Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Remind you at all of talking to someone in an asylum???? Poor guy is totally ignorant. As oldfart said, reading boss' drivel is indeed painful. But kind of interesting in a case study sort of way. The guy is completely incapable of making rational sense, or even making conversation. But he just keeps on like he is making some sort of sense. Just like in an asylum.Like I said, "economic rent" or "rentier class" are memes developed by socialists to attack free market capitalism. They stem from ideas dating back to the 18th Century, where kings and tyrants were the "free market capitalists" and the people had no opportunity to prosper. It simply doesn't fly today, unless you can perpetuate a perception and myth, and artificially create an illusion through words. I've given you credit, you are good at doing that! This is why it's such a problem and we can't seem to rid ourselves of your failed economic ideas.
Are you saying that David Ricardo and Adam Smith are "socialists"? Economic rent was formulated by neoclassical economists.
We have "rentiers" in the form of large swaths of the financial sector, i.e., Wall Street and the City of London. The rentier doesn't perform any type of useful function, and the economic rent can be extracted without decreasing the supply of resources required for production. They deserve a mercy killing which was advocated by JM Keynes. I never understood what he meant until I actually started working in finance. It's in the last chapter of the General Theory.
The rentier class are perfectly content to extract economic rents which negatively affect the real economy. Think of the old feudal lords of Europe; the whole point of their existence was to consume everything they didn't earn. We need to give them a mercy killing (regulatory) so we can have a semblance of the entrepreneurial power of actual capitalism. As Adam Smith elaborated upon, the feudal lords had interests which were diametrically opposed to the interests of all other classes within society.
Today's feudal lords are Wall Street. It serves no other interest except its own. It contributes economic rent to every economic activity in our society at every turn, adding a drag to the real economy. Wall Street is the rentier class, plain and simple. If you want a some examples of rentiers, look no further than Jaimie Dimon, Llyod Blankfein, Hank Paulson and Bob Rubin, et al.
At end of the day, you have to realize Wall Street isn't involved in traditional banking anymore. There's not enough economic rent is such activity. Over the past three decades, they've lobbied to repeal any and all regulations in their way. This has enabled them to financialize our economy, sticking their parasitical tentacles into every aspect of our economy, creating and directing economic rents that stifle our economy. Regulators take such a myopic view of their responsibilities since they've allowed the the financial sector to take control of our food supply, energy supply, and water supply.
I know, you're right. It's Marxists like Dave Ricardo and Adam Smith.
Economic rent is a basic concept in economics. It's basically payment in excess of what's needed to mobilize factors of production. For example, economic rents have accumulated to those that monopolize or corner the market. This is done by artificially reducing the supply of resources, such as capital, labor or even land. In economics, we refer to these people as rentiers.
Secondly, there's no such thing as "free market capitalism". However, we do have competitive markets, which require governments to enforce contracts, pass legislation, take regulatory action, etc. We used to have a "free market" when humans were hunter-gatherers, but once city-states emerged, that was the beginning of political economy.
There is no such thing as monopolies in America anymore, we outlawed them. The only entity that can reduce the supply of resources, capital, labor, or land, is GOVERNMENT! We still have a free market, except to the extent it is being choked to death by ever-increasing socialistic government.
We still have monopolies in the US. The US passed the Sherman Antitrust Act which was definitely needed at time.
Today's monopolies are the large Wall Street investment banks and some of the larger multinationals. I've found around twenty instances where Wall Street investment banks and multinationals could be considered monopolies, except the government refuses to take action. We can define a monopoly as a company that exerts such control of its market that it acts as a price setter and stifles innovation by preventing the competition from any chance of profit. Most modern-day monopolists achieve their goals trough regulatory capture.
The goal of monopolists is to maximize their income and decrease the overall share of all other factors, such as labor, capital, land, natural resources, raw material producers, etc.
The US government is socialist? The US government doesn't control the means of production in any way, shape, or form. Sorry to burst your bubble.
