Millennials

Young, Bummed, and in Debt

The labor market looks bleak for millennials. Why aren't they angrier?

|

Until recently, a bad job market was nearly always bad news for political incumbents. Unemployed and anxious voters have a habit of throwing the bums out. But headed into the 2016 election season, one large demographic group is still likely to vote Democratic: millennials.

Which is weird, because when it comes to the labor market, it sucks to be young. To be sure, it has always been hard to enter the workforce during a recession. But this recession has not only been particularly severe; it has been made longer and deeper than necessary by the Obama administration's policies. Washington's burdensome regulations, "stimulus" spending, and health insurance mandates have given us a slow recovery, high uncertainty, and a pathetic job market.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), some 1.2 million unemployed millennials with little or no job experience are trying to find jobs for the first time right now. Their unemployment rate is 12.2 percent, more than twice the rate for 25- to 54-year-olds. And if those first-time job seekers don't find employment soon, some of them may actually never work. "It is even more depressing," says my Mercatus Center colleague Keith Hall, a former BLS commissioner, "when you know that some 400,000 young long-term unemployed have never worked before." That's much higher than anything we have seen in the last 45 years.

It gets worse. In June testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' subcommittee on economic policy, Hall explained that "job prospects have been so bad that many have withdrawn from the labor force and do not even show up in the official unemployment rate statistics." According to his calculations, some 2 million young workers are simply missing from the labor force, and "if not left uncounted in the official unemployment rate, these 2 million would raise the youth unemployment rate from its current 10.9 percent rate to 15.4 percent-well above their highest rate in over 65 years." Only 63.4 percent of youth aged 18 to 29 are employed today, a pathetic and alarming figure.

Teenagers face even more abysmal prospects. The unemployment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds is 21 percent, down from its 27.3 percent peak in 2009 but up from 14.8 percent at the beginning of 1990. They are also more disengaged from the labor force than their slightly older peers, with a labor force participation rate of a very low 33.9 percent. Only 26.8 percent of older teens are employed, compared with 46.7 percent in January 1990, or even 37 percent at the end of 2006.

Joblessness is costly, especially for young adults who have invested time and resources in career-specific knowledge and skills. Studies consistently show that the longer people are unemployed, the less likely they are to find new work. They may lose their job skills over time, have less connections with informal professional networks, or face potential employers more reluctant to hire the long-term unemployed.

Those who finally do get a job after looking for a long time will continue to face a disadvantage. It can take as long as 20 years for re-employed workers to catch up on lost earnings, mostly due to skill mismatches between the jobs lost and the new jobs created in the economy. These losses occur for workers with different lengths of previous job tenure, across all major industries, and of any age, including millennials. Hall notes that recent estimates have found that the losses "range from 1.4 years of earnings in good times to 2.8 years during times of high unemployment."

And none of those ugly figures capture the problem of underemployment: part-time and/or lower-paying jobs. Currently employed seniors tend to hang on to their jobs rather than retire, as they work to rebuild some of the assets they lost during the Great Recession, so younger workers are finding it hard to move up the work ladder.

Older workers also don't quit their jobs as often as they used to. The number of quits, defined by the BLS as "generally voluntary separations initiated by the employees," serves as an indicator of the health of the labor market. A high quits number tells us that people are willing or able to leave their jobs for better opportunities. Five years after the recession ended, the quits rate hasn't grown as fast as one would hope. At a 1.8 percent level, it is still lower than it was at the beginning of 2007. The consequence is stalled careers for younger Americans.

While millennials struggle to find jobs and grow their wages, previous generations continue to expect them to foot the bill for trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities and entitlement promises. Add that tab to their student debts, and the situation looks unsustainable.

So why aren't these kids more freaked out about their future? Why did the youth-driven Occupy Wall Street movement fizzle out instead of becoming the new normal? The July Reason-Rupe poll suggests one possibility: Millennials define themselves politically in cultural terms rather than economic terms. This aversion to economics may be a product of growing up in a time when the economic headlines have always been bad.

Paradoxically, millennials also live in an age of abundance, collapsing prices, and promising technologies. They may be un- and underemployed. But the online realm, where younger people live much of their lives, is faster, freer, and more fun than ever.

If the economy doesn't improve, reality will catch up with this generation. When that happens, let's hope they demand the same freedom in their economic lives that they have grown to expect in their social lives.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Pentagon Preparing Military Options in Syria, CBC Members Want "Police Czar," Space Probe Crosses Orbit of Neptune

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “… it has been made longer and deeper than necessary by the Obama administration’s policies. Washington’s burdensome regulations, “stimulus” spending, and health insurance mandates have given us a slow recovery, high uncertainty, and a pathetic job market.”

    While I think that most of the analysis by Reason authors and readers is good, sometimes people make unwarranted assumptions based on ideology, rather than actual connections, and this statement is full of such unwarranted, ideologically inspired assumptions.

    1. I was going to leave the almost exact same comment. This is pathetic. How can it be a problem of regulations bogging down economy when in fact we have record corporate profits? We also have far lower marginal tax rates, lower effective minimum wage, lower labor participation, free trade agreements, banking deregulation, lower tax rates on capital gains and on corporations, lowest rate of government spending increases, decreasing numbers of public employees ect ect.. This is far more a policy milieu in the direction of deregulation than one of progressive liberal policies. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP/ You don’t get to complain that government policy is bogging down the economy when we have record corporate profits and record stock returns. The government as you always say is NOT responsible for making jobs. The private sector is and it is failing to provide them. This is a classic display of markets failing to support the wider needs of society and a display of what happens when you tilt the playing field to favor those who already have a lot of money and power.

      1. Libertarians often believe government action cannot better the economy, but we do think it can retard and/or distort it.

        1. They’re paid trolls. De Rugy gets this a lot, and some on social media too.

          1. Interesting, why her, specifically do you think?

            1. She’s an economist, well respected. It’s a science, sort of, and the Kos kids are threatened by it.

              She had an article a few months ago that sent them into a rage. It got personal.

              1. Bizarre.

                Thanks.

              2. She’s an economist, well respected.

                Also she is those things AND a non-white woman.

                Can’t have the slaves getting off the plantation.

                  1. Lulz.

                    For some reason I confused her with Shikha Dalmia.

                    I should probably start drinking now.

                    1. I said well respected.

                  2. Belgians aren’t white.

                1. Liberals are the REAL racists!

          2. You mean unlike the “paid authors” of these pieces who take Koch dollars?

            1. Not Koch dollars!!111!

              [Falls backward onto fainting couch]

            2. I think the Kochs are great, and would love to take their money. Not you?

              Make sure that you never end up the the hospital in NYC. Or go to the Natural History Museum. Or watch PBS. Or use paper towels.

              Good luck.

            3. Ah, so you admit being a paid troll.

      2. How can it be a problem of regulations bogging down economy when in fact we have record corporate profits?

        Talk about ignoring anything that doesn’t fit your ideological filter.

        1. Those record profits must be why Burger King (among others) are leaving the country. Making too much money in the US I guess.

        2. ‘Even if corps *were* making record profits (and they aren’t, many are just holding on), that would be just *currently* existing corps – you’re completely ignoring all the corps that have been forced out of business or the ones that were never started at all because of regulatory interference.

        The companies making ‘record profits’ today are those who are large enough to be able to afford compliance divisions and have enough revenue to be able to afford to skim off some for ‘campaign donations’.

        1. It’s astonishing to me how rare it is for people to consider the possibility that burdensome regulations often exist for the benefit of large incumbent corporations. It seems like a large group of people are suspicious of big government and big corporations, but that virtually none of the political elite taps into that.

      3. . . . a display of what happens when you tilt the playing field to favor those who already have a lot of money and power.

        How do you think this happens, if not with regulation?

      4. How can it be a problem of regulations bogging down economy when in fact we have record corporate profits?

        In a healthy market, the enemy of profit margins is competition. High profit margins indicate a lack of competition. Exactly what you’d expect from overregulation — upstart competitors are strangled in the crib while established corporations already have a govt relations department and a legal department and such to deal with the new regs. Frequently you’ll find established players in an industry lobbying for regulation.

        And then you have the tendency of corporations to buy back stock rather than invest profits in new R&D and new business areas that would create jobs — another trademark effect of overregulation. To be fair, some of this is caused by the long-term effects of the idiocy of allowing software patents, but that doesn’t affect Mattel or GE.

        Big Business and Big Government are BFFs. If you’re not blinded by ideology you will come to see this.

        1. Excellent response, came here to say just that.

          Indefinite high profit margins and current investment strategies (as opposed to expansion and competition) are pretty good evidence of regulatory burden.

          1. Can you please point me to the industries which are producing these supposedly high profit margins so that I can invest in them?

            1. A misthreaded comment, TIT, not directed at you.

            2. My portfolio made about 35% in the past year. It’s only made 11.5% a year in the last 10 years though. I’d be glad to share. Are you serious about wanting help?

              It’s fairly easy. The idea is to not buy into the doom and gloom of folks like these Libertarians and invest in America and the world…..

              You could just buy Buffet’s stuff, some apple stock and some energy and real estate REITS and you will make big bucks over time.

              Instead, you listen to talk radio and buy Gold – which I think has made about 3% a year or less over the past 30 years.

              1. Notice that Craiginmass did did not specify what companies are providing him with a 35% yoy return.

                1. Notice that craig is a lying asshole and his lack will be obvious.

                2. These lefty trolls are so full of shit. 35% YOY return? I doubt even the best of hedge funds get close to that.

                3. It’s pretty easy to make a 30% return when the entire stock market is making a 30% return.

                  And random distribution of stocks would produce the same result.

                  My 401(k) made a 30% return last year.

                  of course, supposedly now is the time to get out.

        2. And alot of the record high stock market is driven by the current bubble which is driven by keeping interest rates at close to zero for years. It will burst soon.

          Millenials have the advantage that mom and dad help them out and that they can borrow even more money and go deeper into debt by going to graduate school. Some of them actually get smart and go into something that might net them a job later (different than what they majored in for u-grad) but there may not be enough jobs by the time they get out. In addition, they will all be 50K to 100K in debt and we’ll probably be in the next major recession without ever really coming out of this one.

      5. muirgeo|8.28.14 @ 4:35PM|#

        “banking deregulation”

        Refuting your derp line by line would be an exercise if futility as I see you for what you are. Therefore I shall take this one idiotic statement and expose it’s lie.

        Frank Dood banking regulations has lowered the number of independent used boat dealers in Texas alone from a high of around 2,600 to a current level of 700 to 800 because wanna be boat buyers have a hard time finding financing for used boats.

        The once largest used boat dealership in the nation was located only a few miles from my house until they shut down 6 months ago due to that very reason.

        Who pays you people to write such dribble ?

        1. Jimmy Greatcredit wants to borrow $10,000 to start a boat dealership and hire some people? No fucking way, get out of my office.

          Goldman Sachs wants to borrow $1,000,000,000 to play with in the stock market? The Bank of Yellen is always open to you.

          1. Yellen will also see to it that Goldman gets a low, near-zero interest rate to boot, while Joe Paycheck pays 23% on his credit card.

            But for some reason, the idiot trolls think this is a free market.

      6. “How can it be a problem of regulations bogging down economy when in fact we have record corporate profits?”

        That is some newcular-grade ignorance right there.

        Who do you think benefits from all those regulations? Who do you think writes them? I don’t think you know how cronyism works.

        1. Oh. I should have read all the replies first. See Solomon Grundy’s reply. He sums it up nicely.

        2. The problem is the the typical progressive troll does not understand the difference between capitalism and crapitalism.

          They see the problems caused by crapitalism, blame them on capitalism, and call for more crapitalism. Then they repeat the cycle.

      7. How can it be a problem of regulations bogging down economy when in fact we have record corporate profits?

        We also have a record low cost of capital.

        Neither of those things do you any good if it’s effectively impossible to increase capacity.

        I recommend that you undertake to try to open a chemical plant somewhere in the lower 48 states.

        Then get back to us with a story of how unregulated the economy is.

        At this point it almost doesn’t matter what federal policy is. At the state and local level, we have de facto socialism, in the sense that no new enterprise can begin without the approval of so-called “stakeholders” up and down the chain of command.

        1. Fear of liability (regulation by tort rather than state edict) has slowed down enormously my setting up to do some simple lab experiments here in my home for a client whose own mfg. lab was too tied up for the work. Suppliers were afraid to ship even the most benign materials to a residence, so the shipping is being liability-washed by an intermediate stopping point.

          However, it is true that in many respects regulation and the biz climate in gen’l is much better than it use’ta wuz. As usual, we’ve moved sideways in terms of public policy, so it’s hard to say whether we’re gaining or losing ground overall. I do think the world is much freer overall, and in particular where I live, than it was when I was born 60 YA, but that includes a lot of gains in “personal liberty” & consumer freedom that offset losses in freedom to make money.

      8. “Millennials define themselves politically in cultural terms rather than economic terms. This aversion to economics…”

        Hence, you get responses like above.

        1. That is, comments like those from Muirgeo.

      9. You don’t get to complain that government policy is bogging down the economy when we have record corporate profits and record stock returns.

        That may be the dumbest comment I’ve read today.

        Regulation doesn’t inhibit corporations. They ask for it, and high taxes. Why? Because it hurts their competition…the new business…the small business are the ones harmed. You know, the guys that fuel 2/3 of our economy.

        Pull your head out of your ass.

        1. I fully agree! That comment reeks of knee-jerk shallow populist rhetoric

      10. How can it be a problem of regulations bogging down economy when in fact we have record corporate profits?

        Not sure if their profits are up. Their shares are up but they are getting free money from the FED and then buying their own stock back…

        Basicly an inflation bubble that is manifesting itself in the stock market.

        Anyway when you talk about corporations you are talking about established public mega-companies. If you look at small business or start ups they do not have record profits. In fact their numbers are shrinking and new start ups are not starting up.

