talkpolitics | Entries tagged with capitalism

Musk would liquidate Tesla shares to 'solve world hunger' if UN can explain how money would be spent
Musk's tweet comes at a time some politicians call on billionaires to start to pay more in taxes

Well the title is a bit misleading. If you read the article he dedicated 6 billion, not all of his Tesla stock. But yeah. At least he's making a point.

So those evil rich people (namely Musk) are putting the elite governments to the test. If they can explain how 6 billion will end (or at least help ease) world hunger and promote all that is holy and good, and if they're prepared to open the books he will cut the check with no issue at all.

It’s a good position for Musk. He’s willing to do it but also called out the hypocrisy being they have had the money before and wants the books to be opened up if he does it. So in a way he’s calling for total transparency with the funds. I kind of like his way of calling their bluff. This also shows the rich are not necessarily THE problem. He’s inspirational in so many ways. Good on him.

He definitely isn't your "average" CEO. I wouldn't call him a "True Progressive" either, mind you, not in the modern day progressive sense of the word. Maybe a Clinton democrat but not an AOC democrat. He is not on board with the democrat taxing policies and has warned cities to not become liberal. Just as an example.

Anyway. 6 billion dollars wouldn't even solve world hunger for a single month... But yeah.

fridi

In continuation of yesterday's post, I'll go on about this weird term, communitarianism. It's a political philosophy that started in the 70s/80s of the 20th century, mostly in the US. It's got nothing to do with communism, socialism, communalism, collectivism or any such concepts. It doesn't fit the usual left-right dichotomy, but it's been increasingly witnessed these days. Just look at the level of polarization that US politics has reached. This is no longer about progressive ideas vs conservative ideas.

Basically, communitarianism relies on the individual's relation with those circles from which he or she originates, the people with whom they spend most of their time, and interact on most occasions. It emphasizes on these links in government policy as well, meaning it wants a government that has strong national sovereignty and is a social state at the same time.

So let's look back to the US election campaigns from the last 4 years. I wouldn't say it's clearly defined as a right vs left battle. Unlike Bernie Sanders, who has failed to get the Dem nomination yet again, Biden isn't necessarily leftist. Trump, in turn, skillfully borrows some communitarian tactics, meaning he heavily relies on the national state. So I think a more communitarian-leaning opponent like Sanders would've had a better chance defeating him. But that ship has sailed already.

( Read more... )

fridi

Yesterday's post on China reminded me of this new/old thing that we've been witnessing lately, the so called organized capitalism. I'd say in the long term, the world is entering such a phase that is comparable to the 30s of the last century. It's a different type of capitalism, unlike the liberal phase of capitalism.

First of all, what's liberal capitalism? Basically, it's the right of owners of capital to freely manage their enterprise. Conversely, in organized capitalism, while they're still allowed to make profit, they also have to abide by a "higher purpose" that's been imposed on them. Be it the establishment of cartels in their respective industry, or the organization of a war-time economy, or the initiation of a process of catching up with more advanced economies, or dealing with an economic crisis.

Yes, I guess we're talking about the cyclical nature of economics here. I'd argue that for the last 100 years, phases of organized capitalism and liberal capitalism have been alternating one after another. After the liberal capitalism of the 20s followed a phase of organized capitalism. After the late 70s, another phase of liberal capitalism. Generally, the phases of organized capitalism end with a protracted period of stagnation, as the relatively inefficient distribution of goods and services tends to lose its ability to meet people's needs at some point. In turn, the phases of liberal capitalism tend to end with large-scale crises so far. We're currently heading into such a period, which shows that we seem to be transitioning to another phase of organized capitalism.

( Read more... )

airiefairie.livejournal.com

You are not buying it for quality, you are buying it for the brand. We have heard that argument before. When global celebrities endorse a product whose quality is otherwise sub-par or at least mediocre, whose price is way overrated, and still the product is being bought off like crazy, we are probably rather talking of buying a lifestyle through the product, a way of self-identification:

A Pair of Beats Headphones Costs Only $17 In Parts

How many of you have bought a pair of these earphones? Admit it, those of you who have occasionally bought products like these, do not really care about the quality or the practical use, do you?

