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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
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".

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

downwiththebanks's picture



Law!  What a laugher.

Like the Law of Contract, right?  

Ha ha ha.

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!

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?

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?

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.

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?

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!

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".

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)


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.

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.

pan-the-ist's picture

Another victim of public education.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.  

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.

tmosley's picture

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

blunderdog's picture

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

Texas Gunslinger's picture

<comment removed by the administration>

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.

eureka's picture

tbmosley - how do you like the Koch brothers?

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.

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?

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.  



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.

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.

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.

Conrad Murray's picture

Junked you for saying "an historical".

downwiththebanks's picture

Junked you back for being wrong.

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.  

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:


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.

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.