Rhythm Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:How does having a 'good for the economy' alternative to Republicans benefit the Koch brothers?

Min gave ample examples, I gave an elaboration of a specific example.

Quote:It potentially takes votes away from the Republicans they're backing. It's the opposite of skewing outcomes in their favor. And libertarians: still against corporate subsidies or any special privileges from the government for corporations.

I know that libertarians think that, but the practical reality of libertarian policies is precisely opposite.  While I'm not doubting the earnestness of any given libertarians ideology as they see it, ideology is one thing, reality is another.

Quote:Rent-seeking behavior is not okay to libertarians. Speaking broadly, since libertarians are on a spectrum like any other relatively large group. The only thing the Koch brothers care about is making money, and Republicans serve them so well in that regard that they would be working against their own interests to back libertarian candidates.

That;s exactly what I said, in the post you just quoted......

Quote:They'd be better off backing Democrats on the theory that their money will suffice to tug their reigns once they're in office.
The numbers don't work.

Negatron, the dems won't give them what they want.  They'll play ball in ways that disgust you and I both, but there is an immutable core of opposition namely, repubs and libs -and big business- want government out.  Dems want it in.  Repubs and Libs will both, each for their own reasons, give big business what they want.  Their respective platforms are, in part...based on that contention.  

Quote:If I were an interested backer, I would give my money to Republicans. Giving my money to an LP candidate would not get me anything that I want (unless I voted that way for ideological reasons, i.e., because I was a Libertarian).

Right, because the libs currently have no political capital to spend....we agree.  Want big business wants is less regulation.  Is that not something that the libs would give them, if they could?

Walk me through one of the examples where financially backing a Libertarian candidate helped the Koch brothers achieve a policy goal, please. And could you point out which example verifiably was the Koch brothers backing a Libertarian candidate?

Quote:By 2010, the brothers had donated over $100 million to dozens of [5]libertarian and conservative causes including think tanks, Republican candidates and advocacy groups against expanding government's role in health care and against climate change policies.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_...h_brothers

Now, back to where we agree. Neither of us think that anyone has a good reason to back libertarian candidates, presently, in context of business. They have no capital. Backing the thinks tanks creates the capital, however. Now imagine that a libertarian (or libertarian leaning) group of legislators do manage to scrounge up that capital, and do get elected on the stumping campaign of getting rid of the minimum wage (and for all the right reasons..as they see them, nothing to do with their backers business interests). No benefit, no reason to have suppoirted that ideology>? How about the example above.....what libertarian think tanks did they donate to? The ones ideologically opposed to expanding governments role in health care and climate change.

Nothing in that, for them, you reckon? Seems to have worked fantastically. If Gary would just hop on board the climate change denial train he might get a few dollars thrown his way, but big business doesn;t actually -care- whether or not someone believe that climate change is man made, so long as that person would get rid of the EPA. This, notably, Johnson would not, and johnson is only notable in this in that he has radically departed views from previous libertarian candidates and the teaming masses of libertarians pandered to on am radio. When I say radically departed I mean, of course, that he's willing to negotiate on how hard he'll cut it.

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed


For an answer to all your questions click on the "Who Funds ALEC" link.  You shouldn't be surprised.

(September 23, 2016 at 4:49 pm)Brian37 Wrote: There once was a man named Trump
He wanted to take a dump
As he said with a grin
As he licked his chin
America I will hump

Little demagogue Trumpet
Sat on his "tough it"
Faking his courage insane
Along came a skeptic
Asked him real questions
The coward ran away

That's pretty good. Let me try one.

There once was a man called Brian37

He thought Hillary's ass smelled like heaven

He licked on her clit

After he ate up her shit

And washed it down with a big gulp from 7-11

Both major parties advocate subsidizing big business, and big agriculture, in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. Cutting off that fundng, is it really that bad?

Assuming you're not up for re-election, of course.

Min, I seriously worry about your blood pressure this election.
Eat well, get rest, and try not to have a stroke. Currently, the Oompaloompahs chances of winning are below 25%, and 538 and all major bookie sites have it dropping daily. The next debate is soon, if he behaves like his normal self, and let's face it he's proven his self control has a limit of about 20 to 30 minutes, then we will be in the clear.

(October 6, 2016 at 12:21 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Both major parties advocate subsidizing big business, and big agriculture, in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. Cutting off that fundng, is it really that bad?

Assuming you're not up for re-election, of course.