        Companies with public shares on the stock market have never been the major employment engine in the US. Ever. It is the small companies 100s of thousands of them that hired everyone. And yes regulations and Obamacare are forcing them to close their shops.

        1. No, according to an analysis in The Freeman in the 1980s, big biz (at least at that time) was by far outperforming small biz in job creation.

      11. how many things are wrong in this guy’s post?

        its hard to find anything. Low labor participation, yes.

        but i mean, come on = banking deregulation?

        I work in finance. Does “muirgeo”? Do you have any idea how many tests i take for compliance purposes each year just to keep track of the changing *laws*?

        1. He borrows at 6% and expects a 14% return. Sounds legit.

          I don’t work in finance, and I make a 20% return. Hmmmm

      12. Regulations that result from regulatory capture (which we have, in spades) are generally anti-competitive. The incumbent businesses (which are the ones who have the high profits you describe) use them to keep out new market entrants.

        The burdensome regulations mean that the new companies who would offer competition are strangled in the crib, or never started at all.

      13. the profits are a function of lower topline growth from less investment and business expansion.

        it’s easy to crank up profit margins if you are not trying to grow.

        the lack of investment is the result of more regulation.

        this “corp profits are high so regulation must not be a problem” argument is 180 degrees wrong and demonstrates a real lack of knowledge about hos a business works.

    2. You do realize that you provided no evidence or reasoning to back up your accusation of making unwarranted assumptions.

      1. No, he doesn’t. I think he’s a troll that frequents Cafe Hayek. He’s impervious to logic, reason or evidence.

  2. I think Veronique has a work ethic and assumes everyone else does. Maybe these millenials think Obama is going to give them welfare because they can’t find a job. Some recent poll found that 70% of millenials agreed that the government has an obligation to feed and house everyone. 50% of the people in this country get some kind of payment from the government every month. Most of those people aren’t saints and don’t recuse themselves from an election because they receiving payments. The future of limited government looks bleak. Ben Franklin apparently said democracy is 2 wolves and one sheep voting what to have for dinner.

    1. this is an interesting marxist postulate =

      “Socialism is a historical inevitability… because, uh, like, lazy people. also, the constitution is old and stuff”

      1. I know this might not go over well, but…

        Marxists, who know what they’re talking about, are actually a lot smarter than progressives.

        For instance, Marxists will talk about the business/economic cycle, and how the impossibility of controlling it tends to play into their hands.

        In a lot of ways, they sound like Austrians on that–it’s just that the Marxists and Austrians disagree on desirability and implications of that credit cycle stuff. Just from memory, I think “creative destruction” was originally a Marxist term!

        Anyway, point is that if your average progressive had any idea what they were talking about on the economy, they might be dangerous. Instead, they just go around making the left look completely idiotic. I despise Keynes, but people like Tony go around making Keynes look so stupid! Keynes wasn’t anywhere near as stupid as Tony makes him look…

        I imagine intellectual Marxists and Keynesian economists probably feel about progressives like a Jesuit philosophy professor at Georgetown feels about the Jehovah’s Witnesses that go around knocking on people’s doors. What a total embarrassment!

        1. “I imagine intellectual Marxists and Keynesian economists probably feel about progressives like a Jesuit philosophy professor at Georgetown feels about the Jehovah’s Witnesses that go around knocking on people’s doors. What a total embarrassment!”

          I thought they were called “Useful Idiots”

          1. Useful idiots would go around lying in the best interests of the Soviet Union–often without realizing it. When people like Tony stray into a place like this, they’re still idiots, but their stupid lies are hardly useful in a place where people know what they’re talking about.

            I mean, what does an intellectual Marxist tell his progressive students in class, say, when they claim that Obama’s Wall Street regulations ended the business and credit cycles?

            It’s not just a stupid thing to say (and believe); isn’t it also a total refutation of applied Marxism?

            Why would a Marxist want people on the left to think that the problems of the business cycle (and capitalism) can be easily solved with simple regulation?

            These idiots aren’t useful.

  3. So, the bad policy of the Obama administration must be the high corporate profits that are not going to consumers so the consumers who need to be workers or living off of savings from the 90s are not able to spend enough to keep workers from being laid off. After all, if workers spend $1000 and that goes $50 to profits and $950 to fewer workers, workers can only buy $950 of which $50 goes to profits and $900 to fewer workers,…

    The thing propping up the economy of profits being sucked out is the government borrowing of the profits to pay people to work and pay people to leave the job market at age 62 and retire.

    Businesses with cash can borrow at 2% and in theory make 4% returns on new capital investments, but they can’t because the amount of money consumers has is limited by the low wages and the government spending and the higher and higher profits.

    And obviously Obama is to blame for the excessive growth in profits that sucks money out of the economy.

    Obama is obviously to blame for the shirking government spending that is cutting the amount that consumers can spend, killing jobs.

    And Obama is responsible for cutting infrastructure spending drastically that both kills jobs and has the transportation system crumbling, water and sewer creating sink holes, rail lines congested, and the electric grid totally insufficient, and all holding back the economy’s ability to create jobs.

    1. You win the retard award.

      Congratulations on memorizing several economic terms. It must have been hard to do that while avoiding even a basic understanding of economic theory.

      1. It’s gotta be some kind of parody.

    2. What you’ve just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read.

      At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone is now dumber for having read it.

      I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    3. Holy shit. *facepalm*

    4. It’s amazing what you can come up with when start from the perspective that Obama is right–and just make up whatever needs to be said to get there.

      It’s sort of like jazz. You know, where you start with a theme, end on that theme, and just make the stuff up in the middle.

      Can you play the saxophone?

    5. Fantastic comment, mulp.

      You are a great improvement in the troll quality at Reason. I haven’t read such a derptastic comment in quite some time.

    6. WHO are these people?

      Holy shit.

      What the hell did I just read?

      1. Mulp comes direct from Marginal Revolution to bring us that quality of trolling that they have enjoyed for so long (and of which we have been bereft for so long).

        1. And muirgeo is a long time troll from Cafe Hayek. It’s a coordinated attack!

          1. I saw his name and I did a total WTF. George is here? He’s do dense he makes Tony look intelligent.

            1. I haven’t been to Cafe Hayek, for a while. You would think that Don or Russ would have banned him by now.

              1. Russ got a different job and doesn’t post much anymore. It’s like 98% Don.

                I think they let him post so people can practice rebutting against idiots. Kinda like how they haven’t banned Tony. They did ban one guy, but that’s because he was like Mary. He was there only to hand out personal attacks.

            2. I’ve long had the sneaking suspicion that Tony is Miurgio.11

              1. WTF with the extra 11? I guess it should have been !!!11111!!!!

    7. Finally, a reason commentator who understands economics. The corporations are literally stealing money from the workers in a way that can be described as a negative multiplier effect. Your analysis of investing is also spot on. I learned this first hand when I borrowed money to start a business. I offered a variety of financial services mostly investment advice. However, because of corporate profits limiting consumers/workers money they were unable to afford my services and I went out of business.

      1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      2. +2
        1 for the humor, 1 for the claim that you were paid for investment advice.

      3. because of corporate profits limiting consumers/workers money they were unable to afford my services and I went out of business

        I don’t think that’s why you went out of business…

        1. Hey who’s the guy who ran his own investment business? I think I know a little more than you about business.

          1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            1. Hey who’s the guy who ran his own investment business? I think I know a little more than you about business.

              You mean a guy who failed at the investment business? Sure, your knowledge is important as evidenced by your success!

              1. Did you understand anything that mulp wrote? Here, chew on this for a while:
                Businesses with cash can borrow at 2% and in theory make 4% returns on new capital investments, but they can’t because the amount of money consumers has is limited by the low wages and the government spending and the higher and higher profits.

                I borrowed at 6% but I had calculated my returns to be 14%. So you see the situation is even worse than what mulp describes.

                After all, if workers spend $1000 and that goes $50 to profits and $950 to fewer workers, workers can only buy $950 of which $50 goes to profits and $900 to fewer workers,…

                I would always explain to my clients, some of whom ran their own business, that money you have is money that the customer doesn’t.

                1. I would always explain to my clients, some of whom ran their own business, that money you have is money that the customer doesn’t.

                  So strange that you failed in finance with such a firm grasp of the zero sum fallacy.

                  Bad luck, I’m sure. Oh, plus the kulaks, wreckers, and hoarders, can’t forget them.

                2. I borrowed at 6% but I had calculated my returns to be 14%.

                  Almost as if your calculations were incorrect? Perhaps it was a failure of implementation?

                  I get it, you are an underwear gnome.

                  1.Plan
                  2.
                  3.Profit!

                  I am sure that your calculations and implementation were perfect. It was only something, something, something which caused you to fail but had nothing to do with you?

                  1. Marshall Gill|9.6.14 @ 2:17PM|#
                    …”Almost as if your calculations were incorrect? Perhaps it was a failure of implementation?”…

                    I’m saying a train-wreck from end-to-end.

                3. That is right Blank, economics is a zero sum game.

                  Jebus fuck, where are all these idjits coming from?

                4. “I would always explain to my clients, some of whom ran their own business, that money you have is money that the customer doesn’t.”

                  Let me guess. After taking your advice they went out of business too.

              2. That was a spoof although it’s hard to tell anymore.

                1. Bitch! Ya got me.

              3. What do you mean failed? The working man simply wasn’t able to afford his fine services any more, thanks to the corporations and their profits!

          2. Oh, the hits just keep on coming.

          3. who’s the guy who ran his own investment business?

            As opposed to “is still running a successful investment business”? I guess that’d be you. Huh. Funny, that.

            1. Says the guy who can’t even put his comments in the correct location.
              See my @2:03 response. I think that might give you pause to reconsider questioning my business acumen.

              1. ^^^ Regarding putting comments in their correct place, I was writing about a past instance when you did that (you know which time) and not today.

              2. blank|9.6.14 @ 2:13PM|#
                …”See my @2:03 response. I think that might give you pause to reconsider questioning my business acumen.”

                No, it simply confirms that your not real bright.
                If anyone deserved to go out of business, why, you’re right at the top of the list.

                1. Everyone, adjust your sarcasometer.

          4. I think I know a little more than you about business.

            If you were really that good, you wouldn’t be bitching about how you went out of business.

      4. Corporations are evil!

        They supply goods and services to society, and even worse they give people jobs!

        They must be stopped!

        1. But they make money! And some people in those corporations make more money than others! That is EVIL I tell you, EVIL!

      5. I think I’m gonna call bull shit. I don’t believe you’re a businessman – ESPECIALLY financial services – with sophomoric comments like that.

        One thing I know is ‘financial advisors’ don’t go out of business. They simply don’t attain enough assets to earn a living off it. I was in the business and have a few buddies who are in it. You have to be one inept, lazy boob to fail at it. Even more hilarious, to hang your failure on corporate profits no less. You’re some piece of work to think we’d fall for this.

        Man, and the scary thing is ignoramuses don’t even know they’re ignorant.

        ‘finally a reason commentator who understands economics’. Like he would know.

        1. I’ve certainly never heard of a financial adviser failing because there is too much profit being made out there.

        2. I think I just got into the game too late. You and your buddies took all the money from investors and did not not pay your employees enough. No one had enough money do invest because too much money went to your profits.

          1. ^^^my @4:08 was in response to Rufus.

          2. Yeah, that MUST be it. Certainly not because you’re a retard. No siree!

            I, for one, am impressed by the quality of the socks today.

            1. I do not know what is with all the insults. I am just a guy who took a chance at living the American dream but the odds were stacked against me. Greed has consumed this country soul and the corporations are making excessive profits and not pay their workers a living wage and not paying government its fair share.
              As mulp correctly pointed out this is why this country is so in debt and labor force participation is so low. He also aptly explains my past business outcomes, why my business went under, and my current situation:

              The thing propping up the economy of profits being sucked out is the government borrowing of the profits to pay people to work and pay people to leave the job market at age 62 and retire.

              And Obama is [not] responsible for cutting infrastructure spending drastically that both kills jobs and has the transportation system crumbling, water and sewer creating sink holes, rail lines congested, and the electric grid totally insufficient, and all holding back the economy’s ability to create jobs.

              1. Do you see what you heartless libertarian bastard have done? This poor man has put his blood, sweat and tears trying to establish the first financial investment firm to invest… in our hearts. Can you blame him for seeing this cruel, unsympathetic world for what it is and — quite rightly — blaming the business community and their love of profits for his business’ downfall? It’s a simple point A to point B connection between his estimated profit spread not being what he thought it would be (which is of course not a love of profits but merely a strong affection for them), and Bill Gates rubbing his wife’s clit with a hundred dollar bill.

              2. How much did you pay your employees while you were in business? If you had no employees, why not? As a business owner, you owe it to the workers to employ them and pay them a living wage rather than greedily focus on profits, profits, profits.

                1. I had 5 employees and I did pay them well. In fact I paid them enough that they were able to invest in another start-up I was overseeing. Unfortunately, that also went under and my employees ended up losing the bulk of their investments. So, you see the runaway greed that is underlying most of the present corporate business environment is hurting a lot of people, people with families.

                  1. I paid them enough that they were able to invest in another start-up I was overseeing. Unfortunately, that also went under and my employees ended up losing the bulk of their investments

                    I have some advice for you — you should stop giving people business and financial advice.

                    Oh, I guess the market told you the same thing when your business went under.

                    1. Oh, I guess the market told you the same thing when your business went under.

                      Yes, a corrupt market. I refuse to stoop to that level. Instead I will try to get the word out, as I am today. Hopefully we will get the right people in place, people who put their fellow human beings above profits. Only then will not only the economy heal put so will our society as a whole.