( The actual cost of making this product is kind of shocking... )

airiefairie.livejournal.com

Here is a somewhat different story about shopping, and the relationship between consumerism and the economy.

Black Friday was a few days ago, the day when the shops in the US used to sell so much stuff that the standard red ink would soon run out and they would have to do their book-keeping with a pencil. This was the case in the late 19th century, at least according to the official version of the story.

The myth of Black Friday is a major cornerstone of the consumerist society, where people live in order to buy things. On this day in many countries around the world, the season of Christmas shopping discounts begins. It is the day of the big sales in business.

( Read more... )

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

Interesting talk by a rich guy, an unrepentant capitalist, who's arguing that growing inequality is about to push society into conditions resembling pre-revolutionary France. With all the predictable yet dire consequences that this brings along.

[Error: unknown template video]

Not sure if the guy's been putting his money where his mouth is in any way, as opposed to just "spreading the message" to his fellow plutocrats, but still, he at least tries to be self-aware and address the problem of the capitalist system, which seems to be gradually pushing society toward a precipice that people have already started to come to a realization about at this point - including international financial and economic organizations. I'm not sure, though, if he manages to adequately address some of the most intrinsically malignant elements lying at the heart of the capitalist system - namely, the nature of capitalists themselves.

( Read more... )

nairiporter.livejournal.com

[Error: unknown template video]

This is a TED talk by Paul Tudor Jones II, a hedge fund manager who has earned a lot of popularity in the US, although he seldom gives interviews. Still, his arguments naturally resonate very clearly with the audience.

Basically, he is arguing that the obsession for profit has become something so normal that society is not noticing how it is gradually undermining itself with it. The growing income disparities are a problem that is now raising concerns all across the board, and has become a major topic even at the recent G7 meeting and in Davos. 1% of all Americans currently have nearly 1/5 of all the wealth in the country. And there was a time when this tendency used to be much less pronounced, particularly in the 70s. But now the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has opened up wide, and the process will only be deepening. Jones argues that this could lead society to a breaking point, where the disparity would have to be amended somehow - "either through revolution, war, or tax reform".

( Read more... )

dan stain cornwell

A rant on society:
As much as capitalism has helped humans thrive, it has also contributed a large part in the destruction of our environment. Capitalism thrives when there is a product that thrives. Capitalism does not, however, take into any account whether or not the long-term effects of the product being distributed will include any negative stimuli. Our system is based off short-term gain, and companies will naturally go along with that, pumping out millions of barrels of oil and thousands of sparkling new SUVs. Capitalism is built on a perpetually growing consumer population that is encouraged to buy tons of "shiny new toys"; no wonder we are having problems with greenhouse gases.

Contrary to popular belief, drastically reducing our emissions is actually extremely easy. We have the resources and the knowledge to change society, but businesses would suffer drastically as a result of the change. We built an entire economy off business and resources that kill the earth, and we are so deep into our socio-economic experiment that we can't turn back without causing extreme and drastic change to the way we live. Money literally rules our lives, and that is why we haven't changed as much as we should. I believe it is the people's responsibility to realize this. I think someone eventually will have to stand up and force a change if change doesn't happen soon.

Mood: contemplative

mahnmut.livejournal.com

Rosneft and ExxonMobil approve 4 Arctic projects

Any pro-capitalist corporato-lover would've wondered here why would a nice noble company like Exxon decide to hook up with a Russian company after what happened to BP, eh? Any company that gambles on investing in Russia takes the risk of having its assets there either nationalized, or at least (as in this case) handed over to its Russian "partner".

See, from an Invisible Hand fan's standpoint, we might argue that the historical parallels here are inescapable. It took centuries for property rights to evolve in the West, a process that still seems to be in its baby stages in an otherwise pretty absolutist East (Russia included). No matter if it was the Tzar of Russia, or the Emperor of China, any individual's personal property could be taken away at a whim. Ivan the Terrible had a revolt of his nobles (Boyars) on his hands, setting the stage for hundreds of years of Russian history of repression - nobles being forced to live at court, serfs tied to their estates... all in all, a pretty feudal picture, which has persisted to modern times under one form or another. As Mark Twain said, history may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

( From a more nuanced standpoint though )

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

While we're on topic,

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/27/crony-capitalism-and-corporatism/

Intriguing article by a prominent anarchist and proponent for a classless society. He argues that history has provided vast amounts of empirical evidence for capitalism being inherently statist in nature. I hesitate to put him in the same league with right-libertarianism, as I've noticed those tend to argue that corporatism, or "crony capitalism", is a sort of distortion of capitalism, i.e. an impure form thereof.

