@wangsta25 BBT was forced to take money, and was one of the first banks (if not the first) to pay the money back. When they did the taxpayer, comprised mostly of 1%ers, made a profit on the loan.
Will SOMEONE who knows something about Ayn Rand please watch the following short video and respond? If you find something wrong, please spell out what it is.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Stossel is a complete joke...what regulation exactly do bankers suffer under? What horrible tax burden do the best and brightest (the rich) suffer under. The banks lobbied for less rules and gave us dirivatives...stossel and that banker need to stfu.
The example of the person falling overboard and not helping is misrepresenting Rand selfishness. She wrote about situations like these and said that in an emergency you should help others.
The Ames, Iowa Straw poll is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2011. Because of this, it is imperative to catapult Ron Paul to victory in the straw poll. On July 19, 2011, we will hold an online money bomb in support of Ron Paul for President 2012, with the goal to win the Ames, Iowa straw poll.
Please invite all your friends and help Ron Paul end our costly military involvements overseas, shrink the size of our government and restore the republic
“bailed out the toxic assets this companies acquired, therefore bailing out the company”
HAHAHA OMFG tell that to all the Lehman/Bear investors who lost all of their money. Great bailout...those company’s DON’T EXIST ! I guess your little theory that a company can always get “bailed out” (your dumb definition) and still be ok doesn’t hold water does it?
Again, Bear/Lehman DID NOT get bailed out…stop being an idiot!
Why is Atlas Shrugged' still around? Well there were people seeking validation for being hateful and selfish then as there are those same type of people today. 'Nuff Said.
@Natures34JJJFreak Agruing just for the heck of it, and trying to convince a fellow human being to see reason are not the same thing. Check your premisses.
LOL, so you are saying Ayn Rand thought "Hmm, how can I get people to not read my book 50 years from now? I know, I will make it 1,000 pages long, that will get people to not read it 50 years from now" and even better, "How can I get Christians to not read my book, I know! I will put some sex scenes that are not even explicit, then no christians will read it" LOL stop believing everything you read on the internet
LOL, so you are saying Ayn Rand thought "Hmm, how can I get people to not read my book 50 years from now? I know, I will make it 1,000 pages long, that will get people to not read it 50 years from now" and even better, "How can I get Christians to not read my book, I know! I will put some sex scenes that are not even explicit, then no christians will read it" You need a reality check bro.
"The book is long... more than a thousand pages; so, how many people read books this long?" There are NO WORDS to describe how much this statement hurts. I guess we should be reading books that are 100 or 200 pages long, something more reasonable. Maybe something with lots of pictures. Seriously? Is he pandering to his audience? Are we that stupid that the length of a book is a factor for reading it or not? Granted, the author does ramble, a lot; but criticizing a book for length is ridiculous.
Even the most passionate, intelligent, and talented individuals all learned at first from someone else. And at this very moment the most humble of us are teaching others their skills, their ideas and ideals. With no proof that they will have any return on their investment. And yet they still do it. For no other reason than the inate human desire to live and grow and better themselves. And to show others how to do the same.
Atlas Shrugged was 1060 pages and small print. I can not believe how much Ayn rambles in that book, it's so repetitive I was pulling my hair out. She literally could have written the entire thing in 500 pages. I didn't think the book lived up to her actual real life positions. I do support her idea of what the proper function of government is.
when the guy say's you are required to be selfish... we see this in large city's daily, where people would step over you if you lay on the pavment, & to actually get public attention in these places is to call out 1 word ( FIRE ) this gets public attention yet HELP does not, strange but true, so we see this effect today, and in the past, it's the nature of the environment of large city's & the speed of which these city's operate. " nothing NEW here " !!
its funny how people is bashing this book, the book dont say that you should not help another people, its only say that you shoundt make helping people a excuse to any behavior that you had in order to profit for some action, if you are going to profit over something than so be it, do not make excuses over about, it didnt say that you shouldnt help people but question if maintain people in a mediocre state is a good thing. dont give the fish just teach them to fish for themselves.
Stossel is an ass. This is the same guy who said that to save endangered species we should eat them so the demand for their meat wild drive us to breed them. Total moron.
Welfare should only be for those who physically cannot make a living for themselves but it's become something for those who don't want to work. I'm tired of paying for the lazy, not the infirm. The jealous and lazy are a parasite on American business and the government is their WMD. The government needs to be chained down to three things: A police force to protect citizens from domestic aggressors, a military to protect citizens from foreign invadeors, and a court to settle disputes among people
So it turns out that libertarian gasbag, Ayn Rand, collected Social Security under her ex-husband's Social Security number and did so under an assumed name in order to hide her identity. What a total freakin poseur.
What if the government shrugged and stopped regulating business??? I'm sure Wall-street would just magically start regulating itself...it wouldn't invest in Credit default swaps or any risky assets or anything tied to OUR BANK DEPOSITS or anything like that.
"My only goal is to make money" -Hank Reardon ....Yessss, that holds true despite the impact on our environment, our economy, etc.
@BalazarsBrain actually... they wouldn't... the only reason wall street invested in very risky assets is because they knew they were going to get bailed out by the government... take moral hazard out of the equation and banks would've been more careful of were they put their money in...
Sexistroll, are you serious??? You sound like you have no clue of what you're talking about.
The moral hazard came about from DEREGULATION i.e. the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act. This DEREGULATION allowed banks who hold OUR MONEY (bank deposits) to make risky bets.
We need MORE regulation, not less! If you trust Wallstreet to regulate itself, you're CRAZY!
@BalazarsBrain "The moral hazard came about from DEREGULATION" wow... do you even know what you're saying? or are you just going to repeat "glass steagall! glass steagall!" the FDIC is part of the glass steagall act remember. "deposits are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government" ring any bells? moral hazard is when you use other people's money and you're not responsible because you don't have to answer for it. but OK Im gonna try to explain myself in here...
Regulation is what caused the collapse. 1. the FDIC is the major source of moral hazard among banks. it simply says, we will bail out your depositors no matter what. 2. the CRA or community reinvestment act basically says loan money to poor people with bad credit for social justice. 3. the GSEs fannie mae and freddie mac. the value of their mortgages was backed by the government this made hold less capital to back up their mortgages that when sold they became toxic assets...
in other words the gses knew they were backed by the government so they made a bucnch of risky loans without the capital knowing they were going to be bailed out... tell me something if banks weren't told that the government was going to bail out their depositors you think they would've invested in all those risky loans? if they wouldn't have had the government saying "loan to this poor community loan to that community" you think they would've made bad loans?
"the FDIC is the major source of moral hazard among banks. it simply says, we will bail out your depositors no matter what."
Guess what, if the banks had regulation disallowing them to put our deposits at risk in the first place, we would hardly need the FDIC.
Furthermore, you're acting as though the public wouldn't DEMAND a bailout the very second their bank deposits were at risk. In the end, there would be a bail-out no matter what if people's deposit money disappeared.
"moral hazard is when you use other people's money and you're not responsible because you don't have to answer for it"
DUH, and you don't need the government NOR do you need the FDIC to have moral hazard....Again, as long as banks can put our bank deposits at risk, the Public will DEMAND a bailout...FDIC or not. OBVIOUSLY there is moral hazard, even if you take the government and the FDIC out of the equation. How do you not get that???
@BalazarsBrain "I mentioned Glass Steagal ONCE! You sure like to just make stuff up don't you??" I never said you repeated it I asked if you were just going to repeat that over and over. guess what... the banks don't need regulations telling them how to invest the money nor do they need regulations allowing them to use people money without consequences... you think the banks are going to risk depositors money without a bail out? if you say yes you're not taking into account the consumer POV...
In other words would you deposit your money in banks that are involved in risky business? in which if you answer yes you're just asking for it and in that case they would probably offer you a very high apr. Moving on, there wouldn't be moral hazard with just the deposits because the banks have to answer to those depositors remember? "moral hazard is when you use other people's money and you're not responsible because YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER FOR IT"...
and the banks will have to answer to depositors because they risk losing them... the banks will be far more responsible without bail outs since they would have to answer to the depositors instead of having the government just covering that for nothing... something that you probably didn't think of...
“there wouldn't be moral hazard with just the deposits because the banks have to answer to those depositors”
Explain to me how a company going into bankruptcy is going to answer to a depositor?...with money? HAHAHA
The moral hazard comes about because the bank knows that the PUBLIC won’t let the bank fail if people’s deposits start to disappear…thus, the bank has no down-side risk to losing. Get it now???
"would you deposit your money in banks that are involved in risky business?"
Great idea...as if the general public is sophisticated enough to look through their bank's financial statements and understand the difference between a low-risk profile loan, a apposed to a company invested in high risk derivatives: CDS's, Foreign Currency Swaps, etc.
No but you're right, I'm sure everyone who uses a bank (almost everyone) does this on a quarterly basis...sure.
"and the banks will have to answer to depositors because they risk losing them"
And what makes you think that i-bankers are so worried about the long-term viability of their firm…and not short-term profits/bonuses?
You think executives at AIG, Bear, Countrywide, Lehman were worried about long-term viability of their firms and not short term profits/bonuses? (All of whom made record bonuses right up to the collapse) They laughed their asses to the bank as their ships sank.
@BalazarsBrain "Explain to me how a company going into bankruptcy is going to answer to a depositor?...with money? HAHAHA" again you're not understanding that's why you're refuting an argument you yourself created (straw man). the banks are not gonna go bankrupt if they have to answer to the depositor... there are two sins in a free market, fraud and coercion in any case in a free market the bank has the obligation to pay its depositors, however not under our current regulation...
because they are entitled to the bail out. again take that out and they will answer the depositors. and the bank will prevent risky business because they know they get no bail out.