                    2. And the whales. Don’t forget the whales.

                    3. And the whales. Don’t forget the whales.

                      Go ahead and keep making your snarky comments. The fact is you have not been able to refute any of the arguments put forward by mulp at the top of this thread. Any person who reads these threads from an objective perspective will see the childish nature of your replies and the sound analysis of mulp’s.

                      Things will never change unless we face up to the truth. The truth that mulp lays out plainly for any one who is willing to wake up and open their eyes.

                    4. All hail St Mulp the Enlightener! One day small children will be made to sit at the foot of his statuary while a lector is chosen from among the virginal maidens to read his great words of wisdom.

                      And on that day, the lion will lay with the lamb, both having been raised in a cruelty-free vegan farm.

                    5. You forgot to bold St Mulp.

                    6. Dammit, you’re right. How will St Mulp ever forgive me?!

                    7. All hail St Mulp the Enlightener!

                      Okay smart guy. I am getting tired of making you look bad but you asked for it. mulp, first paragraph:

                      So, the bad policy of the Obama administration must be the high corporate profits that are not going to consumers so the consumers who need to be workers or living off of savings from the 90s are not able to spend enough to keep workers from being laid off. After all, if workers spend $1000 and that goes $50 to profits and $950 to fewer workers, workers can only buy $950 of which $50 goes to profits and $900 to fewer workers,…

                      Right off the bat mulp lays out the fundamental principle of any economy: If people do not have any money they can’t buy anything. If they can’t buy anything nobody will make anything. If people are not making anything they don’t have jobs. Without jobs they have no money. mulp clearly shows the origins of this vicious cycle and places the blame at the feet of those responsible. Excessive corporate profits. mulp also pinpoints the human flaw responsible for our current troubles, greed.

                    8. mulp, paragraph 2:

                      The thing propping up the economy of profits being sucked out is the government borrowing of the profits to pay people to work and pay people to leave the job market at age 62 and retire.

                      Once again mulp cuts right through all the bullshit. The corporations have all the money from their profits and the only way people can survive is for the government to borrow from the corporations. Due to corporations’ excessive profits there are only so many jobs, even with the government borrowing from the corporations to create jobs. Therefore, they have to force older people out of their jobs, by paying them a pension, and giving those jobs to younger workers. mulp correctly identifies all the idle productive capacity generated and the future productivity we will lose in interest payments made to the rapacious corporations.

                    9. It’s as if “profits” just get thrown on a giant money pile and burned.

                    10. Hopefully we will get the right people in place, people who put their fellow human beings above profits.

                      Yeah, that’ll go over swimmingly with the little old retired ladies who rely on their stock paying dividends to put food on the table.

                    11. This is the pinnacle of performance art. Nicely done.

                      *slow clap*

                    12. This boob is a riot. His response to me was just…frighteningly dumb.

              3. blank you forgot to add the #ExplainAFilmPlotBadly hashtag.

              4. blank|9.6.14 @ 4:58PM|#
                …”I am just a guy who took a chance at living the American dream but the odds were stacked against me”…

                As aren’t we all?
                But, ya know, if you’d bothered to learn a bit before you ‘took your chance’, why, you might have found they are particularly stacked against imbeciles!

                1. But, ya know, if you’d bothered to learn a bit before you ‘took your chance’, why, you might have found they are particularly stacked against imbeciles!

                  You need to consider the totality of the post, specifically the beginning.

                  blank|9.6.14 @ 4:58PM|#

                  I do not know what is with all the insults. I am just a guy…

                  I feel like your just focusing on one part and are missing the main point.

                  1. Having read all your posts in this thread, I really feel sorry for you. You are like so many failures I’ve met, who always look to outsiders for their misfortune rather than looking at where the fault truly lies, in the mirror.

                    You are, however, the first person I’ve come across to claim that “corporations” weren’t paying people enough to keep you in business. I wonder how anyone else has managed to be successful? You’d imagine everyone else has to draw from the same “underpaid” customer pool that you do. Or perhaps the successful ones delivered a better product or service than you did, perhaps even for a better price?

                    1. C. Anacreon. He’s full of shit. He never had a practice. It’s impossible think that way. In order to get a license you have to go through a rather rigorous securities course which covers the economy. Aside from the fact no economics class discusses it, nowhere is it EVER written as a theory what he postulates. Not even if you go get your CFA. I’ve never, ever, never heard ONE single damn manager or investor ever say or throw their hands up and say “well that does it boys. Let’s close up shop because people are not getting paid a living wage.”

                      Another thing. The pool of people with assets to invest is and will always be small. Most people just invest through their companies or begin the process of saving in order to invest down the road. That’s the cycle. It’s long and takes patience, but this boob is claiming it’s because they don’t get a living wage.

                      Worse, he claims that they’re being raped or are victims of greedy brokers who rake in the ‘profits.’ I can’t even rehash what he said because it’s so incredibly stupid and immature.

                      He richly deserves all the laughs at his expense he’s getting.

      6. Whoever this is, that is grade A socking right there. If you aren’t a regular, you are one epically stupid individual. I hope you don’t forget to breath.

        1. Or wear a helmet when you eat cereal.

    8. That may be the dumbest comment I’ve read today.

      Damn, you topped it.

    9. excessive growth in profits that sucks money out of the economy.

      Oh my God.

    10. Hurrrrrrrrrrr!

      Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

      HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

    11. After all, if workers spend $1000 and that goes $50 to profits and $950 to fewer workers, workers can only buy $950 of which $50 goes to profits and $900 to fewer workers,…

      It’s like I just read an introductory textbook on Marxism.

  4. Oh good, a bunch of paid trolls are commenting.

    1. Seriously, what the fuck?

    2. Yes, and I hope their paymasters look at their comment quality, and don’t just pay by the word. One of the trolls above actually wrote that the US has “lower tax rates on capital gains and on corporations”, a statement that is ridiculously ignorant of the real world.

      De Rugy’s article assumes that the reader already understands the economic analysis that leads to her assessment that Obama’s progressive policy actions necessarily cause subpar economic performance.

      With respect to “free trade agreements, banking deregulation”, the heavy lifting for that was during the Clinton/Rubin era with widespread endorsement by both progressives and conservatives. The free trade agreements and banking regulation reform of the 1990s had little appeal to free-market libertarians. Free trade does not require government-to-government agreements, which are the projects of statists. Banking “deregulation” was just the imposition of a progressive wish-list in exchange for allowing the money-center banks to grow to “too big to fail” status with state guarantees on deposits. That was hardly a free-market libertarian project.

      The fact is that these trolls do not understand free market economics on an elementary level, but they love themselves the State.

    3. Whoever is paying them sure as fuck isn’t getting any value for their money. Fuck, pay me and I’ll write something less retarded. Barely, but I can do it!

      1. It just occurred to me that this may be a Turing Test on the Reason commentariat.

        Seriously. But these trolls are so retarded, I don’t think that it could be emulated by a machine.

        1. Nah, I think somebody probably linked this story at a progressive blog somewhere, and these jokers just think they’re doing their patriotic duty coming here and setting the rednecks straight.

    4. Actually, they commented. The earliest comment is dated August 26.

    5. I appreciate that someone pays retards to come here and show their utter lack of intelligence and complete disregard for reality.

      1. Times are tough. A man can get a job, he might not look too close at what that job is. But a man learns all the details of a situation like ours, well, then he has a choice.

    6. The profit motive in action.

  5. one large demographic group is still likely to vote Democratic: millennials.

    No, the largest millennial voting demographic BY FAR is non-voters, no matter now many times this horseshit is trotted out.

    1. “one large demographic group is still likely to vote Democratic: millennials.”

      I’d like to know what that’s based on. In the most recent off year elections we saw, for example in the state if Virginia, that age group disproportionately voted for the GOP and LP candidates, right?

      1. Every age group disproportionately voted GOP in the last off year elections, and probably will again in this year’s.

        1. Iirc the Democrat won the older vote in that election

    2. Um…if 80% of millennials don’t vote, and 60% of those who do vote pull the lever for the Democrat, the sentence fragment you quote is grammatically and logically correct.

      I don’t see how a grammatically and logically correct statement can be horseshit.

      1. No the large demographic group, millenials, is not likely to vote for dems. They are likely to not vote. A minority are likely to vote for D and a minority are likely to vote R.

        It’s only logically correct if you assume non-voters aren’t part of the demographic.

        1. “It’s only logically correct if you assume non-voters aren’t part of the demographic.”

          You mean the demographic “voters”? Which is what we’re talking about?

          WTF?

          1. The author didn’t specify the demographic of voters, and it matters in the sense that if you want to damn ‘millennials’ in general the fact that most of them don’t vote at all seems more important than most popular choice of those who do. You’d have to settle for most millennials being disinterested/disaffected, with a majority of those who are not supporters of big government candidates.

            1. ” But headed into the 2016 election season, one large demographic group is still likely to vote Democratic: millennials.”

              That’s for you and the imbecile below who apparently can’t see that quite clearly the author DID specify voters.

              Fuck off now, both of you.

          2. The demographic being discussed is millenials.

            1. Voting millennials.

              Asshole.

        2. You pick that nit, buddy.

          1. It’s not nitpicking, this whole generational collectivism is extra retarded when they don’t even have the facts straight. The vast majority of millenials are NOT voting dem, so asking why they vote dem when dem policies are so shitty for millenials makes no sense.

  6. my co-worker’s half-sister makes $63 /hour on the internet . She has been fired from work for 7 months but last month her income was $17359 just working on the internet for a few hours. read the full info here….

    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

    1. Jesus Christ! For $63 an hour, what does she do?

      I’m sure it involves a webcam, but please tell me it doesn’t involve any barnyard animals.

  7. Because we don’t buy your self-serving bullshit explanations for why the economy is in this shape?

    1. Nope, you’ve got your own self-serving, bullshit explanations for why the economy is in is shape.

    2. You believe exactly the same thing as the paid trolls above. It must suck to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning.

      1. Tony believes that trolling is its own reward.

    3. What was YOUR self-serving bullshit explanation, tony?

    4. Tony has no idea how the economy works.

      Tony doesn’t know what makes GDP grow.

      Tony probably wouldn’t know how to measure economic growth–even after you told him what to look at.

      He’s an honest to God ignoramus.

      1. Well, one component of GDP is government spending, and Tony understands government spending.

      2. Tony doesn’t know what makes GDP grow.

        Oh he knows – government spending.

        It right there in how they calculate GDP. And he know the ‘Top Me’ created the GDP metric so I *must* be fit for purpose.

    5. Progressives are the most self-serving bunch alive.

      They spend their lives coming up with (usually poorly-constructed) reasons to control everyone and everything and pat themselves on the back for it.

      They also believe their rules should apply to everyone but themselves.

    6. The jug-eared fairy is half-way through his second term Tiny. For the first two years your team had the presidency and both houses.

      So here we are six years into dem rule and the economy is shit. What is your self-serving bullshit explanation for that?

      1. It would have been worse under McCain?

        1. Like most counterfactuals, it’s interesting, though ultimately pointless, to speculate about such things. What would a McCain win have brought? I don’t see McCain supporting anything as damaging and brazen as the ACA, though on the other hand we likely would have had more military intervention and the prospect of his same-party Congress working with him to pass things like cap and trade, campaign finance reform, etc., that Obama can only dream about enacting.

          But ultimately pointless: we got who we got, and he’s terrible on both our and his terms.

          1. 1. PPACA would never had gotten passed – Obama’s (then) reputation had a lot to do with being able to sell that.

            2. More military intervention? How? What hotspot cropped up during Obama’s administration that *he* did’t intervene in?

            1. That’s not how your average joe sees it, though.

              I was JUST talking about this last night with a friend of mine. He looked me straight in the fact and said that Obama ended the war in Afghanistan and brought every single trooper home. According to him, we’ve never been back there since.

              He then went on to explain that Obama was as anti-war as you could get. And a bunch of other retarded shit I had a hard time responing to because of the intense burning derp.

              The way I figure it, it goes something like this: Obama is seen as anti-war to the right, pro-war to the left, and centrist to everyone else. And I think this applies to most of the other hot button issues as well. Everybody just hates him (sans Tony) and thinks whatever the hell they want with a complete disregard for facts.

            2. Well it’s a question of scale. The Arab “Spring” happened in what would have been McCain’s first term. Would he have tried to save Mubarak? Would he have pushed for troops in Libya?

            3. John “Today, We Are All Georgians” McCain would probably have American troops in Ukraine right now.

      2. So here we are six years into dem rule and the economy is shit. What is your self-serving bullshit explanation for that?

        BOOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHHHHH!!!11!1!

    7. Ah. At least we know Tony isn’t a paid troll. He just does it for free and kinks.

      1. He told us, once, that there’s a reason for what he’s doing, but that we’re not really ready to digest it yet.

        But he’s going to reveal it to everybody here, someday. And then we’re all gonna be really wowed by it!

        Just you wait.

        1. It involves a red pill.

          Well, suppository, but still.

          1. I’ll get the vegetable oil. For a friend.

        2. Based off other things he’s said, I’d urge everyone here to have Kevlar handy.

    8. Tony|9.6.14 @ 12:26PM|#
      “Because we don’t buy your self-serving bullshit explanations for why the economy is in this shape?”

      But, Tony, you slurp down ever stinking lie the Obo admin puts out! Bullshit is your major food group along with your major output.

  8. Why aren’t they angrier? Maybe they are. How would we know; they have spent their young lives watching their Baby Boom Gen-X and whatever elders making goddamned fools of themselves protesting everything under the sun. The Occupy Whatever Street movement was in part a protest about the job market and what most rational people took away from it was “what a bunch of jerks”.

    I suspect that the “millennials” are a lot angrier than they appear, they are just looking for an outlet that might affect something. If they ever find one, I’d duck and cover.

    1. Why aren’t they angrier? Maybe they are. How would we know;

      Someone should poll them.

      1. I’ll pole a few of them.

    2. They aren’t angrier because they know ‘free shit’ is around the corner. As long as they’re politicians willing to enable them it’ll be that way.

