This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Attention Marxists: Labor's Share Of National Income Drops To Lowest In History

Tyler Durden's picture


Probably the most imprtant secular trend in recent employment data, one that has a far greater impact on the macroeconomic themes than Birth/Death and seasonal adjustment manipulated month to month shifts in the employment pool per either the household or establishment surveys, is the labor share of national income. In a 2004 paper from the St. Louis Fed, the authors make the following statement: "The allocation of national income between workers and the owners of capital is considered one of the more remarkably stable relationships in the  U.S. economy. As a general rule of thumb, economists often cite labor’s share of income to be about two-thirds of national income—although the exact figure is sensitive to the specific data used to calculate the ratio. Over time, this ratio has shown no clear tendency to rise or fall." It would be wonderful if this was true, and thus if the US population really had a stable distribution of income between laborers and capital owners. Alas it is dead wrong. In fact, as the latest note from David Rosenberg points out, the "labor share of national income has fallen to its lower level in modern history - down to 57.5% in the first quarter from 57.6% in the fourth quarter of last year, 57.8% a year ago, and 59.8% when the recovery began." And here is where the Marxist-Leninist party of the US should pay particular attention: "some recovery it has been - a recovery in which labor's share of the spoils has declined to unprecedented levels."

Like Rosie, Zero Hedge is not a marxist blog: quite the opposite, but like him we come to the same troubling conclusion: "extremes like this, unfortunately, never seem to lead us to a very stable place." We would go further: not only does the US already have the core elements, should one be so inclined, to provoke a (rather active) anti-fascist movement based on some interpretations of pro-corporatists policies adopted by the administration, but should another be so inclined, the country also has the groundwork in place for another neo-Marxist revolution: just take this chart, add some slogans, mix, and simmer. And who will be the natural enemy? Why only look at the great October revolution in Russia for ideas. History always rhymes.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:07 | 1337733 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

SIT-DOWN GLOBAL WITHDRAWAL OF LABOR. STRIKE! I'll just see if dancing with the stars is on first.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:15 | 1337780 IdioTsincracY
IdioTsincracY's picture

That chart matches exactly the decline of Union participation and the decrease in wealth of the middle class...

Now, all I am saying is that when you give up your voice at the bargaining table, then you can't complain about it ...

Companies hane the Chamber of Commerce and lobbyists ... that is fine!

Banks have lobbyists, and hold the politicians by the balls ... that is fine too

workers had unions .... but they are evil .... EVIL I tell you!!!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:36 | 1337849 US Uncut
US Uncut's picture

Wonder what good ol' MISHY boy has to say about this. He who says everything should go private, all unions abolished and everyone who dares to want more should be thrown out on their ass. 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:37 | 1337855 Robot Traders Mom
Robot Traders Mom's picture

Sorry to cut in but is there any truth to this??? Why hasn't Tyler posted?




Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:43 | 1337886 Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

Because this is complete non-news. First of all, as we pointed out a long time ago, China's T-Bill holdings fluctuate based on prevailing short term rates. Second, Bills account for less than 1% of total China bill/bond/note holdings and thus their notional is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Third: TIC data is consistently wrong, and the bulk of China's marginal purchases (of both bonds and bills) occurs via the UK, and are only captured once a year with a 2 year lookback. In other words, only the June 2010 number is valid. Lastly, the linked article did the same error Bloomberg did by comparing apples and oranges, i.e., the post June 2010 and pre June 2010 time series. 

Should we continue?

And yes, here is the chart we posted on this extremely irrelevant topic in February:

This is the only chart that is even modestly relevant (reported two weeks ago), and even it is probably completely wrong when UK holdings are accounted for.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:07 | 1337929 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

That, ladies and gentleman, is a professional.

In other news... something terrible is going to happen and you can't prepare/predict for it or understand it fully after the fact. Good night now. Have a pleasant weekend:)

BTW Tyler purdy colors of those charts.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:47 | 1338040 morkov
morkov's picture

US labour is subsidised by "chinese" labour. try to labour the whole product on your own, please! the prevailing ratio in the communist states prior to '89 was 1 labour/4 state. why would you think US will not go to that level also?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 01:46 | 1338817 Michael
Michael's picture

That is a beautiful read. A work of art with the vernacular.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:17 | 1464051 smore
smore's picture

A rough translation from the demotic would be:

"Your ass is up your head".

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:28 | 1338007 Montgomery Burns
Montgomery Burns's picture


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:57 | 1338214 bbq on whitehou...
bbq on whitehouse lawn's picture

Once or twice a week Zerohedge should shut down on account of hangover.  Only so often you can be right before throwing up in a bucket.

Being this right, this fast, is asking for an "evil dead" kind of weekend. Stay safe.

Less you think the happier you stay.

Really take a break. These characters arn't going as far as you think.

You need a vacation; so take one, nothing will happen that will not happen again when you get back.


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:33 | 1338339 tired1
tired1's picture

Thanks for the insight, I've been looking for this type of info for several weeks. One would think that info of such import would be more readily available but it's hidden better than military secrets.

I recall writing a paper on the USSR's internal economic viability back in the mid 80's. Turns out that most of it was self conflicting crap. My conclusion was that the USSR would implode 'soon.'

I'm getting the same feeling about the US, not much longer until some kind of major reset.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:41 | 1338492 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

 - so what yer saying is, the banksters gave the US enough rope to hang itself with?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 01:08 | 1338781 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

then they tied the knot and put it around the middle class' neck... erm, isn't this what the banksters always do to nations that get a bit too big in the britches with their whole 'sovereignty' trip?

I mean, judging by even a cursory look at the historical record of the last couple of centuries, anyway.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:21 | 1339182 InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture

Before there was organized labor there were simply serfs. Banks and corps and a bunch of chowder headed News Corp clones would like to return to those days.

Not on my watch, bichez


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:31 | 1338474 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

  Thank you. Ever explored a silver mine?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:40 | 1338495 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

I explored several gold mines. ... and a copper mine, where gold was a byproduct. but anyway, how ya doing?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:52 | 1338758 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Miss you Rusty! You are a good person!

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:20 | 1338709 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture

Hi Tyler.

Yeah. I saw and read same story linked on Drudge. I like Drudge, but shame on them for listing this article. "T-Bills." Whoop-dee-doo.

(In fairness to RoboMom. The article was sensationally titled.)



Sat, 06/04/2011 - 03:11 | 1338883 Howard_Beale
Howard_Beale's picture

Drudge Smudge. Douchebags galore.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:38 | 1338744 JPG101
JPG101's picture

As usual: impressive!

Do you sleep?

ZH is a gem...

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 01:07 | 1338779 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Run these charts as trendlines and stix, and you will get massive response!

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 05:35 | 1338930 Miss anthrope
Miss anthrope's picture


Awesome, comeback..............


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 08:33 | 1339014 Medea
Medea's picture

Someone felt their feathers ruffled.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:48 | 1338209 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I don't think anyone wants unions abolished, they just shouldn't be given unnatural powers, like the power to FORCE people to join if they want to work.

Freedom of association is real, and must be maintained.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:38 | 1338483 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

The workers themselves have a right to decide whether to run a union shop or not.

A so-called "open shop" is a device used by the bosses to divide the workers, which is obviously the whole point.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:08 | 1338692 redpill
redpill's picture

Incorrect. A majority of workers can decide to have a union, which then imposes itself on the rest of the workers also. Then once the union is intrenched it is afforded numerous subsidy protections by the government so that it is nearly impossible to get rid of. Don't paint it as some sort of free choice, it's a government sponsored entity, precisely because it centralizes power and thus makes it easier for politicians to parlay with. It's the same reason politicians favor a handful of large corporations over millions of sole proprietors. Politicians want the power consolidated into the hands of a relative few, so they can, with relative ease, pull the proper strings and get efficiently bought off by as few entities as possible.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:27 | 1338717 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Under the Wagner Act, maybe.   But you need to study Taft-Hartley.  