Secondly, it is up to the consumer to be informed, for example: those who eat too much subway footlongs end uo fat, yet now apparently the government is trying to regulate that too. There's a term for this: "nanny state." going back to the banks take out the regulations and the deposits safety net. after that banks will have to simplify things, to the depositors in order to acquire their money. just like subway did by showing people the calories and fat grams in the food.
but again you want the government to regulate and do everything for yah... but going back "a low-risk profile loan, a apposed to a company invested in high risk derivatives: CDS's" LOL do you even know what these are? if you did you wouldn't have posted that comment. This products are a chain reaction of each other. you make a loan which creates a mortgage, which you sell as a option or derivative in the mortgage market for which you insure it with a CDS.
This became riskier a collapse because they were toxic. Why they were toxic? fannie mae, freddie mac and banks under the CRA made them. they stem to a risky loan, something banks wouldn't make if they have no FDIC to back them up or any regulation to tell them to do it.
third the people you mention make profits because they got bailed out. The profits these people make come from interest payments, or from selling securities backed with mortages which some are risky, but many were backed by the government because the GSE are "entitled" to that. In other words some made money not only because of the TARP but because the government had to back the mortgages the GSEs made which many of those banks that those people are CEOs from ended up buying.
If the government wouldn't have provided that safety net they wouldn't have bought those things in the first place they still be making proifit but in a more safe way without getting money from the taxpayers. Or in other words they wouldn't have made those profits "out of losses" without that safety net. they would've made losses.
“the people you mention make profits because they got bailed out”
WRONG!!! Where was Bear Stearns’ and Lehmans’ bail outs?...maybe you can tell me what their stock symbol is so I can invest in them…oh that’s right, THEY DON’T EXIST ANYMORE!
Sexisttroll, now I’m REALLY convinced you have absolutely no clue about what you’re talking about....seriously, who doesn't know that Bear and Lehman didn't get bailed out??? Jesus Christ!
“the people you mention make profits because they got bailed out”...” made money not only because of the TARP”
WRONG, Bear Stearns and Lehman made record profits from their derivatives right up to the time of collapse. Obviously they didn’t make money from any TARP or Bailout because there WAS NO BAILOUT for them!
“LOL do you even know what these are? if you did you wouldn't have posted that comment. This products are a chain reaction of blah blah blah”
You seriously didn’t understand my point which was that some banks invest in low-risk mortgage loans, and others invest in high-risk CDS’s (yes, made up of mortgages…no shit Sherlock).
And you expect everyone to magically become Accounting/Financial Advisory experts and tell the difference between these??? Good luck!
@BalazarsBrain LOL AHAHAHAHAHA! you made me laugh! rofl... and here I was thinking you were actually reading my comments... but apparently you only read the parts you like... separate them and then try to debunk them as if those were the only things I said... you're splitting facts in half and ignoring the other side... so tell me what part of "government backed mortgages" didn't you understand... you think that isn't a bail out? LOL... and now you resort to insults... interesting...
let me explain to you in an even simpler way... company buys a toxic asset, treasury has to pay for toxic asset, because treasury said they were going to back toxic asset. basically companies acquaried amounts of toxic assets for which the government had to pay them later... but apparently to you a bail out is only what you say it is is... and by the way...
"And you expect everyone to magically become Accounting/Financial Advisory experts and tell the difference between these??? Good luck!" isn't this like saying "I've no clue what I'm talking about so don't demand to much from ok..." nicely done sir...
“so tell me what part of "government backed mortgages" didn't you understand... you think that isn't a bail out?”
Bear and Lehman DIDN’T GET BAILED OUT! LMAO, all I hear out of your mouth is backpeddle, backpeddle, backpeddle. Just admit you’re an idiot, and we can continue…this is fun! ;)
“basically companies acquaried amounts of toxic assets for which the government had to pay them later”
Here’s the Moral Hazard: if there were no FDIC, what’s stopping management from simple letting their company go into bankruptcy? (and screwing over depositors)
@BalazarsBrain oh wow... so you resort into more insults... what happened? frustration much? "Only 1 out of the 4 I mentioned were bailed out…it’s ok, admit you’re an idiot and move on! ;)" you still don't get the mortgage backed securities don't you? government bail out the toxic assets this companies acquired, therefore bailing out the company... nope instead you insult me... but hey apparently you think insulting people is fun...
nice... really showing of your true self there mister. but well going back to your argument...
"Here’s the Moral Hazard: if there were no FDIC, what’s stopping management from simple letting their company go into bankruptcy? (and screwing over depositors)" the fact that they would be in debt for ages... the banks owe the deposits to the people... or perhaps you'll get it with a simple example...
a person would not take another person's money and lose it on purpose... else they will have to repay that persons money... unless a third party walks in and says they would pay the depositors their money then the other guy would walk out with the capital he managed to save from the investment he originally "lost." get it now?
what is so hard to understand from that just tell me and I'll be happy to explain...
No I don’t need to result to insults, but COME ON!!! We both know that Bear and Lehman didn’t get bailed out so stop acting like a pussy…be a man and admit your dumb mistake!
And yes, I’m sorry but I’m having fun…watching you pathetically try and back-peddle out of your retarded statements is entertaining. ;)
"the fact that they would be in debt for ages... the banks owe the deposits to the people... "
I'm obviously talking about a situation where the company goes into bankruptcy and they’re no more (like Bear/Lehman). Do you really not understand my question?...or are you dodging it on purpose?
Again, even without FDIC...what’s stopping management from simple letting their company go into bankruptcy (and out of business) thus screwing over depositors?
@BalazarsBrain wow! and again with the insults... but apparently you simply do not get it... what part of person making bad investment and government paying for bad investment do you don't understand... so tell me then... how is the treasury paying for the toxic assets that these investment firms acquire not a bail out? instead of laughing at my "pathetic" intents to explain it to you, you explain me how is that not a bail out...
but you seem to be rephrasing the question and acting as if its a different one... so in that case, OK I will assume I don't understand the question, so please rephrase it in an even simpler way...
"government bail out the toxic assets this companies acquired, therefore bailing out the company"
LMAO Nice Logic idiot! Bear + Lehman didn't get bailed out, their assets were sold to different companies (such as JPM) who YES GOT BAILED OUT. Bailing out JPM DOES NOT equal bailing out Bear!!! The bailout happened AFTER those companies ceased to exist…try using logic next time retard.
Watching you try and weasel out of your comments is hilarious!
“the fact that they would end up with a lot of debt...”
WhoTF is “they”???…oh you mean the company that doesn’t exist anymore? Ohhh ok, so a company that doesn’t exist is going to owe a lot of debt?...OMFG!!!
What part of “go into bankruptcy (and out of business)”…that means it DOES NOT EXIST. You started out making at least a little sense, now you are either dodging the question, or you're extremely slow.
@BalazarsBrain wow... someone's mad... "u mad bro?" haha jk... have you seen the video btw? anyway... you forgot to mention something very crucial, indeed. the fed provided a $28 billion loan for the purchase of assets for bear stearns. search maiden lane. who knows it may be useful. also you forgot to mention that the fed swapped many if not most of the lower quality assets in exchange for loans to the several WT firms which bought most of the assets that Lehman had.
"the fad paid several firms to buy the troubled assets from lehman... I smell bail out"
Who said there wasn't a bailout??? OMFG LoL, just like you said, the Fed paid OTHER FIRMS to buy those assets at a fraction of the price they were bought for. If you're saying that Bear got some of the benefit, well the investors walked away with something like $2 per share, whooptie doo!
@BalazarsBrain if I recall it was you who said that there was no bail out for this companies. and you assume that because the government didn't transfer the money directly to them. and then you argued that the bail out given to the companies who absorbed this failing companies like JPM doesn't count as a bail out for the companies who got absorbed in the first place. but most the WT firms who purchase many of the assets from this failing banks didn't need no bail out. they got the money...
as part of an agreement made by them with the FED and other institutions in which they would get paid for purchasing toxic and other low quality assets. which to me is a bail out. Bear and Lehman went begging to the FED and the government for help and they got it. investors may have not walked away very happy. But they didn't leave empty handed.
@BalazarsBrain oh hey nice to see you again! whats funny is that the way you think that bear and lehman didn't get bailed out is whats causing them to laugh... seriously why do you think the fed payed several WS firms to buy those assets from Lehman? and why did the fed provided loans for the purchase of the many assets from bear? they could've done a direct transaction but instead used several firms to do so...
WOW $2!!! In your comment you said the reason these people made profits was because they got bailed out…somehow you forgot about all of the profits/bonuses they made off of derivatives/etc prior to the collapse.
Oh no, but I’m sure you’re right…I’m sure when they were making those risky bets they were thinking about that GIANT $2 per share “bailout” they had to fall back on.
"“go into bankruptcy (and out of business)”…that means it DOES NOT EXIST" Exactly! it means... wait what? since when does the process of going bankupt and not existing mean the same? funny. the difference you might have forgotten is that a bank in the process of getting bankrupt can still be rescued. while non existing is well non existing. and if I recall your question reads:
"since when does the process of going bankupt and not existing mean the same?"
Umm why don't you read the FULL quote instead of committing another straw man? I said "and out of business"...I thought you might figure out that means that they don't exist anymore since they're "out of business". I guess that was expecting too much from you. :P
@BalazarsBrain The full quote? you mean "What part of “go into bankruptcy (and out of business)”…that means it DOES NOT EXIST"? strawman? nope. more like answering the same question even though you constantly rephrase it and then act like it means a different thing. To which I'm sorry to tell you, but you failed at.
Ok Mr. Question dodger...seriously these are the tactics you're left with? It's obvious you don't have an argument, or you wouldn't be dodging the question like a little bitch.
Sure I'll rephrase it...only for your Sexisttroll ;). QUESTION: In a situation without the FDIC, what's stopping executives from simply letting their company go out of business (hence NOT EXIST) and therefore screw over depositors?
@BalazarsBrain The fact that the executives would end up with an iliquidity which they will have to pay. In other words they would have a mountain of debt which they would have to pay.
“The fact that the executives would end up with an iliquidity which they will have to pay. In other words they would have a mountain of debt which they would have to pay.”