    3. Why aren’t they angrier?

      Because they did not live in the 90s and see gasoline under a $1 and did not see how easy it was to get a job back then.

      They honestly do not know any better.

      Also it is surprising how unangry Gen X was in the 90s.

      In the 60s and early 70s it was even easier to get a job then it was in the 90s…we saw the crappy late 70s and 80s and just assumed “Oh yeah the 90s are great” when in fact the 90s really kind of sucked for jobs compared to times before.

      Millennials see 2007 to 2010 and think Oh yeah it was so much worse then it is today in 2014.

      1. Weren’t the top end of the Millenials born in 80-82?

        If so they (myself included) definitely remember what you’re talking about and am fucking pissed about it. Of course we are trying to get our careers off the ground and having families so that tends to temper tempers, as it were.

  9. It’s also a function of the youth coming to see one of the government’s primary responsibilities as being a source of jobs.

    This is the same way the youth of France and other European countries see the world. They suffer higher rates of unemployment and fewer opportunities than American youth do–and yet they’re often the biggest opponents of deregulating the job market!

    …and over there, I don’t think it has anything to do with an historical legacy of racism, homophobia, etc. that’s culturally driving the youth into the arms of the socialists.

    I think it has to do with them coming to see education as an entitlement and the jobs they’re being educated for being an extension of that–that the government should provide those jobs if they get the appropriate amount of education.

    In prior generations of Americans, the ideal was that if you were smart and worked hard, you could be the next Carnegie, Rockefeller, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates. Starting your own business and competing with others is seen as something to be ashamed of, somehow. Nowadays, the ideal is to stay in school, get the job your education entitles you to, and like all the things your friends like…

    And anyone who gets in the way of that is the enemy–just like it is in Europe. Isn’t that why so many Europeans resent America so? They imagine we’re always forcing them to compete somehow. Yeah, well the millennials think of us capitalists the way the Europeans think of Americans.

    1. Stupid, it seems, never learns. Yet another reason the democratic process is irredeemably flawed.

  10. Good advice from Mike Rowe: Learn to weld and move to North Dakota. You’ll make a fortune and learn a good trade.

    College debt is high because many families view college as an experience to consume rather than an investment (& one of several alternatives) that should pay dividends. College education is a pretty competitive industry, and colleges are doing a good job of meeting customer preferences for services.

    That said, high unemployment and low LFPRs among 20 somethings is troubling, like Europe in the 80s and 90s, which has unfortunate cultural results, like Ken Schultz said.

    1. No, families & individuals more than ever see college as an investment, not consumption, but they’ve been sold a bill of goods.

      1. Families may see college in general as an investment that leads to higher wages and more employment opportunity–and data says that they would be right. But when they choose one college over others, factors other than financial return are important: housing quality, extra-curriculars, study-abroad programs, social life, campus size, location, campus services, reputation, etc. It is expensive to be competitive in all of these other areas, which drives up price and debt.

        1. Government money pouring into colleges also increases the cost. I figured it out a quarter century ago when I had to deal with financial aid forms.

    2. That is an important point.

      Many millenials are unemployed because they are unemployable. I’d like to see statistics on apprenticeships and trade school attendance versus time.

  11. my co-worker’s step-sister makes $84 /hr on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her pay check was $17539 just working on the internet for a few hours. blog link ….

    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

    1. Wait, why does the step-sister make more than the half-sister? I smell gene discrimination…

      1. Step-sister porn appeals to a wider audience than incest porn.

        1. “Step-sister porn”. So, just like regular porn?

      2. She’s much better looking …

        and her work on the internet involves a camera and microphone in her bedroom.

      3. INCOME INEQUALITY!!!1111

    2. How come your co-worker’s step-sister makes $21 an hour more than your co-worker’s half-sister?

      Is it that one of them is willing to do extremely disgusting things on webcam, and the other one isn’t?

      1. Hey, one man’s disgust is another mans……well, you know.

        1. No, we don’t know. Please explain.

  12. @mulp, saying the government pays for something just means everyone is paying for it. I dunno if any government ever anywhere has actually turned a profit. And infrastructure spending: look up bastiat’s ‘”the seen and the unseen”. There’s no perfect answer, everything a trade off. The difference between govt and private spending is the govt uses force to make everyone else pay for it. So the other side of supporting the less well off is oppressing people with more resources. Personally I agree with the Buddha, that some sort of middle ground is probably the best idea, as in we’re a rich enough country we shouldn’t be seeing citizens starve or not be able to afford necessary healthcare, but what’s the alternative? I certainly don’t know. I don’t think the USSR can pay for anyone’s healthcare anymore though.

    I do think it would be great if we could somehow “level the playing field” without infringing on anyone’s liberties or hurting the economy, but we very very obviously haven’t figured out how to do that yet. And “hurting the economy”, by the way really just means hurting people

    1. . . . as in we’re a rich enough country we shouldn’t be seeing citizens starve or not be able to afford necessary healthcare. . .

      Except – we’re *not seeing people starve or be denied necessary health care.

      1. Supposedly we have an obesity epidemic in this country. Even our poor (especially our poor) are fat.

      2. You will not be turned away from an emergency room for needed urgent care. Period. There are tons of government handouts to deal with expenses caused by chronic illneses/disabilities – since long before PPACA.

      I do think it would be great if we could somehow “level the playing field” without infringing on anyone’s liberties or hurting the economy, but we very very obviously haven’t figured out how to do that yet.

      Actually we figured that out a long time ago – like 17th century long time ago. Minimal regulation and minimal taxation makes the economy (tax-base) pie grow like a tumor (mmm, tumor pie).

      1. Yeah I do agree about starvation, but then people will talk about “food deserts” and the high price of organic food and such. My point was I don’t see a way to change any of that that isn’t a net loss for society generally

        1. I’m willing enough to admit my own ignorance to acknowledge maybe there’s a better way, but we have not figured it out yet

          1. The first step is to realize that ‘society’ isn’t one monolithic block that can suffer ‘net loss’.

            Its millions of people pursuing their own goals, cooperating.

            ‘Food desert’ and the ‘high price of organic food’ are ideas that come from people with *one specific view* on how society *should be* and get upset when others don’t share that view.

            There are no food deserts in the US – food is readily available, even fresh fruit and vegetables, in *all* urban areas.

            Organic food is a scam. Its not *better* for you – some of it may *taste* better, but the nutritional content is the same and it tends to be 2-3 times the cost, spoils faster, and is ‘unsustainable’ (in the SJW jargon) – buy organic if you absolutely want to destroy the Earth.

            1. The next step is realizing that if we don’t know how to make things better, then maybe we should get these people to stop using the power of the state to force everyone into the plan du jour, and simply *observe* what people do that makes things better.

              *This* time, right now is a golden age for humanity and not because of some central plan. Its the best time in the history of our species to be alive because WE GAVE UP PLANNING (on a large scale) and simply let people get on with it.

        2. And why, exactly, do poor people need to have “organic” food? Most of the organic industry is a scam, in my opinion (and well delineated in a Penn&Teller; “Bullshit” a few years back), of overpricing. If you have the money to afford it and truly believe that organic food is superior, please have at it. But don’t say that poor people need it — regular old produce at the supermarket has all the same nutrients.

          I work in a very underclass urban area, and to be honest you could make the best organic vegetables ten cents apiece there and they would still rot on the shelves. A lot of people near where I work like to eat pizza, bags of chips and extra-sugared liters of soda rather than vegetables and fruit. That’s why they are overweight (including lack of exercise); unless you force them to eat otherwise, all the produce options in the world aren’t going to change that. It’s certainly not because of the totally disproven concept of “food deserts.”

          1. That’s why they are overweight (including lack of exercise); unless you force them to eat otherwise

            You’ve just provided pornography for millions of Progressives.

            I hope you’re proud of what you did.

            1. People are rational actors except when they aren’t.

      2. “‘Actually we figured that out a long time ago – like 17th century long time ago.”

        Did we figure it out well before millions died from flu, whopping cough, smallpox, yellow fever and other such diseases???

        Wow, I know you guys want to turn the clock back, but those times were about killing natives (something the Fiction Writer greatly approves of) and getting land just because you said you “found” it and knew someone in the court.

        1. craiginmass|9.6.14 @ 6:00PM|#
          …”Wow, I know you guys want to turn the clock back, but those times were about killing natives (something the Fiction Writer greatly approves of) and getting land just because you said you “found” it and knew someone in the court.”

          Yes, and in the depths of your ignorance, I’ll bet you think there’s a point in there.

          1. “I’ll bet you think there’s a point in there”

            A couple…

            1. Society and civilization has advanced, but we never “figured it out”.

            2. The governance of billions of people (100’s of millions in our one country) is MUCH harder than little colonies and villages…especially after resources (trees, etc.) are consumed.

            3. The “libertarianism” promoted here and by the Fiction Writer, in essence, would approve of Germany in the mid-20th century (not the Gubment part, but the Master Race stuff)…that is, Rand made it clear it was OK to kill the natives for “higher use”. Libertarians push “survival of the fittest” and keeping the poor fed and/or healthy doesn’t really concern them much. “Let ’em die” – they shouted when their Hero said to leave the man die by the side of the road.

            Yeah, there are some points to be made. Genocide as well as doing away with those “nonproductive populations” is the inevitable result of the “free market” which holds that he with the highest use gets the Gold.

            1. craiginmass|9.6.14 @ 7:34PM|#
              “1. Society and civilization has advanced, but we never “figured it out”.
              I’m sure you think that’s ‘deep, man!’

              “2. The governance of billions of people (100’s of millions in our one country) is MUCH harder than little colonies and villages…especially after resources (trees, etc.) are consumed.”
              Yes, and I’m still waiting for the point.

              “3. The “libertarianism” promoted here and by the Fiction Writer, in essence, would approve of Germany in the mid-20th century (not the Gubment part, but the Master Race stuff)…that is, Rand made it clear it was OK to kill the natives for “higher use”.”
              So the point is you’re an ignoramus who doesn’t have a clue and a lying asshole besides.
              OK, I got that from the fact that your earlier post didn’t have a point.

            2. The extra thick tinfoil headinass !!!! Buy it !!!

        2. Wow, I know you guys want to turn the clock back, but those times were about killing natives (something the Fiction Writer greatly approves of) and getting land just because you said you “found” it and knew someone in the court.

          As soon as shitlibs crying about stolen land fuck off back to Europe I’ll take their opinion on it seriously.

  13. I’m personally a millennial and finding a job isn’t that hard. It’s annoying, but when has it ever not been?

    1. Notice how no one will dispute you? You just popped their bubble. They live in a fantasy world constructed by their own greed and myopic visions.

      We should also remind them that it’s vastly easier today to freelance in ANY fashion and get business from all over the country or the world. This fancy interweb makes it all possible. Of course, that may remind them that Al Gore and Big Gubment helped spread the commercial and educational net faster!

      1. Wow.

        Really?

        Just wow.

      2. Notice how no one will dispute you? You just popped their bubble.

        http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

        1. You’re gonna kill him softly with stats?

      3. Oh, shut up you ignorant slut.

  14. Headline writer, please note: Using a colon like that made me think at 1st that it was a description of Ms. de Rugy rather than a piece by her.

    Eh, it’s all part of the crap that started in the print edition with the current visual style, begun shortly before the turn of the century, carried on here, that seems to forget form follows function. Either that, or they wanted a younger demographic by making it harder for the bifocals crowd to read.

  15. Damn this Djokovic/Nishikori match is good stuff.

    1. FIYAA.

      now that he got the third set I’m in the bag for the guy. Underdogs FTW.

  16. Why aren’t they angrier?

    To me, it is the boiled frog syndrome. They are less free than previous generations of Americans, but are unaware of it. They’re used to this condition. Anecdotally, if I speak about this IRL, I am labelled a Kooky Old Guy.

    Time will tell if they fight back; or, as I believe, they will grow used to their bondage.

  17. “When that happens, let’s hope they demand the same freedom in their economic lives that they have grown to expect in their social lives.”

    Yes, tight monetary policy is the rallying cry for the next generation. Good luck with that one.

    Is this right-wing economist still pushing the line that America has a progressive tax system because rich people pay more of their total tax burden as opposed to other countries. Hmm, I might be able to come up with an alternative explanation.

    1. american socialist|9.6.14 @ 1:46PM|#
      …”Is this right-wing economist still pushing the line that America has a progressive tax system because rich people pay more of their total tax burden as opposed to other countries. Hmm, I might be able to come up with an alternative explanation.”{

      Nothing’s ever stopped you from lying through your teeth yet, commie-kid. I’m sure you have a steaming pile of bullshit to hand out.

    2. Hmm, I might be able to come up with an alternative explanation.

      Oh, I am sure you might. I am also sure that if you did it would be imbecilic and probably untrue.

      Why didn’t you? Trying to shock us with your totally unanticipated answer of “coerced collective action”?

      1. “Coerced collective action”

        Yes, I can make a distinction between getting mugged in the street and paying for taxes, which go to pay for the roads I drive on and the school I put my kids into and you can’t. Maybe millennials can see that and determine who has a screw loose and/or an ideological axe to grind.

        Alternative explanation? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki…..ted_States

        1. american socialist|9.6.14 @ 2:09PM|#
          “Yes, I can make a distinction between getting mugged in the street and paying for taxes,”
          Me, too. The taxes are ‘way higher than the mugger gets.
          ———
          “Alternative explanation?”
          (from the link) “In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, French economist Thomas Piketty argues that “extremely high levels” of wealth inequality are “incompatible with the meritocratic values and principles of social justice fundamental to modern democratic societies”
          Noted cherry-picker makes guesses!

          1. “Me, too. The taxes are ‘way higher than the mugger”

            Are you having fun on your private libertarian island?

            1. american socialist|9.6.14 @ 6:50PM|#
              “Are you having fun on your private libertarian island?”

