This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
MeeT TYLeR DuRDeN...
- advertisements -
Contact Information:
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Suggested Reading:
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure. Here's our Cookie Policy.
When healthcare is paid for with taxes from the public treasury, its a privilege, not a right. And as these privileges are created via legislative ACTS, those acts can be modified or taken away at the pleasure of the legislative body that created them. Therefore you have no LIBERTY or (contract) PROPERTY in the privilege or the terms of the privilege.
Roberts was correct. As with all entitlement, they all fall under the federal taxing power. And as for those that applied for the privilege through the Social Security Act, the government can now attach an excise to those privileges and use your property (wage) as a unit of measurement to calculate the indirect tax.
Funny thing about the taxing power. Once something becomes the proper object of an excise, there is no limit in the amount. Because, as the courts have pointed out, "for the judiciary, its not amount of amount, but one of power".
Those within the system are all slaves. All have traded constitutional/judicial protections of contract and property for security backed by false promises and an insolvent treasury.
"They either want their healthcare paid for by others, or they want the votes of those who want their healthcare paid for by others. "
Two assumptions that only retort to part of the population wanting healthcare reform. If we all pay the premium, then it should all cost less. Your argument, and so many like it, avoids the swamp of issues on the subject - poor care, misdiagnosis, overcharging, MRSA and other hospital-acquired infection costs, etc. etc.
Point of logic: The Hippocratic Oath (still administered, btw-and still an oath) is mutually exclusive with medicine-for-profit as practiced by very many medical shops today. The whole system is as corrupt and full of bullshit as Wall Street. Why? Because Wall Street owns your healthcare. If you're ok with leaving your own, your children's or your parent's quality of care to the likes of Tenant Healthcare and Gyp'em Morgan, be my guest. Just don't insist that the rest of us buy your policy.
You are either uninformed or mind-bogglingly stupid to suggest that good healthcare is not a right. No reasonable person who thinks so is interested in avoiding paying for it - but neither ought we be bankrupted because you want to apply the same disastrous 'free-market' bullshit thinking to an area where it has even less business being than in the marketplace for fuel or groceries.
It amazes me how few humans ever look in the mirror of their own ideas. When a bad one comes along and wreaks havoc, all they can think of to do is stand around blaming someone else. No wonder we're headed for the fossil record.
Point of logic: The Hippocratic Oath (still administered, btw-and still an oath) is mutually exclusive with medicine-for-profit as practiced by very many medical shops today.
I see. So medical practitioners should just 'break even' when giving healthcare? Work out their weekly expenses and then just charge their patients that amount? Can they add the cost of their education - and the invested capital like rent, food, transport they had to expend while studying - to the amount?
As for these medical shops - are you aware that these things are expensive to set up, as well as run? If there's genuine competition, than the amount these shops earn will reflect the interest on the deployed capital, adjusted for risk (payment default, malpractice suits, etc).
You are either uninformed or mind-bogglingly stupid to suggest that good healthcare is not a right.
It's your right if you've paid for it, yes, just like it's your right to have good clothes, good food, good transport, good anything if you've paid for it. But the whole point of 'free' healthcare is that people who haven't paid for it are magically entitled to it just because they 'need' it... and that it obliges other people to provide it.
No reasonable person who thinks so is interested in avoiding paying for it - but neither ought we be bankrupted because you want to apply the same disastrous 'free-market' bullshit thinking to an area where it has even less business being than in the marketplace for fuel or groceries.
Try communism, you clueless dipshit. They had no marketplace for fuel or groceries, and routinely starved and froze to death.
Medical practitioners, like any other professional, should earn pay commensurate with their quality of care and the type of medicine they provide. 30 years ago, a single GP was able to care for a variety of patients that today "require" the services of many specialists. Circa 1985, there were about 2500 people for every physician in the USA. Circa 1970, there were about 7000 people for every physician. I really don't know what that ratio is now, but I'll hazard that its closer to 500:1 than farther away. 30 years back, a heart attaclk cost roughly $5,000 to treat. Its ten-times-plus that now. Why? Because there are fifteen people charging the patient when it used to be three. As for the input costs in time and education, sure they should figure that into their earnings. All the same, $200.00 a minute for what is often guesswork or the instruction of drug company reps is a bullshit way to "heal" people.
