patrick.net

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

The crushing flow of bullshit would render the NSA and its correspondents completely useless.

The NSA is already useless. They didn't stop 9/11, Benghazi, or any other terrorist attack. They didn't predict the slaughter in Syria or the Russian invasion of Crimea.

Sure, the NSA will say they prevented events that they can't tell you about, just like a 9-year-old boy will say that he did the homework, but can't show it to the teacher because it's top secret.

I suspect that half of the NSA are spying on corporations so they can make a quick buck on the stock market with insider information. After all, how could anyone possibly investigate or prosecute them?

The other half is probably hacking into smart phones, activating the cameras remotely, and watching underage boys and girls undress in their bedrooms.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Pump petabytes of disinformation about yourself ... into every DB and media possible.

Especially for those who have already piqued the spies' interest, I think that most spies can tell when information has been emplaced at a natural rate, or appeared suddenly by digital immaculate conception of sorts.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

2) Pump petabytes of disinformation about yourself and synthetic personalities that can be confused with you into every DB and media possible.

This. Totally this.

I would be a Evangelical Christian Lesbian Alcoholic of Color.

Back when I had Tivo, it thought I was a gay nazi, because my wife would watch TLC's What not to Wear and I would watch "Secrets of WW2".

When a small business owner is told "you didn't build that", they tend to fall into an "Ok, I don't get credit for building the business, fuck you I don't give a fuck anymore" state, and their business fails. And more businesses fail. Until there are no more jobs because there are no more businesses.

Now whose job is it to invigorate the business creation business, and the business people who are minding their own business building a business they can be proud of?

If the top dog in the land is telling you, despite your sacrifices of time, blood, sweat, tears, that you didn't build it.....

It's obama's fault.

They stopped loaning/funding/investing in small businesses when the recession hit. All bailout money as we know went to the TBTF banks and friends, and this left nothing for small businesses to fall back on when hard times hit.

Small businesses are owned by lower middle to upper middle class and these regular folks are being left in the dust.

They let C.I.T. Group fail - a bank that specialized in lending small and medium concerns. But they bailed out the big financial companies.

They deregulate the feedlots and the megafarms, but regulate small farmers and homesteaders. In Michigan they are trying to ban all homestead farms in the name of "Sanitation" - "Houses and Cows don't Mix". Even one chicken is one chicken too many - never mind that all the bird flus and animal outbreaks have all happened on mega feedlots.

Banksters get bailouts. Big International Megacorps make double dutch-irish sandwiches and pay 2% in taxes.

But Charlie's Sporting Goods pays the max, can't get single digit interest rate despite decades of sterling credit during historically unprecedented low interest rates.

That's corporatism.

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

Zerohedge is just a propaganda web site, designed for the sole purpose of misinforming the public.

The data in the chart was puled from the BLS report... How would that be considered propaganda or misinformation??

If anyone is releasing misinformation, it might be the BLS...

Anything from Zerohedge is suspect. It has zero credibility.

The bottom line is that a small business becomes a big business from investment. The correlation is investment money has dried up since 2007.

A secondary factor is the demographics have changed, the country is getting older at age 60 the only thing people buy is RVs and healthcare.

The brooking institute are lefties so this presents a challenge to them, but the facts are dead simple.

Some of the bigger companies expand and some shrink but the they are a wash for creating new jobs. The small companies are the marrow for producing new jobs.

You cannot overstate the importance of market clearing as this is the very catalyst for small business creation. Once again as the Captain said nascent business recovery comes in ways never considered in the past.

The government does not create real jobs period. But by paying over the market rate for government workers every dollar given to them is taken from the market and makes it that much harder for a business to compete. E.G. JB raises the sales tax rate by a mere 1 cent but that is roughly a 13% increase in tax on all commerce in the state. One example of many.

Not that it will change much in the next 15 yr or so until it more or less collapses.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Only ASSHOLES! run businesses.

That is certainly the party line...

People still shop at stores?

I think this has more to do with Amazon running stores out of business.... Than the current economy.

Good NSA recruiting poster: We Have All The Best Porn!

The total of both columns is 65 million short of the 315 million census?
Gee, I wonder who that 65 million could be?

indigenous says

The bottom line is that a small business becomes a big business from investment. The correlation is investment money has dried up since 2007.

Nope--that's not the bottom line. A small business becomes a big business by having lots of customers and making lots of profits.

No customers, no growth. And no reason to start new businesses. If we fixed the inequality problem, new businesses would start forming again.

indigenous says

You cannot overstate the importance of market clearing as this is the very catalyst for small business creation

And, as predicted, you continue to spew the market clearing BS even after I showed you how illogical that thesis is.... Lack of market clearing does nothing to prevent new business formation.

tatupu70 says

Nope--that's not the bottom line. A small business becomes a big business by having lots of customers and making lots of profits.

No customers, no growth. And no reason to start new businesses. If we fixed the inequality problem, new businesses would start forming again.

