The Rich Are Getting Richer!

[Rshermr]

Like I said, "economic rent" or "rentier class" are memes developed by socialists to attack free market capitalism. They stem from ideas dating back to the 18th Century, where kings and tyrants were the "free market capitalists" and the people had no opportunity to prosper. It simply doesn't fly today, unless you can perpetuate a perception and myth, and artificially create an illusion through words. I've given you credit, you are good at doing that! This is why it's such a problem and we can't seem to rid ourselves of your failed economic ideas.

Are you saying that David Ricardo and Adam Smith are "socialists"? Economic rent was formulated by neoclassical economists.

We have "rentiers" in the form of large swaths of the financial sector, i.e., Wall Street and the City of London. The rentier doesn't perform any type of useful function, and the economic rent can be extracted without decreasing the supply of resources required for production. They deserve a mercy killing which was advocated by JM Keynes. I never understood what he meant until I actually started working in finance. It's in the last chapter of the General Theory.

The rentier class are perfectly content to extract economic rents which negatively affect the real economy. Think of the old feudal lords of Europe; the whole point of their existence was to consume everything they didn't earn. We need to give them a mercy killing (regulatory) so we can have a semblance of the entrepreneurial power of actual capitalism. As Adam Smith elaborated upon, the feudal lords had interests which were diametrically opposed to the interests of all other classes within society.

Today's feudal lords are Wall Street. It serves no other interest except its own. It contributes economic rent to every economic activity in our society at every turn, adding a drag to the real economy. Wall Street is the rentier class, plain and simple. If you want a some examples of rentiers, look no further than Jaimie Dimon, Llyod Blankfein, Hank Paulson and Bob Rubin, et al.

At end of the day, you have to realize Wall Street isn't involved in traditional banking anymore. There's not enough economic rent is such activity. Over the past three decades, they've lobbied to repeal any and all regulations in their way. This has enabled them to financialize our economy, sticking their parasitical tentacles into every aspect of our economy, creating and directing economic rents that stifle our economy. Regulators take such a myopic view of their responsibilities since they've allowed the the financial sector to take control of our food supply, energy supply, and water supply.

Remind you at all of talking to someone in an asylum???? Poor guy is totally ignorant. As oldfart said, reading boss' drivel is indeed painful. But kind of interesting in a case study sort of way. The guy is completely incapable of making rational sense, or even making conversation. But he just keeps on like he is making some sort of sense. Just like in an asylum.

 

[Boss]

I know, you're right. It's Marxists like Dave Ricardo and Adam Smith.

Economic rent is a basic concept in economics. It's basically payment in excess of what's needed to mobilize factors of production. For example, economic rents have accumulated to those that monopolize or corner the market. This is done by artificially reducing the supply of resources, such as capital, labor or even land. In economics, we refer to these people as rentiers.

Secondly, there's no such thing as "free market capitalism". However, we do have competitive markets, which require governments to enforce contracts, pass legislation, take regulatory action, etc. We used to have a "free market" when humans were hunter-gatherers, but once city-states emerged, that was the beginning of political economy.

There is no such thing as monopolies in America anymore, we outlawed them. The only entity that can reduce the supply of resources, capital, labor, or land, is GOVERNMENT! We still have a free market, except to the extent it is being choked to death by ever-increasing socialistic government.

We still have monopolies in the US. The US passed the Sherman Antitrust Act which was definitely needed at time.

Today's monopolies are the large Wall Street investment banks and some of the larger multinationals. I've found around twenty instances where Wall Street investment banks and multinationals could be considered monopolies, except the government refuses to take action. We can define a monopoly as a company that exerts such control of its market that it acts as a price setter and stifles innovation by preventing the competition from any chance of profit. Most modern-day monopolists achieve their goals trough regulatory capture.

The goal of monopolists is to maximize their income and decrease the overall share of all other factors, such as labor, capital, land, natural resources, raw material producers, etc.

The US government is socialist? The US government doesn't control the means of production in any way, shape, or form. Sorry to burst your bubble.

This is all total and utter bullshit. Investment bankers are not monopolies, if for no other reason than, more than one of them exist. Multinationals are another scary sounding word used by Socialists to strike fear of hopelessness into the stupid masses. Oh, we can't possibly compete with a "multinational conglomerate" they are just too powerful! They are capitalists, just like investment bankers, and they operate on the principles of supply and demand, just like every other capitalist in a free market system. If you don't like them, find out what they invest in, and boycott it! The silly argument you make about "government won't do anything" is utterly ridiculous, and shows a lack of understanding when it comes to our judicial process and laws. If you think someone is violating antitrust laws, get some like-minded people together and hire an attorney, bring your case before a federal judge! That's how our system works, not by demanding government do something. If someone runs into your car and leaves the scene, and you write down the tag number, do you just go home and wallow in self pity that the government didn't do anything about it? No, you have to take action, report the tag number to the authorities, and then they find the culprit and you take him to court. It's not the government's job to do anything for you, it's YOUR job to take the action.

