If you realize both parties in Washington think that our money is theirs and you trust them to do the wrong thing, this list is for you.
If you think there is a Santa Claus that has some magic easy cure for the economy; someone who is going to get elected in Washington and fix everything just by cutting your taxes, investing (more government spending) a few trillion more we don't have and will never have, and who will just command some countries to lower their prices and others to raise their prices all to suit your best interests, then this list is not for you.
You can read past posts by clicking on : schifflist , I try to tag all relevant threads with the keyword : schifflist.
Ping list pinged by sickoflibs.
To join the ping list: FReepmail sickoflibs with the subject line 'add Schifflist'.
(Stop getting pings by sending the subject line 'drop Schifflist'.)
The Austrian Economics School’s Commandments plus :From : link
1) You cannot spend your way out of a recession
2) You cannot regulate the economy into oblivion and expect it to function
3) You cannot tax people and businesses to the point of near slavery and expect them to keep producing
4) You cannot create an abundance of money out of thin air without making all that paper worthless
5) The government cannot make up for rising unemployment by just hiring all the out of work people to be bureaucrats or send them unemployment checks forever
6) You cannot live beyond your means indefinitely
7) The economy must actually produce something others are willing to buy
8) Every government bureaucrat should keep the following motto in mind when attempting to influence the economy: “First, do no harm!”
9) Central bank-supported fractional reserve banking is an economically distorting, ethically questionable activity. In particular, no government should ever do anything to save any bank from the full consequences of a bank run, no matter what the short-term consequences.
10) Gold is God’s money.
Add mine:
1) Businesses don't hire workers just because of demand for products or services, they hire because it makes them money. Sorry to have to state the obvious.
2) Government spending without taxing is still redistribution
3) Taking one man's money and giving it to another is not a job.
4) Paul Krugman and Bernake have been wrong about everything, as well as the other best and brightest Keynesian's who have been fixing our economy for over a decade.
5) Republicans in the minority (esp out of the White House) act like Republicans, in the majority they act like Democrats .
Equity bubble rules:
1)If something goes up too fast, it is going down faster,
2) By the time it looks like everybody is getting rich, it’s too late, stay out!
3) To get rich you have to get in early start of recovery and get out at the first really 'bad' news, and ignore the experts that claim that they will stop the next crash(our buddy Bernake.).
4) Don't invest money you will probably need, or worse money you don't really have.
The threat of these lawsuits is to force the private sector to engage in social-promotion hiring used by government entities; every large company is expected to take on a certain percentage of useless tokens, or pay the price in court.
People think the bottom line in terms of wages is the only reason companies leave the US to do business elsewhere; these policies are driving that exodus as well.
This notion of Corporate welfare which leads to privatize the profit, socialize the loses has got to end.
How about sourcing their inventory from America?
Just a thought.
Unfortunately, private homeowners are not so immune to this either.
I read of one case where a woman that wanted to rent a room in her home was forced to rent it to gay woman after said person sued her for "discrimination".
The law is pretty clear in telling us that we can't sell our home to whomever we want.
If women were actually paid only 70% of what men were paid for the same work, it would not be in the best interest of any business to ever hire any men.
“Gold is God’s money.”
I doubt that He paves the streets with money.
“As a matter of property rights, business owners should be able to legally “discriminate” just as private homeowners can.”
Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall seeing anything in the article that supports that conclusion even though it’s included in the conclusion.
“...business engages in unfair discrimination when it treats employees differently even though this differential treatment has no basis in profitability.”
That’s an interesting thought.
By overruling a lower court's decision, the Supreme Court raised the barrier to future legal challenges against large corporations. As might be expected, probusiness outlets defended the ruling, while advocates for women and minorities lamented it.