Alan Greenspan Set to Tickle the Balls
When I first read The Fountainhead in like 1997, I said Goddamn. I had spent so many fuckin years being beaten down by PC Propaganda that ANY controversial material that didn't suck the dicks of the poor and the weak were of the greatest appeal to me. Rare, exciting shit! How weird that it was coming from that broomhilda-lookin dried-up old cunt.
So subsequently, I became obsessed with that whole scene for awhile because that's the kind of faggot I am - I'm so goddamn lucky that I got married and had kids because I'm totally the kind of person who would have ended up in scientology or cutting off my nuts and meeting niggas in back of hale-bopp.I didn't go so far as to actually send money to anyone, attend any queer meetings, or join the objectivist dating site (get a load of those jerkoffs!) but I did do stupid shit like buy an Ayn Rand poster and read alt.philosophy.objectivism and all her horrible books and shit.
Ah, suck my dick, I was 22.
In any case, I look at what's happening now, and how can a nigga not shake his head:
What we are going through in the United States is every bit as crazy as the Berlin wall coming down and Boris Yeltsin standing on a fucking tank screaming about getting dem niggas some decent Coca Cola.
Pure Capitalism is failing, and Managed Capitalism will rise - the fact that Alan Greenspan is saying that the Free Market Ideology is Flawed? GREENSPAN!?!? What the FUCK? Good thing Obama already got Ayn Rand in his fridge to prep her for the shtuppin, because Alan Greenspan sayin some shit like that would have made the bitch roll over in her grave.
Well, fast forward 10 years to 2009, and I gotta tell you, I'm so damn proud of Obama for lubing up her deadbutt. I couldn't be more psyched about his Salary Cap plan for fuckers making millions and millions of dollars and taking OUR money after fucking up the country and then taking hawaii ski vacations and using hundred dollar billstacks as firewood.
Socialist Black president! Hilarious.
And I love that Wall St. cunts are trying to threaten us and scare us into giving them back their 12 million dollar salaries - WAH we have to get by on 500k WAH. Check out this article where they say it's BAD for New York because we'll lose all the top Wall St. talent to China and the Middle East.
Nigga please! Like these Sopranos-watchin execs who live in Summit NJ are gonna pull their kids outta Dwight Englewood and relocate the fam to Beijing.
Please Caitlin, give Shanghai a chance for daddy; This 9-piece beaks-and-feet McNuggets taste just like McDonald's on Rt. 4 back home.
...And to Ayn Rand I'd have to say: Look you Russian little slag, don't get so upset over a couple of salary caps - this can't be the kind of capitalism you envisioned in the first place- where a bunch of fucking fratboys go and play games and exploit loopholes and become millionaires without doing shit for society - and then fuck it all up and ask for federal bailouts?Ayn, you herring-loving jewbroad, listen close: Just like SOME people are too LAZY for real socialism to ever really work, this whole clusterfuck is proof that SOME OTHER people are too GREEDY for real capitalism to ever really work.
Man, the truth gotta be somewhere in between - these niggas need health insurance.
Mind my Ripple.
18 comments:
And look at those cock-sucking congressional Republicans all scared and so desperate that they are really for the first time for reals losing all control of the U.S. of America (and their bowels are following).
Without their semen-sticky hands on the Master Cuntrol Switch in the Capital basement [bitch don't call me here, I told you that!] they are afraid that their secrets will be exposed; from the CIA penis-farms in Virgina to the leather-walled, cigar smoke, spank dens just off of Wall St.
But what do I fucking know, Blognigger?
Jesus! What took us so long to realize that what we needed was a black Muslim socialist from Hawaii (not a real state, you know?) who has nothing but Beatles and NWA on his iPod?
Blognigger? Heeeellp us! How are we supposed to behave in the new bizarro America where mulatto is the new black or some shit?
Fuck Ayn Rand. Tell us what to do, Blognigger! Barack is the new Heaven's Gate.