              Are you drunk?
              WIH does that mean, slimeball?

        2. If only the only thing our taxes went to was to pay for roads and to school our children!

          Even in those situations, there are all the union parasites feeding off of those teachers…

          Of course what teachers do is important, but if you think that means we can’t criticize paying for all the union employees and government bureaucrats that hide being the legitimate job of teaching children, then you’re the one with the problem, you stinking socialist!

          At least we can tell the difference between teachers educating children and union scumbags and government bureaucrats that parasite off of my paycheck in the name of education–but have nothing to do with teaching children.

          1. Just curious… I’m going to my PTO and want to know what to call my kids’ teacher who belongs to the NEA union.

            1. Well, you could call her a liberal bourgeois intellectual, murder her, and toss her in a shallow grave with the rest.

              Whoa, don’t know where that came from! Completely out of the blue, that thought was.

            2. american socialist|9.6.14 @ 6:52PM|#
              “Just curious… I’m going to my PTO and want to know what to call my kids’ teacher who belongs to the NEA union.”

              Who cares? Just wear a sign saying you support mass-murders. No one cares what you call anything.

            3. “Just curious… I’m going to my PTO and want to know what to call my kids’ teacher who belongs to the NEA union.”

              Ask your kids’ teacher what he or she calls the union bureaucrats that run her union–and don’t have anything to do with teaching children.

              Ask her what she thinks of the bureaucrats that work for the school district, who, likewise, don’t have anything to do with children.

              One more time, if you can’t tell the difference between government bureaucrats and union bureaucrats, on one hand, and teachers on the other? Then you’re the one with the issues.

              ’cause they’re not the same thing.

        3. I can make a distinction between getting mugged in the street and paying for taxes, which go to pay for the roads I drive on and the school I put my kids into and you can’t.

          In other words, you are totally cool with two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Big shock.

          You did not deny that your intent was “coercive collective action”. You simply seemed to argue that coercion was good if done democratically.

          Dude, I went to your web page. You laud one of the biggest mass murderers in history, Stalin. Nothing else really need be said about you or your opinions.

          1. Socialists and communists are great at trying to deny that Stalin was a monster. At least most Nazis are willing to concede that Hitler was evil, even if they think the Jews/Gypsies/et al. deserved it. Modern day socialists and communists will say that everything under Stalin was all sunshine and rainbows.

            1. “Modern day socialists and communists will say that everything under Stalin was all sunshine and rainbows.”

              Name one.

              1. american socialist|9.6.14 @ 6:53PM|#
                “Name one.”

                So slime ball, it was *almost* that good?

          2. “Dude, I went to your web page. You laud one of the biggest mass murderers in history, Stalin. Nothing else really need be said about you or your opinions.”

            I never wasted a click, and assumed he made apologies for that blood-thirsty monster, but isn’t it wonderful this slimy asshole labels himself the “Espresso Stalinist”? I mean, Stalin would have gouged his fucking eyes out for assuming someone other than the cadres could have espresso.
            It takes a peculiar and despicable combination of stupidity and hypocrisy to claim sympathy with ‘the people’ and support one of the worst mass murderers the world has ever seen.
            Commie-kid; get screwed with rusty implements.

            1. My God, he’s not even one of the *smart* communist.

              The smart communists already know that Stalin was really a counter-revolutionary destroying the good work of Lenin/Trotsky/[Insert favorite Soviet].

              Only a really, really dumb communist even tries to defend Stalin.

          3. “Dude, I went to your web page. You laud one of the biggest mass murderers in history, Stalin. Nothing else really need be said about you or your opinions.”

            Lord only know then what you think of the owners and financiers of this site (the Kochs) who made their first hundreds of millions building up the coffers for Uncle Joe!

            1. Uhh, what?

            2. craiginmass|9.6.14 @ 5:58PM|#
              “Lord only know then what you think of the owners and financiers of this site (the Kochs) who made their first hundreds of millions building up the coffers for Uncle Joe!”

              Uh, you are one misinformed asshole!
              No Koch “owns” this site, and no, none of them built the coffers of Stalin, regardless of the brain-dead sites you read.

              1. Yep, you better correct Wikipedia as well as many books and interviews with his sons!

                “for several years. Koch turned his focus to foreign markets, including the Soviet Union, where Winkler-Koch built 15 cracking units between 1929 and 1932.”

                Who was the head of the Soviet Union in those days?
                “Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953”

                According to Fred Koch’s son:
                “According to his son, Charles, “Many of the Soviet engineers he worked with were longtime Bolsheviks who had helped bring on the revolution”

                Fred got angry eventually because many of his friends over there (Bolsheviks) were purged.

                He then started the John Birch Society.
                “he Reason Foundation is an American libertarian research organization … Its largest donors are the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1,522,212)”

                Please counter my statements above with facts.

                1. “Please counter my statements above with facts”

                  You make it entirely too easy, asshole. Here’s your statement:
                  “Lord only know then what you think of the owners and financiers of this site (the Kochs) who made their first hundreds of millions building up the coffers for Uncle Joe!”

                  No one named Koch owns this site or the magazine.
                  Not one thing you posted suggested they ‘built up coffers’. Instead, they made money ad realized how slimy Stalin was.
                  Sleazier than you by some amount, and smarter, but you’re just as despicable, asshole.

                  1. “Sleazier than you by some amount, and smarter, but you’re just as despicable, asshole.”
                    That would be Stalin, just in case there was doubt.

                2. “for several years. Koch turned his focus to foreign markets, including the Soviet Union, where Winkler-Koch built 15 cracking units between 1929 and 1932.”

                  Meanwhile, the Democratic Party was protecting segregationists, flagrant vote suppression, and lynch mobs for Southern blacks who got too uppity.

          4. “Dude, I went to your web page. You laud one of the biggest mass murderers in history, Stalin. Nothing else really need be said about you or your opinions.”

            Relax… It’s a parody site. You libertarians are really jumpy. I put it there to answer people who think Norman Thomas and Eugene debs were responsible for genocides

            1. american socialist|9.6.14 @ 6:57PM|#
              “Relax… It’s a parody site.”

              Of course it is.
              When you’re called on it, slime ball. Just like walking on your mortgage was a joke, right?

              1. Believe me… My intention was to give people like you who said I supported mass murderers the finger– not to praise Josef Stalin. If the problem is one of proper comprehension on a right wing cult site, is that really my problem?

                1. american socialist|9.6.14 @ 7:38PM|#
                  “Believe me…”
                  Get fucked with rusty iron pieces, slimeball.
                  No one here believes you; you’re a sleazy POS who bails on commitments and lies when ever he thinks he won’t get caught; a typical proggie.

            2. AMSOC. It does not matter whether or not it is a parody site. You are still a socialist. It’s a standard practice for people like you to “Purge” at least 10% of the population, when you gain power. You are a murderer. You just do not currently have the power to commit you atrocities.

        4. Yes, I can make a distinction between getting mugged in the street and paying for taxes,

          The mugger only gets what I might have on me at the time I am mugged, while the government gets its cut before my money is even in my possession?

          Also,

          ROADZZZ!!!

    3. Income tax is progressive. the more you make the higher percent you pay of that income. Which is the definition of a progressive tax.

      In fact it is doubly progressive. Even if it was a flat percent it is a higher amount you would pay the more you make.

      FICA (social security and medicare/aid) taxes are regressive. Poor people pay more of their income and the programs they pay into benefit the rich greater then the poor. Which is amusing because those taxes and the programs they pay for were specificity designed by progressive socialists.

      1. Corning|9.6.14 @ 1:59PM|#
        …”Which is the definition of a progressive tax.”…

        Uh, this is a lefty imbecile; you think a *definition* is gonna stand in the way of some proggy lie?

    4. So even though our tax system is more progressive than most other countries’, it’s still not really a progressive tax system?

      How progressive does it need to be to qualify?

    5. Great. In comes another special case.

  18. Did the Daily Kos crash or something?

  19. I agree with Veronique’s article but one thing I wished is the work ethic of millenials. This may be anedotal so take this with a grain of salt but after I got laid off from my finance job, I helped a friend of mine manage his sandwich shop in Chicago. With the exception of a few, the workers who were between the ages of 18-25 fared poorly. I mean all they had to do was fix sandwiches and keep the place clean but they even failed at that and got fired. They expected to be told what to do instead of taking inititative, complained that they were paid so little but expected to do so much, texted their hearts away, and were late to work because no one emailed them the schedule. I told them if you expect big things out of of your life you must first learn how to do the little stuff like working at a minimum wage job and actually doing well. No one at the shop were expected to break their backs but were expected to show up and do the work they agreed to do when hired.

    There’s this unearned sense of entitlement these days and it’s worse when you hire a liberal arts graduate because they think that by virtue of getting a degree they shouldn’t have to work hard at these places and even look down on hard work. The odd part is that the few that do work hard are people who live with well to do parents but always had a job since they were in high school.

    1. * I should have said: I agree with Veronique’s article but one thing I wished she discussed the work ehtic of millenials.”

    2. My opinion (supported by anecdotal evidence and actually questioning a few dozen 20-somethings about it) is that almost no one in their generation (at least in the suburban middle class) actually worked regular ‘jobs after school’ during their teens.

      ditto during college. at best, they worked a ‘college job’ (i.e. for the university, where they worked a desk @ the library or some other do-nothing role)

      and i mean almost none. the few who did? were children of a small business owner who made them work the till sometimes. Others were the type who belonged to country-clubs or summer camps whose ‘first job’ was working @ the country club or summer camp.

      No employer is going to want to have to micromanage and motivate some 20-something who thinks the ‘hard part’ is “getting the job”.

      1. I think you are correct. Youth underemployment has been an issue for long enough that it’s ill effects are becoming apparent. Late teenage years are very important in a persons development and if that stage is basically missing the concept of “work” as something that requires results for success rather than effort or participation to be judged successful (the difference between an academic environment as opposed to a business one) then those files are not going to be on the hard drive, so to speak, when it comes time to engage in adult economic life. In a lot of cases I’ve seen these young workers just, as hard as it can be for me to grasp (I had my first job at 12) do not really understand, at a subconscious level, what is expected of them. It all has to be processed manually and thus leads to the sort of failures that are typical to engaging in a complex behavior with too great a reliance on active cognition.

        1. A lot of it, I believe, is parenting.

          Ask kids what the word “chores” means, and most of them will give you a blank stare.

          A good work ethic starts at home.

          1. That too

            the relationship with authority matters.

          2. Weird. All of my friends including the soft-lefty ones seem to have decent work ethic. They did chores. I OTOH despise hard work having done too much of it already.

        2. Also, instead of having part-time jobs after school, these kids are also the first generation to graduate with the mandatory community service requirements.

          So the closest thing to work for them was volunteering in a soup kitchen for academic credit.

        3. Also, instead of having part-time jobs after school, these kids are also the first generation to graduate with the mandatory community service requirements.

          So the closest thing to work for them was volunteering in a soup kitchen for academic credit.

          1. HazelMead hits it on the head twice. =)

      2. My opinion (supported by anecdotal evidence and actually questioning a few dozen 20-somethings about it) is that almost no one in their generation (at least in the suburban middle class) actually worked regular ‘jobs after school’ during their teens.

        I suspect the reason for that is the kids who are planning on going to college and are in the prep programs have 4-6 hours of homework a night nowadays and apparently this homework is graded and represents a significant portion of a student’s final grade.

        The surge toward gargantuan amounts of homework in high school (and sooner) began when I was still in school and has only gotten worse since then.

        There are also labor laws and taxes. An after school job usually ends up not being worth the effort. Working 15-20 hours a week to only pocket maybe $100 is probably pretty frustrating. Especially when the combination of an after school job and homework would mean one has effectively no social life.

        So for many of these kids it is entirely reasonable that they didn’t have a high school job.

        The millenials I know (and have worked for me) that had after school jobs were usually on a trades track and are now very well employed.

        1. I have heard both of these things as well (ridiculous homework, and regulations making employing younger people harder)

          i dont deny it. probably true.

          FWIW, the ivy schools i actually got into cared more about my work-experience than my grades. I wish parents pushed back harder against the trend towards endless homework and more schools encouraged programs like this – in my high school everyone was required to take 1 month off every year and work a job somewhere. i taught music, did construction, and ended up getting a real job working @ REI through the program that lasted for a couple of years

          1. But this is going vs. generations of propaganda that says the real work of young people is schooling, and that taking time do to paid work will lead to the temptation of quitting the real work of schooling for a dead-end but temporarily attractive career.

            1. Like you’re going to quit high school to work full time at McDonalds. If anything the drugery of working some shitty fast-food job is a reminder of WHY you want to graduate and get into college.

        2. Pfft, I had graded homework in high school.
          Although it didn’t really take me 4-6 hours.

          I think it’s the community service requirements that kill things. If you have to put in 40 hours of community service to graduate, you have to find time to do that outside of school, which takes time away from having a part time job.

    3. The odd part is that the few that do work hard are people who live with well to do parents but always had a job since they were in high school.

      I don’t think that’s odd at all. Those well-to-do parents probably got that way due to their work ethic, and want to instill the same values in their children.

    4. The texting is really a problem.

      Yes, previous generations had iPods and portable CD players and Walkmen and such, but those were all generally banned from the workplace. When you went to work you went to work.

      Employers are going to have a very hard time banning cell phones from their workplaces, due to “concerns” about family emergencies and such. Funny how that was never a problem 20 years ago when I was a teenager and had never seen a cell phone in my life.

      1. Funny how that was never a problem 20 years ago when I was a teenager and had never seen a cell phone in my life.

        FFS, you really go full retard with this generation war shit.

        Yeah, cell phones weren’t a problem 20 years ago because they were so expensive very few people owned them.

        Workplaces have no problem banning cellphones, or requiring they be turned off, many places already do.