But modern day idiots who want to believe in Socialist Utopia, don't see things this way, they naively believe the capitalists and bankers and multinationals are in control of everything, and they are powerless to do anything about that. This is because your head has been pumped full of absolute 18th Century nonsense. You think it behooves you to sick the agents of federal government on the capitalists, to forcibly take their profits and give them to you. The problem is, you'll never see a penny of that money, you'll only succeed in destroying the only opportunity you have to ever attain such wealth for yourself. In the meantime, government is more than happy to assume more power and control over our lives and divorce you from more and more freedoms in the process. Thomas Jefferson said this is the "natural state" of government, to assume more and more power while usurping more and more personal liberty.

 

[Boss]

If everyone's standard of living is rising, then wealth disparities aren't a big deal. The standard of living of those on the bottom of the US ladder is far higher than what it was 30 years ago. (Indicators like ownership of cell phones, air conditioning, etc)

The material things you've mentioned are owned by people who earned the money to buy them during the period of middle class prosperity, a condition which has since declined leaving these "bottom-of-the-ladder" workers unemployed or under-employed, many of whom are living on their savings, or on credit cards or borrowed money. A statistically predictable number of them will soon run out of their meager remaining resources and will suffer foreclosure and become homeless.

What you are seeing and perceive to be material symbols of relative wealth are in reality the signs of slow economic death. Today they "own" an air-conditioned home and a nice car. Tomorrow they will be living in that car. Next day the car will be repossessed and they will be living on the streets -- along with an increasing number of formerly middle class Americans -- the ones you aren't paying attention to or think of as inferiors.

The reason people are unemployed or underemployed, is because of the anti-capitalist policies of the current administration. More people are becoming homeless because you thought it would be a great idea to give every American health insurance, at the expense of capitalists in a free market society, and it backfired on you. Things are not FREE in life, they cost someone real money that has to be paid. Government doesn't produce a thing, they have no means of providing a dime to anyone for anything. Every penny they spend is the money they've confiscated from someone else. There is no magic money fairy! There is no unlimited pile of cash in Washington!

 

[Boss]

You morons are big on "economists" so I thought I'd post this... not that any of you will bother taking the time to listen to a John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, but he explains the role of Federal Government precisely. The actual speech he gives is about 45 minutes, with a Q&A at the end. The Q&A is pretty intense, as he is challenged by several people who hold your viewpoints. He handles all the questions brilliantly.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT7dN4tNzvg]The Legitimate Role of Government in Free Society - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rshermr]

If everyone's standard of living is rising, then wealth disparities aren't a big deal. The standard of living of those on the bottom of the US ladder is far higher than what it was 30 years ago. (Indicators like ownership of cell phones, air conditioning, etc)

The material things you've mentioned are owned by people who earned the money to buy them during the period of middle class prosperity, a condition which has since declined leaving these "bottom-of-the-ladder" workers unemployed or under-employed, many of whom are living on their savings, or on credit cards or borrowed money. A statistically predictable number of them will soon run out of their meager remaining resources and will suffer foreclosure and become homeless.

What you are seeing and perceive to be material symbols of relative wealth are in reality the signs of slow economic death. Today they "own" an air-conditioned home and a nice car. Tomorrow they will be living in that car. Next day the car will be repossessed and they will be living on the streets -- along with an increasing number of formerly middle class Americans -- the ones you aren't paying attention to or think of as inferiors.

The reason people are unemployed or underemployed, is because of the anti-capitalist policies of the current administration. More people are becoming homeless because you thought it would be a great idea to give every American health insurance, at the expense of capitalists in a free market society, and it backfired on you. Things are not FREE in life, they cost someone real money that has to be paid. Government doesn't produce a thing, they have no means of providing a dime to anyone for anything. Every penny they spend is the money they've confiscated from someone else. There is no magic money fairy! There is no unlimited pile of cash in Washington!

Really. Free health insurance for all??? Damn. Sign me up.
Help, Boss. Show me where we all get free health insurance. I can not find any such information.
And I am so upset that insurance companies are not insuring everyone. Though again, I can not find any source that says that private insurance companies are not insuring EVERYONE. It looks like there is NO PUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY in the obama admin health program.

Are you lying again, boss??? Is that why you have no source. What is the name of the public insurance organization???

And I was getting really worried that the private health insurance companies were not going to get my medical dollars. I so want to continue seeing them getting record profits on the backs of the citizens who pay for health insurance.

"The United States far outpaces other countries in how much it spends on health care, although Americans have a lower rate of doctor visits and hospitalizations than most of the other 34 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development."
US citizens pay over 2.5 times as much as what the other industrialized nations citizens do for health insurance.
Report: U.S. Outspends Other Countries On Health Care ? Capsules - The KHN Blog


(yeah. I know. Another socialist marxist source. Except, of course, Kaiser is one of the LARGEST PRIVATE MEDICAL COMPANIES IN THE US.)