Maybe a bunch of really smart savvy black people will take over finance now. It could be like politics; the white entitled crowd could just cede the stage to a bunch of optimistic, idealistic peeps who don't think that it is their God given right to be compensated on a scale disproportionate to everyone else while simultaneously fucking things up for everyone else.
You gotta love the Prez mocking his critics “this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill,’ .... What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point. No, seriously, that’s the point."
I particularly like the locution "no, seriously." I love him. I have never loved a public figure before in my life, never felt anything like this. It's love, plain and simple.
I think if crazy hate fuckers tried to come for him, to kill him, that millions and millions of love-besotted people like me would just wrap him up like in bullet-proof wool. He might get a little hot, but the haters wouldn't be able to get him.
Jesus it's great to have you back
It's funny that you mention Ayn Rand. I was spewing coffee each time the John Galt corporation kept popping in the news recently.
First of all, good God BN I can never quit you..
and this...
"a bunch of fucking fratboys go and play games and exploit loopholes and become millionaires without doing shit for society - and then fuck it all up and ask for federal bailouts?"
IS EXACTLY what has been going on for too long.. Those motherfuckers are brain dead and STUPID. Why were these lazy, myopic charlatans allowed to control any part of our economy, much less our ENTIRE FINANCIAL SYSTEM.. fuuuuuuck.
sorry blognigger, but you arent looking at the bigger picture. the reason those "frat boys" went nuts like they did was because of the conditions set for them by the federal reserve and government intervention. I am a ron paul zealot, and as much as you guys might hate me for it, the guy is right. learn about austrian economics and how they have been predicting this shit for years.
the dominant thought in economics today is keynsianism-hardly free market economics. bush might have touted free markets but he sure as hell did not practice what he preaced and you should all look into this before you blame capitalism and hand over your money to obama.
im done ranting.
anonymous - interesting - I'd like to hear more.
Can you please post or email your favorite link on the subject?
Anonymous.
Word life!
@anonymous
so you're saying that the conditions that allowed the "frat boys" to run wild in the first place were caused by REGULATION in the first place?
I've heard someone else say this too - mind explaining what the fuck you mean?
This shit-- this shit. The idea that human beings, & groups of human beings, will somehow act rationally? I hate that kind of ideological nonsense. Look at any of the freaking anyBODY you know-- do those jerks act rationally? Ever had a JOB? Did that act rationally-- the company I mean?
Just freaking ugh; people want to model capitalism & say it'll work like evolution or something? DUDE EVOLUTION WORKS BY KILLING MOST OF THE STUFF OFF STOP USING IT FOR INSPIRATION!
BN IS BACK! Yaaay!
Anon 4:02
That's the beauty of having a school of thought that has zero practical application in the real world--you can always claim that because your theories were not applied with 100% ideological rigidity, they were doomed to failure. It wasn't the theory's fault, but the imperfect application of it.
Keynesianism was dominant for fifty years because that shit predicted the great depression and world war 2, and if anyone had really listened to Keynes and applied his principles in North America and Europe prior to, both disasters could have been averted. But that's something we can debate in real terms because Keynesianism has real applications.
Austrian economics simply says "Market controls bad because humans don't like them." What's austrian economics in practice? "Remove market controls. Bad! Bad!"
The last 30 years have seen a clear and abrupt break from Keynesianism to radical free-market ideology everywhere in the "free" world, beginning most abundantly with the IMF and the World Bank, which have been using their charters to impose hard-right anti-Keynesian market conditions on every developing economy in the last three decades. And when that ideology proves itself bankrupt and fails and the world is facing a global economic meltdown, what's the answer? "You see! We told you! You left in too many market controls! Bad! Bad!!"
Where has this ideology failed? How about: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile in the 80s. How about Poland and the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. How about South Africa? How about Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea in 1997? How about China (the only reason it hasn't been brought down with the rest of the world is because of the currency CONTROLS it has maintained when the rest of Asia opened its currency up to financial speculation). How about the good ol U S of A in 2008?