WRONG, it’s obvious that you have absolutely no clue how a corporation works. If a corporation goes into debt, individuals who own and run the corporation are not personally responsible for the corporation’s debt. If the corporation goes out of business, no individual is legally responsible for that debt.
@BalazarsBrain false, what? now you accuse me of lack of knowledge? OK! under the limited liability terms all the stockholders and owners of the corporation do go into debt. you loose the money you invested. so there are individuals responsible and those are the investors...
“you loose the money you invested. so there are individuals responsible and those are the investors..”
…Ummm Fail. We were talking about who is going to be responsible for paying back the corporation’s debt. How-T-F is a drop in stock price gonna repay a debt??? Oops, you didn’t really think that one through did you?
2nd: You said “the executives” and now you’re saying “investors”. Not all executives are shareholders...but nice attempt at trying to move the goalposts Mr. Sneaky.
"under the limited liability terms all the stockholders and owners of the corporation do go into debt."
In a Corporation, shareholders DO NOT go into debt...they are not legally responsible to pay the debts of the Corporation. The Corporation is a separate legal entity than the shareholders themselves.
I'm srry dude, but I think you're seriously clueless...you can't possibly think that the shareholder's of a Corporation go into debt did you? OMFG!!!
What you randroids really need to understand is that in a society where .01 percent controls 90% of the wealth, the only economy that exists is the one that supports the .01 percent. There isnt any money for the entrepenuer, the small business employer, or the employee to go out and generate demand for the goods and services. For the last decade, as more and more wealth has gone to the top, the only thing that drove the economic engine was credit.
Did I really hear that nut kid who has no clue about life say "how are people gonna reach their potential if they don't have quality public education and health care and a clean environment that the government provides." Really? Quality public schools? Way too much money spent when studies show it can be done much better, cheaper! Health care? The government currently provides healthcare that is so deep in the red, our kids kids will be paying for us! Lets not go environment either. DIMWIT!!!
"The government currently provides healthcare that is so deep in the red,"
How many private health-care insurers do you know that will provide affordable health insurance to the elderly? Why don't you just take it a step further and kill off the elderly, that way we won't have them riding on our backs anymore.
Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.
she's an old fool that is no longer alive, but has a huge following of other fools who live in society and civilization and yet seek to be self-sufficient without knowing what that truly means. Basically we all benefit from the hard work that each and everyone of us do. We depend on each other to make our contributions and have our success. I wish Americans understood this.
@justonefirefly1 isn't that part of what Ayn Rand advocated. It's not "Dog-eat-dog" which the looters call it, but how Hank Rearden says it is. He built the rail for Taggart Trans. for other giants of industry and for those who could never rise to his level, but would work as hard as they could to earn what they received, like Eddie Willers. That is what Ayn Rand's Atlantis is, where they work for themselves and sell the profits to help others. I mean, if I'm wrong, please enlighten me.
@bisquit56 No we take care of our society - fuck you assholes that think that children and the elderly should not exist fuck you - you are an idiot just like welfare ayn
@justonefirefly1 Please do not swear at me. I did not say that children and elderly should not exist, since we are one and we become one, in due time. I do know that is a flaw in Objectivism, and I do know that in any society there will be those who cannot help themselves, children and elderly being two, handicapped and mentally limited being another two. Let's keep this civil shall we? The only problem that I see with welfare is that too many people are on it who can work and support themselves
The too many on welfare are Michele Bachmann - who has to date collected over 1/4 millions in welfare for her "family" farm. - She even takes in foster children - but "home schools them" which leaves them 16 to 17 hours to work on her farm. - yeh way too much welfare to the oil companies both foreign and domestic - equalling billions of tax payer dollars that are funded to then annually - way to much welfare to foreign nations =corporations and republicunts can start paying
@justonefirefly1 in that we agree, however I somehow think we have swerved away from the first point, which was that Ayn Rand doesn't advocate Dog-eat-Dog, it was to seek profits for oneself and to help those who can (in the long term) help you, like Midas Mulligan helping out Hank Rearden when he was starting up. He could see brilliance and the want to work, contrary to Yorkes from the 20th century motor company. I am against Bachmann, of course, and all others to take advantage.
@bisquit56 Unlike fiction, we have runaway profits for corporations, who use our roads, our land, our defense, our fire departments and our police and judicial system that we the taxpayers pay for and if they had no regulations would kill us all in a heart beat. Ayn proves a justificable cause for unions. She was also an atheist which I don't care but it is the religious right who love her and her fiction as to why they should not be responsible to their community and not take advantage
So it turns out that libertarian gasbag, Ayn Rand, collected Social Security under her ex-husband's Social Security number and did so under an assumed name in order to hide her identity. What a total freakin poseur.
@iamseiko - I support redistribution of wealth starting with Bruce Springsteen, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, the entire Kennedy family, John Kerry, and the rest of those asswipes. Can anyone explain why *they* should get to keep their money when they want to take ours? I sure can't!
"Can anyone explain why *they* should get to keep their money when they want to take ours?"
WTF are you talking about??? I've never heard anyone make the argument that the rich need to get taxed more, but Sean Penn and Michael Moore get a special pass and get to "keep their money".
Name one single person who has ever made this argument?
It was a joke. The idea is that it's highly talented criminals who most feel the oppression of the government and collectivism. Like Howard Roark and Dagby Taggert, they eschew lobbyists.
@gbiota1 One of the main characters in the game, Andrew Ryan, was sick of his hard work being leeched upon by the "parasites" (the governments of the various countries he resided in). So he took all the greatest scientists, artists, etc. he could find and built an underwater city, where objectivism was law. His society failed for a number of reasons, but ultimately because he (as the most successful man in the city) became a tyrant. The people were suffering and he basically refused to share.
@gbiota1 (continued) The problem with Ayn Rand's philosophy is that if it's implemented, it creates an enormous gap of power. Yes, there's a gap of power between the rich and poor of the US now, but with Rapture (the underwater city in Bioshock), the problem was increased tenfold since Andrew Ryan's chief philosophy was greed. And since he refused to help the poor Rapture was torn apart from the inside.
The main problem was that even in a supposed Randian utopia, someone had to clean toilets.
@Avatarofhendrix then i still have left to see a demonstration of the failure of the ideas she propagated without them first being corrupted. Under objectivism as I have read it, a tyrant would not be possible without the use of force, or irrational and self destructive acts. As far as the premise of the world needing ditch diggers, I dont think objectivism ever made the claim of solving that problem, even in a utopia.
Even the Nobel Peace Prize could be argued as selfish. Alfred Nobel became wildly successful in the late 1800s with his invention dynamite. Later in life, after being labeled a merchant of death and feeling personally responsible for the millions of deaths his explosives had caused in warfare, he created the Peace Prize, both to reward , but just as much to assuage his own guilt.
Funny how the Obama started a third war in Libya after getting his peace price, eh?
Oh, and the banker is a big Rand fan; a man who's part of a system where the federal reserve/bankers, having taken control of/colluded with the government, get to financially rape the American people for the privelege of having them issue the currency.
Rand, i think i read, was a big fan of the dollar/this system and always wore a dollar pendant in order to express this; strange, giving that the reality of what she was endorsing was so divorced from her fundamentalist doctrine.
@ForgetaboutFreeman The most interesting thing about the Liberal adulation of Charles Darwin is the fact that Darwin had some limited scientific training prior to signing up for the Beagle expedition, but his college degree and studies were in prep to become an Anglican preist.
Keep in mind that Darwinism IS a religious doctrine. As one of the apparently rare agnostic conservatives, I tend to discount Darwin's work due to it's religious basis/bias.
@ForgetaboutFreeman By the Obama example, ANYTHING bad that happens in the first 3 years or so of the term is the fault of the predecessor. This is established, just look at his excuses.
So, by forcing some equality by using the Obama-rule, anything bad between 01 and 03 is Clinton's fault.
Put on a helmet: after thinking about that for a few hours you may figure it out.....I don't want you to make a mess when your mind blows
@ForgetaboutFreeman Broken the Constitution? Clinton should have violated his oath and committed Treason for the supposed greater good, eh?
Many would consider many Clinton Admin initiatives, such as the community reinvestment act and other social(ism) justice programs established the systemic flaws which snowballed into the current recession. Also, 911 happened only 8 months after bush took office, after 8 years of Clinton foreign policy, setting the stage for 911.
I saw Atlas Shrugged Part 1 last night. I've heard much about it, but never read the book (yet). The movie was great. Had I seen it in 2007 or 08, I would have dismissed it as a flight of fantasy, completely impossible.....but seeing it in 2011, it's practically a documentary.
The government is an extension of the people. If its fucked up, we made it that way, and until we change it is going to get worse as right now the banking system runs it. Companies need to operate under some basic rules, pay taxes to help support communities, dont let your selfishness cause communities harm, and the like. The only reason why this is happening is because the people are asking for it and in a limited sense they are trying to implement it.
yes, please, let's get rid of govt and go back to the good ole days when 5 year olds worked in coal mines and factories bc their families could not afford to send them to school or feed them - public education and labor laws are destroying society! I hope all of you lovers of Ayn Rand picked up on my sarcasm.
@xxpehbcemm Funny that you think government was responsible for ending child labor. Government was complicit in child labor until the early 1900's. You know what ended child labor? An Episcopal priest named Edgar Gardner Murphy and his National Child Labor Committee did far more to end child labor than any government or politician. Hell, Lewis Hine's camera did more to shame politicians into reform than any thoughts of children's welfare. Private individuals, not government ended child labor.
@BloodofPatriots Your absolutely right. Private individuals acted collectively and petitioned the government to enforce child labor laws coupled with the justice system to effectively enforce said law; but just as groups lobby the government so do corporations. The bottom line is that the state itself is illegitimate because of it's symbiotic relationship with business and the public's meager attempts to control the system can destabilize it. Liberty and Freedom are just slogans.
