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

[sjw]

Here's a starting point in case George wants to actually research the issue:

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

One theory blames "deregulation", but libertarians should know better than to accept that explanation.

Another angle of this that is quite relevant:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all

As Rand said, it's very convenient to have "one neck ready for one leash."

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

But I haven't studied this area, so I don't know.

That's the most accurate thing you've said so far. To make it more accurate: you have too little imagination to connect what you do know to what is depicted by the graph. And you're also too impertinent to have anyone else walk you through it. And perhaps, you're too old to really care one way or another -- after all, what difference is it to you if civilization falls to this kind of thing after you're gone, right?

And neither do you.

Wishful thinking. I think there are at least a few people here besides me who, given what they already know, who could fill in some details for you. I don't have much interest in interacting with an impertinent foolish old man who sees only what he wants to see. You're emotionally committed to me being wrong about the connections here, and you'll twist any evidence I'd put forth. Let someone else suffer with your dogmatic behavior. Shayne - One neck ready for one leash.

I'm old enough to know a loudmouth, with nothing to back up his claims, when I see one. And you are one of the worst I have ever encountered.

Never in my 62 years has there been greater diversity of political views, including libertarianism, available on radio, television, the Internet. and in books. Newspapers may lag behind, but this is probably because of their declining profitability (owing to the Internet).

With all this diversity, who gives a shit about who owns what? Competition is alive and reasonably well in this area.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Here's a starting point in case George wants to actually research the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership One theory blames "deregulation", but libertarians should know better than to accept that explanation. Another angle of this that is quite relevant: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all As Rand said, it's very convenient to have "one neck ready for one leash." Shayne

A Wiki article! You are one fine researcher, Shayne. Who else would be clever and industrious enough to track down a Wiki article?

The other article has nothing to do with your thesis.

Ghs

[sjw]

One final remark on George's wrongheaded stance here.

If a guest were staying at my house, and I noticed that jewelry had gone missing, that's not enough to assign blame. But if his fingerprints were on the jewelry box, and if he were snooping around where he didn't belong, and if his story didn't make any sense, and if the jewelry was in his backpack, well then it's beyond reasonable doubt: the guy is a thief. Now suppose I find that money is missing too, but I have no other evidence than that it went missing the same week he was staying. That's concomitant with the other things I know he's doing wrong, and whether or not some other thief sneaked in and stole the money, he'll get blamed for the theft in a just court of law, and rightly so.

Likewise, we do not need to trace the precise cause-effect chain that's leading to the concentration of media ownership. All we need to know is the variety of specific laws and regulations that would in principle lead to it, and to know that these are in fact vile rights-violating laws, and we've found the thief that deserves the blame. If it turns out that we put the thief away, and still end up with concentrated media ownership, then that would be interesting, but we have no duty to predict what will happen on a free market in order to assign plausible blame for what appears to be a bad outcome on the rights-usurping system. It is enough to know that the ways in which it is violating rights would in principle lead to the untoward effect we are observing. Just as it is sufficient to know that a thief who had motive, means, and opportunity should get the blame even though we didn't catch him on video.

Shayne

[sjw]

I'm old enough to know a loudmouth, with nothing to back up his claims, when I see one. And you are one of the worst I have ever encountered.

Careful George, if you go too far in your spin you just might reveal that all your remarks are self-serving, and the self they are serving is not very admirable.

It's clear at least to me that you have only one motive when you interact with me: to make George look bigger. You act like you are intimidated by me. Since you are the better writer, and by my estimation, more intelligent, I can only guess at why you feel this way.