Now, I know that you want those insurance companies, who make record profits, to continue to do so. And I know you do not care that the citizens pay over twice as much, as long as those insurance companies make those bucks. But then, that is your opinion. And most people are not interested in seeing insurance executives getting rich on their health care dollars.

So, of the 35 industrialized nations in the world, all of which charge MUCH LESS than the us for healthcare, which one has PRIVATE MEDICAL INSURANCE??? Why, exactly NON. All have public health care as their primary medical insurance offering. Only the US has no public insurance system for the general public. In the US, only the military and retired get public insurance services.

 

[Boss]

Really. Free health insurance for all??? Damn. Sign me up.

Yep, that was the naive promise made. Not only that, but it was also naively claimed this would actually cut the national debt. Were you asleep through the 2008 presidential campaign, and missed Nancy walking arm in arm up the steps with John Lewis, after ramming Obamacare down our throats? Or are you just doing the typical liberal tapdance, to explain away why your idea failed to produce what was promised?

 

[Kimura]

You morons are big on "economists" so I thought I'd post this... not that any of you will bother taking the time to listen to a John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, but he explains the role of Federal Government precisely. The actual speech he gives is about 45 minutes, with a Q&A at the end. The Q&A is pretty intense, as he is challenged by several people who hold your viewpoints. He handles all the questions brilliantly.

The Legitimate Role of Government in Free Society - YouTube

I'll take a look, even though I'm familiar with Walter Williams. I must admit, as an someone with a strong background in economics, I tend to laugh at guys like Walter Williams. I'm already like 20 minutes in and I'm having a LOLZ seizure.

Sorry, Walter, the US government does have resources. It creates net financial assets in the form of dollars and US Treasury securities.

Sorry, Walter, the government doesn't need taxes to fund its expenditures, that's one of the benefits of a fiat monetary system.

Sorry, Walter, taxes drive money and regulate aggregate demand.

Sorry, Walter, the US is the monopoly issuer of the dollar and doesn't need to collect that which is freely issues.

Why is it that the majority of conservative and libertarian economists still frame arguments as if we're on the gold standard (fixed-exchange rate)?

 

[Kimura]

There is no such thing as monopolies in America anymore, we outlawed them. The only entity that can reduce the supply of resources, capital, labor, or land, is GOVERNMENT! We still have a free market, except to the extent it is being choked to death by ever-increasing socialistic government.

We still have monopolies in the US. The US passed the Sherman Antitrust Act which was definitely needed at time.

Today's monopolies are the large Wall Street investment banks and some of the larger multinationals. I've found around twenty instances where Wall Street investment banks and multinationals could be considered monopolies, except the government refuses to take action. We can define a monopoly as a company that exerts such control of its market that it acts as a price setter and stifles innovation by preventing the competition from any chance of profit. Most modern-day monopolists achieve their goals trough regulatory capture.

The goal of monopolists is to maximize their income and decrease the overall share of all other factors, such as labor, capital, land, natural resources, raw material producers, etc.

The US government is socialist? The US government doesn't control the means of production in any way, shape, or form. Sorry to burst your bubble.

This is all total and utter bullshit. Investment bankers are not monopolies, if for no other reason than, more than one of them exist. Multinationals are another scary sounding word used by Socialists to strike fear of hopelessness into the stupid masses. Oh, we can't possibly compete with a "multinational conglomerate" they are just too powerful! They are capitalists, just like investment bankers, and they operate on the principles of supply and demand, just like every other capitalist in a free market system. If you don't like them, find out what they invest in, and boycott it! The silly argument you make about "government won't do anything" is utterly ridiculous, and shows a lack of understanding when it comes to our judicial process and laws. If you think someone is violating antitrust laws, get some like-minded people together and hire an attorney, bring your case before a federal judge! That's how our system works, not by demanding government do something. If someone runs into your car and leaves the scene, and you write down the tag number, do you just go home and wallow in self pity that the government didn't do anything about it? No, you have to take action, report the tag number to the authorities, and then they find the culprit and you take him to court. It's not the government's job to do anything for you, it's YOUR job to take the action.

But modern day idiots who want to believe in Socialist Utopia, don't see things this way, they naively believe the capitalists and bankers and multinationals are in control of everything, and they are powerless to do anything about that. This is because your head has been pumped full of absolute 18th Century nonsense. You think it behooves you to sick the agents of federal government on the capitalists, to forcibly take their profits and give them to you. The problem is, you'll never see a penny of that money, you'll only succeed in destroying the only opportunity you have to ever attain such wealth for yourself. In the meantime, government is more than happy to assume more power and control over our lives and divorce you from more and more freedoms in the process. Thomas Jefferson said this is the "natural state" of government, to assume more and more power while usurping more and more personal liberty.

