It's true that pure capitalism works for some, it's very popular in Mogadishu and amongst warring species of coral.

As for Europe, were you thinking of Berlin, Athens, Oslo or Copenhagen? Because those last 2 are the closest thing to a non-vampiric success story in human social construction.

>> ^quantumushroom:


That's not my viewpoint, however I am extremely skeptical of the so-called "Third Way". Socialism always fails, and capitalism fails when oversaturated with socialism. Look at Europe.

I see some good points, but they lose alot of credibility by calling Bain a venture capital firm. It was a private equity firm. There is a huge difference between the two types of firms.>> ^bareboards2:

Factcheck.org takes on this doc in an email today:
Summary
A 28-minute political documentary released this week by a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC presents a one-sided, often distorted and misleading view of Mitt Romney's years leading the venture capital firm Bain Capital.
Interspersed with appropriately eerie music, the video focuses on four Bain-financed companies and features heart-wrenching interviews with people who portray Romney and Bain as ruthless, quick-buck corporate raiders who reaped huge financial rewards at the expense of faithful employees.
But a closer look at the companies highlighted in the video reveals a murkier picture. The video often overstates, or outright distorts, Romney's culpability for job losses or bankruptcies.
The film talks about layoffs at DDi Corp. and discusses questionable manipulation of stock prices after the circuit board company went public. But Romney had left Bain Capital a year before any layoffs and a public stock offering that ultimately netted Bain and Romney a big payday. The company's subsequent bankruptcy filing came two years after Bain had largely divested from the company, and was the result of the dot-com bust. Moreover, the company emerged from bankruptcy, and its current CEO credits those early Bain investments for setting the foundation for the company's current success.
The film claims Romney was involved in the acquisition, management and demise of the now-defunct KB Toys. He wasn't. Bain bought the toy company nearly two years after Romney left Bain.
Likewise, the closing of UniMac's plant in Marianna, Fla., occurred seven years after Romney left Bain and nearly two years after Bain sold UniMac's parent company to another private equity house.
More broadly, the video presents a myopic view of Bain Capital, cherry-picking some of the worst Bain outcomes to portray Bain in the worst possible light. Romney's record at Bain Capital also includes some success stories (see Staples and Sports Authority, to name a few) at companies that added new jobs.

Factcheck.org takes on this doc in an email today:

Summary

A 28-minute political documentary released this week by a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC presents a one-sided, often distorted and misleading view of Mitt Romney's years leading the venture capital firm Bain Capital.

Interspersed with appropriately eerie music, the video focuses on four Bain-financed companies and features heart-wrenching interviews with people who portray Romney and Bain as ruthless, quick-buck corporate raiders who reaped huge financial rewards at the expense of faithful employees.

But a closer look at the companies highlighted in the video reveals a murkier picture. The video often overstates, or outright distorts, Romney's culpability for job losses or bankruptcies.

*The film talks about layoffs at DDi Corp. and discusses questionable manipulation of stock prices after the circuit board company went public. But Romney had left Bain Capital a year before any layoffs and a public stock offering that ultimately netted Bain and Romney a big payday. The company's subsequent bankruptcy filing came two years after Bain had largely divested from the company, and was the result of the dot-com bust. Moreover, the company emerged from bankruptcy, and its current CEO credits those early Bain investments for setting the foundation for the company's current success.

*The film claims Romney was involved in the acquisition, management and demise of the now-defunct KB Toys. He wasn't. Bain bought the toy company nearly two years after Romney left Bain.

*Likewise, the closing of UniMac's plant in Marianna, Fla., occurred seven years after Romney left Bain and nearly two years after Bain sold UniMac's parent company to another private equity house.

More broadly, the video presents a myopic view of Bain Capital, cherry-picking some of the worst Bain outcomes to portray Bain in the worst possible light. Romney's record at Bain Capital also includes some success stories (see Staples and Sports Authority, to name a few) at companies that added new jobs.

Although factcheck.org just issued a debunking email today:

Summary

A 28-minute political documentary released this week by a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC presents a one-sided, often distorted and misleading view of Mitt Romney's years leading the venture capital firm Bain Capital.

Interspersed with appropriately eerie music, the video focuses on four Bain-financed companies and features heart-wrenching interviews with people who portray Romney and Bain as ruthless, quick-buck corporate raiders who reaped huge financial rewards at the expense of faithful employees.

But a closer look at the companies highlighted in the video reveals a murkier picture. The video often overstates, or outright distorts, Romney's culpability for job losses or bankruptcies.