The material things you've mentioned are owned by people who earned the money to buy them during the period of middle class prosperity, a condition which has since declined leaving these "bottom-of-the-ladder" workers unemployed or under-employed, many of whom are living on their savings, or on credit cards or borrowed money. A statistically predictable number of them will soon run out of their meager remaining resources and will suffer foreclosure and become homeless.If everyone's standard of living is rising, then wealth disparities aren't a big deal. The standard of living of those on the bottom of the US ladder is far higher than what it was 30 years ago. (Indicators like ownership of cell phones, air conditioning, etc)
What you are seeing and perceive to be material symbols of relative wealth are in reality the signs of slow economic death. Today they "own" an air-conditioned home and a nice car. Tomorrow they will be living in that car. Next day the car will be repossessed and they will be living on the streets -- along with an increasing number of formerly middle class Americans -- the ones you aren't paying attention to or think of as inferiors.
Really. Free health insurance for all??? Damn. Sign me up.The material things you've mentioned are owned by people who earned the money to buy them during the period of middle class prosperity, a condition which has since declined leaving these "bottom-of-the-ladder" workers unemployed or under-employed, many of whom are living on their savings, or on credit cards or borrowed money. A statistically predictable number of them will soon run out of their meager remaining resources and will suffer foreclosure and become homeless.If everyone's standard of living is rising, then wealth disparities aren't a big deal. The standard of living of those on the bottom of the US ladder is far higher than what it was 30 years ago. (Indicators like ownership of cell phones, air conditioning, etc)
What you are seeing and perceive to be material symbols of relative wealth are in reality the signs of slow economic death. Today they "own" an air-conditioned home and a nice car. Tomorrow they will be living in that car. Next day the car will be repossessed and they will be living on the streets -- along with an increasing number of formerly middle class Americans -- the ones you aren't paying attention to or think of as inferiors.
The reason people are unemployed or underemployed, is because of the anti-capitalist policies of the current administration. More people are becoming homeless because you thought it would be a great idea to give every American health insurance, at the expense of capitalists in a free market society, and it backfired on you. Things are not FREE in life, they cost someone real money that has to be paid. Government doesn't produce a thing, they have no means of providing a dime to anyone for anything. Every penny they spend is the money they've confiscated from someone else. There is no magic money fairy! There is no unlimited pile of cash in Washington!
Really. Free health insurance for all??? Damn. Sign me up.
You morons are big on "economists" so I thought I'd post this... not that any of you will bother taking the time to listen to a John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, but he explains the role of Federal Government precisely. The actual speech he gives is about 45 minutes, with a Q&A at the end. The Q&A is pretty intense, as he is challenged by several people who hold your viewpoints. He handles all the questions brilliantly.
The Legitimate Role of Government in Free Society - YouTube
There is no such thing as monopolies in America anymore, we outlawed them. The only entity that can reduce the supply of resources, capital, labor, or land, is GOVERNMENT! We still have a free market, except to the extent it is being choked to death by ever-increasing socialistic government.
We still have monopolies in the US. The US passed the Sherman Antitrust Act which was definitely needed at time.
Today's monopolies are the large Wall Street investment banks and some of the larger multinationals. I've found around twenty instances where Wall Street investment banks and multinationals could be considered monopolies, except the government refuses to take action. We can define a monopoly as a company that exerts such control of its market that it acts as a price setter and stifles innovation by preventing the competition from any chance of profit. Most modern-day monopolists achieve their goals trough regulatory capture.
The goal of monopolists is to maximize their income and decrease the overall share of all other factors, such as labor, capital, land, natural resources, raw material producers, etc.
The US government is socialist? The US government doesn't control the means of production in any way, shape, or form. Sorry to burst your bubble.
This is all total and utter bullshit. Investment bankers are not monopolies, if for no other reason than, more than one of them exist. Multinationals are another scary sounding word used by Socialists to strike fear of hopelessness into the stupid masses. Oh, we can't possibly compete with a "multinational conglomerate" they are just too powerful! They are capitalists, just like investment bankers, and they operate on the principles of supply and demand, just like every other capitalist in a free market system. If you don't like them, find out what they invest in, and boycott it! The silly argument you make about "government won't do anything" is utterly ridiculous, and shows a lack of understanding when it comes to our judicial process and laws. If you think someone is violating antitrust laws, get some like-minded people together and hire an attorney, bring your case before a federal judge! That's how our system works, not by demanding government do something. If someone runs into your car and leaves the scene, and you write down the tag number, do you just go home and wallow in self pity that the government didn't do anything about it? No, you have to take action, report the tag number to the authorities, and then they find the culprit and you take him to court. It's not the government's job to do anything for you, it's YOUR job to take the action.
