This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Spreading The Wealth Around

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

Spreading The Wealth Around

Under Obama, corporate profits have soared to all-time highs:

Rentiers are doing better than ever; rental income has exploded and almost doubled since the recession (bubble-watchers — this is a huge one):


Yet employment still hasn’t recovered:

Income inequality under Obama has grown at a faster-rate than under Bush or Clinton:

All that debt Obama acquired, and all the stimulus did work to redistribute wealth and income — it worked to redistribute wealth and income toward the well-connected crony capitalist groups that funded Obama into office.

Obama can talk all he likes about cutting taxes for the middle class; the data shows who Obama’s redistribution policies have overwhelmingly favoured.

Of course, leftists and statists often end up favouring the super-rich. That’s been the underlying reality of communism — politburos, bureaucrats, technocrats, party members all benefit at the expense of everyone else (in spite of all that proletarian rhetoric).

Inviting the state to carve up national income and redistribute it is an invitation to corruption, and graft. Obama talks an updated version of the old communist rhetoric about redistributing wealth to the working class — he even adopted Stalin’s slogan “forward” — yet just like Stalin the reality of his policies is more wealth for the richest and most well-connected. What a surprise.

He continued and expanded the Bush bailouts of failed companies. He reappointed Ben Bernanke, who has hovered in his helicopter above Wall Street throwing out money to the well-connected rentiers and corporations. And his stimulus package went to his own donors like Solyndra who frittered away the loans he guaranteed.

That’s been the reality of “spreading the wealth around”. When will we wake up?

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:24 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Obama like all politicians for the last 40 years is a supply-side trickle down guy.   Perhaps it is indeed related to where most of the campaign money comes from.   Or it's so well established in the MSM that even supposedly liberal democrats are every bit as supply side as RR.  The socialist talk from O is nothing but rhetoric.  He's not accidentally making the rich richer through some failed attempt at socialism.  Ironically, when it all comes crashing down we'll hear that we need to give more money to the wealthy to permit a recovery.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:40 | Link to Comment Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

LetThemEatRand: "Obama like all politicians for the last 40 years is a supply-side trickle down guy."

I don't think that's accurate. Or perhaps if you mean in the same sense as Stalin. In other words, he is not that thoughtful or considered as some would imagine him to be. The same goes for GWBush. These guys, the two of them, just aren't that smart to be "supply side trickle down" guys.

Obama is a taker, plain and simple. Once you see, at close hand, the politics of a Chicago alderman, you get it: it's the same thing. He (Obama) believes that there exists a trough of cash, he doesn't understand where it comes from or care. He wants control over it so he can have power over people. So in his mind it's not about economics at all. He doesn't care about economics, capital formation, whatever. He just wants to be the strong man with power.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:47 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

That's what the Red Team pundits want you to believe, because if you accept that the Red Team and the Blue Team are both working equally for the oligarchs, then people may stop thinking their vote matters and actually do something about it.  The charts above are not accidental, and you'll notice their direction is consistent since Reagan despite numerous shifts in which team had control.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:51 | Link to Comment Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

Yeah, fair enough.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 23:41 | Link to Comment jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

yes it is fair enough.  as you wrote, bush2 and obama are peas in a pod, except obama is easier on abortion and gays, tougher on whistleblowers and killing citizens without trial.  here's the same story from a leftie: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/growth-of-income-inequality-is-wo...

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 11:29 | Link to Comment xcehn
xcehn's picture

How could it be otherwise. The ruling elite have always been and always will be primarily about preserving the system that benefits them. A limousine liberal steadfastly insists the system can be reformed/tweaked. Diehard statists, red or blue.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:34 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ 1, nice comment and great article by John Aziz.

Enter to Win Dinner with Barack!  Collecting that mailing list, bitchez!

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 16:04 | Link to Comment greyghost
greyghost's picture

finally someone who gets it.......communist or facist or nazi...does not matter. only the words are changed to protect the guilty. when will people wake that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between these groups. can't wait for the next glowing report of communist parties winning in europe...oh wait or is it nasty glowing remarks about nazi parties winning in europe? i'm confused...well i will just have to wait for the next zero hedge headline about some minor party to a the minor party of the minor party winning some minor election while communist parties are ignored. now how many votes did the golden nazi party win in greece? damn i am so far behind the curve...it is all about the pain in spain. when oh when will the franco party rise again...stay tuned zero hedge will let you know.

Mon, 06/11/2012 - 07:01 | Link to Comment prole
prole's picture

Except that is totally not true. Commies and Fascists differered over something, else why did they cross swords? IIRK Fascists rode through the streets in open coaches to adoring crowds. Commies to this day appear only to limited audiences, and any serf allowed within 100 miles of the party secretary goes through multiple layers of groping to get there.