@BloodofPatriots 'Government was complicit in child labour until the early 1900's'...You think that's a legitimate argument to repudiate/dismiss the idea/legitimacy of government? Government now, due to its development and the amendment of law made possible by the existence of a 'state' and 'government' makes child labour illegal. Do you think it'd better, apart from all the other obvious problems, to leave it up to your notional, morally virtuous entreprenurial heroes to ensure this?
@BalazarsBrain You're an idiot. There would have been no laws WITHOUT those private individuals shaming bought-and-paid-for politicians into doing the right thing and passing that legislation. With idiots like you, it's no wonder America is in such bad shape. Continuing eating the bullshit of the (R) vs. (D) lie. Politicians are whores and have been since the beginning.
"WITHOUT those private individuals shaming bought-and-paid-for politicians"
Are you SERIOUS??? OMFG, those "private" individuals are THE PUBLIC! Idiot just made an argument for Public Policy and doesn't even know it!
"Shaming bought-and-paid for politicians" Ummmm...WHO-T-F do you think bought those politicians?...CORPORATIONS!!!! By the way, it is the CORPORATIONS who directly hired those children and who should be shamed...GET IT NOW??? WOW!
@BalazarsBrain Those "corporations" were also run by "private individuals". A corporation can't hire anyone -- it's individuals in that corporation that do. Or do you believe that corporate charters somehow leaves those individuals that run the corporation blameless? "The public" did nothing to stop the wholesale slaughter of Jews in Nazy Germany-dominated Europe, nor did "the public" halt Stalin's or Mao's "public" slaughter machine. Next time, kid, try communicating like an adult.
""The public" did nothing to stop the wholesale slaughter of Jews"
Oh right, that little thing called WW2 never happened
"private individuals shaming bought-and-paid-for politicians into doing the right thing and passing that legislation"
I’m glad we both agree that we need to pressure politicians into passing Public Policy to REGULATE CORPORATIONS…you just supported my entire argument idiot…thanks! ;)
@BalazarsBrain The "public" in Germany voted the National Socialists into power specifically because they were anti-semitic, you idiot. As for WWII, wars are declared by governments that bestow upon themselves the power of the draft -- oh, you thought soldiers in WWII were all volunteers, didn't you? Who doesn't want reasonable regulation? Only a moron would want either the government or any industry to have unchecked power. Wait, that idiot would be you. I'm not a capitalist, moron.
Wars are SOCIAL PROGRAMS, paid for with tax-payer dollars, and in WW2 declared/fought by democratically elected governments (like the US), fully supported by the US public after Pearl Harbor...but nice try.
Blah blah... I really couldn't care less about your retarded definitions of public vs. private...you already made an argument FOR PUBLIC POLICY and REGULATION OF CORPORATIONS. I agree so case closed!
@BalazarsBrain The US public supported a defensive war, but was perfectly content to sit on the sidelines until attacked -- even with Hitler's and Tojo's war machines devastating Europe, Africa and Asia. The US, UK and other governments, with public support, turned away several ships loaded with Jews escaping Hitler -- most of the Jews were forced to return to Germany where they were killed. The "public" is a collection of lemmings. Only private individuals, aka "leaders", can affect change.
@xxpehbcemm I just wish I could pick-up some sarcasm when I see a high-school dropout working in a UAW plant making $100k/year while I know degreed engineers from prestigious universities taking jobs as minimum wage workers. Being rewarded for your effort has become a myth in America these days.
@postellheader. The purpose of the government is keep people from unjustly harming each other. Even in the most libertarian model calls for government which defends people against murder, fraud and theft. It doesn't seem at all clear to me that human being potential to screw each other over is diminished in the private sector, meaning that government indeed has place there.
hey! to the second jackass speaking in the front row... you're a fucking idiot!!! since when does the government "need" to provide anything??? private sector provides all we need as humans to have more than whats needed to call ourselves "alive and well"!!! thats why government is so huge now, because morons like you have become dependant on it, you fucking tool!!!
The left has a knee jerk reaction at the very mention of Ayn Rands name. They are afraid of her philosophy because it effectively exposes their ideas as ludicrous.
@mayflower557 Academic freedom is a myth. I've had things thrown at me in University classes where I challenged the established Liberal propaganda. I've been ridiculed for my ideas, such as work for what you get and be rewarded for your own effort. I was called backward. I even had a sociology professor, when confronted with the fact that communism has always failed, tell me it was caused by the sabotage of capitalism, and that I need to dispose of my "common sense" notions. This was in Missouri
If you valued not spilling your drink more than throwing someone a life preserver then you must really hate all of humanity and people in general. If that is what you value more, I think Rand would say "okay, that's more important to you than saving a human life" but it's pretty obvious the only people who value not spilling their drink more than saving someone's life by throwing them a life preserver are probably mentally deranged. Society would still work, it's not as if we're all lunatics.
@NotRadicalLogical and by extension, if you help animals over suffering people, you are also quite deranged. I was sickened during Katrina to see the ASPCA , HSUS, and PETA rescuing stranded pets and completely ignoring trapped humans. Children worldwide die at twice the rate shelter animals do, everyday. Until those numbers equal, let's help people first.
The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, abundantly in evidence, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, sp
This has been flagged as spam show
Michael Prescott: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
michaelprescottDOTnet/hickmanDOThtm
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
'stupid rules' and the face of Bush showed on the screen... LOL.
notengonickcojones 2 months ago
BB&T accepted 3.1 billion dollars from the TARP bailout. John Allison is a parasite living off the government tit.
wangsta25 2 months ago
@wangsta25
BB&T was FORCED--along with every other mega bank--to take TARP.
PenguinProseMedia 2 months ago 5
@wangsta25 No more a parasite than Dagny for having her competitor forced out of business against her will.
mrrobotica 1 month ago
@wangsta25 BBT was forced to take money, and was one of the first banks (if not the first) to pay the money back. When they did the taxpayer, comprised mostly of 1%ers, made a profit on the loan.
mason72518 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Will SOMEONE who knows something about Ayn Rand please watch the following short video and respond? If you find something wrong, please spell out what it is.
youtube.com/watch?v=tjQeeRn6kW0
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
The banker is right, but banks and goverment are very related... curious.
notengonickcojones 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stossel is a complete joke...what regulation exactly do bankers suffer under? What horrible tax burden do the best and brightest (the rich) suffer under. The banks lobbied for less rules and gave us dirivatives...stossel and that banker need to stfu.
sissyfist 3 months ago
He's absolutely correct. Washington Mutual did negative amortization loans and went bankrupt.
ItsAllAboutGuitar 4 months ago 2
he shatters all wisdom with his ignorance
conchamolusco 4 months ago
The example of the person falling overboard and not helping is misrepresenting Rand selfishness. She wrote about situations like these and said that in an emergency you should help others.
begood20000 6 months ago
"life is about creating win win relationships" well said.
adulby 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Ames, Iowa Straw poll is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2011. Because of this, it is imperative to catapult Ron Paul to victory in the straw poll. On July 19, 2011, we will hold an online money bomb in support of Ron Paul for President 2012, with the goal to win the Ames, Iowa straw poll.
Please invite all your friends and help Ron Paul end our costly military involvements overseas, shrink the size of our government and restore the republic
JULY 19, 2011 - Ames Straw Poll Moneybomb!
theleemeister 6 months ago
“bailed out the toxic assets this companies acquired, therefore bailing out the company”
HAHAHA OMFG tell that to all the Lehman/Bear investors who lost all of their money. Great bailout...those company’s DON’T EXIST ! I guess your little theory that a company can always get “bailed out” (your dumb definition) and still be ok doesn’t hold water does it?
Again, Bear/Lehman DID NOT get bailed out…stop being an idiot!
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
Why is Atlas Shrugged' still around? Well there were people seeking validation for being hateful and selfish then as there are those same type of people today. 'Nuff Said.
OxbowisaMstie 7 months ago
i love john stossel
xjustin523x 7 months ago
Comment removed
possumverde 7 months ago
@Natures34JJJFreak Agruing just for the heck of it, and trying to convince a fellow human being to see reason are not the same thing. Check your premisses.
TumisHumis 7 months ago
@Natures34JJJFreak
LOL, so you are saying Ayn Rand thought "Hmm, how can I get people to not read my book 50 years from now? I know, I will make it 1,000 pages long, that will get people to not read it 50 years from now" and even better, "How can I get Christians to not read my book, I know! I will put some sex scenes that are not even explicit, then no christians will read it" LOL stop believing everything you read on the internet
topbikeblaster 7 months ago
@Natures34JJJFreak
LOL, so you are saying Ayn Rand thought "Hmm, how can I get people to not read my book 50 years from now? I know, I will make it 1,000 pages long, that will get people to not read it 50 years from now" and even better, "How can I get Christians to not read my book, I know! I will put some sex scenes that are not even explicit, then no christians will read it" You need a reality check bro.
topbikeblaster 7 months ago
"The book is long... more than a thousand pages; so, how many people read books this long?" There are NO WORDS to describe how much this statement hurts. I guess we should be reading books that are 100 or 200 pages long, something more reasonable. Maybe something with lots of pictures. Seriously? Is he pandering to his audience? Are we that stupid that the length of a book is a factor for reading it or not? Granted, the author does ramble, a lot; but criticizing a book for length is ridiculous.
doggonemess1 8 months ago
2:59
This guy ought to read Rand's essay 'The Ethics of Emergencies.'
JeffroTheMan1 8 months ago
Even the most passionate, intelligent, and talented individuals all learned at first from someone else. And at this very moment the most humble of us are teaching others their skills, their ideas and ideals. With no proof that they will have any return on their investment. And yet they still do it. For no other reason than the inate human desire to live and grow and better themselves. And to show others how to do the same.
MigsMusic 8 months ago
Government is evil !
robichard 8 months ago
Atlas Shrugged was 1060 pages and small print. I can not believe how much Ayn rambles in that book, it's so repetitive I was pulling my hair out. She literally could have written the entire thing in 500 pages. I didn't think the book lived up to her actual real life positions. I do support her idea of what the proper function of government is.
