Skip to main content

CNBCer Strikes Back at Andrew Sullivan for Calling Wall Street 'Parasites Producing Nothing'

Noel Sheppard's picture

Liberal media members better learn that if they step onto a set with CNBC's Becky Quick, they better bring their "A" game when talking about business and finance or they'll end up looking foolish.

Such was the case on this weekend's "The Chris Matthews Show" when Andrew Sullivan called Wall Street a "parasite class...producing nothing" only to be forcibly corrected by Quick (video follows with transcript and commentary):

BECKY QUICK, CNBC: [Wall Streeters] have clout in this [budget] debate because they’re the people who are running businesses, businesses that are employing so many people across the country…

ANDREW SULLIVAN, DAILY BEAST: Well, Wall Street isn’t.

QUICK: Well, Wall Street isn’t, but if you talk to corporate chieftains…

SULLIVAN: Wall Street’s a parasite class.

QUICK: If you talk to, well…

SULLIVAN: They’re not Ayn Rand’s heroes. They’re producing nothing.

QUICK: That’s not true. It’s not a parasite class. People who are financing everything else.

SULLIVAN: They’re playing around with money. They’re not actually creating goods.

QUICK: There are some terrible things that happened, but yes the finance comes to a point where if you’re a company and you want to hire people, you have to go to Wall Street to make sure you can get the loan to do it.

SULLIVAN: Sure, but the person whom Ayn Rand would presumably support would be the businessman not the financier.

QUICK: Sure, but if you’re asking what corporate leaders are thinking, yes, they have a lot of clout because they’re the ones who are hiring. We’re at a terrible situation where you’ve got nine percent unemployment.

Nicely said, Becky.

As readers know, Wall Street bashing has been all the vogue the past few years since the 2008 financial collapse with some good reason. However, most presidents throughout this country's history have known that our system of capitalism is very much based on banks, brokerage firms, and insurance companies, and that our economy cannot grow without a strong financial services industry.

Irrespective of his obvious socialist leanings, even Barack Obama understands the importance of Wall Street, as he was one of many Democrats to vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program in October 2008 along with his current Vice President Joe Biden and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In fact, what might be surprising to Sullivan is that more Democrats in the Senate voted for TARP than Republicans.

Despite their posturing and finger-pointing at Wall Streeters, when push came to shove in the fall of 2008, even Democrats realized the first thing needed to prevent a total meltdown of our economy was a stabilization of the financial services industry.

Sullivan has either forgotten that or is ignorant.

Nice job by Quick to remind him.

Brava!

Comments

#1 The bulk of the liberal media

The bulk of the liberal media and their so-called 'experts' have become Obama's slaves. They are following his example and using scare tactics and the language of demonization to frighten people and enrage them.

Their irresponsible tactics, born of desperation to save their failed president, will trigger more violence and deaths like it did in Tucson. The left will continue to stoke fear and hate in their followers until it reaches a point where they can't get any madder.

If a Liberal/Democrat politician/media figure wants to put their arms around you, or pat you on the back, all they're doing is looking for a good place to stick a knife.

#2 Well that sure was a random

Well that sure was a random non sequitur.

#3 As are you, SatchelMouth---

as are you.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#4 MD,

you're just feeding Incestmo's need to be slapped around, he craves it. 

That's the only reason I can think of to explain why it keeps coming back.  Much like the dog abused by it's owner, it seeks the only attention, although the wrong kind, because that's all it knows. 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#5 UpNorth---

There is a lot to be said for the famous line "Don't feed the trolls".   :o)

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#6 You know, MD,

I've gone through this entire thread, and several others, where Incestmo  has been asked for a link for anything, just one thing, he's said, or referred to.  Guess what, I can't find a single thing.

And yet, some good people on these threads treat him like an equal?  WTF is wrong with them?  Incestmo has never, ever, backed up a single thing he's ever posted here, that I can find. 

So, I come to the conclusion that, conservatives, being the good folk they are, take folks at face value far too much.  Incestmo is a liar, and a lib, and a poltroon. 

Incestmo, FYI, Poltroon=a spiritless coward : craven.  That's from Mirriam-Webster.  Wear it with pride, it fits you so well. 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#7 Oddly enough, UpNorth---

I thought that the thread wherein he picked up the name Incestmo would have been the height of lunacy for his posts, but apparently there are several different troll merit badges he is after.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#8 Good folk, huh? Like personal

Good folk, huh? Like personal attacks and juvenile name calling, which you yourself resort to? Why, I can't imagine why anyone would ignore that to immediately step-and-fetch.

#9 Pot. Kettle.

Pot. Kettle.

#10 You left out ignorant.

.

#11 Sick freak

Yeah, sick freak, as if you never engage in the same.

Hypocrite. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#12 Does the phrase

" you're a thug wearing a badge" ring any bells, Incestmo?  You seem to have covered the "personal attacks and juvenile name calling" just fine in that one.  And then you went on, while on that thread. 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#13 Police who break the laws,

Police who break the laws, who violate our civil rights, or who support those who do, are thugs with a badge. The only difference between a thug and a policeman I just described is the badge. Regardless, my point stands: don't act surprised when someone won't step-and-fetch on demand when you resort to personal attacks and name calling.

#14 Except, Satchmo, you referred

Except, Satchmo, you referred to ME as a thug with a badge without knowing anything about me. All I had to do is disagree with you and I was suddenly a thug. Try as hard as you want, Satchmo, people remember and people know what you are. No amount of justification will change that.

But keep trying, it's very amusing for all of us.

#15 I remember.

And it was out of the blue. He is nothing but a sticky little trud troll.

#16 "...or who support those who

"...or who support those who do, are thugs with a badge."

You weren't called a thug with a badge because you simply disagreed; you were called a thug with a badge because you supported those who broke into a man's home and murdered him, all under this ridiculous notion of color of authority.

But let's not pretend this didn't happen after your initial personal attacks to a post of mine (and continued in follow-up posts) that addressed a prosecutor in a news article and not you.

#18 I supported them? I recall

I supported them? I recall saying that if they did something wrong they should be punished. Your whole point seemed to be that warrants themselves, were some sort of crime. They did not break into a house with the intention of killing anyone, they had a LEGAL search warrant to enter the house. Whether or not their acts upon entering the house was proper is a matter for a grand jury with all the facts, not you.

As far as your comment about personal attacks which basically amounts to "He started it!" let me just post your very first comment in that thread:

"LOL. Does it matter if they had a no-knock warrant? This is still murder by the foot soldiers of tyranny."

Foot soldier of tyranny? Can you be a little more dramatic? And ignorant? Please don't hand me that "I wasn't talking about ALL officers, just these!" because you certainly made no such distinction in your initial post.

As far as the rest of your ridiculous rants, I believe The Vet has done an excellent job of documenting your lies.

Troll.

#19 I'm not going to rehash the

I'm not going to rehash the entire argument again.

Yes, you were the one who started with the personal attacks. My comment you quoted wasn't addressed to you; it was made about the officers in the story. So at least twice you engaged in personal attacks and namecalling against me before I had ever responded that you are a thug with a badge. Forget your strawman; I specifically said that any officer who breaks the law, who violates one's civil rights, or who supports any officer who does, is a thug with a badge, regardless of any ridiculous notion of color of authority. You certainly fall under the latter category. Cops murder a man in an operation straight out of a totalitarian regime, and you call it a search gone wrong, nothing more. Disgusting.

#20 As long as you believe it,

As long as you believe it, champ, that's all that mattered.

"Forget your strawman"

I'd like to, but you keep showing up.

