Capitlism vs. Free Enterprise

[Huey]

Let's see - more of the reaganomics that got us where we are. Genius.

Until you girls understand that an economy which allows a very tiny priesthood class access to billions of dollars, and an economy which relies on the free ENTERPRISE of millions of entrepreneurs is TWO DIFFERENT ECONOMIES, then you will continue to FAIL in making the distinctions that will empower this nation to rebuild the middle class.

The entrepreneur class is being systematically locked out of the game by regulations written by wall street to prevent entry into their markets. This prevents them from creating the jobs that historically run this economy - leaving it to wall street. which is manifestly committed to OFF-SHORING American jobs. The obvious and predictable result is joblessness - now termed a "jobless recovery" - a phrase which no one should have the effrontery to say with a straight face. We were once a nation of adults who would have BALKED at such an anti-American term.

Now, your plan - more of the same - while SEEMING counter-intuitive and stupid, is actually retarded and neoconservative.

YAWN! Blame Reagan blah blah blah. Blame Wall Street BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Entrepenership is not dwindling because of regulation written by wall street. Expansion is non existent not because of the same. 93 million people are not out of work because of the ghost regulation you allude to. It is because of regulation pushed, talked about and signed into law over the last decade. It is because of the cost these regulations impose on people.

I asked one person who post the same propaganda you do to go start a business. Tell us your five year plan. Just how much, factoring in the ACA, EPA regs, possible union costs, what your overhead to run that business will be each year. At this point you can't do it.

Off shoring american jobs? ****, why start a business here taking into account the factors above when it is so much cheaper elsewhere? The current policies of higher taxes and other regulations is counter intuitive and stupid. It is as if your compadres WANT the system to fail. You a fan of the cloward and pivens strategy?

That is what is stifling jobs in America. That is why we have non existent GDP growth. Get government out of the way and keep the socialist policies, and your semi socialist policies, out of the way.

[Cannonpointer]

YAWN! Blame Reagan blah blah blah. Blame Wall Street BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Entrepenership is not dwindling because of regulation written by wall street. Expansion is non existent not because of the same. 93 million people are not out of work because of the ghost regulation you allude to. It is because of regulation pushed, talked about and signed into law over the last decade. It is because of the cost these regulations impose on people.

I asked one person who post the same propaganda you do to go start a business. Tell us your five year plan. Just how much, factoring in the ACA, EPA regs, possible union costs, what your overhead to run that business will be each year. At this point you can't do it.

*******, none of those things affect main street start ups. You need to study up, son. If anything, ACA takes the onus OFF small employers by creating those exchanges.

Off shoring american jobs? ****, why start a business here taking into account the factors above when it is so much cheaper elsewhere? The current policies of higher taxes and other regulations is counter intuitive and stupid. It is as if your compadres WANT the system to fail. You a fan of the cloward and pivens strategy?

Jesus you are stupid. Wall Streeters "start a business here," you ape, because THIS IS WHERE THE BILLIONS THEY HAVE ACCESS TO ARE. What are you - **** retarded? Of COURSE Wall Streeters incorporate here. Their MONEY is here. My God, it's like you're an actual monkey.

But they prefer Chinese labor, because Chinese labor is LITERALLY cheaper than owning slaves. Dullard.

That is what is stifling jobs in America. That is why we have non existent GDP growth. Get government out of the way and keep the socialist policies, and your semi socialist policies, out of the way.

*******, government has been giving capitailism freebies since the rail roads. The very EXISTENCE of Wall Street is a favor by government, and it is government's imprimatur which reassures investors. Making a pool of hundreds of billions available and accessible to a chosen few is a BIT of a favor, dimwit. It gives Wall Street a SHADE of an advantage over Main Street, dimwit. This was true under FDR's rules, and is far more true under Reagan's. That's why I never said FDR's rules were perfect - just better, AS THE OUTCOMES PROVE.

[Huey]

*******, none of those things affect main street start ups. You need to study up, son. If anything, ACA takes the onus OFF small employers by creating those exchanges.



Jesus you are stupid. Wall Streeters "start a business here," you ape, because THIS IS WHERE THE BILLIONS THEY HAVE ACCESS TO ARE. What are you - **** retarded? Of COURSE Wall Streeters incorporate here. Their MONEY is here. My God, it's like you're an actual monkey.

But they prefer Chinese labor, because Chinese labor is LITERALLY cheaper than owning slaves. Dullard.



*******, government has been giving capitailism freebies since the rail roads. The very EXISTENCE of Wall Street is a favor by government, and it is government's imprimatur which reassures investors. Making a pool of hundreds of billions available and accessible to a chosen few is a BIT of a favor, dimwit. It gives Wall Street a SHADE of an advantage over Main Street, dimwit. This was true under FDR's rules, and is far more true under Reagan's. That's why I never said FDR's rules were perfect - just better, AS THE OUTCOMES PROVE.