DJFG85 8 months ago
@DJFG85 It's translated from Russian. Learn to read Russian and read it again, it'll flow a bit better.
TumisHumis 7 months ago
A government does not "Provide", . it "Facilitates", . .These are very different matters.
Thom in Scotland.
fuelban 8 months ago
when the guy say's you are required to be selfish... we see this in large city's daily, where people would step over you if you lay on the pavment, & to actually get public attention in these places is to call out 1 word ( FIRE ) this gets public attention yet HELP does not, strange but true, so we see this effect today, and in the past, it's the nature of the environment of large city's & the speed of which these city's operate. " nothing NEW here " !!
Thom in Scotland.
fuelban 8 months ago
its funny how people is bashing this book, the book dont say that you should not help another people, its only say that you shoundt make helping people a excuse to any behavior that you had in order to profit for some action, if you are going to profit over something than so be it, do not make excuses over about, it didnt say that you shouldnt help people but question if maintain people in a mediocre state is a good thing. dont give the fish just teach them to fish for themselves.
animejoao 8 months ago 2
Stossel is an ass. This is the same guy who said that to save endangered species we should eat them so the demand for their meat wild drive us to breed them. Total moron.
jackofclubz 8 months ago
Welfare should only be for those who physically cannot make a living for themselves but it's become something for those who don't want to work. I'm tired of paying for the lazy, not the infirm. The jealous and lazy are a parasite on American business and the government is their WMD. The government needs to be chained down to three things: A police force to protect citizens from domestic aggressors, a military to protect citizens from foreign invadeors, and a court to settle disputes among people
callsignjoker 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So it turns out that libertarian gasbag, Ayn Rand, collected Social Security under her ex-husband's Social Security number and did so under an assumed name in order to hide her identity. What a total freakin poseur.
justonefirefly1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who is William Hickman?
shilltheshillXXX 9 months ago
What if the government shrugged and stopped regulating business??? I'm sure Wall-street would just magically start regulating itself...it wouldn't invest in Credit default swaps or any risky assets or anything tied to OUR BANK DEPOSITS or anything like that.
"My only goal is to make money" -Hank Reardon ....Yessss, that holds true despite the impact on our environment, our economy, etc.
BalazarsBrain 9 months ago
@BalazarsBrain actually... they wouldn't... the only reason wall street invested in very risky assets is because they knew they were going to get bailed out by the government... take moral hazard out of the equation and banks would've been more careful of were they put their money in...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
"take moral hazard out of the equation"
Sexistroll, are you serious??? You sound like you have no clue of what you're talking about.
The moral hazard came about from DEREGULATION i.e. the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act. This DEREGULATION allowed banks who hold OUR MONEY (bank deposits) to make risky bets.
We need MORE regulation, not less! If you trust Wallstreet to regulate itself, you're CRAZY!
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@BalazarsBrain "The moral hazard came about from DEREGULATION" wow... do you even know what you're saying? or are you just going to repeat "glass steagall! glass steagall!" the FDIC is part of the glass steagall act remember. "deposits are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government" ring any bells? moral hazard is when you use other people's money and you're not responsible because you don't have to answer for it. but OK Im gonna try to explain myself in here...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
Regulation is what caused the collapse. 1. the FDIC is the major source of moral hazard among banks. it simply says, we will bail out your depositors no matter what. 2. the CRA or community reinvestment act basically says loan money to poor people with bad credit for social justice. 3. the GSEs fannie mae and freddie mac. the value of their mortgages was backed by the government this made hold less capital to back up their mortgages that when sold they became toxic assets...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago 15
in other words the gses knew they were backed by the government so they made a bucnch of risky loans without the capital knowing they were going to be bailed out... tell me something if banks weren't told that the government was going to bail out their depositors you think they would've invested in all those risky loans? if they wouldn't have had the government saying "loan to this poor community loan to that community" you think they would've made bad loans?
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
now you tell me... why do we need more regulation? what kind of regulations do we need?
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
"repeat "glass steagall! glass steagall!""
WRONG, WTF are you talking about?..I mentioned Glass Steagal ONCE! You sure like to just make stuff up don't you??
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
"the FDIC is the major source of moral hazard among banks. it simply says, we will bail out your depositors no matter what."
Guess what, if the banks had regulation disallowing them to put our deposits at risk in the first place, we would hardly need the FDIC.
Furthermore, you're acting as though the public wouldn't DEMAND a bailout the very second their bank deposits were at risk. In the end, there would be a bail-out no matter what if people's deposit money disappeared.
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
"moral hazard is when you use other people's money and you're not responsible because you don't have to answer for it"
DUH, and you don't need the government NOR do you need the FDIC to have moral hazard....Again, as long as banks can put our bank deposits at risk, the Public will DEMAND a bailout...FDIC or not. OBVIOUSLY there is moral hazard, even if you take the government and the FDIC out of the equation. How do you not get that???
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@BalazarsBrain "I mentioned Glass Steagal ONCE! You sure like to just make stuff up don't you??" I never said you repeated it I asked if you were just going to repeat that over and over. guess what... the banks don't need regulations telling them how to invest the money nor do they need regulations allowing them to use people money without consequences... you think the banks are going to risk depositors money without a bail out? if you say yes you're not taking into account the consumer POV...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
In other words would you deposit your money in banks that are involved in risky business? in which if you answer yes you're just asking for it and in that case they would probably offer you a very high apr. Moving on, there wouldn't be moral hazard with just the deposits because the banks have to answer to those depositors remember? "moral hazard is when you use other people's money and you're not responsible because YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER FOR IT"...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
and the banks will have to answer to depositors because they risk losing them... the banks will be far more responsible without bail outs since they would have to answer to the depositors instead of having the government just covering that for nothing... something that you probably didn't think of...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
“there wouldn't be moral hazard with just the deposits because the banks have to answer to those depositors”
Explain to me how a company going into bankruptcy is going to answer to a depositor?...with money? HAHAHA
The moral hazard comes about because the bank knows that the PUBLIC won’t let the bank fail if people’s deposits start to disappear…thus, the bank has no down-side risk to losing. Get it now???
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
"would you deposit your money in banks that are involved in risky business?"
Great idea...as if the general public is sophisticated enough to look through their bank's financial statements and understand the difference between a low-risk profile loan, a apposed to a company invested in high risk derivatives: CDS's, Foreign Currency Swaps, etc.
No but you're right, I'm sure everyone who uses a bank (almost everyone) does this on a quarterly basis...sure.
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
"and the banks will have to answer to depositors because they risk losing them"
And what makes you think that i-bankers are so worried about the long-term viability of their firm…and not short-term profits/bonuses?
You think executives at AIG, Bear, Countrywide, Lehman were worried about long-term viability of their firms and not short term profits/bonuses? (All of whom made record bonuses right up to the collapse) They laughed their asses to the bank as their ships sank.
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@BalazarsBrain "Explain to me how a company going into bankruptcy is going to answer to a depositor?...with money? HAHAHA" again you're not understanding that's why you're refuting an argument you yourself created (straw man). the banks are not gonna go bankrupt if they have to answer to the depositor... there are two sins in a free market, fraud and coercion in any case in a free market the bank has the obligation to pay its depositors, however not under our current regulation...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
because they are entitled to the bail out. again take that out and they will answer the depositors. and the bank will prevent risky business because they know they get no bail out.
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
Secondly, it is up to the consumer to be informed, for example: those who eat too much subway footlongs end uo fat, yet now apparently the government is trying to regulate that too. There's a term for this: "nanny state." going back to the banks take out the regulations and the deposits safety net. after that banks will have to simplify things, to the depositors in order to acquire their money. just like subway did by showing people the calories and fat grams in the food.
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
but again you want the government to regulate and do everything for yah... but going back "a low-risk profile loan, a apposed to a company invested in high risk derivatives: CDS's" LOL do you even know what these are? if you did you wouldn't have posted that comment. This products are a chain reaction of each other. you make a loan which creates a mortgage, which you sell as a option or derivative in the mortgage market for which you insure it with a CDS.
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
This became riskier a collapse because they were toxic. Why they were toxic? fannie mae, freddie mac and banks under the CRA made them. they stem to a risky loan, something banks wouldn't make if they have no FDIC to back them up or any regulation to tell them to do it.
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
third the people you mention make profits because they got bailed out. The profits these people make come from interest payments, or from selling securities backed with mortages which some are risky, but many were backed by the government because the GSE are "entitled" to that. In other words some made money not only because of the TARP but because the government had to back the mortgages the GSEs made which many of those banks that those people are CEOs from ended up buying.
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
If the government wouldn't have provided that safety net they wouldn't have bought those things in the first place they still be making proifit but in a more safe way without getting money from the taxpayers. Or in other words they wouldn't have made those profits "out of losses" without that safety net. they would've made losses.
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
“the people you mention make profits because they got bailed out”
WRONG!!! Where was Bear Stearns’ and Lehmans’ bail outs?...maybe you can tell me what their stock symbol is so I can invest in them…oh that’s right, THEY DON’T EXIST ANYMORE!
Sexisttroll, now I’m REALLY convinced you have absolutely no clue about what you’re talking about....seriously, who doesn't know that Bear and Lehman didn't get bailed out??? Jesus Christ!
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
“the people you mention make profits because they got bailed out”...” made money not only because of the TARP”
WRONG, Bear Stearns and Lehman made record profits from their derivatives right up to the time of collapse. Obviously they didn’t make money from any TARP or Bailout because there WAS NO BAILOUT for them!
LMAO, no but nice try Idiot!
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@BalazarsBrain
“LOL do you even know what these are? if you did you wouldn't have posted that comment. This products are a chain reaction of blah blah blah”
You seriously didn’t understand my point which was that some banks invest in low-risk mortgage loans, and others invest in high-risk CDS’s (yes, made up of mortgages…no shit Sherlock).
