Richism: The Self-Righteous Bigotry of the Wall Street Protestors

[sjw]

Selene, put a different way, I don't expect the fascist right to dig up these facts. Nor even right-libertarians. Only left-libertarians might be interested in them. (I'm neither left nor right but I see elements of truth on both sides).

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

A big conglomerate is in effect a kind of diversification; but so too would be a means of investing in a thousand small businesses. But you can't do that now, can you? It's illegal. You can't form a "small business stock market" and invest by buying their stocks.

This is why I don't want to go into your other details, you're too "high maintenance" even on this one.

You're making yourself look rather foolish. This is completely false. I have, personally, first hand, just recently done EXACTLY THIS. Debt and equity positions in small business. But mostly debt - can you guess why? Right - risk. Equity risk in small business is very very high.

"LSIFs provide investors with the ability to invest in early stage companies while providing tax credit for the increased risk and illiquid nature of these investments."

Also note the "INCREASED RISK" in the sentence above...Sheesh...

http://www.venturelinkfunds.com/

Yes, I can see how this would be "tiring" for you.

You're hopelessly confused.

The point was that if you remove those things propping up big business, many of them will fall like a house of cards (or shrink, which is fine too). Their "low risk" is only coming from the unjustified propping up.

Now its "propping up", not "bailouts" anymore. Shift the goalposts much?

"Their "low risk" is only coming from the unjustified propping up".

Some perhaps, but that statement as a general rule is not only unjustified, it's contradicted by another assertion of yours in the same post.

"A big conglomerate is in effect a kind of diversification;"

So which is it? Big business=low risk or high?? You accuse me of being confused while contradicting yourself in the same post??

Bob

[Selene]

Shayne:

I am a big proponent of Venn "diagramatic" "arguments," but the representation above does not illustrate what the common percentage of agreement is concerning the overlap.

In your opinion, what percentage of what the "TEA party" advocates is the same as what the "OWS" advocates?

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I agree that the Venn diagram represents what some of the protesters at the bottom of the food chain seem to hold for OWS, but not all. (Incidentally, the Venn diagram is Bill O'Reilly's understanding of the message of the protests and he used it the other night to make Marc Lamont Hill extremely uncomfortable in eating his own words while O'Reilly said racism has no part in either movement).

For example, a good number of protesters interviewed from all different media biases complained about student loans. Nobody among them is complaining about the university prices, though. These protesters are specifically targeting banks--not for being too big and having too much power, but for "ripping them off" on loans for an education they believe should be free--as per explicit statements by many of them.

But on the Venn diagram per se, there is another dimension I think should be added.

On the left side (OWS): Add "Funded by left-wing organizations intent on destroying capitalism in all its forms."

On the right side (Tea Party): Add "Spontaneous and resisting funding by right-wing big government money."

In the middle: Add "Smokescreen to cover up big-government dictatorial intentions of OWS funders."

The middle has just enough truth in it to work as a perfect smokescreen.

I, myself, buy the conclusion that crony capitalism is evil and is causing a lot of the mess in the world, but I do not buy that this is the driving force behind OWS.

I believe the rank and file protesters are being recruited by a well-run organization that works hiding behind a lot of different front groups and entices recruits through a large number of ruses. This is evident in the large variety of things being protested, with hardly any core agreement on one by the protesters in general (except something vague like "replace the system").

Don't forget, OCW protesters have been recruited on Craigslist for $300-$650 a week.

(There's a mini-dust-up with left-wing publications like the Huffington Post about this--see here. Apparently the Working Families Party--read ACORN leftovers--admits it ran the ad, but says it was for something else and it is not paying protesters. You decide. I believe protesters are being paid. Some of those hardcore protesters are just too flaky to stay with this thing for any other motivation.)

OCW and the Tea Party movements may have some superficial points in common between some specific protesters, but, as movements, they are totally different in every fundamental way.

