Has Anyone Else Read “Atlas Shrugged?”

Yeah the kids coming out of college these days are crazier then ever too. I swear I recently heard an argument "If someone doesn't want to work, they should have the right not to and still be able to get all the same stuff as the rest do. Being forced to work for a wage to support yourself is pretty much the same thing as slavery." It is this kind of logic...

 

Its called progressive-liberal-secular-pagan-humanism, i.e. anti/un American in every way possible.

 

No, of course not. Albeit, I traveled there often, in the past, when I sat on the board of the Belgian manufacturing division, which is comprised of two entities, in fact: one that owns the products/IP/chattel; the other owns the land and buildings. And both are owned by the world HQ, in Seattle, WA. That help?

 

1. Asked and answered many times.

2 / 3. I checked my Rightie-to-English dictionary, and "your wording is confusing" translates to "I ain't got no comeback."

4. Simple. It's a business practice designed to put competition out of business, in pursuit of a monopoly, and thus illegal. One might do that by selling products at below the cost to produce, until such time as competition is eliminated, and then raise prices to any level without fear of competition. Doing so violates anti-trust laws. In business it's vital we know the laws, so we do violates them, obviously. If I did today what Rockefeller did by design (set prices in collusion with "competitors" -- pseudo competitors -- to put many others out of business) I'd go to jail, and should. Destroying a person's enterprise and putting its employees out of a job, is a damn sight worse than sneaking in and stealing a TV out of the lunch room.

5. We agree again. However, we must have rules in markets, or none would risk capital entering them. So indeed, government must protect and insure competition, for the benefit of consumers and entrepreneurs alike. It's vital, and thus done everywhere on earth, nearly, to one degree or another. We in fact do a relatively poor job. Microsoft was with virtually no penalty, allowed to put Netscape out of business. Walmart has been allowed to come into markets, open three stores, and when the competition is eliminated, close one or two stores, knowing consumers will, since they have no choice, drive further. And neither Justice nor Commerce (the departments) have done much to punish them, albeit,. Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are penalized in other countries, where they better protect competition.

6. Whew. Seems it's your turn to explain, with something other than an anecdote, which was not a true monopoly.

7. Giddy am I, to put it as Yoda might have.

Back at ya ...

 

Emphasis on this separate point ...

That there is fraud within systems has no bearing on the policy designed to help those in need. It's an entirely separate concern: enforcement, which itself has to cost-justify. If it costs $10 to find $1 in fraud, which is the greater cost problem? So they have to make a reasonable effort to catch the wrong doers, which we do, otherwise how would we know the fraud is happening? All other estimates on how much fraud might exist, are merely speculative; and those opposed to the programs will of course, make the wildest estimates.

 

Why would you listen to anyone spouting crap like this? I know of NO ONE who thinks like that except for right wing idiots with wild imaginations, you knw, those who tend to believe lots of idiot crap....and very wealthy "entitled" people. You know the type, they think the moon is made of cheese too.....

 

There are some posts like that in this thread alone. You should get out more.

 

I searched "right not to" and only came up with links to you posts. Mind pointing out what you say there are some of in this thread? Thanks in advance.

 

From you, a content-free comment is the best we can hope for.

 

Very dishonest and/or stupid. Krugman WASN'T recommending that that action be taken.

If you realized this before posting, you are dishonest.

If you didn't realize it, you are stupid.

 

Keynesianism hurts only the wealthy. If you are against it and you aren't filthy rich, you are FILTHY STUPID.

 

You're the only one lying here. Paul Krugman was quoted word for word, when he was saying what Fed chairman Greenspan should do, to help the country get over the NASDAQ bubble bursting. Since you're. Partisan hack, I don't expect you to be honest in anyway.

 

Once again, you're displaying complete stupidity on this subject. Keynesianism affects the the middle class, and the poor the most.

Answer, this genius who do you think is affected by higher inflation, the rich or not the rich.
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

 

Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House, and Republican Federal Reserve Chairman: 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931.
Economics: LAISSEZ-FAIRE
Result: THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!

Democratic President, Democratic Senate, Democratic House, and Democratic Federal Reserve Chairman: 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947.
Economics: KEYNESIAN
Result: END OF GREAT DEPRESSION, VICTORY IN WORLD WAR II, PROSPERITY.
(Note: The Great Depression was needlessly extended when FDR took bad advice from GOP in 1937 regarding austerity.
Also, WWII helped to show the importance of massive spending to get out of a Republican Depression.)