And you expect everyone to magically become Accounting/Financial Advisory experts and tell the difference between these??? Good luck!
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@BalazarsBrain LOL AHAHAHAHAHA! you made me laugh! rofl... and here I was thinking you were actually reading my comments... but apparently you only read the parts you like... separate them and then try to debunk them as if those were the only things I said... you're splitting facts in half and ignoring the other side... so tell me what part of "government backed mortgages" didn't you understand... you think that isn't a bail out? LOL... and now you resort to insults... interesting...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
let me explain to you in an even simpler way... company buys a toxic asset, treasury has to pay for toxic asset, because treasury said they were going to back toxic asset. basically companies acquaried amounts of toxic assets for which the government had to pay them later... but apparently to you a bail out is only what you say it is is... and by the way...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
“but again you want the government to regulate and do everything for yah.”
I never said EVERYTHING…stop making stuff up Mr. Straw Man.
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
"And you expect everyone to magically become Accounting/Financial Advisory experts and tell the difference between these??? Good luck!" isn't this like saying "I've no clue what I'm talking about so don't demand to much from ok..." nicely done sir...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
“so tell me what part of "government backed mortgages" didn't you understand... you think that isn't a bail out?”
Bear and Lehman DIDN’T GET BAILED OUT! LMAO, all I hear out of your mouth is backpeddle, backpeddle, backpeddle. Just admit you’re an idiot, and we can continue…this is fun! ;)
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
“the people you mention make profits because they got bailed out”
hmmm…I wonder which comment you were referring to?...
“You think executives at AIG, Bear, Countrywide, Lehman were worried about long-term viability of their firms and not short term profits/bonuses?”
Only 1 out of the 4 I mentioned were bailed out…it’s ok, admit you’re an idiot and move on! ;)
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
“basically companies acquaried amounts of toxic assets for which the government had to pay them later”
Here’s the Moral Hazard: if there were no FDIC, what’s stopping management from simple letting their company go into bankruptcy? (and screwing over depositors)
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@BalazarsBrain oh wow... so you resort into more insults... what happened? frustration much? "Only 1 out of the 4 I mentioned were bailed out…it’s ok, admit you’re an idiot and move on! ;)" you still don't get the mortgage backed securities don't you? government bail out the toxic assets this companies acquired, therefore bailing out the company... nope instead you insult me... but hey apparently you think insulting people is fun...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
nice... really showing of your true self there mister. but well going back to your argument...
"Here’s the Moral Hazard: if there were no FDIC, what’s stopping management from simple letting their company go into bankruptcy? (and screwing over depositors)" the fact that they would be in debt for ages... the banks owe the deposits to the people... or perhaps you'll get it with a simple example...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
a person would not take another person's money and lose it on purpose... else they will have to repay that persons money... unless a third party walks in and says they would pay the depositors their money then the other guy would walk out with the capital he managed to save from the investment he originally "lost." get it now?
what is so hard to understand from that just tell me and I'll be happy to explain...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
“nope instead you insult me”
No I don’t need to result to insults, but COME ON!!! We both know that Bear and Lehman didn’t get bailed out so stop acting like a pussy…be a man and admit your dumb mistake!
And yes, I’m sorry but I’m having fun…watching you pathetically try and back-peddle out of your retarded statements is entertaining. ;)
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
"the fact that they would be in debt for ages... the banks owe the deposits to the people... "
I'm obviously talking about a situation where the company goes into bankruptcy and they’re no more (like Bear/Lehman). Do you really not understand my question?...or are you dodging it on purpose?
Again, even without FDIC...what’s stopping management from simple letting their company go into bankruptcy (and out of business) thus screwing over depositors?
BalazarsBrain 7 months ago
@BalazarsBrain wow! and again with the insults... but apparently you simply do not get it... what part of person making bad investment and government paying for bad investment do you don't understand... so tell me then... how is the treasury paying for the toxic assets that these investment firms acquire not a bail out? instead of laughing at my "pathetic" intents to explain it to you, you explain me how is that not a bail out...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm obviously talking about a situation where the company goes into bankruptcy and they’re no more (like Bear/Lehman)."
"what’s stopping management from simple letting their company go into bankruptcy?"
its the same question I already answered... the fact that they would end up with a lot of debt...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
but you seem to be rephrasing the question and acting as if its a different one... so in that case, OK I will assume I don't understand the question, so please rephrase it in an even simpler way...
Sexisttroll 7 months ago
@Sexisttroll
"government bail out the toxic assets this companies acquired, therefore bailing out the company"
LMAO Nice Logic idiot! Bear + Lehman didn't get bailed out, their assets were sold to different companies (such as JPM) who YES GOT BAILED OUT. Bailing out JPM DOES NOT equal bailing out Bear!!! The bailout happened AFTER those companies ceased to exist…try using logic next time retard.
Watching you try and weasel out of your comments is hilarious!
BalazarsBrain 6 months ago
@Sexisttroll
“the fact that they would end up with a lot of debt...”
WhoTF is “they”???…oh you mean the company that doesn’t exist anymore? Ohhh ok, so a company that doesn’t exist is going to owe a lot of debt?...OMFG!!!
What part of “go into bankruptcy (and out of business)”…that means it DOES NOT EXIST. You started out making at least a little sense, now you are either dodging the question, or you're extremely slow.
BalazarsBrain 6 months ago
@BalazarsBrain wow... someone's mad... "u mad bro?" haha jk... have you seen the video btw? anyway... you forgot to mention something very crucial, indeed. the fed provided a $28 billion loan for the purchase of assets for bear stearns. search maiden lane. who knows it may be useful. also you forgot to mention that the fed swapped many if not most of the lower quality assets in exchange for loans to the several WT firms which bought most of the assets that Lehman had.
Sexisttroll 6 months ago
in other words the fad paid several firms to buy the troubled assets from lehman... I smell bail out...
Sexisttroll 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sexisttroll
"the fad paid several firms to buy the troubled assets from lehman... I smell bail out"
Who said there wasn't a bailout??? OMFG LoL, just like you said, the Fed paid OTHER FIRMS to buy those assets at a fraction of the price they were bought for. If you're saying that Bear got some of the benefit, well the investors walked away with something like $2 per share, whooptie doo!
BalazarsBrain 6 months ago
@BalazarsBrain if I recall it was you who said that there was no bail out for this companies. and you assume that because the government didn't transfer the money directly to them. and then you argued that the bail out given to the companies who absorbed this failing companies like JPM doesn't count as a bail out for the companies who got absorbed in the first place. but most the WT firms who purchase many of the assets from this failing banks didn't need no bail out. they got the money...
Sexisttroll 6 months ago
as part of an agreement made by them with the FED and other institutions in which they would get paid for purchasing toxic and other low quality assets. which to me is a bail out. Bear and Lehman went begging to the FED and the government for help and they got it. investors may have not walked away very happy. But they didn't leave empty handed.
Sexisttroll 6 months ago
@Sexisttroll
"JPM doesn't count as a bail out for the companies who got absorbed in the first place"
Tell ANYONE on Wallstreet about your dumb notion that Bear and Lehman got bailed out and they will laugh in your face (like I am). ;)
Anyway, be my guest...we can agree to disagree on this one.
BalazarsBrain 6 months ago
@BalazarsBrain oh hey nice to see you again! whats funny is that the way you think that bear and lehman didn't get bailed out is whats causing them to laugh... seriously why do you think the fed payed several WS firms to buy those assets from Lehman? and why did the fed provided loans for the purchase of the many assets from bear? they could've done a direct transaction but instead used several firms to do so...
Sexisttroll 6 months ago
@Sexisttroll
“purchase of the many assets from bear”
WOW $2!!! In your comment you said the reason these people made profits was because they got bailed out…somehow you forgot about all of the profits/bonuses they made off of derivatives/etc prior to the collapse.
Oh no, but I’m sure you’re right…I’m sure when they were making those risky bets they were thinking about that GIANT $2 per share “bailout” they had to fall back on.
BalazarsBrain 6 months ago
"“go into bankruptcy (and out of business)”…that means it DOES NOT EXIST" Exactly! it means... wait what? since when does the process of going bankupt and not existing mean the same? funny. the difference you might have forgotten is that a bank in the process of getting bankrupt can still be rescued. while non existing is well non existing. and if I recall your question reads:
Sexisttroll 6 months ago
@Sexisttroll
"since when does the process of going bankupt and not existing mean the same?"
Umm why don't you read the FULL quote instead of committing another straw man? I said "and out of business"...I thought you might figure out that means that they don't exist anymore since they're "out of business". I guess that was expecting too much from you. :P
BalazarsBrain 6 months ago
@BalazarsBrain The full quote? you mean "What part of “go into bankruptcy (and out of business)”…that means it DOES NOT EXIST"? strawman? nope. more like answering the same question even though you constantly rephrase it and then act like it means a different thing. To which I'm sorry to tell you, but you failed at.
Sexisttroll 6 months ago
"what’s stopping management from simple letting their company go into bankruptcy?"
not "whats stoping the banker from letting their non existant company still be... non existant?"
so tell me what is the question? really?
Sexisttroll 6 months ago
@Sexisttroll
"so tell me what is the question?"
Ok Mr. Question dodger...seriously these are the tactics you're left with? It's obvious you don't have an argument, or you wouldn't be dodging the question like a little bitch.
Sure I'll rephrase it...only for your Sexisttroll ;). QUESTION: In a situation without the FDIC, what's stopping executives from simply letting their company go out of business (hence NOT EXIST) and therefore screw over depositors?
BalazarsBrain 6 months ago
@BalazarsBrain The fact that the executives would end up with an iliquidity which they will have to pay. In other words they would have a mountain of debt which they would have to pay.
Sexisttroll 6 months ago
@Sexisttroll
“The fact that the executives would end up with an iliquidity which they will have to pay. In other words they would have a mountain of debt which they would have to pay.”
