Rights.com » capitalism

Bias at MSNBC (not) addressed at GE Annual Meeting

Chris — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:57:24 +0000

Reports today (Hollywood Reporter) indicated drama at the GE Annual meeting today (April 22, 2009) over bias at MSNBC including having microphones cut off.

As members Obama Administration and Democrat Party are fond of saying, "No crisis should be wasted" and this is a perfect one to not waste. As of close of market today, GE's market cap is approximately $124.61 billion. 50% of its market value is $62.305 billion. A great time to buy control for 1/5th or so of what it would have cost a few years ago. Don't waste the crisis!

If 1 in 5 non-Obama voters (about 59 million total votes, so 11.8 million) each went out and switched $6000 of their retirement savings from an S&P 500 mutual fund or other stock into GE, that would be more than 50% ownership of the corporation, even assuming no non-Obama voters already own any shares. Bias could then be eliminated via shareholder vote. GE should be standing up for freedom, not bowing to the advocates of government control.

Take back GE for Freedom!

After the meeting Jeff Immelt said "My job is to listen" [to shareholder frustrations]. Actually Jeff, your job is to run the company and protect its franchise.

Tea Party Slogans

Chris — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:01:14 +0000

Some of the signs from the tea parties across the United States earlier today:

Spread my Work Ethic, not my wealth!

Change...giving freeloaders some of what YOU have worked hard for!

Help me Obama, They want me to work and stuff!

Cut taxes, not deals

What part of "limited powers" do you not understand?

It's my birthday, and all Obama got me was more debt!

It's my birthday, and all Obama got me was more taxes!

Why make a corrupt government even BIGGER?

Why should I pay for your bad decisions?

Party like its 1773

Obamanomics - Trickle up poverty

Term Limits for Congress!

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. George Bernard Shaw

No tax cuts for non-taxpayers!

Cut taxes, NOT more deal$

Freedom Works!

Freedom is all the stimulus we need!

Change is all we've got left!

Stop spending money I haven't earned yet (seen with a 10 year old)

Free speech is not extremism

You are not spending Monopoly Money!

I'll keep the freedom, you keep the change

Wall Street got a Bailout, Bailout, Bailout, all I got was the bill!

Don't tax me Bro!

Insanity is trying socialism over and over again and expecting a different result.

As government expands, liberty contracts. Ronald Reagan, Jan 1989

"DHS Approved"

"Welcome Right Wing Extremists"

If we all paid taxes, we'd ALL be equal.

Get the Pirates out of Washington

Give me liberty, not debt

Wake up and smell the dictator

The worst Pirat is Obamunism

Pork for breakfast, not for Congress

If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it is free!

I'm not an ATM, Mr. President.

Right wing extremists: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin

Mr. President: FYI, we stopped BOWING to Kings after 1776

ACORN: Seed of the Obamanut Tree

SOS: Stop Obscene Spending

It's NOON, do you know where you Wallet is?

A society of sheep eventually begets a government of wolves.

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money

Free minds demand free markets.

I am an American, NO and Extremist!

Free markets, not free-loaders!

My paycheck is NOT your piggybank

DHS warns about "disgruntled military veterans." Is that how we support our troops?

Obama’s “profits to earnings ratio”

Chris — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:46:17 +0000

President Obama referred to stocks being a good buy yesterday because of their "profits to earnings" ratio.

Now usually one uses a price to earnings ratio since in general profits and earnings are usually equal.

"What you're now seeing is a profit and earnings ratios get to the point that buying stocks is a good thing if you have a long-term perspective on it," President Obama, after meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

One does not have to wonder how this will be picked up by the press - if it were President Bush, it would be the subject of jokes.

Perhaps that is why we have a nearly 20% decline since Inauguration day.

Yahoo Publisher Network (YPN) Problems

Chris — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:18:11 +0000

Yahoo's current problems are of their own making and consequently Yahoo can fix them. While Google has been building a network of advertisers and publishers, Yahoo Publisher Network/YPN has been in an endless beta while turning away publishers and then wondering why advertisers are going to Google's Adsense. Advertisers are following the publishers to reach their audience. Let's look at some of the problems,most of which are of Yahoo's own making:

* Overture/YPN was a great property with a reasonable ad inventory. Ad inventory could have been expanded, but the way to do that is to have a lot of web sites out there running your ads. Google was happy to let smaller web publishers into AdSense. Yahoo was reluctant to let smaller web site publishers into the YPN program. YPN failed to realize that it was better to have an extra million web sites getting a thousand ad impressions each per day than to let AdSense take that additional reach.

* Yahoo had years to expand the YPN ad inventory by signing up niche sites that attracted niche advertisers. What did YPN do? Collected names for when they came out of beta.

