What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[Disgustipated]

Edited out, there's is a link there stupid, MORON.

What? Can you try this again in English? Ignorant fuck.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

What? Can you try this again in English? Ignorant fuck.

"there's is a link there"

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KDa-J0IkKX4/TcaKzcW4ZBI/AAAAAAAAAFM/a_HS-tpB0FQ/s1600/clinton_laughing.jpg

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Nobody playing multiple roles on Lit has a right to call anyone a liar.

No gay-culture-and-lifestyle hating conservative has a right to be on a gay-enabling liberal-created, maintained and owned porn/erotica board where he complains about liberalism on a daily basis.

*tosses Vette's deflective red herring out of the window and back into the East River where it belongs*

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

*wipes ass on the back of Zoomies hand, and backhands him with it*

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/482/4e3/4824e316-0bbf-478d-ac48-88aedf3f2a26

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/482/4e3/4824e316-0bbf-478d-ac48-88aedf3f2a26

The only one that this will ever be news to is veteman himself... he'll finally come to this "startling" realization one day while giving a blowjob at the glory hole.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

Then let the owners boot me off motherfucker, since you don't pack the gear.

*wipes ass on the back of Zoomies hand, and backhands him with it*

It's funny to watch the boys come out and play, especially #7 LJ. He poses as black to get more government bennies.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Ahhh...Vette's Numbah One taint-licker finally cums to his master's side after a lil' jerk on the chihuahua chain...it's funny to watch the boys come out and play...

 

[koalabear]

Ahhh...Vette's Numbah One taint-licker finally cums to his master's side after a lil' jerk on the chihuahua chain...it's funny to watch the boys come out and play...

Here's the lil boy now, good lil LJ.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Under a minute. Got 'im trained good, Vette.

 

[koalabear]

Under a minute. Got 'im trained good, Vette.

That's all you got tonight, practice LJ.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Two minutes that time. He's slippin', Vette. No dog biscuits for him!

 

[unregistered]

 

[eyer]

Dell: Look East To Start Your Company

By Michael Kling

Young entrepreneurs should go to China to start their companies, advises Michael Dell, CEO of Dell. That's what he said he would likely do if he was starting now.

"I would go to China at age 19 and start my company there. It's a much better environment," Dell told Charlie Rose at Ernst & Young's Strategic Growth Forum in Palm Desert, Calif., as reported by CNNMoney.

Dell dropped out of the University of Texas at Austin when he was 19 and built one of the world's most successful computer companies.

China is attracting U.S. entrepreneurs (and established businesses) because of its rapidly growing economy, according to China Radio International.

"We see tremendous potential in China," Walt Disney CEO Robert A. Iger said, according to CRI. Disney broke ground on its newest Disney resort in Shanghai, which will open in about five years. The company has been opening Disney English language learning centers since 2008, and the first Disney Store will open in mainland China next year.

China is approving more and more patents and is enforcing intellectual property laws more stringently, reports an article in the Montreal Gazette. Up until now, China had lax enforcement of intellectual property laws in order to give its native entrepreneurs time to develop.

The Chinese are starting to develop their own ideas and technologies that even Westerners see as innovative, and the Chinese invention engine will soon be gathering steam, reports the Gazette. Non-Chinese companies will be rushing to get their own patents approved in China in order to protect their inventions in Chinese courts.

Unfortunately, China's new tight monetary policy has limited the credit opportunities for entrepreneurs and put the country's prosperity in peril, according to the Financial Times. Total financing in China fell 30 percent from the third quarter last year to the third quarter this year. In September, bank loans grew at their slowest rage since October 2008.

http://www.moneynews.com/Markets/China-MichaelDell-entrepreneur-WaltDisney/2011/11/11/id/417711

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You do a lot of cutting and pasting, mostly from journalists rather than thinkers, but don't tell me what you actually believe.

I believe in left-wing libertarianism. We can live together in consensual harmony. What do you bellieve in?

You say <<There's only one group that matters, the individual. >> I challenge you to quote me something from Mises or Hayek that says that. It is an irrational statement and I don't accept they would have believed it. I am prepared to believe Ayn Rand said something like it, but that's different, she wasn't much of a thinker.

