patrick.net

Honest Abe says

What a crock. Tell that to the MILLIONS of successful small business owners. The OPPORUNITY to succeed is one of the things which used to make America the greatest country in the world.

I think you are missing the point. The article does not argue that people shouldn't have the opportunity to succeed. The article, and the book, argues that every person who has succeeded financially has done so because they had access to publicly funded infrastructure like the Highway Transportation System, the Internet, the public sewer systems, public police forces, public court systems, and a thousand other critical, everyday resources built for the entire community on the basis of socialism.

I.e., without some common interests and some common management of resources, societies that allow individuals to become successful would not even exist in the first place, and there would be no successful entrepreneurs.

Honest Abe says

They want "equality" and the ability to take from one group and give it to another group to "spread the wealth".

No one here is advocating making everyone's income the same regardless of what they produce. The argument I would make is that the richest members of our society produce nothing at best and typically destroy wealth.

I'm not talking about the rich celebrity or sports player. I'm talking about the people who made billions while causing the financial collapse. The controllers of resources they did not create are the real parasites.

The fact is that without some socialism, our society would be a third world nation. The Highway Transportation System is a perfect example of why some socialism is necessary. The military is another "socialism" program that no one wants to completely dismantle, although some like myself would cut it to one tenth its size.

Socialism and capitalism are not incompatible. In fact, with zero socialism, capitalism would collapse from lack of support. Now, capitalism and corporatism cannot co-exist. Also, socialism does not require a "caring" or "benevolent" government. Just think about the defense industry, the largest socialist program we have, and the first that should be cut.

The reason the majority of Americans hate the uber-rich, is that the uber-rich didn't earn their wealth. They didn't create their wealth. They stole it from the productive members of society by rigging the entire system to extract as much wealth as possible from the real producers of goods and services.

If the typical American actually took home 100% of the wealth he produced before taxes, the median real income in this country would be at least twice the $33,048 it is.

Look, I have a pretty shitty opinion of Americans, but not even I believe that Americans are so lazy and incompetent that they produce only $33,048 of wealth a year at our present technological level. Americans would have to be the dumbest, laziest shits in all of human history to produce such little wealth with so much technology at their disposal.

America's GDP for 2010 was about $14.6 trillion. As only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010 and there's 308,745,538 resident Americans, that's an average of $104,159 of wealth per working citizen.

Now, of course some will be generating twice or three times as much wealth as that and some will be generating a third that wealth, but the distribution of wealth production is nowhere near the distribution of pre-tax income in our country.

With the possible exception of engineers who invent amazing revolutionary technologies -- and maybe one could argue entertainers, although they really own their wealth to engineers who invented TV, CDs, etc. -- no human being produces a million dollars of wealth a year. The only way to get that kind of income is to steal from others. And legal theft is still theft.

If we forced, by law, that every person's take home income was equal to what they produce minus 10% for taxes and 10% for the employer's profits, we would all be vastly richer and our society more prosperous. Of course, there would be no billionaires, but at quarter of the populations would be millionaires and the 10th percentile would still be above the poverty line. And wouldn't that be a more opportunistic society?

Of course, such a society would be hell to the Donald Trumps and Rupert Murdocks of the world as they would actually have to work for a living.

His name was one of the most recognized in America -- Horatio Alger Jr. But what very few knew was that Horatio Alger harbored a terrible secret, one that could have destroyed his career. Fortunately for Alger, it was a secret that was buried in the sandy soil of Brewster, and kept secret by the heads of the Unitarian Church. When he died, slightly more than a century ago, his numerous novels had sold millions of copies. He became even more popular after he died. Estimates today of his total sales range between 100 to 250 million copies, making him one of the most popular writers of all time.

Read on...
http://capecodconfidential.com/cccalger020515.shtml

When told he was under investigation by the Unitarian Church leaders, he immediately skipped town... to NYC, where he immediately began inviting boys back to his house... and writing about them.

More at:
http://www.alternet.org/media/29266

(Modified for Brevity)

Why do you folks hate democracy?

I'm self made, just ask me.

I'd rather be self made, than a sniveling lemming, jumping on the socialist flavor of the day.

Honest Abe says

What a crock. Tell that to the MILLIONS of successful small business owners. The OPPORUNITY to succeed is one of the things which used to make America the greatest country in the world.

