they offset the
> obscene profit and make it obscenely legitimate?
Oil companies gouging customers to record profits are obscene. There was no
"Obscene loss" or "obscene risk". They set the prices and if something
"risky" would of happened they would just raise them higher. Insurance
companies are the same.
John Galt
> On Nov 19, 3:57 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> snakehawk wrote:
>>> The mess has been created by big Capitalist playing with other
>>> people's money. It doesn't matter to the big Capitalist what happens--
>>> the individual traders and executives get enormous salaries and
>>> bonuses even if the company flops--it's not their money. Modern US
>>> capitalism is a gigantic gambling casino with people like Bernie
>>> Madoff and Hank Paulson conning the naive to hand over their savings
>>> for the big Capitalists to gamble away while the executives skim off
>>> lavish personal compensation for doing little more than losing other
>>> people's money.
>> I don't think you're wrong --- a little hyperbolic.
> <snip>
>
> Hyperbolic? How can anyone exaggerate the profound failure of
> American Capitalism?
Because it didn't fail. It behaved precisely as it would be expected to,
once you remove the risk from the reward. The "failure" is that the
people who could do something about it didn't notice it. A few others
did, and are now filthy rich as a result.
How can any "juice" be added to the scandalous
> scene of the US Secretary of the Treasury calling a special meeting of
> leading members of Congress to inform them that the entire financial
> edifice of the United States was crumbling because of the acts of the
> high-rolling gamblers in major investment houses?
Heh. You seriously need to read that book I mentioned to get the full
context of that meeting. Paulson saw this coming six months prior. The
problem was that he had no power to avert it.
Hyperbole? It's
> difficult to convey the full depth of the failure of American
> Capitalism in any language no matter what words are used or how often
> repeated.
See above.
>
> And what is most galling is that so many addle-brained wealth-
> worshippers are still trumpeting the glories of free Capitalism even
> while governments around the world pump trillions of dollars of public
> money--the people's money-- into the accounts of the major Capitalists
> just to keep them afloat.
You're on to something here. What you're realizing is that there are
pseudo-capitalists around who hate all government intervention unless it
profits them personally. What you WANT is the free market ideologues
like me, who would have stared them down and said "bullshit", let them
fail, and let the system rebuild itself without shelling out a penny
other than direct support payments to those idled by the breakdown.
The United States now faces years of
> struggle to regain economic stability, millions face unemployment,
> producers of goods and services are strapped for cash and have been
> frightened into paralysis, and still the hopelessly fooled foot
> soldiers of the Captains of Capitalism, many facing unemployment
> themselves, march in step and cheer their fabulously wealthy leaders.
> How can anyone exaggerate that?
Somehow, you managed to do so. :-)
Let's understand something straight up: there is no system shown to
deliver a high standard of living other than capitalism. Let's learn
from what happened, create regulation that prevents risk being separated
from reward, and force the bankers to hold reserve requirements for
every creative investment vehicle they come up with.
It's a complex problem, but it has simple answers.
JG
snakehawk
That's not entirely true. After World War I, the Germans launched
National Socialism which in less than four years turned Germany from a
pile of rubble to the most powerful nation in Europe. No one wants to
admit it, but the Japanese employed a similar system after World War
II to become an international player. Both nations provided high
standards of living for their entire populations and not just for a
few international financial bigwigs.
But I don't condemn a system of private ownership, individual
investments and a free market in any nation. I condemn international
Capitalism. No country can effectively regulate the international
Capitalists. And if the international Capitalists, posing as domestic
companies, have free access to US currency, then gobs of US currency
will disappear in the world markets leaving domestic commerce squeezed
for cash. That's what happened in the current crisis.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> In article <4B05D2DD...@Talk-n-dog.com>,
> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> How do you define "Obscene loss" or "obscene risk" do they offset the
>
Where ?
I said: Would it offset "Obscene Profit" SO anywhere or anywhere you
see profit.
The point being that most places you see Obscene Profit there was
Obscene risk. So when people lose all that money what do you feel the
loser deserves? Obviously if you risk a lot of money for a modest
profit and win/lose, you won't win enough times to stay in business.
Liberals just don't understand economics. Liberals think "Spreading the
wealth" is good, and in economics it's staying in business that is GOOD.