PS- I knew the Commies would show up here to defend their God Government/Socialism. LTER did not dissapoint with his quick redirect comments

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 19:00 | Link to Comment midtowng
midtowng's picture

Who exactly are these "limousine liberals"? As far as I can tell most of the people riding around in limousines are rather wealthy and conservative. They also don't want to change the system.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 19:19 | Link to Comment NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Riding around in a Limo sort negates the whole being Conservative thing. Not that I expect any of you retards to have figured that out here. 

 

So weird the current influx of you statist pieces of shit lately.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 21:54 | Link to Comment Jena
Jena's picture

Ah, you've never been to Los Angeles, specifically the Hollywood Hills, Brentwood, Westwood, Beverly Hills, Malibu.  You'll see them in their native habitat (with full security) and quite full of themselves.  They have no compunction about telling you how the world ought to run -- except don't expect them to stop using their private jets or any of the other perks they enjoy even as they decry the carbon footprints of the masses.

That being said, I fully support their right to enjoy the money they have earned in whatever way they wish.  But make no mistake, they do they exist.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 22:31 | Link to Comment Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

Limousine liberal = someone who supports every liberal cause but cheats on his income tax and employs illegal Guatemalan household help for less than minimum wage.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 22:44 | Link to Comment TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

yes Diogenes, but now your gonna ruin midtowng's pristine view, for he imagines all that are rich and drive in limo's are those rascally conservatives. 

Mon, 06/11/2012 - 02:14 | Link to Comment CaptainObvious
CaptainObvious's picture

A limousine liberal is someone like Al Gore.  Gore brought us "An Inconvenient Truth", a documentary about global warming that is supposed to have been caused by the burning of fossil fuels.  And then to promote that movie, he flew from coast to coast in a private jet that burned more fuel in one trip than the average driver uses in a year.  A limousine liberal espouses the leftist causes, but does not apply those standards to himself.  Yes, says the limo lib, we must stop using coal to generate electricity and we must shut down all those nuclear plants to save the earth!  And then the limo lib plugs his electric car in for a charge that is generated by coal or nuclear.  We must stop destroying the habitat of the spotted owl, says the limo lib, so you cannot go logging in this forest!  And then the limo lib installs a windmill that chops 175,000 spotted owls to bits every year.

In short, the limo lib is content to tell you how YOU must live YOUR life, because he already got his.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 12:47 | Link to Comment post turtle saver
post turtle saver's picture

You know, people say 'Mojo, you're always complaining about everything

Why don't you vote in the election, why don't you become involved in the electoral process'

Huh uh, oh yeah...

'Vote for Clinton, Mojo, it's gonna make everything nice and new and neat'

We got one fool just as big a fool as the other fool

Ain't nothin' changed, same fools ridin' around in the black cars

We still ridin' around on the subway

Ridin' around in the bus

We ridin' around in a 1978, you know 1978 El Torino or some damn thing

Leakin' oil, ain't got no money

Gotta pay taxes, everything's screwed up

I ain't gonna take it no more I'm gonna start an armed insurrection

I'm gonna go to the hills of West Virginia and

I'm gonna liberate some guns from a National Guard armory and I'm gonna start an armed revolt because

Sometime in the course of human events it becomes necessary to disassociate yourself from the ties that bind

I'm gonna break them ties, I'm gonna bust 'em up

So there I am standin' around the campfires in the hills of West Virginia

And the flames are shootin' up high

And I happen to be the head of the armed insurrection rebel alliance

And I'm gonna sing our brand new, our brand new national anthem

It goes something like this...

'You can't kill me, I will not die not now, not ever, no never

I'm gonna live a long, long time

My soul raves on forever!'

 

"You Can't Kill Me", Mojo Nixon

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:39 | Link to Comment HoofHearted
HoofHearted's picture

Thanks for the song. Youtubed it, and now I'm finding more good stuff from Mojo Nixon.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:35 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ 1  Nice!

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:37 | Link to Comment robobbob
robobbob's picture

nothing in the about comment makes it exclusive. Team Red and Blue both work for the same owners. And the owners tend to choose managers who carry out policies that are in their favor. I don't think they're too concerned over why they do it. what better choice than a manager who knows how to play ball?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:49 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

The real joke is that people still fall for this shit.  Witness the angst of the "Liberty" Movement wrt Republican Rand Paul. 

At least they've got the endless war against all the communists in our midst to keep them occupied.

Meanwhile, the Corporatocracy rolls on. 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:33 | Link to Comment GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Corpo-fascism actually. But again, that is somehow also the inevitable result of socialism and/or communism according to those great social theorists you have at your disposal over there in America.

 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 16:00 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Could it be that I've been asleep . . . and it's really been just US Citizenism all along???

Fuckin' A. 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 18:52 | Link to Comment Jendrzejczyk
Jendrzejczyk's picture

Blobbing uP, Bitchez.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:31 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Shitting on the side of the road creates government job opportunities for pooper scoopers...it's a statist concept I don't expect a job creator like yourself to appreciate ;-)

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:53 | Link to Comment Jendrzejczyk
Jendrzejczyk's picture

Private sector entrepremanures would be best.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 21:37 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

I got it ;-)

Yes they would.

