patrick.net

Lots of women back then wandering over to borrow food items, loaded in a metaphor.

http://youtu.be/MpqYKMhFZPY

http://youtu.be/meuwKhPGItk

CaptainShuddup says

You mean you'll take ragtime and the Charleston over In walked bud?

Yes, every time!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4asJkhS3Rk

Question for Randians.

In her political economy, how would the enforcement of private property be handled?

Obviously, as in the the Constitution, private property is allowed, or not challenged. However, would you have a Patent Office? And federal agents to enforce and monitor property rights?

Or, if you adhere to her strict views, wouldn't life be more like the Wild West where individuals fight individuals to secure and maintain property?

John Bailo says

Or, if you adhere to her strict views, wouldn't life be more like the Wild West where individuals fight individuals to secure and maintain property?

It would be like Arbitration today. The Private Po-po would intervene on the side of the largest donor or customer.

Or, it would be like roving mercenary bands in France during the Hundred Year's war.

Or both.

John Bailo says

Question for Randians.

In her political economy, how would the enforcement of private property be handled?

Obviously, as in the the Constitution, private property is allowed, or not challenged. However, would you have a Patent Office? And federal agents to enforce and monitor property rights?

Or, if you adhere to her strict views, wouldn't life be more like the Wild West where individuals fight individuals to secure and maintain property?

I think most modern libertarians beleive the core function of government is the protection of its citizens and their property. This is a very limited role and one provided for in the constitution.

Not too many people advocating anarchy.

dodgerfanjohn says

I think most modern libertarians beleive the core function of government is the protection of its citizens and their property.

So, what kind of taxes would you advocate for enforcement of this "core function"? And how far would enforcement extend?

For example if a person owned 1000 acres of land and 10 patents, would he pay the same tax as a person living in an apartment and working as a consultant, but owning no property, either physical or intellectual?

As for the FPP, as a left-libertarian I'd like to think the libertopia would work.

But not without geolibertarian principles of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

Bellingham Bill says

Imagine a world where we only had to pay for the cost -- depreciation and maintenance -- of the fixed improvements -- as a basis. We could certainly get by on a lot less income!

I'm sure we can crate a static...or stagnant society...where clothing and computers last a lifetime. However, the downside is that progress will take that much longer. Is it better that we not have to work as hard and not spend as much money, and keep our IBM ATs for thirty years? Or have to turn over hardware every 3 years but end up with an XBox One and a smart phone for the same cost (paid several times over).

Money introduces the problem of people gaming the control of money, since money is the claimcheck on wealth, both present and future supply.

LLs would like to "force wages higher" as they know they will take every penny of this increase eventually.

Without some profit there can be no production, since the surplus increment is how we actually trade in a non-barter economy.

We can certainly agree that all that matters is that the flows balance out in the end, that money income balance money outgo.

But there are two sides to this equation! We can increase the incomes, and/or reduce the outgoes.

And our two biggest outgoes are housing and health.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=oZb

$4T/yr, and that probably doesn't count gov't health spending.

smaulgld says

Republicans fund/subsidize oil, big pharma, farms, military, boomer benefits and foreign countries

Dems fund and subsidize green energy, banking, auto, big pharma, farms, military, boomer benefits, foreign countries, education and welfare

Can hardly say one is "better" or "worse" than the other

I can. I'll take the Dems, please.

smaulgld says

Can see the republicans in 2016 running against Obama the way Obama ran against Bush in 2008 and 2012.

Problem with that strategy: most people believe in the concepts espoused by Obama. GOP would be forced to campaign on unpopular bullshit, like "Hope we can gut Social Security!". "Let's Change the system to a more despotic one!!"

Also, God hates fags and negros. Finally, a President who says it!

CL says

smaulgld says

Can see the republicans in 2016 running against Obama the way Obama ran against Bush in 2008 and 2012.

Problem with that strategy: most people believe in the concepts espoused by Obama. GOP would be forced to campaign on unpopular bullshit, like "Hope we can gut Social Security!". "Let's Change the system to a more despotic one!!"

Also, God hates fags and negros. Finally, a President who says it!