Engage in whatever sophistry you choose.  The bottom line is the the bottom line:  Uncle Sam has been quite successful, since the 1960s, in driving union representation down.  Which stands to reason, because White Capital owns government.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:47 | 1338751 redpill
redpill's picture

Unions have been successful in driving union representation down more than any other force. Government-sponsored unions only exist as a leech on a free market. When that free market eventually starts to crumble from over-regulation, government intrusion, and union suffocation, the parasite simply cannot survive with the same lifestyle of largesse that it once did. It kills its hosts.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 01:07 | 1338780 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

What an historical whitewash.

The 'free market' is as real as the Tooth Fairy - never existed, never will.  In fact, the whole POINT of the modern state is to serve the needs and interests of White Capital.

CAPITALISM requires government intervention.  Without state violence, nobody would allow the land and labor of whole civilizations to be appropriated by another.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 02:55 | 1338874 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

What an historical whitewash.


Most complaints on this site come from people who have started to fall on the wrong side of the fence. They are discovering by living them some sides of the US citizenry system. Harder to deny a situation when you live it.

Yet US citizen nature is denial so in order to keep expressing their nature, US citizens have woven a large denial scheme: the US is no longer functioning as it used to be.

Of course, nothing has changed in the US. The US works the same as it used to in 1776. Never changed since that day.

But some US citizens are unable to cope with that reality so they need to invent a story telling that the US have changed.

Ultimately, if they admit that nothing has changed, that the US works as usual, that it is only them who fell on the wrong side of the barreer, it would be tag them as losers. It cant be.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 03:17 | 1338884 Howard_Beale
Howard_Beale's picture

"The US works the same as it used to in 1776. Never changed since that day."

What the hell are you talking about? Corporate citizenry didn't exist in 1776. Slavery was legal in 1776. I could go on and on....

Have I missed some sarcasm? WTF An?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 04:16 | 1338908 knowless
knowless's picture

no, it's just that when "white" people are confronted with the genocide of that native population they generally tend to revert to a guilt perspective where they nullify any good that civilization has done. primitavism only works however when everyone is forced to live in that system by nature, otherwise technology is retained by a group and used to exploit those who either voluntarily or not live a primitive lifestyle.


the native perspective, is either the goal to disestablish current civilizational trends so as to usurp, or bring others back to that point. I really don't want to get in an argument with an adherent of aztlan, but at the same time, the inherent hypocrisy in hating the "white" man while attempting to establish another state in the same model is absurd to me.


there is nothing i can do for the past, as I myself was conquered therein, even though i am "white" my ancestors did not speak english, and did not choose this path.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 09:57 | 1339077 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

You cannot explain the 'success' of White Capital without explaining the genocide it produced elsewhere.

Historical truth and guilt aren't the same thing.  Too many people want to congratulate themselves - as Whiteboy Banker-Gangsters - for being the most advanced and enlightened people; their arrogance is based on equal parts parts historical delusion and self-delusion concerning their role as parasitical Banker-Gangsters.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:25 | 1339102 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yes, you can.  Whites respected natural law, those who were subjected to genocide did not.

When white settlers came to a place, like North America, and built up capital by allowing markets to operate, ie by recognizing that men owned themselves and their property, they became strong.  The natives in ALL cases where they were enslaved or wiped out, universally failed to recognize those rights.  The North American indians failed to recognize the white settlers right to property (or that of neighboring tribes, or of the individuals within their own tribes), so would steal things from them.  Many failed to recognize their self ownership, and killed them.  The natural response to this violation of natural law was violence.  And because the whites had recognized those natural rights for so long, and built up so much capital, the ensuing war was very one sided.

The Aztecs on the other had, DID recognize the right to property.  This recognition allowed them to build up great cities, and develop many technologies (including aqueducts and optical devices).  However, they FAILED to recognize the right of self ownership, ESPECIALLY among those tribes that surrounded them.  They took their warriors, and their children, and alternately TORE OUT THEIR HEARTS, and skinned their little girls alive and wore their skin with their dicks sticking through the vaginas for fertility ceremonies.  This disgusting and MASSIVE violation meant that even a relatively tiny disruption, like the appearance of a few dozen westerners with a few modern weapons stirred up the entire countryside to join the newcomers in throwing down their oppressors.  LITERALLY NOTHING the Spanish could have done could be worse than what the Aztecs were doing to them.

On the other hand, there HAVE been instances where the whites were clearly in the wrong, like India and China.  Those cultures respected natural rights for the most part, and had accumulated much capital, and were fairly united.  Of course, in these cases, it wasn't white settlers that were the problem, but rather the GOVERNMENTS of the expansionist western nations.  Those governments only recognized the rights of their own citizens, not those of foreigners, even in those very foreign lands.  Of course, their military power was strong enough to take advantage of the fairly minor violations of natural rights which had gone on, but the governmental abuse of power inevitably lead to revolution and independence.  

The saddest part about all of this is that the whites didn't understand these principles.  They thought they won because they were white, or because they were "chosen", or for other foolish reasons.  If they had understood these principles, rather than just adhering to them, they could have taught them to the native populations, and the world would have industrialized much more quickly, leading to a better situation for everyone.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:55 | 1339136 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

To say that everyone is better off because of the raping, robbing and pillaging done by White Capital of the planet and the world's population is such a profound mis-representation of history (and the present) that I hardly know where to begin.

What you call "Natural Law" was an invention of the Enlightenment as a justification for why smelly, hairy White plunderers should be allowed to steal so much shit with so little effort.

Your History Channel understanding of the Indigenous cultures - namely the so-called 'Aztec - is hardly compelling.  They were not 'individualistic' and what you call "their property" was much more a collective ownership than an individual one.

There was no historical evidence for an individual existing outside of society for the purpose of fucking over others for their own benefit.  But White Capital needed to legitimize itself, so it was created out of whole cloth by a handful of propagandists for elites who we today call philosophes that gave birth to "natural law" and a bunch of other words that legitimated theft under the veneer of 'right'.

They - White Capital - "built up capital" through enslavement and pillage and acted like it happened naturally, accidentally, or by "voluntary exchange" because White Supremacy needed defenders.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:13 | 1339162 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Wow, you have literally no idea what you are talking about.

You are saying the Nauhatl (ie the Aztecs) were better off sacrificing tens of thousands of human beings to the gods every year than they are now (ie the Second world nation of Mexico, where I lived in for a year, with a host family, and got to know a LOT about their history and culture).  The Aztecs weren't god damn communists, you fucking idiot.  Stop pulling shit out of your ass.  They were religion dominated fascists.

If you could build up capital through enslavement and pillage, then why isn't Africa, the land of enslavement and pillage itself, the greatest center of world prosperity on Earth?  Why wasn't it that way before the arrival of the "hairy, stinky whites"?  Why didn't Cambodia become a shining example of western style capitalism when the Khmer Rouge took over?  They stole EVERYTHING and enslaved EVERYBODY.  According to you, this is how wealth is created.  Where's the wealth?

Christ, you are such a fucking racist.  You sit there and use the benefits of capitalism to decry it.  Go live in the forest and come back in four days and let us know how much better it is.

Christ, what the fuck did the Indians have to steal?  A few buffalo skins?  Yet apparently the whites stole that shit and turned it into what we have now.  I didn't know if you took a Buffalo skin, it would turn into a car in a hundred years.  AMAZING!  

Apparently, you think white people never worked for anything.  You can just steal whatever you want and become super rich with advanced technology popping out of your ass when you eat a native baby.

