Understanding Rush Limbaugh

Fuck. This is exactly what Rush was talking about. I have much to learn yet.

I talk to 'im about the global influence of US in the context of historical political forces and motherfucker talks about who is running the jails.

It’s not that they can’t understand. It’s that they don’t care about understanding. Self righteousness is the opium of the rich.

Meanwhile, I’ll go back to trading WTI oil futures and working on my next roject: making a beat with this as a sample:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_1aqQdLDP0[/youtube]

It’s there, the energy is there… I just have to figure out how…

Anyway, back to work. See you again when I have some new brilliant insight.

Cheers.

People of color is a racist term.

As for not wanting boys in blue on the side of the rappers, that’s correct cause you want that battery to be charged.

Like Snoopy wants Trump on the other side of him otherwise it ruins the battery. It’s not that Snoopy and Eminem aren’t superelites, it’s that they welcome the chance of selling more of themselves by electrification of the situation. That’s American. That’s what makes people happy and excited and get into more debt and use more drugs. So there’s this tension in them that allows the Dream.

Basically rags to riches doesn’t work if people arent in rags, its being ruimed with things like welfare. I think that’s why this Schultz dude is gonna run to cut welfare.

The right to the pursuit of happiness needs a constant vigilant guarantee by securing that the path is long. So that people stay ignorant of basic psychology until it’s too late and you already got magic.

“It’s a warm night and the moon is out and the gangs are already starting to shoot”
(80’s LA newscast)

Not: clerk A passed bill x to executive Q and now percentage z is changed by margin L to make sure life is fair enough for another overcast day.

Only thing in life that matters is having some stories to tell. Moses splitting the sea and all that.

Daytrading as a whole is making money off nothing. There is limited money in circulation. Money that could have gone to someone actually working, is going to you. You did not create this area of non-work income, and you are correct that the particular dollar you earn came from another one of you. But the lot of you are trying to make money off of playing video games. Would be fine in some other economy, or even if, like skilled video game players there is even an audience for their skills growing. But as it is it’s just you are being the winning parasite.

That truly makes no sense at all.
Why would some one working at McDonald’s deserve my money? Why can’t I invest it in a stock I like?

If you want to pretend to be a moral person, lets start here: Don’t tell people what to do with their own money. Just make yourself useful to someone else.

But then you can’t be here bitching. We all know the deal.

Plus, stock trading begins with accurate assessments of a companies actual worth and when done with half a wit it is an actual support of worthy companies. Without investors there wouldn’t even be the computer or iPhone you’re using to utter your absurd complaints.

I can’t find where I said someone at McDonalds deserves your money.

Well, language has it’s ambiguities, but to me this is being silly. I didn’t tell someone what to do anymore than you just told me what to say. Or is your criticizing me a sign you don’t believe in free speech? I doubt that, that would be as absurd a conclusion on my part as yours of me here.

Daytrading is not investing a company you think is good. I am not sure if you know what day trading is. Daytrading is making money off the fluctuations of stocks. Flicking around here and there with short term investments that need have nothing at all to do with ‘good companies’. And in it’s extreme form it’s the shit that brought about the 2008 crash, precisely because it is not connected to anything of real value. Let me clarify that. It does not to do with the actual worth of products and services. It has to do with guessing at - though skill is definitely involved - small changes over tiny periods of time.

Because, of course, the only possible way to do things is the way they are currently done. Even if we assumed, as you do, that daytrading is the only kind of investment pattern - which it is not - rather than something that is recent, along with things like derivatives - you’re still assuming that this particular model is the only possible one. And if we did not use the stock model, no one could open a business or make it grow. Because when you imagine the world without this, you just subtract. But that’s a whole other discussion. Daytrading is just one of the new forms of investment - and ‘investment’ is a poor term for it - and, yes, it is parasitic.

The 2008 crash was due to the top rating agency giving bundles of subprime mortgages (loans that would never be paid back) triple A ratings as securities until a way to short mortgages was produced. If you’re gonna pretend to inform me, try harder at sounding like you know at least what we all know.

I used McDonald’s as a random example. You said people who day trade are reprehensible because they could also give their money away.

In order to be successful at day trading you need to be investing sensibly. If you think you know better, try it.

Back on the main theme, the idea that politicians should be mandated to equalize human conditions for some top down fairness is pure Communism. So Mr R as well as Pedro I Rengel sound like Communists to me.

America isn’t about fairness or equality. There are a lot of countries where everyone has the same level of wealth and gets by just fine. There is nothing wrong with that. But it ain’t American and never will be.

And really the only ones who are really to blame for that whole crisis are the “regular folks” who simply didn’t pay their mortgages.
That’s what caused the whole collapse. People “buying” houses and living in them without paying.

You can’t blame that on the salespeople.
It’s just horrendously stupid to think you can buy a house without paying for it.
These are the dumbasses that lost their homes but also caused the entire economy to collapse.

Call me a communist again, I’ll call you a civilized retinue.

Otherwise yes, that is correct. Very good assessment.

The issue is not how you make capitalism morally correct. The question is how do you make it work.

Ask poor people who live to see 75 if it is morally correct, and then go fuck yourself.

Turns out, it’s greed for wealth and beautiful things and greatness that produces better living conditions for the prole, not bleeding hearts. G’figure.