John Galt
> On Nov 19, 8:06 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> snakehawk wrote:
>>
>> The United States now faces years of
>>
>>> struggle to regain economic stability, millions face unemployment,
>>> producers of goods and services are strapped for cash and have been
>>> frightened into paralysis, and still the hopelessly fooled foot
>>> soldiers of the Captains of Capitalism, many facing unemployment
>>> themselves, march in step and cheer their fabulously wealthy leaders.
>>> How can anyone exaggerate that?
>> Somehow, you managed to do so. :-)
>>
>> Let's understand something straight up: there is no system shown to
>> deliver a high standard of living other than capitalism.
>
> That's not entirely true. After World War I, the Germans launched
> National Socialism which in less than four years turned Germany from a
> pile of rubble to the most powerful nation in Europe.
And they did so on a pile of cash given to them by all the other
countries involved in WW1, the terms of payback of which led to the
conditions leading up to fascism.
Let's not go there. Bad example.
No one wants to
> admit it, but the Japanese employed a similar system after World War
> II to become an international player. Both nations provided high
> standards of living for their entire populations and not just for a
> few international financial bigwigs.
Look --- anything but capitalism in the US is a pipe dream. There's more
of a chance of finding Santa at the North Pole than there is in even
forming a euro-style social democracy in the US. That's so blatantly
obvious I don't think it's worth talking about.
Regardless, we have the highest standard of living in the world IF (and
most metrics, for whatever reason, don't include this) you include our
average square footage of living space per capita in the metric. We're
already dancing with the best girl at the party, and just because her
makeup got a little smeared isn't a reason to go dance with the fat
chick with acne. Let her go fix her face and come back out looking great
again. It's not the first time we've had to hit the RESET button on
capitalism, and we should have learned by now that the proper response
is not to leave the dance alone.
>
> But I don't condemn a system of private ownership, individual
> investments and a free market in any nation. I condemn international
> Capitalism. No country can effectively regulate the international
> Capitalists. And if the international Capitalists, posing as domestic
> companies, have free access to US currency, then gobs of US currency
> will disappear in the world markets leaving domestic commerce squeezed
> for cash. That's what happened in the current crisis.
On that issue we probably have some agreement. Senator Graham (R) and
Senator Shumer (D) will both tell you that a SIGNIFICANT part of our
inability to recover from this downturn is related to Chinese currency
manipulation.
JG
Beam Me Up Scotty
If it's such a sure thing why haven't you secured a loan and go punch a
hole and sell the oil?
Obviously you could be rich and there will be zero risk.
Hell, you could just buy some oil and wait 3 months for the price to go
up and then double your money. Why haven't you done that? You kids
college fund could be used or mortgage your house, since it's a sure
thing...
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>>> In article <4B05D2DD...@Talk-n-dog.com>,
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you define "Obscene loss" or "obscene risk" do they offset the
>>> Where? Are you talking about bailouts?
>>
>> Where ?
>>
>> I said: Would it offset "Obscene Profit" SO anywhere or anywhere you
>> see profit.
>>
>> The point being that most places you see Obscene Profit there was
>> Obscene risk. So when people lose all that money what do you feel the
>
>
Because you Liberals refuse to allow the market to work.
snakehawk
You're probably right, But there are other options.
>
> Regardless, we have the highest standard of living in the world IF (and
> most metrics, for whatever reason, don't include this) you include our
> average square footage of living space per capita in the metric. We're
> already dancing with the best girl at the party, and just because her
> makeup got a little smeared isn't a reason to go dance with the fat
> chick with acne. Let her go fix her face and come back out looking great
> again. It's not the first time we've had to hit the RESET button on
> capitalism, and we should have learned by now that the proper response
> is not to leave the dance alone.
Oh, I agree. But to carry your metaphor a little further, it seems
that under the present system every international jet-setter at the
dance and a bunch of their foreign friends are taking turns screwing
our beautiful date, and she's getting a little beat up. What I
propose is that we assert ourselves and keep her all to ourselves.
I suggest a gradual shift to National Capitalism--everything remains
the same except it all happens here in the United States. All US
currency would be invested in the United States. Federal laws would
prohibit moving operations to foreign countries. One of the reasons
Warren Buffet gave for a huge investment in a US railroad company was
that it couldn't be moved overseas.