Opportunity is being killed. Some want "fairness" instead. They want "equality" and the ability to take from one group and give it to another group to "spread the wealth".

Opportunity gives everyone the chance to go as far as their talent and ability takes them. "Fairness" and "equality" (and Socialism) steals that chance from everyone and turns everyone's future over to a "caring" and benevolent government. Ain't that comforting?

Kinda funny when it is a proven fact that countries implementing the socialism you revile have far greater social mobility than we have now or likely will ever know again. The reason we won't likely see opportunity again is because we are a country comprised mainly of people like you; who are more concerned that hobos are getting free emergency room visits than the rampant white collar crime and political corruption. Next time read the article rather than make stock rightwing arguments.

Honest Abe says

What a crock. Tell that to the MILLIONS of successful small business owners

That don't count, to these Fools, "Made it" means comparing your self to unimaginable wealth. It's a shame they never know happiness.

Honest Abe says

Tell that to the MILLIONS of successful small business owners.

Please ask any small (and I mean small, less than 10 employees) business owner what they think of our current health insurance system. Then ask them if they would support a public insurance option.

You'll get exactly opposite answers from the Fortune 500, if they allow you to ask them anything at all.

It's not true that *everyone* who has succeeded financially has done so because of infrastructure.

After all, dictators, warlords, and other despots had to get rich somehow.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47205997

Dan, if anyone can attribute success to infrastructure, what do they attribute failure, or lack of success to?????

How is it that children raised in the same house, went to the same school, had the same parents, values, upbringing and had the same infrastructure yet some become wildly successful and the siblings not so much????? How is THAT possible ??

Dan, I LOVE your suggestion: 10% for taxes, 10% Employer Profit, the balance to the employee...BRILLIANT - you've got my vote.

Honest Abe became wildly successful without much infrastructure and read by candlelight (not me - Lincoln)

Patrick, I believe you are 100% incorrect about business owners supporting a public insuArance option (AKA obama care). My CPA would not support it, my attorney wouldn't. My dry cleaner says no. The owner of a financial services company says no, as does a real estate company owner. There is no business owner I know, none, that support it.

Patrick, Government is the biggest drag on the economy as it earns nothing but has to support 40% of the population with some type of direct benefit. And pay legacy costs for millions of government retirees, probably with a cost of living inflation adjustment. And pay for empire building. And pay for bridges to no where, and lavish junkets to and fro for Michelle. On and on and on.

Business owners say that the biggest impediment to success is government. Further proof of that is the NUMBER OF BUSINESS STARTUP'S for the last two years has been the LOWEST IN RECORDED HISTORY. (2010 -2012...welcome to ObamAs's world).

Big, massive evergrowing, intrusive government is not the solution...it has become the problem.

Honest Abe says

Business owners say that the biggest impediment to success is government.

You mean, the voices in your head say that.

Actual small business owners say that demand is the greatest impediment.

"Hey I've built this great mousetrap, why are sales so poor?"

Vicente, why is it you don't like reality. Why disparage me for passing along the truth? That must be a character defect you are burdened with.

This is the message: "Business owners say the biggest impedement to success is government".

I am the messenger.

One more: Business owners rank TEXAS the most friendly business state and CALIFORNIA the LEAST FRIENDLY BUSINESS STATE (or was it second from the bottom? Whatever - it's ranking sucked).

So what are your thoughts about that???

The CNBC list actually does put California dead last in the "business friendliness" sub-category. Texas isn't first on that list either, though.

http://news.yahoo.com/ceos-rank-texas-tops-business-california-worst-235456642.html

Yea, its CEO's that rank Texas tops. Iwoog - government isn't an impediment? So how is your business related to government? Government, government employees and government related businesses seem to be the only ones not suffering.

http://www.texaspolicy.com/legislativeupdates_single.php?report_id=4502

The Tax Foundation ranks Texas 9th best tax friendly business climate and California 48th. Lets see, 48 out of how many? Hahaha.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fsb/0711/gallery.Bottom10BestStates.fsb/3.html

CNN says Kalifornia ranks 49th.

Honest Abe says

Dan, if anyone can attribute success to infrastructure, what do they attribute failure, or lack of success to?????

So, let me get his straight. In your world view, either the existence of infrastructure has to make 100% of the people successful, or it cannot have any contribution to anybody's success. That's an awfully big false dichotomy.