But modern day idiots who want to believe in Socialist Utopia, don't see things this way, they naively believe the capitalists and bankers and multinationals are in control of everything, and they are powerless to do anything about that. This is because your head has been pumped full of absolute 18th Century nonsense. You think it behooves you to sick the agents of federal government on the capitalists, to forcibly take their profits and give them to you. The problem is, you'll never see a penny of that money, you'll only succeed in destroying the only opportunity you have to ever attain such wealth for yourself. In the meantime, government is more than happy to assume more power and control over our lives and divorce you from more and more freedoms in the process. Thomas Jefferson said this is the "natural state" of government, to assume more and more power while usurping more and more personal liberty.
Poor Boss. He has no clue. Just makes it up as he goes. The cool thing is that he can believe what he wants to. Makes life easy for him. He is funny, though.We still have monopolies in the US. The US passed the Sherman Antitrust Act which was definitely needed at time.
Today's monopolies are the large Wall Street investment banks and some of the larger multinationals. I've found around twenty instances where Wall Street investment banks and multinationals could be considered monopolies, except the government refuses to take action. We can define a monopoly as a company that exerts such control of its market that it acts as a price setter and stifles innovation by preventing the competition from any chance of profit. Most modern-day monopolists achieve their goals trough regulatory capture.
The goal of monopolists is to maximize their income and decrease the overall share of all other factors, such as labor, capital, land, natural resources, raw material producers, etc.
The US government is socialist? The US government doesn't control the means of production in any way, shape, or form. Sorry to burst your bubble.
This is all total and utter bullshit. Investment bankers are not monopolies, if for no other reason than, more than one of them exist. Multinationals are another scary sounding word used by Socialists to strike fear of hopelessness into the stupid masses. Oh, we can't possibly compete with a "multinational conglomerate" they are just too powerful! They are capitalists, just like investment bankers, and they operate on the principles of supply and demand, just like every other capitalist in a free market system. If you don't like them, find out what they invest in, and boycott it! The silly argument you make about "government won't do anything" is utterly ridiculous, and shows a lack of understanding when it comes to our judicial process and laws. If you think someone is violating antitrust laws, get some like-minded people together and hire an attorney, bring your case before a federal judge! That's how our system works, not by demanding government do something. If someone runs into your car and leaves the scene, and you write down the tag number, do you just go home and wallow in self pity that the government didn't do anything about it? No, you have to take action, report the tag number to the authorities, and then they find the culprit and you take him to court. It's not the government's job to do anything for you, it's YOUR job to take the action.
But modern day idiots who want to believe in Socialist Utopia, don't see things this way, they naively believe the capitalists and bankers and multinationals are in control of everything, and they are powerless to do anything about that. This is because your head has been pumped full of absolute 18th Century nonsense. You think it behooves you to sick the agents of federal government on the capitalists, to forcibly take their profits and give them to you. The problem is, you'll never see a penny of that money, you'll only succeed in destroying the only opportunity you have to ever attain such wealth for yourself. In the meantime, government is more than happy to assume more power and control over our lives and divorce you from more and more freedoms in the process. Thomas Jefferson said this is the "natural state" of government, to assume more and more power while usurping more and more personal liberty.
Jesus H Christ. I just explained to you how the big investment banks operate in a monopolistic fashion and extract economic rent from all of society. Do you want a pie chart? I'm serious, I'll put one together in Power Point. I was talking about the too big too fail institutions, where the majority of CEOs qualify to be charged under RICO.
18th century nonsense? Oh really, so now the neoclassical economists are nonsensical? By the way, I've attained a decent amount of wealth in my chosen profession, so I have no clue what you're getting at. I don't need any opportunities, I've already capitalized on them more then most.
So financial regulations are taking away our freedoms? Please, I beg you, enlighten me. Please, dude, don't start with Thomas Jefferson, the man was a walking contradiction, although quite astute and brilliant. It seems like your "natural state" of government is an impotent state which can't enforce laws or protect the rights of its citizens.
You morons are big on "economists" so I thought I'd post this... not that any of you will bother taking the time to listen to a John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, but he explains the role of Federal Government precisely. The actual speech he gives is about 45 minutes, with a Q&A at the end. The Q&A is pretty intense, as he is challenged by several people who hold your viewpoints. He handles all the questions brilliantly.