*The film talks about layoffs at DDi Corp. and discusses questionable manipulation of stock prices after the circuit board company went public. But Romney had left Bain Capital a year before any layoffs and a public stock offering that ultimately netted Bain and Romney a big payday. The company's subsequent bankruptcy filing came two years after Bain had largely divested from the company, and was the result of the dot-com bust. Moreover, the company emerged from bankruptcy, and its current CEO credits those early Bain investments for setting the foundation for the company's current success.

*The film claims Romney was involved in the acquisition, management and demise of the now-defunct KB Toys. He wasn't. Bain bought the toy company nearly two years after Romney left Bain.

*Likewise, the closing of UniMac's plant in Marianna, Fla., occurred seven years after Romney left Bain and nearly two years after Bain sold UniMac's parent company to another private equity house.

More broadly, the video presents a myopic view of Bain Capital, cherry-picking some of the worst Bain outcomes to portray Bain in the worst possible light. Romney's record at Bain Capital also includes some success stories (see Staples and Sports Authority, to name a few) at companies that added new jobs.

First off, I think almost everybody can agree that its too bad some mothers son has been killed. I wouldnt want to minimize the loss of a human life.
But he was upto some no-good and he just happened to run into someone armed. You cant compare that to the Cold war, FFS.
Its not a cold war when the bad guy breaks into your bedroom with a butcher knife! A cold war?? If the russians would have crossed the border, in the middle of the night, into the USA armed with knives...and our forces would open fire with guns, to end the cold war, this is the manner you would hate???? really???? Bullshit!

Secondly,
"I didn't conclude that it started out as a burglary. It was hypothetical. As is the assumption he was out to kill her."
The burglary was not hypothetical , its the absolute minimum that even the most crooked lawyer could argue! We'll never know what he would've done to the young mother and her child after spending 20+ mins breaching the bedroom with his hunting knife. It would be prudent to assume it would include Robbery, assualt , rape, kidnapping, murder, multiple murder, or any combination of crimes.

I'm glad you realize that this whole ordeal does not support your anti-gun argument even after you try to compare this lunatic, kicking in doors ,armed with a 12" hunting knife, to a sneak thief running off with a TV.

And finally, Dont be sorry, you didnt ruin the mood of this story, you really just pissed on your own foot trying to to turn this into a different story.
You should be happy, there are a lot of other gunplay vids that you can scream like a litle old lady about , this just isnt it. RIP to the guy who just completly wasted his life.
>> ^Jinx:
>> ^csnel3:
>> ^Jinx:
I'm trying to imagine the tone of the news story if this happened in Europe.
I think my problem with guns is they escalate the confrontation. "Fortunately" it seems she didn't give him a chance, because a chance is a risk when there is a gun involved and it doesn't matter who's hands it happens to be in. She hesitates and he overpowers her, or he pulls his own gun and is a better aim and what started out as burglary is now a murder and that kid grows up without any parents.
I can't really condemn her actions though. Just that a guy is dead, even if it was some crook.

I'm trying to imagine WTF you're talking about. The gun didnt "escalate" the situation, it difused it. Are you ignoring the fact the guy was armed with a knife? Why is your scenario based on total fantasy instead of reality? What if she didnt have a gun, and the VERY REAL, ARMED INTRUDER murdered her. How do you come to the conclusion it started out as a burglary? He was breaking down the door armed with a 12" knife! This is a very simple story of a person protecting themselves, no need to add bunch of hypothetical BS to it. I realize that you are trying to justify your "problen with guns", but, this is the WRONG story to use as an anti-gun argument.

It escalated the situation because it was difused with a gun...you know, as in somebody is dead. How is that hard to understand 0.o. I'd hate to have the Cold War difused in the same manner.
I didn't conclude that it started out as a burglary. It was hypothetical. As is the assumption he was out to kill her.
Is this a good story to support my argument? No, not really, but then stories aren't good evidence anyway. Consider that stories where a guy breaks in, steals a TV and leaves without incident don't tend to get much media coverage.
And yes, I was justifying my position. Sorry if I ruined the mood on this success story for guns.

>> ^csnel3:

>> ^Jinx:
I'm trying to imagine the tone of the news story if this happened in Europe.
I think my problem with guns is they escalate the confrontation. "Fortunately" it seems she didn't give him a chance, because a chance is a risk when there is a gun involved and it doesn't matter who's hands it happens to be in. She hesitates and he overpowers her, or he pulls his own gun and is a better aim and what started out as burglary is now a murder and that kid grows up without any parents.
I can't really condemn her actions though. Just that a guy is dead, even if it was some crook.