But I'm very happy to withdraw my allegation, if you can find me a single supporting statement from Mises or Hayek that backs up this idea. They were brave pioneers of a certain point of view - though Mises was also known as a pain in the neck, even Hayek got fed up with him personally - and they were intellectually sensible, even if, in my mind, obviously wrong.

Just back up this one remark of yours, go on.

Please be tolerant. You come over as rather intolerant. I don't know why you might be. Isn't llibertarianism partly about mutual tolerance? Isn't all this very American-centred cut and paste stuff partly about tolerance? Are you then tolerant of other points of view? Do you believe in tolerance, even of those you strongly disagree with? I do. Do you? I said earlier, I'll sit down with the local man with swastikas on his arms, and chat to him about anything, many of my leftie friends think I should shun him, but I don't accept what they say. Are you that tolerant? What do you believe in?

Or are you just paid to cut and paste this stuff?
Patrick.

70% ad hominem by circumstance, 20% pure ad hominem followed by a plea for tolerance. See any irony there?

You say, all you do is quote others instead of thinking, and then, demand quotes.

You might be mistaking the matter-of-fact and blunt manners of an ex-Marine and a man going on 40-years of martial training and teaching as well as earning degrees in math and science, in short, you might be witnessing actual self-confidence, for I have called you no names or engaged in any ad hominem, all I have simply said, is that cannot be true, you are trying to embrace two self-contradictory positions at once.

But, to get to the crux of what I believe:

The Natural rights of Man are Life, Liberty and Property. That's like Armstrong's One small step for (a) man...

Therefore Capitalism is all about the smallest possible minority, the individual.

Hayek addressed the emergence of a strong man from the politics of Social groups and consensus; and entire chapter in "Serfdom." I am not going to get up and go get the book. That makes the case for the individual by implication.

Similarly, when speaking of economics and human action, Mises talked not of group politics, but of individual trades, Human Action.

From Mises student Murray Rothbard:

Libertarians are methodological and political individualists, to be sure. They believe that only individuals think, value, act, and choose. They believe that each individual has the right to own his own body, free of coercive interference. But no individualist denies that people are influencing each other all the time in their goals, values, pursuits and occupations.

As F.A. Hayek pointed out in his notable article, "The Non-Sequitur of the 'Dependence Effect,'" John Kenneth Galbraith's assault upon free-market economics in his best-selling The Affluent Society rested on this proposition: economics assumes that every individual arrives at his scale of values totally on his own, without being subject to influence by anyone else. On the contrary, as Hayek replied, everyone knows that most people do not originate their own values, but are influenced to adopt them by other people.[1]

No individualist or libertarian denies that people influence each other all the time, and surely there is nothing wrong with this inevitable process. What libertarians are opposed to is not voluntary persuasion, but the coercive imposition of values by the use of force and police power. Libertarians are in no way opposed to the voluntary cooperation and collaboration between individuals: only to the compulsory pseudo-"cooperation" imposed by the state.

Now, if you are done with your attack, perhaps you could give us the validation of your position, that there is such a thing as Left-wing Libertarianism that features the State, your mutualism, as a mechanism for controlling "some" aspects of the economy, and then you could perhaps answer my continuing challenge to all sorts of Libertarians and Conservatives of this board, the simple, where does "some" end and if you can employ "some" for your pet belief, what precludes everyone else from applying some government to their pet belief, even if you think it is utter economic nonsense?


Additional material: http://mises.org/daily/3660

 

[patrick1]

Insider trading.

I see, by a remarkable coincidence, one of your presidential candidates, Rick Perry, has been campaigning against this supposed congressional exemption from being charged regarding insider trading.

Does anyone have evidence this congressional exemption exists?

Weirdly enough, Rick Perry has himself faced accusations of insider trading in the past. Look here: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-14/politics/30396622_1_stock-market-insider-traders

Obviously he's an honourable man. So are they all, all honourable men. I can't imagine he would be covering his back by making false accusations against anyone.

