I think he just wants to send everything to the private sector so if he gets elected, he doesn't actually have to do any fucking work.

>> ^Kofi:

What does he mean by "back to the private sector"? I thought he was against picking winners and losers.
He doesn't seem to understand the idea of government as providing that which the private sector cannot provide because it necessarily has to run at a loss, you know, like emergency services etc. If there's a dollar to be made you can be sure the private sector is already there unless legislation prohibits it.

I think the idea is that you buy insurance against natural disaster.


Of course if you have any pre-existing conditions, say your house is built near a fault line, next to the sea or in hurricane alley then your premiums are probably going to be extortionate.

To be fair. He didn't quite say that federal disaster relief should be privatised, just that it should be moved to the state level - and then you could argue he went off on a tangent about how you should privatise as much as possible and that large federal spending was "immoral". I think whats interesting is what he considers to be a waste of federal money, and what isn't - say a bloated defence budget. Maybe if you build enough tanks you can shoot the next Katrina to pieces?

What does he mean by "back to the private sector"? I thought he was against picking winners and losers.

He doesn't seem to understand the idea of government as providing that which the private sector cannot provide because it necessarily has to run at a loss, you know, like emergency services etc. If there's a dollar to be made you can be sure the private sector is already there unless legislation prohibits it.

Peterffy is right on everything except that voting Republican will help solve the problem. Both democrats and republicans strongly support social welfare/safety nets, bailouts, big military/national security spending, and many other forms of government expansion. The LIBERTARIANS are presently the only major party that is a realistic alternative to the socialist/Keynesian agenda. Too much socialism will eventually destroy the economic power of the USA. Many people, unfortunately do not understand this concept because 1) the major socialist/communist superpowers of years ago have collapsed and are long gone (and the horrors of those regimes are largely forgotten), and 2) People have become increasingly dependent on social programs, subsidies, & government employment to survive.

As Upton Sinclair once said, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." How do you explain to a government worker that people in the private sector make 35% less in pay & benefits? You don't, they'll still ask for more by striking & threatening to shut down 'indispensable' government services--and they'll get what they want every time because their employer is already in the business of giving handouts. When they win it will be reported as a 'victory for labor' or the 'middle class', but it's really only a victory for the ballooning protected government/elite class. How do you explain to a long-time welfare recipient that the check won't be in the mail this month? You don't. You buy votes with social programs or the promise of a cushy government job. This is how the slippery slope of socialism works and eventually there will be more people in the wagon than are actually pulling it. The economy will gradually become less innovative, creative, dynamic, & productive as a result. The overall standard of living will decline and there will be continued threats to freedom & prosperity.

Socialist policies may have great intentions, but the actual results are often very different from such great intentions. As the old saying goes..."The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Socialism is a great example of such a road. Unfortunately many people have to see it to believe it.

If you're in the private sector and support Obama then you need to wake up. When the economy is in the toilet, do you support the liberal lawyer or the successful businessman?

>> ^TangledThorns:

especially if you work in the private sector which isn't doing fine by the way.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/02/877235/-Accelerating-the-recovery

Look again! Job growth has been slow because of a loss of public sector jobs, not a lack of recovery in private sector jobs.

The election choice is between the successful business man and economics major versus the liberal lawyer and bombastic plagiarist. Choose wisely, especially if you work in the private sector which isn't doing fine by the way.

The song was popularized by Old Crow Medicine Show who has long been affiliated with Alt Country/hippy jam fests. To be fair to OP though, there has been a bit of a fusion of the "scenes." Live electronic bands like the Disco Biscuits, Sound Tribe Sector 9, and the New Deal spawned this sort of new breed of "hippy-raver hybrids." As @visionep pointed out, there is somewhat of a natural symbiosis there. Anyway, this unholy alliance has come so far along as to push classic hippy bands like String Cheese Incident, Galactic, and Medeski Martin and Wood towards more electronic influenced sounds. These days you see kids on phish tour rockin' skrillex tattoos (oh the humanity). Whatever. I for one welcome our next generation of inebriated overlords. We all like to get down. Let's get down together.

>> ^Lann:

@visionep I known a lot of [insert creative subculture] that love bluegrass/Americana/old timey/folk music. So this isn't really all that strange to see. Also, this isn't exactly your normal country music you hear at some truck stop in Kansas.
<div id="widget_2014515807">

4" - So they're supposed to not bother because you've already seen it before? It IS cutting edge, it's still the best screen/OS on the market in terms of colour, ppi and font rendering, you're only using one factor to determine what's the "best". It's also completely a user preference, some of us don't want 5" screens in our pockets, I don't even want the iPhone5 screen, I prefer the old size but market pressure is forcing us all in to these stupid sizes.

resolution - ppi is more important at these sizes, cramming higher resolutions in to screens this small achieves little. If a phone has the ppi to use retina (or xtra-high density for Android) resources for its size, that is all that is required.

nfc - I feel like people want Apple to include this so it actually gets any traction in the real world because right now, the only people who give a shit or even know of it, are Android tech enthusiasts. That's not a problem, I'm glad you like tech but reality is that this is not in anyway an important feature. It'll be in the 5S probably and it'll get popular and then you'll probably hate Apple for copying or something. Or scoff that you've had it for X years except that your phone had no influence to change the retail sector.

