"So what I’m saying is that the big business lobbys are piggybacking on the war cry of the small business to provide cover for what they really want, which is reduced regulation."
I totally agree. Without exception, every regulation, permit, and license that myself and fellow small business people have had to endure has been stupid, pointless, and totally without value to our customers. In fact, I would go so far as to say they are used for the purpose of intentionally barring competition, i.e. you need a law degree to be allowed to practice law.
On the other hand, the large corp I work at ALREADY ignores the laws. They get away with it because we have reams of lawyers to clog up the courts anytime someone tries to take us to task. For example, we’re currently on our 5th OSHA inspection, to try to get compliance. This is unheard of in CA. Normally, the first visit you get warned, the second visit you are fined into oblivion. 5 OSHA visits, and we’re still thumbing our noses at the state. Same goes for labor laws, we simply do not follow them. If we were a small business, we’d be OUT of business.
For heffe-
Your second point isn’t true for us. My business has been around for 15 years, my father-in-laws for over 30, and my neighbors for over 20. None of us have expanded. I continue to attract clients because I’m very good at what I do, the same is true for my neighbor’s tile business. His quality is tip-top, that’s his edge, and the reason he does not step back and let an employee run things. My father-in-law’s business is excellent right now, because the recent economic upheaval drove his competition (all in debt) out of the market, making him one of a handful that provide his services.
[quote=tictac1] … My business has been around for 15 years, my father-in-laws for over 30, and my neighbors for over 20. None of us have expanded. I continue to attract clients because I’m very good at what I do, the same is true for my neighbor’s tile business. His quality is tip-top, that’s his edge, and the reason he does not step back and let an employee run things. My father-in-law’s business is excellent right now, because the recent economic upheaval drove his competition (all in debt) out of the market, making him one of a handful that provide his services. [/quote]Your and your father-in-laws business are part of the productive economy that benefit you, your employees and your community. Wall Street and the financial industry that benefits only a select few elites at the expense community and of all others is in the non-productive economy. Many in the OWS get it, they know they will not have the opportunities that the boomers have had and they know it is due to the symbiotic relationship between Wall Street and DC.
[quote=Poet]I don’t know if someone else has posted this. But worth watching.
A protester at Occupy Wall Street talks Austrian economics, Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwpWhvmJfE
Link to video above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwpWhvmJfE
Poet
[/quote]
Sorry to poke at this one Poet, but it seems the co-opters are moving in.
This guy is a shill. Austrian economics? This is based on free market solutions to replace government control-despite the hand waving about “End the Fed” at the end of the day it’s more free market evangelism, precisely the recipe for how we got to where we are today.
Ron Paul shill, plain and simple.
At the end of the video there is a link as to the sponsorship : http://whataboutliberty.com/
Lots of Ron Paul banners, and get this, a Rush Limbaugh clip where he endorses RP.
Here they come… [Moderator’s note: Please remember the forum rules. Conclusory statements, especially conclusory statements which also use disparaging phrases are not in the spirit of constructive conversation. If you wish to begin a discussion about the merits of the specific arguments that underlie free market economics, then feel free to do so using an argument backed by specific facts. Or you might want to point out certain weaknesses in the theory, accomplanied by particular suggestions for improvement. Or you might discuss the merits of an alternate or modified theory.]
[quote=tictac1]
For heffe-
Your second point isn’t true for us. My business has been around for 15 years, my father-in-laws for over 30, and my neighbors for over 20. None of us have expanded. I continue to attract clients because I’m very good at what I do, the same is true for my neighbor’s tile business. [/quote]
Congrats if this is true, though I doubt the phrase ‘none of us have expanded’ is entirely true. You may not have expanded in large degree’s, but growth is required somewhere, and even then your next statement is ‘continue to attract clients’ which implies some form of growth. If whatever service you are providing doesn’t have too much competition that makes a great position on your part. Just hope that no one with more favorable positions starts to encroach upon your customer base. For me, there is a lot of demand with even more producers, so competition is potent.
Who produces your energy certificates? What do they represent? What happens when the energy is used? How do you value human labor? Provide some examples of their use (step through a transaction - begining with creation of the certificate though someone using it for exchange). Be specific - no hand waving or jargon....
Its a concept that Ive read about sparsely, but I believe through research we can arrive to specifics. Here are my generalizations
1) Any form of energy extraction can produce certificates, therefore local and global.
2) Some form of energy conversion unit, such as a Watt, which is the mechanical conversion of electrical energy. Maybe a new form which includes human labor as a form of energy?