        1. Yeah, cell phones weren’t a problem 20 years ago because they were so expensive very few people owned them.

          No shit, that was my point.

          1. So your point is that the halcyon days of 1994 were so much better from a generational perspective because a consumer product basically didn’t exist?

            Uhh, yeah dude, whatever.

            1. They were better for not being distracted at work.

              The same product can have good and bad effects.

              1. So on top of being a generation retard you are a Luddite…

                Most workplaces ban cellphones or require they be turned off while on the clock. It works exactly the same as telling the kool kids they can’t listen to NKOTB on their headphones while on the clock did back in ’94.

                1. Luddite? I came this close to banging Pat Benatar.

    5. “I told them if you expect big things out of of your life you must first learn how to do the little stuff like working at a minimum wage job and actually doing well.”

      I think they told Slaves similar stuff….
      However, since real libertarians think the min. wage is evil, it would be better to pay $5 an hour and tell them a raise to $5.75 is coming if they work hard for a year. That should get them working hard.

      1. I think they told Slaves similar stuff

        Probably not, since the upward mobility of slaves was nil by design.

        Don’t think a lot of slaves were generally allowed to own their own businesses and become “the man”. Might just have been my false consciousness, being a KKKapitalist running dog and all that…

  20. one large demographic group is still likely to vote Democratic: millennials.

    This really isn’t that much of a mystery. Here’s my simple take on millennials:

    The youngest generation coming into the workforce has lost connection with any concept of ‘core roles of government’. And this is not the ‘fault’ of millennials at all. It’s been going on, bit by bit with each passing generation. If it’s anyone’s fault, it’s the generation preceding them, and so on.

    Government is increasingly seen by each successive generation as a tool to fix problems. What problems? Problems. All problems. Any problems.

    Democrats are the party which most represent this view of government, therefore millennials will vote Democrat.

    1. “Democrats are the party which most represent this view of government, therefore millennials will vote Democrat.”

      Yep, the “Free Shit” party! Offer free shit; when it turns out to cost money, blame the opposition or that horrible invention, The Market!
      Rinse, repeat.

      1. The only thing I take issue with on the ‘free shit’ issue vs millennials is that the ‘free shit’ paradigm has infected EVERY generation.

        There are more people on some kind of disability in this country than any time in its history.

        Free shit aside, there are Millennials that are hard working and innovative.

        What’s frustrating is that when byzantine regulations and entrenched powers stand in their way, there’s no “a-ha!” moment. They just believe that a new set of rules need to be crafted to allow their idea to flourish.

        they’re more than willing to pay tribute into this corrupt system.

        1. “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
          Bastiat, 1848

        2. I really don’t think they understand that regulations are what stand in their way. It is kind of counterintuitive to think that big business likes regulation.

        3. Can you really blame them when they see that that is the only way the entrenched powers actually made it?

    2. People don’t seem to understand that government has one and only one tool: violence.

      Everything government does is based upon an implicit threat of violence.

      If you fight the government, say you don’t pay your taxes or you refuse to obey some code, eventually cops will come to your home so they can take you to court. If you refuse then they will initiate violence. If you fight back they might kill you.

      So everything government does, from defending the borders to cowboy poetry, comes with a very real threat of death.

      So whenever the government does something, a question must be asked: Is this worth killing for?

      1. Made me think of an image I ran across last night.

  21. Derpiest Derp ever

  22. But the online realm, where younger people live much of their lives, is faster, freer, and more fun than ever.

    I don’t know about freer. People are getting arrested for posting song lyrics on their facebook page….not to mention what the NSA is doing to people’s privacy.

    1. Free to ask permission and obey orders, and not much else.

      1. You clearly need to learn about dark markets.

        1. I would rather have the freedoms of the 1999 internet back.

          Bitcoin is small potatoes…and looking at FinCen “know your customer” email requests people are getting from Coinbase asking were you make your money what you are buying and detailing where you send your bitcoins I get the feeling they are small potatoes which have been sprayed with herbicide.

          1. If you think BTC is small potatoes you really need to stop talking about the subject. Seriously what an inept thing to say.

    2. I find this conflation of license and liberty to be a growing problem. They are absolutely not the same thing.

      1. Don’t know what you mean in the context of this.

        One possibility is you think the person was arrested for copyright violation.

        Nope. They arrested him cuz War on Terror.

        http://www.14news.com/story/26…..erg-co-man

        1. In regard to the concept of being “freer” which we are emphatically not, as a nation. There are things that were formerly prohibited that are now permitted (or even mandated) but that is different from liberty which assumes that the government has no authority to ban or permit an activity. The number of human activities that fall into that category is ever shrinking.

    3. Not really a fair comparison since there was no Facebook in the good old days. Publishing was essentially impossible for ordinary people without going through the “letters to the editor” filter.

      1. Bullshit. Flyers and fanzines and small newspapers were “published” all the time in the past before the internet.

        Also since when is posting on your facebook wall considered publishing?

        Furthermore the internet is older then millennials adoption of it. People in the 2000s and the 90s were not arrested for posting song lyrics on their blogs.

        1. Yes they were in the 2000s.

          Blogs didn’t exist in the 90s.

          1. Yes they were in the 2000s.

            Name one example.

            Blogs didn’t exist in the 90s.

            Then how come I had one?

          2. Blogs didn’t exist in the 90s.

            Yeah they did, they just didn’t call them “blogs”.

        2. Also since when is posting on your facebook wall considered publishing?

          Large numbers of people distributed around the world can see it.

          1. So the first amendment does not apply when more then 12 people can read something?

            I could send more then 12 letters around the world in 80s you know.

        3. Flyers and fanzines and small newspapers were “published” all the time in the past before the internet.

          All of which were arduous undertakings for an individual to use to reach a large number of people. Even small newspapers had some idiot filter.

          1. I am beginning to understand now that you are probably too young to have even read a paper before.

            1. What he’s basically saying is, “Reason Magazine didn’t exist until the internet”

              1. No, I think he is saying without big conservative millionaire backers, it would have been tough to either start Reason or continue it. In other words, the “market” needs to be forced into it- both then and now, with $$$.

                The “reason” reason exists is because the donors keep giving millions to people who have sold out and will say what the puppetmasters desire.

                Claiming otherwise is simply crazy. For $$ you can get anyone to say just about anything….

                1. craiginmass|9.6.14 @ 7:27PM|#
                  …”In other words, the “market” needs to be forced into it- both then and now, with $$$.”…

                  Yes, lefty assholes require that “up” = “down” in order for their fantasies to exist.

                2. you’re hilarious.

                  Reason was started in 1968 and has been a grassroots pub for decade.

                  Salon, on the other hand, has lost $100m dollars yet still breathes because it survives on the back of liberal-millionaire’s largess.

                  You’re so fucking retarded you provide a self-parody that really doesn’t need ‘rebuttal’ so much as a laugh-track.

                  1. Uh, and what was that lefty garbage can run by Gore?
                    Oh, yeah! The grass-roots-supported Current TV! Watched by 5 or 6 people until he off-loaded it as an insider timed to capture the lower taxes!
                    He and that lobbyist.

  23. OT:
    Today I met my mother at the local Greek Festival for my yearly taste of lamb (though today it tasted more like mutton), and Maine’s governor Paul LePage was there. My mother was a bit starstruck. Made her day to have her picture taken with him. I was very meh. Politicians don’t impress me.
    He came off as a nice guy, but as he smiled and shook hands with people, all I could think was a verse from Rush’s Limelight: “I can’t pretend a stranger is a long awaited friend.”

    1. When someone it taken in by a politician’s charm and remarks to me that they seem like nice, friendly people I agree with them and note that so do many con-men and serial killers.

    2. i confess =

      I was a regular ‘bitch about Guiliani new yorker’ through the 90s. He cleared all the porn out of times square, kicked all the crack-dealers out of the east village, and basically made the place feel less ‘out of fucking control’ and more like… well, other cities.

      The cool gen-x thing to do was complain about it.

      Then, I met the guy on the street and had a 30 second chat (he was running for reelection, it was 6:30AM and i was on my way to work, and i was the only person on the street for him and a tv-crew to gladhand.

      In 10 seconds i was like, “You give em hell rudy!” He was genuinely a charming guy. He was almost apologetic about campaigning = “look at what i have to do? this is demeaning.”

      I also initially tried busting his balls (‘try and work for a living!’) and he was like, ‘jesus, regular people are worse than the mafia*’.

      i melted like a snowcone in august. i surprised myself.

      By contrast, meeting Derek Jeter was, ‘Whatever’. i always thought he was goofy looking. I did not tell him this.

      1. My dad fired Guilianni. He had to trade a lot of favors to be the one to tell him to GTFO.

        1. Cool story bro.

          /NO sarcasm

        2. Fired him from what?

          Some consulting hoo haa he did after failing his presidential bid? (just guessing)

          1. He was a contract consultant for Ernst and Young after the presidential fail.

            1. Incompetence? Tell me he was fired for incompetence.

      2. i melted like a snowcone in august. i surprised myself.

        Here is the most interesting example of that ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmrQ9bN_cg

        A quote: “I’m so against what’s going on in my country — It almost makes me angry with myself that I’m excited that the President [Obama] is going to be giving a talk in my backyard.”

        A very interesting study of the power of social status. Watch it all the way through.

      3. Guliani is one of the biggest profiteers in modern times – having gotten hundreds of millions in security state contracts just because he happened to have a LACK of it when planes flew into buildings there.

        He was the ultimate took of the establishment…..his dad was a crook and I think he was nothing but one who had enough guns and power to enrich himself even more.

        His fine morality in terms of his family shows just a piece of this high minded and ethical individual.

        Cut the crap….

        1. English, motherfucker…. do you speak it

        2. It doesn’t look like you actually read his post.

          he happened to have a LACK of it when planes flew into buildings there.

          I despise Giuliani, but what exactly could have a city mayor have done about airplanes that departed from another city from flying into a couple buildings?

          He was the ultimate took of the establishment…..his dad was a crook and I think he was nothing but one who had enough guns and power to enrich himself even more.

          Ha!

          Haha!

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

          1. “but what exactly could have a city mayor have done about airplanes that departed from another city from flying into a couple buildings?”

            Well, that wasn’t my point, but you must admit putting the city security offices in the buildings which were a stated target and previously bombed…wasn’t a smart move.
            “The New York Police Department produced a detailed analysis in 1998 opposing plans by the city to locate its emergency command center at the World Trade Center, but the Giuliani administration overrode those objections”

            What I am saying is that guy’s firm made 100’s of millions from the whole deal. That’s really raking it in. How can you and I make 100’s of millions that easily?

            This guy is certainly not worthy of respect from anyone other than those looking to profiteer themselves:

            “(His employees and friends)) The most notorious is Bernard Kerik, Giuliani’s former chauffer, who pled guilty to two misdemeanors for receiving $165,000 in renovations from a company accused of mob ties”
            “his father Harold — a convicted felon who was involved (with Rudy’s uncle Leo) in a shoot-out with a mob competitor”
            “Giuliani married his second cousin, Regina Perrugi.”
            “Giuliani’s behavior has led him to three marriages and 20 years of rumors about his affairs”

            1. Are you in some kind of competition for Retard of the Year?

              You’re winning.

        3. craiginmass|9.6.14 @ 5:56PM|#
          “Cut the crap….

          Lefty assholes should take their own advice.

  24. It’s a regular retard rodeo, here today!

  25. I’d like to thank Apatheist for his comments above. Millenials are apathetic above all else and election results in Virginia indicate they are not the left-wing monolith many here seem to believe and want to believe them to be. Once again, with feeling: WHAT WAS THE NON-RESPONSE RATE FOR THE EKINS POLL. Thank you.

  26. Forbes is hiring retards like Shriek apparently.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ad…..investing/

    Actual quote: Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the debt, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a “smaller government.”

    1. “Reduced the debt”?

      We… have different definitions of the word “reduced”, obviously. I guess he meant “deficit”, which still isn’t correct, since the ’08 stimulus was never meant to be a baseline, but at least that’s a little bit less wrong.

      1. the ’08 stimulus

        Stimulus was passed in 2009 and signed by Obama.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..ct_of_2009

        1. I assume he meant TARP (also voted for by Senator Obama).

          1. You screwed up kid.

            Now we know you are a sockpuppet with the names Solomon Grundy and Andrew S.

            1. Now we know you are a sockpuppet with the names Solomon Grundy and Andrew S.

              I’m not seeing it.

              Andrew S. has been posting for a while, a year or so at least. Solomon Grundy has only been around a couple weeks.

              1. Tulpa?

                Please just stick with one sock already. Or come back as your normal idiot self.

                1. Tulpa?

                  Possible.

                  He could just be a new asshole.

                  1. Alright, I noticed him talking about Mary Stack in another thread. Since Mary hasn’t shown up here in the week or so he’s been posting and he apparently knows all about her, I’m much more inclined to accept the Tulpa sock theory.

                    He didn’t bite on the blatant Tulpa bait Linnekin thread though, so….

                    1. He could just be a new poster with some odd ideas about millienials, too. He made a fine point earlier in this thread, and some good ones on other articles I’ve seen.

                      Just about all of us have some issue or topic where we get a little weird. I’ll hold my judgement for now.

    2. Apparently, all commonly watched categories = the S&P 500 and U3. He poo-poos U6 and the labor participation rate, and doesn’t even mention GDP growth or debt to GDP ratio.

      Back in May, 2013 (15 months ago) the Dow was out of its recession doldrums and hitting new highs. I asked readers if Obama could, economically, be the best modern President?

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      “A D turns into a B so easily, but you had to go and get greedy.”

      What do you expect from a guy who predicted last year that Microsoft would sell the XBox platform to Barnes and Noble.

  27. “likely to vote Democratic: Millenials.”

    That’s impossible! Libertarian moment! Reason-Rupe polls!