Because according to Tat... There is literally LESS regulation on small business today than there was a decade, or decades ago. And... regulation in general does not impact any small business anyway.

Paralithodes says

Because according to Tat... There is literally LESS regulation on small business today than there was a decade, or decades ago. And... regulation in general does not impact any small business anyway.

Regulations harm business by imposing additional costs, therefore lowering profit margins, would you agree?

Paralithodes says

Because according to Tat... There is literally LESS regulation on small business today than there was a decade, or decades ago. And... regulation in general does not impact any small business anyway.

Notwithstanding that's not what I said, is your hypothesis that regulation is what is preventing small business formation?

tatupu70 says

Notwithstanding that's not what I said, is your hypothesis that regulation is what is preventing small business formation?

Notwithstanding that it is exactly what you argued, and you continued to maintain throughout the argument ... No, it is not my hypothesis that regulation is "what is" (i.e., THE cause) preventing small business formation. It is my hypothesis that regulation is a significant contributing factor. I assume (hope) you understand the nuance.

Is it your hypothesis that regulation is (a) not a factor at all or (b) only an insignificant factor? And on what do you base your hypothesis?

Paralithodes says

It is my hypothesis that regulation is a significant contributing factor.

Why is it a significant contributing factor? What about "regulation" harms business?

carrieon says

The total of both columns is 65 million short of the 315 million census?

Gee, I wonder who that 65 million could be?

Those under age 16.

control point says

Why is it a significant contributing factor? What about "regulation" harms business?

I assume you mean "small business" and not just "business," and let's avoid getting caught up in more emotionally loaded terms like "harm." Regulation often serves as a barrier to entry for small business, or makes it more difficult for small businesses to compete due to the cost of compliance in terms of both time and money.

Sometimes the regulation is reasonable: For simple example, a state may require contractors get a license, and a prerequisite of the license is liability insurance. Whether one thinks this is reasonable or not, it is indisputable that it has raised the cost and created a barrier to entry for individuals who want to get into home improvement on their own. Maybe most of those it crowds out should never get started in the first place, and maybe the benefit is worth the cost of keeping out a handful of people who would otherwise do well for their customers. But it's beyond dispute that this creates a barrier, no matter how reasonable in this circumstance.

And other times, large corporations or unions are the very ones supporting regulation: A large global shipping company might be fully behind an environmental regulation not because they love the environment, but because they know they can easily absorb the cost of compliance while their smaller competitors cannot.... A union drive behind the licensing requirements of a particular trade or occupation that make it exceptionally difficult to get a license unless one gets them through the union... A banking finance law after the financial crisis that doesn't make TBTF's any less TBTF, but forces smaller banks who were not the root of the problem to close, consolidate, or get bought out by the TBTFs because of the cost of compliance, and of course under those conditions, who could start a bank? Even campaign finance reform ... a very small organization (e.g., Citizens United) is committing a felony if they put out a brochure or video criticizing a politician by name within X days of an election ... But if they happened to be big and wealthy enough to afford the compliance costs of a PAC, or if they are the media arm of a major non-media company, then no problem.

Thunderlips has more examples... These examples are all over the place. One can agree or disagree with whether specific regulations are useful, reasonable, worth the cost, etc., but one cannot reasonably argue that regulation in general does not impact small business formation and survival.

Paralithodes says

Is it your hypothesis that regulation is (a) not a factor at all or (b) only an insignificant factor? And on what do you base your hypothesis?

My hypothesis is that regulation is a small factor. I base that on the OP's assertion that small business formation has had a "steep drop" since 2006. I think business conditions are a much larger factor than regulations.

control point says

Why is it a significant contributing factor? What about "regulation" harms business?

You can dismiss the link here because it is related to "Fox" but no matter ... There are articles about this very issue in this industry from other sources:

http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/entrepreneurs/2014/03/24/entrepreneur-arrested-for-braiding-hair/

tatupu70 says

My hypothesis is that regulation is a small factor. I base that on the OP's assertion that small business formation has had a "steep drop" since 2006. I think business conditions are a much larger factor than regulations.

Yes, we went through this before, too.... When you argued that there is less regulation and that new regulation doesn't impact smalll business. I asked you specifically: What about new (post 2006) regulations charging medical device manufacturers with an annual fee for each type of medical device that they sold, and how does this impact a small manufacturer with $100K revenue vs. GE, and you simply refused to answer (apparently real-world examples are just clever traps if they interfere with your theoretical word).... Just one more tiny example among a sea of them.

tatupu70 says

And, as predicted, you continue to spew the market clearing BS even after I showed you how illogical that thesis is....

When did you "show" this? In another recent thread you responded to someone how you "explained" something many times in the past. I never see you "show" or "explain" anything. Repeating your argument time and again is simply not the same thing as showing or explaining something.

Paralithodes says

What about new (post 2006) regulations charging medical device manufacturers with an annual fee for each type of medical device that they sold, and how does this impact a small manufacturer with $100K revenue vs. GE, and you simply refused to answer (apparently real-world examples are just clever traps if they interfere with your theoretical word).... Just one more tiny example among a sea of them.