Michael

[sjw]

You're making yourself look rather foolish. This is completely false. I have, personally, first hand, just recently done EXACTLY THIS. Debt and equity positions in small business. But mostly debt - can you guess why? Right - risk. Equity risk in small business is very very high.

Risk in a particular small business can be high, but when averaged over enough of them to be economically equivalent to a big corporation, I don't see how you know that, especially if we abolish the corporate welfare legislation. Again, you're comparing apples to oranges regarding risk.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm quite sure you can't just issue stock to all-comers in whatever venue and amounts and terms and conditions you prefer. Regardless, you certainly can't do it without going through an arbitrary process, paying hefty bills to arbitrary authorities, and complying to certain arbitrary terms. This kind of thing is of course inherently more onerous for a small business than it is for a large one, ergo the criticism I gave earlier applies, ergo, you are again talking with no apparent purpose, leading one to conclude something about your unstated purpose.

Now its "propping up", not "bailouts" anymore. Shift the goalposts much?

The "goalpost" is to show that the laws tend to favor big business. I recognize that your motive is to ignore that and pursue some untoward agenda of your own, ergo you pretend that the goalpost was ever something other than that and hope people don't notice what you're doing.

"A big conglomerate is in effect a kind of diversification;"

So which is it? Big business=low risk or high?? You accuse me of being confused while contradicting yourself in the same post??

OK, you're too thick-headed to waste any more time on. I'll probably just ignore your future posts.

Shayne

[anthony]

I came up with "corpitalism" for crony, corporative, capitalism - but I see Stossel has pipped me with his "Crapitalism."

Nice one!

[bmacwilliam]

Shane,

You can whine all you want and speculate on my motives, but let me tell what they are and remove your speculation.

I don't like the way your original quote from your book cherry-picked items to bolster the "Poor little me, the world is stacked against the little guy" argument. This is not to say that there isn't some pieces of truth to it, but again I think you deliberately miss or are just ignorant of the more pertinent details under the surface of what you're saying, and so you 'twist' bits of truth to support your argument without looking deeper.

I think your arguments (and subsequent defences) are either disingenuous or ignorant, most likely both. Combine this with a forceful and belligerent persona, and there you have my motivation for continuing to point out some of the more obvious problems.

Let's just go back to your lamenting about the impossibility of your Small Business Stock Market idea. First of all EVEN IF this type of investment was not available (which it is), the more important question is would it exist in a free market without all of your evil government restrictions?

Well, one of the biggest (but certainly not the only) challenges of the OTC Equities market is liquidity. Again, this is only ONE of many other challenges, but let's leave it to that for now. To think that a market could function for smaller, and even higher risk securities ('securities' is an ironic word here) is ludicrous. Whining about evil government restrictions on unicorns doesn't make sense if unicorns wouldn't exist anyway.

In addition, people CAN buy diversified investments in micro-cap/venture businesses and they do so. Also, the Venture Cap funds tend to invest more in business debt vs equity because of the enormous risk connected to the unsecured equity side that simply cannot be ignored or rationalized with "Well, big business is risky too if they didn't get corporate welfare" argument. Nonsense.

You are either deliberately ignoring these facts, or know nothing about OTC Equities, and even less about Venture Capital. Any of which is not acceptable to someone making the claims you're making.

Get my motivation now?

Bob

[sjw]

I, myself, buy the conclusion that crony capitalism is evil and is causing a lot of the mess in the world, but I do not buy that this is the driving force behind OWS.

My position is that crony capitalism creates conditions that 1: provides political energy to OWS; 2: gives at least some appearance of OWS being in some regards based in legitimate grievance. I think the best response to this is to first recognize that yes, there is crony capitalism, and that it's bad, that it leads to all of the actually bad effects OWS is complaining about, and then to point out how communism is not the right solution for those problems.

Selene: please don't read too much into my posting of that diagram, I just threw it in here because I saw it and thought it was mildly relevant. I don't think in terms of Venn diagrams myself, I just think in terms of how things ought to be vs. the various ways in which things aren't that way. Categorizing how people react to a big mess isn't particularly interesting to me. Identifying what wouldn't be a mess is more interesting.