Capital flight would be regulated. Any enterprise that wants to invest
outside of the United States would have to do so with foreign money,
borrowed from foreign banks, and governed and protected by foreign
governments with no connection to the United States and no input or
protection by the United States. In other words, companies with
overseas operations claiming to be US companies would be treated as
what they are--foreign companies. And all imported goods would be sold
in the United States under foreign names, on a level playing field,
with prices adjusted for wages, taxes, and expenses comparable to
those in the United States.
US currency would be withdrawn from international trading markets to
shut down speculation. The US would withdraw from the IMF and the
World Bank. All major trade between nations would be done through a
federal agency charged with the duty to prevent dumping, labor
arbitrage, or price gouging. In other words, we tell those greedy
International Capitalists to keep their grubby hands off of our date.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, you can't since the idiots have abused the system for so long
now,
the only people willing to even bat an eye to struggle for the scum
anymore
are people like Obama, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News.
John Galt
A move to economic protectionism as you outline would likely require
multiple constitutional amendments. There is no law with more powerful
legal precedent in the US than the "corporations have the rights of
people" principle set out in US Code 1. I understand what you're trying
to get to, but reality is that the above scenario is even LESS likely to
get popular approval than a euro social-democracy. If I can't put my
money where I want when I want, my freedom has been significantly impinged.
Not to say that I believe that this sort of thing would be massively
inflationary. We'd end up with a useless currency, prisoners in our own
country, due to a lack of buying power abroad.
If there's any governmental solution here, it comes (IMO) from the
Manhattan Project example -- government making venture investments in
specific ideas that return thought leadership and innovation to the US.
I heard it said on CNBC the other day that the US hasn't lost it's
ability to design and innovate --- it's just that a large portion of our
creativity is now funneled to the design and innovation to cheap
consumer entertainment devices (commentator referring to Apple et al,
obviously).
Some truth there, I think. Before we need to think about economic
protectionism, can't we start by NOT incenting our corporations to move
jobs abroad? That issue which began in the Clinton era, is still
unaddressed.
JG
JG
Old Pif
dog.com> wrote:
> Old Pif wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 6:36 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
> >> Questions:
>
> >> In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able to
> >> take it from them because you feel they make "too much?" Wouldn't this be
> >> considered theft?
>
>
> > No, if eminent domain used skillfully:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
>
> >http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
>
>
> You can't just take the neighbors money, you would have to pay for it
> under eminent domain.
>
I wish. In case of Kelo, the city of New London compensated her and
her neighbors with 125K per property unit which is less than 10% of
the market value. In the time of real estate boom the property on
shore line with the ocean view and in that case also with the view of
the river were flying for more than 2 millions and only if you are
very fast. So, that was robbery pure and simple.
There were many others less known cases with the same deep below
market line compensation, one of the best example being taking over
property in the down town Manhattan where the World Trade Center was
build. The same story, the owners lost all law suites up to the high
court of the state.
The conclusion of all this is that if you are a small guy and by
chance have something valuable the law does not protects you. It is
all skewed to the advantage of rich and powerful.
American Patriot
sense of justice.
I suppose you figure that Bill Gates does not deserve his money because he
came up with the best operating system over IBM... and he rapes his workers
to earn his money. By the same logic- Mac is higher priced- so they are
more evil along with the software developers who charge higher prices for
Mac software. it has nothing to do with size or customer base and
distributing costs over customer base and reasonable profit. The government
has an antitrust division to protect against what you are complaining about-
monopolies- who charge obscene prices and make obscene profits.
I suppose you support the system where instead, the government cheats
everyone fairly to deprive those who provide hard work and results to try
to earn a better living than the fucking slob down the street who is content
to sit in front of his X-box and drink beer and smoke pot all day long.
Both should be able to drive Mercedes Benz's eat caviar and eat the best
cuts of steak every night, right? Wrong- soon no one will be making them
with your plan. Look to Zimbabwe or Cuba for a reflection of how your plan
operates over time, chump! When you destroy motive to 'get ahead' a lot of
people develop a "who gives a fuck" attitude. One only has to look at how
the clerks treat you at the DMV to figure out what's in store.
"Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhgad75....@debranded.larseighner.com...
