>> ^xxovercastxx:

The entire video is based on the strawman laid out at 0:29.
I'm not backing Schiff, but this is a misrepresentation of his argument. He said the free market provided these improvements, not "the 1%". These are not equivalents and you all know it.
You're all so eager to dismiss the opposition that you don't even pay attention to what they are saying.


Well many of us don't think there is such a thing as a 'free market'. Not just that there isn't one now, but that the idea of a free market is only possible conceptually. We see it as a chimera, a mythical beast constructed of other animals, that does not exist and cannot be created. So while individual pieces exist, lions, eagles, supply, demand, the combination of these pieces into some self balancing force seems impossible.

So I guess to put it another way when we hear the words free market we think about the human factor, those people actually exerting their control and manipulating market forces and the basic hierarchy for control goes something like this:
1% > next 4% >> government >>>> everyone else.
So when we hear free-market we usually think of the people who can exert the most control.

As for the free market or the 1% giving us child labor laws, that was government regulation in the form of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you want to call government regulation free-market corrections go ahead.

>> ^notarobot:

I wonder when is was that Peter Schiff was bought by Koch.


I haven't really heard much about a Schiff/Koch connection. Personally, I doubt Schiff was really "bought" per se, I'd say Schiff is a True Believer in the same ideological cult as the Kock brothers.

Namely, they think the entire world would be better if rich just people got to run everything without having to go through the exercise of rigging elections and buying politicians.

Thanks again!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
*quality

Can't stand listening to this guy... too many pauses..
>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Good vid, although someone should do an edit and cut out his pauses. Get it down to about 5 minutes

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NetRunner:
Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.
Do you mind if i interrupt to ask where he's said that?
This isn't a jibe or challenge. I just like a man who doesn't give fucking slippery answers and this dude seems to be the first politician i have seen in my life who doesn't give slippery answers. You're implying he's slippery, and i don't want to fall for it, so i would appreciate enlightenment.


I took that from this, starting around 0:53:

The more liberal stations some of them wouldn't dare want to talk to me because their agenda is Democratic party politics and they're not for liberty, they're just for Democratic party politics and big government. But even on those stations, you will have a few very honest people.

Which is followed by his comments about Stewart being "honest" because "when the left really messes up, he loves to go and get 'em." Because apparently it's rare that liberals ever deviate from just toeing the line on "Democratic party politics".

Because, you know, nobody like Olbermann, or Maddow, or Cenk Uygur, or Ed Shultz, or Lawrence O'Donnell, or Sam Seder, or Thom Hartmann, and nobody on blogs, or anywhere else has ever "gone after" Democrats for screwing up.

Granted, I didn't get my entire view of Ron Paul from this video alone. I've been listening to this guy off and on for years now.

I guess I know Paul best from the Campaign for Liberty e-mail list. See, way back in 2007, I used to think Paul was a different kind of Republican -- a softer, kinder, more honest sort, who would be willing to work with liberals on important issues, so I signed up for his e-mail list. Back then, the e-mail he sent out matched that first impression.

At least, they did right up until Obama became President. Ever since it's been 3 years of pure vitriol and hatred. Here's some highlights from one from earlier this year:

Fellow Patriot,

Big Government took a huge leap forward in 2010. And you and I will suffer the consequences unless we take action today.

You see, the statists look for every opportunity to gain more power over our lives – and they found another one in the ObamaCare scheme.

It is a huge step toward a full takeover of our personal medical decisions, as well as a massive tax increase and a huge loss of liberty. It will also cause further destruction to our already fragile economy.
...
Please read the email below from Campaign for Liberty President John Tate. Campaign for Liberty has a great plan to help me win this fight, but they are going to need every Patriot in our Revolution to join them.
...
[Letter from John Tate that Paul wants us to read]
Dear NetRunner,

The ObamaCare scheme is designed to do two things statists love more than anything else: vastly increase the size and power of government and give our federal masters more control over our personal business.