Oh my god! Listen to the left wing loon.

They are starting business here? Then why the **** are there 93 million americans out of the work force? The ACA HELPS start ups? Then why are start up numbers DOWN?

What the **** is it you want, cannon? Just lay it out there. Stop with the ideological rants. What EXACTLY do you want the next congress and the next president to concentrate on, propose, and pass to see your vision of american is reached? No more blame it reagan, bush, cons, and wall street. Tell us what you would support or for the hell of it, run on.

[Cannonpointer]

Oh my god! Listen to the left wing loon.

They are starting business here? Then why the **** are there 93 million americans out of the work force? The ACA HELPS start ups? Then why are start up numbers DOWN?

What the **** is it you want, cannon? Just lay it out there. Stop with the ideological rants. What EXACTLY do you want the next congress and the next president to concentrate on, propose, and pass to see your vision of american is reached? No more blame it reagan, bush, cons, and wall street. Tell us what you would support or for the hell of it, run on.

Reinstating Glass Steagall would be nice, as would be putting back the firewall between regulators and regulated. Virtually every regulatory agency that oversees wall street is staffed by insiders who receive sinecures upon their exit.

I would like the regulations on ownership of media back in place, so that six megacorps cannot control consensus reality. I would like the regulatory environment under FDR's game rules restored. For example, I would like regulations preventing people who own shares of oil companies from serving on auto manufacturing boards, since they have a vested interest against high gas mileage cars.

I am not a wonk, but I am well aware that under the old rules, CEOs lived and died by the welfare of the companies they stewarded, and were not allowed to feed upon, rather than steward, those companies. I would like THAT regulatory environment back. In the post Reagan deregulation environment, the welfare of a given company has little relationship to the welfare of the CEO who oversees its demise - and that is certainly detrimental to the interests of investors.

The Bush "too big to fail" doctrine, made possible by abandoning FDR's game rules and adopted whole hog by the democrats including the current administration - I would certainly like to see that discarded. Watching Wall Street directly access the treasury while you defend them and pretend my complaint is based on "envy" - not pleasant.

I would certainly, above all other things, like to see a return to honest money. It might require a Constitutional Convention (we need that to get rid of the 17th anyway), but we need to replace the metal standard with SOMETHING other than the corrupt insider capitalism of the federal reserve bank (I know - I just envy them, yada yada).

But what I would really like is for the federal government to revoke and rescind every law it has which brings Wall Street into being, leaving Wall Street to UTTERLY self-regulate or perish. That does not mean Wall Street would not have laws and regulations keeping its actors in check - just that it would no longer receive special favors from government. They would have to compete with Main Street on a level regulatory field, and whereas access to scads of cash is a major benefit, so is having an OWNER at the helm instead of a potentially nest-feathering hireling. I think many people would put their money into Main Street enterprises, if the government no longer vouched for Wall Street.

Naturally, Citizens United is something I also oppose. I know that you have been told that G.E. is a person, but that's not true. You can google it.

[shintao]

Entrepenership is not dwindling because of regulation written by wall street. Expansion is non existent not because of the same. 93 million people are not out of work because of the ghost regulation you allude to. It is because of regulation pushed, talked about and signed into law over the last decade. It is because of the cost these regulations impose on people.

wtf did you say?

[Huey]

wtf did you say?

Read it in context shinty. Cannon is arguing that wall street is writing regulation was in turn is killing entrepenuership. And killing jobs. I argue that wall street is not writing regulation that is killing either.

This is what happens when your troll and attach yourself to a conversation.

[Brattle Street]

Read it in context shinty. Cannon is arguing that wall street is writing regulation was in turn is killing entrepenuership. And killing jobs. I argue that wall street is not writing regulation that is killing either.

This is what happens when your troll and attach yourself to a conversation.

yes because we all know that private business interests would NEVER try to cheat anyone. the personhood they embody is actual jesus. Only the evil government would be interested in controlling markets.

[Huey]

Reinstating Glass Steagall would be nice, as would be putting back the firewall between regulators and regulated. Virtually every regulatory agency that oversees wall street is staffed by insiders who receive sinecures upon their exit.

I would like the regulations on ownership of media back in place, so that six megacorps cannot control consensus reality. I would like the regulatory environment under FDR's game rules restored. For example, I would like regulations preventing people who own shares of oil companies from serving on auto manufacturing boards, since they have a vested interest against high gas mileage cars.

I am not a wonk, but I am well aware that under the old rules, CEOs lived and died by the welfare of the companies they stewarded, and were not allowed to feed upon, rather than steward, those companies. I would like THAT regulatory environment back. In the post Reagan deregulation environment, the welfare of a given company has little relationship to the welfare of the CEO who oversees its demise - and that is certainly detrimental to the interests of investors.