Sorry, you are the only racist here.  You throw around a bunch of epithets, and attribute the characteristics of a few to all.  That is the foundation of racism.  Go fuck yourself, faggot.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:09 | 1339248 eureka
eureka's picture

RE "the Second world nation of Mexico, where I lived in for a year"

TBM - you obviously love yourself because of your accounting skills -

of your own ability to accumulate assets. 

Your view of man and the world is hierachical:

You are the shining incarnation of the triumph of acquisitive man.

You live in the "first world", whereas Aztec/Mexico is "second world".

You see Canada as "first world" - not because you got there first -

but because of your "superior" principles and cunning.

You swear repeatedly while you assert your superiority -

and your contempt for anyone who does not share your vision.

May I suggest you try deliver your diatribes to the mirror - just once?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:32 | 1339267 tmosley
tmosley's picture

What are you even talking about?  I am saying that Mexico now is better that Aztec then, and that I did NOT get my history from "the History Channel".  I observed and studied it first hand.  

I don't know where you get the idea that I think men are hierarchical.  Individuals are not, but government types are, in that some allow for better living conditions for the people within, while others provide worse conditions, and that one should judge those government types by their merits, ie to what extent have their people prospered over the long term?

I don't really know why you are suddenly talking about Canada.

My principles ARE superior.  This is demonstrable both logically and in practice.  Those peoples whom adhere to my principles become rich and powerful.  Those who do not become poor and irrelevant.  The US has abandoned any semblance they ever had of following the principles I, and others, have laid out, and we are suffering because of it. We are on the border of falling from the first world to the second, then to the third.

I have contempt for people who lie, people who steal, and people who murder.  I also have contempt for those who worship death.  You can see this in ALL of my posts.  I look at myself in the mirror every day.  I derive all that I do and say from first principles, something most fail to do, and in that failure, they allow injustice to go about the world masked and hidden from view.  I unmask these things, and am able to do so simply because I see the truth--that people owns themselves, and they can and do own property.  Those who fail to see that are destroyers, by action or inaction.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 14:15 | 1339524 eureka
eureka's picture

RE Canada - I must have read opinions similar to yours, by a Canadian poster, and confused them with yours. My appologies.

Personally, I do not live to become rich and powerful; I live to learn and to share.

Sharing, to me, is not death worshipping, but rather fun.

I love life and people. To me, respecting their right to be as they wish - including being less productive if they so choose, does not make them "death-worshippers" or irrelevant to me.

I suppose my Christian, fellow-man-loving, practical, co-operational, win-win approach can be too transcendental if one places personal material acquisition and competition over love of one's neighbor. 

I wish you well and hope your possessions will make you happy.

However, I see no logic in belittle'ing those who love people more than money.

But of course, belittlement of others is yours freely to choose.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 23:06 | 1340502 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I didn't say you were a death worshipper.  That is just one of the classes of people that I fight against.

And material acquisition in a free market is the best and really only way to help anyone, because it forces you to make things that others can use, and drives down prices for everyone.

If you really want to understand economics, and how people should deal with each other to really and truly improve their living standards, I would suggest you read this:

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 04:02 | 1340698 Texas Gunslinger
Texas Gunslinger's picture

<comment removed by the administration>




Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:00 | 1339321 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture



Spending a semester in Mexico as a 16 year old exchange student hardly makes you an expert, History Channel boy.

You are aware that at the time when the immaculate, incredible city of Tenochtitlan was discovered by the disease-ridden barbarians 100,000 women were being systematically burned in Europe, while Jews and Muslims were being expelled from the continent.

And, incidentally, Africa is STILL - as it has always been - a massive repository of wealth.  It just so happens that around the same time White Capital decided to poison América (after bringing back to Europe the potato, corn, tomatoes, etc. - food that fueled the 'industrial revolution'), it was just starting the slave trade.

But hey, I give White Capitalists credit:  nobody, after deciding that human beings were so much fodder for ME ME ME to acquire wealth, managed to use theft and genocide to such efficient ends.

If we've learned one thing in the 600 years it has been around:  nobody kills with the efficiency of White Capital. 

Kudos to them for that. 

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:50 | 1339457 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I wasn't there as part of an exchange program.  I was in college at the time.  But hey, you feel free to keep hating any form of knowledge that goes against your bias.

Yeah, Tenochtitlan was a beautiful city.  Except for the temples that were stained with the blood, guts and gore of millions.  And my argument had nothing to do with the Spanish, who were brutish in their own way, and neither respected rights nor natural law.  It was not the 100-odd men that Cortez brought with him who threw down the Nauhatl, it was the tribes who rallied around that disruptive seed.  They would have done the same with any other disruption.  

LOL, if Africa's so great, why don't you go live there?  I'll even buy you a one way ticket to the Central African Republic.  Sure, nevermind that there was never any such thing as a white slaver, the whites ALWAYS, 100% bought their African slaves from African slave traders.  Africa was, and still is HELL.  There have been great civilizations there, including many that your dumb ass has probably never heard of (Axum being one of the most famous).

"No-one kills with the efficacy of white capital"?  I guess you must have forgotten all about Stalin's purges, or Mao's destruction of China, or any of the hundreds of millions killed by your pet form of government, Communism.  Here's a hint:  the senseless slaughter committed by all of the native American tribes and civilizations on each other should be included, though they aren't.  That would boost the number into the billions, more than likely.

Seriously.  Look at the world around you.  How is it worse off than before those evil capitalists came and smashed the systems of total slavery and squalor that existed before?

But then, like all Communists, you don't want to think of that.  You would rather blame the evils of the system that came before on Capitalism, even as Capitalism swept those evils away like a flood of wealth and prosperity.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:14 | 1339167 Texas Gunslinger
Texas Gunslinger's picture

Just when I think Claven-mosely's posts have reached rock bottom, he breaks out the shovels and starts digging.

There is literally no end to this guy's idiocy.  It doesn't matter what the subject matter is, this guy never wastes an opportunity to make a moron of himself. Today has barely even begun and there is Claven-Mosely, straight out of the starting gate, flat on his face - it's barely 8am.  



Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:21 | 1339186 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

You are one creepy motherfucker. I see your retardation all over the goddamn place and haven't said anything until now, but you need to take your internet stalker shit somewhere the fuck else. It's seriously distrubing.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:54 | 1339199 tmosley
tmosley's picture

What is "wrong" about my post?  

You have nothing but ad hominem, and some script that makes a noise on your computer when I make a post.

As the above poster said--seriously creepy.

Edit: and here's an edit for your script to catch--you have ZERO credibility here, save perhaps among the most ignorant marxists to ever walk the Earth, like "Downwiththebanks" here.

I wonder how much money you spent developing that script specifically to try to discredit me?  lol, I must be pretty important to you, and a big roadblock to your plans.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:33 | 1339269 Quixotic_Not
Quixotic_Not's picture

The guy seriously comes off as some wannabe apparatchik who has gone total Ted Bundy after ODing on libtard koolaid...

This twit should have been IP banned on day 2.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:00 | 1339224 eureka
eureka's picture

"Natural Law" ("NL") is a man-made concept, not nature-made, not law. 

The "NL" concept was made-up to glorify colonialism and capitalism. 

"NL" claims that if I am smarter than you, it is your own fault.

"NL" bases its selfrighteous claim on the unstated/unrecognized assumption -

that all individuals and cultures ought to have the same core values:

namely rational, materialist productivity/market manipulations-

as core, dominant expression/purpose/justification of human life.

Anyone who does not submit to "NL" is expropriateable & exterminable - 

or simply suicidal - by virtue of their failure to recognize "NL".

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:35 | 1339276 Quixotic_Not
Quixotic_Not's picture

Keep making up lies as you go along - Your sick, twisted nightmare version of reality must be a bummer to witness in-person.

Definitive legal definition:

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions ~ John Locke 1690

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:59 | 1339327 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture



Law!  What a laugher.

Like the Law of Contract, right?  