A good physician is a rare thing (and a precious asset) - nobody lives today who cannot reel off story after story about idiot MD's who have more business selling insurance than medical care. The number and quality of physicians graduated in the US alone says a great deal about why there are so many charlatans in practice. For many, its a money game and nothing else. One example is a local surgeon who, unhappy with his $89,000/wk salary, walked off the job and left all his patients hanging. I treasure my doctor - he is fair and keeps up with CME, and he doesn't bullshit me. It took me thirty years to find one who wasn't a demi-god or an idiot.
I know what medical instruments cost. They are expensive. They generally pay for themselves in less than 18 months, and are depreciable assets for much longer. It doesn't change the fact that hospital after hospital has been busted for performing unnecessary procedures to generate revenue. It doesn't change the fact that hospital administrators are compensated orders of magnitude above the people actually perfoming healthcare, to the detriment of the equipment available to patients and practitioners. More money is spent enlarging hospitals than is spent on healthcare for their own employees (who generally have the shittiest insurance money can buy). If you ask the bean counters at hospitals, they'll tell you how much money they lose every year treating the indigent-which is another reason the concept of universal healthcare was introduced to the all-knowing American public, who spend more time ridiculing anyone with an idea that wasn't theirs than they do examining the pros and cons of the idea.
As for suggesting that I try communism, clueless dipshit, well gee whiz ain't you brite? I think this part of your last stt, "They had no marketplace for fuel or groceries, and routinely starved and froze to death."
You just described America.
You, sir, are the clueless dipshit.
So your argument against free-market healthcare is to give a list of the problems with what we have now - fascist health care? Bravo!
I think this part of your last stt, "They had no marketplace for fuel or groceries, and routinely starved and froze to death."
You just described America.
Er, yes, tens of millions of people starved to death under communism. Rather more than here in our admittedly ever increasingly fascist America, don't you think? But don't worry! Your dreams of communism are coming truer by the day and we can all starve to death just like they used to under Mao, Lenin, Stalin, etc. Rejoice!
You are heroically clueless. Throughout history, mankind has been a few meals away from starvation... except in those places the free markets (that you so hate) were allowed to operate.
What about those who can't afford to pay for themselves or their children because of circumstances related to the unregulated greed of men...do you let them die? The only answer based on your philosophy is yes. And don't give me this bullshit about the people who will use their free will to help them...because these charitable individuals are considered fools in your society.
This Ayn Rand objectivist bullshit is pure evil...penny wise and pound stupid. Man's greatest treasure is his HUMANITY...not the wealth and possessions he accumulates through selfishness and greed!
"...do you let them die?"
No, that's what family, friends and communities are for. Not .gov.
Actually, .gov will do more harm than good. First of all, a significant portion of what they'll dishonestly take by force from you will be spent on "administration" as they see necessary. Also, the healthcare that will be provided will be of dubious quality due to the many vested interests involved and absence of true affinity by said administrators for the patient.
At least if you had a free market, medical professionals would be motivated to provide patients the best possible care based on financial considerations alone.
You do realize you're talking to a Canadian right? Canadians who live in the same geographic location as the U.S., but have a higher average lifespan! Hmmmm, I wonder why? I wonder if it's because we don't let are citizens die from curable diseases based on a profit motive?? I wonder if that's it???
That's moot. Is .gov now responsible for your lifespan? No, thank you.
The bottom line is, politicians fuck up everything they touch, and you should be striving to limiting the scope of their involvement in public welfare.
In any case, lifespan is dependant on a myriad of factors, healthcare barely being one of them. See: genetics; lifestyle; nutrition; emotional and mental state.
Don't confuse something that cannot be sustained with "evil". People make choices, is it "evil" that those choices have consequences motherfucker?
Why is it that nothing is sustainable now except the ever increasing wealth gap? Know thy enemy moron! Do you believe the unelected Elites who have captured, control, and are in the process of destroying our social fabric through their unrelenting wealth capture are against Ayn Rand? They are her most ardent supporters! When you support Randian objectivism, you are supporting the Elite status quo who have captured this country and will consolidate their power under a libertarian ideal...an ideal that would include a massive impoverished lower class who will receive no quarter from these evil fuckers...and likely no quarter from you either! Libertarianism has many fine attributes, including limiting the power of government...but it is not a panacea for the many evils of greed...in fact, it will likely facilitate the increasing power of greed if it comes to mirror pure Randian ideology.
The puppet show isn't just about left and right anymore...it also includes the growing libertarian movement. You either see the strings or you are controlled by them....I for one see the strings!