  28. I’d say best trolling ever for a weekend thread. No boring “let’s argue what is is” or mindless attempts to ferret out the SoConz from the True Brethren, just pure, undiluted, Grade-A sputtering insanity from start to finish.

    In summary: I LOLed, would read again

    1. ^So This^

    2. “Authentic frontier gibberish”.

      1. +1 Gabby Johnson

  29. OT (Can you really go OT on a Saturday?) Popehat gives that free-speech letter e-mailed out by the UC Berkeley chancellor the Fire Joe Moragan treatment. Great stuff.

    clip: between free speech and political advocacy

    This proposed distinction is a sign of civic illiteracy. Political advocacy is not distinct from free speech. Political advocacy is the apotheosis of free speech. “Speech by citizens on matters of public concern lies at the heart of the First Amendment, which ‘was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,'” as the Supreme Court has said. Chancellor Dirks’ proposed distinction is particularly galling because the Berkeley free speech movement itself was a rejection of the argument that political advocacy was unsuited for the campus.

  30. Maybe they are realizing that they don’t actually need a traditional job as much anymore as their parents did. Most of the fun things that used to cost tons of money are nearly free now (music, movies, books, etc.).

    Of course, in addition to that, they may also believe the progressive b.s. that their plight is the fault of the free market.

  31. Angry at who?

    Reagan, who gutter the fine free UC programs?
    Bush and friends for the Recession?
    Bush for privatizing student debt and therefore raising interest rates?
    The general “free market” rise in for-profit schools of all type which fleece students?
    Reaganomics – which started the transition of our country from a “maker” to a “taker”?

    Who should they be angry at?

    Maybe – just maybe – they are actually more fulfilled and happier than you imagine. I know that’s the case with my kids and a number of other young people I know.

    You have a big shock coming to you if you think young people are angry enough to “throw away civilization” and join up with the radical Kochies…..sorry, it ain’t gonna happen.

    Demographics as well as prosperity are not your friends. Sure, the Koch billions may buy an office…maybe even eventually the Presidency. It won’t matter. We’ve had a taste of Happiness and aren’t about to go back to Authoritarianism…..by any name…even one with “liber” in it’s name.

    1. craiginmass|9.6.14 @ 5:54PM|#
      “Angry at who?”

      Parasites like you, twit.

      1. Actually, I’m the guy paying 100’s of thousands in taxes which give them health care and lots of other stuff.

        I think they are more angry at those who don’t believe in a civil society and who are selfish. Doesn’t that make more sense?

        1. craiginmass|9.6.14 @ 7:06PM|#
          “I think they are more angry at those who don’t believe in a civil society”…

          We’re well familiar with your dislike of civil society and your lies.
          But I’m very happy to hear you’re paying a ton. I only wish you would go bankrupt in the process.

          1. “I only wish you would go bankrupt in the process.”

            Sorry, progressive taxes means you get to keep the rest after you pay. Writing this with a sea breeze coming in the window…..

            1. Sorry to hear you’re not bankrupt. You deserve it.

    2. Demographics as well as prosperity are not your friends.

      Yup, real age of prosperity the ’30s were.

      Oh, what, were Hoover and FDR secretly regulations smashing anti-progressives???

      1. I wish I could decode what you are saying, but anyway history records the Great Depression as being caused largely by the same “free market” forces that created the recent recession – and FDR saved the arses of many millions of people.

        I had very poor relatives who he saved from the poorhouse by providing both work and mortgage modifications (he somewhat invented the 30 years mortgage).

        A hero, for sure.

        That’s why all Presidential scholars put him in the top 3 Presidents of history.

        1. craiginmass|9.6.14 @ 7:08PM|#
          “That’s why all Presidential scholars put him in the top 3 Presidents of history.”

          Yep, appeal to authority is ne plus ultra for moral cripples!

          1. “the Presidential scholars”?!

            What, are they in a union, too?

            Do you subscribe to their newsletter?

            Are their pronouncements permanent?

            1. That was meant for Craig, obviously.

              1. “I’m going to be President of History Too!”

                as noted, the quality of our retard-trolls today is of the lowest-caliber.

                unlike Mary-ridden saturdays, we get pure derp. its almost refreshing.

            2. Yeah, and those aeronautic engineers…what so they know? Anyone can design and build an airplane!

              Specialists are so…so…..liberal…..

              1. What are you talking about?!

                You’re the one talking about historians as if they’re some kind of monolithic guild!

                This is what you wrote:

                “That’s why all Presidential scholars put him in the top 3 Presidents of history.”

                All presidential scholars?

                Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds to…everyone?

                1. “They’re some kind of monolithic guild!”

                  Well, taken ALL TOGETHER they are!

                  Just as we agree that gravity is real and that the USA exists and that the Beatles were damn creative….we, that being Americans…and even other historians who look at the US…that certain Presidents were more productive, honorable and ethical than others.

                  Sure, some may rate FDR as #5 and some as #2. But, in the aggregate, he is one of the highest rated.

                  GW is one of the lowest rated.

                  It means something. Sure, the Koch’s can finance their alternative think tanks and eventually buy off a “scholar” or two…but it won’t bend the curve.

                  You tell me this sounds silly? How do you think it sounds to regular Americans when many Libertarians say Abe Lincoln was the WORST President of all time? Reality is he’s usually #1.

                  But that’s OK. You are allowed to live inside your own bubble and create alternative history. You can rate GW as #1 and FDR as the worst, etc……I’m just injecting some fact-based stats….just the messenger here.

                  In my world, facts usually matter.

                  Informally:
                  “top six of Lincoln, Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, Jefferson, Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt”

                  1. What you wrote was stupid.

                    Flailing just makes it look even dumber.

                    The smart thing to do would be to say you misspoke. That you should have worded it differently.

                    But I don’t think you’re capable of saying something like that.

                    That’s one of the reasons you come across as being so stupid. It’s one of the reasons why no one here is taking you seriously.

                    You’re not a serious person. You write stupid shit–and then stand by it. …without reason, except for the reason that you wrote it–so it must be true.

                    I your own way, you’re kinda hilarious. Like watching someone slip on their own banana peel is hilarious.

                    All the presidential historians of the world got together and made an absolute pronouncement–sure they did! And they all agreed!

                    LOL

              2. craiginmass|9.6.14 @ 7:38PM|#
                “Yeah, and those aeronautic engineers…what so they know? Anyone can design and build an airplane!
                Specialists are so…so…..liberal…”

                It’s a good thing you’ve found portable goal posts, or you’d actually have to answer a question.

              3. craiginmass|9.6.14 @ 7:38PM|#
                “Specialists are so…so…..liberal…..”

                BTW, it would be appreciated if you used the term “liberal” correctly, asshole.
                Brain-dead proggies are in no way liberal.

              4. Actually anyone can design and build an airplane. In fact due to the labyrinthine nature of FAA regulations for certified aircraft more people build aircraft in their garage per year than the aerospace companies produce in the same period of time.

        2. history records the Great Depression as being caused largely by the same “free market”

          You were correct to put ‘free-market’ in scare quotes. That much of your post was dead on.

        3. That’s why all Presidential scholars put him in the top 3 Presidents of history.

          Every presidential scholar I’ve ever seen was a psychopath. Gore Vidal, Doris Kearns Goodwin, etc.

          1. Every serious Paulie I’ve ever spoken to was a racist. So what?

            You must know a lot about these people….heck, Howard Hughes was not exactly sane, eh? Yet look at what he accomplished…..

            That one ain’t gonna work. Try again.

            1. craiginmass|9.7.14 @ 4:33PM|#
              “Every serious Paulie I’ve ever spoken to was a racist.”

              So either you’ve spoken with nearly none or none, or you’re making shit up.
              I go for both, given that your a lying asshole.

        4. That’s why all Presidential scholars put him in the top 3 Presidents of history.

          Yeah, they tend to speed through the whole “concentration camps for American citizens” thing.

        5. I had very poor relatives who he saved from the poorhouse by providing both work and mortgage modifications (he somewhat invented the 30 years mortgage).

          And thus managed to put the rest of the country in the poor house.

          1. Yeah, nothing makes me happier than knowing that the deadbeats are safe and sound–because of the blood Barack Obama sucked out of my back.

    3. Jesus Christ, Reagan hasn’t been the governor since 1975–and they’re still blaming him for everything they don’t like about California?!

      It’s been 40 years!

      Meanwhile, California is a one-party state. If there’s anything–ANYTHING–the Democrats don’t like about the University of California charging tuition, why don’t they go ahead and change it?

      What, is Reagan stopping the Democrats from changing things–from beyond the grave?

      Why is Reagan to blame for what the Democrats themselves refuse to change?

      Seriously, I’m not the only one that notices that progressives seem to want to blame everybody else for their problems. And it isn’t just that they blame dead Republicans for what their own leaders want to do, either. They seem to be the kind of people who blame others for their problems, generally…

      If there is a libertarian personality type, it’s probably the kind of people who generally want the responsibility for solving their own problems. And progressives really shouldn’t be surprised that we’re too busy working on our own lives to worry about theirs, too.

      That seems kinda personal, but it shows up in progressive thinking all the time. Exhibit A: blaming Ronald Reagan for the Democrats choosing to continuously charge UC students tuition–every day for 45 years.

      1. It’s almost like you’re arguing against some creepy cult religion that constantly makes unsupported claims…

        1. It is like that.

          And I know not everyone has subjected their thinking to the libertarian horde here at Hit & Run for constant criticism–which I think does make people smarter!

          We libertarians don’t agree with each other on much, but we’re a lot alike in certain ways. Most people think the things they think about economics and politics for the same reason they’re Catholic or root for their favorite football team.

          I don’t think most libertarians had libertarian parents, even. It’s something they discovered, learned about, embraced, and identified with on their own–despite all the forces that would normally make someone be something else (like a Catholic or a Giants fan).

          I do think there is an important distinction between those religious progressives, though. Before I was a libertarian, I could still be reasoned with. And there are people out there like that. Neither Tony nor Craig are one of those people.

          They don’t care what the truth is. They just care that we shun capitalism and revere Obama. The whys don’t matter to them.

    4. aren’t about to go back to Authoritarianism

      ITT, people using words they don’t understand ironically.

  32. De Rugy’s articles sure bring out the inner troll in people.

    1. I think this mess of trolls are trolls on the surface, too.

      I’m starting to wonder if the rest of us are just unusually rational.

      Maybe this is the rest of world–all trolls. It’s like a zombie movie.

  33. Craig, you lie to yourself by saying markets were free under Reagan, Bush, and so on. Please look up the definition of freedom, and study what a free market is. It’s simple, an interaction and mutual transaction between two or a group of individuals for something they value more than what they are exchanging. This could be a media of exchange, or a good or service. This is free from force, theft or coercion. Blaming government intervention into the economy, to include currency debauchery, and all of the other interventions, regulations, etc. on the “free market”, and believe its free is asinine.

    Sadly you are lying to yourself, and evidently your kids by telling them that it is ok to rob others while standing behind a politician who stands behind their standing armies. You probably tell them gov’t is great, and they can not accomplish anything without them. It’s really sad.

    1. “Sadly you are lying to yourself, and evidently your kids by telling them that it is ok to rob others while standing behind a politician who stands behind their standing armies. You probably tell them gov’t is great, and they can not accomplish anything without them. It’s really sad.”

      Haha
      The one thing I tell my kids is “the government lies – early and often”…..

      I am a practical person. I’m also a staunch capitalist and successful business person who has started and ran many a company – 35 years of it!

      No, Reagan was just a puppet of his bankster and corporate masters. But he did real harm by starting the closing down of 10’s of thousands of factories and gutting the midwest. He did this through many means – from union busting to lack of enforcement of the Sherman act….to deregulation. Now, nothing is all bad. Deregulation was fine in some cases. In many others, it allowed mass corporate takeovers of our utilities, health care and a lot of other industries.

      As to “free markets”, that’s simplistic.
      Let’s say I was worth 100 million…
      If I showed up near-dead at a for-profit hospital which had the only life saving equipment within range for me..and they handed me a paper making me sign everything except 10 million over to them, I’d sign it with no force needed.

      Isn’t that a free market? Supply and demand, right? To the highest bidder with no violence?

      1. craiginmass|9.6.14 @ 7:48PM|#
        …”Let’s say I was worth 100 million…
        If I showed up near-dead at a for-profit hospital which had the only life saving equipment within range for me..and they handed me a paper making me sign everything except 10 million over to them, I’d sign it with no force needed.
        Isn’t that a free market? Supply and demand, right? To the highest bidder with no violence?”

        Yes, asshole, it is. Did you think there was a point in that bit of dishonesty?

      2. As to “free markets”, that’s simplistic.
        Let’s say I was worth 100 million…
        If I showed up near-dead at a for-profit hospital which had the only life saving equipment within range for me..and they handed me a paper making me sign everything except 10 million over to them, I’d sign it with no force needed.

        Would you prefer that the for-profit hospital wasn’t there, or perhaps that it didn’t have the life-saving equipment? Oh, wait. You expect that people move the equipment you need to wherever you happen to find yourself, and you want them to do it despite them not benefitting at all. Blow off, slaver.

        Profit incentive tends to put things where they’re needed. Central planning doesn’t — as evidenced by pretty much every centrally-planned distribution system in human history.

        1. “Profit incentive tends to put things where they’re needed”

          Exactly! They are not needed to save the life of someone whose life is worth a lot less!

          You made the point for me. I believe in the concepts of modern public health, not a big “for sale” sign on the hospital for the highest bidder.

          We differ.

          1. craiginmass|9.7.14 @ 4:13PM|#
            “Exactly! They are not needed to save the life of someone whose life is worth a lot less!”

            And the lefty ignoramus does it again!
            Nothing else gets it there, either, but profits at least make it possible instead of impossible.
            Way to go, fickstain!