Ha ha ha.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:09 | 1339340 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

John Locke 1690

Ha!  You cite the apologist for the Glorious Revolution and the slave traders' empire as your source!

Why not cite Henry Kissinger?  Or Louis Bonaparte!

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 14:36 | 1339556 eureka
eureka's picture

The "law of nature" is:  Kill Or Be Killed.

One puts a glorification spin on nature's automatism at one's own intellectual perril.

And for what purpose? Clearly:  self-glorification, self-righteousness, self-obsession.

And how is such vanity derived from joining nature's or any other system's automacy?

By purely anti-intellectual, primal emotion. Who then, romanticizes primitivism?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 15:19 | 1339671 eureka
eureka's picture

Hi QN - That is Funny!  RE "JL 1690" - has reasoning not evolved in the past 300 years?

Answer, for example, this simple question:

If some laws, like property rights (assumed by force and justified by productivity) are natural - 

i.e. god/nature/individual-man-given/justified - why then, do these natural/individualist "laws"

need protection from a collectivist body government?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 19:07 | 1340086 knowless
knowless's picture

the name can be misleading, it's just the assertion that all individuals have a right to self preservation and to live free from assault in their person and possessions. it's the basis of morality. it needs protection because there are many people who don't think that individuals have the right to self determination, and instead wish to control them.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:42 | 1339286 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You should try to learn about words and their meaning before you slander the concepts they represent.

Natural law means only that if you murder someone, there will be consequences--violence.  Similarly, if you steal from someone, there will be consequences, whether that is violence, or loss of property.

Natural law doesn't "claim" anything.  It simply is, so long as there are people.

Natural law makes NO claims on intelligence.  It simply says that if you attack someone, there will be violence, and it may reflect back on you.  

Yes, all cultures SHOULD have the same core values.  Or are you really saying that murder should be acceptable if the majority thinks it should be so?  Then woe unto you should you ever find yourself in a minority!  Productivity is merely a side effect of recognition of natural law.  If you allow people to keep what they create with their own labor, their own investment, what they have taken risks to obtain, then people will get to keep those things, and they will be free to help others obtain those things in exchange for some compensation.

A person can do what they want with their life.  Natural law makes no claims or assumptions.  If you want to sit on your ass, that is your right, but when your neighbor, who has worked hard, gains "material goods", you are not entitled to them.

Yes, failure to recognize natural rights IS suicidal.  This has been proven again and again in history.  It is not that people use natural law as an excuse to kill--people for the most part don't KNOW ABOUT IT.  They just build their home on land that is unused, and then natives come on horseback and steal their horses, their cattle, their grain, their very children!  What is the natural response to that?  

Those who steal generally go to prison in our society.  When they do not, society starts to fall apart.  Anger and resentment build.  Violence explodes onto the street.  Look at the world around you.  Don't you see it?  This violence, resentment, and hatred that has come into existence as a result of the unpunished, unchallenged, and CONTINUING theft by the banks and the politicians?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:06 | 1339331 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture



"Natural Law" IS because 'tmosely' and a handful of slave-raping plantation owners say so.

Those who steal don't go to prison:  they're lauded by people like you, 'tmosely'.  The greatest thieves are your biggest heroes!

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:57 | 1339470 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yeah, you're right.  Natural law is just crazy talk.  You are free to murder, pillage, and rape anyone you like, and there will be no resistance from the victims of your actions.

Next you'll be telling me the Laws of Motion are a conspiracy against the happy spiritual natural people of the world, who used to fly in the sky by benefit of their magic before the whites came along and ruined everything with their "science" and "logic" and their "right to self defense".

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 13:59 | 1341434 Mad Cow
Mad Cow's picture

Great stuff T! I love seeing a good smackdown of a psychotic product of modern schooling. Keep up the good work!

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 14:55 | 1339639 eureka
eureka's picture

tmosley - your natural law is super romantic; "unused land" conveniently justifies newcomers taking of land from native, non-agrarian, hunter-gatherer populations - by reference to the native populations' non-agrarian/non-industrial culture.

Please, have the intellectual integrity to simply state the true nature of territorial acquisitions - without referencing transcendental concepts such as "natural law".

Territorial acquisition by settlement of "unused land" - is an act of material violence - because it directly eliminates the native populations chosen, non-agrarian/non-industrial livelihoods.

Say it as it is:  Colonialist/Newcomers wanted the lands the natives possessed and co-existed with for centuries - over their dead bodies if they did not convert to colonialists life styles.

Romanticizing the murderous taking/stealing of native lands is kind of pathetic for an individualist; aren't individualists supposed to stand on their desire and will - rather than invoking divine/natural laws and decrees to justify their ambitions and acquisitions?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 18:18 | 1339997 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

tmosley is a genocide apologist.  Don't mince words, the Europeans and our founding fathers committed genocide for land and wealth.  It started with Columbus.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 19:03 | 1340078 nmewn
nmewn's picture

The injuns slaughtered each other and took each others land as well...they also drove herds of buffalo over cliffs, skinned & butchered what they could carry off and left the rest to rot untouched by them.

You don't have any historical perspective about anything as far as I can never have. Whatever misplaced guilt you have, that you can never expunge because it is the past, must be an incredible burden for you to bear.

Good luck with that.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 23:25 | 1340538 tmosley
tmosley's picture

No, I am not.  I simply state things the way they are.  Murder, and you will be murdered.  This is the way of the world, and any group of people that ignores that is destined for extinction.  The Natives ignored that.  And now, our leaders ignore that.


You people need to go visit an indian reservation and have a long talk with some of the residents there.  These aren't the magical people the media has lead you to think they are.  They are a people in the grip of tyranny, and have been for hundreds of years.  Not the tyranny of the Federal government (though they are not blameless), but the tyranny of literally communist tribal governments.  There is a reason they have such high unemployment, alcoholism, and suicide rates.  That is, their tribal governments STILL don't recognize the natural rights of their citizens.  Instead, they perpetuate a culture of racism.  They HATE whites, and blame them for their ills.  In reality, the only blame the whites have is that their government supports those corrupt tribal governments.

Understand that I have spent some time in Taos, and am friends with some of the Pueblo dwellers there.  They are not allowed to have electricity or running water within the community, and they live in soul crushing, abject poverty, based solely on the decisions of the "elders".  If they want to eat, they have to peddle trinkets to white tourists.  It's utter crap.

So you can take your armchair quarterbacking and shove it up your ass.  You don't know anything about the real world.  As far as you are concerned, it was all unicorns and gumdrops until whitey came along.  Fucking ignorance.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 23:11 | 1340515 tmosley
tmosley's picture

The natives were agrarian, until horses were introduced, at which point they chose to abandon their property and become nomadic.  That was certainly their choice, but once the land was abandoned, it no longer belonged to them, and could be homesteaded by anyone.  Their choice to become nomadic is NOT what lead to their subjugation and near extinction.  If that were the case, the Beduins would have suffered the same fate long, long ago.  But they persist.  Hell, even the steppe people of Mongolia still exist.

The colonists killed no-one in the course of settling the land.  They only killed when they were threatened, which was often.

And natural law doesn't justify ANYTHING.  It is simply the way the world works.  If you kill, you will be killed.  Period.  And that is what the natives did to the whites, and they were shocked, SHOCKED that the whites were stronger than them in every way, and the retribution they incurred through their actions lead to their near-extinction.

Can you honestly tell me that if your children were kidnapped by some band of wild men that you wouldn't take up arms and go to get them, and kill anyone that stood in your way?  Multiply that times a hundred thousand, and you should see what actually happened.

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 01:01 | 1340650 eureka
eureka's picture

Alright, tmosley - here we go, point by point:

1  "The natives were agrarian, until horses were introduced, at which point they chose to abandon  their property and become nomadic." 