Jesus H Christ. I just explained to you how the big investment banks operate in a monopolistic fashion and extract economic rent from all of society. Do you want a pie chart? I'm serious, I'll put one together in Power Point. I was talking about the too big too fail institutions, where the majority of CEOs qualify to be charged under RICO.

18th century nonsense? Oh really, so now the neoclassical economists are nonsensical? By the way, I've attained a decent amount of wealth in my chosen profession, so I have no clue what you're getting at. I don't need any opportunities, I've already capitalized on them more then most.

So financial regulations are taking away our freedoms? Please, I beg you, enlighten me. Please, dude, don't start with Thomas Jefferson, the man was a walking contradiction, although quite astute and brilliant. It seems like your "natural state" of government is an impotent state which can't enforce laws or protect the rights of its citizens.

 

[Rshermr]

We still have monopolies in the US. The US passed the Sherman Antitrust Act which was definitely needed at time.

Today's monopolies are the large Wall Street investment banks and some of the larger multinationals. I've found around twenty instances where Wall Street investment banks and multinationals could be considered monopolies, except the government refuses to take action. We can define a monopoly as a company that exerts such control of its market that it acts as a price setter and stifles innovation by preventing the competition from any chance of profit. Most modern-day monopolists achieve their goals trough regulatory capture.

The goal of monopolists is to maximize their income and decrease the overall share of all other factors, such as labor, capital, land, natural resources, raw material producers, etc.

The US government is socialist? The US government doesn't control the means of production in any way, shape, or form. Sorry to burst your bubble.

This is all total and utter bullshit. Investment bankers are not monopolies, if for no other reason than, more than one of them exist. Multinationals are another scary sounding word used by Socialists to strike fear of hopelessness into the stupid masses. Oh, we can't possibly compete with a "multinational conglomerate" they are just too powerful! They are capitalists, just like investment bankers, and they operate on the principles of supply and demand, just like every other capitalist in a free market system. If you don't like them, find out what they invest in, and boycott it! The silly argument you make about "government won't do anything" is utterly ridiculous, and shows a lack of understanding when it comes to our judicial process and laws. If you think someone is violating antitrust laws, get some like-minded people together and hire an attorney, bring your case before a federal judge! That's how our system works, not by demanding government do something. If someone runs into your car and leaves the scene, and you write down the tag number, do you just go home and wallow in self pity that the government didn't do anything about it? No, you have to take action, report the tag number to the authorities, and then they find the culprit and you take him to court. It's not the government's job to do anything for you, it's YOUR job to take the action.

But modern day idiots who want to believe in Socialist Utopia, don't see things this way, they naively believe the capitalists and bankers and multinationals are in control of everything, and they are powerless to do anything about that. This is because your head has been pumped full of absolute 18th Century nonsense. You think it behooves you to sick the agents of federal government on the capitalists, to forcibly take their profits and give them to you. The problem is, you'll never see a penny of that money, you'll only succeed in destroying the only opportunity you have to ever attain such wealth for yourself. In the meantime, government is more than happy to assume more power and control over our lives and divorce you from more and more freedoms in the process. Thomas Jefferson said this is the "natural state" of government, to assume more and more power while usurping more and more personal liberty.

Jesus H Christ. I just explained to you how the big investment banks operate in a monopolistic fashion and extract economic rent from all of society. Do you want a pie chart? I'm serious, I'll put one together in Power Point. I was talking about the too big too fail institutions, where the majority of CEOs qualify to be charged under RICO.

18th century nonsense? Oh really, so now the neoclassical economists are nonsensical? By the way, I've attained a decent amount of wealth in my chosen profession, so I have no clue what you're getting at. I don't need any opportunities, I've already capitalized on them more then most.

So financial regulations are taking away our freedoms? Please, I beg you, enlighten me. Please, dude, don't start with Thomas Jefferson, the man was a walking contradiction, although quite astute and brilliant. It seems like your "natural state" of government is an impotent state which can't enforce laws or protect the rights of its citizens.

Poor Boss. He has no clue. Just makes it up as he goes. The cool thing is that he can believe what he wants to. Makes life easy for him. He is funny, though.

 

[Boss]

You morons are big on "economists" so I thought I'd post this... not that any of you will bother taking the time to listen to a John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, but he explains the role of Federal Government precisely. The actual speech he gives is about 45 minutes, with a Q&A at the end. The Q&A is pretty intense, as he is challenged by several people who hold your viewpoints. He handles all the questions brilliantly.

The Legitimate Role of Government in Free Society - YouTube

I'll take a look, even though I'm familiar with Walter Williams. I must admit, as an someone with a strong background in economics, I tend to laugh at guys like Walter Williams. I'm already like 20 minutes in and I'm having a LOLZ seizure.