The Legitimate Role of Government in Free Society - YouTube
I'll take a look, even though I'm familiar with Walter Williams. I must admit, as an someone with a strong background in economics, I tend to laugh at guys like Walter Williams. I'm already like 20 minutes in and I'm having a LOLZ seizure.
Sorry, Walter, the US government does have resources. It creates financial assets in the form of dollars and all time.
Sorry, Walter, the government doesn't need taxes to fund its expenditures, that's one of the benefits of a fiat monetary system.
Sorry, Walter, taxes drive money and regulate aggregate demand.
Sorry, Walter, the US is the monopoly issuer of the dollar and doesn't need to collect that which is freely issues.
Why is it that the majority of conservative and libertarian economists still frame arguments as if we're on the gold standard (fixed-exchange rate)?
Yep, that was the naive promise made.
Not only that, but it was also naively claimed this would actually cut the national debt.
Or are you just doing the typical liberal tapdance, to explain away why your idea failed to produce what was promised?
See why I say you are a comic, boss. It is so obvious. You claim others do not provide impartial sources. Which is, of course, a lie. And you have, in the past 50 posts, provided exactly two sources, both of whom are far right wing bat shit crazy conservative sources. Well known and documented.You morons are big on "economists" so I thought I'd post this... not that any of you will bother taking the time to listen to a John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, but he explains the role of Federal Government precisely. The actual speech he gives is about 45 minutes, with a Q&A at the end. The Q&A is pretty intense, as he is challenged by several people who hold your viewpoints. He handles all the questions brilliantly.
The Legitimate Role of Government in Free Society - YouTube
I'll take a look, even though I'm familiar with Walter Williams. I must admit, as an someone with a strong background in economics, I tend to laugh at guys like Walter Williams. I'm already like 20 minutes in and I'm having a LOLZ seizure.
Sorry, Walter, the US government does have resources. It creates financial assets in the form of dollars and all time.
Sorry, Walter, the government doesn't need taxes to fund its expenditures, that's one of the benefits of a fiat monetary system.
Sorry, Walter, taxes drive money and regulate aggregate demand.
Sorry, Walter, the US is the monopoly issuer of the dollar and doesn't need to collect that which is freely issues.
Why is it that the majority of conservative and libertarian economists still frame arguments as if we're on the gold standard (fixed-exchange rate)?
So we have the opinion of John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, Walter E. Williams.... versus the opinion of some Socialist Marxist asswipe on the Internet. Basically, all you did was make declarative statements without anything to back them up. You simply said "he is wrong, and I am right!" Period. Now, I am sorry, but where I come from, that is not a legitimate debate, that is merely being a stubborn bully, demanding to have your way. Insisting you are correct and Williams is wrong, is not winning the debate. Of course, this is the ongoing problem with your type.
Sorry Kimura, you fail at debate.
Jesus H Christ. I just explained to you how the big investment banks operate in a monopolistic fashion and extract economic rent from all of society.
Do you want a pie chart? I'm serious, I'll put one together in Power Point. I was talking about the too big too fail institutions, where the majority of CEOs qualify to be charged under RICO.
18th century nonsense? Oh really, so now the neoclassical economists are nonsensical? By the way, I've attained a decent amount of wealth in my chosen profession, so I have no clue what you're getting at. I don't need any opportunities, I've already capitalized on them more then most.
So financial regulations are taking away our freedoms? Please, I beg you, enlighten me. Please, dude, don't start with Thomas Jefferson, the man was a walking contradiction, although quite astute and brilliant. It seems like your "natural state" of government is an impotent state which can't enforce laws or protect the rights of its citizens.
You morons are big on "economists" so I thought I'd post this... not that any of you will bother taking the time to listen to a John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, but he explains the role of Federal Government precisely. The actual speech he gives is about 45 minutes, with a Q&A at the end. The Q&A is pretty intense, as he is challenged by several people who hold your viewpoints. He handles all the questions brilliantly.
The Legitimate Role of Government in Free Society - YouTube
I'll take a look, even though I'm familiar with Walter Williams. I must admit, as an someone with a strong background in economics, I tend to laugh at guys like Walter Williams. I'm already like 20 minutes in and I'm having a LOLZ seizure.
