JasonC SBB

Krugman makes me puke, up there with Pelosi, Obama, Bernanke, Paulson, and Bush.

JasonC SBB

That Yglesias guy misrepresented Austrian Economics in that hit piece on Koch-controlled Slate magazine. Here is a counterpoint:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel153.html

Clos561

iTrader: (3)

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Brainy, bro. I mean this nicely, I don't mean this insultingly, and I especially am not trying to "get under your skin" or anything, I respect you too goddamn much for that. But if you spend your days reading how full on retard Krugman is while believing what you do about Krugman, maybe you should find something better to read?

No, I'm suggesting the current one is extremely similar to the 1989 Heritage bill. So similar, in fact, that I'd say the difference is the difference between Republicans and Democrats (If you truly believe there is a huge difference, well, I've got a bridge to sell you). Secondly, the "two sources" link specifically to the proposed legislation. Are you willfully ignoring what you don't want to see, Brainy? Even the goddamn individual mandate is something that is based in Republican legislation that the Republicans created.

And? If you don't like what your insurer is doing under Obamacare, you can get a new one. What's your point?

Counterpoint: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time....the-kochtopus/ - linked from the article.

The piece wasn't particularly valuable in the information, it was valuable with the sources it provided Jason.

Granted, perhaps the Koch brothers family foundation is outside of the Koch brothers control, and they have no idea what is going on nor do they have any control over it's inner workings (I'd laugh at you, but hey, let's go with it). Or, hell, perhaps Rockwell and other Austrians are making the whole thing up and are lying their collective asses off, we could do that too. Frankly, I'd find this one a bit believable truthfully, but go research what the Koch bro's PACs/foundations did to Paul in 2008 and then get back to me. The more I research, the more I believe what Rockwell is saying.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

no. I gotta stay informed on evil.

The sources link that the idea of individual mandate is similar, not the bills themselves.

not much nowadays, no. But it's also noted that some of the original supporters of the bills are, today, against it. And again, not one republican voted for today's bill.

Sure, but it was limitied to coverage for catastrophic illnesses, not comphrensive plans, no matter the Hertiage has since repudiated the idea.

Can you?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Pardon only responding to one point that I found worth responding to but...

I think so? I mean, I'm pretty confident. I've read the bill, I've been over the meanings in every way I can imagine, I haven't read or ran across anything in Obamacare that precludes you from changing insurance providers if you want. I mean, I admit that I could be wrong, but I'm fairly confident on that.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Will I switch...employers? Or insurance companies?

If it's employers, well, my employer will not be touching our insurance even under the huge brou-ha-ha supposedly made about Obamacare.

If it's insurance companies, well, my employer provides it. So long as it's free-as-a-benefit, I have no plans in paying for another provider.

I'm baffled with where you are going with this, I have to admit?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

my point has been lost, dont worry about it.

JasonC SBB

I'm fully aware of that and didn't want to get into that here. And before I learned about the feud, I was suspicious of why several "libertarian" sources didn't support Ron Paul who has arguably done the most for spreading libertarian ideas in recent decades. Also suspicious was their silence in speaking out against central banking. What I don't understand is "why" - why were the Kochs against Mises' and Rothbard's ideas, and why be against Ron Paul? Do you have any links?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

....

I don't know. I really, honestly, don't know. I mean, if you want references to political activities as undertaken by the Koch brothers political arms against Paul, I can give you that, but....

I can't even begin to give you an answer as to why. I don't know. I can speculate, but I hate speculation if I have no basis whatsoever behind it.

JasonC SBB

The only implied reasoning I could find was some kind of "falling out" with Rothbard, but that's ancient history and a very childish reason. My own speculation is that the Kochs themselves benefit from the Corporatism that is Central Banking, thus they favor it.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I completely agree with your speculation and it was actually what I was thinking, but I have no proof on it and am not really a fan of speculation with no basis.

My personal opinion is that the Koch brothers are advocating for what they perceive will benefit them the most. I mean, I can't fault them for it, I just really hate some of the crap they pull in doing that (I.e. the Paul stuff).