Why don't you just stick to the facts and drop the ad hominem? You don't understand how X connects to Y here. Fine. Just say that. Ask for help connecting things. You don't need to incessantly attack me, and it makes you appear weak.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

One final remark on George's wrongheaded stance here. If a guest were staying at my house, and I noticed that jewelry had gone missing, that's not enough to assign blame. But if his fingerprints were on the jewelry box, and if he were snooping around where he didn't belong, and if his story didn't make any sense, and if the jewelry was in his backpack, well then it's beyond reasonable doubt: the guy is a thief. Now suppose I find that money is missing too, but I have no other evidence than that it went missing the same week he was staying. That's concomitant with the other things I know he's doing wrong, and whether or not some other thief sneaked in and stole the money, he'll get blamed for the theft in a just court of law, and rightly so. Likewise, we do not need to trace the precise cause-effect chain that's leading to the concentration of media ownership. All we need to know is the variety of specific laws and regulations that would in principle lead to it, and to know that these are in fact vile rights-violating laws, and we've found the thief that deserves the blame. If it turns out that we put the thief away, and still end up with concentrated media ownership, then that would be interesting, but we have no duty to predict what will happen on a free market in order to assign plausible blame for what appears to be a bad outcome on the rights-usurping system. It is enough to know that the ways in which it is violating rights would in principle lead to the untoward effect we are observing. Just as it is sufficient to know that a thief who had motive, means, and opportunity should get the blame even though we didn't catch him on video. Shayne

Okay, Shayne, name the "specific laws and regulations that would in principle lead to" a greater concentration of media ownership. And, remember, you are appealing to a fairly recent trend, so your specific laws and regulations must also be fairly recent. Let's take the past 20 years. What specific laws and regulations have been passed during the past 20 years that would account for the phenomena you wish to explain?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I'm old enough to know a loudmouth, with nothing to back up his claims, when I see one. And you are one of the worst I have ever encountered.

Careful George, if you go too far in your spin you just might reveal that all your remarks are self-serving, and the self they are serving is not very admirable. It's clear at least to me that you have only one motive when you interact with me: to make George look bigger. You act like you are intimidated by me. Since you are the better writer, and by my estimation, more intelligent, I can only guess at why you feel this way. Why don't you just stick to the facts and drop the ad hominem? You don't understand how X connects to Y here. Fine. Just say that. Ask for help connecting things. You don't need to incessantly attack me, and it makes you appear weak. Shayne

God, you are such a whiner. You are even worse than Phil.

Ghs

[sjw]

God, you are such a whiner. You are even worse than Phil.

Ghs

I've always said that Phil isn't completely wrong in his criticisms.

The trouble with being so intelligent George is that you are capable of pulling off dishonest spin that others can't get away with. When a less intelligent person tries to spin, he gets caught. But when you spin, you often get away with it. The more intelligent you are, the less you get social cues that alert you to being dishonest with yourself, and therefore you need to take even greater care to be honest, lest you develop a habit of constantly distorting everything and becoming completely deluded.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

God, you are such a whiner. You are even worse than Phil.

Ghs

I've always said that Phil isn't completely wrong in his criticisms.

The trouble with being so intelligent George is that you are capable of pulling off dishonest spin that others can't get away with. When a less intelligent person tries to spin, he gets caught. But when you spin, you often get away with it. The more intelligent you are, the less you get social cues that alert you to being dishonest with yourself, and therefore you need to take even greater care to be honest, lest you develop a habit of constantly distorting everything and becoming completely deluded.

Shayne

If you can't take my spin, then stay out of my way.

<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/taz/GETTIWORLD16/Mobile Uploads/Taz.jpg?o=0" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd399/GETTIWORLD16/Mobile%20Uploads/Taz.jpg" border="0"></a>

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Life is so much better for me on OL now.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

I think there are at least a few people here besides me who, given what they already know, who could fill in some details for you. I don't have much interest in interacting with an impertinent foolish old man who sees only what he wants to see. You're emotionally committed to me being wrong about the connections here, and you'll twist any evidence I'd put forth. Let someone else suffer with your dogmatic behavior.

Shayne, I humbly suggest you reflect on this above, because it describes exactly what you do in the face of facts that contradict premises of your arguments.