A) There were 100s of native nations/tribes many of which never used horses.

B) You probably refer to the nations of the praires, such as Lakota, Dakota etc.

C)  These nations were nomads before horses arrived - and were never agrarians.

2  "once the land was abandoned, it no longer belonged to them, and could be homesteaded by anyone." 

Ah ha! By your logic:

A)  - I can homestead on your (or anyone's) hunting grounds

B)  - anyone can go burn the Brazilian jungle to grow potatoes - thus and speed up global warming onethousand fold, which will cause not just genocide but speci-cide (goodbye homo spaiens)

3  "Their choice to become nomadic is NOT what lead to their subjugation and near extinction.  If that were the case, the Beduins would have suffered the same fate long, long ago."

Really? I never new the Sahara desert made for great homesteading. I'll be darned.When are you going? You could be really rich and powerful over there - and I'll stay "irrelevant", here.

4  "he colonists killed no-one in the course of settling the land.  They only killed when they were threatened, which was often."

A)  Holy smoke, no natives were killed first strike by settling individuals

B)  How lucky for the settling individuals that their government did their killing for them

5  "And natural law doesn't justify ANYTHING.  It is simply the way the world works.  If you kill, you will be killed.  Period.  And that is what the natives did to the whites, and they were shocked, SHOCKED that the whites were stronger than them in every way, and the retribution they incurred through their actions lead to their near-extinction."

A)  So, the natives were at fault for not accomodating settlers - and for not converting to settlers homesteading lifestyle - and for trying to dispell the setlers from the millennia old native hunting territories.... wow your arguments are so incredibly bunddled up - because your premises are bunddled up - the premise that if someone doesn't work their land like you would, you can just take it - and then RIGHTEOUSLY kill them, when they try to scare you off their land.

B)  by your logic we can all go homestead on Ted Turner's millions of private prairie acres - because all he does with them is have buffaloes running around on them - no homesteading - unless you make an exception for him, from your rule/definition of homesteading as criteria for ownership, because Turner's land is deeded, i.e. a granting to Turner by the collectivist government that you hate so dearly - of course after all the natives were killed, but not by individuals, but by the individuals' government's armies, by guns, and booze and typhus infected blankets and ghettoization/reservationing etc etc etc

6  "Can you honestly tell me that if your children were kidnapped by some band of wild men that you wouldn't take up arms and go to get them, and kill anyone that stood in your way?"

Dear tmosley - this is the point precisely:  I would never, ever enter another man's or nation's territory - whether hunting territory or homesteading territory - without being invited - and so, consequently, I would never, ever end up in the hypothetical situation your question proposes.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 07:19 | 1338959 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Here's a new flash Howard - if the "Founding Fathers" (the original oligarchy) had thought of Corporate Citizenry to advance their wealth they would have included it in the constitution, then added a right to the Bill of rights to appease "the people" stating that Corporate Citizens should not be allowed to influence government, and then Hamilton would have written a law expressly giving Corporate Citizens that right.  Double talk is as old as the country.  The bottom line is that the government has been the tool of the oligarchy to use against the people since the beginning, and until you understand that relationship, you are a blind fool.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:38 | 1339274 Clampit
Clampit's picture

The agenda was explicitly stated: "in order to form a more perfect union..."

Why? For who? Was the union created (considering the timing) to pool resources and defeat the British? I wish I knew the source of the quote (I first heard it here), but the greatest mistake any political commentary makes is to treat war as a foreign affair.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:10 | 1339343 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture

[Here's a new flash Howard - if the "Founding Fathers" (the original oligarchy) had thought of Corporate Citizenry to advance their wealth...]---pan-the-ist

Oh my. Someone needs a history lesson.

If our Founders (majority of them) wanted to "advance their wealth" by means of using the government "tool" why indeed did they create a written document (US Constitution) limiting and dispersing and balancing the power of said government? Did that notion occur to you?

The Founders were an "oligarchy?" Hardly.

George Washington was arguably the most wealthy and powerful of the Founders. Yet, what was his ambition? All he wanted to do after the war was go home and remodel house. He actually worked on remodel ideas during the war. He reentered public life reluctantly.

Thomas Jefferson. One of the wealthiest and influential of the Founders. After writing the Declaration of Independence, all he ever wanted to do was go home, spend time with his daughters, be with his ailing wife, and live out a life of silence surrounded by his beloved books. He returned to public life again and again reluctantly.

There's your "oligarchy." Do I need to go on?

(Hamilton? Well, I'll give you that one. You can have him.)


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 14:23 | 1339517 Clampit
Clampit's picture

George Washington [et al] were admirable leaders but you miss the point: They simply wished to maintain their status through exploitation of the masses. Granted this status was generally to be left alone, but as we see today this framework has brought US full circle - now we are the British. In the long run one can't fight government with government.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 16:35 | 1339820 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

Some of you guys are just unbelievable how you portray these founders. I'm fairly certain they would be considered "domestic terrorists" today, not part of the bloated Fed gov't or the corrupted Wall St. banking cartel.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 18:10 | 1339972 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Another victim of public education.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:02 | 1339084 tmosley
tmosley's picture

That's like saying that which is clean required filth to be spread all over it.

Capitalism is the ANTINTHESIS of government intervention.

In capitalism, land and labor are "appropriated" by the voluntary exchange of currency and goods or services.  EVERYONE involved in such exchanges benefits, by definition, because the exchanges are voluntary.  If they didn't all benefit, THE EXCHANGE WOULDN'T HAPPEN!

And yes, capitalism HAS existed, and DOES exist, the way cleanliness exists.  Sure, such a thing as "absolutely clean" is extremely difficult, maybe even impossible, but that doesn't mean you smear shit all over the walls.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:26 | 1339103 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Ahh ... those wonderful Free Markets make a return appearance.

Capitalism DEMANDS government intervention.  Nobody voluntarily lets looters come in and steal their home, land, and means of survival.  State (and church) violence was CRITICAL for Capitalism to get going, it was CRITICAL for capitalism to sustain itself, and now, in CAPITALISM's dying days the state is stepping in to perform CPR and administer the pain meds.

Your interpretation of history requires a complete WHITEwash of the actual actions that were undertaken.  And what you call "voluntary exchange" was performed, historically, by heavy arms.  

Which is, of course, why defenders of White Capital prefer to stay in the realm of theory.  Because history tends to disprove them.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:15 | 1339171 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Look, dipshit, look up the DEFINITION of capitalism.  

If things happened as you described (which they didn't), then it was NOT capitalism that ruined your magical land full of happy natives at perfect harmony with themselves and all others.  What you describe is the opposite of capitalism--fascism.

Get your fucking words right, dumb bitch.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 21:02 | 1340275 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You can't own land without a government, dude.  You can stake a portion of it out, but you can't own it.

Government's primary goal has traditionally been to protect property, and what is that if not "intervention"?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 21:58 | 1340347 jaffi
jaffi's picture

That has to be about the most fallacious statement that I have ever read.  Please explain how one cannot own property without a government.  I take it you haven't read much Locke, Aristotle, Aquinas, or the Spanish Scholastics.  Ownership in material things is not different than that of land.  When I pick up a stick provided by nature and transform it into a spear, I have exercised my ownership over it through my labor, just the same as if I had transformed land to serve a function of use (such as a farm, a mine, build a factory upon it, etc).  Land is no different than any other nature given material, ownership is created by my use of the land, and does not require a State to protect that right of ownership.  

I would posit that government denies the right of ownership of property more so than it protects it.  Because, while I can protect my property from other aggressions (or, hire security to do so), I cannot protect my property from the monopoly power of the State.  If the State deems that it wants my property I have absolutely no defense, and the State does take property from others every single day in the form of taxation.  Not only that, but local governments further infringe upon the ownership of land through property taxation, whereby if you do not give them your property in the form of taxes, then they will confiscate your landed property.

