Casino Capitalism

Lorax · October-18-09, 09:10 AM

Check out this editorial from Frank Rich in today's NYT.

Goldman Sachs leading the pack on Wall Street. How's this working out for average Americans?

I'd say not at all.

Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone article on Wall Street is referenced as well, having coined a new term for what Goldman Sachs is really up to:

“great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/op...nU/UNFy1LQAEtw

ccbatson · October-18-09, 02:01 PM

NOT CAPITALISM...second handers in a collectivist cooperative with the socialists in Washington.

**ejames01** · October-18-09, 03:55 PM

What does allowing bankers to steal have to do with socialism?

Originally Posted by ccbatson

NOT CAPITALISM...second handers in a collectivist cooperative with the socialists in Washington.

**elganned** · October-18-09, 05:14 PM

What the hell is a "second hander"?

Lorax · October-18-09, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by elganned

What the hell is a "second hander"?

I think this is what Batts was referring to:

http://turningpointmacomb.org/images...ose_image1.jpg

Or maybe he meant this:

http://www.montanaseniorcenter.org/b...SecondRose.jpg

Or maybe he's a closet Streisand lover?

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...6011%2Fhat.jpg

Lorax · October-21-09, 10:00 AM

Goldman Sachs executive Brian Griffiths said in London this week, that we [[Americans) need to tolerate the income inequality between investment banks and the rest of us, since it's "good" for society in the long run.

He also called upon Goldman employees, as well as those of other investment banks to increase charitable giving this year to put a better "spin" on the vast income disparity paid to employees of investment banks as a result of corporate welfare.

This is one of the most egregious statements made yet to justify the obscene profits and payscale of these lecherous corporate fascists.

I will state again, pay in CASH what you can, and eschew dealing with banks whenever possible.

The only recourse we have is to elect officials that will stop this madness of giving away our treasury to those who need it least, and stop playing within the system.

A giant spending pullback from the American consumer, more than has been done thus far, should send the quickest message that this sort of crony capitalism will not be tolerated.

ccbatson · October-21-09, 10:04 AM

A second hander is a private company selling out to the inappropriate takeover of the government. They shift from profit based on best products at best prices to taking advantage of coercive practices instituted by the coercive monopoly established by a government. In the long run, absent free market principles, the company fails in terms of cost and quality [[consumers suffer), but the corporate socialists take home obscene profits. Sound familiar? Historic example: Nazi Germany's corporate socialism. Literary example and origin of the phrase: Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"

**elganned** · October-21-09, 10:30 AM

And this is exactly where Objectivism falls apart, Cc. You can't set up selfishness as the greatest virtue but then sub-divide it into "good" selfishness and "bad" selfishness, lauding the former and castigating the latter. Selfishness is selfishness. End of list.

Sounds like "second handers" are the most virtuous of folks, by the Objectivist criterion.

ccbatson · October-21-09, 10:34 AM

Not even close....secondhanders are reviled beneath socialists. You are not defining selfishness correctly. It is not selfish to covet what is not yours...that is theft.

**elganned** · October-21-09, 10:54 AM

Oh, so now we have a "correct" selfishness and an "incorrect" selfishness. I see how the game is played: make up your own definitions. Cute.

Lorax · October-21-09, 07:28 PM

They should rename it "The 33 Flavors of Objectivism"

No choice is a bad one when you make it.

All choices are bad when I make it for you.

Objectivism = copout.

**rb336** · October-22-09, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Not even close....secondhanders are reviled beneath socialists. You are not defining selfishness correctly. It is not selfish to covet what is not yours...that is theft.

covet = desire, not theft, bats, although I do believe it is not selfish to want that car, whatever, that the joneses have. However, your definitions, so far, have reflected a rather poor grasp of the language

ccbatson · October-22-09, 11:26 AM

I will concede on the minor semantics and correct it as follows.....it is not just selfish to covet AND ENDEAVOR TO ACQUIRE BY THEFT that which is not yours...that is theft [[or conspiracy towards theft).

**elganned** · October-22-09, 11:32 AM

So it isn't selfishness, per se, that is the "highest virtue", but rather selfishness when correctly channeled. Sounds like a theology to me...

Originally Posted by ccbatson

I will concede on the minor semantics and correct it as follows.....it is not just selfish to covet AND ENDEAVOR TO ACQUIRE BY THEFT that which is not yours...that is theft [[or conspiracy towards theft).

What if you don't steal it? What if somebody just gives it to you? Would Objectivists turn down millions if they don't come from a "correct" source?

ccbatson · October-22-09, 11:35 AM

All objectivists should turn down that which they have not earned by virtue of the implementation of their individual sacred property [[their mind), or that which is not rightfully their property to begin with [[as in an inheritance).

**elganned** · October-22-09, 01:01 PM

So there's a morality attached to this economic system. Sounds ever more and more like a religion to me...

So explain to me how selfishness as a paramount virtue leads one to turn down that which one hasn't earned through his/her own efforts.

**rb336** · October-22-09, 01:31 PM

raise your hand if you think Bats would actually turn down a sizeable inheritance.

**elganned** · October-22-09, 02:27 PM

*sound of crickets* Bueller? Bueller?

Lorax · October-22-09, 05:40 PM

So by Batt's metric, the TARP funds handed out to banks without any hope of repayment and from the taxpayer's pockets, should have been turned down.

Guess Goldman Sachs et. al. are headed up by a bunch of liberal socialists, since they believe in socializing their losses while privatizing their profits.

Howcome then, this bunch are overwhelmingly "conservative" Rethuglicans?

Real disconnect here as far as I'm concerned.

By the same token, the CEO's in line to get billions in bonuses this year should say "no thanks" since it's coming out of the taxpayer's pockets.

Somehow this whole scenario isn't workin' well for the fascist right.

ccbatson · October-23-09, 12:10 AM

You missed where I explained that an inheritance is private property already earned?

**elganned** · October-23-09, 07:34 AM

...but not by you, Cc. You haven't earned it by "virtue of the implementation of their individual sacred property [[their mind)", so it isn't really yours, is it? You should forgo it, in accordance with the Teachings of the Objectivist Church.

**rb336** · October-23-09, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

You missed where I explained that an inheritance is private property already earned?

All objectivists should turn down that which they have not earned by virtue of the implementation of their individual sacred property [[their mind), or that which is not rightfully their property to begin with [[as in an inheritance).

so make up your mind

Lorax · October-23-09, 08:41 AM

Batts, in his 360 degree arguments reminds me of:

http://www.solobuenas.com/SB/SB_imag...inda_blair.jpg

Maybe we need to rename him "Linda Batty Blair?"