Maybe you enjoy getting punked by talk radio and Fox News more than considering the facts.

 

I'm still waiting for you to explain how kenysian economic polices only affect the rich, and nobody else Jeff.

 

Ok, so how do you explain away the following 13 recessions after the enactment of Keynesian economic policies.

*1937-38
*1945
*1949
*1953
*1958
*1960-1961
*1969-70
*1973-75
*1980
*1981-82
*1990-91
*2001
*2007-2009(followed four more years of a sluggish economy.)

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, so how do you explain away the following 13 recessions after the enactment of Keynesian economic policies.

*1937-38
*1945
*1949
*1953
*1958
*1960-1961
*1969-70
*1973-75
*1980
*1981-82
*1990-91
*2001
*2007-2009(followed four more years of a sluggish economy.)

 

Here is a link to the original article so people can decide for themselves whether you are stupid, dishonest, or both. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

Also, an extreme right-winger like Greenspan would never take advice from Krugman. He caused the housing bubble on his own.

And, even if you are correct, how pathetic is it to pick one paragraph from one article written eleven years ago out of twenty years worth of articles, to discredit someone. Any right-wing pundit is wrong hundreds of times a year.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is a link to the original article so people can decide for themselves whether you are stupid, dishonest, or both. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

Also, an extreme right-winger like Greenspan would never take advice from Krugman. He caused the housing bubble on his own.

And, even if you are correct, how pathetic is it to pick one paragraph from one article written eleven years ago out of twenty years worth of articles, to discredit someone. Any right-wing pundit is wrong hundreds of times a year.

 

Because when things get cooking, they become more volatile. So no only were they periods of historical contraction, they were also period of historical growth, far exceeding the measly pre-Keynesian period.

Top Five Years for GDP Expansion:
1942, +18.5%
1941, +17.1%
1943, +16.4%
1936, +13.0%
1934, +10.9%

Top Five Years for GDP Contraction:
1932, -13.1%
1946, -10.9%
1930, -8.6%
1931, -6.5%
2009, -3.5%

 

What I said about Keynesian is true. It DOES affect the non-rich, but in a positive way.

 

Ok, not are you only absolutely wrong, but you can't even back your claim up with facts.
Sorry there junior, but "because I say so", won't cut it.

There is no further reason to respond to you, since you've just proven me right.

 

Or perhaps it's political cycles ...

Top Five Years for GDP Expansion:
1942, +18.5% | Dem Prez
1941, +17.1% | Dem Prez
1943, +16.4% | Dem Prez
1936, +13.0% | Dem Prez
1934, +10.9% | Dem Prez

Top Five Years for GDP Contraction:
1932, -13.1% | Rep Prez
1946, -10.9% | Dem Prez
1930, -8.6% | Rep Prez
1931, -6.5% | Rep Prez
2009, -3.5% | Rep Prez

 

Ahh, I see. Though to be honest, I never would have guessed that you were a septuagenarian. I would have pegged your age to be much lower. I say Bravo! Not many old-timers will even get on the internet much less interact.

 

Sorry, you are incorrect. From 1878 thru 1882, saw a boom in GDP, by 49%. This is the biigest expansion of growth, outside war time ever recorded in American economic history.

 

I'll leave you with a link that praises the roaring twenties as a time of great economic growth despite coming after a war. What's that, the roaring twenties had Republican presidents at the helm? FDR resided over almost a decade of an average of 16-18 percent unemployment. Yeah, that looks like a great recovery from the depression all right. WWII--the war FDR didn't want to get involved with in the first place saved his pathetic reign as potus, as millions of jobs were created in our munition factories that spurred economic growth--no thanks to FDR with his hesitancy to get involved.

http://www.manythings.org/voa/history/168.html

 

Those are one-year growth rates, and not continuous periods. Meanwhile, Hayes did reside over the Industrial Revolution (part duex, in US) which was a period of remarkable transition, but also lead to immigrants in tenement slums, 6 x 12 hr work weeks, with the whole family working, for an abject poverty wage. Thus, not a great time for Americans, even if the numbers suggested great growth.