@Sagemind man i didnt even know that!
i was looking for what @rbar posted and the affiliations with the heritage foundation and the hoover institute.

political think tanks which specialize in propaganda.

so,nothing to do with JEW @Taint but everything to do with manipulated information presented by an apologist wishing only to skew the opinion of those wishing to understand a very complicated situation.

that is the reason to discount his opinion,not the fact he is a jew.

Thanks mate, very nice comment of you.

Always like to hear different viewpoints, makes me consider ideas I hadn't and also bulk up my own point of view, so all good

I suppose they're all specific specialities of the broader business field, I would also add accounting but they are very broadly interrelated. For example in bank lending decisions, discounted cash flow estimations (finance) which are reliant on income statement and balance sheet information are just as important as IS/BS audit expertise (accounting) which assesses the credibility of their reporting. This is especially true for smaller, privately owned entities (who obviously can't rely on public equity, so are generally bank reliant). Large publicly listed companies have much more stringent auditing requirements already, and public disclosure means that they are highly open to scrutiny.

Economics beyond 101 basics is generally is more of an academic niche. The macroeconomic side looking at large scale GDP, inflation, employment etc., is relied upon in government, treasuries and policy think tanks. Large listed companies would certainly have a dedicated in-house team for consultations. Medium sized companies might contract dedicated industry research consultant firms, but outside of that their use is quite limited.

The microeconomic side is industry specific looking at competitive behaviour inter-firm, with suppliers and customers. It's generally a more wishy washy field which introduces some amateur psychology via behavioural economics and game theory. It's more of an academic field really. I can imagine large multinationals with few competitors employing them or hiring consultants. We have a near duopoly here in supermarkets and I can see them using microeconomic theory in pricing decisions for example.

Alas, hope still for my own state of sequester which has told the Common Core to suck a dick.

Yeah, this common core bullshit is nothing but agenda-oriented think-tank implants/appointees working in tandem with politicians and their pals to guide the populous headfirst and forward into how to think like automatons and wage slaves without the capacity or will to fight the powers that bees.

wut? Organic food refers to the process it goes through to receive organic certification - i.e. you were looking at the wrong wikipedia entry.

Try this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

Essentially it's growing food without most of the harmful chemicals, it's therefore a sustainable farming practice. Less spray residue in the food, less toxins in the environment, better for pretty much everyone unless you are a worker at Monsanto or get paid by a political think tank.

Organic certification is not perfect however, some countries (like China) have poor certification protocols, and many countries labelling laws allow some non-organic food in an organic product and it can still be called organic.

I'm sure I'm going to elicit the ire from the sift for saying this but, for all of Beck's usual nuttiness, I actually think he's correct in this instance: we actually do not need an FDA to tell us what "organic" does or does not mean. At this point, the FDA has co-opted the label "organic" such that it doesn't mean anything anymore. In fact, the FDA now prohibits the use of the term "organic" unless it meets their lobby-prone restrictions (thereby driving up the costs). Even the (private!) Berkeley Ecology Center* (which keeps track of these kinds of issues and whose Farmer's Market Manager is actually a good friend of mine) agrees that the government-owned "organic" labeling system means little to nothing anymore.

So, as Beck is suggesting here, having private institutions that you trust can (and in many instances already do) provide you with the information that you'd want/need to get organic food at affordable prices.

For example, the Non-GMO Project (again, a Private organization) that lists and labels GMO-free foods are doing a great job, much better than the FDA care to or even could.

*The Berkeley Ecology Center are a private (!) "ecological think tank" and do not actively publish, but they will give you as much documentation as you'd like, if you request them, of any references, legislation, regulations, etc. and where to find them. If you need documentation, check out their public archive found here.
I'd say that their existence alone helps support Beck's argument here. The Ecology Center can tell you anything you'd want to know from the FDA (and much more that the FDA -- or even the EPA -- wouldn't want you to know) or they can tell you where to go to find out. They don't yet have the resources to conduct studies on their own, so at this point they are more like an "environmental 411" to point you in the right direction to do your own research.

In my opinion, having thousands of these centers throughout the country can do a much better job of tracking these issues than the centralized agencies could ever do.

Oh by the way, all the citations in this Koch funded video are, from a Koch funded "think-tank" Why am I not surprised?

Also, I noticed that chart at 0:21 uses "average income per person" which is a highly misleading statistic. Using the median income per person is more reasonable, but that would fuckup their pretty pretty graphic.

Average income per person in the US is ~50k USD
Median income per person is ~26k USD

And yes, for the math impaired, for the average to be so much higher than the median means that the top end of income is incredible skewed.

In NZ, there is a mentality among small business owners referred to as "Boat, bach and BMW". Essentially it states that once kiwi business people make enough money to have a boat, a bach (kiwi slang) and a BMW, they lose interest in expanding their business any further.

The government, lobby groups, economic "think tanks" and so on are always complaining about this.

My response has always been "why?". If I had enough money to live comfortably and buy the little luxuries I want, why on earth would I keep working myself to the bone?

I know some people work because they love what they do and that's cool, but working just so you can have another million or billion or whatever? What's the point?

@jimnms, if you can't find a webpage on the internets that agrees with your preconception, you're not really trying. So because a right wing think tank cherry picks some data to pretend that more guns does not equal more death from guns, it does not make you right.