* YPN should be treating their beta partners as partners. According to discussions around the web, YPN treated partners as people who were just out to scam them. Heaven forbid if you had a spike in international traffic (e.g. from growing your audience). Yahoo would take that as a sign that you were doing something nefarious. Then instead of doing ad filtering at the ad end, YPN terminated a huge number of publishers for increased non-US traffic.

* For years Yahoo had poor content matching. Improved content matching is not an extremely difficult problem and should take at most months to fix, not years as it has.

* Signing up millions of parked domains while ignoring sites with real content. Ads on parked domains are fine, but they need to be balanced with real content.

* While Google has been signing up websites with its AdSense program, Yahoo with YPN has been collecting names for when they finally come out of beta. Certainly by 2015 Yahoo Publishing Network/YPN will have a huge number of company names and addresses to enter the program. But who will want to then?

None of this is rocket science. Treat partners as partners. Expand your reach and you will expand your inventory. Investors may wonder why Yahoo's ad revenue is dropping, these are some of the reasons.

YPN needs to do a few fixes:

1. Improve content matching. [Update, October 20, 2008: It looks like YPN is stated that they have been doing so, seehttp://www.ypnblog.com/]

2. Allow publishers into the YPN network.

3. The first two items in this list should help improve the number of ads available.

4. Finally treat publishers are partners.

Yahoo needs to make YPN a success if it wishes to survive. A successful YPN would also be a positive for the Internet too. Google and AdSense have both been much better at customer service and technology than Yahoo has with YPN. Competition for AdSense from YPN will only push both to improve.

Biden says higher taxes are patriotic!

Chris — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:29:37 +0000

After noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more taxes, Biden said, "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

Joe, two questions for you:

First, how patriotic have you been in the past 20 years? Have you been paying extra taxes to be patriotic?

Second, how exactly is sending more money to Washington going to help "get America out of the rut?" Freedom and the ability to run your own life are the things that make America great, not laws and spending someone else's money from Washington!

"Ministers say that they teach charity. This is natural. Theylive on alms. All beggars teach that others should give."

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Truth" (1897)

AMT, Republicans and Socialist Charles Rangel

Chris — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:01:18 +0000

With all the grousing about the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) and the plans to ?¢‚Ç¨?ìdo something?¢‚Ç¨¬ù about it, the following factors must be considered. Charles Rangel, Democratic Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢s plan is to raise taxes (don?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢t worry, you won?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢t be left out) elsewhere to ?¢‚Ç¨?ìpay for?¢‚Ç¨¬ù reducing the AMT. First, Charles, you don?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢t have to borrow money to ?¢‚Ç¨?ìpay for?¢‚Ç¨¬ù a tax cut. You borrow money to spend. Everything else is just dissembling and an attempt to confuse people. Power-hungry politicians love to use words like that because they don?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢t want you to think about the fact that it is your money, not Charles Rangel?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢s.

The AMT was created by the Democratic Congress 1969 and became effective in 1970, after being signed by President Nixon. It was intended to collect taxes from approximately 155 households who under the then-current law were not required to pay taxes. Let's be perfectly clear, everything they were doing was completely legal.

In 2007, estimates are that 20 million people will be impacted by the AMT. Now it is all about votes. The lesson to be learned here is that as long as a minority is small enough and unpopular enough, then anything goes. 155 people, no problem. 20 million votes, err, people, big problem. For the Democratic party, it is perfectly acceptable to go after a particular minority if they are small enough. Just remember the smallest minority is a minority of one ?¢‚Ç¨‚Äú you, an individual. And if you are on the wrong side of the ?¢‚Ç¨?ìunpopularity?¢‚Ç¨¬ù at some point in the future, well, get ready to pay the price.

A winning (consequently Republicans in Congress won't adopt it) strategy should be this: instead of eliminating the AMT, reduce the rate to somewhere around 15-17%. Then allow people to opt in to the AMT permanently. This is essentially a flat tax, with all the large advantages attendant thereto. The result would be a pro-growth tax cut for people who opted in, reduce Charles Rangel?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢s ?¢‚Ç¨?ìcost?¢‚Ç¨¬ù and implement a flat tax instantly.

In 2008, the Republicans in Congress would then have something to run on ?¢‚Ç¨‚Äú lower, flatter and more fair taxes.

Sicko Michael Moore and the truth about Cuba

Chris — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:41:18 +0000

Michael Moore, please call your office ?¢‚Ç¨‚Äú or the church. In a stunning move, the very liberal Episcopal Church unintentionally repudiates Michael Moore?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢s manipulative movie Sicko.

As is typical for the Episcopal Church, the Church again injected politics into the pulpit, at least this time, it was something that people could -and should- do to help.