I'd be especially interested to have some feedback from free-market advocates, and understand better their attitude towards what the author calls "illegitimate state interventions in the market on behalf of plutocrats and big business: “Intellectual property,” absentee title to vacant and unimproved land and corporate limited liability, for example".

I've often heard the argument that capitalism isn't necessarily inherently statist, although achieving government objectives with businesses could at times necessitate a statist implementation of capitalism. And that whenever we use the term "corporatism", it actually has a lot to do with a government-business axis, where business depends on the government for sustained revenue, and conversely, politicians depend upon businesses for campaign contributions - i.e. "unfree" market.

There's also the argument that capitalism inherently requires the existence of the state; that they're mutual products. Because capitalism requres the aid of the state to create, maintain and manage markets and uphold the laws of private property, contract law and other vital laws for society (and keep the working class in check, one might argue - as well as bail out those capitalists that are "too big to fail" whenever necessary).

What say you? Apart from the issue which precedes which, the egg/state or chicken/capitalism... are the two completely separate from each other, or are they inherently interdependent?

sophia-sadek.livejournal.com

Q: Why don't conservatives go to Hell after they die?
A: They wind up in Limbaugh.

In a recent broadcast response to the current pope, Rush Limbaugh waved his banner of capitalist cheer-leading. He gave the example of disaster relief as a positive aspect of his personal religion of greed, hate and delusion. What Limbaugh failed to grasp is that sincere disaster relief does not conform to the strict tenets of pure capitalism.

Capitalists practice charity as a means to an end. The classic example of capitalist charity works somewhat like a loss leader. "Here is some good stuff for free." When the consumer becomes accustomed to the stuff, it is no longer free. Disaster relief from a capitalist perspective is a way to open up a new market for business expansion. It has nothing to do with helping out someone in distress except a distressed business in need of expansion.

Limbaugh claims that the US would not have the resources for disaster relief overseas were it not for the "virtuous" system of capital accumulation. What he omits is the way that the process of accumulation of assets into the hands of a few already wealthy investors tends to drain resources away from other parts of the globe rendering them susceptible to natural calamities. Nations impoverished by Anglo-American global domination have a reduced capacity to help their own people in a time of crisis. There is also the "ideological" barrier of opposition to a social safety net as imposed by capitalist domination. People will not work for marginal wages in a society with a social safety net. The absence of a safety net aggravates the effects of a natural disaster.

A more telling example of a capitalist response to a natural disaster is the way oil companies jacked up the price of gas after hurricane Katrina hit the American gulf coast. Sure, this conformed to the law of supply and demand. After all the supply of oil was reduced by the loss of Louisiana supplies and the demand was increased by the fact that residents fled by vehicle and remained on the road. Employees of capital know how to exploit a situation and would be fired if they failed to do so.

Another blind spot in the Limbaugh religion is the denial of the effects of capital accumulation on the global climate. Melting ice caps and increased storm severity have no human contribution. They would have occurred without the mad rush to profit from fossil fuel consumption. The greenhouse effect is the bogey man of weak-kneed liberals who cannot appreciate the fine bouquet on a glass of anti-freeze enhanced ground water.

What is your take on disaster relief with respect to the global political economy? And, do you accept Rush Limbaugh into your heart as your lord and savior?

Links: Rush Limbaugh on pope Frank.

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/02/rush-limbaugh-vs-the-pope/

"But Limbaugh, whose program is estimated to reach 15 million listeners, called the Pope's comments "sad" and "unbelievable." "It's sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth.""

Oh how worked up the Pope has made some guys! Suddenly the pontiff stops being so infallible, eh? He just doesn't understand what Jesus is whispering in his ear, and he needs someone to explain it to him. Someone who knows more about capitalism and socialism "and so forth".

Someone like a Fox "news" commentator, perhaps?