WRONG, it’s obvious that you have absolutely no clue how a corporation works. If a corporation goes into debt, individuals who own and run the corporation are not personally responsible for the corporation’s debt. If the corporation goes out of business, no individual is legally responsible for that debt.
BalazarsBrain 6 months ago
@BalazarsBrain false, what? now you accuse me of lack of knowledge? OK! under the limited liability terms all the stockholders and owners of the corporation do go into debt. you loose the money you invested. so there are individuals responsible and those are the investors...
Sexisttroll 6 months ago
“you loose the money you invested. so there are individuals responsible and those are the investors..”
…Ummm Fail. We were talking about who is going to be responsible for paying back the corporation’s debt. How-T-F is a drop in stock price gonna repay a debt??? Oops, you didn’t really think that one through did you?
2nd: You said “the executives” and now you’re saying “investors”. Not all executives are shareholders...but nice attempt at trying to move the goalposts Mr. Sneaky.
BalazarsBrain 6 months ago
@Sexisttroll
"under the limited liability terms all the stockholders and owners of the corporation do go into debt."
In a Corporation, shareholders DO NOT go into debt...they are not legally responsible to pay the debts of the Corporation. The Corporation is a separate legal entity than the shareholders themselves.
I'm srry dude, but I think you're seriously clueless...you can't possibly think that the shareholder's of a Corporation go into debt did you? OMFG!!!
BalazarsBrain 6 months ago
It has nothing to do with fairness or bitterness or grudges, it's basic fucking economics for christs fucking sakes.
MeInReverse8 9 months ago
What you randroids really need to understand is that in a society where .01 percent controls 90% of the wealth, the only economy that exists is the one that supports the .01 percent. There isnt any money for the entrepenuer, the small business employer, or the employee to go out and generate demand for the goods and services. For the last decade, as more and more wealth has gone to the top, the only thing that drove the economic engine was credit.
MeInReverse8 9 months ago
I am John Gault : )
KeithMcElwain 9 months ago
Did I really hear that nut kid who has no clue about life say "how are people gonna reach their potential if they don't have quality public education and health care and a clean environment that the government provides." Really? Quality public schools? Way too much money spent when studies show it can be done much better, cheaper! Health care? The government currently provides healthcare that is so deep in the red, our kids kids will be paying for us! Lets not go environment either. DIMWIT!!!
johnnsandybarnhart 9 months ago
@johnnsandybarnhart
"The government currently provides healthcare that is so deep in the red,"
How many private health-care insurers do you know that will provide affordable health insurance to the elderly? Why don't you just take it a step further and kill off the elderly, that way we won't have them riding on our backs anymore.
BalazarsBrain 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.
jhegre 9 months ago
she's an old fool that is no longer alive, but has a huge following of other fools who live in society and civilization and yet seek to be self-sufficient without knowing what that truly means. Basically we all benefit from the hard work that each and everyone of us do. We depend on each other to make our contributions and have our success. I wish Americans understood this.
justonefirefly1 9 months ago
@justonefirefly1 isn't that part of what Ayn Rand advocated. It's not "Dog-eat-dog" which the looters call it, but how Hank Rearden says it is. He built the rail for Taggart Trans. for other giants of industry and for those who could never rise to his level, but would work as hard as they could to earn what they received, like Eddie Willers. That is what Ayn Rand's Atlantis is, where they work for themselves and sell the profits to help others. I mean, if I'm wrong, please enlighten me.
bisquit56 8 months ago 3
@bisquit56 No we take care of our society - fuck you assholes that think that children and the elderly should not exist fuck you - you are an idiot just like welfare ayn
justonefirefly1 8 months ago
@justonefirefly1 Please do not swear at me. I did not say that children and elderly should not exist, since we are one and we become one, in due time. I do know that is a flaw in Objectivism, and I do know that in any society there will be those who cannot help themselves, children and elderly being two, handicapped and mentally limited being another two. Let's keep this civil shall we? The only problem that I see with welfare is that too many people are on it who can work and support themselves
bisquit56 8 months ago
@bisquit56
The too many on welfare are Michele Bachmann - who has to date collected over 1/4 millions in welfare for her "family" farm. - She even takes in foster children - but "home schools them" which leaves them 16 to 17 hours to work on her farm. - yeh way too much welfare to the oil companies both foreign and domestic - equalling billions of tax payer dollars that are funded to then annually - way to much welfare to foreign nations =corporations and republicunts can start paying
justonefirefly1 8 months ago
@justonefirefly1 in that we agree, however I somehow think we have swerved away from the first point, which was that Ayn Rand doesn't advocate Dog-eat-Dog, it was to seek profits for oneself and to help those who can (in the long term) help you, like Midas Mulligan helping out Hank Rearden when he was starting up. He could see brilliance and the want to work, contrary to Yorkes from the 20th century motor company. I am against Bachmann, of course, and all others to take advantage.
bisquit56 8 months ago
@bisquit56 Unlike fiction, we have runaway profits for corporations, who use our roads, our land, our defense, our fire departments and our police and judicial system that we the taxpayers pay for and if they had no regulations would kill us all in a heart beat. Ayn proves a justificable cause for unions. She was also an atheist which I don't care but it is the religious right who love her and her fiction as to why they should not be responsible to their community and not take advantage
justonefirefly1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So it turns out that libertarian gasbag, Ayn Rand, collected Social Security under her ex-husband's Social Security number and did so under an assumed name in order to hide her identity. What a total freakin poseur.
AtlasShruggery 9 months ago
I saw it yesterday. It's a masterpiece! I'm taking my parents this week! SUPPORT ATLAS SHRUGGED!
Hanson914 9 months ago
i am just happy that i am not a looter.
iamseiko 9 months ago
@iamseiko - I support redistribution of wealth starting with Bruce Springsteen, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, the entire Kennedy family, John Kerry, and the rest of those asswipes. Can anyone explain why *they* should get to keep their money when they want to take ours? I sure can't!
Hanson914 9 months ago
@Hanson914
"Can anyone explain why *they* should get to keep their money when they want to take ours?"
WTF are you talking about??? I've never heard anyone make the argument that the rich need to get taxed more, but Sean Penn and Michael Moore get a special pass and get to "keep their money".
Name one single person who has ever made this argument?
BalazarsBrain 6 months ago
It was a joke. The idea is that it's highly talented criminals who most feel the oppression of the government and collectivism. Like Howard Roark and Dagby Taggert, they eschew lobbyists.
zck7 9 months ago
What would happen if all the world's most talented people suddenly decided to abandon the government?
It's called Bioshock.
Avatarofhendrix 9 months ago
@Avatarofhendrix yes, bioshock was inspired by the ideas of ayn rand.
gbiota1 9 months ago
@gbiota1 Right, including why, if implemented, they'd ultimately fail.
Avatarofhendrix 9 months ago
@Avatarofhendrix didnt play the game, perhaps you can clarify?
gbiota1 9 months ago
@gbiota1 One of the main characters in the game, Andrew Ryan, was sick of his hard work being leeched upon by the "parasites" (the governments of the various countries he resided in). So he took all the greatest scientists, artists, etc. he could find and built an underwater city, where objectivism was law. His society failed for a number of reasons, but ultimately because he (as the most successful man in the city) became a tyrant. The people were suffering and he basically refused to share.
Avatarofhendrix 9 months ago
@gbiota1 (continued) The problem with Ayn Rand's philosophy is that if it's implemented, it creates an enormous gap of power. Yes, there's a gap of power between the rich and poor of the US now, but with Rapture (the underwater city in Bioshock), the problem was increased tenfold since Andrew Ryan's chief philosophy was greed. And since he refused to help the poor Rapture was torn apart from the inside.
The main problem was that even in a supposed Randian utopia, someone had to clean toilets.
Avatarofhendrix 9 months ago
@Avatarofhendrix then i still have left to see a demonstration of the failure of the ideas she propagated without them first being corrupted. Under objectivism as I have read it, a tyrant would not be possible without the use of force, or irrational and self destructive acts. As far as the premise of the world needing ditch diggers, I dont think objectivism ever made the claim of solving that problem, even in a utopia.
gbiota1 9 months ago 9
Even the Nobel Peace Prize could be argued as selfish. Alfred Nobel became wildly successful in the late 1800s with his invention dynamite. Later in life, after being labeled a merchant of death and feeling personally responsible for the millions of deaths his explosives had caused in warfare, he created the Peace Prize, both to reward , but just as much to assuage his own guilt.
Funny how the Obama started a third war in Libya after getting his peace price, eh?
ramv36 9 months ago
Career criminals are the biggest proponents of Ayn Rand's ideas.
zck7 9 months ago
@zck7 im curious as to what exactly you mean by this.
gbiota1 9 months ago
Oh, and the banker is a big Rand fan; a man who's part of a system where the federal reserve/bankers, having taken control of/colluded with the government, get to financially rape the American people for the privelege of having them issue the currency.
Rand, i think i read, was a big fan of the dollar/this system and always wore a dollar pendant in order to express this; strange, giving that the reality of what she was endorsing was so divorced from her fundamentalist doctrine.
hautelick 9 months ago
@ForgetaboutFreeman The most interesting thing about the Liberal adulation of Charles Darwin is the fact that Darwin had some limited scientific training prior to signing up for the Beagle expedition, but his college degree and studies were in prep to become an Anglican preist.
Keep in mind that Darwinism IS a religious doctrine. As one of the apparently rare agnostic conservatives, I tend to discount Darwin's work due to it's religious basis/bias.
What would Richie Dawkins think about that?
ramv36 9 months ago
@ForgetaboutFreeman By the Obama example, ANYTHING bad that happens in the first 3 years or so of the term is the fault of the predecessor. This is established, just look at his excuses.
So, by forcing some equality by using the Obama-rule, anything bad between 01 and 03 is Clinton's fault.