Infrastructure is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for success. Would Google have become successful if there were no telecommunication cables traveling vast distances across public land? Would Walmart be successful if there were no highway transportation system to transport goods over long distances?

Honest Abe says

How is it that children raised in the same house, went to the same school, had the same parents, values, upbringing and had the same infrastructure yet some become wildly successful and the siblings not so much????? How is THAT possible ??

Infrastructure is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for success.

You put two kids in object poverty in the middle of nowhere with no support system and no electrical grid and neither one is going to found Google. The fact is that without a strong public infrastructure, the levels of success people enjoy today could not be accomplished.

Honest Abe says

Dan, I LOVE your suggestion: 10% for taxes, 10% Employer Profit, the balance to the employee...BRILLIANT - you've got my vote.

You did realize that this suggestion is contingent upon the elimination of all private rent-seeking income streams, right? In other words, a flat tax is perfectly acceptable if and only if there are no parasites making their income off of other people's work, i.e., no executives, CEOs, speculators, etc. Under my system the only way to make money is to produce wealth, not to control it with capital and/or politics. Naturally, that would put a lot of people in the "finance" industry out of work. Naturally, Fox News would viciously oppose my idea with every fiber of Fox's being.

And, of course, under such a system, the income poor gap would not look like this.

Instead, with the rare exception of a few inventors, the maximum income would be about $400,000 in today's dollars. The median income would be about $104,000 -- and that's neglecting that people would start producing more if they kept more of their production -- and few full time workers would earn less than $40,000/yr. I.e., the difference between the least productive fulltime workers and the most productive fulltime workers would be no more than a factor of 10. Naturally, there would be some people who choose not to work or are not capable of working, but they would be a small contingency. And certainly, there would be no billionaire executives. At best, a CEO would be making $80,000/yr while the most productive members of his company would be making $400k/yr. Executives are, at best, overhead.

What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that companies tax their employees far more than government does. It's only by taxing producers 80% that companies are able to pay executives such huge sums of money for essentially zero production. So that 25% effective federal income tax rate you pay, is really 25% of the 20% of your income that you get to keep after your employer has taken the lion's share of your productivity.

As for taxation, I could go even further. If government, rather than private companies, got to perform the rent-seeking functions like getting 1% of all debit card transactions, exploiting natural resources like minerals and the electro-magnetic spectrum, and the size of government (particularly the military, social security, and Medicare) were greatly reduced, then no federal taxation would be necessary.

And states and local governments could tax via charging for specific services. For example, an automobile tax would pay for road maintenance, a boat tax would pay for lighthouses. In other words, the cost of government services would be socialized over the users of those services rather than over the entire population. This would be better than a general tax fund because it would avoid a "free-for-all feeding frenzy" among all the special interests. Of course, such a system requires both drastic reduction in government programs and the government take-over of rent-seeking functions.

Please ask any small (and I mean small, less than 10 employees) business owner what they think of our current health insurance system. Then ask them if they would support a public insurance option.

Eutopia will not be achieved without stress.
The best Vineyards are started on high alkilyne soil.
I love the thought of all humanity recieving comfort while facing the inevitable accidents or disease.
Keep Gubmint out of it !
Patrick, You have shown that you are an "Information Engineer" when it comes to scouring and sorting information for a variety of beneficial, analytical purposes.
Do you think there might be a way to organize information showing performance or efficiency results, comparing any number of government agencies as opposed to private firms ?
In my personal experiences, business, personal, and academic, I am consistently disappointed by any agency that does not have to compete for it's earnings.
I fear the list of failed gubmint agencies will just grow larger with socialized health care.
Freddie Fannie (mortgage fraud)
S.E.C. (17th complaint of Madoff)
T.S.A. (baby pat downs)
Social Security (O.M.G.)
FBI (warned of 911)
Labor Board (overtime lawsuits epidemic)
Do you really wanna go see a gubmint proctologist ?
Jack Elam assisted Farrah in Cannonball Run.

If health care becomes free it's quality will deteriorate. County hospitals already provide services for poverty stricken.

The cost will certainly contribute to America's demise.

TMAC54 says

If health care becomes free it's quality will deteriorate.

"Free" health care in lots of other countries, is delivering RIGHT NOW better actual results than ours. Yet we continue to champion corporate insurance plans as the best way to go? Insanity!