Shayne

[sjw]

I don't like the way your original quote from your book cherry-picked items to bolster the "Poor little me, the world is stacked against the little guy" argument.

Thanks for bringing your motivations out into the open. This is something that we can work with. Your other nonsense was just your passive-aggressive method of furthering this motive, so that explains why it didn't make any sense.

Let's see if we can nail down your premises here. Please try to be direct and honest and not passive-aggressive.

Let's start with something simple. Is your position is that there are not gross injustices against the individual in modern society? Is it your position that there's really just not much to complain about?

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

I don't like the way your original quote from your book cherry-picked items to bolster the "Poor little me, the world is stacked against the little guy" argument.

Thanks for bringing your motivations out into the open. This is something that we can work with. Your other nonsense was just your passive-aggressive method of furthering this motive, so that explains why it didn't make any sense.

Let's see if we can nail down your premises here. Please try to be direct and honest and not passive-aggressive.

Let's start with something simple. Is your position is that there are not gross injustices against the individual in modern society? Is it your position that there's really just not much to complain about?

Shayne

I have been direct, honest, and quite clear about my criticisms of your nonsense. Motivations are irrelevant to facts. The facts aren't on your side.

How about you try a semi-intelligent response to some of those direct criticisms above?

Bob

[sjw]

How about you try a semi-intelligent response to some of those direct criticisms above?

Bob

I won't continue replying to your dishonest spin. I will discuss why you feel the urge to spin (which is evidently unstoppable and perhaps even bordering on psychosis).

It seems important for you to believe that modern society is reasonably just and fair, that all individuals have a reasonable amount of liberty to achieve their chosen purpose if it is a reasonable one, yes? If you were to learn that this was not the case, that would be a rather severe blow, yes?

I can't help you if you won't be honest here.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Shayne,

I support Cain, but not because he is an ideal intellectual.

He's a pro-small-business (and, only then, big business) winner and producer who is good at solving problems.

You're an engineer. How do you turn an aircraft carrier around in a major squall? On a dime? Won't happen. If you try, you'll sink the ship.

So in the big picture, I'm not worried about a few inconsistencies with Cain. I believe he has the willingness and capacity to turn the ship around and head it out of the storm without sinking it. If the ship sinks, it won't matter who was right or wrong.

Another way of saying this is that, if the country were in another context, I might not support Cain.

Michael

Believe it or not, I hope Romney gets the Republican nomination, which he probably will. I say this not because I like Romney -- though he has shown flashes of economic ability now and then, as when he fixed the financial mess of the L.A. Olympic Games many years ago -- but because he is the candidate most likely to defeat Obama. In other words, my favorite candiate is really ABO -- Anyone But Obama.

I don't think Cain would stand a chance against Obama. Moreover, his 999 Plan has a potentially disastrous downside, and his call for an electrified border fence is bonkers. (Yes, I know Cain said he was only joking about a lethal electric fence, but he does favor an electrified fence.)

Ghs

[Selene]

Selene: please don't read too much into my posting of that diagram, I just threw it in here because I saw it and thought it was mildly relevant. I don't think in terms of Venn diagrams myself, I just think in terms of how things ought to be vs. the various ways in which things aren't that way. Categorizing how people react to a big mess isn't particularly interesting to me. Identifying what wouldn't be a mess is more interesting.

Fair enough, Shayne.

FYI for Michael, Shayne and all OL members:

Doug Schoen, a quality Democratic pollster, Bill Clinton pollster and a person who I have worked on the same election teams with in prior NY City and State campaigns, manages an excellent and competent organization.

http://online.wsj.co...2965745362.html <<<<this is from the Wall Street Journal and reports on a poll of the OWS occupants of Zuccotti Park, or "Liberty" Park.

The results completely confirm what Michael, and I, have believed from the first week.