"I go to church to save my soul," said Fox News' Stuart Varney, who is an Episcopalian. "It's got nothing to do with my vote. Pope Francis has linked the two. He has offered direct criticism of a specific political system. He has characterized negatively that system. I think he wants to influence my politics."

So... capitalism is a political system, now? When did that happen, pray tell? (pun unintended) When did capitalism stop being an economic and social system using markets to distribute goods and services, and suddenly become a political system? I thought capitalism was a tool? Does this, highly competent and infinitely infallible pundit, by any chance, happen to be mixing up capitalism with democracy? As if speaking with a British accent would magically make him look smarter, eh? But what do I know. I'm not on Fox "news", therefore I don't know shit about these things "and so forth".

( But they do - oh, they do know a thing or two about capitalism and socialism and so forth. RIGHT? )

airiefairie.livejournal.com

Until recently, countries like Turkey and Brazil used to be known mostly for their rapid economic development. They are called the emerging economies for a reason. And then something unexpected happened. The protests at Taksim started, and it became clear to everyone that they were not just about the Gezi park and the plans to turn it to a shopping centre. The deeper reason was that there was a lot of public discontent piling underneath the surface for quite a while.

The situation in Brazil is similar. The protests there started with a minor issue, the 10% increase of the prices for public transport. Except, the protests continued long after the price increase had been cancelled. Then what are these protests really directed against, we might ask?

( Read more )

vehemencet-t.livejournal.com

Apparently, at a recent National Review breakfast, Senator Rand Paul of drone-filibuster fame, ~~waxed historical~~ passed his judgment on current grassroots politics, saying:

"The Tea Party, I always say, is more like the American Revolution, and Occupy Wall Street is more the French Revolution."

Speaking specifically of the Tea Party, he elaborated, "We hearken back to sort of rules. We weren’t unhappy with people just because they were rich; we weren’t happy with you if you were making money off of our taxes and we were bailing you out. If you were making $100 million, your bank goes bankrupt and all of a sudden we bail you out and you’re still making $100 million — that upset us."

Regarding those ~~dirty hipster communists~~ Occupy Wall Street, Dandy Randy opined, "I think Occupy Wall Street was more of a generic sort of, ‘We just hate people who have any money, and why can’t they give it to us?’ kind of thing.”

While people's minds are probably already made up which ever side they fall on (or neither), I find this upsetting from him for a number of reasons.

Most specifically, he seems to completely miss the point that those "rules" he is so fond of are odious to grassroots street activists like Occupy (most of whom have hardly anything in the way of assets or, even more ridiculous, stock options) because of the popular assumption (and I don't think its incorrect) that the majority of legislation is almost invariably crafted and passed in the favor of those who are wealthy and connected to power centers. Making it legal to exploit and plunder people doesn't make it any more pleasant for those on the wrong end of the class divide. Especially when they have the least capability for high political or economic influence. In other words, historically, laws have merely served to condone and justify the practices of the powerful and protect privileges of the wealthy. We all remember that law can be used as just another cover for undesirable social conditions. Slavery was legal. And if you think that rule of law also successfully made it illegal and thus curbed the practice, it hasn't. It's merely changed forms and modernized (hence the term "wage slavery", but that's a matter of perspective). The Nazis , as well as countless other dictatorial regimes, frequently employed legislation as political cover for their activities, all the while acting completely outside of those books through secret police operations whenever desired. I liken it to a stacked deck of cards or a rigged game. Logically, the smart response is not to play a game whose rules are designed to ensure you lose just about every time, but to create a new, fair, game.

That this criticism comes from a privileged, white, well to do senator who has probably not experienced any such disenfranchisement, only makes it worse.

People who act outside of that framework seem to feel intuitively that they cannot mitigate their complaints through reform alone, but that a strength of private conscience to do what they feel is best, regardless of the laws, is required. In response, we have the same old vitriol that people complaining about economic inequality are just ungrateful and envious.

His statements also subtly, but clearly, elevate "law-abiding" with "morally superior" and more orderly, no doubt a common assumption in today's age of fetishized obedience to authority, even among those who call themselves liberal. So the Tea Party is like those "democratically elected, regimented revolutionary officers", whereas the Occupiers are the "maniacal, rampaging mobs doling out senseless destruction". It's not said in so many words, but the comparison is there.