Dan8267 says

If we forced, by law, that every person's take home income was equal to what they produce minus 10% for taxes and 10% for the employer's profits, we would all be vastly richer and our society more prosperous. Of course, there would be no billionaires, but at quarter of the populations would be millionaires and the 10th percentile would still be above the poverty line. And wouldn't that be a more opportunistic society?

I like the way you think, and I enjoy reading your posts...so I'm trying to sugar coat this...BUT...

Any economy that implemented what you suggested would devastate their production. It would be a stone-age economy within 6 months.

Dan8267 says

Naturally, Fox News would viciously oppose my idea with every fiber of Fox's being.

Uh...so would any rational person.

Dan8267 says

Under my system the only way to make money is to produce wealth, not to control it with capital and/or politics

By definition, you can't have a command and control economy that isn't controlled via "politics."

Furthermore, economic decisions or "wealth", must either be controlled via economic interests or via political interests. There is no third option, though I'm willing to let you enlighten me.Dan8267 says

if and only if there are no parasites making their income off of other people's work, i.e., no executives, CEOs, speculators, etc.

Given proper regulation, these people aren't parasites. In fact, they serve a purpose, without which, no economy may funtion...unless you want to go back the stone age.

Dan8267 says

Naturally, that would put a lot of people in the "finance" industry out of work

There are a ton of legit criticisms of the way the finance industry works. However, you cant have civilization without a way to transfer capital efficiently.

Cro-magnum man had a larger brain than us AND was stronger. Why did we thrive, while they went extinct? We learned TRADE and DIVISION OF LABOR.

Without finance we would be extinct.

CBOEtrader says

Any economy that implemented what you suggested would devastate their production. It would be a stone-age economy within 6 months.

I would think it would drastically increase real productivity and real GDP. Aren't people always arguing that everyone needs a profit motive to produce? Why should that only apply to the rich? Doesn't the middle class also need motivation to produce?

Think about all the wasted time at work because people are making the same crappy wage whether they work hard or do just enough not to get fired. Image how much more people would produce if they got to keep 80% of what they made and they knew that if they double their productivity, they'd double their income.

CBOEtrader says

Furthermore, economic decisions or "wealth", must either be controlled via economic interests or via political interests. There is no third option, though I'm willing to let you enlighten me.

Software.

CBOEtrader says

There are a ton of legit criticisms of the way the finance industry works. However, you cant have civilization without a way to transfer capital efficiently.

Transfer of capital could be done better without human beings, who have selfish motives, interfering with the process. Resource allocation should be a science, not an art performed by self-centered business men.

CBOEtrader says

Cro-magnum man had a larger brain than us AND was stronger. Why did we thrive, while they went extinct? We learned TRADE and DIVISION OF LABOR.

The removal of parasitic rent-seeking functions does not deteriorate trade or the division of labor. In fact, the removal of all rent-seeking functions and the streamlining of financial infrastructure would increase trade by reducing overhead including both waste and commissions.

It is often difficult to distinguish between parasitic rent-seeking and actual production. Is the capital gain on a passive investment in a growing company rent-seeking or productive behavior? It seems to have elements of both to me.

Also, how exactly do you measure the productivity of an office worker, so that he can claim 80% of it?

One distinction is clear to me though, thanks to Henry George: income from mere ownership of land is purely parasitic because no one created or maintained the land, while income from renting out a house on that land is actually productive, because the house required building and maintenance.

TMAC54 says

I am consistently disappointed by any agency that does not have to compete for it's earnings.

Health insurance companies do not have to compete for their earnings.

It's just pay or die, with your options limited to two or three identical insurers with identical premiums. They just pretend to compete.

And how would it limit your options in any way if you were granted another option: the option to buy into Medicare?

So you're saying getting a fourth option takes away from your freedom somehow?

Dan8267 says

I would think it would drastically increase real productivity and real GDP.

The concept is valid. It's the implementation I had a problem with.

You suggested a forced 90% of productivity compensation to employees.

1)You would need an enormous bureaucracy to determine "production" and "compensation" per employee.

2)Human capital is only one aspect of a business. With the advent of technology and industrialization it is often a smaller part of the puzzle than other capital. The difference in the ratio of human capital to machinery or pure money capital is vastly different. You can't command and control % of "productivity" compensation per employee without devastating 95% of companies.