"I specifically said that any officer who breaks the law, who violates one's civil rights, or who supports any officer who does, is a thug with a badge, regardless of any ridiculous notion of color of authority."

You most certainly did not. So you're a lying troll.

"Disgusting." The only thing disgusting is your complete lack of reality. Tell yourself anything you want, we all know different.

#21 I most certainly did not? You

I most certainly did not? You don't read very well.

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/17/cnbcer-strikes-b...

#22 As I have already referenced,

As I have already referenced, troll, that was not your original post.

Here it is:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/03/31/drug-laws-cenks...

And as I have already pointed out, you made no mention of singling out THESE officers, you merely proclaimed all police as "foot soldiers of tyranny". It's not my reading skills, but your memory, that needs improving. Among many other things.

#23 Oh my god. You just can't

Oh my god. You just can't make this stuff up. You see, the word "they" is a pronoun that refers to the officers in the linked story. "Murder by the foot soldiers of tyranny" refers to these specific officers who barged into the house sans warrant and murdered the man. This is basic reading comprehension, dude. In no way whatsoever does this translate to proclaiming all police as foot soldiers of tyranny. We're talking first-grade reading level here.

#24 "You just can't make this

"You just can't make this stuff up."

Sure you can, it's what your posts consist of 99% of the time.

"You see, the word "they" is a pronoun that refers to the officers in the linked story."

Hmmmm, the only problem is with this sentence, Satchmo:

"This is still murder by the foot soldiers of tyranny."

Please show me the word "they" in that sentence? A little first grade grammar lesson for you, if you wanted to make that point then you should have said "This is still murder by THESE foot soldiers of tryranny." See the difference? Good!!

As it stands your sentence painted ALL cops as "foot soliders of tyranny".

Let me know if you need any help with your math or science homework, dude.

#25 Phweet.

Moving down the nwahs path just a little bit every day. And for the 20th time, straw man is two words. Snowman is one word. Idiot. Lying little simpleton is one Satchmo.

#26 Only in your

tiny little mind, Incestmo.  You went after NC Cop without knowing anything at all about him, except what you mis-perceived in a post in a blog.  In doing so, you showed that you're no libertarian, no conservative or even a centrist.  You have far more in common with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Doehrn, Barack Obama, and their like than you do with anyone on this blog. 

And, then you try to turn everything on it's head by blaming everyone in the universe, except yourself, for "personal attacks and name calling". 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#27 We call em

Punks down here.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#28 Irony, table for two.

Irony, table for two.

#29 Lying troll, table for one.

Lying troll, table for one.

#30 It boils down to this, Satch...

While NC Cop's initial characterization of the incident as "a search gone bad" may be justifiably criticized as a bit too glib and callous--especially where a life was tragically lost, he then expanded that view with the explicit statement that if an investigation revealed impropriety on the part of the officers they should be punished--and he emphasized (what should have been obvious), that he wasn't supporting unconstitutional actions.

Nevertheless, after that follow-up post, you still found it necessary to level the outrageous charge--via a dramatic headline no less--that NC Cop himself was a "thug with a badge". That, Satch, was inexcusable and despicable, and you should be apologizing for it rather than defending it and rationalizing it.

Jer

#31 The problem, Jer, is that

The problem, Jer, is that people are working from the start point that no-knock warrants are ok, that paramilitary raids and the militarization of the police is ok, that barging into someone's home at 3am with no warrant in their possession is ok.. People are accepting the paradigm that because some court or judge or prosecutor (all of whom are government agents) say that government has the authority to do this, then it's all good. It's a f'ed up paradigm. I can't believe that people aren't questioning government here. Is this the America people want? An America modeling itself after totalitarian regimes who drag people out of their homes and/or murder them in the middle of night? Is outrageous that people blindly accept and support this.

And when I originally said anything about unconstitutional actions, I was making an analogy. That previous tyrannical or unconstitutional acts have occurred in the past does not legitimize any current or future tyrannical or unconstitutional acts, which is basically what his argument was. And no, I'm not rationalizing anything. Any policeman who breaks the law, violates one's civil and constitutional rights, or who supports those who do, is a thug with a badge.

Do you remember this story by any chance?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18328267/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

#32 I question all the time.

I question why incest loving, police hating trolls won't shut up. It doesn't even slow them down.

Whine on little trollie. I heart no knock warrants. I am writing my congressman asking for more more more. Just to counter any whines you got.

#33 As an Atlanta resident, I'm quite familiar with the case, Satch.

It received extensive coverage here, and I would imagine a fair amount of national attention. Look, I likewise have reservations about the efficacy of the War on Drugs as well as questions about the desirability of no-knock warrants, but those concerns are not the point despite your determined efforts to make them the legal and emotional linchpins of an indictment of police tyranny in general and an unseemly and unfair personal attack on NC Cop's integrity in particular.

An uninterrupted procession of numerous US Presidents and successive Congresses, as well as continuing majorities ot the American public, have backed the investment of billions of dollars to stem the flow and distribution of illegal drugs across and within our borders. It doesn't take a genius to realize that if officers announce themselves at the door of a residence where quantities of those drugs are reportedly stockpiled and sold, the evidence will be subject to disposal with dazzling speed and efficiency. Thus, the no knock warrant. To date such warrants have withstood judicial challenge. It may be that at some future time the Supreme Court--cognizant of the exploding frequency of their use and horrific tragedies such as the Atlanta incident--may be more inclined toward finding Constituitional infirmities with the no knock process.

But unless and until that occurs, it remains a lawful practice if exercised in conformity with prescribed procedures, while the abuse of same will expose the officers and possibly the muncipality or other responsible entities to significant liability.

Yet you dismiss all of that with a few lines of theatrical rant--making little or no distinction between completely warrantless entry and no-knock warrants--and offering weak and presumptious claims of unconstitutionality [and even worse, cheap personal attacks on a poster/policeman whose only offense was and is endorsing a policy with which you disagree.] And then you end your post by reintroducing the same strawman which has been repeatedly burned to ashes--the Satch Manifesto of a sort. "Any policeman who breaks the law, violates one's civil and constitutional rights, or supports those who do, is a thug with a badge." What size mallet does it require to pound into your brain that NO ONE has explicitly disagreed with you--although your "thug with a badge" unnuanced conclusion is a little over the top. [What if the violation of constitutional rights is relatively minor and is the result of unintentional conduct?] But, most important, if you review the exchanges on the thread in question, you become ensnared by one inescapable fact. NC COP DOES NOT AND DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS YOU REFERENCE, NOR ANY OFFICERS WHO MAY HAVE COMMITTED THEM! And yet you smear him as if he did.

Jer

#34 Jer:

If you put on your 3D glasses, the apology to NC Cop in Incestmo's reply will become apparent.

#35 Tried to add that the issue

Tried to add that the issue isn't if impropriety is found on the officers, the entire thing is improper from the start, but this site has weird commenting and editing structure.

#36 Awww.

Poor little trollie. You are the only one with problems with commenting and editing here. So sad. All of us have the super duper NewsBusters app, so we really don't understand what you are going through.

#37 Agree. And all the while they

Agree. And all the while they will deny/shift blame.

The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

#38 By Sullivan's own standard, he's useless.

And exactly what does Andrew Sullivan produce by his bloviating, for which he is apparently well paid???

What does he actually create?

Financiers who supply money for enterprise certainly contribute more to production than Sullivan does.

#39 Remember....................

Sullivan works for the Daily Beast. Not exactly a "Business-friendly" media site. AND he is appearing on an NBC show, which allows the host to let their guests say the most vile comments against their opponents without any opposition.