Put on a helmet: after thinking about that for a few hours you may figure it out.....I don't want you to make a mess when your mind blows
ramv36 9 months ago
@ForgetaboutFreeman Broken the Constitution? Clinton should have violated his oath and committed Treason for the supposed greater good, eh?
Many would consider many Clinton Admin initiatives, such as the community reinvestment act and other social(ism) justice programs established the systemic flaws which snowballed into the current recession. Also, 911 happened only 8 months after bush took office, after 8 years of Clinton foreign policy, setting the stage for 911.
ramv36 9 months ago
I saw Atlas Shrugged Part 1 last night. I've heard much about it, but never read the book (yet). The movie was great. Had I seen it in 2007 or 08, I would have dismissed it as a flight of fantasy, completely impossible.....but seeing it in 2011, it's practically a documentary.
Which. Is. Terrifying.
ramv36 9 months ago 2
834 that women looks so dumb
0Adamska 9 months ago
Stossel is a whining slimeball who is desperate to stay relevant and will say whatever disgusting petty things he has to in order to get attention.
JDorsey2001 9 months ago
@JDorsey2001 true. he is actually a character portrayed by Katie Couric......
ramv36 9 months ago
@ramv36 You're not making much sense here. Elucidate?
JDorsey2001 9 months ago
That Stossel is a jackwagon
welcome2myhell 9 months ago
rejoice,aynrandroids, your liberation is coming!
totoaklan 10 months ago
The government is an extension of the people. If its fucked up, we made it that way, and until we change it is going to get worse as right now the banking system runs it. Companies need to operate under some basic rules, pay taxes to help support communities, dont let your selfishness cause communities harm, and the like. The only reason why this is happening is because the people are asking for it and in a limited sense they are trying to implement it.
trinsic1 10 months ago
@trinsic1
"The government is an extension of the people"
like a parasite is the extension of a host.
But, what if the host didn't want the parasite?
mustang607 10 months ago
john stossel is a beast
SuperBigsolid 10 months ago
yes, please, let's get rid of govt and go back to the good ole days when 5 year olds worked in coal mines and factories bc their families could not afford to send them to school or feed them - public education and labor laws are destroying society! I hope all of you lovers of Ayn Rand picked up on my sarcasm.
xxpehbcemm 10 months ago
@xxpehbcemm Funny that you think government was responsible for ending child labor. Government was complicit in child labor until the early 1900's. You know what ended child labor? An Episcopal priest named Edgar Gardner Murphy and his National Child Labor Committee did far more to end child labor than any government or politician. Hell, Lewis Hine's camera did more to shame politicians into reform than any thoughts of children's welfare. Private individuals, not government ended child labor.
BloodofPatriots 10 months ago 2
@BloodofPatriots Your absolutely right. Private individuals acted collectively and petitioned the government to enforce child labor laws coupled with the justice system to effectively enforce said law; but just as groups lobby the government so do corporations. The bottom line is that the state itself is illegitimate because of it's symbiotic relationship with business and the public's meager attempts to control the system can destabilize it. Liberty and Freedom are just slogans.
Triplezero13999 10 months ago
@BloodofPatriots 'Government was complicit in child labour until the early 1900's'...You think that's a legitimate argument to repudiate/dismiss the idea/legitimacy of government? Government now, due to its development and the amendment of law made possible by the existence of a 'state' and 'government' makes child labour illegal. Do you think it'd better, apart from all the other obvious problems, to leave it up to your notional, morally virtuous entreprenurial heroes to ensure this?
hautelick 9 months ago
@BloodofPatriots
"Private individuals, not government ended child labor."
Riiiiight, and Child labor laws had NOTHING to do with it I'm sure! Wow, you're retarded.
BalazarsBrain 9 months ago
@BalazarsBrain You're an idiot. There would have been no laws WITHOUT those private individuals shaming bought-and-paid-for politicians into doing the right thing and passing that legislation. With idiots like you, it's no wonder America is in such bad shape. Continuing eating the bullshit of the (R) vs. (D) lie. Politicians are whores and have been since the beginning.
BloodofPatriots 9 months ago
@BloodofPatriots
"WITHOUT those private individuals shaming bought-and-paid-for politicians"
Are you SERIOUS??? OMFG, those "private" individuals are THE PUBLIC! Idiot just made an argument for Public Policy and doesn't even know it!
"Shaming bought-and-paid for politicians" Ummmm...WHO-T-F do you think bought those politicians?...CORPORATIONS!!!! By the way, it is the CORPORATIONS who directly hired those children and who should be shamed...GET IT NOW??? WOW!
BalazarsBrain 9 months ago
@BalazarsBrain Those "corporations" were also run by "private individuals". A corporation can't hire anyone -- it's individuals in that corporation that do. Or do you believe that corporate charters somehow leaves those individuals that run the corporation blameless? "The public" did nothing to stop the wholesale slaughter of Jews in Nazy Germany-dominated Europe, nor did "the public" halt Stalin's or Mao's "public" slaughter machine. Next time, kid, try communicating like an adult.
BloodofPatriots 9 months ago
@BloodofPatriots
""The public" did nothing to stop the wholesale slaughter of Jews"
Oh right, that little thing called WW2 never happened
"private individuals shaming bought-and-paid-for politicians into doing the right thing and passing that legislation"
I’m glad we both agree that we need to pressure politicians into passing Public Policy to REGULATE CORPORATIONS…you just supported my entire argument idiot…thanks! ;)
…maybe you’re not a “capitalist” after all.
BalazarsBrain 9 months ago
@BalazarsBrain The "public" in Germany voted the National Socialists into power specifically because they were anti-semitic, you idiot. As for WWII, wars are declared by governments that bestow upon themselves the power of the draft -- oh, you thought soldiers in WWII were all volunteers, didn't you? Who doesn't want reasonable regulation? Only a moron would want either the government or any industry to have unchecked power. Wait, that idiot would be you. I'm not a capitalist, moron.
BloodofPatriots 9 months ago
@BloodofPatriots
"The "public" in Germany voted blah blah blah"...
Wars are SOCIAL PROGRAMS, paid for with tax-payer dollars, and in WW2 declared/fought by democratically elected governments (like the US), fully supported by the US public after Pearl Harbor...but nice try.
Blah blah... I really couldn't care less about your retarded definitions of public vs. private...you already made an argument FOR PUBLIC POLICY and REGULATION OF CORPORATIONS. I agree so case closed!
BalazarsBrain 9 months ago
@BalazarsBrain The US public supported a defensive war, but was perfectly content to sit on the sidelines until attacked -- even with Hitler's and Tojo's war machines devastating Europe, Africa and Asia. The US, UK and other governments, with public support, turned away several ships loaded with Jews escaping Hitler -- most of the Jews were forced to return to Germany where they were killed. The "public" is a collection of lemmings. Only private individuals, aka "leaders", can affect change.
BloodofPatriots 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BloodofPatriots
"The "public" is a collection of lemmings. Only private individuals, aka "leaders", can affect change"
HAHAHAHA WOW are you serious? As if Leaders can never be part of the public, or voices for the public, etc.
BalazarsBrain 9 months ago
@xxpehbcemm I just wish I could pick-up some sarcasm when I see a high-school dropout working in a UAW plant making $100k/year while I know degreed engineers from prestigious universities taking jobs as minimum wage workers. Being rewarded for your effort has become a myth in America these days.
ramv36 9 months ago
I like the first guest and I hate him at the same time. I like him for his ideas, but I hate his accent. It makes it hard to understand him.
TheManiacalSatanist6 10 months ago
@postellheader. The purpose of the government is keep people from unjustly harming each other. Even in the most libertarian model calls for government which defends people against murder, fraud and theft. It doesn't seem at all clear to me that human being potential to screw each other over is diminished in the private sector, meaning that government indeed has place there.
Distortion0 10 months ago
hey! to the second jackass speaking in the front row... you're a fucking idiot!!! since when does the government "need" to provide anything??? private sector provides all we need as humans to have more than whats needed to call ourselves "alive and well"!!! thats why government is so huge now, because morons like you have become dependant on it, you fucking tool!!!
prosteelheader 10 months ago 2
Ayn Rand was criticized back then, her beliefs make more sense now in todays society.
BluShadesX 10 months ago
so now FOX are the ones actually telling truths. well it's WINNING
Hyddrossil 10 months ago 3
@Hyddrossil No, STOSSEL and company are the only ones telling the truth.
TheManiacalSatanist6 10 months ago
The left has a knee jerk reaction at the very mention of Ayn Rands name. They are afraid of her philosophy because it effectively exposes their ideas as ludicrous.
notbestfriends 10 months ago
Interesting what he said about academics wanting total freedom while denying it to business
mayflower557 10 months ago
@mayflower557 Academic freedom is a myth. I've had things thrown at me in University classes where I challenged the established Liberal propaganda. I've been ridiculed for my ideas, such as work for what you get and be rewarded for your own effort. I was called backward. I even had a sociology professor, when confronted with the fact that communism has always failed, tell me it was caused by the sabotage of capitalism, and that I need to dispose of my "common sense" notions. This was in Missouri
ramv36 9 months ago
This was on FOX?
rtsjoe 11 months ago
If you valued not spilling your drink more than throwing someone a life preserver then you must really hate all of humanity and people in general. If that is what you value more, I think Rand would say "okay, that's more important to you than saving a human life" but it's pretty obvious the only people who value not spilling their drink more than saving someone's life by throwing them a life preserver are probably mentally deranged. Society would still work, it's not as if we're all lunatics.
NotRadicalLogical 11 months ago 2
@NotRadicalLogical and by extension, if you help animals over suffering people, you are also quite deranged. I was sickened during Katrina to see the ASPCA , HSUS, and PETA rescuing stranded pets and completely ignoring trapped humans. Children worldwide die at twice the rate shelter animals do, everyday. Until those numbers equal, let's help people first.
ramv36 9 months ago
MY NAME IS DAGNY!!!!!!!!!!!
troupedagny9 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, abundantly in evidence, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, sp