I think what the Smaulgldnator is saying that I don't think the Liberal usual red herring will be the narrative and talking point that the Republicans will have to defend or even acknowledge.
And if that's the game Hillary is going run, then She'll find that game's played out! After decades of talk, bullshit and the Liberals talking about how much better their way, and their politics are, all social engineering bullshit, with out one ounce of policy, logistics or planning. It will be a long fucking time before the voting public buys that shit again.

God don't hate Fags, just the lying ones.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/26/us/new-jersey-gay-waitress-tip/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

Bellingham Bill says

The core problem is not the tax code per se, it is the flows out of working people to bloodsucking parasites who have locked up natural monopolies, largely in land and natural resources. These operators are the ones getting something for nothing and thus impoverishing others.

Your worship of Georgism is more than a century out of date. The study of economics has long figured out that the choke hold, i.e. Economic Rent, is not land rent per se, but any and all monopolistic market power. There are plenty places in this world where owners of land have to bid for the co-operation of owners of big combine harvesters so the land can be productive. Even in the US, millions of acres of land is left untilled for the lack of big combine harvesters.

When there are enough disparate property owners in the same market competing against each, Economic Rent gets competed away. Your hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on rent was not thrown away; they kept you away from millions of dollars in hotel bills and hundreds of thousands of dollars of mortgage payment renting money. In most cases, the only Economic Rent in a rent payment is that part that gets passed onto the city or town as property tax. The service from the city/town bureaucrats is actually priced monopolistically, unlike those provided by "landlords" competing against each other. if the landlords take out mortgages, then the interest payment is also paid to an oligopolistic banking cartel under central banking.

The utter lack of market power among private property owners is all the more obvious in areas like the SFBA, where rent is often lower than the mortgage payment. Why do you think the owner of the property has to be content with a rent payment that doesn't even cover his mortgage+tax+water bills? Because of competition and lack of Economic Rent.

Like I said Atlas Shrugged

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/27/irs-pushes-to-rein-in-tax-exempt-political-groups/?intcmp=latestnews

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/27/administration-announces-new-delay-in-online-enrollment-for-small-businesses/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/26/administration-accused-giving-unions-special-treatment-with-exemption-from/

What did Dagney call them... Oh yeah Political Creeps.

I'm confused. Wouldn't wealth be inherently INCREASING nearly constantly?

If the goal of an economic system serves not only to force people to work and contribute, and share in the earnings of the society, etc, but also to move the entire society forward?

You work for cures for diseases, labor saving devices, access to food or goods, convenience, flying, telephony, computers and big data. Thse are growing "wealth" aren't they?

convenience? Define "convenience" when everyone is carrying the same goods and service, that was ultimately manufactured by the same company?

CaptainShuddup says

I think what the Smaulgldnator is saying that I don't think the Liberal usual red herring will be the narrative and talking point that the Republicans will have to defend or even acknowledge.

That's where you're wrong. What they don't believe in is "compassionate conservatism". Talk about a played out meme!

The ideals of the Democratic/Left haven't been so aligned with public sentiment in my lifetime. The GOP might win an election or two here and there but not the WH. They are philosophically and demographically doomed unless and until they become like the Democrats, at least on social issues.

They won't, so they won't win. If they dump the redneck racists their voting blocs are too small to win. Unless they dump the rednecks, they can't win over other ethnicities except for a handful of blind sycophants.

Bellingham Bill says

Instead of buying $80B/mo of MBS, the Fed could also fund $80B/mo of new construction on a break-even basis

At $200k per unit, that'd be 400,000 units, 5M a year.

Yowza. Not going to happen of course, because giving real wealth to the masses is socialism and we can't have that.

What good would ghost cities like those in China do for us?

Reality is more complicated than just building 400,000 units. Someone, many someones, have to decide where those units will be built or rehabbed. They have to be in areas where people want to live, and at cost that local people can afford, in order for those units to be occupied. Otherwise, you'd just create a field day for drug addled copper thieves.

CL says

The GOP might win an election or two here and there but not the WH.

Without "Guns, Gays and God," and lets not forget racism, the GOP as we know it would not exist.

I tried, but the duck doesn't get it. Hope someone else was enlightened.