Here's a response suggesting your source is funded by the Koch brothers: http://cameronreilly.com/2012/12/17/guns-in-australia/

A right wing think tank (funded by the Kochs, naturally) recently ranked the states in order of 'freedom' and North Dakota came out on top. Reproductive rights were not factored in, unsurprisingly. I get the feeling the main factor the Kochs use to determine which state is more free is the speed in which they will bend over for multi-national corporations.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd amendment says nothing about the right of the individual to bear arms. It mentions gun ownership in the context of a well regulated militia, which was the precursor to the American military. The current prevailing anti-government definition of the 2nd amendment is a fiction that has more to do with the revisionist history of 1980s conservative think tanks than it does with the intention of the founders.

source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

additional reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The NRA talking points are an excellent vehicle for the study of logical fallacy in political propaganda. Let me know if I left any out.

1. Strawman - Banning ALL guns is not the answer.

2. False Dichotomy - Instead of talking about gun regulation, let's talk about mental health.

3. Appeal to Authority - Check out this study I didn't read or verify that was written by two conservative think tank employees in a private student published newsletter with "Harvard" in it's name that is not sanctioned by Harvard University proper. http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/about/

4. Argument from ignorance - if only the teachers had been armed, this tragedy would have been averted.

5. Denying the Antecedent - Existing laws did not prevent this tragedy, therefore, new laws cannot prevent future tragedies.

6. Fallacy of Composition: You will never be able to stop all gun crime, therefore we shouldn't try to stop some gun crime.

7. Red Herring: More people are killed in automobile accidents than are killed by gun enthusiasts. Should we ban cars too?

I've never heard of the Abbeville institute. Apparently it's a neo-confederate think tank with interest in secession according to wiki and the SPLC.

Abbeville Institute (wiki)

In 1998, Livingston was instrumental in the founding of the Abbeville Institute.[citation needed] According to its website, the Institute is "an association of scholars in higher education devoted to a critical study of what is true and valuable in the Southern tradition". Its principal activities are a summer school for graduate students and an annual scholar's conference.[4] It focuses particularly on issues of secession which are kept out of mainstream academia.[5] The Institute is named for the South Carolina hometown of John Calhoun, and a pre-Civil War hotbed of secession.[6]

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2004/winter/the-ideologues


As for the argument itself, I don't know what size has to do with democratic principles. Either you believe in them or you do not. As the world gets bigger, the need to work together is increased, not decreased, IMO.

Sounds like you believe what they want you to believe. McDonalds hamburgers are not cheap... For the same $6-7 quarterpounder "meal" that takes them ten seconds to make and costs them pennies to make(since the ingredients are SHIT), I could have made a completely organic feast for many in fifteen minutes, the amount of time it would take me to go to the mcdonalds down the street and back, while also spending gas. Organic food is not cheap either.

They dont have to raise costs, that is a hoax, a lie perpetrated by the business elite, all they need are a few good accountants, a smart business plan of equality and a corporate ethic that does not exude greed and massive wealth consumption (benefits at the expense of many).

A good example of fast food done alright is In N Out. They pay their employees better than most shit fuck corporate chains, they use some organic ingredients and I could get a much better "meal" for a couple of dollars less than McDs.

It is not the liberals who are winning... it is the fat cats. And it looks like that they have won you over with their think tanks and media propaganda just like the vast majority of the populous.

One of the thousands of TV shows I have never seen more than 4 minutes of....Doesn't it suck now that Whackenfreak is gone??

TYT: Remedial Think tank for future network talking heads.

The door is open.

Thanks.

Anyway, I think it is foolish for anyone to say that god does not exist and they know it. But, god could mean so many things. All I know is that a bunch of dudes wrote the Bible based on older stories. It is man made, there may be some truth to it but there is some truth to everything. The kind of fascism hypocricy that today's extremist republican christians exhibit disgusts me. They would let rich, corrupt motherfuckers, manipulate them for their own gain and throw them from a plane. Their perception of reality is so completely bent by right wing think tanks and corporatism that they live in some sort of Christian inspired DaDa universe while the rich send their zombie minds to the polls to vote with their manipulated hearts and steal every last penny from their coffers as they self willingly turn a blind eye.

Well, in this context God means the being that created the Universe. The scripture claims to be revelation from this God, in the person of Jesus Christ. God says we have all sinned and are accountable to Him for our sins, but He sent a Savior who paid the price for our sins so we could be forgiven and have eternal life with Him. Jesus says everyone who comes to God must go through Him:

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So, God could be many things, but there is only one way to know God according to Jesus. So, it's not something you can just pick and choose from. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, none of it is true. I have found His claims to be true.

I can't speak for your impressions of Christians as seen through the lens of our current culture, but seen through the lens of society at large Christians have been a force for good. Before the welfare system was created, the church in America was providing the social safety net, and still does in a number of ways. They're the ones running the charities, food banks, youth centers, blood drives, homeless shelters, etc. Look in any community, you will undoubtedly find Christians taking care of the poor and doing good works. I'm not saying there are no secular charities, food banks, etc, but this is something the church is well noted for.

There is some truth to what you say. Christians are not perfect, and unfortunately in the western church this sometimes becomes very apparent. You do not usually see this kind of behavior from Christians in countries where there is some cost to becoming a Christian. When there is no cost to following Christ, the church becomes lazy and apostate, as you see today in America. A good percentage of American Christians probably are not saved. This isn't though a reason to reject Jesus. He in fact predicted this behavior from Christians in Matthew 24. It is simply that we are not following His ways that you see this kind of behavior.

Question: Do you have any church background or were you raised in a secular home?