P.S. It is appreciated to call corporatism for what it is

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

It ain't easy pimpin' for Paul.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

bbundy

There is a lot in common between what Libertarian Idealists want and what the private equity plutocrats want. The Koch brothers have been spreading the libertarian propaganda for a while now. They started and funded most all the libertarian think tanks.

I think the Koch brothers are afraid of Paul now because he might go too far.
I am afraid of Paul because I think only the most damaging of his Ideas will ever get implemented, Only those Ideas with immediate benefit to large corporations. In other words he won’t ever go far enough for it to work. The libertarian Ideal society is a pipe dream fantasy based on some theory’s that have serious issues. His initial plans don’t actually call for getting rid of Income tax. Just corporate and capital gains for those that make their income off the backs of working people. The rich have won the class war now so let’s give them everything! Eliminate all environmental regulation that’s just absurd. Kill the education system so only rich kids able to pay the market price can get an education ignoring what history has taught us about the values of a high quality public education system.

You often tout the consumer electronics industry as a beacon of free market. Why don’t you try out a Job at FoxConn who actually makes most of these fancy electronic gizmos coming to the US where you lose your job if you complain about working conditions joining a union gets you thrown into jail and makes you unemployable for the rest of your life. Live your life as a slave to the company store living in a dorm. Foxconn is not only taking over the manufacturing they are also slowly taking over the engineering. Those few people who control the capital will make sure opportunity never is available to the commoners. So far most of the Libertarian Law makers that have been elected look like that is the sort of thing they want by their actions.

Bob

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

You're confusing the person who writes the check with the person who actually pays the cost. Corporations don't pay taxes, the cost is merely passed on to individuals. All that corporate taxes do is provide government an indirect way to pick winners and losers and control prices.

If we actually defended private property, we wouldn't need the inconsistent and over-reaching environmental regulation.

So you think quality of education has gone up since 1980? Because that's when the Dept of Education actually began operating.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

...Eff you Bbundy.

No, really. You've made me completely rethink my support of Paul, because I think you are right on several points.

I'll need time to think this over and process it. But that's a kick in the *****, especially considering Mg's follow up post which (ironically) gives a great deal of support to your argument.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

bbundy, the problem is you are assuming a lot of things will happen. Actually you are assuming the worst of each thing will happen. Yet defend the things that are currently happening right now and are CLEARLY not working.

It's obvious a LOT of what we were doing, and the things we are doing now to correct the things we were doing is not working. If Ron Paul does at least 1/1000th of what he says that will still be 1000 times more than what any of the other candidates propose.

LOL at Mitt Romney's foreign policy. If he does 1/1000th of what he wants we will have World War III.

I mean c'mon. This ---- hasn't been working, it's already being done. And some of it will just flat out not work.

bbundy

Corporations especially don’t pay any taxes when they are being raped by private equity cannibals like Bain Capital. Yea right making sure those people pay 0% on their income from destroying companies by turning all the assets into private capital gains income and laying off all the workers is sure going to help the economy. The Romney plan for economic recovery. Curiously it is pretty much the same as Paul.

Honestly I don’t think corporations should pay much income tax as long as income was reinvested or paid out as dividends. But the person receiving the dividends should pay tax on it just like regular income as though he was actually working for the money.

Defending private property? When was the last time you saw anybody from a corporation go to jail for destroying the environment and the lively hood of people who might live in the destruction zone? Corporations are people? Yea Right. The same people that want this stuff are also after tort reform to limit liability. I’d rather not screw up the place to begin with.

Bob

JasonC SBB

You're missing an important point of the free trade between me and Foxconn (I trade my work output and time for a salary). I can choose not to work for them, and work somewhere else. The people in poor countries who work for them choose to do so because the alternative, no job, is worse. As the economies in those countries develop and more companies hire workers, they will compete for them and salaries will go up.

Many years ago I had to work with them as a vendor, and I wasn't particularly impressed with their engineering or manufacturing know-how, as compared to their competitors.

You are forgetting the most important point about the free market - the customer is king. Those with capital have to risk it and compete with other businesses to please customers to choose their products over their competitors'. The free market is why the poor and middle class can afford cellphones and TV's. It is the stuff that gov't meddles in that is getting worse and more expensive - such as health care and education. The gov't is in the protection racket - it protects the entrenched Big Businesses - at the expense of everyone else.