It depends, for agriculture cutting subsidies will massively drive up the cost of the food you buy in the store. It's one of the two main reasons for the EU's long standing CAP policy, the other being that German and French agriculture has been historically dominated by smaller farmers, and they wanted to keep it that way (it's much the same situation in Ireland, the Benelux, the Nordics and northern Italy as well) so as to ensure that the rural communities in those countries had an actual economic base.

As regards subsidising big business, there are arguments for the right subsidies, e.g. a country like S Korea bringing in US companies to develop it's industrial base and stimulate its native industries, but all too often subsidies are given out indiscriminately and for the wrong reasons, e.g Gilette being allowed to write off $2bn profit from taxable income due to "R&D costs" associated with creating a three blade disposable razor. Pharma companies also have huge write offs due to "R&D" despite most pharmaceutical research being either small companies patenting thousands of chemical combinations or state funded university (or state department) research.

But then again, the problem isn't subsidies per se, but regulatory capture.

(October 6, 2016 at 12:21 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Both major parties advocate subsidizing big business, and big agriculture, in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. Cutting off that fundng, is it really that bad?

Assuming you're not up for re-election, of course.

Yes, it;s that bad.  We've got ourselves by the balls on subsidies, that;s why both sides are onboard. Setting yourself against them is political suicide. That's the -reason- that some people want to get welfare out of the farm bill, so they can more easily gut it, welfare..mind you, not the farm bill, lol.

@Tazzy. Not, entirely, accurate. The price at the produce aisle is already hiked. We pay the max of what we -will- pay whether they get the subsidies or not. The market wont pay more for a banana, it;s already being leveraged for as much as it will bare. Subsidies drying up wont compel people to pay more, for a banana. That's not to say that producers and retailers wouldn't -try-, but they're always trying to get us to pay more for whatever it is they're peddling, once they know we will pay some x...no amount of cut costs or subsidies from the gov will ever be transferred to the consumer, they know we'll pay x..they pocket -whatever- the difference between cost and x is. Business as usual.

Ag subsidies aren't meant (and don;t) drive down prices. They're meant to ensure continuity and predictability of production, that's in the best of cases, obvs. Many of them have their origins in the great depression, when there was food rotting -everywhere- because people didn't have the money to buy it...simultaneously impoverishing the farmer and starving the consumer. The gov said to itself. Well, how about we buy some of this unused, perishable productivity, and feed it to the teeming masses of the penniless? Fast forward nearly a century, some of those programs are ag subsidies (read: corporate welfare), some are welfare (as in the kind that benefits living breathing human beings), and all are contained within the same bill.

None of the above is to say that -some- things wouldn't go up necessarrily, for example..corn. The price of corn is so artificially low through subsidies that it would -have- to increase. Thing is, corn costs so little that a percentage increase in the thousands amounts to a negligible sum in dollars and cents to end consumer. That's why it's in everything, and everything is made out of it.. It's the agricultural floor, rock bottom, the place and product where the only mitigating factor of profitability is how much of the shit you can peddle.

(October 6, 2016 at 7:06 am)Rhythm Wrote: @Tazzy.  Not, entirely, accurate.  The price at the produce aisle is already hiked.  We pay the max of what we -will- pay whether they get the subsidies or not.  The market wont pay more for a banana, it;s already being leveraged for as much as it will bare.    Subsidies drying up wont compel people to pay more, for a banana.  That's not to say that producers and retailers wouldn't -try-, but they're always trying to get us to pay more for whatever it is they're peddling, once they know we will pay some x...no amount of cut costs or subsidies from the gov will ever be transferred to the consumer, they know we'll pay x..they pocket -whatever- the difference between cost and x is. Business as usual.

In Europe anyway, the price paid at the shops is generally below the cost of production, and the price paid to farmers is well below the price paid in shops. Subsidies were brought in to ensure that small farmers would be able to survive in such a market.

This should make Drumpf happy.  Now he can yell at Africans for taking our jobs instead of his asshole buddies, the Chinese.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/trump-fa...come-back/

Quote:Trump factory jobs sent to China may never come back

Quote:A Chinese company that makes shoes for his daughter’s fashion line is moving production to Africa, where labour is much cheaper.
The billionaire tycoon has frequently accused China of stealing US jobs through unfair trade practices and currency manipulation, while simultaneously relying on the country to make Trump-branded goods.
But the kind of work that goes into making such products may never return to America, the president of major footwear producer Huajian Group told AFP.
“Some manufacturers can’t even survive in China anymore,” Zhang Huarong said, speaking in his office in the southern factory hub of Dongguan.
His company has made about 100,000 pairs of Ivanka Trump-branded shoes over the years, according to spokesman Liu Shiyuan.