In a closed loop system (where taxes pay for all government operations) this is how it's done. But many want to ride fantasy pink unicorns into oblivion...which is fine as far as oblivion goes...we will rebuild without them or the unicorns.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 18:58 | Link to Comment midtowng
midtowng's picture

The problem with so many in the Tea Party is that they don't understand the words they are using.

Communism, socialism, fascism, femanism, atheism, muticulturalism, homosexualism, and every other ism out there is all lumped together in their scary word list. They don't really see any difference in those words and they use them interchangably.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 19:21 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

heh, nice one. . . when you get their "demographic" then you'll get why "everyone else" gets the pointy finger!

+1

Mon, 06/11/2012 - 07:07 | Link to Comment prole
prole's picture

heh, nice one... you're both Commies. Why not be honest and defend Stalin, Pol Pot?

Defend the killing of 10 million Ukrainians. Weren't they just the "broken eggs" you have to have to get your Socialist omelette? Why don't you defend Solyndra?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 19:23 | Link to Comment NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

No the real problem is you fucking useless eater statists come in speaking to us like we are ignorant children and call us Tea Party people. Get a clue you moron.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 19:38 | Link to Comment TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

The problem with you midtowng is that all you can spout from your lying lips are generalaties you cannot possibly prove, but it sounds good and will make you feel better about your own pathatic beliefs. The isms you name are all controlled by statist that wish to bring my freedom and liberty to an end, of course for the good of all mankind. And in this struggle for us who wish to keep our liberty and stand against this tyranny, you are on the wrong side, and you with all your statist minions will lose. Good will triumph and your lousy evil will go down in defeat. Now go back to your parent subsidized basement and ponder your demise.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:11 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"The problem with so many in the Tea Party..."...is ism's?

Really?

There are no such things as statists, communists, fascists, atheists, socialists etc.? So not only do you wish to ban ism's from the lexicon you make your intentions known to ban ist's as well...lol.

Perfect, you've just made their point.

 

 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 21:26 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Worth repeating:

As documented by Igor Shafarevich in his seminal works "Socialism in our Past and Future" and "The Socialist Phenomenon", there are three main activities of all "socialists" engaged in "socialism":

1. Attacking private property
2. Attacking the family
3. Attacking Christianity

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 23:22 | Link to Comment jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

attacking christianity?  not religion generally?  specifically christianity?

Mon, 06/11/2012 - 07:11 | Link to Comment prole
prole's picture

Worshipping of the State. Lenin as God, the God Government, worship of Power, these religions they generally don't attack.

Not to mention "Father Abraham" no Commie has ever questioned the divinity of his blood-soaked hands

Mon, 06/11/2012 - 07:18 | Link to Comment Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

Yes. How else could it be politically correct to mock Christianity and politically incorrect to criticise Islam?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:22 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

As Gasset  noted in "Revolt of the Masses":  " ... the collectivist cares not to give reasons, or even to be right - he's simply resolved to impose his opinions. And that's the novelty of it - the "right" not to be right; the "reason" of unreason. 

Very, very primitive stuff.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 16:04 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

 

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a Moral code that glorifies it."

 

Your namesake said that.  Why would it not aptly describe the inevitable decay of capitalism per se that some think we are witnessing today?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 16:20 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

The very use of the term "capitalism" implies acceptance of false marxian premises. The correct term for that which is compatible with liberty is "free enterprise".

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 16:32 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

So you don't understand what I'm talking about?  Having such a superlative command of the language and all?

C'mon, you know what I'm talkin about. 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 16:42 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I'm saying that plunder and free enterprise are incompatible. Where there is plunder there is not free enterprise.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 16:47 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

That's a convenient tautology.  No wonder shit happens as it does.

At least we know that, by definition, it can't be plunder. 

Even if it's child prostitution.  As long as property and familial rights are properly respected . . . say, the money goes to the family.

Unless they're gay, of course.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 18:54 | Link to Comment midtowng
midtowng's picture

Huh? Capitalism is not a term that Marx created.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 19:54 | Link to Comment TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

Ok midtowng, you tell us in your infinite wisdom where the term 'capitalism' came from? 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:16 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

He should get a red for using an "ism" in his text...but my libertarianism won't allow me ;-)

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:35 | Link to Comment TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

Greetings NMEWN. Have enjoyed reading your comments. Your unusual sarcastic style of writing is always amusing. Thought to drop a line and say hi.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 21:25 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Salutations TB,

Sorry for the delay, had to cut up onions & peppers for stir fry, always good to know someone appreciates sarcasm (without the tag) as we swirl around the fiat reality commode.

I see today Karl Rove has come out for continued government subsidation of wind power, whocoulda noed a friggin windbag would support such a thing...lol.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:15 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Actually it was Werner Sombart in his 1902 magnum opus.  It's not clear that Marx even ever used the term "capitalism".