For example:

1) 52% have "participated" in a "political movement" before;

2) 98% state that they would "support" civil disobedience to "achieve their goals;"

3) 31% would "support violence to advance their agenda;"

4) 15% of the occupants are unemployed which is "within single digits of the national unemployment rate of 9.1%;"

5) an "overwhelming majority" of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008;

6) 51% disapprove of the president;

7) 44% approve;

8) 48% will vote to re-elect him in 2012;

9) 25% will not vote;

10) 32% self identify as Democrats;

11) 33% self identify with no party;

12) 65% state that "...government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost;"

13) "by a large margin, 77%-22% state that they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans;"

14) 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody;

15) 36% are in favor of raising taxed on everyone;

16) 49% state that the bailouts were necessary;

17) 51% state that the bailouts were unnecessary;

Finally, as the article states in the middle:

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Hmmm, doesn't seem too left or right libertarian to me.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shane...

Bob,

This is a quibble, but "Shane" is the badass, but polite, soldier who posts on OL under the name "sbeaulieu."

"Shayne" is the name of "sjw." the person you are interacting with.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I'm sorry if my "spin" offends you. You can sure dish it out, but...

Anyway...

"It seems important for you to believe that modern society is reasonably just and fair, that all individuals have a reasonable amount of liberty to achieve their chosen purpose if it is a reasonable one, yes?"

No, modern society is not just and fair. Modern society has never been just and fair. Modern society will never be just and fair. Modern society can never be just and fair. It is my contention (one of them), that some of your complaints either would exist in substantially the same form completely absent of government interference and are in fact due to free market forces. While other complaints are just wrong and others are misleading.

It's not fair that a poor/little guy has to pay more for money, but he always will, with or without the government. Just like it's not fair that the guy just starting his driving career who might be an excellent driver nevertheless has to pay more for insurance than the 30 year veteran with no claims or accidents.

Completely free, unregulated banks will still loan rich people and rich businesses money cheaper. It ain't fair. Tough. I can make money loaning to big business too.

One more, from your original post:

"Only big business can afford to pay for lobbyists in Washington. Therefore, the political tendency is to favor big business."

While this can be true, it is also true that, for example, seniors vote at a much higher rate than lobbyists. Some of this "pro-senior" leaning we often see here by politicians often offsets the lobbyist influence quite directly and vice-versa. But again, this is a different country, we do not have distressed and/or bailed-out banks. In fact, if seniors went up against the big banks, the seniors would and did, in fact, win. This happened recently with a significant change to mortgage fraud legislation that landed clearly on the side of not just seniors, but the individual in general at the expense of the banks.

My problem is that your "spin" bolsters your angle, but does not in fact represent the full picture adequately at all.

"It seems important for you to believe that modern society is reasonably just and fair, that all individuals have a reasonable amount of liberty to achieve their chosen purpose if it is a reasonable one, yes? If you were to learn that this was not the case, that would be a rather severe blow, yes?"

No, it's not a severe blow at all. Because I've "made it" more or less, realistically everyone else either must have a reasonable chance too, or it must mean if they don't then I'm truly exceptional. Either way, to channel Charlie Sheen, I'm "winning"

Bob

[sjw]

Believe it or not, I hope Romney gets the Republican nomination, which he probably will.

Perhaps you are unaware George of the open Mormon plot to get control of the Federal Government. It's part of their prophesies.

I appreciate your rationale, but please, anyone but Romney (even Huntsman would be OK -- he's Mormon but he's not orthodox).

Edit: OK, Romney is better than Santorum...

Shayne

[sjw]

I'm sorry if my "spin" offends you. You can sure dish it out, but...

Nope, not offended, just annoyed by your pettiness.

"It seems important for you to believe that modern society is reasonably just and fair, that all individuals have a reasonable amount of liberty to achieve their chosen purpose if it is a reasonable one, yes?"

No, modern society is not just and fair. Modern society has never been just and fair. Modern society will never be just and fair. Modern society can never be just and fair.