So it goes.

Patrick

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Patrick,

He is not tolerant of those different than him because he's not a libertarian. (among other reasons). You're talking to just another conservative Republican who wears a bad-ass libertarian jacket to school so that everyone sees him in it... except he forgot to take off the TJ Maxx tag off the sleeve.

Typical Democrat response.

If you're not one of us, you're them.

If you say you are not them, you are simply lying...

These also tend to be the posters that accuse Republicans of lack of nuance.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Pelosi fires back at report on 'insider trading'


A report on CBS' "60 minutes" on Sunday said Pelosi was among several lawmakers — including Republicans such as House Speaker John Boehner — who had profited from transactions that raised the possibility of conflicts of interest.

The report said Pelosi and her husband participated in a 2008 IPO involving Visa even as legislation that would have hurt credit card companies was being considered in the House. Pelosi was speaker at the time and the legislation failed to pass in that session.

A recent study of House members' stock transactions showed them beating the markets' return by about 6 percentage points annually from 1985 to 2001. A 2004 study involving the same authors showed senators beating the market by 12 percentage points annually.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45287592/ns/politics-more_politics/#.TsGKJfF21Is

Which is why I kept saying the protestors were occupying the wrong street...

Also, by implication, proves this is a top-down community organized protest on behalf of the community organizer who needs more Wall Street protection money...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Koaladumbfuck edited out this portion of the article since it doesn't support the right wing narrative.

"A Nov. 4 Reuters poll of primary dealers shows Wall Street economists see a 30 percent chance of a U.S. recession next year, down from 35.5 percent a month earlier."

Just sayin'... You might not want to hang your hat on the word of a notorious liar.

I nailed you to the wall cherry-picking quotes yesterday which is why I tend to include so much of articles, in order to provide context.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

NOVEMBER 15, 2011 4:00 A.M.
The Solyndra Steves
Even for the Obama administration, the Solyndra collusion is remarkable.

The Solyndra loan scandal is a case study in crony capitalism run amok. As e-mails and other documents continue to be released, two cronies in particular stand out: the two Steves.

STEVE SPINNER
The sheer audacity of Spinner’s involvement with the Solyndra loan is something to behold. After raising more than $500,000 for Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008, Spinner was named to the Presidential Transition Team as a member of the technology-innovation-and-government-reform working group. As the new administration was forming up, he joined the Department of Energy in April 2009 as the “chief strategic operations officer” of the loan program that would eventually place a half-million-dollar bet on Solyndra.

At the time, Spinner’s wife, Allison, was a partner at Wilson Sonsini, the law firm representing Solyndra in its DOE loan application. Spinner signed an ethics agreement stipulating that he would “not participate in any discussion” concerning clients of his wife’s firm, which Solyndra compensated to the tune of $2.44 million, all of it made possible by the DOE loan guarantee. However, e-mails released by the White House suggest that Spinner was a key player in the discussions of Solyndra.

...

Despite all evidence to the contrary, White House press secretary Jay Carney has insisted that Spinner “had no connection to overseeing the loan guarantee program.” Either way, that is hardly the extent of Spinner’s rap sheet as a crony capitalist. Prior to his role in the Obama administration, Spinner served as an adviser to Tesla Motors, a company that received a $465 million DOE loan guarantee to help in its development of a new electric car, the Model S, which is expected to retail for a base price of $50,000.

Spinner left his position at the DOE in September 2010, shortly after the Solyndra loan was finalized. He then became a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. His contract there recently expired, and he is currently an “active fundraiser” for the Obama 2012 campaign, having already raised more than $500,000. That is par for the course for the prolific fundraiser, who has also personally given more than $31,000 to Democratic candidates and organizations since 2005.

STEVE MITCHELL
Like Spinner, Mitchell has operated at the intersection of politics and venture capitalism. As managing director of Argonaut Ventures, an investment arm of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, Mitchell oversaw the foundation’s multi-million-dollar investment in Solyndra. As recently uncovered e-mails suggest, he used political connections to help give the solar-power company a leg up on the competition. George Kaiser is an Oklahoma billionaire and major Obama fundraiser, who made multiple visits to the White House in the months before the Solyndra loan was formally approved.