I guess my point is, it's not too difficult to see why a lot of disenfranchised, underprivileged and alienated people have taken to the streets to agitate for change through extralegal means (regardless of our opinion regarding the effectiveness of their actions), and it particularly bothers me when it comes from someone like Rand Paul, who claims to fight for freedom and is considered an icon of the "liberty movement" like his father by a lot of people. Demonizing protestors with the worst aspects of the French Revolution is not only unhelpful in this regard, it is dishonest, just as much as idealizing a group with its own cast of unsavory elements as some heroic fight against tyranny that they consider the American Revolution to be.

My critique here isn't indicative of some affinity or affiliation with Occupy, nor a general condemnation of the Tea Party. It's about the tactics of meaningful protest and effective socio-political change, something I feel Rand's words discourage and run counter too.

(Note: Edited for formatting)

peristaltor.livejournal.com

At the tail end of my last money-ish post, I quoted L. Frank Baum's opening to his topical money allegory The Wonderful Wizard of Oz:

Dorothy lived in the midst of the great Kansas prairies, with Uncle Henry, who was a farmer, and Aunt Em, who was the farmer's wife. Their house was small, for the lumber to build it had to be carried by wagon many miles.

This was, of course, printed first in 1900. People carried most things by wagon, especially in rural farm lands, simply because the gadgets we take for granted, the automobile in all its cargo and people hauling variants, were not common. Worse, the vast vehicle support apparatus such as rural roads in 1900 would not support any but the most rudimentary (ie. slow) transport. Wagons pulled by beasts and men were the norm.

How times have changed.

Today, I happened to catch John Michael Greer's Archdruid Report entry titled The Upside of Default, where he coins a new word, just for fun, and pokes a bit more fun at this "investmentariat":

The investmentariat has been told for decades that their money ought to make them money, but nobody told them that this only works in an economy that experiences sustained real growth over the long term, and nobody would dream of mentioning in their hearing that we don’t have an economy like that any more.

All the investmentariat knows for sure is that the kind of safe investment that used to bring in five per cent a year is now yielding a small fraction of one per cent, and the risks you need to take to get five per cent a year are those once associated with the the kind of "securities" that make a mockery of that title.

He goes on to calculate very, very roughly that our Western economies have morphed into something of an impossibility. ( Okay, it may look like Dorothy's tiny house has nothing to do with Greer's sneering mockery of a modern small-time investor; but I do plan on eeking out a connection. Really. )

meus-ovatio.livejournal.com

Japan ironically blames everyone while decrying the tendency to blame everyone.

So we all know how the Fukushima disaster came about right? Cost-cutting, sloppy, negligent management. Well, that isn't the whole story you see. You see, as the report indicates:

"What must be admitted -- very painfully -- is that this was a disaster 'Made in Japan,' " the report said. "Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to 'sticking with the program.'"

Not just incidental to the runaway chain reaction of neutron-induced fission events, but indeed the very fundamental cause of the meltdown was that everyone in Japan is too well behaved. That's right, the fundamental blame can be laid at the feet of every man, woman and child, near and far, involved or not. This isn't about bad operators so much as it is about how everyone else is to blame.

This is essentially how capitalism operates. I thought it quite amusing if however sickening. Much like the financial meltdown, nuclear meltdowns are now the proper responsibility and concern of every Tom, Dick and Harry who happens to be born however loosely affiliated with some power plant by dint of nationality or skin color. Well then, I guess then we should just accept this report and go with the program!

What is ironic is how the report relies upon the very same "problem" it points out: Japanese kids are too well-behaved! Damned if you do... damned if you don't!

This is the equivalent of watching your house burn down, and then ranting about the deleterious effects of rap music.

weswilson

I have always been troubled by the preposterous notion that money cannot be used coercively. Coercion is the threat or application of force to influence the choices of an individual.

If someone points a gun at me and says, "I'll kill you if you don't drink my water", everyone would agree that is coercion. And yet, if I were to magically buy up all the water companies and say, "You will die if you don't drink my water", that is suddenly not coercion.

