@newtboy
told ya he was pissed.
i admire this mans passion.
in fact,i applaud it.

while i do not agree with his attack therapy tactics and do not subscribe to his over-all conclusions.i absolutely ADORE how he calls out the cognitive dissonance of the american voter.

because he is right.

how can you subscribe to a law that makes prostitution illegal,yet porn legal?
or the guy who deals crack or meth as being a criminal? yet opiates are,by far,the leading cause of death in regards to controlled substances.so who is the bigger criminal?

and what,exactly,IS a criminal?is it because the state says so?if you subscribe to that,then i am a criminal.

i found his condemnation of the christian church to be the most delicious.
jesus christ was an insurrectionist,a radical,a dissident and a dissenter.a zealot in the face of the powered elite.

so how can you fight a war of aggression in jesus christs name?
how can you state that god blesses america with over 2.4 million people incarcerated?or to categorize and demonize those who may be different i.e:gay,lesbian or atheist and yet still call yourself a christian?

i giggled with delight when he pointed out that the very same people who are championing those insurrectionists,dissidents and agitators of the past as somehow being representative of their morals and ethics,are the very same people they are demonizing today for breaking the rules.

this man is so pissed off and i love it.
he says things that will make conformists extremely uncomfortable,and we NEED to be a bit uncomfortable.if only to shake off the apathy and lethargy.

as for the taxes argument..meh..i dont subscribe to the "privatize everything" ,because some things should not be profit driven,but i also do not subscribe to the 'taxes pay for essential services",unless wars of aggression,corporate welfare and big-agribusiness subsidies are considered "essential".

our democracy is broken,our government dysfunctional and serves only to keep the balance of the status quo on top..and fuck the regular dude.

can you REALLY say your government represents you?
ok,go ahead and vote.here are your choices:chocolate or vanilla but both are made by hagen daaz.

you really should watch to the end..he just gets madder and madder.
truths can often be uncomfortable,but that never changes the fact that they are truths.

and goddamn i love your optimism! just cant share it on this issue,though if you could bottle it up i am betting you would make a fortune.

ill have three bottles of newt please...to go.

Just like taxes for wars people don't support. Or subsidies and tax breaks for companies that wield political power and yet have no valid economic rationale for being subsidised. I hate to break it to you, but democratic societies have plenty of things that you pay for that you either don't support or don't use.

It's a fact that this point has apparently not dawned on a lot of people and the guy in the video doesn't put it eloquently, but you can bet at a state level when earmarks for generally wasteful expenses that only benefit a few come up, those few will suddenly become very supportive of the proposals that benefit their few over the many.

You could also take the perspective that since no one knows when they might get sufficiently sick to lose their job and their income, that it's an insurance policy for even the healthy. Even if you don't believe in that, the fact is emergency rooms are obliged to treat immediate health issues for free. Why should the healthy not be obliged to pay for this tacit insurance?

Teabaggers are not 'affiliated' with the Libertarian Party? WOW! That's not what I see. When I see 'Libertarian' rallies on TV or at my local court house, they are filled with idiots in tri corner hats with tea bags attached and with poorly spelled signs saying things like 'keep your guverment hands of my medicare' and 'get the fed away from my soshial security' and "No Moar Regulashuns". Perhaps the "Tea Party" party has technically 'joined' the Republicans, but many Teabaggers are Libertarian, and nearly all are libertarian.
Actually I think you asked if I heard the idiot in the video say it...but I get your point, you obviously believe as he does. At the same time, you complained that:
" Is it the limited liability, wherein BP was able to cause billions of dollars in damage, but because US law protects corporate liability, they only had to pay in the hundred of millions? Or the corporate tax loopholes? Or the corporate welfare they receive in taxpayer subsidies? Or how too-big-to-fail corps have their loses socialized by us, and their wins privatized?"...seeming to call for better regulations that would stop those issues. IF that's what you were saying, I could agree with you, but you are now backing away from that interpretation of what you said...so what DID you mean by all that...that those things are terrible, and will be solved by removing government regulation and enforcement? If THAT'S what you mean, please explain how that works.

EDIT: I see, the issue here is you've swallowed the 'corporate power/irresponsibility comes solely from the government, and will only be solved by removing government' idea hook line and sinker. I have not. I do not see the problem of corporate misconduct being solved, or even helped by less regulation/oversight. The very idea flies in the face of logic, just like the 'self regulation' fallacy.
Never happened, never will. Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

@newtboy: "I WAS libertarian before the Teabaggers insanity infected them and they became the party of NO government."