Reality says

Your "hoarder" concept is silly. If those condos cost $300k each to build (including land cost), with 10% return being the threshold required for the particular investor . . . if and when inflation hits 10%, he'd need to have $6000/mo rent into in order to justify his investment instead of just leaving the land empty or buying and storing commodities or speculate in stocks instead.

Agreed. While there is no doubt crafty talented landlords can make a goods living and achieve somewhat financial independence by renting out and managing housing, it is still a job, and not an easy one and all of that stuff has to be maintained, insured and cared for, which is anything but free. Just buying land and sitting on it is not a winning proposition. Then there is always cannibal anarchy where you have to pay to secure your land as well ;)

CL says

The GOP might win an election or two here and there but not the WH. They are philosophically and demographically doomed unless and until they become like the Democrats, at least on social issues.

I somewhat agree with this. Unless they shift more towards Libertarianism - at least in social, civil liberties and privacy issues - I don't see them winning the WH. Unless this administration screws up completely, which is not out of the question given the trajectory they are on.

CL says

That's where you're wrong. What they don't believe in is "compassionate conservatism". Talk about a played out meme!

That's where you're wrong, Obama got to where he is today by running on Hope and change in a time he dupe them into believing he(democrats) would give it to them. That's not what people got. The republicans had to take the fight to the Liberal narrative in 2008, because like the gullible voting public they thought you might have something, and they had to defend them selves against them.

This time they'll just bust a gut laughing at the hilarious sight of Kettle Black pointing his finger at Harry Potts, the man chastising the man. It will look similar to Buffet, Gates and Bloomberg playing who's the biggest "1%" 'er.

Just take a puff and put it down, it's a played out fag.

mell says

I somewhat agree with this. Unless they shift more towards Libertarianism - at least in social, civil liberties and privacy issues - I don't see them winning the WH. Unless this administration screws up completely, which is not out of the question given the trajectory they are on.

I wonder if that's even true. I think the electorate would respond to the message again even if Obama has a prolonged slump. It might shave some points off but their message will resonate for another cycle or two, even if Obama's successor disappoints.

The public doesn't want the GOP package.

Even if you look at these weird off-year elections, the electorate has moved leftward. De Blasio, Christie (as the "liberal" Republican), an open Socialist in Seattle, and even McAuliffe in Virgina (which, while close might not have been as close had he not been such a neophyte and DLC centrist Democrat). Off-year elections favor the GOP and they even did poorly there.
CaptainShuddup says

convenience? Define "convenience" when everyone is carrying the same goods and service, that was ultimately manufactured by the same company?

Flights throughout the US, indoor plumbing, buying goods from home or work with a few clicks, practically free video phone calls, not having to hunt and skin your own animals, every imaginable good or service you're willing to pay for...etc.

CaptainShuddup says

hat's where you're wrong, Obama got to where he is today by running on Hope and change in a time he dupe them into believing he(democrats) would give it to them. That's not what people got.

Some will be less than impressed, but what will the GOP message be? Death and despair doesn't sell well, and they are in a mental state of attacking without offering their own solutions. People do not gravitate towards that. A large percentage of Obama voters will blame Congressional inaction for stymieing Obama's agenda and reward the Dems with another term. Many others will assume, rightly or wrongly, that this time will be different.

Disappointed Dems will not become GOP voters. And nearly every attack the GOP makes creates MORE Democratic voters. A large number of Hispanics support ACA, as do other immigrant-based communities. The white vote is shrinking, and even there, white younger voters are not trending conservative.

It would take an awful lot to change that trajectory. If so, it would likely be a one-term throwaway tantrum against the incumbent.

CL says

Flights throughout the US, indoor plumbing, buying goods from home or work with a few clicks, practically free video phone calls, not having to hunt and skin your own animals, every imaginable good or service you're willing to pay for...etc.

We had all that before this hocus pocus economy dig deeper my friend.

CL says

Some will be less than impressed, but what will the GOP message be? Death and despair doesn't sell well, and they are in a mental state of attacking without offering their own solutions. People do not gravitate towards that. A large percentage of Obama voters will blame Congressional inaction for stymieing Obama's agenda and reward the Dems with another term. Many others will assume, rightly or wrongly, that this time will be different.