3)What company uses 90% human capital and only 10% machinery/technology/money? Sales perhaps? That's about it. Any high paying job is typically high-paying due to exactly the opposite ratio. My industry takes that to the extreme, where a group of a few hedge fund types might control $5 billion in capital-- however, every lawyer, corporate executive, and software engineer is the beneficiary of leveraging huge capital.

In short, you have to let the free market determine the cost and value of human capital.

I am reminded of Henry Ford, who famously paid his employees well above any other factory wages at the time. He was fabulously rewarded for this strategy, as were the employees-- but it was not, and could not happen via a command and control approach.

The free market will work miracles if you let it.

Dan8267 says

Transfer of capital could be done better without human beings, who have selfish motives, interfering with the process. Resource allocation should be a science, not an art performed by self-centered business men

Sounds nice...but what does that mean?

It is often difficult to distinguish between parasitic rent-seeking and actual production.

True, and that is where the difficulty in implementing a rent-free society lies. At this point, I can only advocate studying the idea not a specific implementation.

However, I have found that if an idea is pursued, society has a way of generating and refining solutions to even the most difficult problems.

Also, how exactly do you measure the productivity of an office worker, so that he can claim 80% of it?

Yep, business has to be turned into an objective, engineering discipline. So far, we've only been taking the approach of turning engineering into a business.

CBOEtrader says

t's the implementation I had a problem with.

Yeah, because I don't have an implementation yet, just an idea. The next question is how to implement such a society. I think it will take many changes big and small. I have a few ideas on what some of those changes are, but not all of them.

For example, I think we need to move away from hierarchical power structures including corporations and towards a peer-to-peer power and distribution architecture. I.e., no CEOs or executives, just workers producing some function. Each node performs a specific function and services all other nodes on the network. Compensation flows as a function of how much a service is used. Any service can be replicated in multiple nodes for competition.

In such a network, there is no root, no headquarters, no board of directors. Direction is given entirely by market demands. No hierarchies and as such, no opportunity to steal production from other nodes. Individual nodes have no power, but ad-hoc networks of nodes can produce great things.

It's just pay or die, with your options limited to two or three identical insurers with identical premiums. They just pretend to compete.

All oligopolies behave this way. In function, oligopolies differ in no ways from monopolies.

CBOEtrader says

Sounds nice...but what does that mean?

The history of mankind could be viewed as subjects and disciplines moving from the arts to the sciences. This happened first with math, then physics, then chemistry, then biology, then ecology. Continuing this trend, one would expect government, economics, and social studies to make the transition next.

When a subject or discipline becomes a science or engineering field, it hardens. People stop talking about it in vague, unquantifiable terms and start talking in very specific, standard terminology. The subject becomes precise.

Of course, no one images that the subject could be a science. How could science possibly explain the creation of a baby, they'll say. But eventually it does with perfect precision.

"All you well off business owners listen up. It's because of me you've become wealthy, because I pay for the infrastructure!!"

--Elmer Fudd middle class taxpayer who paid a total of $1437 in taxes last year and needs to take credit for people's success to compensate for his own feelings of failure.

I don't hate Democracy. I just wonder why there is only Democracy, Socialism, Communism and dictatorship. I guess there are a few small others. It makes me think they can't count past 4 and come up with anything else. I think they are all bullshit. When fucking France has the same monetary system based on loans and lending. WTF is the difference. For fucking freedom fighters. This peoples sure loves the debt cage. Don't live a fucking childs fantasy. Because Monday morning comes and so does the end of the month and reality. So you play the game. The people that are "really" at the top. Are laughing at your people. I don't think the whole thing is so GD funny myself. Your never going to "reform" a debt merchant they are stubborn little bastards that love to swindel.

Artimus 8:00 o'clock Remeber I warned you if a debt merchant gives you flowers and balloons and wants to be your friend. Tell him to fuck off and walk away.

Let's start at the beginning.
1. What are people FOR?
2. What is Good, and what is Bad?
3. What is government/socialism/authority ?
4. What is money?
5. What is Opportunity and where does it come from?
6. What enables people to take advantage of opportunities?

Note: none of these questions are "Why" for a reason.
1. To be useful to the future of the universe over and above what they consume in resources (to give more than we take).
2. #1 pretty much defines "good" and "bad" because failing to do so means eventual extinction.
3. Tools that people choose to utilize in order to make survival more convenient and productive. If they become too productive/consumptive, then the available resources disappear or are contaminated with complexity (see "enough").
4. A tool that increases the efficiency of trade and production/consumption.
5. Opportunity is the occurrence of resources (people, places, tools, time, money, materials) which randomly becomes present to people, depending on initial conditions and circumstances (insert Chaos theory explanation here).
6. Preparation and willingness to take risks (combined).

