Liberal Forum

Main Street corporations are at a significant disadvantage competing with Wall Street corporations, because they do not have unlimited financing to bring them artificially to scale. They must go through numerous growth stages, each fraught with pitfalls, in order to bring their enterprises to scale and receive the advantages which come with that condition.

What gives Wall Street corporations their advantage - access to virtually unlimited venture capital - is government sanction of the invitation-only money markets. Those markets are created by legislation and given the official imprimatur of government through licensing under SEC regulatiion. The advantage is confered by government, which is picking winners and losers by empowering a few at the expense of the many.

If government did not legislate the NYSE and other money markets into existence and officially recognize them, at the expense of the many others who are disallowed, then FREE ENTERPRISE would naturally occur. Instead, we have a state engineered economy, with the state deciding who can play what role, when, and where.

What, are you doing a Will Franklin on us here, with all these multiple threads?

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2015 5:16 am » wrote:Main Street corporations are at a significant disadvantage competing with Wall Street corporations, because they do not have unlimited financing to bring them artificially to scale. They must go through numerous growth stages, each fraught with pitfalls, in order to bring their enterprises to scale and receive the advantages which come with that condition.

What gives Wall Street corporations their advantage - access to virtually unlimited venture capital - is government sanction of the invitation-only money markets. Those markets are created by legislation and given the official imprimatur of government through licensing under SEC regulatiion. The advantage is confered by government, which is picking winners and losers by empowering a few at the expense of the many.

If government did not legislate the NYSE and other money markets into existence and officially recognize them, at the expense of the many others who are disallowed, then FREE ENTERPRISE would naturally occur. Instead, we have a state engineered economy, with the state deciding who can play what role, when, and where.

Absolute truth.

indago » 25 Jul 2015 5:30 am » wrote:What, are you doing a Will Franklin on us here, with all these multiple threads?

There's a progression. This is seminal work - a work very much in progress. I don't expect applause, but SOME forebearance. You've given me cause to have expectations of you.

These threads are all on the same subject and they are all on the same theme, but there's a refinement going on which is my actual purpose here. Creating into a void is something only God can do - the rest of us need an echo, the sound of bouncing. Like blind bats, we use the echo to locate where we need to go next. This need - so rarely attended to properly in this waste land - is why I cuss lames out all the time for being such ***. Well, also general orneriness.

If you think "Capitalism is not Free Enterprise" and "Capitalism is Government Interference in the Free Market" are the same thread, look again. Every thread I have started on this subject reflects a better grip on the material - an updated cut on the thing. Hell, when I STARTED, my argument was that capitalism is a necessary evil - just needful of better regulation. Now, I'm advocating that we outlaw it - that it should not be allowed to exist.

I am working without a net here, into zero agreement. You might as well be saying to a man hacking his next 80 feet of jungle on the way to his destination, "This is the same thing you did yesterday" - and mean it as a negative.

No, I am not being Will Franklin. I'm being Cannonpointer.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2015 5:47 am » wrote:
There's a progression. This is seminal work - a work very much in progress. I don't expect applause, but SOME forebearance. You've given me cause to have expectations of you.

These threads are all on the same subject and they are all on the same theme, but there's a refinement going on which is my actual purpose here. Creating into a void is something only God can do - the rest of us need an echo, the sound of bouncing. Like blind bats, we use the echo to locate where we need to go next. This need - so rarely attended to properly in this waste land - is why I cuss lames out all the time for being such ***. Well, also general orneriness.

If you think "Capitalism is not Free Enterprise" and "Capitalism is Government Interference in the Free Market" are the same thread, look again. Every thread I have started on this subject reflects a better grip on the material - an updated cut on the thing. Hell, when I STARTED, my argument was that capitalism is a necessary evil - just needful of better regulation. Now, I'm advocating that we outlaw it - that it should not be allowed to exist.

I am working without a net here, into zero agreement. You might as well be saying to a man hacking his next 80 feet of jungle on the way to his destination, "This is the same thing you did yesterday" - and mean it as a negative.

No, I am not being Will Franklin. I'm being Cannonpointer.

Seems your argument isn't about capitalism, but of an overbearing government........ironically you just voted for more overbearing,

Cedarswamp » 25 Jul 2015 5:51 am » wrote: Seems your argument isn't about capitalism, but of an overbearing government........ironically you just voted for more overbearing,

You speak in foolish ignorance. The last time I voted was 2014. And you have no idea who I voted for.