> In our last episode, <laSdndXxPaxesJjW...@giganews.com>, the
> lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> The word "profit" was formerly a measure of success, achievement, hard
>> work,
>> and efficiency.
>
> No. Profit can only be made in two way: cheating consumers or cheating
> workers.
>
>> In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able
>> to
>> take it from them because you feel they make "too much?" Wouldn't this be
>> considered theft?
>
> What people earn from work is not profit. Profit is made by cheating
> consumers or cheating workers; it is not earned by honest work.
>
> --
> Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5924,
> 1993
> 302 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
> Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he
> won't.
>
zzbu...@netscape.net
> what an idiot. I suppose you want to steal from the rich in your twisted
> sense of justice.
>
> I suppose you figure that Bill Gates does not deserve his money because he
> came up with the best operating system over IBM... and he rapes his workers
> to earn his money.
Well, Microsoft is the reason the people who understand operating
systems
invented Forward Compatabilty, USB, HDTV, Cyber Batteries, DVD-rom,
and Home Broadband
rather than IBM anyway.
And invented GPS, Atomic Clock Watches, and Flash Memory rather than
Boston.
And invented Drones, Digital-Terrain Mapping, Self-Assembling
Robots,
Microwave Cooling, and Rapid Prototyping, rather than GM.
And invented Cell phones and Self-Replicating Machines rather than
GE.
By the same logic- Mac is higher priced- so they are
> more evil along with the software developers who charge higher prices for
> Mac software. it has nothing to do with size or customer base and
> distributing costs over customer base and reasonable profit. The government
> has an antitrust division to protect against what you are complaining about-
> monopolies- who charge obscene prices and make obscene profits.
>
> I suppose you support the system where instead, the government cheats
> everyone fairly to deprive those who provide hard work and results to try
> to earn a better living than the fucking slob down the street who is content
> to sit in front of his X-box and drink beer and smoke pot all day long.
> Both should be able to drive Mercedes Benz's eat caviar and eat the best
> cuts of steak every night, right? Wrong- soon no one will be making them
> with your plan. Look to Zimbabwe or Cuba for a reflection of how your plan
> operates over time, chump! When you destroy motive to 'get ahead' a lot of
> people develop a "who gives a fuck" attitude. One only has to look at how
> the clerks treat you at the DMV to figure out what's in store.
>
> "Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
>
> news:slrnhgad75....@debranded.larseighner.com...
>
>
>
> > In our last episode, <laSdndXxPaxesJjWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdn...@giganews.com>, the
> > lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
>
> >> The word "profit" was formerly a measure of success, achievement, hard
> >> work,
> >> and efficiency.
>
> > No. Profit can only be made in two way: cheating consumers or cheating
> > workers.
>
> >> In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able
> >> to
> >> take it from them because you feel they make "too much?" Wouldn't this be
> >> considered theft?
>
> > What people earn from work is not profit. Profit is made by cheating
> > consumers or cheating workers; it is not earned by honest work.
>
> > --
> > Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5924,
> > 1993
> > 302 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
> > Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he
> > won't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> Obviously you could be rich and there will be zero risk.
>
>
NO... when you are rich you risk being poor, when you are poor all you
risk is being rich.
lorad
> Let's understand something straight up: there is no system shown to
> deliver a high standard of living other than capitalism. Let's learn
> from what happened, create regulation that prevents risk being separated
> from reward, and force the bankers to hold reserve requirements for
> every creative investment vehicle they come up with.
Yeah... let's do that first.
And only then could you begin to make any headway in defending
capitalism as it exists in the US today.
Because.... This article puts the lie to your protestations that
capitalism (actually criminality) is the best venue for prosperity to
american citizens..
Right here >>>>
http://seekingalpha.com/article/172797-the-global-oil-scam-50-times-bigger-than-madoff?source=article_sb_popular
John Galt
If the article is valid (just because you agree with it doesn't prove it
so), then instead of refuting anything I said, it actually provides yet
another example of the point I make above.
Capitalism isn't perfect; proving that it is not proves nothing that
isn't already known, and is not necessarily a reason to switch to a
different scheme (which also will be imperfect).
Ergo, there is "no lie to my protestations". You have failed to show any.
JG
Michael Coburn
> what an idiot. I suppose you want to steal from the rich in your
> twisted sense of justice.