Sorry, Walter, the US government does have resources. It creates financial assets in the form of dollars and all time.

Sorry, Walter, the government doesn't need taxes to fund its expenditures, that's one of the benefits of a fiat monetary system.

Sorry, Walter, taxes drive money and regulate aggregate demand.

Sorry, Walter, the US is the monopoly issuer of the dollar and doesn't need to collect that which is freely issues.

Why is it that the majority of conservative and libertarian economists still frame arguments as if we're on the gold standard (fixed-exchange rate)?

So we have the opinion of John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, Walter E. Williams.... versus the opinion of some Socialist Marxist asswipe on the Internet. Basically, all you did was make declarative statements without anything to back them up. You simply said "he is wrong, and I am right!" Period. Now, I am sorry, but where I come from, that is not a legitimate debate, that is merely being a stubborn bully, demanding to have your way. Insisting you are correct and Williams is wrong, is not winning the debate. Of course, this is the ongoing problem with your type.

Sorry Kimura, you fail at debate.

 

[Rshermr]

So, boss, being a liar, brings forth the following lies:

Yep, that was the naive promise made.

You seem to not mind lying. There was never a promise, ever, me poor ignorant boy, that the affordable health program was going to be free. Nor is it a public program. Private insurance all the way. So, why is it that you lie all the time. SOOOO easy to prove that you are doing so.

Not only that, but it was also naively claimed this would actually cut the national debt.

Uh, that would be by the cbo. So you are saying that it is untrue. Naive, you say??? So, I could either believe you, or the cbo. I think I will take the cbo, and their team of economists. Dipshit.

Or are you just doing the typical liberal tapdance, to explain away why your idea failed to produce what was promised?

Well, now, boss, I know this is above your ability to reason. But the plan is to PHASE in the affordable care act. Not all at once. So far, again according to the cbo, we are pretty much on track. No real costs, little real savings.

So, as I said, there is no public health care organization involved. None at all. I know that you wish there were.

And I was getting really worried that the private health insurance companies were not going to get my medical dollars. I so want to continue seeing them getting record profits on the backs of the citizens who pay for health insurance.

"The United States far outpaces other countries in how much it spends on health care, although Americans have a lower rate of doctor visits and hospitalizations than most of the other 34 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development."
US citizens pay over 2.5 times as much as what the other industrialized nations citizens do for health insurance.
Report: U.S. Outspends Other Countries On Health Care ? Capsules - The KHN Blog


(yeah. I know. Another socialist marxist source. Except, of course, Kaiser is one of the LARGEST PRIVATE MEDICAL COMPANIES IN THE US.)

Now, I know that you want those insurance companies, who make record profits, to continue to do so. And I know you do not care that the citizens pay over twice as much, as long as those insurance companies make those bucks. But then, that is your opinion. And most people are not interested in seeing insurance executives getting rich on their health care dollars.

So, of the 35 industrialized nations in the world, all of which charge MUCH LESS than the us for healthcare, which one has PRIVATE MEDICAL INSURANCE??? Why, exactly NON. All have public health care as their primary medical insurance offering. Only the US has no public insurance system for the general public. In the US, only the military and retired get public insurance services.

 

[Rshermr]

You morons are big on "economists" so I thought I'd post this... not that any of you will bother taking the time to listen to a John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, but he explains the role of Federal Government precisely. The actual speech he gives is about 45 minutes, with a Q&A at the end. The Q&A is pretty intense, as he is challenged by several people who hold your viewpoints. He handles all the questions brilliantly.

The Legitimate Role of Government in Free Society - YouTube

I'll take a look, even though I'm familiar with Walter Williams. I must admit, as an someone with a strong background in economics, I tend to laugh at guys like Walter Williams. I'm already like 20 minutes in and I'm having a LOLZ seizure.

Sorry, Walter, the US government does have resources. It creates financial assets in the form of dollars and all time.

Sorry, Walter, the government doesn't need taxes to fund its expenditures, that's one of the benefits of a fiat monetary system.

Sorry, Walter, taxes drive money and regulate aggregate demand.

Sorry, Walter, the US is the monopoly issuer of the dollar and doesn't need to collect that which is freely issues.

Why is it that the majority of conservative and libertarian economists still frame arguments as if we're on the gold standard (fixed-exchange rate)?

So we have the opinion of John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, Walter E. Williams.... versus the opinion of some Socialist Marxist asswipe on the Internet. Basically, all you did was make declarative statements without anything to back them up. You simply said "he is wrong, and I am right!" Period. Now, I am sorry, but where I come from, that is not a legitimate debate, that is merely being a stubborn bully, demanding to have your way. Insisting you are correct and Williams is wrong, is not winning the debate. Of course, this is the ongoing problem with your type.

Sorry Kimura, you fail at debate.