The topic of private property is one that you are apparently not intimately familiar, so here are some examples of private property of land in stateless societies:  both Quaker Pennsylvania (for 3 years) in colonial America, as well as Medieval Celtic society, were both Stateless societies based upon common law, which is entirely based upon property rights and the non-aggression of such.  

I think that you are out of your element in the discussion of such topic.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 22:15 | 1340443 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Why don't you quote me some Locke on land ownership, eh?  (It's funny, because I was literally reading the guy on that VERY SUBJECT last night.  Paraphrases are fine.  It's Locke who I was paraphrasing--he made the claim that property ownership has been the primary goal of government...let's it is: "The great and chief end of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.")

I'm not sure we should be disagreeing at all--if you're an anarchist, we're on the same side.  If I walk out into the forest somewhere and start living there, and shoot anyone who comes and pesters me, does that constitute "ownership" in your view?  If so, I wave my red and black flag in friendship, brother. Property rights aren't something theoretical--they exist solely insofar as you can assert them, correct?  A piece of paper in a some county clerk's drawer is meaningless.  Right?

Anything you stake out and defend is a point of direct physical power, it's not a question of ownership.  "Ownership" is a form of legal claim enforced by the government, not at the tip of a sword or the barrel of a gun.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 22:55 | 1340467 jaffi
jaffi's picture

While it is sections 37 and 38 of Chapter 5 in his Second Treatise where Locke makes the case that all property rights found in materials provided from the land also apply to the land itself, I do recommend reading the entire section of property rights.  However, I also mentioned other people who came to these conclusions well before Locke (the scholastics, Aristotle, and Aquinas).  I do subscribe to the natural rights tradition of the Scholastics as well as the Lockean tradition of one's mixing ones own labor with the soil or first use in the establishment of property.  However, this does not mean that I agree with everything that they said without question.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 22:53 | 1340489 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

If this is what you believe, we are in agreement, then, are we not?  It can only be the personal appropriation of the resource which confers ownership.

Or was your point solely to bring up Locke?  I would more generally offer that he was not a particularly original thinker.

(Personally, I have little interest in the scholastics.  I'm an atheist, and the notion that authority ultimately derives from God holds no sway over me.)

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 23:20 | 1340503 jaffi
jaffi's picture

If by appropriation you mean the forceful appropriation from others, then no.  However, if you are speaking of putting unused land into use, or exchanging property for such land to transfer land, then I agree.  I brought up Locke because he was one of the first to establish the distinction of how materials become property, though he did take a lot of that from the less clear proclamations of those who came before him.

I too am an atheist, but I do not let that stop me from reading the works of theists.  The Scholastics did often refer to God with regard to natural rights, but one doesn't have to believe in God to see the logic of their argument, Aquinas even said that natural rights did not even need a God to exist for them to still be present (I agree).  However, probably the most substantial progress of the Scholastics was their work in formal Logic.  While I do agree with many of Jevons' rules governing Logic, I do find that my own study of Logic follows a more or less Scholastic interpretation.

I find that there is good information to be found in all philosophers, even if you don't agree with all of their work.  For instance, I am not a Marxist (I am an Austro-Libertarian), but that doesn't stop me from reading Marx or Engels, or from finding some truths hidden in the oceans of fallacies.   The fact that I am currently reading Julian Jaynes does not mean that I subscribe to his theory, but I have found some interesting truths contained within the sentences of his book on the origin of consciousness.  

One cannot be certain of what they do not subscribe to until they learn it, and it is a never-ending process.  

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 23:38 | 1340561 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Logic hits its limits when you start talking about the "unknowables" like justice, and grace, and freedom.  Its best application is for a priori disciplines, and I'm inclined to think that people's belief-systems are not a matter of what facts and arguments you bring to bear, but rather which facts and arguments they personally value.

I think you can get what's "needed" from formal logic just from Aristotle, even though he missed a few things.  Aquinas' work was critically important because of the coupling of the dominant power institution of the time with the Greeks' logic and metaphysics, not because of some groundbreaking symbolic work.

As for consciousness, which is the subject that really turned me onto metaphysics in the first place, I'm most impressed with Dennett.  The guy was making predictions in '96 which have largely been borne out over the following decades' work on neuroscience, and that's pretty phenomenal for a philosopher. 

My instinct on Jaynes is that he had a profound insight into an evolutionary stage we're still struggling with as a species, but I'm not sure where it gets us, and he's not the greatest writer.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 23:27 | 1340543 tmosley
tmosley's picture

If a government can tell you what you do and don't own, then you don't own anything.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 23:43 | 1340562 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I'm planting seeds.  Join us in the glorious world of anarchism.

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 03:59 | 1340668 Texas Gunslinger
Texas Gunslinger's picture

<comment removed by the administration>

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:19 | 1339256 eureka
eureka's picture

Perhaps you can allow the same degree of nuanced assessment you afford "white" capitalism to other cultures and systems. It might benefit your arguments and your cause.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:38 | 1339283 eureka
eureka's picture

tbmosley - how do you like the Koch brothers?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:53 | 1339297 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I don't know.  I don't know them, nor do I have a detailed understanding of their actions.  I do know that I don't like the Heritage Foundation nor do I like Cato, as both pretend to be what they are not (ie they are neither conservative nor libertarian, respectively).  

"By their actions will you know them."

The problem is not private individuals, it is government.  Governments are by nature evil, and subvert the rights of those whom they govern (and others).  Smaller governments are less evil, and the US government was once among the smallest in history, consuming less than 2% of GDP, as opposed to the 40+% it consumes now.  Cut government by 95%, and most or all these other problems will disappear.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 15:36 | 1339720 eureka
eureka's picture

What about corporations - i.e. capital collectives?

Do you not see any danger in unlimited capital conglomeration - i.e. the power of capital-collectives to control the government you want to secure your property rights?

In other words, capital-collectives control government, and thus capital-collectives are the evil non-individualist, secret de facto "governments" behind the elected government.

Capital collectivists then are evil - not government. Correct?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 21:48 | 1340379 jaffi
jaffi's picture

A corporation is a government created entity.  One does not become a corporation by merely having more than one owner, an entity becomes a corporation by the incorporation through the State.  Now, if you are talking about joint-stock companies (companies owned by many owners of the capital), then you are confusing share ownership with collectivism.  Joint-stock ownership is far different from collectivism in that each individual owns a definite share of the company, and can voluntarily purchase such shares in accordance of the contract.  Even more importantly is that each share-owner can also voluntarily sell his shares if he so chooses.  One is not held by any obligation to be part of the group of owners of such entity, thus a joint-stock company is not an example of a collectivist entity.  



Sat, 06/04/2011 - 23:29 | 1340545 tmosley
tmosley's picture

This is it almost exactly.  As you said, corporations are a creation of the state.  One should note that the key feature of the corporation, limited liability for shareholders, is unnatural, and imposed by the state.  As you said, the free market solution to this is a joint stock type arrangement, and one could almost exactly replicate it by the purchase of liability insurance for the shareholders, such that in the event of a lawsuit that destroys the company, the additional liability over and above the value of the assets of the company would be paid for by the insurance agency rather than individual shareholders.

As it stands now, you can create corporate shells that prevent any form of liability, and allow illegal and or sociopathic behavior to continue in full public view.  This is fascism.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 15:53 | 1339749 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

The problem is not private individuals, it is government.  Governments are by nature evil, and subvert the rights of those whom they govern (and others).  Smaller governments are less evil, and the US government was once among the smallest in history, consuming less than 2% of GDP, as opposed to the 40+% it consumes now.  Cut government by 95%, and most or all these other problems will disappear.

Bingo.  And an inconvenient truth for the socialists who want to suck on the teat of government and live as slaves.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 15:28 | 1339698 eureka
eureka's picture

Voluntary transactions do not prevent the less street-smart/educated masses from being ripped off by the jungle-smart/ruthless minority.