Disappointed Dems will not become GOP voters. And nearly every attack the GOP makes creates MORE Democratic voters. A large number of Hispanics support ACA, as do other immigrant-based communities. The white vote is shrinking, and even there, white younger voters are not trending conservative.

It would take an awful lot to change that trajectory. If so, it would likely be a one-term throwaway tantrum against the incumbent.

Good keep it up, I love the message. In a post where you asked the question about what will the narrative be, you went into a hyperboyle with out once mentioning real living wage jobs, with adult hours, and economic policy.

The problems in America isn't race, the borders or expanding ACA, that shit should have superficial affairs in the mist of real legislation, real legeslation that moves a country forward to not only social agendas but prosperity. People aren't interested in being on the bottom of a Socialist Utopia, it means they do all the work while the Liberal elite sit on their asses and debate the worth of the those lower on the rung of that society. But they will never have opportunity, the Libs have proven that loud and clear with clear precise definition of what the Ameican family value or the net human worth really is. You could die in withered heep for all Liberals care, it's numbers, statistics and Liberal political feathers.

As long as you can pat your selves on the backs that 100,000 poor people who never had insurance gets insurance, and you can feel smug and proud because you finally beat those conservative chirstian bastards. Then it was all worth it, even if 10,000,000 people who don't qualify for subsidies and either can't afford the premiums, or refuse to pay them and take their chances, or even that untold millions who once had insurance through their job and never once had to worry about, will also be forced into that pool of people who have to make a choice.

Just like this administration sweeps and hides all important numbers under the rug while the champion the miniscule they did help.

Housing numbers
Stopped tracking inflation it doesn't even exist
GDP
Unemployement numbers.

There's not one honest number coming out of Washington, and every official photo of the President is the product of Media Graphics and Photography team.

If you go to USHEALTHCARE.GOV and poke your finger on the screen it will rip like rice paper.
It's a win.

CaptainShuddup says

People aren't interested in being on the bottom of a Socialist Utopia, it means they do all the work while the Liberal elite sit on their asses and debate the worth of the those lower on the rung of that society. But they will never have opportunity, the Libs have proven that loud and clear with clear precise definition of what the Ameican family value or the net human worth really is. You could die in withered heep for all Liberals care, it's numbers, statistics and Liberal political feathers.

No bullshit right wing extremist retardation here folks. Nothing to see, just move along. Another nutjob getting creative with his hatred and ignorance.

CaptainShuddup says

Good keep it up, I love the message

I can summarize all that you've said by "Cap'n thinks he's right and that everyone sees things as he does". I'm not even saying that a Dem victory would be good. (But it certainly would be). I'm saying that politically the electorate will choose the Dems, even if YOU don't think that's smart.

The public are not libertarians. They're liberals. Conservatives are a dying breed. Isn't that why there have been pogroms to remove the RINOs from the party? A tea-bagger formula is to be a lean small party of true-believers devoted to a dying ideology. That's not a recipe for electoral success, even if you would it want it to be.

marcus says

No bullshit right wing extremist retardation here folks. Nothing to see, just move along. Another nutjob getting creative with his hatred and ignorance.

I'm always right, I was right in 2008, you just had better liars.
This time around it wont be so easy to sell them fear and hate of the white man to get the Liberal vote.

The Tiger or the Wolf is not an enticing offer.

CaptainShuddup says

This time around it wont be so easy to sell them fear and hate of the white man to get the Liberal vote.

That's an interesting piece of denial right there.

CaptainShuddup says

you just had better liars

this is interesting too, considering how much pride you seem to take with the creativity involved in your dishonesty. I can not relate to the level of dishonesty you engage in. I truly don't believe you have any idea or care for truth. As far as I can tell this is some sort of art form for you, and it isn't about truth, at all.

And it would seem that this is how your actual beliefs work too. That's interesting in a way, but not because of any of the content of what you say. IT's just the bizarre pathology that keeps people reading your stuff.

bgamall4 says

I believe stock holding is a form of speculation. Bonds are where it is at for the wealthy.