      3. he did real harm by starting the closing down of 10’s of thousands of factories and gutting the midwest. He did this through many means – from union busting to lack of enforcement of the Sherman act….to deregulation.

        Lies.

        1. Please quote for us how many manufacturing jobs were gained in the eight years under RR?

          How about his dereg of the Savings and Loans? McCain was in on that fiasco…remember the Keating Five? Didn’t we bail out Neil Bush (GW’s brother) for a billion or so also?

          Yeah, that S&L crisis set real estate prices back about 10 years…..it took until about 1999 to get back to normal.

          He tripled the debt also.

          These guys are very good at sucking the life out of the economy and then leaving it to the next guys to clean up. That’s probably why Daddy Bush lost re-election – because the S&L crisis made things tight from 1987 to the late 90’s…..people were not happy!

          I was there. I know guys who ran S&Ls;. I owned real estate and a couple businesses at the time. All were messed up by RR.

          1. “I was there. I know guys who ran S&Ls;. I owned real estate and a couple businesses at the time. All were messed up by RR.”

            So you’re a fucking failure and trying to find someone to blame?
            Quelle surprise!

            1. “So you’re a fucking failure and trying to find someone to blame?”

              Sorry, just because my two homes didn’t go up in value and I had to get creative in business…..didn’t in any way sink me.

              But I saw it all around. It was tough – for lots of folks. That’s one of the reason they voted Bush I out of office….

              People have such short memories. To think, John McCain himself was selling influence and got away with a slap…..that’s power.

              “McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising “poor judgment” when he met with the federal regulators on Keating’s behalf.”

              To be clear and accurate, Dems were heavily involved in this bankster stuff….

  34. Why is there crisis when gov’t is either involved in something, or has a monopoly on something. You say roads and schools!!! Yet the “infrastructure” is crumbling, and the state run educational system is a disaster.

    Computers, watches, and shoes are basically unregulated. When was the last time we had a watch or shoe, or even computer crisis? The RAM issue (from the “earthquake”) was quickly overcome, and prices fell again by the way.

    If government subsidized either industry, and favored select corporations, this would alter the economy. Suppose they chose to subsidize the watch industry. Well, folks would be getting into the watch industry (that normally would not have), and there would be a great deal of malinvestment occurring. There would be more and more watches produced, and the prices of them could rise as well. There are also regulations placed upon the other industries. So there is now a watch bubble, which bursts. All of the folks in the watch industry are devastated. There is mass unemployment after the crash. The folks who were in the watch industry, which shouldn’t have been, now can not use their machines to make computers and shoes. So there is a delay in learning new skills and so on. All of this diversion of money and resources was wasted, and could have been managed more responsibly if the gov’t hadn’t encouraged irresponsibility.

  35. That makes no sense at a ll dude. Wow.

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

    1. You said it anonbot!

  36. Holy shit, are weekends usually like this? This is like Thunderdome with a dozen progressive Blasters and no Masters.

  37. After the crash, folks say the gov’t needs to fix it. So instead of the market being able to liquidate bad assets, and the bad economic actors being punished, the gov’t swoops in and rewards failure. The smart investors, and those individuals whom never chose to invest in watches are now forced at gun point to bail out and reward failure against their will.

    This happens all the time. Yet folks like you ignore the problem that is, and push for the same nonsense over and over again.

    Why? Because you do not face consequences for what you advocate. When you yell for certain programs or things to be done, you do not have to put your money where your mouth is. You don’t have to sacrifice your savings, or your house. You do not have to go to someone’s house and do the threatening or be involved in the violence against others. You don’t go rob your neighbor because you might meet dire consequences, whether it be the dog, or some Kung fu.

    1. The smart investors, and those individuals whom never chose to invest in watches are now forced at gun point to bail out and reward failure against their will.

      Obviously they weren’t as smart as they thought. Warren Buffet, now there’s a smart guy, buying up assets left and right that he knew were going to be bailed out by the govt.

  38. Do you call John McCain to fix your driveway? Do you call Mitt Romney to install a new boiler? Do you go to Obama for surgery? Do you rely on bureaucrats to fix your roof? No, you call the folks whom are skilled, and who are good performers in the market through references, ratings and so on to do the job, or if you know about it you do it yourself.

    So how in the hell because one wears a fancy outfit are they qualified to manage and run things, and allocate resources for what they know nothing about? If you wish for others to extort and dominate you, do so with your own money and stop trying to force others into slavery along with you. If your ideas were so great, why don’t folks voluntarily do so? Nope, you must use force and violence to implement your ideas. Libertarian anarchy on the other hand doesn’t require violence, and you could even form a community that shares your ideas if you wanted, but without forcing others into such slavery.

    1. “So how in the hell because one wears a fancy outfit are they qualified to manage and run things, and allocate resources for what they know nothing about?”

      Actually, I have an old friend who was just appointed to a very top position in DC.

      He wears a nice suit.

      He also rose through the ranks in his chosen field (IT) for 30+ years until he because the go-to guy for his state…and then caught the eye of the Fed Gubment, who presented him with an offer to run a major cabinet department.

      That’s your “empty suit” for you.

      Tell you what. Given your outlook, we can probably dress you up and put you in the foreign service in a place like Saudi Arabia. No experience needed…right?

      1. Ah, yes. What a nice story! I’m sure he’s responsible for the O-care IT work, right?
        Oh, not that one? Well, is he the one who managed to ‘lose’ those emails?
        Empty Suit would be preferable to lying assholes such as crag and I presume the subject of your fantasy.

  39. This is from the lefty asshole craig (up-thread):

    “We’ve had a taste of Happiness and aren’t about to go back to Authoritarianism…..by any name…even one with “liber” in it’s name.”

    I know craig has shown an IQ in the lower ranges and a distinct ignorance of reality, but it’s still hard to see what sort of mental contortions it takes to claim that the lack of violence and coercion somehow equates to “Authoritarianism”.
    Is craig (and by extension, the other lefty assholes) beginning to get concerned enough about losing control to manufacture such obvious lies? Is it a threat to their religion?

    1. This^

      So let’s go aggress against Craig’s lawn!!! I can teach you how to do the James Brown.

    2. Hmm…….Kochism is Authoritarianism – it’s love of the Big Men With Money who can make or break your life. The words and personal attacks here are anything but indicative of “peaceful” – to say nothing of the seeming majority here who appear to be on the side of Rand Paul in matters concerning the security state.

      Unlike others, I look at actions – not words.

      In the end, survival of the fittest is authoritarianism, because the foxes can eat lots of lots of chickens. Most people (of any intelligence) agree that resources are limited at any given point in time. That being the case, having too many people tooling around in 300 foot yachts DOES mean less for the masses who were not born as lucky.

      This “lack of violence and coercion” appears to be a talking point which then doesn’t hold up when measured against ANY relevant issue.

      Basically, I see many of the “libertarians” here as being disaffected Republicans…and Republicans, as we all well know, are often RWA (right wing authoritarian) personalities.

      You can yap about personal freedom all you want…but it’s backwards bizzarro world. You have no real world examples…

      I repeat. People are not going to be fooled. They’ve seen the Promised Land and it does not look like Koch despoiled wastelands.

      1. craiginmass|9.7.14 @ 4:10PM|#
        “Hmm…….Kochism is Authoritarianism – it’s love of the Big Men With Money who can make or break your life.”

        Hmm……..craig is a ignoramus who is confused about what words mean and stupid enough to brag about it on the web.

      2. You never go full retard Craig. Never.

      3. *That being the case, having too many people tooling around in 300 foot yachts DOES mean less for the masses who were not born as lucky.*

        I’m pretty sure yachts can be made out of wood. I’m also pretty sure we aren’t running out of trees.

  40. You know. This has to be the most depressing thread I’ve seen yet at Reason.

    1. Why? Because lefty idiot trolls be trolling us? That just means they’re scared.

      1. I am very scared of Fundamentalism and Authoritarianism, whether in the guise of Dick Cheney or the Kochs. One and the same thing…..

        1. Authoritarianism

          You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

          1. I’m pretty sure craig is confused about a LOT of things. And worried that he’s mis-spent hi entire life supporting one damn failure after the other.

          2. “You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

            Hint- one dollar one vote (citizens united, Kochs, etc.) is closer to it than one person one vote.

            Are you starting to get it?

            1. I didn’t think you could get any more retarded, and then you go and mention CU like it allows people to buy elections.

              Thanks for the laughs demfag.

              1. Yes, certainly money has no influence in US politics….nor influence in corruption, etc.

                People are good. I get it.

        2. “I am very scared ”
          Thank for letting us know you are a pants wetter. NannyState Mommy will be along soon to wash your sheets.

        3. “…whether in the guise of Dick Cheney or the Kochs, I’ve seen the face of authoritarianism… when I took 5 minutes to crawl out of Elizabeth Warren’s ass.”

          Corrected.

  41. my co-worker’s step-aunt makes $82 hourly on the computer . She has been laid off for ten months but last month her paycheck was $17275 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this ….

    ============ http://www.netjob70.com

  42. The labor market looks bleak for millennials. Why aren’t they angrier?

    Because most are either parentally supported or counting on MOAR FREE SHIT.

    1. It’s not even that millennials are counting on it, but if the policies are there, why wouldn’t they take advantage.

  43. Fucking Great !!! I leave for an 11 hour shift, and when I get home I see I missed all the good stuff =(

  44. http://www.dailyfinance.com/20…..ay-worsen/

    BOSTON — The widening gap between America’s wealthiest and its middle and lower classes is “unsustainable,” but is unlikely to improve any time soon, according to a Harvard Business School study released Monday.
    “Shortsighted executives may be satisfied with an American economy whose firms win in global markets without lifting U.S. living standards. But any leader with a long view understands that business has a profound stake in the prosperity of the average American,” according to the report.

    “Thriving citizens become more productive employees, more willing consumers, and stronger supporters of pro-business policies,” it said. “Struggling citizens are disgruntled at work, frugal at the cash register, and anti-business at the ballot box.”

    |
    This….is why they are more likely to be pissed at the right…as they say “anti-business at the ballot box”.
    American corporations need to take on a bigger picture world view.

    1. *American corporations need to take on a bigger picture world view.*

      Yeah, they might need to move to a nation-state that isn’t rapidly being filled with submoronic parasites.

  45. I am currently a senior in high school and something I would to point out is that the majority of my friends in college are either on full ride scholarships (TOPS is an easy to obtain scholarship in Louisiana thats completely covers in state tuition for students with an 2.5 GPA as well as a 23 on the ACT) Or their parents are paying for everything. I feel like parents of millennials are now forced more than ever to provide for their kids well into their 20’s. It is the fault of government programs inflating the price of college tuition when the programs entire goal was to make it more affordable. Millennials are paying the price. (or maybe their parents are)

    1. Sorry for they typos, but you get the point.

  46. my co-worker’s mother-in-law makes $69 an hour on the computer . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her income was $17306 just working on the computer for a few hours. you can try here …..

    ================ http://www.netjob70.com

  47. a moving, as well as a unique charm of their own, different colors can represent each of us one day is not the same mood. In addition, it is compared to the 996 version will be more movement and more giving a vibrant sense of youth.
    new balance 998
    The most casual fashion new balance 574
    matching methods do in fact find new balance sales area, guaranteed to make you easy to find here a real fit with their own methods. The shoes to match up with their whole dress with each other, to be able to highlight its features shoes. The shoe itself is a casual fashion, so with clothes, casual fashion with out the effect is certainly no better choice.

  48. Chanel (Chanel)
    This season was to explore the theme of fashion and art, Karl Lagerfeld give full play to his unique color technology, to show a different style, this Plaid graffiti bag, stylish yet luxurious, full of personality. Metal and stitching lines, mix color matching, showing not the same style, bags do the old design, reflecting the retro Style.
    Cheap Chanel Handbags
    best chanel gifts


  49. Chanel sunglasses, Chanel Black sunglasses, Chanel Designer sunglasses, Chanel Eyewear, Chanel womens sunglasses, Chanel ladies sunglassesChanel (Chanel)
    The new season’s Chanel bag filled with street atmosphere, a new concept of graffiti fashion, showing young rebellious personality, so increasingly popular new fashion, fashion is not necessarily the traditional model. The new graffiti designs, expressed through color rebellious style, different color, with a rope design reflects the combination of personality Feel, chains and fabrics, soft but just.where to buy chanel

  50. Nike DUNK SB series shoes are recommended over the largest number of products in the shoes of a, and 85 years from the first pair of Dunk SB turned out to now, Dunk SB high, mid, low to help, but also ordinary level, P-class, S-class! color is more colorful aspects of it. In addition, because it is closer to the style and casual shoes, it is also better outfit.
    New balance regardless of style or a Nike sneakers
    running shoes
    couple of other shoes are a perfect example of the influx of people in the eyes of contemporary, 575,996 series is to create an essential tool, such as retro sportsman tide woman. And the reason for the brand’s new balance shoes to be welcomed because it is regardless of appearance or shoes with colors are very nice, very nice, very wild. I think this is all the more willing to buy because of the brand to wear shoes like it. Couple models is very important that both men and women

  51. Nike DUNK SB series shoes are recommended over the largest number of products in the shoes of a, and 85 years from the first pair of Dunk SB turned out to now, Dunk SB high, mid, low to help, but also ordinary level, P-class, S-class! color is more colorful aspects of it. In addition, because it is closer to the style and casual shoes, it is also better outfit.
    New balance regardless of style or a Nike Air Jordan Retro Shoes Online Store
    Nike Shoes
    couple of other shoes are a perfect example of the influx of people in the eyes of contemporary, 575,996 series is to create an essential tool, such as retro sportsman tide woman. And the reason for the brand’s new balance shoes to be welcomed because it is regardless of appearance or shoes with colors are very nice, very nice, very wild. I think this is all the more willing to buy because of the brand to wear shoes like it. Couple models is very important that both men and women

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.