3) When energy is used, its either for transportation, manufactering processes, extraction processes, etc. The use of the energy note converts to some form of societal service or good.
4) Human labor does has a specific Watteage, though Im short on time (spanish class) so I'll find data later
5) Solar panel converts specific amount of electromagnetic radiation to specific amount of watts, or amps. Those amps are registered onto a note, which has a specific monetization for each unit of energy. This note can be 'saved' in the form of a charged battery, and rather than taking on loans for the ease of credit, someone can utilize the energy/money for creating their product.
Im sorry Im short on time, but I'll provide more specifics later
[quote=frobn]Your and your father-in-laws business are part of the productive economy that benefit you, your employees and your community. Wall Street and the financial industry that benefits only a select few elites at the expense community and of all others is in the non-productive economy.
[/quote]
While I understand what you mean, I think you need to keep in mind the large banks on Wall Street employee 100’s of thousands - many of them think they are productive and providing benefits to their communities.
I think if you really want to find the unproductive part of society to be angry at, this article covers it nicely. (Note the primary article is not the focus, but the quotes from Bloomberg articles in it. Here are are couple of the quotes:
Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation’s greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out San Jose as the wealthiest US metropolitan area, government data show.
The US capital has swapped top spots with Silicon Valley, according to recent Census Bureau figures, with the typical household in the Washington metro area earning $84,523 last year. The national median income for 2010 was $50,046.
and
Last year Washington also had the most lawyers per capita in the US compared with the 50 states, with one for every 12 city residents, according to figures from the American Bar Association and the Census Bureau. In New York State the figure was one out of every 123 residents, while in California the ratio was one in 243.
One of the benefits of this approach is that there are people who are sympathetic to Occupy Wall Street but have commitments that limit their ability to participate (read child care) and may be sufficiently stressed financially that they can’t give as much as they’d like. The Occupy the Board Room site provides another outlet.
Make your voice heard by the Wall Street elites who wrecked the economy and made the rest of us pay. Click on someone below and tell them a story that you think they should listen to. Just got a college degree and nothing to show for it? Just got evicted while your banker gets bonuses? Share your special story with someone who ought to know. Find a Pen Pal
Option 2: Best Friends Forever
If you're feeling even more generous, why not reach out in a more creative way? Click on a banker below, then read the instructions and examples to get inspired. Maybe your banker needs some kind words, or maybe an intervention. Most importantly, use your imagination! The best, funniest, most revelatory interactions win prizes. Find a BFF
Supporting documentation and details on the $53 trillion in potential derivatives blow-up. Imagine if even 2% of it blows up. That’s enough to clear the roughly $1 trillion deposited by Joe and Judy Sixpack.
[quote=rhare][quote=frobn]
Your and your father-in-laws business are part of the productive economy that benefit you, your employees and your community. Wall Street and the financial industry that benefits only a select few elites at the expense community and of all others is in the non-productive economy.
[/quote]
While I understand what you mean, I think you need to keep in mind the large banks on Wall Street employee 100’s of thousands - many of them think they are productive and providing benefits to their communities.
I think if you really want to find the unproductive part of society to be angry at, this article covers it nicely. (Note the primary article is not the focus, but the quotes from Bloomberg articles in it. Here are are couple of the quotes:[/quote]
My post was a way of congratulating tictac1 and his father-in-law on being in the productive economy. I, myself, don’t distinguish between Wall Street and DC and while I can’t speak for OWS I know many in the movement who have the same view that their symbiotic relationship forms the non-productive economy and many of the young people seem to know this intuitively. But thank you for pointing out other parts of the non-productive economy. The non-productive econcomy can serve as a point of alignment between the Tea Party and OWS.
A key reason why a preponderance of the population is fascinated with the student loan market is that as USA Today reported in a landmark piece last year, it is now bigger than ever the credit card market. And as the monthly consumer debt update from the Fed reminds us, the primary source of funding is none other than the US government.
To many, this market has become the biggest credit bubble in America. Why do we make a big deal out of this? Because as Bloomberg reported last night, we now have prima facie evidence that the student loan market is not only an epic bubble, but it is also the next subprime!
To wit: "Vince Sampson, president, Education Finance Council, said during a panel at the IMN ABS East Conference in Miami Monday that lenders are no longer pushing loans to people who can’t afford them."