Hmmmmmm. Seems specious. Are you talking about the Libertarian Party? Or the Republican Party, which is where the Tea Party's political affiliations are aligned? Because you do realize there's a different between small "l" libertarians, which is the political philosophy, and big "L" Libertarians, which is the party... and Tea Partiers, which are Republicans.


"The owners of corporations may derive some legal shielding thanks to their relationship with government and/or the law regarding who/what is legally responsible for who/what's actions, they are not creations of it in the way he insists."

Some legal shielding? Which of these corporate protections offered and legitimized by the government is "some" of the shielding? Is it the limited liability, wherein BP was able to cause billions of dollars in damage, but because US law protects corporate liability, they only had to pay in the hundred of millions? Or the corporate tax loopholes? Or the corporate welfare they receive in taxpayer subsidies? Or how too-big-to-fail corps have their loses socialized by us, and their wins privatized?

Because that seems more than just "some legal shielding."

@Lawdeedaw

If you're studying something like engineering, there is a high likelihood that you will retain employment that will pay off a student loan over the next 10-20 years. Even if it's not your first preference, you will be employed somewhere with a reasonable income with such technical skills.

The government can play a useful role in amortizing your income. There's really no reason to be frugal and Starbucks aside, policy that forces you to work long hours in a dead-end job while studying to make ends meet is counter-productive as it reduces your long-term income. Not being able to even enrol because you're too poor, despite how smart you may be is also hugely destructive. This is why study assistance subsidies are such good policy. Them aside, you still have to clothe, house and feed yourself anyway.

Even if you say that there will be dropouts, fails, people who complete degrees with no job demand, you simply adjust up the interest rate you charge everyone for student debt to account for that loss. Then you have a mandatory contribution from any income you make above X amount that the student has to repay after they conclude their study. This way students can't simply retain a large debt with a low interest rate forever and subsidise everyone else by paying theirs off.

Also to incentivise correct course choice, you subsidise courses with skills in short supply/in demand more than those with good job prospects and a generally high expected income.

This is pretty much what we have in Australia under the HECS system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education_fees_in_Australia#HECS

It would be great if the US had something similar (because designed well it pays for itself), but the cultural obsession much of the country seems to have with total laissez faire, 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps', even when it's not good policy makes it impossible.

Considering right now US Treasury bond rates (government borrowing rates) are at 60 year lows, it's doubly stupid.

US tax redistribution is greatest by absolute volume from the middle class to the middle class, although the per person benefits the wealthier get through subsidies and deductions are higher.

The issue is, a lot of them are not explicitly specified and are not large programmes but form various subsidies already built into prices such as the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction.

Comparing to Australia, the actual tax take is 25% of GDP for both, yet the expenditure is roughly 40% for the US and 35% for AU, despite the fact we both have a generous welfare which doesn't expire and a public health care system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP

The Submerged State is a good book on this from what I've heard, here's a summary:

http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/04/our-%E2%80%98submerged-state%E2%80%99-invisible-government-policies-may-surprise-you

Also the elite of the past were expected to build the roads and the overall infrastructure. The elite of today expect to get subsidies, lower rates when they loan money and not to pay taxes or follow the law.. There is not a single word about responsibility.

I get that Sean Hannity has to defend himself in some way and yeah Stewart can be annoying but he's obviously funny. If you don't think he's funny you don't know comedy. Why all the weird edits?

Also Hannity should be distancing himself from this guy pretty quick right about now.

Following quote from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/cliven-bundy-wants-to-tell-you-all-about-the-negro/361152/

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids—and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch—they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

The problem is this is wishful thinking.

Unless you're a shareholder, you don't get a vote on how corporate funds are spent. There isn't an opportunity cost argument here unless you believe in state ownership or heavy intervention far beyond the level of regulation we have now.

Of course the government should incentive net benefits to society, say through subsidies or tax benefits, that the market undervalues such as health or transportation which has externality benefits that capitalism doesn't capture effectively. But that's a far cry from indicating specifically where it should be spent.

@enoch

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except the part on rewriting corporate law based on its impracticality. Part of the effectiveness of capitalism is its unambiguous incentives, something as subjective as the public good would be too broadly interpretable and open up firms to endless lawsuits.

Negative externalities like pollution, standards on employment conditions, and anti-competitive rent seeking are all things best addressed in an adversarial system of corporation vs. government/citizens. In the same way asking the prosecutor to give a lenient prosecution would not work, polarised, balanced advocates work best in a market economy.