See why I say you are a comic, boss. It is so obvious. You claim others do not provide impartial sources. Which is, of course, a lie. And you have, in the past 50 posts, provided exactly two sources, both of whom are far right wing bat shit crazy conservative sources. Well known and documented.

Damn it must be great to believe anything that you want to. Is ignorance bliss???

So, you may be ignorant enough no to know that gwu is owned by the KOCH brothers:

How to "Buy" a University

George Mason University is the home base of both Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok, both libertarian economists.
Alex Tabarrok got his Ph.D. in 1994 from GMU
Tyler Cowen got his B.S. in 1983 from GMU

George Mason is the recipient of some generous funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.The three Koch foundations contributed $23,030,497 between 1985 and 2002 to the university, its foundation and its Institute for Human Studies. (Media Transparency)

From the GMU web site:

Through major gifts and commitments, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation has significantly bolstered programs focused on market-based solutions to social and economic problems. Its support has provided the university with vital resources for fostering dialog and innovation among scholars, policy experts, and government leaders.
The Koch Foundation’s generosity includes assistance in the recruitment in 2001 of Vernon Smith and his team of six distinguished economics professors to Mason. Smith, now a Nobel laureate, is a leader in the growing field of experimental economics. At George Mason, undergraduate and graduate students across related disciplines evaluate the performance and function of real-world markets and institutions.

Through the Koch Foundation, George Mason University is helping to bridge academic learning and real world practice.

Charles G. Koch gets a bio in Wikipedia. Here is an excerpt:

Koch is a libertarian and supports many free-market organizations such as the Cato Institute, which he founded together with Edward H. Crane and Murray Rothbard in 1977.
Koch also funds the highly selective Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program through the Institute for Humane Studies.

Brother David H. Koch ran for vice president for the Libertarian Party in 1980.

Koch Industries is the largest privately held company in the country. The Koch family is part of the 18 super wealthy families who have worked for the elimination of the state tax.

From the report (PDF) on this, each Koch brother is worth about $12 billion and stands to have to pay about $4.7 billion in estate taxes, if not repealed. Koch Industries has spent $3.7 million on estate tax lobbying since 1998.

The Koch family is also a principle contributor to the Citizens for a Sound Economy (now Freedom Works) which supports think-tanks like Cato and Heritage foundation.

Alex Tabarrok is the research director of the Independent Institute:
The John M. Olin Foundation gave in 1996 to The Independent Institute $40,000 for "The promotion of two books: The Diversity Myth, by David O. Sacks and Peter a Thiel; and The Melting Pot, by Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway" and in 1998 another $25,000 for "The Institute's book program".
The David H. Koch Charitable Foundation gave in 1995 - 2001 in total $160,000 for "General Operating Support".
The Earhart Foundation gave in 1998 - 2001 in total $46,095 to support editor Dr. Robert Higgs.
The Castle Rock Foundation gave in 2002 for "General operating support" $25,000.

Other GMU faculty affiliated with the Institute:
James M. Buchanan - Nobel Laureate in Economic Science University Professor, Center for the Study of Public Choice, George Mason University
Vernon L. Smith - Nobel Laureate in Economic Science; Professor of Economics and Law, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, George Mason University
Gordon Tullock - University Professor of Law and Economics and Distinguished Research Fellow, George Mason University
Richard E. Wagner - Hobart R. Hobart Professor of Economics, George Mason University
Walter E. Williams - Distinguished Professor of Economics, George Mason University
Donald J. Boudreaux - Chairman and Professor, Department of Economics, George Mason University
Lloyd R. Cohen - Professor of Law, George Mason University
Tyler Cowen - Professor of Economics, George Mason University
Bruce H. Kobayashi - Professor of Law, George Mason University
William E. Kovacic - Professor of Law, George Mason University
Gordon Tullock - University Professor of Law and Economics and Distinguished Research Fellow, George Mason University
Richard E. Wagner - Hobart R. Hobart Professor of Economics, George Mason University
http://robertdfeinman.com/society/gmu.html

You are indeed a joke, boss. Very funny.

Sorry, boss. You fail at debate. In fact, you would not be allowed to participate. Way too ignorant.

 

[Boss]

Jesus H Christ. I just explained to you how the big investment banks operate in a monopolistic fashion and extract economic rent from all of society.

No you didn't, you gave me your opinion based on a false perception of reality, and insisted it was the truth. I reject it, and demonstrated how it's a lie. Investment banks are not a monopoly, there are more than one, and in competition with each other for consumer dollars, just as every other capitalist in a free market society. They don't extract anything from society that society doesn't allow them to, either voluntarily, or through election of representatives acting on their behalf.

Do you want a pie chart? I'm serious, I'll put one together in Power Point. I was talking about the too big too fail institutions, where the majority of CEOs qualify to be charged under RICO.