"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets". - Robert DeNiro, Taxi Driver (1976).

#40 I'm guessing that

Sully brought Rand up because of "Atlas Shrugged" hitting the movie screens, so I'd have asked Sully, "Just how do you think Frank Reardon and Dagny's grandpappy started their companies, with fairy dust and a bag of magic beans?"

"There's no point in being Irish if you don’t know the world is going to break your heart eventually.’’ Daniel Patrick Moynihan

#41 You mean Hank Rearden. How

You mean Hank Rearden. How did they start their companies? They didn't go begging a bank to loan them money. Another swing and a miss.

#42 No brainless.

The founders of the railroad. The capital to build things must come from somewhere, usually banks.

You don't just swing and miss, you forget to pick up the bat.

Proud member of the 53%!

#43 You are obviously ignorant of

You are obviously ignorant of the book. Read it before you ever attempt to correct someone about it.

#44 Nope

I read the book. You are ignorant on pretty much everything I've ever seen you comment on.

Proud member of the 53%!

#45 +1,000,000

Thank you, Rad.

#46 Then you would know that none

If you did, then you would know that none of them went to a bank to borrow money in order to start their businesses. It would be completely against their character and against the moral code they stand for.

#47 You constantly amaze...

There is no moral code in Rand against borrowing. I think I should go talk to my poodle now. She's much more intelligent than you are.

Proud member of the 53%!

#48 I thought you read the book?

I thought you read the book? The poster above said he would ask Sullivan where Rearden and Taggert started their businesses. This was directly addressed in the book. I'll give you a hint: they didn't borrow money from a bank or from any Wall St. firm. If you think there is no moral code in Rand about borrowing, then you know nothing of Rand. Nothing.

#49 Why don't you cite that?

Incestmo?

Since you are THE expert on everything.

Please....provide some back up. Chapter and Verse, as it were.

Tick tock, Incestmo.

#50 Wow, Idiot on Parade!

"If you think there is no moral code in Rand about borrowing, then you know nothing of Rand. Nothing."

So tell me, Oh Great One, who's the biggest bastard in "Atlas"? Mouch, or Dagny's brother? You get a point for citing my misremembering a name from a novel I read 20 some odd years ago (likely before you were born), but since you hold yourself as the font of All Things Randian, I'll join as another has asked: cite where she expounded on the evils of financing, please?

"There's no point in being Irish if you don’t know the world is going to break your heart eventually.’’ Daniel Patrick Moynihan

#51 It's only one of the main

It's only one of the main tenets of the book and her philosophy. Her heroes were all self-made people. What they got, they earned through their own hard work, their own creativity, and their own intellect. They all began by working in a bottom-level job and rose to be industry owners, creators, and producers. Nothing was given to them. Contrast Hank Rearden with Orren Boyle. Boyle is the antithesis of Rearden. Boyle's steel company was started through loans from the government. His "success" was all due to cronyism. He didn't earn it; it was given to him. For any of Rand's heroes to have borrowed money would mean that they didn't earn it. Borrowing is a master/slave relationship, and Rand would NEVER support it, least of all the heroes of her books who are the literary personifications of her philosophy. It is the absolute opposite of what they stood for. For anyone to claim to have read Atlas Shrugged or any Rand and NOT understand this basic premise of her books and beliefs is suspect.

#52 Borrowing = slavery?

Just when I thought you've taken stupid as far as it can go...you take it further.

Borrowing from the bank is not the same as borrowing from the government. It is not a handout. It is a business transaction. Your ignorance is, once again, stunning.

Proud member of the 53%!

#53 The relationship is the same:

The relationship is the same: it is a slave/master relationship. It is not simply a business transaction, as you claim. Try this out: give Dave Ramsey a call and see if he uses the same terminology as Rand would. If you've ever listened to his show, then you know he does. It's ok for you to be ignorant, but to stubbornly persist in your ignorance when the truth is readily available is irrational.

#54 I'm not debating Dave Ramsey

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work.[1] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation.

I'm waiting for my master to force me to sweep his bank floor.

By the way, I was unaware banks forced people to sign loan documents at the point of a gun. I'll need to be very careful around my brother in law now.

Proud member of the 53%!

#55 Of course you're not, or

Of course you're not, or wouldn't (By the way, love the "[1]" in your post).

A borrower is slave to the lender. You are not working for yourself; you are working for another. And not just to pay off the loan, but to pay the loan plus. It is most certainly a master/slave relationship.

#56 Another idiotism from the idiotist that is Stupid Satchmo.

Oh dear. Maybe I should not say that. It lets the left frame the debate.

#57 I had no idea you held the

I had no idea you held the Bible in such contempt.

#58 Incestmo strikes again

Oh self-appointed SUPREME EXPERT on ALL THINGS (and total sick freak), provide the quote or STFU.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#59 Incestmo sez "It's ok for you to be ignorant"

You are truly a beneficent God.

But please tell us more about slave/master relationships.

On second thought, don't - I'm sure most of us would throw up instantly.

#60 SoL---

Absolutely nothing wrong with a master - slave relationship.

Provided, of course, that it is consensual.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

#61 Where is it they would go Retard?

You really should not be the Ad Man for this book. Where would they go to borrow money Retard? Tell the class. Now.

#62 Why don't you quit being an ass?

You continually call everyone here ignorant, and worse.

You are the one who never provides a cite to back up your stupidity.

Anyone with internet access can look up the ins and outs of Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

So why don't you just cool it?

YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY A POTTED PLANT.

#63 Another?

Where was my previous, oh He Who Talks from his Expanded Sphincter?

"There's no point in being Irish if you don’t know the world is going to break your heart eventually.’’ Daniel Patrick Moynihan

#64 Andrew Sullivan once said he

Andrew Sullivan once said he was a conservative and only thought that his positions on social issues were more conservative than the ones conservatives had... Yea... ok.

Sometimes he's pretty honest, like in his rebuttal to Bill Maher, other times he's the opposite of honest.

#65 Democrat support of TARP is no surprise

TARP was the lessor of two evils, and did prevent our financial services industry from experiencing an almost total collapse in 2008.  The design of TARP was totally flawed from a "rescue" perspective:

  • Recent accounting changes forced banks and brokerage firms to mark assets at unrealistic "fire-sale" prices.  If your neighbor sells his house for $1, that doesn't mean that your house is only worth $1.
  • Recent changes in financial instruments allowed short sellers to bypass long-standing rules, such as borrowing stock and margin requirements, and made it much easier to collapse equity values of financial corporations.
  • Recent changes in the up-tick rule further assisted short sellers when it came to collapsing stock prices.

Banks and brokerage firms didn't need TARP, they needed regulatory relief to protect them from the above.  That's not just my opinion, but is the opinion of many, including William Isaac, (former FDIC chair).

TARP ended up being the first volley in the ongoing federal government take over of private corporations and capital.  Is it any surprise it was supported by so many Democrats?

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

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

#66 Sounds like you support it as

Sounds like you support it as well, buying the bogus line that it prevented an economic collapse.

#67 What I can actually support......

......is people like you making a cognitive argument, instead of just tossing sh*t at random up against message board walls in hope that something will stick. Try reading posts before responding.

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

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

#68 Really? So you didn't say

Really? So you didn't say that "TARP was the lessor of two evils, and did prevent our financial services industry from experiencing an almost total collapse in 2008". Looks to me like you did, and only took issue with how it was designed. So when you said it did prevent our financial services industry from experiencing an almoat total collapse, you really meant that it didn't?

#69 → TARP

How much of TARP has been repaid.

How much have Chrysler and GM repaid?