Also, your statement is retarded, since my case is very CLEARLY against capitalism, not against government. I believe that we DO need government, dummy - we just don't need it to hand off its powers to the people who create your opinions, minion.

Your childish, hissy-fit, club-generated anti-gvernment tropes, interspersed as they are with utterly opposing protestations of LOVE for your government attended by flag worship, ya sybil clown ****, are your own. Allow ME to state my own positions. They are mostly beyond your ken, anyway, oh ant crawling elephant leg with rape on mind.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2015 5:59 am » wrote:
You speak in foolish ignorance. The last time I voted was 2014. And you have no idea who I voted for.

Also, your statement is retarded, since my case is very CLEARLY against capitalism, not against government. I believe that we DO need government, dummy - we just don't need it to hand off its powers to the people who create your opinions, minion.

Your childish, hissy-fit, club-generated anti-gvernment tropes, interspersed as they are with utterly opposing protestations of LOVE for your government attended by flag worship, ya sybil clown ****, are your own. Allow ME to state my own positions. They are mostly beyond your ken, anyway, oh ant crawling elephant leg with rape on mind.

I didn't see anything in your diatribe against the concept of capitalism, only that the government currently controls it. That's not capitalism’s fault. Like I said your aurgument seems to be against the government.

Cedarswamp » 25 Jul 2015 6:10 am » wrote: I didn't see anything in your diatribe against the concept of capitalism, only that the government currently controls it. That's not capitalism’s fault. Like I said your aurgument seems to be against the government.

You clearly do not understand my THESIS, diatribe breath.

As stated, if the government steps out, we no longer HAVE capitalism. We're back to free enterprise.

Free enterprise is the natural state of humanity. Find two people, you've found free enterprise.

Capitalism cannot EXIST without the assistance of government. Nor can you name such occuring.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2015 6:13 am » wrote:
You clearly do not understand my THESIS, diatribe breath.

As stated, if the government steps out, we no longer HAVE capitalism. We're back to free enterprise.

Free enterprise is the natural state of humanity. Find two people, you've found free enterprise.

Capitalism cannot EXIST without the assistance of government. Nor can you name such occuring.

We don't currently have true capitalism, capitalism is a free market, you're arguing against what you wish to have the most.

Cedarswamp » 25 Jul 2015 6:21 am » wrote: We don't currently have true capitalism, capitalism is a free market, you're arguing against what you wish to have the most.

So your claim is that there IS a thing like what you have described, called capitalism, but WE do not have it.

Okay.

Who does?

If no one does, who did? When? During what years - and know that I have every intention of proving you full of ****, my little pony.

You are making a pony claim, baloney fame. What you describe has never existed anywhere. Capitalism is, and has never been other than, an arm of the state. It's defenders are defenders of big government, at all times in history.

You have nothing. You claim a thing is real, but cannot demonstarte that it ever existed in the history of history, and cannot say where it exists now.

So, you're OBJECTIVELY full of **** - just a prattling ***, lying to lie, perhaps because he thinks the dictionary is on his side.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2015 6:26 am » wrote:
So your claim is that there IS a thing like what you have described, called capitalism, but WE do not have it.

Okay.

Who does?

If no one does, who did? When? During what years - and know that I have every intention of proving you full of ****, my little pony.

You are making a pony claim, baloney fame. What you describe has never existed anywhere. Capitalism is, and has never been other than, an arm of the state. It's defenders are defenders of big government, at all times in history.

You have nothing. You claim a thing is real, but cannot demonstarte that it ever existed in the history of history, and cannot say where it exists now.

So, you're OBJECTIVELY full of **** - just a prattling ***, lying to lie, perhaps because he thinks the dictionary is on his side.

We pretty much had Capitalism in the US until the late 1700's, then the "little guy" started bitching for government regulations.

Cedarswamp » 25 Jul 2015 6:47 am » wrote:
We pretty much had Capitalism in the US until the late 1700's, then the "little guy" started bitching for government regulations.

There's a fly in your ointment, son.

For starters, "pretty much" means NOT. So it admits that you're incapable of pointing to a single example of what you claim occured.