Despite assertions to the contrary — from the White House and from Kaiser himself — e-mail evidence indicates that Kaiser, operating in close conjunction with Mitchell, did discuss Solyndra in meetings with senior White House officials. In early 2010, when Solyndra began to encounter financial difficulties, e-mail exchanges among Kaiser, Mitchell, and Ken Levit, executive director of the Kaiser Family Foundation, detail their efforts to secure a second DOE loan for the struggling company. “They about had an orgasm in Biden’s office when we mentioned Solyndra,” Levit wrote to Mitchell on Feb. 27, 2010. An excited Mitchell responded: “That’s awesome! Get us a [DOE] loan.”

Several days later, Mitchell informed Kaiser and Levit about a phone conversation between Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet and Jonathan Silver, who was then the head of the Department of Energy loans program (he has recently stepped down). “Apparently our application has been caught up with several other groups who were also wanting a second bite at the DOE loan guaranty apple,” Mitchell wrote. “[Silver] would not say that we are the first one that will be considered but he all but did. . . . So it appears things are headed in the right direction and [Energy Secretary Steven] Chu is apparently staying involved in Solyndra’s application and continues to talk up the company as a success story.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/283191

In his new book, Throw Them All Out, Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer chronicles the breathtaking cronyism that has characterized President Obama’s entire “green jobs” agenda, noting that four out of every five “green” energy companies to receive taxpayer support were “run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers.” Schweizer continues: “In the 1705 [a section of the Energy Policy Act of 2005] government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers — individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.”

For the companies on the receiving end of this taxpayer funding, Schweizer writes, “political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy.”

American taxpayers, on the other hand, have far less to speak of for the “investments” made on their behalf. And they have people like Steve Spinner and Steve Mitchell to thank for it.

 

[patrick1]

70% ad hominem by circumstance, 20% pure ad hominem followed by a plea for tolerance. See any irony there?

You say, all you do is quote others instead of thinking, and then, demand quotes.

You might be mistaking the matter-of-fact and blunt manners of an ex-Marine and a man going on 40-years of martial training and teaching as well as earning degrees in math and science, in short, you might be witnessing actual self-confidence, for I have called you no names or engaged in any ad hominem, all I have simply said, is that cannot be true, you are trying to embrace two self-contradictory positions at once.

But, to get to the crux of what I believe:

The Natural rights of Man are Life, Liberty and Property. That's like Armstrong's One small step for (a) man...

Therefore Capitalism is all about the smallest possible minority, the individual.

Hayek addressed the emergence of a strong man from the politics of Social groups and consensus; and entire chapter in "Serfdom." I am not going to get up and go get the book. That makes the case for the individual by implication.

Similarly, when speaking of economics and human action, Mises talked not of group politics, but of individual trades, Human Action.

From Mises student Murray Rothbard:



Now, if you are done with your attack, perhaps you could give us the validation of your position, that there is such a thing as Left-wing Libertarianism that features the State, your mutualism, as a mechanism for controlling "some" aspects of the economy, and then you could perhaps answer my continuing challenge to all sorts of Libertarians and Conservatives of this board, the simple, where does "some" end and if you can employ "some" for your pet belief, what precludes everyone else from applying some government to their pet belief, even if you think it is utter economic nonsense?

I'm sorry, I have no desire to make ad hominem attacks, and if you feel I have done so, I unreservedly withdraw them. I was trying to have a debate about ideas. You are pretty rude here, and I am not, so I'm not clear why you would think that I'm being ad hominem and you're not, but there you go.

You believe in Locke: << The Natural rights of Man are Life, Liberty and Property. >>

You then go on to say << Therefore Capitalism is all about the smallest possible minority, the individual.>>

I don't see the logic in that. I've studied Locke, have you? How does the one follow from the other?

I asked you a very specific question, said I honoured Mises and Hayek, and the quote in your answer, which is not an answer to my very specific question, is not from them but from Rothbard. I don't get why people would respect him.

Patrick