You asserted that there was no way to invest in small/emerging business - false. Not to mention the rather obvious fact that the reason why the market is small is because most businesses fail, not because of "lack of government support" of some kind, but because the ideas are just plain dumb (mostly).

You asserted that big business risk would be comparable to small without government involvement - false. Ridiculous actually.

You asserted that one couldn't open a neighbourhood mom and pop shop bar/pub - false.

You asserted that you'd get shot if you tried to introduce another form of currency - false, happens all over the place, including the US.

This is not like a scientific theory where one example proves the concept wrong, but nevertheless, your position is weakened by failing to acknowledge facts like these and others but more importantly, you react the exact way you describe above.

Bob

[sjw]

You asserted that there was no way to invest in small/emerging business - false.

I never said that, and no one would say that, it's patently false. And I already told you -- I'm done arguing with you. You fumble around too much in your incompetence and are a waste of time. Go back to something that's actually within your grasp. Something action-oriented rather than idea-oriented. Like maybe hammering two pieces of wood together.

Shayne

[merjet]

You asserted that there was no way to invest in small/emerging business - false.

I never said that, and no one would say that, it's patently false.

You said this:

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.

which is patently false. There are several ETFs and mutual funds that invest in the small-cap companies that are in the Russell 2000 index.

[bmacwilliam]

You asserted that there was no way to invest in small/emerging business - false.

I never said that, and no one would say that, it's patently false.

You said this:

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.

which is patently false. There are several ETFs and mutual funds that invest in the small-cap companies that are in the Russell 2000 index.

And venture cap funds which invest in even smaller, earlier stage businesses but mostly debt because of the very poor risk profile of start up equity investments which also happened to contradict another claim about risk.

Don't let reality get in the way of your 'perfect ideas' Shayne...

Bob

[sjw]

If anyone with intelligence and good faith (definitely excludes you for the former and both you and GHS for the latter) takes issue with anything I said, I'll answer them. I won't answer either of you, you've wasted enough of my time already.

Shayne

- I'm done paying trolls.

[bmacwilliam]

If anyone with intelligence and good faith (definitely excludes you for the former and both you and GHS for the latter) takes issue with anything I said, I'll answer them. I won't answer either of you, you've wasted enough of my time already.

Shayne

- I'm done paying trolls.

Then ignore me, but why don't you answer Merlin then?

Bob

[sjw]

You asserted that there was no way to invest in small/emerging business - false.

I never said that, and no one would say that, it's patently false.

You said this:

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.

which is patently false. There are several ETFs and mutual funds that invest in the small-cap companies that are in the Russell 2000 index.

It is illegal to offer stock to the public on your own terms. And the legal/cost hurdle here is far more difficult for a mom and pop than for a big business, making it virtually impossible to do for a very small business. The relative impact and overhead to a small business is vastly larger than to a big one. So the practical effect of your quibbling concerning my original point is: nil.

Shayne

[sjw]

If anyone with intelligence and good faith (definitely excludes you for the former and both you and GHS for the latter) takes issue with anything I said, I'll answer them. I won't answer either of you, you've wasted enough of my time already.

Shayne

- I'm done paying trolls.

Then ignore me, but why don't you answer Merlin then?

Bob

I didn't notice his post before.

Shayne

[merjet]

It is illegal to offer stock to the public on your own terms. And the legal/cost hurdle here is far more difficult for a mom and pop than for a big business, making it virtually impossible to do for a very small business. The relative impact and overhead to a small business is vastly larger than to a big one. So the practical effect of your quibbling concerning my original point is: nil.

Part of that legal/cost hurdle for a public stock offering is fraud prevention. Fraud is a lot more frequent in small-cap/micro-cap stocks than larger-cap ones (link). But I suppose in your fantasy world where anyone can sell stock to the general public on whatever terms they want, there wouldn't be any fraud.