If people are uneducated or unwilling to take risks, then they cannot take advantage of opportunities when they occur. If OTHER people hoard resources or control the resources, then opportunities are no longer presented randomly to those who are willing and able to take risks (the masses, for the most part).

The Redistribution platform is dependent upon overconsumption in order to have a place to tap resources for redistribution. It is not about normalizing the randomness of opportunity.
The Free Market platform is about hoarding resources by those who already have the resources under their control, in the guise of "we earned it".

Democrats do not stand for labor: they stand for the Labor Business.
Republicans do not stand for free markets, they stand for THEIR markets (mostly military and oil consumption).

There is no "Generosity" party.
Civilization IS socialism. How we choose to implement social/herd tools are a matter of how we choose to apply either wisdom or selfishness or blind authority.

"Every newspaper has a Business section. None of them have a Labor section." -Joe Bageant.

The ironic part is that when we are young (unprepared), we are more willing to take risks than when we are older and more able to be successful at it.

CBOEtrader says

The free market will work miracles if you let it.

There is no "free market" other than places like Somalia and Nigeria. In a true free market the person with the most guns sets the market. All other markets work within the legal and political structures of the society in which they exist. All markets must be balanced somewhere between predatory monopolies like the "guilded age" of the robber barons and overbearing government control like the former Soviet Union.

I would have thought the crash of 2008, brought about by a lack of regulation not over regulation, would have at least muted the senseless bleatings of the "free market" crowd. Businesses, especially large ones, are like small children and satellites. They must be constantly watched over or they will wander off and create mischief.

I'm not talking regulation of operations here, although some is necessary like not allowing dumping of deadly poison in rivers. Anyone remember the Cuyahoga river being so polluted that it actually caught fire in the 60's? Or all the superfund sites filled with deadly toxins? Meat packing in filth? Strip mining? The free market crowd never seems to get around to explaining exactly how the wonders of the free market will address these kinds of issues where business reaps huge private profit but the public is left poisoned and sick/dying/dead.

What I'm mostly talking about accountability, transparency, and a level playing field which are all sorely lacking in the US today. Many large businesses talk ad nausiam about the "free market" but endlessly manipulate the system to squash competition or manipulate markets in their favor.

Are there stupid, overbearing, senseless regulations. Of course there are, thousands of them. I've owned my own business and dealt with the inane crap enough. That's the nature of government. But simply throwing out all regulation and letting business run wild would make the situation many many orders of magnitude worse.

nw888 says

--Elmer Fudd middle class taxpayer who paid a total of $1437 in taxes last year and needs to take credit for people's success to compensate for his own feelings of failure.

I paid a total federal income tax of $24,828.00 last year alone, so I do claim credit for the success of billionaires. If you don't like that, send me back my 25 grand. It's a bit more than the figure you quoted.

ArtimusMaxtor says

I don't hate Democracy.

How can you hate that which does not exist? There hasn't been a Democracy on this planet for over two millenia.

Auntiegrav says

Democrats do not stand for labor: they stand for the Labor Business.
Republicans do not stand for free markets, they stand for THEIR markets (mostly military and oil consumption).

There is no "Generosity" party.
Civilization IS socialism.

All true.

bob2356 says

The free market crowd never seems to get around to explaining exactly how the wonders of the free market will address these kinds of issues where business reaps huge private profit but the public is left poisoned and sick/dying/dead.

How unpatriotic and un-American to ask such a question! ;-)

bob2356 says

What I'm mostly talking about accountability, transparency, and a level playing field which are all sorely lacking in the US today. Many large businesses talk ad nausiam about the "free market" but endlessly manipulate the system to squash competition or manipulate markets in their favor.

American as apple pie. God Bless America.

wthrfrk80 says

bob2356 says

The free market crowd never seems to get around to explaining exactly how the wonders of the free market will address these kinds of issues where business reaps huge private profit but the public is left poisoned and sick/dying/dead.

How unpatriotic and un-American to ask such a question! ;-)

Sorry, not actually being part of the 1% of the population that actually owns everything and gets the financial benefits for these types of activities I sometimes have these thoughts.