Most of us who actually understand economics want to recover the rent
stolen from us in the first place. But tax policy can also be used to
"encourage" the rich to invest in _real_ capital that does, in fact,
improve the quality of life for all.
> I suppose you figure that Bill Gates does not deserve his money because
> he came up with the best operating system over IBM... and he rapes his
> workers to earn his money. By the same logic- Mac is higher priced- so
> they are more evil along with the software developers who charge higher
> prices for Mac software. it has nothing to do with size or customer
> base and distributing costs over customer base and reasonable profit.
And the rightarded use false analogy and false economics to lie, and lie,
and lie. The neoconomist does not differentiate between "land" and
"capital" and further confuses the issue by insisting that fiat money is
also "capital". In the case of Gates and Microsoft, the Republican lying
pig does not differentiate monopoly rents from earned profits. The
objective is always the same and it is to hide "economic rent" inside
"accounting profits" so as to make any attack on "accounting profits" an
attack on SUPPOSED _EARNED_ profits. The actual attack is an attack on
the privatization of unearned economic rents.
> The government has an antitrust division to protect against what you are
> complaining about- monopolies- who charge obscene prices and make
> obscene profits.
That division was essentially shut down by the Bush administration and
the thieving, lying Republican pigs and their pet judges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft#Appeal
> I suppose you support the system where instead, the government cheats
> everyone fairly to deprive those who provide hard work and results to
> try to earn a better living than the fucking slob down the street who is
> content to sit in front of his X-box and drink beer and smoke pot all
> day long.
The usual rigthtarded false framed lying pig shit. We Liberals seek
_JUSTICE_. That is about it. The rightarded hate justice and the force
of government in assuring it.
> Both should be able to drive Mercedes Benz's eat caviar and
> eat the best cuts of steak every night, right? Wrong- soon no one will
> be making them with your plan. Look to Zimbabwe or Cuba for a
> reflection of how your plan operates over time, chump!
And look at Somalia and the Russia to see the results of _YOUR_ tripe.
> When you destroy
> motive to 'get ahead' a lot of people develop a "who gives a fuck"
> attitude. One only has to look at how the clerks treat you at the DMV
> to figure out what's in store.
I get pretty good treatment at the DMV, moron. True, I don't get a
massage and a blowjob like you do at your rich bitch medical clinic. But
I wait my turn and get my business taken care of like a rational human
being. And because the perks are missing the costs are less.
> "Lars Eighner" <use...@larseighner.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhgad75....@debranded.larseighner.com...
>> In our last episode, <laSdndXxPaxesJjW...@giganews.com>,
>> the lovely and talented Dionysus broadcast on alt.politics:
>>
>>> The word "profit" was formerly a measure of success, achievement, hard
>>> work,
>>> and efficiency.
>>
>> No. Profit can only be made in two way: cheating consumers or cheating
>> workers.
>>
>>> In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you
>>> able to
>>> take it from them because you feel they make "too much?" Wouldn't this
>>> be considered theft?
>>
>> What people earn from work is not profit. Profit is made by cheating
>> consumers or cheating workers; it is not earned by honest work.
>>
>> --
>> Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5924,
>> 1993
>> 302 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
>> Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he
>> won't.
>>
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
American Patriot
"Once in a China Blue Moon" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-E0761...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <5byNm.5306$Se1....@news.usenetserver.com>,
> "American Patriot" <pro...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> I suppose you figure that Bill Gates does not deserve his money because
>> he
>> came up with the best operating system over IBM... and he rapes his
>> workers
>
> Any credibility you might have had (ha ha) is now completely gone. Nothing
> you
> say can possibly have any value. Even though Unix is not the best possible
> operating system, even it solved problems 30 years ago that Windows keeps
> recreating.
>
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to
> be.
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in
> character.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a
> time.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you,
> Sarah.
>
American Patriot
"Once in a China Blue Moon" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-9A56B...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <z3DNm.26036$vf1....@news.usenetserver.com>,
> "American Patriot" <pro...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> so who is buying Gate's stuff? Liberals?
>
> Lordy, you're an idiot.
Morton Davis
>
> "Old Pif" <old...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ddb9bfa8-45cb-4f1f...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> to
>> take it from them because you feel they make "too much?" Wouldn't this be
>> considered theft?