Again you miss the fucking point. Redefine wealth for yourself and fuck the "strings" MORON.
Why is it that nothing is sustainable now except the ever increasing wealth gap? Know thy enemy moron! Do you believe the unelected Elites who have captured, control, and are in the process of destroying our social fabric through their unrelenting wealth capture are against Ayn Rand? They are her most ardent supporters!
For an intelligent man, you spout a load of astonishing nonsense. The status quo get 99% of their wealth as a result of The Federal Reserve cartel, and because limited liability laws transfer risk and costs from corporation stakeholders to the public. How are either of these policies 'Randian'?
Thanks for the compliment. How much wealth do you think was captured in the 10+ years after Greenspan instituted lassez-faire economic policies that saw the repeal of Glass-Steagall and ushered in the sub-prime disaster that sent the global financial system into a tailspin? These policies were pure Ayn Rand. Perspective is a funy thing...one man's "nonsense" can be so much common sense to someone else.
Captured wealth? Redfine wealth idiot and free it!!!!!
That's the fucking point.
How much wealth do you think was captured in the 10+ years after Greenspan instituted lassez-faire economic policies that saw the repeal of Glass-Steagall and ushered in the sub-prime disaster that sent the global financial system into a tailspin?
I should also add that Glass-Steagal was repealed in 1999 with the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act... passed by the senate, house of representatives, and signed off by Clinton. Much as I loathe Greenspan, it's our elected 'leaders' - the very same crew you wish to hand medicine over to - who were responsible for that.
Lulz, Greenspan, regardless of his early affiliation with Ayn Rand, decided which side his bread was buttered on and became exactly the kind of bureaucrat that Ayn Rand detested. He was the head of the Federal Reserve for Christ's sake, the ultimate enabler of cronyism! A central bank pouring out fiat currency for the banking cartel! Ayn Rand even wrote a long spiel on the subject:
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: 'Account Overdrawn.'"
I like your limericks, Mr. King, but you need to read - and think - a little more deeply on this subject. You've just become a laughing stock around here.... and not for the right reasons.
And we wonder why there is no organized resistance. Ayn Rand can kiss my backside. Her protagonist was a mysogynistic psychopath. She lived several decades ago, when the world was strikingly similar to now. Think about the bigger picture. Corporations, being solely profit-motivated, have zero view to posterity. When the consumer makes less, and at the same time shareholders demand more, the tension becomes unbearable after awhile. Of course the Treasury printed money. Its the only thing they knew to do with what Big Corp created. What they did not understand-and what most people still don't really get-is that Big Corp just usurped the governments of most of the developed world, de facto. You can petition and write all the letters you want. You can march and protest until the cows come home. The government we have cannot respond. They have no balls, to begin with - only distorted egos. Not one of them has had an original approach to broad societal issues in 30 years - they have instead ignored the welfare of the nation while lining their own pockets. They are the whores and puppets of a machine that owns them.
Doesn't it raise flags for anyone that these boys and ghorls are quite prepared for extreme prejudice and collateral damage? So many of us bought the Obummer bullshit about change - but what he was talking about had nothing to do with the middle class except its ultimate destruction. We the People had better get our shit together and start sorting the crooks out of the Halls. We have been taken over by criminals, who laugh like hell at us for arguing about politics.
BJ, I gotta tell you, hombre. You are just as much a laughingstock as the rest of us. Maybe even more, since you clearly feel you have it all figured out. You, and I, and most of the rest of us, don't know shit about what's coming - and the BroKoch ilk are just fine with that.
You see the big corporations - which are legally privileged groups enabled by government edict - and government... as being somehow separate? They're all predators feasting off the rest of us and occasionally gouging each other eyes out when it suits their purposes.
BJ, I gotta tell you, hombre. You are just as much a laughingstock as the rest of us. Maybe even more, since you clearly feel you have it all figured out.
I don't recall claiming any such thing - I just pointed out flaws in The Limerick King's pathetic attempts at 'reasoning'.
You, and I, and most of the rest of us, don't know shit about what's coming - and the BroKoch ilk are just fine with that.
The cemeteries are full of men who thought they knew what was coming and were wrong. And plenty of them were stinking rich. No one 'knows' what's coming.