Again, if you believe someone has violated the law, get good attorney and take them to court! That's the whole purpose of laws and courts, to adjudicate things for individuals with dispute. No need for a Power Point or pie chart, you can manipulate statistical data to show just about anything you want to. Save that for your prosecution, maybe a jury will be swayed?

As for "too big to fail institutions" ...I don't believe in those with a free market capitalist system. I believe that institutions should be allowed to fail, and other institutions can replace them if there is adequate demand. This is how free market capitalism has always worked, and the notion of "too big to fail" is something politicians invented to explain why they are going to let corporations steal more of your money in the form of taxes. Any elected official who has ever uttered the phrase, should be impeached from office and never allowed to serve the public again.

18th century nonsense? Oh really, so now the neoclassical economists are nonsensical? By the way, I've attained a decent amount of wealth in my chosen profession, so I have no clue what you're getting at. I don't need any opportunities, I've already capitalized on them more then most.

Well it's funny that you are so illiterate you don't know the proper use of the word "then" in a sentence. Isn't America great? Someone of your obvious illiteracy can achieve and succeed with the best of them... where else in the world is that possible?

You know, I don't care what fancy names you tag... neoclassical sounds so elegant and sophisticated, but it doesn't really mean a damn thing, with regard to free market capitalism.

So financial regulations are taking away our freedoms? Please, I beg you, enlighten me. Please, dude, don't start with Thomas Jefferson, the man was a walking contradiction, although quite astute and brilliant. It seems like your "natural state" of government is an impotent state which can't enforce laws or protect the rights of its citizens.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, outlines what government can do. PERIOD! If it's not there, the government can't Constitutionally do it. Now, you may not like that reality, you may want to manipulate and misconstrue things in the Constitution, in order to make it seem legitimate, what you want to do. Many people do this and have been doing so for years. The federal government literally has no right to "regulate" anything, but a militia. It does have the power to protect our personal property rights, and that includes protecting our lives.

 

[Boss]

Well I got Rushtey talking like a drunk Irish pirate again, so things are going splendidly!

Aye, me boy... ye are way over thy head! Shiver me timbers! Argggh!

 

[Boss]

Koch Koch co koch-koch,
Banana fanna fo foch-foch
Fe Fi mo Mach Mach... KOCH!

...In the words of the great philosopher, Cyndi Lauper...

I see your true colors
Shining through
I see your true colors
And that's why I love you
So don't be afraid to let them show
Your true colors
True colors are beautiful,
Like a rainbow!

 

[Kimura]

You morons are big on "economists" so I thought I'd post this... not that any of you will bother taking the time to listen to a John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, but he explains the role of Federal Government precisely. The actual speech he gives is about 45 minutes, with a Q&A at the end. The Q&A is pretty intense, as he is challenged by several people who hold your viewpoints. He handles all the questions brilliantly.

The Legitimate Role of Government in Free Society - YouTube

I'll take a look, even though I'm familiar with Walter Williams. I must admit, as an someone with a strong background in economics, I tend to laugh at guys like Walter Williams. I'm already like 20 minutes in and I'm having a LOLZ seizure.

Sorry, Walter, the US government does have resources. It creates financial assets in the form of dollars and all time.

Sorry, Walter, the government doesn't need taxes to fund its expenditures, that's one of the benefits of a fiat monetary system.

Sorry, Walter, taxes drive money and regulate aggregate demand.

Sorry, Walter, the US is the monopoly issuer of the dollar and doesn't need to collect that which is freely issues.

Why is it that the majority of conservative and libertarian economists still frame arguments as if we're on the gold standard (fixed-exchange rate)?

So we have the opinion of John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, Walter E. Williams.... versus the opinion of some Socialist Marxist asswipe on the Internet. Basically, all you did was make declarative statements without anything to back them up. You simply said "he is wrong, and I am right!" Period. Now, I am sorry, but where I come from, that is not a legitimate debate, that is merely being a stubborn bully, demanding to have your way. Insisting you are correct and Williams is wrong, is not winning the debate. Of course, this is the ongoing problem with your type.

Sorry Kimura, you fail at debate.

Point #1: The US government does have resources. It creates financial assets. Those dollars and bonds, in the form of liabilties of the federal government, are assets to the public. I figured we should start with something simple.

Where I come from debate is more than using words like "socialist" and "Marxist" and ignoring entire parts of an argument. You sound like some college kid that attended a Ron Paul rally. Have you even read Das Kapital? Or do you randomly just repeat shit you hear by some random Professor on YouTube? Talk about confirmation bias.....

 

[Rshermr]

Koch Koch co koch-koch,
Banana fanna fo foch-foch
Fe Fi mo Mach Mach... KOCH!

...In the words of the great philosopher, Cyndi Lauper...

I see your true colors
Shining through
I see your true colors
And that's why I love you
So don't be afraid to let them show
Your true colors
True colors are beautiful,
Like a rainbow!