Power over our very lives.

It's getting harder and harder for them to conceal their true intentions - and people are waking up to it.

You and I saw the results of this in the recent elections, giving us an opportunity to take action.

Ron Paul has a plan to fight back and END THE MANDATE, but Campaign for Liberty needs your help today to get the battle really moving.

You see, the debate over nationalized health care isn't about what Congress wants to "give" Americans.

It's not even about health care at all.

It's about power.

It's about what THEY take.

It's always been about what they take.

And their "take" is staggering.

Delightful bunch of two-faced psychopaths, if you ask me.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Duckman33:
Wonder if Cenk will get his slot.

The new lineup is supposedly:
6pm Cenk Uygur
7pm Chis Matthews (unchanged)
8pm Lawrence O'Donnell
9pm Rachel Maddow (unchanged)
10pm Ed Shultz
Which give us, as someone at Balloon Juice put it, "FDL-style nonsense at 6pm, Beltway Spazz and nonsense at 7pm, Arrogant Insiderism at 8pm, Rachel at 9pm, and Angry Dude at 10pm".
In the short run, I just wanna know about what's happening to Keith because I like the guy, but in the long run I wanna know if MSNBC intends on being a real liberal voice, or just a caricature of liberalism that the media uses to perpetuate false equivalencies with Fox.
Choosing Cenk as their backfill for Keith has me worried they're going for the latter. Give Chris Hayes or Sam Seder a show instead, bitches.


Hey. I like Cenk, or at least the stuff that gets sifted from him.

>> ^Duckman33:

Wonder if Cenk will get his slot.


The new lineup is supposedly:

6pm Cenk Uygur
7pm Chis Matthews (unchanged)
8pm Lawrence O'Donnell
9pm Rachel Maddow (unchanged)
10pm Ed Shultz

Which give us, as someone at Balloon Juice put it, "FDL-style nonsense at 6pm, Beltway Spazz and nonsense at 7pm, Arrogant Insiderism at 8pm, Rachel at 9pm, and Angry Dude at 10pm".

In the short run, I just wanna know about what's happening to Keith because I like the guy, but in the long run I wanna know if MSNBC intends on being a real liberal voice, or just a caricature of liberalism that the media uses to perpetuate false equivalencies with Fox.

Choosing Cenk as their backfill for Keith has me worried they're going for the latter. Give Chris Hayes or Sam Seder a show instead, bitches.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The accusation that America is 'becoming Greece' is not unfounded. Greece is foundering because it has billions in unfunded liabilities and no effective way to pay them.

[snip]

"Austerity measures..." What a nice left wing whitewash of the fact that they are being forced by necessitiy to use (GASP!) conservative economic policy in order to prevent themselves from absolute self destruction. So to save it's @$$, Greece is having to privitize health care, as well as cut bloated, unsustainable social spending. Gee - where have we heard that before?

You gave a pretty much content-free "Grr, I hate liberals" comment there.

Not that you've ever shown any interest in facts, but here is a summary of the austerity measures the IMF is demanding of Greece.

They're not privatizing their health care, they're rolling back some recent pay increases for public sector jobs, they're raising the retirement age, and they're raising taxes.

Which is of course, one way they could have avoided the problem in the first place. Greece is in the middle of the pack in terms of government spending to GDP ratio within the EU. Where it does stands out is on the tax side of the equation...

>> ^RedSky:

I don't quite follow your logic. Professional, technical or scientific services industries are far less likely to abruptly shift to another country. On the other hand many commodities generated from farming are highly fungible in the source of their production because they are generally homogeneous between countries. Tourism, especially inter-country, you would similarly expect to be replaceable with other countries and far more variable in terms of the revenue it brings in dependent on economic conditions, given that its a want not a need.


I don't disagree with that. I don't think we have to worry about many "services" transitioning out of the US into another country. Production, however, can and will easily shift to where labor is cheaper.