#70 I couldn't care less how much

I couldn't care less how much has been repaid. That isn't the issue. The issue is that the government should never have been involved at all, that it was a manufactured "crisis", and that they rightly knew that no one would hold them accountable in any meaningful way.

#71 Lesser of two evils

TARP was the lesser of two evils.  Do you know what that saying means, Satchmo?  Hitler or Stalin:  One of them is probably the lesser of two evils.  It doesn't mean that if you call Stalin the lesser of two evils, that you support him.

Now here is a shocker for you.  I agree with you that the financial crisis of 2008 was a manufactured crisis.  It didn't need to happen, and only happened because of changes in regulations that artificially created a situation that led to the collapse of the capital base of many banks and brokerage firms, based mainly on the way that capital base was accounted for.  Regulatory changes was all that was necessary to avert this manufactured crisis.

But those regulatory changes would not have let our political class take advantage of a "crisis" so they could grab power away from the private sector.  TARP was the first step, and created a huge slush fund for that political class, only to be dwarfed by the next slush fund created in early 2009 once the Dems and Obama had total power.

My first post said TARP was a bad idea and evil, (lesser then the evil of letting the whole system collapse, because that was totally unnecessary also).  Your claim that I was in favor of TARP is asinine on it's face.  We probably agree on more then you think, but for some reason your desire to post short little, glib jabs at people blinds you from actually taking the time to try and comprehend what someone is saying.

Good luck with that.

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

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

#72 "My first post said TARP was

"My first post said TARP was a bad idea and evil, (lesser then the evil of letting the whole system collapse, because that was totally unnecessary also)."

Which implies that you believe that the whole system actually was in danger of collapse, when it wasn't(imho), meaning there was no lesser of two evils to choose from.


#73 Implies? He came right out

Implies? He came right out and said it prevented an economic collapse. Still, he's not going to get it.

#74 TARP

TARP prevented an economic collapse from happening in 2008.  Even though TARP was actually never implemented, it gave the government time to implement other tactics to shore up the financial markets.

Based on everything you have contributed, Satchmo, it's obvious you don't understand anything about this subject.  Typical sniping from the side-lines instead of adding anything concrete to the discussion.

Do you have an actual opinion on anything, besides just attempts at denigrating others?

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

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

#75 IMHO

Since TARP was passed, even though it was never actually implemented, we will never really know just how bad the collapse could have been.  Investors in the banks and brokerage firms involved in this mess stopped the selling because they viewed TARP as a government back-stop.

IMHO, you don't have a clue as to how close the whole financial system came to melting down.  No entities with any financial assets were purchasing anything besides T-Bills.  TARP was just part of the process that prevented the collapse.  They could have and should have done different things, as I have said, repeatedly.

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

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

#76 How many times can you

How many times can you contradict yourself? First you say that TARP did "prevent our financial services industry from experiencing an almost total collapse"; then you agreed that the "crisis" was manufactured; now you once again are buying and touting the utter bs line that there was going to be a collapse, and that ck doesn't "have a clue as to how close the whole financial system came to melting down".

So once again we are left with the fact that you support TARP.

#77 Shut up Stupid Satchmo.

You are the biggest idiot here. You know nothing about nothing and have no room to lecture anyone. Why don't you lecture how Nevada is a sovereign state and can negotiate a treaty with Mexico. Then tell us more about TARP.

#78 I can't get any clearer

You have a problem in simple comprehension, Satchmo:

  1. TARP prevented the financial system from having a melt-down
  2. Something else besides TARP would have been much more preferable

If Satchmo is about to walk off a cliff, someone could stop Satchmo from taking the leap by breaking both his legs.  Breaking both of your legs would be the lesser of two evils.  Simple concept, but you have a tough  time grasping it.  I would prefer a less extreme means to prevent your walking off the cliff.

TARP was part of the manufactured crisis.  It gave investors confidence that the government, which can "print" all the money they want, was not going to let any more financial institutions fail.  I'm not saying that's the right thing to do, but that's what happened.

I don't support breaking your legs, even though I acknowledge that the breaking of them would stop you from walking over the cliff.  I don't support TARP, even though I acknowledge that it stopped the financial melt-down.

Simple enough for you?

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

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

#79 There was no crisis. It was

There was no crisis. It was manufactured by government and their toadies saying there was going to be a collapse. The economy was never going to collapse.

You agreed it was manufactured, yet you agree that TARP, which you say wasn't needed, prevented a financial melt-down.

This is a fascinating example of doublethink.

#80 So...

So, Satchmo, you were finally able to wrap your mind around that simple analogy of you walking off the cliff, and how it's preferable to have your legs broken instead?   No more arguing that point, I see.  Simple analogies are sometimes what it takes for simple minds.

Glad you find me fascinating.

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

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

#81 Just big fakee fakee sez trollie.

Government they fakee fakee make big fakee crisis just to fool citizens then go back to Hanger 15 at Area 61 and high five all teh aliens.

What other big bad events were just manufactured by government to keep us sheep in line Stupid Satchmo?

#82 Shut up Satchmo.

I ♥ Wall Street.

They are more truthful than the lying little Satchmo.

#83 I have to say, Sullivan got

I have to say, Sullivan got this one right, and Quick ultimately agreed with him that they don't produce anything. Swing and a miss on this one.

#84 satchmo, not producing

satchmo, not producing anything is different from being a parasite, entrepreneurs need capital. Nobody in the service sector really produces anything.

for the record, i'm very critical of stock market speculation, i think it needs to be regulated, but the traders are doing a job.

#85 I don't have anythiing

I don't have anythiing against Wall St., but it's hardly an out-there claim or a liberal one to say they produce nothing. Sullivan was also correct regarding Rand. I just don't see the alleged A-game smackdown from Quick, especially since she continued to concede his points.

#86 No but parasites !=

No but parasites != non-producers . Unless Sullivan was just referring to how Rand would see them, I don't know if he was doing that, or expressing his personal opinion.

#87 Tough to tell, but I would

Tough to tell, but I would say the context points to Rand, given her three classes of Producers, Looters, and Parasites. It's not the first time Newsbusters has whiffed on Rand references.

#88 I'm not a reader of Rand, so

I'm not a reader of Rand, so it would be tough for me to ascertain whether she'd really consider investors as parasites. In the most technical sense, the businessman isn't producing anything either, he's making choices and instructing his employees what to produce. An investor is also making choices based on what he thinks are good investments and deciding which businesses get money. The businessman is the delegate to the investor the same way the worker is the delegate to the businessman.

#89 No, not investors, but some

No, not investors, but some financiers whom she portrayed in Atlas Shrugged as having a crony relationship with government looters.

#90 Satchmo on film.

Got him. Satchmo ain't even from the U.S.

#91 → Just so we're straight

Incestmo believes there should be a halt to all venture capital.

Go sit in the corner with Krugman.  Wait!  Even Krugman isn't that stupid.

#92 Why do you constantly make

Why do you constantly make things up? I never said that at all.

#93 Do you invest?

Do you invest in Wall Street?

Is your retirement at all tied to Wall Street?

Do you have insurance?

#94 It's a meaningless point anyway

Who cares if they produce nothing? I don't recall that being a requirement for living in the U.S.A. And I'm pretty sure he's wrong about Rand. The non-producer she is concerned about is government, not individuals.


#95 No, he's correct regarding

No, he's correct regarding Rand. Now, she isn't against non-producers; she is against looters and parasites. She doesn't view all non-producers as bad or evil. For example, Dagney's loyal assistant and childhood friend, Eddie Willers, is not a producer and lacks their creativity, but he's just as moral and an important piece in the business and in the production of a good.