Fuck you idiot! You and your ilk can laugh all you like at my opinion of Rand and her philosophy. I make no apologies. There is a lot of truth in Rand's writings...this is what makes her such a potent force for evil. The fact that you can't and/or refuse to understand what is intrinsically evil in the notion that selfishness is a virtue, charity is wrong-headed, and the poor should be left to fend for themselves to the point of unnecessary death is beyond me to explain to you...as the understanding rests in the moral foundation of the individual contemplating these concepts.
I have read more Rand than I can stand, and have thought deeply on the truly disturbing nature of her philosophy...and the only word that describes it is evil - not for some of the universal truths of the Protestant Work Ethic that she borrows from heavily, or for her views on sound money...but that she turns the individual into a rational but selfish God who holds no responsibility for his fellow man.
Ah, but you weren't attacking Rand for those things, were you? You were saying Greenspan was somehow following through with her philosophy... as head of an institution and system that I'm pretty sure she loathed with all her heart.
You are a twisty little sophist and I hope you get all the socialism you can eat.
She fully supported and promoted laissez-faire capitalism you stupid shit...it was a cornerstone of her philosophy...which is what I've been talking about all along. Her twisted morality regarding selfishness naturally requires an unregulated market so her fellow sociopaths can defraud "the unproductive classes". Her whole ideology is like a bible for those with sociopathic tendencies. Do I need to say the words "lassez-faire" for you to understand what I mean by saying she has been a friend to Elites? Don't point the sophistry finger when you simply can't grasp the implications of my argument you disengenuous moron! And we already have all the socialism we can handle as a result of the untold trillions that have been paid to support failing corporations and banks from the practice of laissez-faire/crony capitalism!
By the way fool, supporting a fair healthcare system where the poor don't die for profit, does not make one a communist...Senator McCarthy!
And we already have all the socialism we can handle as a result of the untold trillions that have been paid to support failing corporations and banks from the practice of laissez-faire/crony capitalism!
Lulz, you conflate crony capitalism with laissez-faire capitalism? And think government bailouts are evidence of a laissez-faire system ?
In a laisez-faire system, do you think we'd have a government-imposed central bank lending banks all over the world trillions at zero interest to keep their various stakeholders afloat? Do you actually READ anything here at ZH? In anything remotely resembling 'laissez faire', Dimon and his fellow travellers would have been selling pencils in the street the day after Lehman went down.
You are a hopelessly confused little man.
Senator McCarthy.....was right.
Don't believe me? Just tune in MSNBC.
Hammurabi care
If a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands, but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurse another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.
If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.
If a physician make a large incision in the slave of a freed man, and kill him, he shall replace the slave with another slave.
If he had opened a tumor with the operating knife, and put out his eye, he shall pay half his value.
If a physician heal the broken bone or diseased soft part of a man, the patient shall pay the physician five shekels in money.
If he were a freed man he shall pay three shekels.
If he were a slave his owner shall pay the physician two shekels.
If a barber, without the knowledge of his master, cut the sign of a slave on a slave not to be sold, the hands of this barber shall be cut off.
If any one deceive a barber, and have him mark a slave not for sale with the sign of a slave, he shall be put to death, and buried in his house. The barber shall swear: "I did not mark him wittingly," and shall be guiltless.
The problem is the country is so fucked up now that a simple thing like public healthcare has become a bone of political contention, hopelessly mired in an ideological quagmire laced with entrenched special interests.
And the whole thing gets managed by mental midgets.
I have lived in several countries where it works just fine. They all laugh at us.
The only thing our government knows how to do is drop bombs and spy on the population. That they can do magnificently.
No matter what they would have us believe, we are not the leading country in the world when it comes to healthcare and it is a complete travesty.
"a simple thing like public healthcare"
I can't believe you said that without sarcasm.
Well we seem to make it infinitely more complicated than it has to be. And I say this as someone who has used all manner of overseas healthcare services for 20 years.
The only critical medical procedure I ever had would have cost roughly 5 times as much in the US. And I researched it exhaustively.While my carrier would have paid either scenario, I decided why bother going to the US for a surgery that can be handled with equal competence locally.
I can go on and on about this.
Do you know what you pay for an emergency services pick up in Hong Kong? $100 HKD or roughly $12 US for what would most certainly be a $1000 bill in NYC. You get in the ambulance and it is all wired into the public healthcare data network so they know who you are and what your medical history is instantaneously. You get to the ER and they are waiting for you.
Remember, HK is supposedly more expensive than NYC.
I'm not saying there is an ideal model for the US to follow. Every country is different. But we most certainly make things more complicated than they have to be. And we waste an inordinate amount of time arguing about it as well.