All men are not created equally predatory, thus unregulated transactions gives the easy-going majority the "right & freedom" to get exploited by the murderous minority.

Pretending predatory behavior is romantic and justified fools only fools.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:16 | 1339178 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

Junked you for saying "an historical".

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 14:00 | 1339479 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Junked you back for being wrong.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 21:55 | 1340387 jaffi
jaffi's picture

"an historical" is the correct grammar.  "a historical" would be grammatically incorrect.  H's do not have the same rules as other consonants in grammar with respect to the use of "a" and "an".  Look it up.  

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 22:32 | 1340457 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

Wasn't meant to be a grammar correction, although I disagree that "an historical" is proper(if the speaker is pronouncing the h). The junk was because I am an American and as such it sounds stupid. Here it is only used by pseudo-intellectual, Starbucks drinking, Chipotle eating, commie liberals that wear flip flops, v-neck shirts, and those damn black rimmed glasses, while ironically listening to an iPod in an Obama Hope shirt.

Give this a read, check the list of authorities in agreement with the position I hold:


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 22:45 | 1340469 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Depends on speaker.  In American English, the "H" is almost universally aspirated in "history."  This isn't a grammar question, though, it's diction, and there's no rigid rule about it.

I'd defer to foreigners on British or Scottish English.  Those guys can do what they prefer.

For the most part, use of "an historic" constructions in the US are a result of pseudo-genteelism, where the speaker will use the word "an" even though they then aspirate the "H," and that's non-traditional with regards to spoken English.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:59 | 1338773 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture

[[Unions]centralizes power and thus makes it easier for politicians to parlay with. It's the same reason politicians favor a handful of large corporations over millions of sole proprietors.]---redpill

Going. Going. Gone! And redpill hits it out of the park, folks.

To TMosely's point. Yes, free association in the private sector. No forced membership.

And NO public sector unions.

IMO Union shops should be restricted to "per company" association, e.g. Ford Auto Union, GM Auto Union, Delta Airline Union, etc. Monopoly restrictions should apply to labor just as it applies to owners/corporations. Labor should compete with labor across the street; business owners compete with business owners across the street.


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 07:25 | 1338962 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

So, you would take a way the right of a wealthy person to own and operate multiple businesses? Or to sit on the boards of multiple businesses that person has a large stake in?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:20 | 1339388 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture

Hi Pan.

Check into US antitrust laws. That should answer your questions.


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:26 | 1339106 tmosley
tmosley's picture

No, you can't restrict ANY form of free association, whoever it is doing the associating.

However, unions ARE NOT the owners of the businesses they work for.  They CAN NOT force the owners to require that new workers join their organization.  Nor can they loiter or destroy property if their entire organization is fired by those who own those businesses (for ANY reason they want, including simply belonging to the organization).

There are very clear boundaries to the behavior of individuals in society that are dictated by the principles of self ownership and ownership of property (ie NATURAL LAW).  If legislation does not respect this, then the system will fall.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:52 | 1339452 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture


[No, you can't restrict ANY form of free association, whoever it is doing the associating.]---tmosely

Hi mosely.

We disagree. IMO, No public sector Unions.

Private sector Unions have recourse for grievances, the leverage of the market place against management/owners. The public sector employees have no such leverage.

Yes, public sector employees must have recourse for grievances, and may do so as a group or in "association." Their recourse however is the public ballot box. 

Does the US Navy have a Union? Come on mosely, don't be silly.


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 14:00 | 1339478 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Understand that all people have the right to associate with as they like.

In an ideal system, public unions would not exist, simply because there would be no public employees.  That is the source of the problem here.

Governments, as entities that deny the rights of others, do not have rights.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 14:23 | 1339541 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture




By the way. Good post upstairs about the Aztecs.

Funny how the libs insist all Native Americans lived in a state of peaceful, non-violent, democratic utopia.

To the article at large. I submit our Founders would be appalled at today's ratio of rich vs poor.

For the Marxists however, this works to their advantage.


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 15:53 | 1339754 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

To the article at large. I submit our Founders would be appalled at today's ratio of rich vs poor.

For the Marxists however, this works to their advantage.

Well said, a so true on all counts.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 16:03 | 1339775 eureka
eureka's picture

Oh, so native violence justified U.S. expansionist, Manifest Destiny violence?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 19:04 | 1340077 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture





Hi eureka.

I think you missed my point above.

Nevertheless, I'll speak directly to your point. Treatment of the native American populations on a whole by US authorities was unfair at best and atrocious at worst. Our nation's history in this regard is like an open wound for which much healing is required.

As for our conquering all land from coast to coast?  Yeah, I'm good with that.


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 16:00 | 1339768 eureka
eureka's picture

How can government without government employees protect your property rights?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 23:35 | 1340553 tmosley
tmosley's picture

How can government protect them now?

I had a tire stolen off of my car in a hotel parking lot.  Someone got the license plate number of the guy that did it.  The police never did anything.  There are a million stories like that one.

Individuals do a much better job of defending their own property rights, and can do so without government interference, and did so for many years right here in this very nation.  Private security was cheap and effective.  Much more so than today's official police, even with unlimited power and jack-boots.

Sun, 06/05/2011 - 00:26 | 1340623 toxic8
toxic8's picture

the government is not there to protect you (the citizen).

they are there to serve and protect their interests, mainly themselves and those

in power aka the corporate/government revolving door oligarchy.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:12 | 1338693 redpill
redpill's picture


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:51 | 1338760 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

  Red Pill, you don't need to answer for yourself. I have your back!!!

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:36 | 1338488 US Uncut
US Uncut's picture

Hmmm, not according to Mish and his gang. At first they went after public unions but now it's pretty much all unions. He seems to have lost his way and seems to think the little people are the cause and fault of this entire mess. He seems to have little or no passion and anger for the bankers and politicians.... that is reserved for people working a basic 8-5 job. It's gotten pathetic. 

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 23:29 | 1338604 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

That's because he's a feckless tool who has never worked a day in his life.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:52 | 1339134 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

What, pray is an unnatural power tmos?
An oxymoron...
But Unions, look at the word itself. Union between who? Management and worker? Or is it a worker collective? seriously, think about that, names matter. if you clarify that for yourself...


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 14:41 | 1339573 goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

Unnatural power is the power obtained by the use or threatened use of force. Whether this force is government guns or union billy clubs is force non the less. Natural law is law that exists because of the nature of the object (water is liquid therefore is wet). No government or gang dictate was required to make it so.

Unions, as used in this discussion, refer to workers joining forces against a common foe, management. The mere existence of unions make them, bu their nature, a gang based on force. Can this be a good thing? In limited instances, yes. When an employer uses force first to impose involuntary work conditions on the work force a counter balancing force is necessary for self defense.

But that is not what unions do. Unions are a gang or tribe that use the threat of force to impose conditions in the trade of labor between employer and employee. In effect, they use the government to artificially increase the price of the labor. The obvious result is that they price themselves out of the market by bankrupting the company they work for.

In the auto industries, the only reason that they have not yet killed the host, is because they shifted the cost of their demands into the public coffers. In effect, all US taxpayers subsidize the cost of union labor since th host can no longer do so.

The nest logical step is complete nationalisation. To shift all the costs to the public. That does not change the model, it just shifts the host form the industry to the populace.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 15:35 | 1339709 Ghostbusters
Ghostbusters's picture

"There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya."

Afghanistan and Iraq recently found "God," and their central bank.

Have you all heard about the Western Play Palace in Iraq:,2933,476464,00.html

Central Bankers think they are "God" and in this reality they are.  Here's to putting the fear of "God" back in them. 