#96 non-producers

If something is produced who is credited as the producers? The worker, supervisor, manager, etc..., if you end up only crediting the worker that placed their hand on the production process then you would have a valid point. However, supervisors and managers add equity with their business skills. In the same way investors (lenders) add their own equity for without them there would be no final product. If their actions result in a produced product you have to count them as part of the production process.

I will agree that there is a different type of lender out there - one that loans money in the anticipation of applicant failure at a greater than acceptable percentage.  There are two reasons for this: 1) Greed 2)Government intervention

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid

#97 The producer is the man who

The producer is the man who created the product and built a business around it. The producer is the artist or composer. The producer is the creator. Without that creator - that thinker - there would be no assembly line; there would be no workers. There is no need for investors in order to have a final product.

Also, I don't believe there is such a thing as greed. The concept was created by the wealth envy crowd and the moral code of guilt crowd.

#98 So with all this supposed

So with all this supposed wisdom, what business do you run? Maybe you should be doing some infomercials at around 3 a.m. explaining how business's can start up and run without any outside capital. /sarc off

Proud member of the 53%!

#99 Satchmo,

I respectably submit that is a very limited view.  If you look at the artist you mentioned - without investors many would not have the time or resources to work on their craft.  An extreme example of this would be the Catholic Church or the Medici family without whose capital the most incredible works of arts in the world would have never been created.  Separating the investor from production is akin to separating the consumer from supply and demand (another thing many want-a-be economist try to do). 

No doubt that the creator, composer, producer or manufacturer deserves the credit for discovery, innovation and the rewards for hard work.  However the investor deserves their reward to which are due which is rarely anything other than ROI.  In fact these investors are often vilified by media and other people pushing socialist style slogans; also, they always pay higher tax rates. 

If a product is produced all aspects of the process that brought the product to fruition must be recognized as part of the production process - investors included.  Should they get credit for the hard work and ingenuity - No, but they are still part of the production process.

Greed is real.  There is various concepts of greed including the one you speak of which I believe is prevalent in every day society and throughout our media.  But greed exist on a very instinctual basis though healthy in certain survival respects can cause issues when not held in check by other base needs.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid

#100 Just to be clear, this is a

Just to be clear, this is a discussion with Rand as the foundation. I am trying to answer your questions and others through her philosophy and writings as I understand them. Sullivan's entire position was Randian. Both Quick and Noel (and others here, of course) aren't that familiar with it and didn't pick up on it.

Investors are not necessary for any production. All that is needed is the mind and body of the individual. And I strongly, strongly disagree that separating the investor from production is analogous to separating the consumer from supply and demand. Without the consumer, there is no demand. Without the investor, the product can still be created. Here are a couple of Rand quotes that might help:

"Every type of productive work involves a combination of mental and physical effort: of thought and of physical action to translate that thought into a material form. The proportion of these two elements varies in different types of work. At the lowest end of the scale, the mental effort required to perform unskilled manual labor is minimal. At the other end, what the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values."

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth."

Investors/investing does not fit into the process or definition of production.

Again, I am trying to present this through Rand's pov. I think she is right on in a lot of things. Now, while I subscribe to many of her tenets, I am not opposed to investors or investing, but I'm not going to call them producers.

And greed is not real. As I said, greed is a construct of the wealth envy crowd and the guilt as moral code crowd (usually the church, but also those who view charity is a moral virtue), and usually they are both one in the same. Obviously you believe differently, so would you please provide me with a working definition of greed?

#101 Satch,

OK. Let us separate then the production from the production process. The process would include all things including the procurement of capital.  Production on its own would simply be as you stated and your arguments of Rand's pov would hold. 

I'm not going to comment on her opinion of investors because as I understand it she wasn't fond of the excessive attention and profit garnered from investors when the producers were taken advantage of however she also didn't have any real issues with the idea of investment.  Probably means you would have to look at each situation to decide the 'fairness' involved and that is impossible.

Thanks.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid

#102 @Satch

Your ony responding to 1/2 of the conversation. Borrowing money is large part of running many businesses. Ya Satch, their only evil until you borrow, make a profit, and pay it back. They are part of the process to running a long term solvent company.Re-investment has been quite a succes over the years.NOw we have a more complete picture.

#103 Not at all. Quick: Wall

Not at all.

Quick: Wall Streeters are the people running businesses.
Sullivan: Well Wall St. isn't.
Quick: Well Wall St. isn't.

Sullivan: Wall St. is a parasite class. They are not Randian heroes; they produce nothing.
Quick: They're not parasites!
Sullivan: They're playing around with money; they aren't creating goods.
Quick: Yes, you go to them to borrow money.

Sullivan: Rand would support the businessman, not the financier.
Quick: Sure.

Now, borrowing money may be a large part of business, but that doesn't contradict the point that Wall Streeters do not run the businesses (which Quick conceded) nor does it contradict the fact that they don't create anything (which Quick also conceded).

#104 Stupid Satchmo Scrawls again.

2. The collective name for the financial and investment community, which includes stock exchanges and large banks, brokerages, securities and underwriting firms, and big businesses. Some people believe that the interests of these big firms contrast those of smaller businesses, or "Main Street".

I can't invest in Main Street. Wall Street makes it easy for me to invest in companies domestic and international and Closed End Funds that invest in bonds domestic and international as well as stocks domestic, international, and companies not even listed on the various exchanges.

Go back to where you came from Stupid Satchmo.

#105 The Incestmo thought process

Incestmo: "I wonder if I am related to Becky Quick.  I hope so.  She sure is hot."

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#106 Who Is the Parasite Class?

Is that really an argument the left wants to have?

#107 → As in . . .

In that a parasite feeds off the host against its will?

The Lefties defines themselves quite well, I'd say.

#108 You Have To Laugh

It would have been funnier for Becky to ask Matthews and Sullivan who they work for and how do they think their employers are postioned to pay them the monies they get. Parsites? The only parasites I see are the likes of Sullivan who run around spewing their nonsense without having the slightest understanding of what he's talking about and unnerving whomever the poor souls are that listen to him. And let's not even go to asking what exactly the likes of Sullivan and Matthews create for society, other then obnoxious gas the permeates the atmosphere everytime the utter a word.

#109 "quick" is right

I can see why she is named "Quick"

N Locke Step - "It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth. "

#110 Symbiotic does not mean parasitic

Suppose his ignorance, Mr. Sullivan, loans $50k to his brother to open up a restaurant.

According to Mr. Sullivan, he, not his borrowing brother, is the parasite.

Does the status flip based on whether the brother turns a profit?

#111 Is my love for her...

so wrong?????????

#112 ANDREW SULLIVAN, DAILY BEAST - An apt description for a

misguided lefty.

#113 It's a cat fight . . . . . ..

It's a cat fight . . . . . .. .

No hair pulling please!

#114 " Sure, but the person whom

" Sure, but the person whom Ayn Rand would presumably support would be the businessman not the financier."

Mr. Sulivan might want to read Atlas Shrugged before trying to draw an analogy from it. Midas Mulligan was not a villian.

http://blixamerica.blogspot.com/

#115 As should Mr. Blix, given the

As should Mr. Blix, given the appearance of a financier who bought up frozen bonds and then used his government cronies to unfreeze them. I guarantee you the recipients of TARP were not cut from Mulligan's cloth and Rand would look upon most of them with disfavor.

#116 Sullivan portrayed all of

Sullivan portrayed all of Wall Street as from the same cloth, Satchmo. They're all parasites, not just some of them; a 'class of parasites', and that they are by virtue of what they do.