Werner Sombart was a German marxian socialist who became a German national socialist.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 21:00 | Link to Comment Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

"Obama like all politicians for the last 40 years is a supply-side trickle down guy."

 

"I don't think that's accurate."

 

Actually, yes it is. Perpetual, creeping monetary inflation is a type of "supply-side, trickle-down". And since every president since Roosevelt has been inflationist, then the statement is true.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 23:27 | Link to Comment jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

if the data in the chart of income growth distribution by income level is accurate it isn't very accurate to call obama a trickle down guy.  looks like he's cut back the trickle to a slow drip.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 11:51 | Link to Comment malek
malek's picture

Always makes me wonder why deriding "trickle down" as the ultimate evil is anyhow better than using "trickle down" as the ultimate justification for the status quo.

Both approaches are pure marketing blabber to me, more obfuscating the point than clearly making one.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:08 | Link to Comment Don Keot
Don Keot's picture

Which came first, the buyer or the producer?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:15 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

As documented by Igor Shafarevich in his seminal works "Socialism in our Past and Future" and "The Socialist Phenomenon", there are three main activities of all "socialists" engaged in "socialism":

1. Attacking private property
2. Attacking the family
3. Attacking Christianity

Frankly, there's little that the Hawaiian Allende engages in that does not fit into one of those three categories.

 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:53 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Could you be more specific . . . because he's really pulled the wool over my eyes. 

Is it his empty, politically opportunistic sentiments about gays?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:26 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

David Limbaugh's book "The Great Destroyer" details the Hawaiian Allende's attacks upon private property, the family, and Christianity in great detail. It should be required reading.

To summarize a few points regarding the regime's attacks upon private property, the family, and Christianity

1. Attacks upon private property: Mainly waged by the EPA, but also attempting to be waged via HHS and the inaptly named perversion called Obama "care".
2. Attacks upon the family: Forcing the militant homosexual agenda upon the US military and upon private businesses
3. Attacks upon Christianity: The regime's attacks upon Catholic freedom of conscience via the Obama "care" perversion

While there are countless others, the three cited above provide a brief introduction to the war upon civilization being waged by the Hawaiian Allende's regime.

 

 

 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:49 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

The more you put your hand behind your head to scratch your ear, the sillier that pablum sounds.

 

 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:56 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I understand your confusion. Folks tend to forget that "Critical Race Theory" is simply marxism recast from a "class struggle" into a "race struggle".

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:36 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

I see a bifurcation based on rational intelligence.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:56 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Not nice to pile on, and I apologize for that, but I gotta give it to you since that was my exact thought.  WTF?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:50 | Link to Comment kekekekekekeke
kekekekekekeke's picture

those gays really made an impression on you huh

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:20 | Link to Comment dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

LetThemEatRand: 

Get real. He was a grafting crook before he ever got out of Chicago, like all pols are. The Mafia is their model.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:31 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

100% agreement he is a crook.  

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:45 | Link to Comment azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

The world would be a slightly better place if Obama remained a cum stain on his momma's dress. But some other pig fucker would have been elected and our collective assholes would still be in pain. A revolution by the people for the people is the only answer

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:51 | Link to Comment kekekekekekeke
kekekekekekeke's picture

Randroids are junking you without reading

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 18:51 | Link to Comment midtowng
midtowng's picture

"leftists and statists often end up favouring the super-rich"

 There are two problems with this statement: 1) leftists and statists are not the same thing and rarely believe the same things, and 2) this same author will go to great lengths to claim that leftists want to redistribute money away from the "job providers" (i.e. the super-rich). YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH! The leftists can't both favor the super-rich AND want to take away their money.

   You need to chose how you want to demonize the other ideology (and thus playing into the hands of the status quo). Being inconsistent about demonizing the blue/red team means you are failing in your efforts to defend the status quo.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:13 | Link to Comment TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

Ok midtowng, since you no doubt have great understanding as to what a leftist is and what a statist is and their differences are, please educate us the unwashed.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:26 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"2) this same author will go to great lengths to claim that leftists want to redistribute money away from the "job providers" (i.e. the super-rich)."

Ok, you've clearly been drinking.

My wife is not "super-rich" or I wouldn't be working still providing the bulk of the income and she wouldn't be driving a six year old car...although she did just hire sombody last week.

So far you're 0 for 2 midtowng, unless you want to pull forward "ists" ;-)

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 21:31 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Regarding "socialists" at least, Igor Shafarevich wrote the seminal works on the subject. As documented by Shafarevich in "Socialism in our Past and Future" and "The Socialist Phenomenon", there are three main activities of all "socialists" engaged in "socialism":

1. Attacking private property
2. Attacking the family
3. Attacking Christianity

At least that much we can all agree on.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:23 | Link to Comment I am Jobe
I am Jobe's picture

Must find ways to stave the beast. If enough folks stand up it will be done. I am afraid the country is too Narcissistic  and divided over which IPHONE app and/or the color of their cars.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:16 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Cut off my cable service and got rid of my TV six years ago; one of the best decisions I've made.  It all adds up.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:29 | Link to Comment Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

Article today in the Boston Globe details this more, and how my generation (18-35) has basically become a band of hard working, low income earning, indebted renters.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2012/06/10/number_of_young_home_...