I continue to assert that money can be used to coerce by limiting choice. When my income is low, I will put higher value on my pennies, making me more likely to bargain shop with companies I'd prefer not to frequent. When companies merge beyond my field of vision, I can end up spending money that goes into the pockets of people that I have no desire to support. Speculation can drive up prices in my housing market, limiting my choice of residence beyond natural scarcity. Economies of scale can prevent me from entering markets with a superior product due to my inability to counter undercutting and overcome market entry fees. A malevolent person could, with sufficient bankroll, remove my ability to participate in any market by eliminating all supply or adjusting the market equilibrium beyond my means.

Julian Assange pointed out in an old blog that corporate nation-states would be totalitarian regimes...
( Digging into the concepts of libertarianism and freedom behind the cut... )

peristaltor.livejournal.com

A question for the forum that just might be entertaining enough to count toward a good Friday LULz: What, in your opinion, is capitalism?

Mind you, I don't wish to hear what capitalism is not. Saying it is the opposite of socialism or communism or what-have-you-ism is (IMNSHO) intellectually dishonest. I'm genuinely curious to note your opinions of what it is, that is, what positive attributes can one ascribe to and require of a capitalist economy.

I've been looking, and I haven't really found a good positive definition myself, a really definitive list of required attributes to any given capitalist economy. You guys and gals seem to know stuff, so I thought I'd ask.

vehemencet-t.livejournal.com

Thanks to the efforts of the alternative media trackers, the international "Bilderberg conference" has been confirmed to be taking place in U.S. Virginia. For those who don't know "Bilderberg" is the informal name for an annual conference of around 120-140 individuals from the top echelons of global politics finance, banking, industry, media and even royalty. Members are pledged to strict secrecy regarding what is discussed there, as well as mandated to implement the final decisions in their respective spheres according to former Secretary General of NATO and Bilderberg attendee Willy Claes, and a generous media blackout is usually provided for their activities. In the past, Bilderberg has been linked to the formation of the original European Union, the adoption of the Euro currency, the conflict in Kosovo, and the bolstering of prominent future political leaders.

For all of us engaged in the struggle against world oppression in all its forms, they represent a pinnacle of the ruling class and their convenient centralization so near to many protesters, activists and anarchists is an opportunity that should not be wasted.

People from different branches of the ideological perspective are already calling out--Occupy Bilderberg! This a chance to assemble the forces of freedom fighters from such diverse corners as the Occupy movement, Crimethinc, We Are Change and many more nameless affinity groups and social action cells out there of the 99%.

Disrupt Bilderberg! Expose the 0.001%! Shut that conference down! Force your way through and remind the global elite that we are not their slaves and that they will lose control.

So on May 31-June 3, 2012 let's all of us be at:

14750 Conference Center Dr

Chantilly, VA 20151

Spread the word and prepare yourselves for the fight!

It is my hope that a huge mass of people arrives there to draw attention to this group which I feel has been allowed to be secretive for far too long. After all if the goal of such groups is to fight economic and political corruption and exploitation, then, in my opinion, it is high time they were introduced to one of its historically chief concentrations.

(OP Note: If this violates some rule or guideline, I was not aware of it--though I did check. Also, before somebody mentions it--I apologize for the quality of some of the links--unfortunately because of the usual and inexplicable media blackouts some of those sources are the 'only game in town' for covering this--just try to ignore the unfactual/sensationalist/speculative stuff you disagree with. Thank you.)

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

MONTHLY TOPIC:
The Scramble for Resources

DAILY QUOTE:

"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)

"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)

"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Talk politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Entries tagged with capitalism

Elon strikes again

Part 2/2. Communitarianism vs cosmopolitanism

Part 1/2. Meet the new capitalism!

It's all about the branding, stupid!

Of Black Friday, and other modern-day mythology

Rich guy preaching

Provocations from a philanthrocapitalist

I'm tired of this "global warming isn't real" mess

Business as usual

Is capitalism statist?

Rendering Unto Caesar: Winding Up in Limbaugh‏

Pissing on holy Mammon? How DARE he!

The purpose of the protests

Hypocrisy or Ignorance? Rand Paul

Finding the Upside

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.

Coercion and "Free" Enterprise

Sorta LULzy: What Is Capitalism?

Shouldn't we Occupy Bilderberg too?

Credits & Style Info

Links

May 2025

Summary