>>
>
>
> No, if eminent domain used skillfully:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
>
And the New London project went tits up.
Morton Davis
"Me, again!" <arth...@mv.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.61.0...@osmium.mv.net...
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Old Pif wrote:
> On Nov 19, 6:36 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able
>> to
>> take it from them because you feel they make "too much?"
In anyplace on the planet, if your neighbor makes anything, and you want
to be a robber-barron, there are lots and lots of ways to do it legally,
but maybe not ethically.
There are too many ways to make money legally in this country for anyone to
ever really be in bad shape.
Old Pif
> "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote in message
Yup, it is absolutely bizarre:
They have destroyed many people lives, wasted tons of public money on
lawsuits and got nothing.
Patriot Games
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:01:19 -0800, American Patriot wrote:
>> what an idiot. I suppose you want to steal from the rich in your
>> twisted sense of justice.
>Most of us who actually understand economics want to recover the rent
>stolen from us in the first place.
Nothing was stolen from you.
You only have excuses for wanting to STEAL what you are too LAZY to
EARN.
>But tax policy can also be used to
Gasoline can also be used to spray Communists like YOU for the benefit
of those of us who would enjoy watching you lit up!
>"encourage" the rich to invest in _real_ capital that does, in fact,
>improve the quality of life for all.
It is NOT any OTHER person's responsibility to "improve the quality of
life for all." It is YOUR responsibility to improve YOUR quality of
life.
From: The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net>
From: Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
Location: Port Orchard, Wa.
Title: The Trucker
Industry: Non-Profit
Website or Blog: GreaterVoice.org
About me: Retired now, I drove an 18 wheeler in 48 states and Canada
for 5 years, Prior to that I ran my own technology services company
providing heterogeneous systems administration and contract software
development (30 years). I have a few things to say before I croak.
greatervoice.org
IP: 209.41.200.68
Columbus, OK
Host: apollo.jtlnet.com
WHOIS Results for greatervoice.org
Domain ID:D83478242-LROR
Domain Name:GREATERVOICE.ORG
Created On:08-Feb-2002 21:32:06 UTC
Last Updated On:13-Nov-2008 01:48:02 UTC
Expiration Date:08-Feb-2014 21:32:06 UTC
Registrant ID:SD2361
Registrant Name:Michael Coburn
Registrant Street1:7614 E. Montana
Registrant City:Port Orchard
Registrant State/Province:Washington
Registrant Postal Code:98366
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.3608714992
Registrant Email:mik...@gte.net
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Port+Orchard&state=WA&address=7614+E.+Montana
Patriot Games
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <k7tig59goj8i9njk2...@4ax.com>,
> Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>> Gasoline can also be used to spray Communists like YOU for the benefit
>> of those of us who would enjoy watching you lit up!
Hahahahaha!!!
Michael Coburn
> On 20 Nov 2009 17:34:43 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:01:19 -0800, American Patriot wrote:
>>> what an idiot. I suppose you want to steal from the rich in your
>>> twisted sense of justice.
>>Most of us who actually understand economics want to recover the rent
>>stolen from us in the first place.
>
> Nothing was stolen from you.
>
> You only have excuses for wanting to STEAL what you are too LAZY to
> EARN.
Exactly when and how did the supposed "owner" _EARN_ the oil in the OCS
or under the ranch some asshole that inherited from his daddy, lying
pig? And why is it that _OUR_ tax money is used to protect some
asshole's property in China or anywhere else? And why would I, as a
consumer, care if the Chinese sold sneakers here in the USA labeled
"NIke" (exact replicas) at one forth the price while shooting the middle
finger at the "Nike" stockholders? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM????????
>>But tax policy can also be used to
>
> Gasoline can also be used to spray Communists like YOU for the benefit
> of those of us who would enjoy watching you lit up!
>
>>"encourage" the rich to invest in _real_ capital that does, in fact,
>>improve the quality of life for all.
>
> It is NOT any OTHER person's responsibility to "improve the quality of
> life for all." It is YOUR responsibility to improve YOUR quality of
> life.