You know why we aren't buying houses Ben, Barack and Mitt?

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY FUCKING MONEY!!!!!11111

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:42 | Link to Comment ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

Yep, I'm sorry to say but except for a few lucky winners of the job lottery your generation will be known as the "Generation $9 an hour".

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:42 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Who could have predicted that saddling the young with trillions in non-dischargeable student loans would have a long-term negative effect on the economy?  

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:51 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

The Austrians.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:57 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The problem with you guys is that you simply refuse to accept that this was intentional.  A lot of people became (and are still becoming) wealthy in the student loan racket.  They knew the endgame and they didn't care.   Do you think Mozillo didn't know that housing prices would collapse one day?   Economic theory is fun.  Economic reality is that the oligarchs you want to put in charge of the world will set it on fire if there's profit in it.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 11:02 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

I'm pretty sure Mozillo is not an adherent to Mises or Hayek...more of a Krugman or Keynes.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 11:10 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

None of the above. He was an adherent to how much money Mozillo could make regardless of the damage he would cause in the process.  This is where you guys just completely miss the point.  

 

Of course he was a trickle down guy.  Here's a quote from Mozilo in 2004: "I must admit that the upcoming election has exacerbated my concerns in that a Kerry win could cause a serious disruption in the economy if he is successful in rolling back a substantial portion of the tax breaks initiated by Bush. It is the wage earners $200,000 and over that are the drivers of the economy and that is the group that Kerry has stated that he will attack. This could clearly cause a major bump in the road."

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 11:20 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"He was an adherent to how much money Mozillo could make regardless of the damage he would cause in the process."

Mozillo was/is a parasite who was paid (mostly) in stock options. If you think I'm going to defend the compensation committie of Countrywide or Mozillo you have rocks in your head.

But to your point, no one working at the counter in a Starbucks can afford to hire anyone...and when did "rich" become anyone making 200k?...stop with the class warfare crap.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 12:19 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You=theory.

Mozilo=practice.

Ironically, many of the people currently working at Starbucks are there because the oligarchs have destroyed small businesses and manufacturing in the West, leaving fewer and fewer business owners and builders of things, and more and more baristas, greeters, stockers, waiters, etc.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:36 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Unleashing American prosperity is as simple as eliminating the EPA and the IRS.  Along with the Department of "Interior". Repealing the 16th and 17th amendments would be good, too.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:50 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

If only Rick Perry had been able to remember the third one....

Mon, 06/11/2012 - 07:15 | Link to Comment prole
prole's picture

Was it the elimidation of the division of paid Trolls on the internets?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:19 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Because everyone knows corporations use the money they don't pay in taxes to create jobs instead of granting larger bonuses or buying gold toilets!

Because EPA "regulations" (pointless bureaucratic wristslaps, at best) are "stifling" the economy?

Tell us:

Precisely what kind of GDP boost could we expect from a complete dismantling of the EPA?

What new industries could be formed with the EPA gone?

What kind of job growth would be "unleashed"?

(aside from waste reclamation centers...oh wait, you won't even need those...just find a pond or a ditch)

 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 16:29 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

The purpose of a business is to produce, not to create jobs.  Jobs are a consequence of productive growth.  Redistribution is not growth, it's stagnation.  If you haven't noticed, your ideology is melting down right before your eyes.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 17:17 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You have it exactly backwards.  Businesses are producing more than ever.  They are pratically making shit for free in China.   The CEOs of the big companies are making more money than ever before in history.   Supply side economics does not work.  It never has.  It never will.  The proof is before our eyes, yet ideologically blind individuals like you line up and say we need to give more to the wealthy as the solution.  Look at the graphs in this article.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 17:45 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

I can't understand why you care how much $ they pay the CEO (employee that can be fired), or how much he rips off a company.  If they "shareholders" accept it, they deserve it.  That's why certain businesses need to fail. 

"we need to give more to the wealthy as the solution"  Not at all.  All forms of social/corporate welfare are failing. 

Mon, 06/11/2012 - 08:53 | Link to Comment Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

This free market global capitalism you espouse, any idea on a timeline for implementation?

Coz what we got now is not a free market, even i can see its rigged, clear out the corruption and it would be worth trying, same goes for the state apparatus.

ZeroGovt for president!

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 19:49 | Link to Comment NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

You're just a fucking moron. We can fix weak, but sorry there's no cure for stupid, so you're screwed.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 22:26 | Link to Comment TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

Up to your word tricks again lettemeatrand. No one in their right mind would want to give the rich more. Just sayin all have the right to keep what they earned, rich or poor or whatever. When will you lose your arrogance and agree that no man has the right to take from a fellow human to give to yourself or your cronies? And no govt has the right to collude with any business to set rules and regulations designed to destroy competition for that business. No govt has the right to create illegal agencies designed to stifle business thru regulation. So get off your big govt will fix all and just leave us alone to make a living. We dont need you or your big govt ideas.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 18:33 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

So then what's the point of reducing their taxes? So they can "produce" more things that noone can afford to buy?