What we're seeing now--the idea that deficit spending is what's needed to emerge from a global financial collapse--is the first real large-scale Western policy return to Keynesianism in the last 30 years. Why? 'Cause it works (cf the Marhsall Plan).
Why will radical free-market principles never work in democracy? Because radically free markets inevitably lead to vaster and vaster disparities in wealth. And why would 99% of the people ever vote to have 50% of a country's wealth concentrated into the hands of 1% of its populace? Because the ideal of a free market appeals to them? Uh-uh.
No, it simply cannot be sustained in a free political economy. In order to maintain radical free market principles against unemployment, poverty, hunger, public health crises, etc., a government must either: 1) rule with a police state (South America, Indonesia, China, former Soviet Union, etc) and use torture, murder, disappearance, and general terror to crush dissent, or 2) allow managed market controls that will allow universal public access at reasonable costs to things that almost everyone agrees are social entitlements: safety, health, education, food, shelter, and in this day and age, telecommunications.
It's fucking hysterical that after owning the discourse in every major economy and every major bank for the last 30 years, free-market types are now blaming Keynesianism for the current financial crisis. You know who you sound like? You sound just like John McCain when he said in September that what the financial markets needed to get back on their feet was more deregulation and tax breaks. Is it getting crowded over there in the dustbin of history?
But by all means, rant away.
Wow filthy- the whole bn posse is in effect!!!
That was stellar.
Good to see you fags
to filthy lucretius:
i'm sorry, but the evidence is against you. it is dead wrong to call america a "liassez-faire system". It was once, but it is not today, and has not been for a long time. I dug up this article because I think it does a good job of first destroying the myth that we live in a laissez-faire system.
then it points out how the central banks (implicit in its name is the regulation of the market place, through the creating of money out of thin air and regulation of interest rates) started the bubble. the problems we face today are not the problem, they are the solution. it is the popping of the bubble created by the federal reserve system. This is the system that no one is questioning and most are completely uneducated about.
the article then moves on to government intervention and subsidies, notably fannie and freddie, and the CRA, which acted as a form of insurance for bank loans, which in turn created the moral hazards which made this all possible.
another thing that you and most others try to point out is that government is necessary to "level the playing field" which is also incorrect. the early days of capitalism were ugly, but they always are wherever you go. but what you fail to note is how the rise of capitalism in europe is also what created the middle class, destroyed serfdom, and was the foundation for democratic freedom in western society. once the people had economic power they were able to attain it politically as well.
finally, trying to use the "IMF" an "world bank" as a laissez faire approach is also dead wrong. it is just an international central bank, which austrians are also critical of. its like calling NAFTA free trade because it says so in the name. you take it at face value without an analysis. free trade does not require a bible to tell you how to do it. north american free trade would simply mean I, as a canadian, could trade and do business with anyone in north america without having to worry about subsidies, tariffs, and other bureaucratic red tape. is this what NAFTA is? i think not.
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
http://mises.org/story/3165
one more thing, here is an article by ron paul, describing Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek's work on proving how the federal reserve system creates the boom bust cycle. we have decided not to learn form history and are pursuing the same policies today. in the face of a financial bubble burst, what are our politicians doing? slashing interest rates, inflating the money supply, and sending money to the banks to increase consumption-the same mess that got us here in the first place. this last part isn't just being said by austrians either. My roomate this year is the son of top German economist Hans-Werner Sinn, who is also saying the same thing, and is becoming more and more critical of government actions in the face of the economic uncertanties.
the policies we pursue today is like a drug addict getting his fix. short term relief in exchange for a larger long term problem in the end. we are spending our way out of one bubble and into another, to stave off the depression for another few years, maybe until obama gets out of office and the problems fall in the lap of the next in line.
another thing to think about the federal reserve system is it's use as a political weapon. the system, since 1971 when nixon departed from the gold standard has allowed the government to print money as they please to spend on whatever hot new program is around. take, for example, the war in iraq! were the government not able to print the money, they would either have to borrow it, or raise taxes. by avoiding the process of raising taxes, the effect of the war on the american tax-payer is drastically reduced, which in turn reduces public outcry. even those crazy bible thumpers wouldnt support this war they had a huge tax-hike similar to the second world war.
think about it!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul481.html
Hey, anon, c’mon, man! You didn’t actually respond to anything I had actually written, but instead just threw up one straw man argument after another.