OK--let's do real world examples. Please provide details on the exact regulation to which you refer. When did it take effect? How are these fees implemeted?

Paralithodes says

When did you "show" this? In another recent thread you responded to someone how you "explained" something many times in the past. I never see you "show" or "explain" anything. Repeating your argument time and again is simply not the same thing as showing or explaining something.

Obviously you didn't read the thread to which I refer. It's not that complicated. If business were starved for capital and that is what is holding back new formation and growth, interest rates wouldn't be near all time lows.

I put tat on ignore I can't stand anymore of his drivel.

The regulations are a harm in 3 ways one is the direct cost of the regulation, someone like osha (especially since they are self funded), then there is the cost of the money taken out of the market that would otherwise be spent in the market, 3rd is the onerous burden drives business out of the state. E.G. the only reason tesla is here is because they get subsidies for being here their battery factory however is going to be built out of state. Maybe in the same state Toyota moved to from Calif.

But the main problem is investment, there hasn't been any since the crash.

The NSA... because bitches be crazy.

Paralithodes says

I assume you mean "small business" and not just "business,"

No. In the macroeconomy, size does not matter. There are some advantages to size, ie "the economy of scale," while there are advantages to "small" business, ie ability to quickly react to market conditions.

Paralithodes says

Regulation often serves as a barrier to entry for small business

You've addressed this later, here:
Paralithodes says

Maybe most of those it crowds out should never get started in the first place

What you mean to say is the marketplace crowds out non-competitive firms. Making the argument that regulation is anti-competitive is suspect. In the absence of any regulation, there would still exist market factors that would make certain participants non-competitive. Regulations are like rules of a game. Anyone can win at chess if they don't adhere to the rules.

Paralithodes says

makes it more difficult for small businesses to compete due to the cost of compliance in terms of both time and money.

Again, these are market factors, or "rules" by which all participants must play. However, my argument is simply this - regulations are but one "tax" levied by the government on doing business. There is a regulation that corporations are only allowed to use legal labor in the production of their goods and services. This regulation certainly increases their labor cost above would it would be if they were permitted to hire anyone off the street, regardless of work status. There are other rules that have been changed over the last 35 years as well - "right to work," union breakup, income taxes themselves, minimum wages, etc., etc., etc...

All of these "rules" affect profit margins. My argument is in sum total - all "regulations" or "rules" of business have fallen over the past 35 years. This is not debatable; after tax corporate profits as a percentage of GDP have increased consistently over the past 35 years or so.

This is the quantifiable data to determine the "cost" of business regulation, in total.

In short, yes - while it may cost corporations more for licensing (as an example) today than it did 30 years ago, the business owner pays a lower cost of capital and labor that more than offset this increased cost of this regulation.

There is one way to increase corporate profit margins: increase revenues relative to cost. (Can be accomplished by holding revenues constant while lowering cost as well, fwiw)

This implies our markets are MORE FREE in totality than 35 years ago.

Paralithodes says

I asked you specifically: What about new (post 2006) regulations charging medical device manufacturers with an annual fee for each type of medical device that they sold, and how does this impact a small manufacturer with $100K revenue vs. GE

Are you are referring to the Medical Device User Fee and Modernizaiton act of 2002? If so it specifically has a waiver for small business. Small being defined as less than 30 million. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/MedicalDeviceUserFeeandModernizationActMDUFMA/ucm109105.htm The act only generates 25 million (increasing for inflation) a year to pay for testing of medical devices. No one can seriously make the case that 25 million a year is holding back the 250 billion dollar a year medical device industry in the US.

If you are referring to ACA it's an excise tax that affects all manufacturers foreign an domestic exactly the same. Exports are exempt from the tax.

It's pretty ironic that an industry that makes such huge profits mostly because of government regulations protecting them from competition is complaining so loudly about government regulation.

The Professor says

Is AF Brilliant? Demented? Or just sarcastic?

I pity the fool at NSA assigned to watch him.

The guy assigned to watch him would have the thrills of his life.

Homeboy says

People still shop at stores?

Atleast they pretend to. I need to go to Best Buy about 6 times to check out a gadget before I can convince myself I need it. Then I buy it from Amazon.

Call it Crazy says

At the end of 2009, Office Depot and OfficeMax combined had about 2,085 stores in North America, which will drop to about 1,500 stores in the United States by 2016 after the closures.

By 2025 they will be down to 500 stores. They will be victims of technology and go the way of Kodak. Remember Kodak, guys? Those under 20 wont.

It's all Obama's fault!!!

Call it Crazy says

It's really hard not to go back up in this thread and delete all his comments... As usual, he provides nothing of value, is a total fucking Troll, and all he does in a thread is argue WITHOUT providing and substance, data, facts, etc.....

Did you find the proof of snopes bias yet?

U.S. businesses are being destroyed faster than theyre being created

It's all Obama's fault!!!

Home prices were up in March
Focus on what is important

Its part of the creative recovery