And tell me...what exactly do the TBTF "produce"?

(countdown to backpedaling "that's not what I mean by business" bandini in 3...2..1...)

 

 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:01 | Link to Comment jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

You're getting it, maybe, rand.   The oligarchs are the state.  Statism, in whatever form is Bad.    Statism destroys small and big business.   

Embrace the Constitution and the free market!     Small Govt!!

 

Strangely enough, I'm agreeing with most posts and Aziz on this one.   Cumbayfuckinya!

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:40 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

You=theory.

Mozilo=practice.

Is that so?

The government implements "public policy" and regulates that policy and someone with a manipulative mind takes personal advantage of that policy (again, all under the watchful eye of regulators) but it's only the "manipulator" who stands pilloried?

Just a theory ;-)

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 12:32 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

You need $1 Million to open a new MacDonald's so you can employ people with some minimum wage jobs.

But really, this whole 99% vs 1% thing is nonsense when you see that most of the 1% are doctors, people who own small businesses, etc. 

Rich and Wealthy are two different things. Rich is having enough money to own a business or retire when you want. Wealthy is having so much money, your unborn grandchildren are gauranteeed to never have to work a day in their lives.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 12:58 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The brilliance of the oligarchs is that they have defined the class warfare in the manner you just described (e.g., anyone who is struggling, fighting against doctors and lawyers).  400 people in the U.S. control more wealth than half the population combined.  That is where the class warfare is real.  Yet guys like Mozilo always define the warfare as $200K and up versus everyone else.  That is code for $200M and up.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:37 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Only a dyed-in-wool marxist uses terms like oligarch, plutocrat, and proletariat.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:49 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

when you have absolutely nothing intelligent to say to defend your ideology against facts that contradict it, call the other guy a Marxist.   Well played.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:31 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Class warfare, which is your schtik, is the primary tenet of marxism.  A 3rd grader could take your class warfare rhetoric and conclude that you're a marxist.

It's really not that difficult.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:34 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You are right, a typical third grader would be expected to employ your logic.

Mon, 06/11/2012 - 07:21 | Link to Comment prole
prole's picture

But you are a Marxist, and as far as stating facts, you have never stated one single fact on this board. All you have ever done is your slow-burn damage control for the state. You worship the state, and you hate loath and revile private enterprise and the free market (and individual liberty in general)

Who is the state? It is you Comrade!

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:22 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Somehow people with the word 'Marxist' taped over their eyes never have difficulty seeing things as Marxist.

Reagan was a Marxist.

 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 16:45 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"It's really not that difficult."

They've been lowering the bar and "misteaching" kids in schools for a long time.  Many need to be re-educated.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:24 | Link to Comment Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

Marxist.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"

400 people in the U.S. control more wealth than half the population combined.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:29 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Certainly, class warfare is the primary tenet of that primitive animistic continental religion commonly called marxism. 

The power to attack the liberty of some is the power to attack the liberty of all. And that's what the occutards are all about - the power to attack the first 1% and then then next 1%, and so on.

Very, very primitive stuff.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:47 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You really don't understand what you think you are against. 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:00 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Well, it's certainly not "fair" to attempt to seize the power to attack the first 1%, and then the next 1%, and so on.  That's simply a recipe for useless wanton destruction. 

As I've said before - I understand your confusion.  Like many, you tend to forget that "Critical Race Theory" is simply marxism recast from a "class struggle" into a "race struggle".

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:24 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Does your logic hold any more water than a sieve if the aforementioned 1% has been waging war on the bottom 80% for decades, troglodytic microcephaloid?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:35 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

The pecking order is natural across all species. Attempting to fight that natural phenomenon is a complete waste of time and energy and is one reason that collectivism has been proven to be an adapation that gets naturally deselected.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:37 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

I can think of six billion counterexamples.

Your momma raised you wrong.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 17:16 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"Your momma raised you wrong." -Sonny's last words.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 17:55 | Link to Comment RECISION
RECISION's picture

Well, it's certainly not "fair" to attempt to seize the power to attack the first 1%, and then the next 1%, and so on.  That's simply a recipe for useless wanton destruction. 

Hey, lets just do it anyway.

What's the worst that could happen?

We reduce the population by 1 or 2%... ?

The Oligarchs have been experimenting on the rest of us for long enough...


Sun, 06/10/2012 - 17:57 | Link to Comment RECISION
RECISION's picture

P.S.

What is this "Fair" you talk about???

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:03 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

You really don't understand what you think you are against.