Of course we are operating at a handicap. All the public policy people running the show are either idiots or on the payroll.
You get what you ask for.
As a Canadian, I fully agree Bill. One need only look at the chart that circulated the other day comparing per capita medical spending compared to population longevity. The U.S. looks likes it spends about 33% more than the average of all other nations, but sits at about the 85th percentile for longevity. This is the U.S. system in a nutshell...more for less! Unfortunately, it is likely also a reflection of the deeply troubling inequality that exists. If one were to stratify the U.S. data based on income, I'm certain it would show longevity for the rich is much higher than for the poor...an issue that socially just countries have refused to tolerate. But I`m sure the rich will ultimately have their way on this issue, thanks to the promotion of Randian philosophy that creates a natural class warfare, and paints lower classes as "the problem". It`s happening in Canada as we speak! The only question is, how long will the lower classes tolerate the assault before the inevitable occurs???
".an issue that socially just countries have refused to tolerate." - Bullshit. show me the data. Show me one peer-reviewed study from any such country and be sure to define "rich" the same way in every country you compare.
Yeah, I can pull shit out my ass too.
Are you saying that no one should suffer the consequences of their own CHOICES?
That sounds far more "evil" to me (that someone else should be made to suffer for the poor decisions of others).
The fact that universal health care has been instituted in most advanced nations other than the morally challenged U.S. supports my contention...no data required. If you haven't listened to the Nixon oval offcie tapes that basically spell-out the HMO business plan of denying health care services for those in need, I suggest you do this before continueing with this red herring Randian argument about "choices". People will do evil things to their fellow man in the name of profit...and Rand offers us nothing to protect ourselves against this reality.
Bravo! Thou King of the Limerick! The old Di & Phi rtules yet hold sway - he who runs out of reason resorts to lambast, bombast and diversionary carrying-on. It changes not a whit that said fools have lost the day...
The fact that universal health care has been instituted in most advanced nations other than the morally challenged U.S. supports my contention...no data required.
You've got the causality backwards. It's only 'advanced nations' that can afford universal health care.... until they can't, of course, because the electorate keep demanding more and more 'free' healthcare (and other government services) until either there's a debt default or they ration the services.
People will do evil things to their fellow man in the name of profit...and Rand offers us nothing to protect ourselves against this reality.
I'm not familiar with Ayn Rand's writings but I'd be very surprised if she would be an advocate of the current weird US system, which is neither public nor private, but a heavily-regulated cartel.
Generally, when it comes to demanding public healthcare, your argument appears to be: we can't trust people to give enough money to charity to pay for the poor's healthcare. But we CAN trust them to vote in governments that will force everyone to pay for everyone's healthcare. And that healthcare will somehow be better than if it were arranged through competing charities!
Guys like you never explain why it's ok for a subsection of the population to use the government to force people to contribute to something they clearly don't agree with e.g, sickcare for people on lower incomes.
Although I'm sure you won't admit it for the sake of argument, I'm sure you're mind would change if it was you or yours who were the ones who were sick and couldn't afford care. Just like Ayn Rand...taking her Social Security after all her pontificating. Rich countries can afford decent health care for their citizens...as long as they control the evil thieves who would prefer more wealth over their fellow citizens precious health!
Medicaid for the masses
Medicaid for the masses
Although I'm sure you won't admit it for the sake of argument, I'm sure you're mind would change if it was you or yours who were the ones who were sick and couldn't afford care.
Me and mine can't afford a lot of things. That doesn't mean I believe the government has the right to put a gun to other people's heads to force them to give them to me.
Just like Ayn Rand...taking her Social Security after all her pontificating.
My understanding is that Ayn Rand was a very successful author - ie, she paid a lot of tax. Perhaps if all that wealth hadn't been confiscated from her - thus making her too poor to afford her own healthcare - you'd have a point. But it was, so you haven't.
Rich countries can afford decent health care for their citizens...as long as they control the evil thieves who would prefer more wealth over their fellow citizens precious health!
How do 'rich countries' get rich? By being productive, and by disincentivising free riding and predation. How do rich countries wind up becoming poor? By allowing various groups to hijack the machinery of government to predate on everyone else. 'Free' healthcare is one such goody that encourages moral hazard and is just another straw on the back of the productive classes.