Both obviously can be speculative. Stock holdings are equity position, whereas bonds are debt positions. Both have their places in typical investment portfolios depending on one's risk profile and inflation outlook.

marcus says

this is interesting too, considering how much pride you seem to take with the creativity involved in your dishonesty. I can not relate to the level of dishonesty you engage in. I truly don't believe you have any idea or care for truth. As far as I can tell this is some sort of art form for you, and it isn't about truth, at all.

How dare you, you muster the strength to call me "Dishonest" and a "Liar", but you don't or won't admit that Obama hasn't made one fact his whole damn presidency.

I'm just disappointing because you seem to think you know honesty where you see it. I can only hope there aren't many of you still left come 2016.

CaptainShuddup says

How dare you, you muster the strength to call me "Dishonest" and a "Liar", but you don't or won't admit that Obama hasn't made one fact his whole damn presidency.

I'm not all that happy with Obama, relative to the hope he inspired. Yeah, in some ways he turned out to be more of the same. How much better was he than if McCain or Romney were in there ? I don't know. (this is what honesty looks like)

Here's my guess: On the positive side, the government would be more functional, because while democrats will oppose a lot of what a republican admin does, it would be nothing,... NOTHING like what we've seen from a congress dominated by loony right wing extremists from redistricted districts.

On the negative side there would be more war than we have now (for certain). There would be less progress on health care, and top tax rates would probably still be lower.

I'm waiting to see what happens with Obama care. Unlike you, trying to spin what isn't even known yet, I'm waiting. But sure, there are disappointments, and questions (see what I did there ? It's called honesty). Being the more honest type person, I have acknowledged all along, that I would have rather seen us move toward medicare for all.(btw this might in the end be moving us toward that "solution" - insurance companies beware - the ACA better work - or else).

IF there were one good thing about the ACA, would you be honest enough to acknowledge it ? No, because you're nothing more than some sort of salesperson for Obama hate. You are incapable of even honestly acknowledging one good thing about the ACA to yourself.

It's that dishonestly with yourself that I have the most disrespect for. It's sad really.

marcus says

Here's my guess: On the positive side, the government would be more functional, because while democrats will oppose a lot of what a republican admin does, it would be nothing,... NOTHING like what we've seen from a congress dominated by loony right wing extremists from redistricted districts.

Marcus is the ultimate mutt. I'm one of the 30 he ignores (is that a record). The funny thing is that he thinks that government can be controlled, even more laughable by mutts of his ilk. The pertinent facts are that the government has grown geometrically under O, that is all you need to know.

That is the trouble with mutts like Marcus, they want to explain everything with math, while ignoring the future implications the ACA and Frank Dodd not to mention the long term effects of the QEs or seemingly small things like changing filibuster rules further deteriorating the Republic.

marcus says

IF there were one good thing about the ACA, would you be honest enough to acknowledge it ? No, because you're nothing more than some sort of salesperson for Obama hate. You are incapable of even honestly acknowledging one good thing about the ACA to yourself.

Oh my bad, here let me show you deep uttermost appreciation for ACA that it is...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/3rS6mZUo3fg

Bellingham Bill says

the real question is why they're wrong about absolutely everything --

GOTP claims they won the Cold War.

Now you can claim they didn't, but it's damn hard to disprove and they'll ride that one until the last Cold War children are in the ground.

marcus says

IF there were one good thing about the ACA, would you be honest enough to acknowledge it ? No, because you're nothing more than some sort of salesperson for Obama hate. You are incapable of even honestly acknowledging one good thing about the ACA to yourself.

it is liberals wet dream to be able to claim the USA has Universal Health Coverage just like the other advanced economies, regardless if it works or not. Frankly that is why Obama and very other liberal backer pushed ACA regardless of the consequences, the lies and screw ups. It doesnt matter to you if it a boondoggle, works or not, bankrupts the nation or what have you....as long as you can make a stupid claim "you care about the poor".

there ... you feel better about yourself now !

Vicente says

GOTP claims they won the Cold War.

Now you can claim they didn't, but it's damn hard to disprove and they'll ride that one until the last Cold War children are in the ground.

you rather have 20 soviet divisons parked across the East German border

you rather have the Baltic fleet with Nukes parked 15 minutes from the US Atlantic Coast...