Re-read the last sentence as many times as necessary for it to sink in. Yes: just like before lenders were "pushing loans to people who can’t afford them" which became the reason for the subprime bubble which has since spread to prime, but was missing the actual confirmation from authorities of just this action, this time around we have actual confirmation that student loans are being actually peddled to people who can not afford them. And with the government a primary source of lending, we will be lucky if tears is all this ends in.
[quote=darbikrash][quote=Poet]
I don’t know if someone else has posted this. But worth watching.
A protester at Occupy Wall Street talks Austrian economics, Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwpWhvmJfE
Link to video above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwpWhvmJfE
Poet
[/quote]
Sorry to poke at this one Poet, but it seems the co-opters are moving in.
This guy is a shill. Austrian economics? This is based on free market solutions to replace government control-despite the hand waving about “End the Fed” at the end of the day it’s more free market evangelism, precisely the recipe for how we got to where we are today.
Ron Paul shill, plain and simple.
At the end of the video there is a link as to the sponsorship : http://whataboutliberty.com/
Lots of Ron Paul banners, and get this, a Rush Limbaugh clip where he endorses RP.
Here they come… [Moderator’s note: Please remember the forum rules. Conclusory statements, especially conclusory statements which also use disparaging phrases are not in the spirit of constructive conversation. If you wish to begin a discussion about the merits of the specific arguments that underlie free market economics, then feel free to do so using an argument backed by specific facts. Or you might want to point out certain weaknesses in the theory, accomplanied by particular suggestions for improvement. Or you might discuss the merits of an alternate or modified theory.]
[/quote]
In the video in question posted by Poet, the interviewer specifically mentioned, and I quote “ “What do you say to the people that say you are a shill for Ron Paul…………”
I am commenting on this remark. The point of my post is to comment on this rather interesting question from the interviewer, which occurs after “Captain Midnight” invokes Murray Rothbard (by name), Lew Rockwell (by name) and Ron Paul numerous times which I find curious in a group of anti-corporate protestors, as all these people referenced are feverent unregulated free market believers. So then I go to the link at the end of the video, and I find it is in fact nothing more than paid advertisement for……Ron Paul with full throated endorsement from none other than Rush Limbaugh.
It was my hope that the readers at CM.com would find this disclosure to be of benefit when evaluating the material (and the individual) presented in the video.
Far be it from me to disparage Ron Paul, or to give other posters cause to PM the moderators to get yet another heathen dissenter removed from the site.
Go Ron Paul!
[quote=darbikrash]If you have an interest in investigating this further, Steve Keen has some useful materials to illustrate the correct way to resolve this question. It is somewhat dense, but well worth the effort. (Link)
His conclusion is that a debt based monetary system does not require exponential growth.
(but then he’s Austrailan )
[/quote]
Quite interesting lectures, thanks for the appropriate link… I always enjoy his clear presentations (at least for me as an engineer, I can’t relate to all the economic jargon).
However, we should make one thing clear. He states this caveat: ‘Lenders must not exploit "seigniorage" if the system [is] to function’, and also makes crystal clear that the second law of thermodynamics (i.e.: resources and pollution) is part of ‘secondary issues here [in this lecture]’…
At some point, someone is going to have to regulate these things. There is no such thing as a completely free market, but there is such a thing as a "free market", as rhare understands it AFAIK.
Samuel
[quote=darbikrash]It was my hope that the readers at CM.com would find this disclosure to be of benefit when evaluating the material (and the individual) presented in the video.
[/quote]
DK-
That could have been accomplished without using the term "shill".
Are you really so married to your ideology that you can’t stomach those with different views participating in these protests, people that if nothing else share a common interest in prosecuting the fraud and ensuring the laws apply to EVERYBODY? If the libertarians in OWS can tolerate being in the same protest as those waving "END CAPITALISM" signs, can’t you tolerate the occasional "END THE FED" sign? If none of us can look past our pet issues to cooperate on the highest priorities that most of us CAN agree on, then we are boned. The crooks win again and keep their influence intact.
As for Rush Limbaugh endorsing Ron Paul, the video at the link you gave doesn’t work. But I’m guessing it has to do with him agreeing with Ron Paul’s budget plan. Reading the transcript, his endorsement sounded more like a backhanded compliment. And if there’s anything more to it than his usual yakity-yak to fill air time, it’s likely he’s just positioning to be a straphanger in the event that Ron Paul’s popularity increases. Rush Limbaugh has attacked or ridiculed Ron Paul many times previously ("I’m sorry, but this Ron Paul is going to destroy this party. This is nuts on parade."), so why are you making so much of one backhanded compliment that was parroted on some blogger’s website? Ideology again?