LTE - Yes finally and with some good international support.

video calls over network - Yes, never was a lack of capability, it was network enforced to disallow it. It is nice to finally have it natively supported.

Panorama - Yeah I got nothing on this one, I couldn't give a flying fuck but hey, not like I couldn't give you an equally stupid list of features from any manufacture about all their "awesome exclusive" features. It's called marketing, no need to cry over it.

iOS is hardly stale, it is just not what YOU want out of it, it has been faithful to me for many long years and iOS 6 while boring in new features, is the smoothest it has ever run. I don't think it is a crime to like stability in your OS. Also people always like to call the general public stupid but they're really not, my mum doesn't like her iPhone/iPad for no reason, she likes them because they're the first product EVER to understand her needs. It is a common story, you'll hear it time and time again, Apple understands the needs of regular people, not necessarily tech junkies. The regular people market is MUCH bigger, hence Apple dominance, it ain't rocket science.

On a side note, this parody was pretty funny

>> ^spoco2:

Pretty much my thoughts on the iPhone5... a big ol' pile of 'meh'.
Oooh, a 4" display, that's... um... smaller than my hardly cutting edge Galaxy Nexus
Aaah, a lower resolution screen too.
Eeeeeh, no NFC (Not that I particularly care being that I've used it all but once)
Eeerrrr, LTE... finally
Iiieeeee, video calling over the mobile network. Hello there 9 years ago!
Ughghghuhuhuh, Panarama photos... oh, gee... wizzo, sure can't do that on my current phone.
I'm sure it's well built, I'm sure it works well but:
iOS looks REALLY dated and old now, it seriously needs a new look, it feels antiquated.
You're forced to use iTunes, which is a loathsome piece of software
It doesn't stop people climbing over the top of each other to get them, doesn't stop people who have no idea about tech at all thinking that there is none better than the iPhone5. Doesn't stop Apple's continued market dominance.
But still... Such a huge pile of 'meh'.

@rbar np, take your time, I'm quite busy as well.

Did East Germany have a great economy? Like you said, it faired well in some sectors, highly subsidized sectors I might add, at the huge expense of the rest of its economy which was miserable compared to West Germany (or to what it could be if it were capitalistic). Think of all the "luxuries" enjoyed right outside the Berlin Wall that were denied to east germans. Can you see purchasing or providing those products and services as economic activity being denied, and, therefore, less cooperation?

You have to question your assumption that capitalism universally strives for competition, or that it always should, or that it's the philosophy of free markets to make everyone compete. There are forces *for* and *against* competition everywhere in capitalism, from those who benefit and lose from it, respectively. I think that's what you mean by "near perfect competition", the perfection being the balance between competing and not competing as required.

Why are labor unions formed? So workers can compete less with each other and cooperate for better employment terms. Does that favor companies? No, but who cares, it's meant to favor the workers. Why are cartels formed? So companies can compete less with each other and cooperate for better profits. Is that good for the consumers? Usually not, but it's good for the companies in the cartel. Why are consumer groups formed... you get the point. These institutions operate against competition, but that doesn't make them any less capitalistic or contrary to the incentives of free markets, assuming they're formed without the use of force, criminal or lawful. A lawful association between individuals or companies to cooperate instead of compete with each other is capitalism at work too.

When you talk about situations where there is less or no competition, you're not considering the competition that arises on the other side of the demand-supply relation!

If there is large demand and little supply, you correctly point out that there is little competition *among suppliers*, right? However, aren't you overlooking the increased competition among the *demanders*? Like I said, competition is increasing as supply and demand differ. Who is competing with whom is beside the point.

You might argue, "well, how is competition among the demand going to help??", because it sucks to be in the demand for something in low supply, that unmet demand represents an incentive for more supply. Supplying something in high demand is a coveted position. Resources from elsewhere will tend to be allocated towards that coveted position, supplying that demand, and increasing competition in what started out as a less or non-competitive environment.

So, I don't follow your "markets universally tend towards monopolies" argument. As much as companies like monopolies, they like it because it profits from the clients/consumers' desperate demand for it, but these people are not ok with fighting each other for something in low supply. THAT is the incentive towards competition, towards destabilizing any monopoly that abuses its position.

The derivatives market is a complex example, but you're blaming the "free market", when the banking system is far from a free market if there's a central bank. Banks should be allowed to make risky investments and, if these investments don't pan out, they should pay the price with loss and bankruptcy, like it happens with any business that makes bad decisions. That is one of the best incentives to make good decisions! If the whole banking system is to blame for that, then it would collapse, which would be disastrous, but it would expose the disaster that is central banking.

Would the government want society to realize that central banking is terrible? Of course not, they're the ones who profit from it the most, which is why it stepped in with a massive taxpayer-funded bailout. None of what I just described is allowed in a free market.

Just like people realized the Church and State should be separate centuries ago, it will take a while for people to realize the State and Banks should be separate as well. The evidence is unravelling right before us.