Ah, now boss. Please stop the attempt at comedy. Stupid people are always awful at it. As you just proved again.

And the Koch brothers??? You love the koch brothers. And the economists they buy, and the universities they buy. So far, two economists, both closely associated with the koch brothers. Just does not pass the giggle test, me boy.

 

[Rshermr]

I'll take a look, even though I'm familiar with Walter Williams. I must admit, as an someone with a strong background in economics, I tend to laugh at guys like Walter Williams. I'm already like 20 minutes in and I'm having a LOLZ seizure.

Sorry, Walter, the US government does have resources. It creates financial assets in the form of dollars and all time.

Sorry, Walter, the government doesn't need taxes to fund its expenditures, that's one of the benefits of a fiat monetary system.

Sorry, Walter, taxes drive money and regulate aggregate demand.

Sorry, Walter, the US is the monopoly issuer of the dollar and doesn't need to collect that which is freely issues.

Why is it that the majority of conservative and libertarian economists still frame arguments as if we're on the gold standard (fixed-exchange rate)?

So we have the opinion of John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics from George Mason University, Walter E. Williams.... versus the opinion of some Socialist Marxist asswipe on the Internet. Basically, all you did was make declarative statements without anything to back them up. You simply said "he is wrong, and I am right!" Period. Now, I am sorry, but where I come from, that is not a legitimate debate, that is merely being a stubborn bully, demanding to have your way. Insisting you are correct and Williams is wrong, is not winning the debate. Of course, this is the ongoing problem with your type.

Sorry Kimura, you fail at debate.

Point #1: The US government does have resources. It creates financial assets. Those dollars and bonds, in the form of liabilties of the federal government, are assets to the public. I figured we should start with something simple.

Where I come from debate is more than using words like "socialist" and "Marxist" and ignoring entire parts of an argument. You sound like some college kid that attended a Ron Paul rally. Have you even read Das Kapital? Or do you randomly just repeat shit you hear by some random Professor on YouTube? Talk about confirmation bias.....

Yup, that is pretty much what he does. He is incapable of any more. Still waiting for the apology about the affordable care system lies he told.
So, here is the thing. Look up the term "non-feedback organism" and you will find what boss actually looks like.

I know your first point, above, was really, really simple. But you have to understand, you are talking to boss. There is a real question of whether there is any actual brain activity there.

 

[Boss]

Point #1: The US government does have resources. It creates financial assets. Those dollars and bonds, in the form of liabilties of the federal government, are assets to the public. I figured we should start with something simple.

Where I come from debate is more than using words like "socialist" and "Marxist" and ignoring entire parts of an argument. You sound like some college kid that attended a Ron Paul rally. Have you even read Das Kapital? Or do you randomly just repeat shit you hear by some random Professor on YouTube? Talk about confirmation bias.....

Does your brain even comprehend what your idiot fingers are typing? How the hell is a liability an asset? On what planet in what universe is that even possible? Our government is $15 trillion in debt, with nearly $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The government can print all the phony money it wants to, it doesn't create a damn thing except further devaluation of the dollar. Williams nailed it... Quantitative easing... aka: Counterfeiting!

Government does not produce and sell a product for profit. It has no means of generating monetary assets at all. The funding of the government comes from taxes collected, money confiscated forcibly by threat and intimidation from it's agents. Every penny it spends is money it has stolen from someone who worked and earned it through capitalism.

 

[Boss]

Koch Koch co koch-koch,
Banana fanna fo foch-foch
Fe Fi mo Mach Mach... KOCH!

...In the words of the great philosopher, Cyndi Lauper...

I see your true colors
Shining through
I see your true colors
And that's why I love you
So don't be afraid to let them show
Your true colors
True colors are beautiful,
Like a rainbow!

Ah, now boss. Please stop the attempt at comedy. Stupid people are always awful at it. As you just proved again.

And the Koch brothers??? You love the koch brothers. And the economists they buy, and the universities they buy. So far, two economists, both closely associated with the koch brothers. Just does not pass the giggle test, me boy.

You know, you are annoying as ****. All you ever do is spew the same old propaganda you've obtained from various liberal blogs, and act like you are some freaking genius. In this entire thread, I have not seen you even ATTEMPT to make a valid argument, of ANY kind. It's just more and more of the same tired old shit, over and over again. Now you've revealed what kind of a hack you are, by ranting on the Koch Brothers again. Six years ago, you had no idea who the Koch Brothers were, and neither did anyone else. No one had even heard of them until MoveOn.Org decided to turn them into boogeymen, and now they are the two people on the planet who control the freaking world! Oh yeah, they are responsible for every problem we have, and the only reason anyone on Earth disagrees with birdbrain liberal policies. If only you could get rid of those two guys, the rest of the planet would easily fall in line with your backward wrongheaded ideas, and usher in UTOPIA FOR ALL!

You're a goddamn MORON!