Far be it from me to disparage Ron Paul, or to give other posters cause to PM the moderators to get yet another heathen dissenter removed from the site.
"Well... I'll be on the veranda, since you're already on the cross..." - Brian Griffin
- Nickbert
I think we’ve watched an earlier movement get co-opted into oblivion, are we to silently watch another? The term “shill” was not introduced by me, it was used by the interviewer at minute 6.05 in the video Poet posted. I have every right to comment on this, including the choice to reflect it back verbatim and to add external links that support this conclusion. The real issue here is that Ron Paul is the favored son, the savior of a damaged empire that desperately wants (and needs) this to be about just off track monetary policy and too much government. While it may be satisfyingly symmetrical to conclude that the Tea Party, Libertarians, and Conservatives share common goals with the OWS protestors, I respectfully disagree.
I don’t find “prosecuting the fraud” to be consistent with advocating a return to free market solutions in the marketplace, where “fraud” is redefined to benefit actors that stand to profit- do you? I think we have ample demonstration that “applying the laws to everybody” is not working- at all- under our current unregulated system, I mean at some point you just have to state the obvious and stop all the masquerading around the term ideology, are people getting away scott free with high crimes or not? Is further dismantling the regulatory environment going to make this better or worse? Is turning towards more free market solutions going to be in Wall Streets’ favor or ours? Is this what the spirit of OWS is about?
I would submit that Rush Limbaugh’s’ “endorsement” backhanded or not, represents much more that just some bloggers trumpeting. Like it or not, Limbaugh is a significant figure in conservative politics and is hard wired into the upper echelons of the Republican party, as well as their corporate sponsors. He is in fact somewhat of a kingmaker in conservative circles, due to his wide (and ultra conservative) radio audience and the voting block that comes with them. His endorsement of Ron Paul pivots attention from this audience who is largely about Perry/Romney and elevates visibility to the Paul ticket (who in my book is just another Republican with a better speil). The collapse of Perry and the disintegration of Cain’s 999 tax plan means that the Republicans are running out of traction to field a competent (!) challenger to the 2012 race.
Pivoting to RP and moving in on the OWS protests looks to me to be a potent form of political calculus.
I think it’s time for me to step back in here to clarify a misunderstanding.
[quote=darkikrash] The term “shill” was not introduced by me, it was used by the interviewer at minute 6.05 in the video… I have every right to comment on this, including the choice to reflect it back verbatim and to add external links that support this conclusion. [/quote] Darbikrash, I am worried by the extent that this is missing the point of the forum rules. The interviewer in the video asked, “Is it OK if I ask you a provocative question?..[yes]…What do you say to the people that say you are a shill for Ron Paul? That’s my provocative question.”
Clearly a provocative question, as the interviewer was aware and as he politely made an effort to defuse by asking permission before even posing it.
Clearly even more provocative when it is changed into the form of a bald assertion, as I have no doubt you were aware when you did that.
As to the interviewer’s "provocative question":
Yes, you may repeat that question verbatim, hopefully with proper attribution.
Yes,. you may comment on it.
Yes, you may (and are encouraged to) present specific information tending to support it, if it were a conclusion.
NO, you may not make conclusory statements, especially provocative or divisive ones, simply because somebody, somewhere, has spoken the words before. It tends to destroy good conversation. In this forum, we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
If you have any further questions about the forum rules, I invite you to ask them by email or PM. If you are confused by anything I’ve said, please do email me.
The notion that Rush Limbaugh endorses Ron Paul would be hilarious if it wasn’t such a disgraceful effort at political propaganda. The clip posted does show an endorsement of RP, merely an acknowledgement that he has one agreeable point: massive budget cuts. Listen again to where Limbaugh says:
"You’re not going to believe my answer".
Caller: "What?".
Limbaugh: "Ron Paul has a good idea"
The sarcastic tone and the comment itself only makes sense when viewed in the context that Limbaugh is incredulous that he actually found something on which he agrees with RP. Agreeing with one point while repudiating everything else he stands for is hardly a ringing endorsement. Moreover, Limbaugh and Hannity both, as well as the Republican establishment as a whole, dismiss Paul as a "kook fringe" candidate. My buddy is a hard core dittohead. Whenever I advocate for Ron Paul, his rebuttals are always a regurgitation of Limbaugh’s rejection of Ron Paul. And that rejection shows no mercy. To try to stretch the blurb in this video into an endorsement is intellectually dishonest. As is this:
........the Paul ticket (who in my book is just another Republican with a better speil).