Some businessmen would be considered looters or parasites by Rand also, if they used the government to get what they wanted. So there can be good businessmen and bad businessmen, and good investors/financiers and bad ones.

#117 Why does it have to be an either or issue?

"Sure, but the person whom Ayn Rand would presumably support would be the businessman not the financier."

Maybe I'm missing something, but....is there anything preventing her from supporting both?


#118 In the book she support both

In the book she did support both as heros.

http://blixamerica.blogspot.com/

#119 What Wall Street produced recently....

"They’re not Ayn Rand’s heroes. They’re producing nothing"

Not true Andrew, they produced President Obama.

#120 o.m.g. Sullivan is right

Lord, smite me now but .... Andrew Sullivan is right. He's talking about the investor class on Wall Street, the investment speculator/gamblers. She is talking about the corporate folks who have to go to Wall Street to get financing.

The corporate folks create jobs and businesses and value.

Investors are parasites.

#121 So then...

...you've never spent a day down on Wall Street, have you? Let me refine your entry's vocabulary: "speculator/gamblers"=venture capitalist.

It's really that simple. A VC makes a bet on a business plan and puts his/her money on the table in hopes of earning a profit. Mammon has no morals.

"There's no point in being Irish if you don’t know the world is going to break your heart eventually.’’ Daniel Patrick Moynihan

#122 Really?

So the majority of the country who have investments, one way or another, are parasites? 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#123 Wall street has not sweat labor

As Matthews points out in previous post

MATTHEWS: The Marxists used to argue, all wealth comes from sweat labor, actually going into the factory, putting things together, that sweat…

And as Sullivan is a good little Marxists, wall street has no sweat labor and then no wealth so they are parasites to the workers.

#124 No "sweat labor"?

Really? You ever ride the Triple Witch lightning?

"There's no point in being Irish if you don’t know the world is going to break your heart eventually.’’ Daniel Patrick Moynihan

#125 Sullivan is right.

At least to the extent of the Wall Street banks being parasites. Goldman Sacks (Blankfien) JP Morgan (Dimon) are the worst kind of scum In all this mess not a single individual has so much a been indited never mind gone to jail. Only a fool can deny that as more and more people lose their jobs and more and more businesses fold up the only segment making a "profit" and paying bonuses are the banks. It's not a coincidence, it's not a mistake, IT'S A CRIME. And we better wake up and through off the ideological blinders or they will eat us all. As much as I loath the World Bank, its President is right, one more shock and the whole financial system could collapse. When it does your ideology won't put food in your stomach or pay your bills.

The BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and S. Africa) have just esentially told the FED "screw the US Dollar". If you think that it won't have implications you are fools.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#126 Questions need answering

So if Wall Streeters are parasites because they don't produce anything tangible, what does that make political pundits?

Secondly- and I may need to be corrected here, but aren't average people investors also? That baby in the high chair on tv seems to think that anyone can go online and invest their money. So if the owner of the local hardware store or the city maintenance worker goes online and invests a portion of his salary in a mutual fund, are they parasites? Or are we still assuming that Wall Street is Gordon Gecko and Bud Fox sans crack cocaine?

#127 Where do they find these ignoratant comentators?

There are many people who don't produce anything, but are vital to the working of a business. Take a janitor, he doesn't "produce" anything directly, but is necessary for the company. Same with Wall Street. Companies need capital to survive and grow.

Proud member of the 53%!

#128 He was obviously speaking in

He was obviously speaking in a Randian context, and he was correct. Wall St. is not necessary for any company. Companies create capital.

#129 Companies create capital

From what? Thin air?

Do you ever come out of the basement and live in the real world?

Proud member of the 53%!

#130 You think the source of

You think the source of capital is a bank??? A company produces and sells a good. The price of the good is higher than the cost to make it. The difference between the cost and the price is what's called profit. Profit is capital. That profit, or capital, is often reinvested in the company in ordsr for it to grow and make larger profits and larger profit margins. At no point is Wall St. or any money lender necessary in this process. You didn't know this?

#131 Really?

So where does the money to start the process come from?

If not Wall Street?

One's piggy bank? (perhaps, sometimes).

But most often, it comes from "investors".

Incestmo, you are the most ignorant fool here. As you continually prove on a daily basis.

All BARK and no back up.

You are an idiot.

#132 I'm starting to think Incestmo

is the product of incest. How else can we explain the consistent stupidity of this guy?

Proud member of the 53%!

#133 Holy cow. In a discussion

Holy cow. In a discussion with Rand as the foundation, you ask where does money come from?

#134 I was asking you, Incestmo

Where do YOU think it comes from?

But no surprise there....that you've once again become reading impaired and misread the situation.

Par for the course (apologies, Par).

Idiot.

#135 It was a work of fiction Retard.

Explain to the class where businesses borrow money from if not banks, venture capitalists, and other suppliers of money in the real world. Now. Retard loser.

#136 Define capital

real capital is the factor of production, used to create goods or services, that is not itself significantly consumed (though it may depreciate) in the production process.

Now, what does a company need to produce a good? Let's use widgets as an example. The company will need land and a building. It will also need machinery to produce the widget. Workers will have to be paid, and this will have to be done before money from the first sale comes in. Where does this money come from? Remember, the means of production must be acquired before production begins, meaning there will be no profit to use for capital.

Hint, the answer is NOT the capital fairy.

Proud member of the 53%!

#137 I thought I covered this already...

...earlier in the thread. "Hint, the answer is NOT the capital fairy." Of course not; it's the fairy's dust... and magic beans! :-)

"There's no point in being Irish if you don’t know the world is going to break your heart eventually.’’ Daniel Patrick Moynihan

#138 Please tell us

Where in the Constitution it says that the currency of the United States has to be a debt instrument of a Central bank? How do you think Lincoln financed the Civil War? The great fiat currency experiment is coming to an end, all the partisan political games in the world won't stop it. Read up on Weimar Germany, its coming to a store near you!

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#139 Uh Dude?

Where in the Constitution it says that the currency of the United States... Article 1. Section 8 of the United States Constitution - To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

The great fiat currency experiment is coming to an end... --- Might wanna let EVERY NATION ON THE PLANET in on that little secret.

#140 .71 OZ of Silver

It also says that only silver and cold shall be the money of the United States and that the Dollar shall be .71 oz of silver. Try taking those Federal Reserve Notes in your pocket down to the bank and telling them you want silver for them, see how quickly they throw you out onto the street! They just convicted that poor slob down in NC for minting a lousey $7 million in silver and gold coins, calling him a "terrorist," but Bernake and the FED print up 70, 80, 100 BILLION dollars each and every month and I don't see any SWAT teames surrounding Marriner S. Eccles building.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#141 Uh Dude?

Next time you want to say "It also says...", might wanna actually source that. Where in the Constitution does it say the dollar shall be .71 oz of silver?

#142 No surprise

Of course, the Constitution doesn't say the dollar shall be .71 ounces of silver.  Prior to 1965, though, if you had one dollar in United States coins, the weight of silver added up to .71 troy ounces.

Up until then, circulated U.S. silver coins contained about 71% of a troy ounce of pure refined silver: $1 worth (face value) of pre-1965 silver dimes weighed the same (and had the same silver content) as $1 in silver quarters, which also weighed the same as $1 in silver half dollars. 10 dimes, 4 quarters, or 2 half dollars all had the same weight and consisted of 90% pure silver—adding up to .71 troy ounces.

And it's no surprise, that the Dems were behind the destruction of the dollar back in 1965, just as they are today.  The composition of Congress in 1965, when the Coinage Act of 1965 was passed virtually eliminating silver from most coins, was 68-32 Dem controlled Senate, and 295-140 Dem controlled House, and Lyndon Johnson as President.