Well then the two of you have something in common.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:07 | Link to Comment jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

Class warfare is a creation of TPTB to keep us at each others throats while while throwing out canards like "the left/right hegelian dialectic", to try and convince those not paying attention that there is no difference between Statism and Capitalism.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 16:06 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Free enterprise differs from statism by definition.  Unfortunately, the very use of the term "capitalism" implies acceptance of demonstrably false marxian premises.

The correct term, compatible with liberty, is "free enterprise".

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:53 | Link to Comment jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

You are correct, Bastiat.  I wasn't pleased with my choice of words at the time, but it was the best I had at the moment.   I agree. 

I hope my statement itself was clear.  I'm tired of reading there is no difference between left and right.  I believe it is one of the most idiotic statements that I see repeated consistantly.   If folks want to say there is no difference between Repub and Democrat, then you can make an argument, but Statism and Free enterprise as opposite as it gets.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:44 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Matt,

"But really, this whole 99% vs 1% thing is nonsense when you see that most of the 1% are doctors, people who own small businesses, etc."

Again, my wife is small business and she is not the one percent. You're being propagandized.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 11:19 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

The problem with you guys is that you simply refuse to accept that this was intentional.  A lot of people became (and are still becoming) wealthy in the student loan racket.  They knew the endgame and they didn't care.

Just like the Austrians have said. It's hilarious to watch you bash Austrians, libertarians and Ayn Rand when you obviously agree with them a great deal of the time. But of course that's precisely the effect which your public schooling was meant to achieve.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 12:33 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Like most black and white world-views, I can find agreement in some areas of these "thinkers," but I also have fundamental disagreements with all of them.  One common theme that is dead wrong for all these schools of thought is that deregulation would fix things. 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 12:38 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

Deregulation would have fixed things, if the CDS market was allowed to collapse in 2008 and all the deregulated banks that made bad bets went bankrupt. The natural outcome would have been deflation, if there had not been endless rounds of bailouts of the bankers, by the bankers.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 12:43 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Or regulate the banks in a meaningful way and prevent the entire fiasco.  CDS existed outside of any regulation.  Most who subsribe to the Darwin school of capitalism don't care about the victims in scenarios such as large-scale bank failures.  I agree that failures need to happen to reset the system, but the long-term solution that further deregulation promises is rinse and repeat.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:13 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Who regulates the regulators?

The pursuit of the answer to that question has caused government to expand expontential over the years. Every new layer regulates those regulators who didn't do the job of regulating the regulators beneath them... meanwhile here we are, more fucked than ever.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:15 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Which regulation do you hold responsible for CDS?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 13:39 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Exactly. Let's make another agency we can't already afford.

After that, the bankers will find something else to do, rinse and repeat...

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:01 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Which regulation do you hold responsible for CDS?

 

Every corporate bailout in history. Being Too Big To Fail has removed the natural counterweight to greed which is fear. The more often the government uses its regulatory powers to save busted corporations and bar entry to new competition in markets the more you'll see the entities which are Too Big Too Fail risking all for private profit which is protected by the socialization of the costs of failure.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:34 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

"Deregulation would have fixed things"

For how long?

The fact that 2008 was a repeat of 1929 in so many ways doesn't provide at least a tiny clue as to the end-game of your "lazy fairy" approach?

The fact that Pugs and DINOs had to work for 12 years to get everything rolled back and new techniques for theft legislated as kosher before they could finally blow and pop the bubble as they'd planned is testament to the ability of regulation to keep them in check between 1930 and 1972.

If derivatives had been regulated and put in the light of day in the late 90s as they should've been, these towers of debt wouldn't have had to fall as far in the first place.

 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:47 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

For how long?

 

Forever and ever with the caveat that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Real deregulation would have eliminated legal tender laws and the banks would no longer have a monopoly on the creation and distribution of money. See, it's kind of hard for banks whose only product has been regulated into existence at the expense of all sound, free market currencies to continue screwing over the entire nation and world when that artificial prop to their success is removed.

 

 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 18:43 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Yeah, I'm sure Wal-Mart bucks would be a much better store of value for a nation of people that can't even visualize the consequences of exponential math.

If that was really the answer, an abundance of viable alternative currencies would already be flourishing in the black market. Where are they?

 

 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:01 | Link to Comment NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Just because you refuse to believe that it exists does not mean that it does not exist. The black market economy can be seen openly by regular readers of this site with Central Banks around the world dealing with each other in gold. It can also be seen at your local flea market and farmer's market with free and open bartering going on.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 22:24 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Barter is not a currency. Please read the discussion above, all of which relates to a particular solution for monetary policy.

Gold could be a currency, but the small percentage of the population that actually posess physical demonstrates it is not being used as such (yet!).

 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:47 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"If that was really the answer, an abundance of viable alternative currencies would already be flourishing in the black market. Where are they?"

Have you priced a bag of pot lately?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 22:21 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Depends on how much of a "connoisseur" one wants to be...top shelf is $300/oz (but was $400/oz before 2008).