Obviously this has broken down to various extents. Corporate lobbying has tipped the balance. Short terms politicians and executives are incentivised to generated jobs/growth in the short term at the expense of sustainability. Larger corporations have the money to buy barriers to entry for competitors by capturing regulatory agencies.

Ideally countries would go to public funding system once you clear x votes of nominations or something similar, you'd have a shorter election cycle and advertising blackouts for a portion of that to limit the influence of money further, scrap jerry-mandering. Even if that were possible in the US, I'm of the view that the money would seep through in some shape or another. In many ways, the US as a concentration of the wealthy is a victim of its own success in the weight that this wealth has on its socio-economic future.

Somewhat more contrary to more left leaning arguments, I think populism fails equally. Now admittedly what passes for populism nowadays, economically at least, is simply the rebranded intentions of corporations with vested interests. But genuine populist economic policy also fails. People want the government to give them things for free and not give other people things for free. They'd rather see uncompetitive industries be propped up forever with subsidies than let them close.

I'm coming around to the view that what's needed is longer term limits, greater executive authority and concentration of power but balanced by firm limits on any elected office tenure. People don't appreciate the long term effects of effective policy before they have a chance to vote politicians out on the short term cost. Longer term limits, say 5-6 years x 2 possible terms would help alleviate that. It would detach elected officials from the need to constantly raise funds. Politicans could actually effect the mandate they were voted in on. Obviously this raises risks of abuse of power but as with everything, you have to balance that against the costs of long term stagnation.

I hate to create a comparison here to central banks, but it's an undeniable fact that once central bank officials were installed independent to act free from the whims of politicans in most developed countries in the 1970-90s, inflation quickly became a thing of the past. People can argue about current policy, devaluing the currency, the way funds are being distributed currently, but the point above is a historic fact. I am of the view that the same would hold (when applied in a more limited way) for the broader economy.

But anyway, this is all wonderfully imagine fantasy land.

Not when they get subsidies, subsidies, and subsidies from the Federal Government which prevent free market competition.

Corn syrup is especially bad.

First things first: I read the article you linked as well as three others by the same author, given that he's teaching at a nearby facility. His article "The Three Types of Austerity" was quite enough to know that I'll never see eye-to-eye with him, or anyone of the same views.

"[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that does not match my perception of reality, given the absolute abundance of (financial) resources within the eurozone. It's a lack of demand for investments that's the problem, not supply. Savings are at record highs, investment is at an all-time low.

So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here, ever. It's utterly pointless. Same for the gold standard vs fiat, inflation good or bad, or any related discussion, really.

Instead, I'll try to reply to unrelated statements.

------------

"Do you think The Wire paid for their production assistants' healthcare? Did they make more than the $50/day for their 12 hour days (if they weren't working for free as "interns" for the 'privilege' of 'paying their dues' in 'the industry')?"

I know nothing about the situation on set of The Wire. My assumption is that it involved the regular amount of abuse of labour, including unpaid interns.

------------

"Haha, of course, "liberals" get a pass from other "liberals", but no pass for the Kochtopus (even though the Kochs give way more money to charities than The Wire would even be able to)."

Well, good for them. But I don't see why you drag them in here. You made a set of rhetoric questions aimed at hypocrisy by David Simon. I pointed out my view that any possible hypocrisy is dwarfed by the point he made vis-a-vis guilt/Perkins/watch/whatever.

------------

"Yeah? Like you know (the other) David Simon and can vouch for his "lack of guilt?" And "guilt" about what? Having money? Being successful?"

Feeling guilty about the discussion amongst the establishment regarding, for instance, the minimum wage. He finds it questionable how one can argue against giving a fella at Burger King 10-12 bucks an hour without feeling guilty for it. That's the disconnect we're talking about. When extremely wealthy individuals deny even the crumbs to the folks at the bottom.

Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. It was aimed at the demand for tax breaks and subsidies for extremely profitable corporations or extremely wealthy individuals. I would feel ashamed for any demands to my benefit if a) I didn't objectively need them and b) they would come at a detriment to others in worse situations than me.

Since I'm arguing from a different economic perspective than you, a shortfall in tax income (aka tax breaks) to me means either more taxes at another place, probably from weaker entitities who can't afford to buy their own representative, or a cut in essential services. I operate under a very broad definition of human dignity and see it as the first and foremost objective. Food, shelter, health, etc for all -- which might just be a reason why some people refer to me as a "pinko commie".

------------

"Does he? Really? How? And how are you doing more for "society" than that? Who are you and what exactly is your great "contribution" to society?"