Is this a reasonable representation of your view?: "It is hopeless, pointless, and even perverse to expect a political system to ever be instituted that, as a matter of principle (exceptions only due to individual error and rare corruption), respects individual rights."

Feel free to rephrase to match your view.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Believe it or not, I hope Romney gets the Republican nomination...

George,

For the record, I think Romney has the capacity to turn the ship around, too, although not to the extent Cain would. Romney is a very competent administrator who has a lot of the right ideas (for now, at least). So if he gets nominated, I will not lose any sleep about supporting old slick Flip-Flop. I would gladly go out and stump for--and vote for--him.

Anyone but Obama.

I disagree with you that Cain would not stand a chance against Obama. The American people do not respond to a candidate in rational terms. They want a role model, not an intellectual.

They want Moses taking them to the Promised Land. (Thanks to Clotaire Rapaille for that particular insight.) That's what they used to think Obama was.

Cain has the simplicity of spirit to say he was wrong, or say he was unclear and then present what he meant in simple words. But he still talks with certainty.

Obama never says he is wrong and can get downright petty when cornered. And now he has a horrible record to defend.

This might be an indictment of the majority of the American public (I do not think it is), but I believe that something that simple would be a major factor in the outcome.

In all the talk about philosophy, politics, etc., there is one issue that always gets pushed aside: character.

Cain shows plenty of the kind of gutsy down-home character Americans admire and Obama shows a total lack of it. Cain is up front and he is a winner in everything he has touched so far. Obama lies to your face and springs surprises on you that were hatched in the backroom. He wins, too, but by backstabbing.

Frankly, at this point in time, within the present context of the country, I don't think Obama would stand a chance against Herman Cain and I believe the outcome would leave all the pundits scratching their heads, wondering, "What happened?"

Time will tell, though.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Believe it or not, I hope Romney gets the Republican nomination, which he probably will.

Perhaps you are unaware George of the open Mormon plot to get control of the Federal Government. It's part of their prophesies.

I appreciate your rationale, but please, anyone but Romney (even Huntsman would be OK -- he's Mormon but he's not orthodox).

Edit: OK, Romney is better than Santorum...

Shayne

So Romney is part of a Mormon conspiracy to take over the Federal Government? The Mormons face a lot of competition from the Jews, Freemasons, and Illuminati,

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

"Mormon plot to get control of the Federal Government. It's part of their prophesies."

[bmacwilliam]

Friggin' George beat me to it. OOOooooooh!!! I like this guy less and less...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne is from Utah, so Mormon-wise, he sees things from a next door to it perspective.

If I lived next door to the Mormon center of power, I could see myself tempted to think as he does.

Michael

[sjw]

So Romney is part of a Mormon conspiracy to take over the Federal Government?

If by "conspiracy" you mean "openly declared intent for Mormons to dictate what the law of the land is", then yes. If by "conspiracy" you mean "let's see if we can find some way to make Shayne looks smaller than me", then no.

I'm simply pointing out that it's part of the Mormon doctrine that they feel they have the prerogative (and are predestined) to preempt secular rule of law and institute theocracy. It's no secret.

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne is from Utah, so Mormon-wise, he sees things from a next door to it perspective.

If I lived next door to the Mormon center of power, I could see myself tempted to think as he does.

Michael

It's not just a next door perspective and it is not a "conspiracy"; it is literally their doctrine. George and Bob are just behaving like Morons.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

I'm sorry if my "spin" offends you. You can sure dish it out, but...

Nope, not offended, just annoyed by your pettiness.

Is this a reasonable representation of your view?: "It is hopeless, pointless, and even perverse to expect a political system to ever be instituted that, as a matter of principle (exceptions only due to individual error and rare corruption), respects individual rights."

Feel free to rephrase to match your view.

Shayne

More accurate to say that much of what you percieve to be structural injustices, are in reality less serious, less secure or even irrelevant. And also, some of your percieved injustices are not really injustices. It is usually not unjust to give preferred service to wealthy people.