Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJay Kay
    • CommentTimeOct 1st 2011
     (10239.81)
    It's truly the gift that keeps on giving you tears!
    •  
      CommentAuthorScottBieser
    • CommentTimeOct 1st 2011 edited
     (10239.82)
    For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, a different analysis of Occupy Wall Street and what they should really be protesting:

    http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/occupying-wall-street/
    •  
      CommentAuthorJay Kay
    • CommentTimeOct 1st 2011
     (10239.83)
    @ScottBieser:

    I actually posted that last page. :P
  1.  (10239.84)
    Libertarian poppycock.
    • CommentAuthorgzapata
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2011 edited
     (10239.85)
    Sooooo it wasn't the progressive era that saw massive changes and developments in the growth of the middle class...it was la la land before then that was so great and the progressive era that screwed it up for all of us? Does anyone other than conservative think tanks really view our history this way?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJon Wake
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2011
     (10239.86)
    Things really went downhill once we made all that child labor illegal.
  2.  (10239.87)
  3.  (10239.88)
    @Jay Kay -- Sorry, I missed your posting.

    gzapata and Jon -- Cling to your pet monster all you like, just don't be surprised when it winds up eating you. You've been warned.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJon Wake
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2011
     (10239.89)
    Oh, sweet electric bullshit.

    I'd rather have a vote than a dollar.

    Libertarians think they're the same thing.
  4.  (10239.90)
    Things really went downhill once we made all that child labor illegal.

    Well, the Progressive Era kind of was followed by decadence and depression, if your going to talk about hills...

    As far as the article, It is certainly not false that one hundred percent of business influence on government is motivated by desire to reduce new entrants (competition) and subsidize risk. However the article doesn't lay an argument about how this is bad (also, the article forgets to define what it thinks is "bad" -- just that there is government ever, or some specific array of social outcomes?). If the proposition is that every government act that came out of business desire harmed economic growth, it isn't in the article. If the proposition is that just in broad strokes having business-designed regulations will always lead to less growth and fairness than free market (presumably, a democracy which is constitutionally proscribed from passing laws about money), the article doesn't offer an argument why.

    But I think the point that most government laws regarding money are shaped by efforts of existing businesses to reduce competition and risk is good for liberals to incorporate into their worldview. A conception of a democracy that achieves progressive goals through government actions would need to have a mechanism for correcting or minimizing that problem.

    Also, a libertarian willing to write articles in that framework is rejecting the Randian theory of an ether made of awesome perfectly reasonable and self-interested rich-people-decisions, so I am not sure why the response here is being unrestrainedly hostile.

    Typed on mobile
    •  
      CommentAuthorAlan Tyson
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2011
     (10239.91)
    Can anyone confirm or deny this?

    Army and Marine veterans marching to Wall Street to "protect the protesters."

    Wonderful if true, but it's almost too good to be true.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroddbill
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2011
     (10239.92)
    It's just a handful of guys. It's not an official armed forces stance or anything. But it won't be a bad thing to have six or ten vets in uniform there.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAlan Tyson
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2011
     (10239.93)
    Right, but just the fact that a few of them are doing it is awesome.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDoc Ocassi
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011
     (10239.94)
  5.  (10239.95)
    "If they want to get to some protesters so they can mace them, they will have to get through the Fucking Marine Corps first. Let’s see a cop mace a bunch of decorated war vets"


    I truly hope this is legit. If the US really wants to be a world leader, they could do a lot worse than lead us to revolution.
  6.  (10239.96)
    ...I am not sure why the response here is being unrestrainedly hostile


    Weakened government oversight and letting "job creators" do what they pleased is what allowed the problem to happen in the first place. Freemarket Fundamentalism claims that the best way to get out of the hole you find yourself in is to get more shovels. Even if people can't articulate why, they know a fundamentally stupid position when they see it.
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011
     (10239.97)
    Sometimes it's okay to point out that something's pretty fucked up, without actually having a solution to it or offering an alternative. That can be enough to get other people who do have solutions and alternatives involved and as many people as possible thinking about it.
  7.  (10239.98)
    @Oddcult: At last!!! Your's has been, so far, the most intelligent and sensitive opinion on this matter, on this thread.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMild Maynyrd
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011 edited
     (10239.99)
    For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, a different analysis of Occupy Wall Street and what they should really be protesting:

    http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/occupying-wall-street/


    "...many people across the political spectrum seem to think the Pentagon is not part of the government."

    What? Where's he getting this from? Simply untrue. Me, a lot of Americans, and (perhaps more so) many of the six billion people out there see that building as an imposing, often-times threatening bureaucratic symbol representing the US Government's will to do as it pleases.

    A trivial complaint, I know. But you can't just make up shit and put words in millions, or billions, of mouths.

    THE BIGGER POINT. While I think the article has some important points to make, there should be a distinction between government and corrupt government. It is true that the United States government, for decades now, has covered the asses of big business: its influence, its CEO's, its cash. To me that is obvious if one invests any time at all investigating the connections between Wall Street and cabinet members, corporations and campaigns, etc. And it's Democrats and Republicans. But to take that very valid point and jump to the conclusion that government, in general, is half of the problem is silly. THIS government, perhaps. CORRUPT government. A government where damn near every Secretary of Treasury of the past 30 years has been a CEO, Chairman, or board member of a very powerful financial institution. Yes, perhaps that version of "government". But actually we need government more now than ever... just not that one. We need good government. Free of corruption and cash. Whether or not that happens is another story, another article, another debate. But if Sheldon Richman believes that a dissolved and tiny government, or none at all, will somehow make the corporate world, the world of big business, a more honest and altruistic place then he is just as naive as he claims these protesters to be.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDoc Ocassi
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011
     (10239.100)
    Hey NY, one of your guys got lost, can you please come and pick him up.

    Trump’s “difficult” relationship with Grampian police

    A series of memos marked “restricted” show that the police have struggled to resist this pressure, and have become worried that their impartiality would be damaged. Trump had “unrealistic expectations” that Grampian police would behave like the New York Police Department (NYPD), police officers said.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.