Way #1 to make it work: make prevent communist regimes from asserting control over the world. Everything else is secondary. I count nazis and fascists as communists. For for them, 'tis all about the commune. Not the individuzzle. The fhurer and the whatever it was they used to call mussolini and Franco where godheads that allowed for the commune. You know, in that sense the communists are still better then them. They aren’t THAT weak.

The individual, bitch. The individual needs leveraged debt.

2008 crash was a result of regulations that forced banks to loan money to subprime borrowers and then those borrower taking more money than they could afford to pay back and spending it on mcmansions.

Likely true!

Rush flunked out of school before deciding to proselytize how much smarter he is than academia and capitalize on the ignorance of layfolks, who’re prone to mistaking cockiness for intelligence, by peddling short-sighted ideas, based mainly on hate, that seem sensible only on the surface, the depth of which is about all either he or his audience is equipped to explore.

A DittoHead is a special variety of idiot: the arrogant who congratulate themselves for abilities they don’t have and summarily demonize intelligentsia for lacking a “common sense” that is only common to uneducated people.

Hannity was a dropout too, which qualifies him as genius by conservative reckoning, oops but then Liberty University gave him a handout: an honorary degree. But conservatives still regard him as smart, so how can this paradox exist? Well, Liberty University teaches the earth is 6000 years old, so I can only surmise if one is educated in bullshit, it doesn’t count against their common sense… even if it was a handout they didn’t earn.

Now this guy is REALLY stupid:

[i]Paul Krugman

Professor of Economics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York
Columnist for The New York Times

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography.

Previously a professor of economics at MIT, and later at Princeton University.

Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics.

Author or editor of 27 books, including scholarly works, textbooks, and books for a more general audience.

Published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and edited volumes.

Alma mater

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Yale University[/i]

Yup, that’s how you identify dummies. The smart people dropout and hop on the radio to pound their chest for avoiding stupid things like nobel prizes and degrees that sap everyone’s common sense.

Corruption existed everywhere. They packaged all those bad loans in CDOs and peddled them to wall street which ended up in the hands of sovereign wealth funds, pensions, etc, but the ratings agencies were in competition to get the ratings business so they rated them AAA for fear of losing the contract. Everyone looked the other way so long as everyone was making money.

And you coulda sold a house to a dead guy back then… maybe even a dog. There was no income-check, no out-of-pocket expense, nothing.

I can’t think of any link in the chain where shenanigans didn’t happen. There really is nowhere to place the blame except the unregulated, freemarket general mindset: the idea that the market can regulate itself without a governor; it infected every participant.

Barbarian, I’m not a communist. But the government is currently in a position such that their actions to some extent determine the distribution of wealth. It’s the rules that are in place that have created the billionaire class and that have made it increasingly difficult for average people to retire at a reasonable age and to get basic healthcare. So I understand what you’re saying that it’s not the role of government to distribute wealth, but if you agree with that then it has to work both ways. Creating a regulatory environment that facilitates a massive consolidation of it is in fact a redistribution. And it’s one that doesn’t serve the majority…which is what they’re supposed to do. I get it that we can’t find a cure for cancer unless someone has enough money in a big pile someplace to stop what they’re doing and get a job like that done…but that’s not the only instance, nor is it the most common type of thing that happens with large consolidations of wealth.

What happened to the idea that a person ought be able to work an honest job and make an honest living? Why is it that we start from the premise that since a guy has a billion dollars that he must have earned it, and that it’s his and that to take some of it would be immoral? How did he earn it? What were the circumstances that allowed him to amass that fortune?

I’m asking. I don’t think all cases are the same. I don’t think that every rich person is evil. But there is such a thing as more money than you can ever spend. There is such a thing as working an entire life and never escaping poverty. What do you say to the person who works full time for 40 years and ends up with nothing to show for it and who eventually dies from a stroke while bagging groceries in a walmart at 68 years old because he has to in order to keep his electricity on?

It’s that whole mentality of getting rich quick. The idiot homebuyers thought they’d borrow 300k while making 50k, then sell the house for 700k and retire at 45. The banks just wanted the mortgages because at the end of the day they can garnish the social security of the homeless who they foreclosed on. The traders wanted the CDOs because they put big numbers on the books, risk be damned, and everyone just thought that the government wouldn’t let a mass exodus of homebuyers flooding the homeless shelters happen.

Serendipper you make a valid point. I’m about to be 40, and have been all over and seen and done all kinds of shit and there’s still a certain class of people who would narrow me down to the simple fact that I went to college when it comes time to decide how they’re going to judge my intelligence. In many cases, the dumber the person is…the more likely they are to resent the educated and rationalize how college is stupid.

Rengel please don’t call me that. I’m sorry I called you a Communist.
I think Capitalism works because rather than a model of proper behavior, it is a psychological license to exist. It only works when it is allowed to be that.

Mr R, I agree government regulation is to blame.

It’s an insult to the principle of trade to call these people home buyers.
Whoever “bought” a home without paying for it should be thankful there are homeless shelters. These don’t exist in the Congo.

I was enjoying Homer and appreciating Xenophon at university until I made a thesis on Minoan Crete wherein based on a study of murals of Knossos I suggested it may have been a matriarchal society and thereby evoked the wrath and contempt of my professor who set out to get me removed. I beat him to it and got a specialized job based on some technical skills I had acquired as a kid. Thanks to that I didn’t get in student debt.

Well I didn’t want to say “homeowner”.