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

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

#143 Sorry

Not in the Constitution but in the Coinage act of 1792 passed under the Washington administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#144 Oh my.

Are you saying one act of Congress can be undone by another act of Congress. Why, that can't stand. I am writing my Congressman today to make sure all acts of previous Congresses can never be undone ever.

I like my fiat currency mandated by an ACT OF CONGRESS. Thank you. Looks like I am undoing anything you as a voter can do. Sorry.

Thanks for wasting my time by asking silly questions about the Constitution you yourself knew was not in the Constitution. Nothing like pissing on another poster that was being friendly with you.

#145 My apology

It was not my intent to “piss” on anybody. It you were so offended you have my sincere apology. My intent was to show that we are all the victims of a massive fraud perpetrated by a corrupt banking system and the politicians they own lock stock and barrel. I just grow weary of fools that are so consumed by partisanship that they can’t see they are being played like lambs to the slaughter.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#146 Well then, we are going to disagree.

Every country on the planet has a fiat currency. They went to a fiat currency for a reason. Because currencies based on commodities had inherent problems, namely the supply of money could only be limited to what was dug out of the ground.

If you have issues with this, kindly write to the 200 some-odd countries on the planet.

#147 Wikipedia

If it's on Wikipedia, IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

What a freaking poser.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#148 That isn't what he asked.

That isn't what he asked.

#149 The scolding, lecturing sick freak

...lectures the sick freak who refuses to answer any questions asked of him. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#150 Populist scapegoating

I have read up on the Weimar Republic and I would insist you do so as well.  If you do, you'd understand that the hyperinflation was caused by Versailles for the most part.

Refer to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution where Congress is given the power "To coin money, regulate the value thereof".  Congress created the Federal Reserve to do this and can just as easily do away with it.  And the Federal Reserve doesn't issue debt UNLESS CONGRESS SPENDS MORE THAN IT RECEIVES IN REVENUE. 

Time to bitch at CONGRESS.  Who, by the way, ultimately has the Fed under its thumb. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#151 By Defending the FED

By defending the FED you're making a suckers bet and you will lose every time.

Apparently you are confusing high inflation and hyperinflation. The Versailles treaty was only one of the sources of Weimar Germany’s inflation problem. A large part of it was German monetary policy during the war. Faced with the costs of the war they printed large quantities fiat currency. At the end of the war they had the further burden reparations.

In short high inflation comes from bad governmental monetary policy in response to debt, regardless of the source. Hyperinflation comes when the public loses confidence in the national currency and acceleration rates grow exponentially.

Germany in the 1920’s is only the most extreme example. Look also at the hyperinflationary events in Chile and Argentina. Same story high debt addressed by money printing followed by loss of confidence in the currency and then rapid acceleration rates.

The underlying source or cause of the debt are always the same, high government spending coupled with bad central banking policy that only profits the banks and saddles the public with the debt.

How is this any different from what we face today? Well it is, we have the added complication of a rigged game. Anyone who thinks that the Federal Reserve Bank is either independent or Federal is ignorant, delusional or both. The FED is a private bank owned by the very banks it purports to regulate. What a joke.

Look at the revolving door between Goldman Sachs, the Treasury Department and the FED Board; collusion of the first order. Look at the POMO process since the collapse in 2008. Before 2008 the FED bought between 10% and 15% of US Treasury offerings. Now post collapse through the POMO process the FED ends up holding 70% of US Treasury offerings, and in the process the primary dealers (the banks that own and control the FED) make a killing on every step of the process.

First the PDs (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BofA etc. borrow money from the FED at essentially 0%. They then use these funds to buy US Treasury Bonds for which they receive a transaction fee from the Treasury Department. After holding these Bonds for as little as two weeks they then sell them back to the FED for 3% to 4% more than they paid for them. If this weren’t bad enough, the scam doesn’t end there. They then take their ill-gotten proceeds, the trans action fees and profits from the re-sale of the Bonds and park them back into their accounts at the FED as “excess reserves” where they are draw 4% interest on the deposit! Well now guess whose money funds these transaction fees, re-sale profits and deposit interest payments? Look in the mirror, the US taxpayer.

If this doesn’t make you mad enough look at that 1/10 of 1% these same banks are paying you on your savings deposits, and then compare it to the $4,200,000,000,000 in taxpayer funds the primary dealers will pocket just from the QE2 program. All for doing nothing more than moving electronic digits from ledger book to another and back again. Oh and also keep in mind that BofA and these other PDs didn’t pay a single dime in income tax on any of it!

If you want to defend this kind of criminal fraud go right ahead. The banks will thank you for it and laugh in your face as they pay out their massive bonuses funded by you while they pay you that luxurious 1/10 of 1% on your savings and charge you 1-1/2% for managing what ever you have left in your IRA or 401K.

So yeah bitch at Congress for massive spending but also bitch at them for lining their coffers with campaign contributions paid from pocket changes off these same banks, for which they return the favor by structuring the tax code that lets them get away with pay no taxes on the scam. You and all the rest of us are being played for suckers and are paying for the privilege. Sadly there are far to many people too blinded by the fools game of left vs. right to see the game, and they never will until its far too late, and hyperinflation destroys everything they have.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#152 Shrieking populism

I don't even where to begin with this shrieking except to say that you are not much more than a shrieking spammer who thinks that the world was an economic and financial Eden until the EVIL Fed was formed. 

That, and basically you hate banks in general.

And that basically you hate the entire modern world especially when it comes to finance. 

You are also a flop at history who can't figure out what caused Germany's hyperinflation. 

You may quit spamming now...

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#153 I don't hate banks in general.

I hate the theft and fraud they perpetrate and the so-called regulators and politicians of both parties that let them get away with it. And I have nothing but contempt for fools who think they are out to do anything but enrich themselves with the taxpayer’s money. You apparently either work for a bank, which makes you a shill, or you don’t know any more about the functioning of currency than you were told was true in high school. There’s an old saying; “a fool and his money are soon parted.” You and those who think like you are just the fools the banks and politicians are looking for. If you think the Congress “has its thumb on the FED” you’re not just a fool, you’re an idiot as well.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#154 Explanations required

Really?

I love being called a fool and an idiot by a fool and an idiot.

Please explain to me how the 12 governors of the Fed are appointed. 

Please explain to me how the chairman of the Fed is appointed. 

Then please explain who gives them the final approval.

Please explain who passed the frigging law that allows the Fed to EVEN EXIST TO BEGIN WITH.

Finally, explain in detail why the Fed chairman gets summoned to Capitol Hill from time to time. 

You claim you don't hate banks in general yet you spit at me "either you work for a bank, which makes you a shill".  This indicates to me that the mere existence of banks makes you explosively angry and that nothing would give you a bigger orgasm than walking into a bank lobby and mowing down all that work there.  (You don't need to know where I work, by the way.)

I know about currency because I do things you do not: I study history and read a great deal on business.  I also interact with the economy on a daily basis.  So it pays for me to educate myself on the economy.  Which means discerning reality from Conspiro-land, where you live.  I am also considerably more educated than you dare imagine, sadly for you. 