Once again, you can’t simply claim that because there is no 100% free market in the real world, we therefore can’t debate the merits of free-market ideology. That’s no different from saying we can’t debate whether the Nazis’ final solution was a good idea because there are still Jews running around. The article you reference attempts the exact same fallacy: because America’s markets were not utterly and absolutely free, you can’t blame free-market principles for the current financial collapse. Hogwash. I can and do.
The undisputed facts of the matter are that free-market principles have enjoyed greater and greater sway in real-world global economies since the stagflation of the early 70’s, when Austrian economics-lite disciples from the University of Chicago Economics program began effecting a radical-right wing ideological makeover of global economic policy. For the last 25 years, every major figure at the head of the US Treasury, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization—the four institutions responsible more than any others for shaping global markets—has publicly embraced the mission of expanding free-market principles at home and in the developing world. These principles include: privatization of industry, liberalization of markets, deregulation of government controls, lowering of taxes, and reduction of government spending on public programs. No reasonable person disputes this history.
In the early 1970’s, free-market guru Milton Friedman convinced US Treasury Sec. George Shultz to approve financial futures contracts in foreign currencies, and Friedman’s disciples helped draw up the models to price them. These derivatives—pure financial speculation that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real goods-and-services economy of a nation—are at the core of the current meltdown in global financial markets.
Subprime mortgages have been available through government subsidy since the Great Depression. They only became so popular in recent years when the unregulated CDOs market exploded and Wall Street began expressing an unquenchable demand for collateralized debt. Meanwhile, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, a landmark deregulation legislation, allowed commercial (savings) banks, investment banks, and insurance companies to merge. Thus commercial bankers started hocking bad mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them so their buddies across the corridor could trade the debt while their pals on the fifteenth floor hedged the investments with unsecured credit default swaps, and none of these trillions of dollars of transactions were subject to any external oversight or due diligence, i.e., they were free and unregulated, just like you like ‘em. And then, whoopsie, the whole system came crashing down.
All of the “reforms” that have been enacted over the last 30 years in our own economy and developing economies throughout the globe have been enacted in the name of free-market principles. And they’ve failed, and they’re going to continue to fail, because however much Austrian economists wish it were so, multi-trillion dollar global economies simply do not function according to exactly the same set of principles as Bob and his freaking beer money. Macro and microeconomics are two different disciplines. Planned economies within social democracies that offer a greater or lesser degree of morally and politically mandated entitlements will continue to make the most sense for the greatest number of people for as long as we keep track.
So give it a rest on the laissez-faire crap, man. You guys pressed your luck, and you got whammied. You spun the wheel and you went bust—no showcase showdown for you. Of course, if you feel we need to wait until there is a real live functioning 100% free and unregulated market at large in the world before we can continue with this debate, then that’s fine with me too.
WOW, Filthy Lucretius adroitly summed up why "free markets" do not work... I would say, however, that a perfectly free market is just TOO ideal, everyone is going to fuck with the system and withhold important information (or surreptitiously pass information) essential to choice in a free market.
Not only that but even WITH our "regulation", wall street bankers bullied and kicked around even the strongest regulators. I mean, Madoff said he would put a HIT on the guy who was going to expose him... shiiii.
A bunch of fucking greedy bitches running a flawed system that got exploited like an 11yr old in Thailand.
I don't give a shit why it's fucked up. I just want it fixed, NOW! I'm a single nigga with no kids, and an average salary, and I have to get an extra job just to break even. I can't afford any college girl handjobs anymore.
Post a Comment