And while it may be a medium of exchange in some circles, it doesn't exactly store value for very long (especially at my place <rimshot>).

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:16 | Link to Comment madmax1965
madmax1965's picture

Yeah, and Discover Card is now getting into the student loan racket!  I know someone in training for the program.  Tried to explain the bubble to her, it was a complete waste of time!

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:16 | Link to Comment Don Keot
Don Keot's picture

I was wondering how the students at our local college were able to afford the BMW's they drive, it's probably the best life they will haave for a loooong  time.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:43 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

+1

But at least we have brand new empty roads & bridges that few can afford to drive on while we're not buying any new houses...so it all kinda works out.

Forward!!! ;-)

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:50 | Link to Comment krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

Forward...into the abyss.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 20:59 | Link to Comment jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

<a href=" src="http://gifs.gifbin.com/320sw0sw7847.gif" alt="funny gifs" /></a>

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:40 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Interestingly, the "forward" slogan traces to the very first community organizer, Thomas Muntzer, who used it to wreak havoc on Germany in 1525.  So much for "progress", I guess.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:50 | Link to Comment ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

And don't forget plenty of teachers, cops, firefighters, and solar panel and wind turbine factories. That's all good for you young "folks" working at Starbucks (if you're lucky).

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 11:10 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

My favorite (just for the sheer audacity of being a dope) still remains the one hundred thousand dollar, "green" sportscar for the masses...the aptly named and spontaneous cumbustable...Fisker Karma.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 11:51 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Single Family Housing and Transportation now reserved for the 1% thanks to eugenic soft-kill policies.

Let the rest carry GPS tracker slave phones earning $10 an hour and bike or walk to work like the third world that cross our borders to lower our wages and living standards...

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:06 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

I love the smell of Liberty in the morning.  It smells like . . . victory

Eliminate the Minimum Wage and get everybody back to work. 

Hell, let'em live out behind the tool barn and deduct the rent from their wages.

"Freedom" has a price and everybody's gotta pay it. 

Enough with coddling the parasites. 

/sarc

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:18 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

No! There must be artificial barriers to entry into the marketplace. Without them anybody might be able to better themselves!

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:41 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

This "market" construct is a sock puppet: Look, I can get him to say whatever I want!

It ain't just CNBC, guys. 

Of course, if its saying the "wrong" thing, it's gotta be somebody who's fucking it up.  "Statists" seem like a convenient boogie man.

Because, everybody knows--hell, by definition--the market cannot fail.  The market tells me so!

If only we could get "real" capitalism . . . sigh. 

Edit: Sorry, CA, I see that I went off on a tangent on you there.  How big an obstacle, on a systemic basis, do you think the corporate structure is to entry in just about every market?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 14:51 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Of course the market can produce unexpected or unwanted outcomes. But you miss the point. The "market" simply refers to the free interaction of human beings. I want to be free despite the fact that I know that I might make a mistake here or there. It's far better than being forced to pay to kill innocent foreigners and bail out banks.

If you want to let some rich guys you've never met tell you how to live you have my blessing. But please don't presume to do me the favor of forcing me into your blood soaked safety net for my own good.

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:03 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

You don't need a safety net, my friend.  Nor do I.

But many people do.  Some from birth, many as a result of getting fucked up by the system itself.  I suppose that would be true regardless of the system. 

I think the system should clean up its messes.  Take responsibility for its "externalities." 

Not to use a bad word, but I think that's only fair. 

Sorry you don't want to pay what I would call your (by virtue of your investment in it and benefits enjoyed) fair share. 

You're right, I will vote for you to pay wether you like it or not.  Hell, my way of thinking is that you're just trying to be a deadbeat or free-rider.

Yeah, that's a candid look into the nightmare that is the statist's mind, I guess.  I'm certainly not what passes for a libertarian these days . . . regardless of what my fanatically liberal friends think. 

Grin and bear it.  I really am sorry that you don't enjoy it, man!  :)

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:05 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

And just how many dead Muslim kids is my fair share?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:10 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Be honest: Is that top objection?

Sure, when you think about it, innocent people are being slaughtered and supporting that would be untenable for any moral person. 

But, still, is that honestly your Number One Objection to the prevailing "statism"?

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:17 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Be honest: Is that top objection?

 

How could it not be? If you are not moved by the willful killing of innocents by your own government then I can understand why human freedom falls so far down on your list of desirable ends.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RFoMmblzz1Y/TbAdkYJrsZI/AAAAAAAAFwU/kkQdNwujAz...

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:26 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

You're good, man.  Or bad, maybe. 

But that was good.

lol.  Listen to us, jockeying over who's evil!

People are nuts.  I hate it when I remember it this way. 

Sun, 06/10/2012 - 15:35 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Sure, some folks are nuts but people can master the ability to think clearly and act competently. That's the important bit. Education is key. One must be able to reason before one can act reasonably. And the most reasonable thing of all is to be able to agree to disagree without resorting to force to make one's point for good or ill.

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