And I choose to do that through honesty. Exposing the kleptocrats for
what they are. Economic rent is _NEVER_ earned.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:34:42 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>
>> On 20 Nov 2009 17:34:43 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:01:19 -0800, American Patriot wrote:
>>>> what an idiot. I suppose you want to steal from the rich in your
>>>> twisted sense of justice.
>>> Most of us who actually understand economics want to recover the rent
>>> stolen from us in the first place.
>> Nothing was stolen from you.
>>
>> You only have excuses for wanting to STEAL what you are too LAZY to
>> EARN.
>
> Exactly when and how did the supposed "owner" _EARN_ the oil in the OCS
Every day he/she was trying to keep and grow their money... to keep
thieves like you from stealing it.
> or under the ranch some asshole that inherited from his daddy, lying
> pig? And why is it that _OUR_ tax money is used to protect some
> asshole's property in China or anywhere else? And why would I, as a
> consumer, care if the Chinese sold sneakers here in the USA labeled
> "NIke" (exact replicas) at one forth the price while shooting the middle
> finger at the "Nike" stockholders? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM????????
So every idea and thing you own, belongs to all of us?
I'll be around to get your tooth brush and us it to clean my toilet and
then put it back for you, I won't bother you tonight when I pick it up
and put it back.... How's it feel to have no ownership?
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:34:42 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>>
>>> On 20 Nov 2009 17:34:43 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:01:19 -0800, American Patriot wrote:
>>>>> what an idiot. I suppose you want to steal from the rich in your
>>>>> twisted sense of justice.
>>>> Most of us who actually understand economics want to recover the rent
>>>> stolen from us in the first place.
>>> Nothing was stolen from you.
>>>
>>> You only have excuses for wanting to STEAL what you are too LAZY to
>>> EARN.
>>
>> Exactly when and how did the supposed "owner" _EARN_ the oil in the OCS
>
> Every day he/she was trying to keep and grow their money... to keep
> thieves like you from stealing it.
And this pearl of wisdom is worth half an ounce of pig manure, tops. The
rentiers "grow their money" by extortion. And again, lying pig: Why do
I care if they "grow their money"? The interesting point is that you
actually seem to care very much. That is because, in addition to being a
liar, are also to stupid to tie your own shoes.
>> or under the ranch some asshole that inherited from his daddy, lying
>> pig? And why is it that _OUR_ tax money is used to protect some
>> asshole's property in China or anywhere else? And why would I, as a
>> consumer, care if the Chinese sold sneakers here in the USA labeled
>> "NIke" (exact replicas) at one forth the price while shooting the
>> middle finger at the "Nike" stockholders?
>> HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM????????
>
> So every idea and thing you own, belongs to all of us? I'll be around to
> get your tooth brush and us it to clean my toilet and then put it back
> for you, I won't bother you tonight when I pick it up and put it
> back.... How's it feel to have no ownership?
Rightful private ownership comes into being the hands that PRODUCE that
which is a candidate for private ownership. Natural resources claims and
other government sanctioned barriers to entry are not "rightful
ownership".
Patriot Games
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:34:42 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On 20 Nov 2009 17:34:43 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:01:19 -0800, American Patriot wrote:
>>>> what an idiot. I suppose you want to steal from the rich in your
>>>> twisted sense of justice.
>>>Most of us who actually understand economics want to recover the rent
>>>stolen from us in the first place.
>> Nothing was stolen from you.
>> You only have excuses for wanting to STEAL what you are too LAZY to
>> EARN.
>Exactly when and how did the supposed "owner" _EARN_ the oil in the OCS
>or under the ranch some asshole that inherited from his daddy
Inheritance (after taxes) is the same as earning.
Its not our fault that you inherited nothing as the spawn of
deadbeats.
>>>But tax policy can also be used to
>> Gasoline can also be used to spray Communists like YOU for the benefit
>> of those of us who would enjoy watching you lit up!
>>>"encourage" the rich to invest in _real_ capital that does, in fact,
>>>improve the quality of life for all.
>> It is NOT any OTHER person's responsibility to "improve the quality of
>> life for all." It is YOUR responsibility to improve YOUR quality of
>> life.
>And I choose to do that through honesty. Exposing the kleptocrats for
>what they are. Economic rent is _NEVER_ earned.
There is no such thing as "economic rent."
Michael Coburn
Lie and deny. It's the Republican way.
--