The only part I disagree with is how you say tourism is "replaceable" as if you're likening it to fungible goods. Tourism services aren't fungible (no service is fungible), and in fact the cost of these services are dependent on the local economy. I'd argue, as we're seeing in Greece, a large service economy cannot remain sustainable in the long-term without a healthy production economy.

^blankfist:
I heard somewhere the other day that during the Great Depression something like 40% of employment was in the farming industry. Now that makes up something like 4%.


I'm not sure about the actual numbers, but that trend seems reasonable.

Far fewer people are needed for the same amount of agricultural output now compared to the early 1900s. That happens with any industry that transitions from human labor to automation.

I don't quite follow your logic. Professional, technical or scientific services industries are far less likely to abruptly shift to another country. On the other hand many commodities generated from farming are highly fungible in the source of their production because they are generally homogeneous between countries. Tourism, especially inter-country, you would similarly expect to be replaceable with other countries and far more variable in terms of the revenue it brings in dependent on economic conditions, given that its a want not a need.
>> ^blankfist:

The problem, in my opinion (since you asked), is Greece's economy is 3/4 a service economy. They rely on tourism and export very few goods because production makes up a small part of their economy.
There is a realistic fear that the US has shifted from a prominent industrialized production economy to an economy relying heavily on providing services. I heard somewhere the other day that during the Great Depression something like 40% of employment was in the farming industry. Now that makes up something like 4%. Also I believe our production of goods is close to the ratio of Greece's (1/4th of the GDP).
I'm too lazy to google it and provide proof.

>> ^blankfist:

Well, Republicans are going to yell "the sky is falling!" because for them whatever the Dems believe they must believe the opposite. The same goes for Dems.

Ahh, if only we could all be principled libertarians, and scream "the sky is falling" all the time.

For example:

>> ^blankfist:
I'm worried about bailing Europe out, because that will create more inflation here in the US. Prices are already going up, and if we start trying to carry the weight of the world we'll end up devaluing the dollar more through hyperinflation. That's a realistic fear.

No, prices aren't going up, and no, hyperinflation isn't a realistic fear.

I'm leaning kinda heavily on Krugman because he's written some killer stuff on this in the last week or two, and I've been itching to link it in your general direction.

You might be right, but I know there are a complex set of issues involved in the national debts of most industrialized nations. That's why I was asking, because even though I think he offers some good reasoning, it just sounds a little simplistic to me. I don't like Republican fearmongering about our debt, but I can't help but wonder when we're ever going to get it under control. I don't want my son to live in Greece 2.0 when he's around my age.
>> ^blankfist:

The problem, in my opinion (since you asked), is Greece's economy is 3/4 a service economy. They rely on tourism and export very few goods because production makes up a small part of their economy.
There is a realistic fear that the US has shifted from a prominent industrialized production economy to an economy relying heavily on providing services. I heard somewhere the other day that during the Great Depression something like 40% of employment was in the farming industry. Now that makes up something like 4%. Also I believe our production of goods is close to the ratio of Greece's (1/4th of the GDP).
I'm too lazy to google it and provide proof.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

No prob. I just want BP to mean Bad Publicity.
BTW, you're pretty savvy on all things political, so what do you think of this:
http://videosift.com/video/Sam-Seder-s-That-s-Bullshit-We-re-not-Greece

I like Sam Seder, and he is a fairly smart dude, but I'm not sure if his reasoning is as airtight as he'd like us to believe. Your input would be appreciated.
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Thanks for the double doublepromote.
In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
doublepromote


No. Your input would not be appreciated.

No prob. I just want BP to mean Bad Publicity.

BTW, you're pretty savvy on all things political, so what do you think of this:

http://videosift.com/video/Sam-Seder-s-That-s-Bullshit-We-re-not-Greece

I like Sam Seder, and he is a fairly smart dude, but I'm not sure if his reasoning is as airtight as he'd like us to believe. Your input would be appreciated.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Thanks for the double doublepromote.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
*doublepromote