I'm trying to imagine WTF you're talking about. The gun didnt "escalate" the situation, it difused it. Are you ignoring the fact the guy was armed with a knife? Why is your scenario based on total fantasy instead of reality? What if she didnt have a gun, and the VERY REAL, ARMED INTRUDER murdered her. How do you come to the conclusion it started out as a burglary? He was breaking down the door armed with a 12" knife! This is a very simple story of a person protecting themselves, no need to add bunch of hypothetical BS to it. I realize that you are trying to justify your "problen with guns", but, this is the WRONG story to use as an anti-gun argument.

It escalated the situation because it was difused with a gun...you know, as in somebody is dead. How is that hard to understand 0.o. I'd hate to have the Cold War difused in the same manner.


I didn't conclude that it started out as a burglary. It was hypothetical. As is the assumption he was out to kill her.

Is this a good story to support my argument? No, not really, but then stories aren't good evidence anyway. Consider that stories where a guy breaks in, steals a TV and leaves without incident don't tend to get much media coverage.

And yes, I was justifying my position. Sorry if I ruined the mood on this success story for guns.

Video makes me smile.

I can see why you're enthusiastic about that video. It makes me laugh that you messed it up so bad.

Much love from my house,
marinara

In reply to this comment by enoch:
>> ^Confucius:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/enoch" title="member since April 22nd, 2009" class="profilelink">enoch...why the hell would you post such personal backstory about this girl?


because danny made me realize that the post alone might leave it open to ridicule.that people would see it for far different reasons than what my intentions were.
i should have anticipated this but my imagination failed.
i was rummaging through my old archives and came upon this old video and was just flooded with such great memories and wanted to share.
i thought the video was funny and the whole idea behind it just cracks me up but after my conversation with danny i realized that it doesnt make much sense without a backstory.

why would it be a bad thing?because it is personal?
this is my dear heart and knowing from where she came to where she is now is one of my greatest success stories and i am so very proud of her.

but now i am beginning to question my initial exhuburence.while my desire was to share, much is lost in translation and the thought of people ridiculing this wonderful person sickens me.
i was her protector for years and i find the instinct to protect her is still strong.

i live my life openly and honestly so the idea of personal information does not hinder my courage to just throw it out there, BUT the thought of people ridiculing this lovely free-spirit is a whole different matter.
i know she wouldnt care.she would most likely laugh.
but i care.
i think i may have made a mistake by posting this.
ah..
hindsight you are a bitch.

>> ^Confucius:

@enoch...why the hell would you post such personal backstory about this girl?


because danny made me realize that the post alone might leave it open to ridicule.that people would see it for far different reasons than what my intentions were.
i should have anticipated this but my imagination failed.
i was rummaging through my old archives and came upon this old video and was just flooded with such great memories and wanted to share.
i thought the video was funny and the whole idea behind it just cracks me up but after my conversation with danny i realized that it doesnt make much sense without a backstory.

why would it be a bad thing?because it is personal?
this is my dear heart and knowing from where she came to where she is now is one of my greatest success stories and i am so very proud of her.

but now i am beginning to question my initial exhuburence.while my desire was to share, much is lost in translation and the thought of people ridiculing this wonderful person sickens me.
i was her protector for years and i find the instinct to protect her is still strong.

i live my life openly and honestly so the idea of personal information does not hinder my courage to just throw it out there, BUT the thought of people ridiculing this lovely free-spirit is a whole different matter.
i know she wouldnt care.she would most likely laugh.
but i care.
i think i may have made a mistake by posting this.
ah..
hindsight you are a bitch.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
I'm so disgusted that I must *promote this to further the discussion.


hey thanks man,
but it seems i really should have anticipated the response the video may incur.
ah..the failure of my imagination to anticipate those who see things differently.
i thought the video funny and having just found it buried in my archives decided to share.it brought back so many good memories and not a small amount of pride.
victoria has been one of my greatest success stories and she is easy on the eyes.

i just wanted to share that with everyone.
sighs.....

I personally believe the only way to turn around this "new economy" is through innovation and entrepreneurship. Manufacturing is gone, we have to accept that. The service industry is hurting too, so we have to evolve.

As far as starting capital, I bootstrapped a business years ago with $2,000 and ramen noodles. It now employs 12 people. We pay better than market wages, provide excellent benefits, and generally treat each other like family. We found a niche and went for it.