What other candidate, Republican or Democrat, has:
>Never voted for a budget deficit (unbalanced budget)
>Never voted for an earmark
>Never voted for a tax increase
>Never voted for a Congressional pay raise
>And has always advocated for sound money (i.e. opposed the Federal Reserve)
That’s not just "a better spiel". That’s conviction to a spirit of public service which the voting public should hold as a prerequisite for all candidates for all public offices.
…the Paul ticket (who in my book is just another Republican with a better speil).
What other candidate, Republican or Democrat, has:
>Never voted for a budget deficit (unbalanced budget)
>Never voted for an earmark
>Never voted for a tax increase
>Never voted for a Congressional pay raise
>And has always advocated for sound money (i.e. opposed the Federal Reserve)
That's not just "a better spiel". That's conviction to a spirit of public service which the voting public should hold as a prerequisite for all candidates for all public offices.
[/quote]
Yes well, you’re entitled to your opinion and I to mine. I will note that we’ve seen this movie before in the 2008 elections, where Limbaugh dismissed McCain for most of the election buildup until it became apparent that he was the only chance to run against the Obama/Biden ticket, and Limbaugh abruptly shifted his endorsement, starting with specific platform endorsements and building to his full endorsement.
My how soon we forget.
Limbaugh takes his marching orders from the Republican party officials. Note also that Ron Paul is a Republican. They all have their spiels, their marketing angles designed to triangulate on specific demographics, surgically inserted into the Thunderdome where 7 men (and 1 woman) enter and one man leave based on poll results and tactical party manoeuvers. Paul has his “fan club” overly represented here as he represents seemingly the only chance to “get ‘er done” in a world where the Federal Reserve, the deficit, and government overreach are the only defects that can be authorized for consideration. Sorry to burst the bubble, but he’s just another version of identity politics v2.0. I don’t think I have to tell you who v1.0 is, but as a hint he occupies the current office.
So we can conclude with the lesson that say what will, thou shall not defile the name of Ron Paul, the last Great White Hope.
Yes well, you’re entitled to your opinion and I to mine. I will note that we’ve seen this movie before in the 2008 elections, where Limbaugh dismissed McCain for most of the election buildup until it became apparent that he was the only chance to run against the Obama/Biden ticket, and Limbaugh abruptly shifted his endorsement, starting with specific platform endorsements and building to his full endorsement.
My how soon we forget.
Limbaugh takes his marching orders from the Republican party officials. Note also that Ron Paul is a Republican. They all have their spiels, their marketing angles designed to triangulate on specific demographics, surgically inserted into the Thunderdome where 7 men (and 1 woman) enter and one man leave based on poll results and tactical party manoeuvers. Paul has his “fan club” overly represented here as he represents seemingly the only chance to “get ‘er done” in a world where the Federal Reserve, the deficit, and government overreach are the only defects that can be authorized for consideration. Sorry to burst the bubble, but he’s just another version of identity politics v2.0. I don’t think I have to tell you who v1.0 is, but as a hint he occupies the current office.
So we can conclude with the lesson that say what will, thou shall not defile the name of Ron Paul, the last Great White Hope.[/quote]
Sarcasm is unnecessary as is the introduction of a specious racial element to the argument now . I’m surprised that you have to sink to that level since you usually express yourself better than that. I think NIckbert and earthwise have both made excellent points and are entitled to their point of view without the snarky comments. I’m also surprised that you’re trying so hard to establish some type of Rush Limbaugh/Ron Paul connection. Ron Paul is politically more of a libertarian than a republican which is patently obvious to anyone who is familiar with his positions.
I’m also surprised that you are so determined to emphasize the differences and divisions between the OWS members, Tea Party members, Libertarians, etc. rather than encourage the common ground they are finding in opposing TPTB. Why would you want to create fissures in a movement that is bringing previously disparate groups in the direction of cooperation and unity and away from conflict and strife? That’s the strategy one would expect from the far left or the far right.
If you’ve seen this movie before then you are the only one, probably because it played only in your mind. Limbaugh hated McCain and still does. His voice caricature of McCain was/is belittling and demeaning. Limbaugh openly repudiated McCain, pointing out that McCain was inches away from defecting to the Democratic Party, demonstrating that he was a Rino.
So we ought to be forgiven for forgetting something that never happened.