In the second place, our Constitution was not ratified until what? 1789? That's "late 1700s." And true capitalism stopped about the same time - in the late 1700s? Was it the next day?

Which occured first - ratification, or the end of "real, pure, true, sooper dooper" capitalism?

And as to the inordinate influence of the little man of which you complain, how long did this tyranny of the poor and impoverished last? Did there come a time when the destitute fell out of power, and the rich were able to force the government to stop doing their bidding?

Is that jizz? Whose jizz?

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2015 6:13 am » wrote: You clearly do not understand my THESIS, diatribe breath.

As stated, if the government steps out, we no longer HAVE capitalism. We're back to free enterprise.

Free enterprise is the natural state of humanity. Find two people, you've found free enterprise.

Capitalism cannot EXIST without the assistance of government. Nor can you name such occuring.

By "if the government steps out"....do you mean in total....including being a taxing authority?

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2015 6:56 am » wrote:
There's a fly in your ointment, son.

For starters, "pretty much" means NOT. So it admits that you're incapable of pointing to a single example of what you claim occured.

In the second place, our Constitution was not ratified until what? 1789? That's "late 1700s." And true capitalism stopped about the same time - in the late 1700s? Was it the next day?

Which occured first - ratification, or the end of "real, pure, true, sooper dooper" capitalism?

And as to the inordinate influence of the little man of which you complain, how long did this tyranny of the poor and impoverished last? Did there come a time when the destitute fell out of power, and the rich were able to force the government to stop doing their bidding?

Is that jizz? Whose jizz?

Up until that point and well into the 1800's the regulation of business was at the state level.

rayj » 25 Jul 2015 7:08 am » wrote:
By "if the government steps out"....do you mean in total....including being a taxing authority?

Governments tax, son.

All of them.

Always.

In fact, that's how they get their money - you can google it.

Try to get over it.

Cedarswamp » 25 Jul 2015 7:09 am » wrote:
Up until that point and well into the 1800's the regulation of business was at the state level.

So, you just changed your tune. The "little guy" had MORE say under the states - not less. You blamed the victims - typical of republicans (and if you don't want to identify as one, stop identifying yourself as one).

So, we are now at a form of capitalism which was being held down and disempowered FAR more so than today at the STATE level. Okay. How does THAT square with your previous claim of lasseiz faire capitalism (a contradiction in terms)?

Why not come clean, and just acknowledge that the thing you talk about has never seen the daylight - that it does not now exist and never has existed to your knowledge? Afraid you'll justify the OP? How would that damage you? Do you simply despise truth - is that what's driving you?

What compelled you to lie, and what compels you to defend the lie? Is it republican partisanship? Be honest - this is for posterity.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2015 7:20 am » wrote: Governments tax, son.

All of them.

Always.

In fact, that'd how they get their money - you can google it.

Try to get over it.

In your utopian world of free marketry, I would not mind paying a tax on what I purchased. Being taxed on my labor is another thing.

rayj » 25 Jul 2015 7:31 am » wrote: In your utopian world of free marketry, I would not mind paying a tax on what I purchased. Being taxed on my labor is another thing.

A tax on labor is anti-biblical as it muzzles the ox. It is regressive, as it takes before the money is spent even once, preventing ANY stimulus. It is intrusive, as it demands answers from citizens, who are meant to be masters, not servants - and it is dishonest, because it rewards dishonesty and punishes virtue.

The income tax was pushed by wall street. It was NEVER a populist idea.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2015 7:35 am » wrote: A tax on labor is anti-biblical as it muzzles the ox. It is regressive, as it takes before the money is spent even once, preventing ANY stimulus. It is intrusive, as it demands answers from citizens, who are meant to be masters, not servants - and it is dishonest, because it rewards dishonesty and punishes virtue.

The income tax was pushed by wall street. It was NEVER a populist idea.

Biblical, schmiblical....why should Jose be taxed to clean a ****?

Wow, I'm sticking up for the Mesicans....imagine that!

indago » 25 Jul 2015 5:30 am » wrote:What, are you doing a Will Franklin on us here, with all these multiple threads?

I was thinking more Trumpwarrior with the major difference being that CP's have substance, relevance and truth behind them whereas Trumpwarrior's are a like a Twilight Zone episode where no matter which way I turn, I end up watching the same homosexual encounter in a men's toilet.