The Bush "too big to fail" doctrine, made possible by abandoning FDR's game rules and adopted whole hog by the democrats including the current administration - I would certainly like to see that discarded. Watching Wall Street directly access the treasury while you defend them and pretend my complaint is based on "envy" - not pleasant.

I would certainly, above all other things, like to see a return to honest money. It might require a Constitutional Convention (we need that to get rid of the 17th anyway), but we need to replace the metal standard with SOMETHING other than the corrupt insider capitalism of the federal reserve bank (I know - I just envy them, yada yada).

But what I would really like is for the federal government to revoke and rescind every law it has which brings Wall Street into being, leaving Wall Street to UTTERLY self-regulate or perish. That does not mean Wall Street would not have laws and regulations keeping its actors in check - just that it would no longer receive special favors from government. They would have to compete with Main Street on a level regulatory field, and whereas access to scads of cash is a major benefit, so is having an OWNER at the helm instead of a potentially nest-feathering hireling. I think many people would put their money into Main Street enterprises, if the government no longer vouched for Wall Street.

Naturally, Citizens United is something I also oppose. I know that you have been told that G.E. is a person, but that's not true. You can google it.

Reinstating Glass Steagall would be nice, as would be putting back the firewall between regulators and regulated. Virtually every regulatory agency that oversees wall street is staffed by insiders who receive sinecures upon their exit.

I agree with.

I would like the regulations on ownership of media back in place, so that six megacorps cannot control consensus reality. I would like the regulatory environment under FDR's game rules restored. For example, I would like regulations preventing people who own shares of oil companies from serving on auto manufacturing boards, since they have a vested interest against high gas mileage cars.

I disagree with you in general. As far as media ownership, although the 1996 Telecommunications Act signed by Clinton severly relaxed media ownership rules it is still not a free for all. I used to work in the industry and am familiar with them. Here is a website that will explain the existing rules:

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?b=2030875&c=dkLNK1MQIwG

Your second idea is an example of an overreaching fed gov. Telling people what stocks they can own, what boards they can serve on is border line fascism.

The Bush "too big to fail" doctrine, made possible by abandoning FDR's game rules and adopted whole hog by the democrats including the current administration - I would certainly like to see that discarded. Watching Wall Street directly access the treasury while you defend them and pretend my complaint is based on "envy" - not pleasant.

I agree. Compaines, corporations, wall street, should sink or swim on their own.

I would certainly, above all other things, like to see a return to honest money. It might require a Constitutional Convention (we need that to get rid of the 17th anyway), but we need to replace the metal standard with SOMETHING other than the corrupt insider capitalism of the federal reserve bank (I know - I just envy them, yada yada).

I agree to returning to state appointed senators with term limits. Quite a few states are working on creating a constitutional conventional with that as one of the topics. Add term limits to both the house and the senate.

But what I would really like is for the federal government to revoke and rescind every law it has which brings Wall Street into being, leaving Wall Street to UTTERLY self-regulate or perish. That does not mean Wall Street would not have laws and regulations keeping its actors in check - just that it would no longer receive special favors from government. They would have to compete with Main Street on a level regulatory field, and whereas access to scads of cash is a major benefit, so is having an OWNER at the helm instead of a potentially nest-feathering hireling. I think many people would put their money into Main Street enterprises, if the government no longer vouched for Wall Street.

I agree.

Naturally, Citizens United is something I also oppose. I know that you have been told that G.E. is a person, but that's not true. You can google it

Disagree. Citizens United, and the concept of unions, organizations, and yes, corporations which are all discussed in citizens united says that a group of people do not lose their rights because they are part of an organization. GE is not a person. A Union is not a person. But those that comprimise the group are. And they do not lose their rights because they formed a group.

[Huey]

yes because we all know that private business interests would NEVER try to cheat anyone. the personhood they embody is actual jesus. Only the evil government would be interested in controlling markets.

Right now, and since the meltdown, the evil government is controlling markets. Before you make an *** of yourself, which is typical for you, read my response to cannon. Or tshut the **** up.

[Brattle Street]

Right now, and since the meltdown, the evil government is controlling markets. Before you make an *** of yourself, which is typical for you, read my response to cannon. Or tshut the **** up.

when did i not kick the crap out of you anytime it interested me.
now go justify torturing someone you barbaric *******.

[Huey]

when did i not kick the crap out of you anytime it interested me.
now go justify torturing someone you barbaric *******.

The question you should ask is when DID you kick the crap out of me. The answer is never.

I justify torturing you. Where is the bucket, the towel and the board?

[KiwiPete]

Right now, and since the meltdown, the evil government is controlling markets. Before you make an *** of yourself, which is typical for you, read my response to cannon. Or tshut the **** up.