 Now, you may explain to me how things work as I indicated above, or you can simply admit you lost the argument and concede my point. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#155 Enjoying your time in Plato's cave

You’re enjoying your time in Plato’s cave I see. But then that’s amply demonstrated by your baseless assumptions that; 1. I hate banks. I already explained this and I won’t repeat myself as you seem to be inclined to do. 2. That I don’t study history. News flash, I graduated from college in 3-1/2 years with dual majors in history and mechanical engineering. Neither do I assume that merely having a degree makes one educated particularly when such “education” comes from apparently very limited sources as shown by you failure to explain to us how the POMO process is not corrupt. Just because Congress passed a law creating the FED does not ipso facto make a good law. Even Woodrow Wilson, under whose administration it was created, admitted that in the end it was the biggest mistake he ever made.

But then if you actually knew anything about history you would know throughout it course the largest shaping factors are conspiracy, the sudden unforeseen event, and the false assumption.

Maybe you should take off the head phones and stop listening to your bad rock ‘n’ roll. Its lack of point and counter point dulls the senses.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#156 For the poser/lightweight

It is in fact great rock 'n' roll.  Not only are you an intellectual poser and a lightweight, but you also have zero musical sense. 

Either make a counterpoint or STFU. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#157 3-4% gain

Who is guaranteeing that the PDs make 3-4% on the treasury bonds they are buying?  Is the FED buying the treasury bonds back at prices that aren't market prices, but phony prices?  Is the whole debt market being manipulated so the PDs can make this 3-4%

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

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

#158 Exactly!

Exactly! The PDs and the FED are one and the same. It’s all the same incestuous little game of feeding off the public that’s been going on since before Christ turned over the tables of the money changers in the Temple.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#159 Oh dear. Well then. Looks like you blew the lid off.

Looks like there is gonna be prosecutions and jail and bankruptcy and..... Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet. Phweet.

#160 Well I am impressed

I don’t think I’ve seen such depth of thought, such intellectual nuance since, since, well maybe the elementary school playground.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#161 Incestmo II

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have Incestmo II now. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#162 Whatever.

Go chase some contrails or shadow people or something. At least people would be entertained by your stupidity when you talk about those.

#163 Mind fleshing that out a bit?

Not trying to be contentious, but saying "Exactly!", and saying the PDs and the FED are one in the same, didn't really answer my questions.  I'll list out the questions again:

  1. Is the FED buying bonds from the PDs at prices that aren't market prices?
  2. Is the whole bond market being manipulated so that the FED doesn't have to do question number one?

Thanks a bunch.  I just wanted to know your opinion.

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

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

#164 Answer to your question.

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#165 Its a big mistake to just focus on the debt.

The FED has become the primary buyer of US Treasuries and in doing so has more than doubled the money supply. Inflation is eating us alive, and the right expends it political capital defending the banks that created the problem in the first place. The third largest economy in the world (Japan) has esentially gone off line. The repercussions are just begining to show. Only fools can ignore the rise in gold and silver prices. The University of Texas just invested $1 Billion dollars in PHYSICAL bullion, $1BILLION! Any of you think that's a coincidence? You think Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan give a rats hind quarters about anyone but themselves? There no different than entrenched politicians. All they care about is their own power and control over the rest of us peons.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#166 We get it already

OK, we get it. You hate central banks and major corporations and want to go back to pre-Civil War America.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#167 That is 2 of us.

It takes one vote, me, to nullify a kooks vote. It takes a second vote, Unsane, to override it.

Sorry Loon688, you done been overridden. The fiat currency stays. I think I shall now throw some around on my bed and roll in it, I love it so much.

#168 My mistake

I should have looked closer. I would then have seen I was engaged with a couple of over aged high school ers who can’t find any deeper philosophical inspiration than from really bad rock ‘n’ roll bands. But then it’s probably not their fault that their teachers never taught them Tacitus or Cicero or Schiller or Goethe, (quick boys hurry, go look them up in Wikipedia. It might give you 1% of the story) their teachers most as likely didn’t know or care about them either. Such a failure in their education goes a long way to explain why they would not just fail but refuse to recognize corruption even when its explained to them in clear succinct terms.

Pity them, for they are victims, like so many others, of their own blind ideological hatred. Which is precisely what the 1%ers, the financial and political elites want them to be, stuck at the edges bickering over the inconsequential. So convinced in their ignorance of their own rectitude they are incapable of seeing the corruption and crime swirling in the center of the vortex sucking what’s left of our once great nation into a corporatist hell. Enjoy your lives shackled in Plato’s cave gentlemen, and good luck to you, you’re going to need it.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#169 Thank you for losing the argument LCT688

Just like your brother Incestmo, the only thing you know how to do, when confronted, is to start insulting people and attacking their intelligence. 

Thank you for admitting more than an intellectual poser and a lightweight who cannot face counter-arguments squarely. 

Though it will give you an intense, powerful orgasm, the country's problems will not be solved just by dispensing with the EVIL Fed and by stringing up every single banker and financier in America. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#170 Thanks for the laugh.

Thanks for giving me a good laugh. I needed it, it made my day.

If you think I have “lost” the argument or you have “won” just because you say so then I guess you don’t have an intellect worth insulting. You two are a like the high school bullies who apparently think you are the masters of this little corner of the blogosphere and resent someone new stepping into your playground and challenging you. But then I can only further guess that this little sandbox is the pinnacle of you intellectual existence and the center of your universe. Maybe you should think about how pathetic that really is.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#171 What is really pathetic

Is you can only make assertions, but cant seem to articulate the why's and how's. Your playing like the street bully, from behind Mamas skirt.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#172 So then

Unsane and The Vet need you to do their projecting for them? The inability to grasp the depth of an argument does not by definition make it an unsubstantiated allegation.

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#173 Depth?

Everyone understands the argument, but as was told to you it is not grounded in reality.

Using a monetary system is fine, if you dont overextend it. Fact is, if there was no treasury right now, we would be feeling the effects of hyper inflation right now. It is only the monetary system that is preventing it. But at the current rate, it will buckle, question is, when.

It's not the Fed, it's not the Banks, it's over regulation that has been ignored for decades. There is no free market when those in power choose winners and losers.

Fact is, you have no bridge to tie the 2 systems together without impoverishing 80% of the country, and passably the world. As has been explained to you, their isnt enough gold to proliferate to the working class. Wealth will cease as the "haves" hang on and the "have nots" barter for crumbs. But who cares, right?

You sound like you listen to Mike Church. He claims to want to get back to the Founders, but first he wants to have a constitutional convention. Who pray tell will be the decision makers in a constitutional convention? The same irresponsible morons who got us into this? Changing the system of barter will not keep the Fed from overextending.

Depth, means thinking about consequences, and using prudence to make better decisions.

Now please continue with your name calling and elitist opinion making,,,,,,,

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#174 Rendered speechless

By a knuckle dragger, shame shame.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#175 Poser

Um, what projecting, poser?

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#176 Hey poser

You act as if you are the smartest person in the room yet cannot deal with a counter argument and continue to ceaselessly insult people and call people high schoolers and elementary schoolers because they have the audacity to disagree with you. 

Thus, you lose the argument. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

#177 I am a 1%er.

I am here to shut you up. And since you are blabbing all of our secrets all over the web. I have requested a squadron of black helicopters to your house. They have given me the OK. You have 20 minutes to vacate the premises before our people get there. I suggest you use your time wisely.

#178 So I guess then

So I guess than that you have graduated from the elementry school playground to the high school locker room. Congratulations!

www.theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com  

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves

#179 Whatever.

He who has no qualms about spewing all the government secrets. Not the tiniest bit worried about repercussions. Of course, that is the way of the K00K.

#180 Hey, this resembles the libtard

Playbook, you know, the one published by the slimes, mslsd, cbs, nbc,and abc? I detect plagiarism?

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#181 chairs

This is just one more reason for me to have a massive crush on Becky Quick.

The other major reason?

"Chairs".

:o)

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.