By the way "BigJim"...I couldn't help but notice that you and "Laws Of Physics" share the same opinions, the same writing style, and have both been on Zerohedge for exactly 3 years and 24 weeks. How fucking pathetic that you try to gain an argumentative edge by posting under different user ids!!!
pitiful --I thought better of you--best you stick with limericks (where you shine) --checking up on people's status that disagree with you is reaching a new low--but some how seems to fit your new religion -progressive collectivist prick.
I pride myself in sniffing out questionable posting activity and users. You should know this place is lousy with shills and sock puppets...you've been here long enough!
By the way...I loathe progressivism! You do you realize Randian objectivism is as progressive as it gets...right? Keep reading dear...you'll eventually catch-on.
You are too busy sniffing your own farts to realize you are the questionable user.
Ah yes...my old pal Fonz who likes to challenge Tyler on a multitude of issues and sees no evidence of gold manipulation. I forget the names of your cohorts...I'm sure they will be along shortly. I was hoping all that talk of shills and sock puppets would flush you out.
Why don't you go back and take a look at the first page of this thread and see my quote regarding Tyler in 2009 giving him all the credit in the world for exposing a truth that is now public knowledge. Yes I push back on some other issues. It's because I am capable of critical thinking. Unlike you, I think Tyler has thick skin and can handle it, I hope anyway.
But no...when someone disagrees with you and the crowd tends to agree with them, they are part of a grand conspiracy. Yup. Whatever blows your hair back dude.
Nice job trying to claim LOP and Bigjim are one and the same. A new low for the real sock puppet.
LOL...this entire site is devoted to grand conspiracies! And you know what???...they're all turning out to be true! So why are you here again Fonz...to challenge the Tylers up until the point a conspiracy becomes fact, and then give them a slap on the back once MSM runs with it? And you don't believe that gold is being manipulated lower, correct?
Where did I say that? Of course gold is being manipulated lower. It's actually just that simple, and admitted in the msm already. My point, if you are referring to what I think you are referring to, is that if one is to assume that it is so easily manipulated, then it is manipulated higher as well. I don't think one can claim that the down movement is manipulation and the up movement is a real market. The day the paper market, should it ever happen, implodes, is the day we get true price discovery.
In the meantime trying to come up with 15 different theories at a time as to how it is being manipulated just seems like an exercise in getting page hits like KWN does. Same goes for "foreigners dumping treasuries" articles which I also push back on. I am not saying that this won't end in a giant mushroom cloud because the world did in fact dump their UST's en masse. I just point out that you can't draw that conclusion right now.
But that's the ultimate problem here. The Fed etc. have held this thing up so long that sites like this have been forced to compete for the Glenn Beck audience. It's working out for them too. The page hits, the traffic etc. is all up on here. It's the same reason all of the early crowd is gone and many of the people who have been here for a while end up ranting about the articles. I don't blame Tyler, Limerick. ZH is not a non profit. It is a business and is operating as such. Not sure if you are aware of that aspect.
LOL, though I'm sure I and LoP share some of the same opinions - we're both regular ZHers, after all - we certainly don't share all the same opinions OR writing style...
LoP may have signed up the same week as me, but that's about it.
I see like most 'liberals' you can't actually argue using reason and have to resort to ad homs and sanctimony.
LMAO! You read my limericks but don't realize I'm as socially conservative as it comes??? My, your intellect is astounding! The ad homs were started by your "friend" Laws of Physics, and when I responded in kind to him, you chimed in with your own ad hom. This in fact, is what has led to all this discourse...your initial ad hom attack.
Did you seriously just finish off badly losing an argument on here by accusing Bigjim of being LOP? Holy fucking pathetic.
Man you seriously are only capable of a couple of simple jack rhymes at best. After that you are intellectually incapable of holding an actual conversation. Once that becomes clear you seem to consistently resort to throwing feces anywhere you can like a confused angry monkey.
I have no idea who anybody is on this forum...do you Fonz? Maybe I've missed where they've placed all the actual bios linked to the user ids. Tell me Fonz...how many shills, sock puppets, and multiple posters do you know on here? Are you aware Krugman and his cronies like to frequent this place and stir-up shit??
"By the way "BigJim"...I couldn't help but notice that you and "Laws Of Physics" share the same opinions, the same writing style, and have both been on Zerohedge for exactly 3 years and 24 weeks. How fucking pathetic that you try to gain an argumentative edge by posting under different user ids!!!
"I have no idea who anybody is on this forum.."
I am going to step back and let you fight this one out with you. Enjoy.