Along my journey, I've met literally hundreds of young entrepreneurs that have similar success stories. It's not impossible, it just takes the willingness to work. You have to see problems as opportunities to make things better, and then take action. Sitting around talking about the problems doesn't do a whole lot of good. It's up to us to present solutions as well.

Just my $0.02.

@marinara, friend, I'm not shouting

You are indeed against R&D. I am in high tech with many years, projects, and products under my belt. One thing I will tell you: even the best, well-thought-out ideas can fail. Risk is part and parcel of effective and innovative R&D. You want to take an example of one failure, and say we shouldn't have taken the risk. If the investors who put $1B into Solyndra shared that attitude, we'd never have a Silicon Valley.

http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2011/09/01/manufacturing-a-recovery/
decline in high tech is due to lack of manufacturing and exports. Read above.

So, then you agree with me? This article is nothing if not a case for investing in Solyndra. Did you read the article? Hockfield makes a case that directly contradicts your main points. And she even points to examples of the US government subsidizing high tech companies.

Are $288 billion in tax cuts worth going into debt for?
What exactly does $275 billion in contracts, grants and loans buy?

If you go to the website, there are links which give a detailed account of what has been spent. To answer your first question, if the tax cuts can help to stimulate the economy, then they would be worth the debt.

You asked why this video was relevant. Well it is. After some lobbyist in our government gives out billions of dollars, all we have is some bad loans, and construction workers now on unemployment.

So this one example invalidates the stimulus? Then, if I can point to a success story will you change your mind?

Rather than cut into corporate profits making profits on exploited Chinese workers, we've build a lead zeppelin of an empty factory. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix anything. Don't construe this to say that I'm against funding for R&D.



Why can't we both tax corporations that manufacture overseas and invest in innovative companies that manufacture here? The two are not mutually exclusive.

zerohedge.com:
Yesterday Zero Hedge contributor Bruce Krasting had some very insightful and very prophetic words when he asked rhetorically if a "Government investment disaster in the works??" The company in question is (now former) massively subsidized solar energy company Solyndra. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy less than 24 hours after Bruce proposed that the company is nothing but a stimulus black hole. We congratulate him on his investigative efforts. Alas, being private, there was no way to short it and capitalize on this investigative coup de grace. And while there are no winners, there are plenty of losers? Who - why US taxpayers of course. Why? Because as some may recall, Solyndra is one of the "shining examples" of Obama's $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. After all none other than president Obama said that Solyndra is "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” He also cited it as a success story from the government’s $787 billion economic stimulus package." Alas Solyndra has now become a less than shining example of the complete catastrophe this latest exercise in pointless Keynesianism has been, all on the backs of US taxpayers. But don't worry, Obama is about to bring us a fresh new such fiscal stimulus catastrohpe any minute. This time it will be different.

From ABC:

President Obama visited Solyndra in May 2010, heralding the company as “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” He also cited it as a success story from the government’s $787 billion economic stimulus package.

“Less than a year ago, we were standing on what was an empty lot. But through the Recovery Act, this company received a loan to expand its operations,” Obama said at the time. “This new factory is the result of those loans.”

In 2009, the Obama administration fast-tracked Solyndra’s loan application, later awarding it $535 million in guarantees from the stimulus funds.

The deal later came under scrutiny from independent government watch dogs and members of Congress, which said the administration had bypassed key taxpayer protections in a rush to approve the funds — claims the administration has denied.
All this delightful irony on tape:

@blankfist, I think my libertarian answers were actually better defenses of libertarianism.

And some of my answers were humorously echoed.

The Great Depression:

>> ^NetRunner:

The Great Depression was caused by government interference in the market, an no amount of historical or economic facts will ever convince me otherwise.
>> ^blankfist:

The great depression was prolonged by government. In fact, our recession has lasted longer already than the great depression. Thanks Bush and Obama.

Incidentally, you're citing Friedman the inflationist there, who said that the Great Depression was prolonged by government refusing to restore confidence to the markets by bailing out failing banks, and by trying in vain to hold to the gold standard when what it needed to do was print shitloads of money to counteract the drop in the money supply caused by people stuffing cash into their mattresses. Seriously, go look it up.

On Monopolies:

>> ^NetRunner:

Natural monopolies, where the cost of entering a sector of the market outweighs the expected return, are just part of market economics, and should be tolerated. Market leaders that become a de facto monopoly, but do not actually enjoy 100% market share (such as Microsoft Windows), are not monopolies, and also a natural result of the free market, so government must not interfere.