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:14 | 1339169 midtowng
midtowng's picture

Mish is an a**hole. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that workers, if they bargain alone, don't have the same leverage and power than if they bargain together. Free trade with 3rd world countries and the destruction of unions means that the middle class will continue to vanish. Eventually we will have a two class society - the very wealthy and the poor - and no one inbetween. And then we will wonder why our democracy has been gutted like our economy.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:40 | 1337858 Texas Gunslinger
Texas Gunslinger's picture

Just another chart to be filed away in the "George Bush was the worst president in American history" folder.

I'm curious what percentage of the ZHeeple voted for Bush.  Probably 75% or more.  lol



Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:47 | 1337891 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

Who will be the next Messiah/Mssiah? They'll save you.

Left, right, left, right, left, right; HALT.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 20:07 | 1338098 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

After 5 weeks the above poster weighs in with a Republicans are different than Democrats post.  Read and learn newbie becasue as of now you are sheeple.  ZH can rehabilitate you...

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:15 | 1338294 Husk-Erzulie
Husk-Erzulie's picture

Never voted for shrub, saw the bummer coming from a mile away (reminded me of Carlos Menem).  Next up Bummer v Sarah... whoo lordy.  That's a Brehzinski creation and A Kissinger creation by the way (in case you hadn't noticed, Sarah has kissed the ring and will be the GOP candidate hard as that is to believe) The manipulation is winding up and it will be fucking brilliant, a tour de force, old man Henry at the top of his game, history in the making.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 21:28 | 1338324 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

And watching Congress in action is the darkest of comedy.  I consider it a good day in Washington when Boehner doesn't cry and Maxine Waters isn't allowed to talk...

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:39 | 1338486 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Maxine Waters understands the world far better than the racist ass clown Ron "John Birch Society" Paul.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 22:50 | 1338517 Reese Bobby
Reese Bobby's picture

Good one...

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 09:12 | 1339036 cramers_tears
cramers_tears's picture

Go read "End the Fed"

Maxine "UnitedOne Bank" Waters in true form.

And I didn't think I ws going to laugh today!

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 09:58 | 1339079 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

One thing we've ALL come to learn is that Ron "JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY" Paul LOVES words.  

In fact, I can think of only one thing he's more full of than words.

"Just shut up and vote GOP asshole!" cry those 'contrarian' ZeroHedge apologists.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:33 | 1339111 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You are too ignorant for words.

Ron Paul is literally the only Republican I would vote for.  Otherwise, it's all third party.

And funny how you are calling him racist, while your own posts here have been incredibly racist.  Ron Paul is the antithesis of racist.  He is an individualist.  Some other people wrote some things and signed his name to them after he left politics to deliver babies.  That doesn't make those words his.  Only in the mind of a collectivist, where all whites are the same, and are responsible for the actions of others, is that so.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:33 | 1339277 eureka
eureka's picture

tbmosley - Canada is really boring, huh? Good thing you have the US collectivists next door to enlighten.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:55 | 1339306 tmosley
tmosley's picture

What on EARTH are you talking about?

I don't live in Canada.  What gave you that impression?  Or do you have me confused with someone else?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:33 | 1339112 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

And what do you "love" aside of character assassination?

Another clown playing the race card.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:56 | 1339142 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

You play the Race Card every day, White Boy.

I voted Cynthia McKinney in 2008 and Nader the 3 previous elections.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:16 | 1339177 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"I voted Cynthia McKinney in 2008..."


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:13 | 1339370 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Unlike some geriatric blowhards who affiliates himself with the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, at least C-Mac can ask a fucking question.

I wonder if Rummy was ROTFLMAO here:

Cynthia McKinney takes on Donald Rumsfeld

What has Ron "JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY" Paul done for Palestine?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 22:52 | 1340488 FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

What has Ron "JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY" Paul done for Palestine?

Just exactly what he's supposed to do - sweet f-a. Where, in the US Constitution or the oath taken as a member of the House, does it say that you have to "do something" for a bunch of murderous, lying scumbags half way around the world?


Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:02 | 1339238 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You LOOOOVE Democrats and pseudo-Democrats.  As if Nader would change anything.

That IS hilarious.

The question is, how do you like Obama?  He's half African, which must mean he is perfect, happy, selfless, and magical in every way.  But he's also half Irish, which must mean he is evil, disgusting, selfish, hairy, and murderous.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:09 | 1339359 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Never voted Democrat.  The 2-party system is the problem, so I don't support it.

Unlike you, who votes GOP.   It's probably natural law, in your view, that the 2-party system exists forever.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 14:03 | 1339487 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You are extremely ignorant, and clearly not a reader.

I have never voted for a Republican during an election, though did vote for Ron Paul during the Republican primary.  I vote libertarian or constitution party in general elections.

Your problem is you make baseless assumptions about EVERYONE.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:26 | 1339192 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

Go back to playing in the tard pool with the glp faggots where you belong.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 13:15 | 1339377 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Did you mean "GOP faggots"?

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 00:07 | 1338687 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

There is no left and there is no right there is only up and down.  Down with politicians and up with the people.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:33 | 1339270 eureka
eureka's picture

Clearly: tbmosley - He, is God.

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 18:59 | 1337927 A.W.E.S.O.M.-O 4000
A.W.E.S.O.M.-O 4000's picture

I agree. But I think our boy Barry is working on being a close second

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 01:00 | 1338761 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Wilson started the ponzi, went to war, and looted the Treasurie.  Hoover had not a clue what to do.  FDR had to steal America's gold to get his little ponzi going, and then went to war.   Truman bombed the shit out of a country that had been desperately losing the war.  Eisenhower acted like he did not know that the Complex by proxie from the banking industry was hijacking the system.  Kennedy did not act swiftly enough.  Johnson  spent money moving blacks to industrial waste dumps, and he continued war.  Nixon took the world off of the gold standard and pissed OPEC off.  Ford was an idiot (enough said).  Carter expanded the military industrial complex times ten.  Reagan officially handed the keys over to the power hungry right, and continued war spending.  Bush went to war, and had poor economic policy considering he wanted NAFTA and he raised rates before an election year, throwing the election (it was the rate rise, stupid).  Clinton ran NAFTA through showing he was more right than a centrist, officially handing the democratic keys to the power hungry, and he did not regulate finance, leading to the dotcom crash.  Bush went to war and went to war again.  Obama has now continued all these policies collectively.  Worse?  Who cares.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 07:52 | 1338980 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

I can disagree on several points you made. You should move beyond a surface reading of history, its a trap.

Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:45 | 1339292 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture


Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:02 | 1337935 knowless
knowless's picture


kill the paradigm.

only fools vote for a non-candidate,

queue debate on voting lesser of two evils/the irrelivancy of voting.


TGS, you have merit, why do you waste it on partisanship like this?

Fri, 06/03/2011 - 19:07 | 1337940 realitybiter
realitybiter's picture

W sucked and we all know it.  What would have the chart looked like under Gore?  Gore was all over the China migration of manufacturing, which explains most of this.  W inherited the unsustainable dotcom boom and its vacuum aftermath.  What would have Gore done?  I guess it would have been better to have overpriced solar panels everywhere rather than granite countertops, but I still think Gore would have had his own set of problems.  I doubt he would have changed economic policy much since it was the same crew that Clinton had.

I think the dotcom boom misallocated a ton of capital that gave quite an illusion of wealth -like real estate...At least the homes are still there....  

If Clinton were genius he would have seized the opportunity and done a massive governmental secondary and stuffed the coffers.  Instead, the "wealth" largely got squandered and obligated to the future.  

W sucked, but pinning it all on him is a monster mistake and dooms you to fail in the future.

What about our current Prez and the promise of jobs with the bailout that originally started way back with W and has gotten bigger and bigger with BO?  Can we pull up those charts?  W, BO, Gore, and they are all BS.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!