He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand. The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates into demand. For an economy that depends on the circulation of goods and services, a massive and non-temporary accumulation of debt or savings (same coin, different sides) in the hands of single players (be it state, corporation or individual) chokes up the system. Less demand, less investment, less growth.
Accumulation is all fine and dandy if it translates into economic activity, but given the pathetic % of GDP that is being invested, despite mountains of unused cash that are forced into financial shenanigans looking for profit, I'd say it is dead weight and a drag.

But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was probably hogwash to you.

------------

To answer your question: a human being and my great contribution to society is my charming personality, of course.

And with that, I bid you adieu. I've had long-ass discussions about Snowden/surveillance and other topics that led nowhere and I'm not interested in having one about economic theory, especially not in a second language. The floor is all yours, including the last word.

It wasn't me who first pointed out Simon as a hypocritical "liberal bully."

"Here’s why I assert Simon is a bully. His own words reveal him to be a petty, nasty, mean-spirited guy. “…anything I've ever accomplished as a writer, as somebody doing TV, anything I've ever done in life, down to, like, cleaning up my room, has been accomplished because I was going to show people that they were [bleeped] up, wrong, and that I was the [bleeping] center of the universe and the sooner they got hip to that, the happier they would all be.""

Statist narcissism.

There's as much as you'd like on this. How about...?

"David Simon, a multi-millionaire writer for Time-Warner, one of the largest corporations in the world and a cultural leader, jetted across the globe to speak in front an audience of people with both the financial means and free time about the horrors of “unchecked” capitalism and the tragic loss of the social compact."

"It is rich that a leading light of Hollywood, that of unpaid interns, unmatched inequality of pay, tax-avoidance schemes, exploitation of public subsidies, industry scheming, etc., would criticize a “broken social compact.”"

"Meanwhile, in the real world of unchecked, no-social-compact capitalism, the WSJ is reporting that the “Burger Wars” are expanding to Africa. The heartless capitalist system is stepping in where communism, socialism and other authoritarian systems have failed, bringing with it the digging of new wells, food production systems, jobs, etc. All that awful stuff that comfortable capitalists take for granted."

EDIT: To be clear, I have no specific interest in advocating for Koch, or Simon, or whomever, or in prosecuting them or @radx or anyone else. But I do think this kind of pernicious thinking/bullying can and does spread and causes much harm, even to those engaging in the thinking/bullying, it distorts them in an undesirable way, so I point it out.

@bobknight33
cognitive dissonance+circular logic=your comment

you state its all the governments fault.
you give an example of massive amounts of "aid"

care to clarify that position?

because i actually agree with you but i suspect it is for different reasons.

when we look at government subsidies (welfare/aid),the largest recipient by far is american corporations.we even subsidize CEO pay,not to mention subsidizing their slave wage work force.

so can you tell me who the TRUE welfare queens are?

and did you just equate our government and its corporate socialism to being "kind,nice and trying to do the right thing"?
and that somehow this government altruism is bad for capitalism?

seriously?

it wouldnt happen to have anything to do with the army of corporate lobbyists that stampede congress/senate and the judiciary now would it?

all with their hands out.looking for some tasty welfare.

noooooooo...corporations are GOOD for the economy!
they are the "job creators" (like wall mart) and all that extra profit will rain down upon us common folk like mana from heaven.

here is how our current system plays out:
socialism for the rich.
capitalism for the poor.

we dont have capitalism.
our government is bought.
they no longer work for you,nor me.we have become irrelevant.

capitalism.
sounds like a great system.
we should try it sometime.

You can tackle it any which way you want to. It's really not my problem. For some reason those "multimillion dollar campaigns" don't have any effect on me.. like at all! But maybe they have a profound power of you... Because, of course there is a relationship between "incentives" and some people's health, incentives to buy and eat not-so-healthy food because it's cheap, or on every corner, or tastes "good" or the FDA or the AMA tells you that it's okay or even good for you, or whatever other "incentive" you're referring to here.. And yes, regulations or bans are about the worst possible way to tackle any of this.


EDIT: Nothing "incentivizes" the kind of unhealthy shit that passes for "food" like the billions of dollars in government subsidies given to say, corn syrup (which makes people sick, fat, and unhealthy in so many ways). And yet, it's heavily subsidized and therefore found in all kinds of "food-like substances." It'd be great to stop the subsidy of junk "non-food" through billions of "taxpayer" dollars. But good luck getting anywhere with that..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/government-subsidies-junk-food_n_3600046.html