>> ^vex:

That last bit that she mentions really pisses me off. You should not be able to consolidate a local businesses BBB rating into headquarters' rating. If one store is consistently getting 'F's, it's time to fire management, not magically erase wrongdoings via 'consolidation'.
Reminds me of the time the financial sector consolidated toxic assets into triple A securities. That wasn't misleading at all and really worked out well for the economy.


Better Business Bureau is a joke. All you need for a good rating is to respond to a complaint. That's all. Even "We'll give them 10% off installation next time they buy $1500+ of computer accessories." counts as an A++ rating.

That last bit that she mentions really pisses me off. You should not be able to consolidate a local businesses BBB rating into headquarters' rating. If one store is consistently getting 'F's, it's time to fire management, not magically erase wrongdoings via 'consolidation'.

Reminds me of the time the financial sector consolidated toxic assets into triple A securities. That wasn't misleading at all and really worked out well for the economy.

Yossarian i couldn't agree more.

Very british ceremony, and probably very much FOR the british people. I don't doubt that many of the reasons i enjoyed it will not be relevant to others. To take the stadium from fields of green to industrial towers was great, especially showing all of the people who were there (willing or not) to help the transition - boats arriving from the west indies and such, the suffragettes. To see the growth of britain and eventually the forging of the rings. I think the ring forging was one of the coolest things i've seen.

It was different, and at times anti-political, anti british. Because being anti british is a british trait. Thank you boyle for showing what pride in our country looks like. The NHS and great ormond street, these are things to be proud of. Our humour, our invention, our quirkyness, our gifts to the arts. If only this would inspire more pride in our health sector. We used to lead the world with our NHS till the tories got their hands on it, maybe we can once again if we take PRIDE in its quality; show the world what a free health system can be. Come on, britain. Where's all the pride gone?

Even though i wasn't such a fan of the singing and dancing and texting, i understand why it was there (a tribute to what we've given the world in the technology and arts departments) and i think choosing Danny Boyle was a masterstroke. I haven't seen anything like it in my life before, and thank god it was finally something to come out of britain to be proud of. At least the british public knows how to represent britain on the world stage. If you want to know how great "great britain" really is, watch our HUMBLE ceremony.

We could lead the world again by showing them what humility, cooperation and pride can do; no more money in politics, no corrupt bankers. Civilised society and fair play were once our specialities.

Btw interrupting a tribute to one of the major bombings of the "anti terrism era" led by bush no less is if you ask me outright insulting to the memory of the dead. To cut to a worthless talking head like ryan seacrest as well? I'm sorry that britain couldn't hold people's attention for longer than 3 minutes whilst we mourn the loss of our loved ones. I hope the silence for the wars didn't bore anyone either. We all payed dearly to defend this island, this link to the theatre of war that eventually inspired the world to fight with us against wrongdoing and against the odds; the least we might expect from the rest of the world is their attention span for a bit.

It was deemed good enough that china commissioned a stage version to be shown in beijing. I bet seacrest won't be getting a call up. Anyone who didn't like it - switch over to Big Brother, Celebrity Love Island, X's Got Talent, Geordie/Jersey Shore or E! now. I'm sure you'll be mesmerised. You might even find ryan seacrest presenting one of them!!

Funny when Bush was in office you piled everything on him. Every thing was his fault, everything. Never mind that Dodd and Frank were in charge of the housing.
In 2001, President George Bush raised concerns in his 2002 budget request, saying “Fannie and Freddie are potential problems.” In his 2003 budget, Bush’s warnings were upgraded to “systemic risk that could spread beyond the housing sector”, and he pushed Congress to establish a “strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie”. Bush’s legislation was blocked by Dodd, Schumer, and Obama in the Senate, . Over in the House, Barney Frank stated that Fan and Fred were financially sound. Yea the collapse was Bush and the republican fault.

You right. The president is only 1 of the 3 branches. WE need to get rid of every Democrat in the house and senate also. Thanks for the reminder.

Thank GOD I'm not dumb enough to vote Democrat.

>> ^charliem:

Last I checked, the president has no power to create or change existing law....only to veto ones that get passed by the senate and house.
And how the hell are the democrats going to illicit change when you have such an obstructionist non-functional opposition opposing every single thing that goes out on the floor just the for sake of opposing it?
None of the stagnation is the presidents fault....the president is actually one of the least important figures in illiciting any real change.
If you want change, get out and fucking vote for a decent rep / senator.
IF you didnt vote....then shut up and live with it.

I agree with everything he says, but blaming (a non-existant) economic freedom for abuses in the banking sector is like blaming freedom of religion for islamic fundamentalists.

The "unregulated free market" is the usual scapegoat, when it's neither unregulated nor a free market. The banking industry is poorly but still highly regulated, which is why banking crooks so easily abuse their monopolies because regulation is what keeps competition out, and they use their political connections with said regulators to get away with their fraud. The excessive regulation is what denies us any alternative to crooked bankers and manipulated currencies.

The government shouldn't be involved in banking at all, let people regulate banks.