Government sponsored monopolies, like the USPS, are evil in ways the others are not because their existence is based on violent coercion, not natural market choice.
>> ^blankfist:
And monopolies? How about government monopolies on the postal system? Public utilities and railroads used to be public, but recent years have been privatized. Government runs monopolies on alcoholic and controlled substance distribution in a lot of states. And don't get me started on government granted monopolies.

On deregulation's benefits:
>> ^NetRunner:
Deregulation in Chile is a huge success story.
>> ^blankfist:

[A]ccording to wikipedia, today "Chile is ranked 3rd out of 29 countries in the Americas and has been a regional leader for over a decade. Chile's annual GDP growth was 3.2% in 2008 and has averaged 4.8% from 2004 to 2008." Not too shabby, though people like Neomi Klein may disagree.

Though technically that last was offered as a defense of violently implementing deregulation, even though you cited growth numbers from an era after they'd shifted from the Randian wet dream of Pinochet's rule to a more regulated and democratic system.

Oh, and on the aforementioned violent implementation of libertarianism:

>> ^NetRunner:

Only governments do those things! Wealthy businessmen would never go along with that, because they're all paragons of moral virtue. They'd never let a thing like considerable personal gain motivate them to call for these things in the first place...
>> ^blankfist:
The only group that tends to use violence to coerce people into doing what they want is government. Only a statist can conflate freedom with violence.

Lulz.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why not answer some tough questions?

@blankfist, since you seem to be too chicken to take up DFT's challenge, how about I try to play devil's advocate and try to argue the libertarian position for you.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

We wouldn't return to those days. To take on each in turn:

1. Slavery
   
   No one would be compelled by violence to do anything they like. People may choose to sell their entire lifetime worth of labor voluntarily if they so choose, but they will not be coerced to do so with violence.
   
   
2. Child labor
   
   Again, no one would be compelled by violence to do (or not do) things. If children don't want to work, they may choose not to. But if you're 9 years old and want to work 80 hours a week to help your family, what right does the government have to coerce people not to?
   
   
3. Monopolies
   
   Natural monopolies, where the cost of entering a sector of the market outweighs the expected return, are just part of market economics, and should be tolerated. Market leaders that become a de facto monopoly, but do not actually enjoy 100% market share (such as Microsoft Windows), are not monopolies, and also a natural result of the free market, so government must not interfere.
   
   Government sponsored monopolies, like the USPS, are evil in ways the others are not because their existence is based on violent coercion, not natural market choice.
   
   
4. Labor abuse
   
   Everyone is free to quit and seek employment elsewhere. It isn't abuse if you voluntarily subject yourself to it.
   
   
5. The Great Depression
   
   This was caused by government interference in the market, an no amount of historical or economic facts will ever convince me otherwise.
   

Of course there's no guarantee that none of these dark things will come back, I'm just saying it's totally legitimate for them to come back provided no violence is used to coerce people. Coercion in the form of economic desperation is totally okay though.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

Deregulation in Chile is a huge success story. Ditto for China, Ireland, southeast Asia, etc.

On the other hand, the economies of Cuba and North Korea have remained depressingly stagnant. Everyone's equally poor.

To use John McCain's turn of phrase "I'm not worried about who's getting a bigger slice of the pie, I'm trying to grow the pie!"

Just...don't ask me about Sweeden, they give me a rash with their high equality, high tax, high growth model. Must be something unique and exceptional about Scandinavians that's superior to us Americans.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

It's about doing what's right. When Lincoln tried to free the slaves, no one knew how the economy could function without slave labor. They did it anyway, because you have to do what's morally right!

In this case, we're talking about ending violent coercion, because everyone knows that only people who work for the government ever use violent coercion. Eliminate government, and it'll be gone forever!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

Good question, it must be patriotism, or altruism. Rich people are actually really nice, and very generous!

They're willing to adopt a radically unregulated, untaxed world, knowing that it's somehow against their interests. Much more altruistic than agreeing to let their taxes go up so the government can waste it on children's education, helping the poor, the sick, the elderly, maintaining roads...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

No, you must adopt my narrow conception of liberty! Government telling you that you have to serve black people = tyranny, businesses telling you that you have to submit to a drug test as a condition of employment = liberty.

Once properly understood, it's about fealty to nonviolence, at least government-based nonviolence. Corporations using violence to enforce their rules on the use of their property is self-defense, and therefore totally morally justifiable. Duh.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?

Only governments do those things! Wealthy businessmen would never go along with that, because they're all paragons of moral virtue. They'd never let a thing like considerable personal gain motivate them to call for these things in the first place...