Sorry, Walter, the US government does have resources. It creates financial assets in the form of dollars and all time.
Sorry, Walter, the government doesn't need taxes to fund its expenditures, that's one of the benefits of a fiat monetary system.
Sorry, Walter, taxes drive money and regulate aggregate demand.
Sorry, Walter, the US is the monopoly issuer of the dollar and doesn't need to collect that which is freely issues.
Why is it that the majority of conservative and libertarian economists still frame arguments as if we're on the gold standard (fixed-exchange rate)?
So we have the opinion of John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, Walter E. Williams.... versus the opinion of some Socialist Marxist asswipe on the Internet. Basically, all you did was make declarative statements without anything to back them up. You simply said "he is wrong, and I am right!" Period. Now, I am sorry, but where I come from, that is not a legitimate debate, that is merely being a stubborn bully, demanding to have your way. Insisting you are correct and Williams is wrong, is not winning the debate. Of course, this is the ongoing problem with your type.
Sorry Kimura, you fail at debate.
Ah, now boss. Please stop the attempt at comedy. Stupid people are always awful at it. As you just proved again.Koch Koch co koch-koch,
Banana fanna fo foch-foch
Fe Fi mo Mach Mach... KOCH!
...In the words of the great philosopher, Cyndi Lauper...
I see your true colors
Shining through
I see your true colors
And that's why I love you
So don't be afraid to let them show
Your true colors
True colors are beautiful,
Like a rainbow!
Yup, that is pretty much what he does. He is incapable of any more. Still waiting for the apology about the affordable care system lies he told.I'll take a look, even though I'm familiar with Walter Williams. I must admit, as an someone with a strong background in economics, I tend to laugh at guys like Walter Williams. I'm already like 20 minutes in and I'm having a LOLZ seizure.
Sorry, Walter, the US government does have resources. It creates financial assets in the form of dollars and all time.
Sorry, Walter, the government doesn't need taxes to fund its expenditures, that's one of the benefits of a fiat monetary system.
Sorry, Walter, taxes drive money and regulate aggregate demand.
Sorry, Walter, the US is the monopoly issuer of the dollar and doesn't need to collect that which is freely issues.
Why is it that the majority of conservative and libertarian economists still frame arguments as if we're on the gold standard (fixed-exchange rate)?
So we have the opinion of John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, Walter E. Williams.... versus the opinion of some Socialist Marxist asswipe on the Internet. Basically, all you did was make declarative statements without anything to back them up. You simply said "he is wrong, and I am right!" Period. Now, I am sorry, but where I come from, that is not a legitimate debate, that is merely being a stubborn bully, demanding to have your way. Insisting you are correct and Williams is wrong, is not winning the debate. Of course, this is the ongoing problem with your type.
Sorry Kimura, you fail at debate.
Point #1: The US government does have resources. It creates financial assets. Those dollars and bonds, in the form of liabilties of the federal government, are assets to the public. I figured we should start with something simple.
Where I come from debate is more than using words like "socialist" and "Marxist" and ignoring entire parts of an argument. You sound like some college kid that attended a Ron Paul rally. Have you even read Das Kapital? Or do you randomly just repeat shit you hear by some random Professor on YouTube? Talk about confirmation bias.....
Point #1: The US government does have resources. It creates financial assets. Those dollars and bonds, in the form of liabilties of the federal government, are assets to the public. I figured we should start with something simple.
Where I come from debate is more than using words like "socialist" and "Marxist" and ignoring entire parts of an argument. You sound like some college kid that attended a Ron Paul rally. Have you even read Das Kapital? Or do you randomly just repeat shit you hear by some random Professor on YouTube? Talk about confirmation bias.....
Ah, now boss. Please stop the attempt at comedy. Stupid people are always awful at it. As you just proved again.Koch Koch co koch-koch,
Banana fanna fo foch-foch
Fe Fi mo Mach Mach... KOCH!
...In the words of the great philosopher, Cyndi Lauper...
I see your true colors
Shining through
I see your true colors
And that's why I love you
So don't be afraid to let them show
Your true colors
True colors are beautiful,
Like a rainbow!
And the Koch brothers??? You love the koch brothers. And the economists they buy, and the universities they buy. So far, two economists, both closely associated with the koch brothers. Just does not pass the giggle test, me boy.