Ever heard of lobbyists, its the other way around. Corporations send lobbyists to Washington to push politicians, usually in an attempt to bully or attack other corporations and gain preferential treatment. That's how the finance companies got the US government to repeal laws they didn't want like Glass–Steagall, as well as pass laws they want - the most significant of all being the bailout.

[Huey]

Ever heard of lobbyists, its the other way around. Corporations send lobbyists to Washington to push politicians, usually in an attempt to bully or attack other corporations and gain preferential treatment. That's how the finance companies got the US government to repeal laws they didn't want like Glass–Steagall, as well as pass laws they want - the most significant of all being the bailout.

It goes back to the exchange between cannon and I. Repeal the 17th, re-instate Glass Steagall, set term limits.

[Cannonpointer]

Your second idea is an example of an overreaching fed gov. Telling people what stocks they can own, what boards they can serve on is border line fascism.

No, it responsible regulation, the removal of which created the parasitical relationship we have today between companies and CEOs and between Wall Street and the nation. Potential investors cannot know everything everywhere all the time. A few common sense rules - like you cannot serve on multiple boards if an obvious conflict of interest exists - are what investors EXPECT of government.

Disagree. Citizens United, and the concept of unions, organizations, and yes, corporations which are all discussed in citizens united says that a group of people do not lose their rights because they are part of an organization. GE is not a person. A Union is not a person. But those that comprimise the group are. And they do not lose their rights because they formed a group.

Do chinese citizens have the right to buy American elections? They do if they are incorporated - and you defend that. How long have you hated Murka?

[Cannonpointer]

It goes back to the exchange between cannon and I. Repeal the 17th, re-instate Glass Steagall, set term limits.

None of that magically makes the main street economy, and the wall street economy that preys on it, the same type of economy. They are not. One is a highly persecuted free enterprise economy, and the other is highly protected, rewarded, privileged capitalist economy - very, very different beasts. One creates jobs in America, the other eliminates them. One relies on American resources, the other ships American resources to OTHER job markets.

And your pretense that publicly traded companies - owned by thousands and thousands of diverse individuals - HAVE "beliefs" and a "right" to espouse them is utter ****. It's sillyness and asininity. Seriously, it's immature. A ten year old understands that thousands of random people don't have the same politics.

Moreover, these are entities that have perpetual life, no citizenship duties whatsoever, and no conscience. Indeed, if a CEO DID display conscience to the financial detriment of share holders, he would be in violation of his fiduciary obligations - which do NOT include exercising a human conscience. To pretend they're "just a buncha folks, wantin' to speak as one" isbathroom gay. They are corporate interests looking to buy American elections. Fictional creatures have no rights - People do. Chairs, couches, house pets. corporations - these are THINGS, with NO rights whatsoever - under our Constitution. Only corrupt minds which despise truth would say otherwise - hence CU.

[Brattle Street]

The question you should ask is when DID you kick the crap out of me. The answer is never.

I justify torturing you. Where is the bucket, the towel and the board?

How do we define "terrorist"? What values and signs do we use that enables us to declare someone is a terrorist or not?

[GeorgeWashington]

Ever heard of lobbyists, its the other way around. Corporations send lobbyists to Washington to push politicians, usually in an attempt to bully or attack other corporations and gain preferential treatment.

Washington politicians force corporations to lobby.. See Microsoft..

In the late 1990s, Washington politicians filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft for packaging their windows operating system with a web browser. Imagine getting a computer in the late 1990s to browse the internet, but before you can browse the internet you have to download a browser from the internet.

Like all corporations, Microsoft started playing by Washington's rules, hiring a lobby and bribing politicians.

[indago]

Citizens United, and the concept of unions, organizations, and yes, corporations which are all discussed in citizens united says that a group of people do not lose their rights because they are part of an organization. GE is not a person. A Union is not a person. But those that comprimise the group are. And they do not lose their rights because they formed a group.

A "group of people" is not included within the Bill of Rights, which are individual rights. And, GE is, actually, a person: an artificial person.

Each individual does not lose his individual rights while engaging as a group, but when the group diverts corporate funds toward the political process, then those individuals should be charged and indicted for fraudulent use of the corporation funds.

[Fuelman]

I like Wall Street, where can you turn $50k into $300k plus in 10 years??

I wouldn't want to count on a bunch of Mom and Pop store fronts to reach those retirement goals,,,,,,

[Cannonpointer]

Washington politicians force corporations to lobby.. See Microsoft..

In the late 1990s, Washington politicians filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft for packaging their windows operating system with a web browser. Imagine getting a computer in the late 1990s to browse the internet, but before you can browse the internet you have to download a browser from the internet.

Like all corporations, Microsoft started playing by Washington's rules, hiring a lobby and bribing politicians.

Learning that the mega-corporation with its dick in my *** is actually the victim has a pungency that only rape whistling a conservative *** out of a men's room will alleviate. You just caused someone's girl time to get interrupted, son.