Most mom and pop businesses are started with their own capital or with help from friends and relatives. They don't need the amount of money that one can obtain in the public market or even from "private" sources such as venture capitalists.

So the practical effect of your quibbling response is nil and your original point remains patently false.

[sjw]

Part of that legal/cost hurdle for a public stock offering is fraud prevention. Fraud is a lot more frequent in small-cap/micro-cap stocks than larger-cap ones (link). But I suppose in your fantasy world where anyone can sell stock to the general public on whatever terms they want, there wouldn't be any fraud.

Buyer beware. There's this thing called "rights" that you're evidently unfamiliar with Merlin, but it means I can form agreements with a lemonade stand if I want to. That rules you out from being at the appropriate level of intellectual development to be able to discuss this matter. But if you were at the right level of development, we could then talk about how interfering with natural rights always causes harm and unintended consequences. You are so oblivious on the basic level that we can't even have a discussion about unintended consequences here.

So, if there are any people who are NOT trolls who have an issue with my points, then I'll respond to them. Merlin is now out of the game.

Shayne

[sjw]

So the practical effect of your quibbling response is nil and your original point remains patently false.

Incidentally, the original statement was that the small businesses can't access public capital, the quibbling apes here have been beating their chest because I didn't add what in the final analysis is an inconsequential qualification. In effect, very small businesses can't access public capital. Wow, big change guys, thanks for pointing that one out.

I won't be revising the book anytime soon on account of that "error."

Shayne

[merjet]

Buyer beware. There's this thing called "rights" that you're evidently unfamiliar with Merlin, but it means I can form agreements with a lemonade stand if I want to. That rules you out from being at the appropriate level of intellectual development to be able to discuss this matter. But if you were at the right level of development, we could then talk about how interfering with natural rights always causes harm and unintended consequences. You are so oblivious on the basic level that we can't even have a discussion about unintended consequences here.

So, if there are any people who are NOT trolls who have an issue with my points, then I'll respond to them. Merlin is now out of the game.

This is typical Shayne behaviour. When somebody doesn't bow down to his fallacious arguments, he starts with the ad hominem insults. It's clear who is a troll for Shayne -- anyone who doesn't swallow whatever he says, much of which is made up as he goes along. Then if anyone gives him some of his own medicine, he turns into a crybaby.

In effect, very small businesses can't access public capital.

Which is entirely irrelevant, for they have no need for it.

[sjw]

This is typical Shayne behaviour. When somebody doesn't bow down to his fallacious arguments, he starts with the ad hominem insults.

This is typical hypocrite behavior. When I don't bow down to your fallacious arguments, you call upon unspecified evidence and allegations to attack my character. Yes, it's very clear who the troll is.

I'm not asking for your nitwit response. It's totally unwelcome. I'm not trolling you, you're trying to play a game of oneupmanship on me. And of all the petty things to play this game with. You're revealing what a petty nitwit you are. The fundamental principles are what matter here, and instead of talking about those, you're showing me what a great bean counter or ambulance chaser you are.

Now stop your trolling and go back to whatever petty thing it was that was occupying your very limited mental scope. Maybe you can go hammer some boards together with Bob.

Which is entirely irrelevant, for they have no need for it.

Oh, this is rich. He presumes to know any and all business plans and possibilities on a free market, in order to argue that it's really not much of an insult to natural rights when they are violated in this sphere. What a lack of imagination. A perfect match to his petty nitwit mentality.

Shayne

[sjw]

Merlin (in effect): "Oh, I'm sorry, did I trounce that natural right of yours? Well that's OK, you weren't using it anyway."

As if a mentality such as his can imagine all the possibilities arising from a creative person's exercise of his natural rights.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

But should that public capital be available to a corporate entity that perhaps shouldn't even exist for philosophical reasons?

There are all kinds of reasons small businesses have it tough because of heavy-handed government. I don't think access to capital is nearly as important as capital not wanting to access therefore.

--Brant