The statement begins: ?¢‚Ç¨?ìImagine waking in the middle of the night with a raging fever and sore throat. Or even worse, your child wakes up feverish and covered in chicken pox. Now, imagine there is no aspirin, Tylenol, or Benadryl in your home because these products are simply not available for purchase in your country. For our brothers and sisters in Cuba, this is everyday life.?¢‚Ç¨¬ù It goes on to request prescription drugs ?¢‚Ç¨‚Äú antibiotics and antiparasitics. Imagine a country where you can?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢t go to the store and get them with a prescription when needed. Imagine a filmmaker stating that should be the goal of the United States. Moore is right, it does take a Sicko to advocate that.

A big thank you to the Episcopal Church for stating the truth about Cuba and Cuba?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢s Michael Moore touted health care system. Let?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢s be clear: Cuba is a totalitarian dictatorship without freedom. The health care system in Cuba is horrendous unless you are in the top 1000 government officials ?¢‚Ç¨‚Äú or are Michael Moore, ready and willing to manipulate the American people into ceding their freedom for a socialized, extremely expensive (in both dollars and lives lost) health care system. Everyone else is out of luck.

Before you buy into the socialized health care system that sicko Michael Moore advocates, look at the facts of Cuba, Britain and Canada. Do you really want a country where even multivitamins are unavailable? Where toothpaste, soap, and shampoo are too? That is the goal of Michael Moore and his ilk ?¢‚Ç¨‚Äú centralized control of your life by power-hungry people and politicians like him.

Buffett says taxes are too low, but doesn’t pay more himself

Chris — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:32:48 +0000

Echoing his comments in June, Warren Buffett is complaining about tax rates as being too low. The relevant question is: has he done anything about it or is he just being a hypocrite, again?

Let?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢s see what Buffett has actually done instead of said: Buffett is giving away is fortune (http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/). Good for him, great choice, it is nice that he has the right and freedom to do as he sees fit with the money he has earned. Too bad Buffett doesn't think that others should have that same freedom.

What precisely is Buffett doing? He is giving his fortune to tax-exempt foundations. So, if you REALLY want to pay more taxes, Warren, why do this? Why take the steps that he is taking to avoid ALL taxes on the money you are giving away? Oh that's right, higher taxes are only for those poor schmoes who don't have millions to spend on attorneys and tax exempt foundations.

Everyone ELSE should act as Warren Buffett, "the hypocrite of Omaha," thinks they should act while Buffett avoids taking his own advice. And he expects his "advice" to be enforced at the point of the government's gun and jail. You should be force to pay more taxes because Buffett thinks it is the right thing ?¢‚Ç¨‚Äú even though Warren Buffett will take big steps to avoid doing so himself.

Perhaps it is coincidence, perhaps not, but let's recall one method Warren Buffett used to get rich - estate sales. Not in the "estate sale in the front garden" type, but the one caused by the estate taxes Warren Buffett so dearly loves for everyone except him. "What?" you say. Well, Buffett has been great at buying companies at low valuations. Valuations that are often caused by the necessity to raise money to pay estate taxes quickly - ask Warren Buffett about the events leading up to his purchase of Dairy Queen and the Buffalo News. Owners died, 55% (or more at various times) of the value of their holdings in the company are due with 9 months of the date of death. Here comes Warrent Buffett to the rescue, the hero, willing to buy a stake in the company at a big discount. A going-out-of-business sale on a founder's life, ripe to be taken advantage of by Buffett. Need insurance on your life in order to have some way to pay the estate taxes? GEICO is a great place to buy it from. Oh, does Warren Buffett's company have something to do with GEICO?

So, no wonder Warren Buffett wants to keep the estate tax and keep everyone -except him of course, he knows better that you do- paying high tax rates: all the better to rake everyone else over the coals when people are in dire straits. This is a typical move: instead of letting people have the freedom to decide to do something, he'll require everyone else to lose the freedom, while he avails himself of it.

Kind of nice that the so-called ?¢‚Ç¨?ìOracle of Omaha?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢s?¢‚Ç¨¬ù new name is the ?¢‚Ç¨?ìHypocrite of Omaha.?¢‚Ç¨¬ù Warren, our advice is stick to investing, leave the control of other people's lives to them. It is called freedom. Just because you don't value your freedom, doesn't mean the rest of us want you to take it away.

Warren Buffett attacks tax rates as being too low?

Chris — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:59:17 +0000

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent." (see Times Online article)

Sounds like Warren Buffett has a perfect argument to lower his secretary's tax rate to 17.7% (or lower). How about that Warren? Of course, that is unlikely to happen since Buffett has made his stance clear - that he wants everyone to pay MORE taxes, not less.

While the Times Online artcile is headlined "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary" that is clearly misleading. He was paying at a lower rate. He is, of course, free to pay the 30% that his secretary paid if he is as concerned as he claims. Think that would happen? Just as Buffett blasts the estate tax reform, while at the same time ensuring his estate has to pay no income taxes, he is un-happy about tax rates he is paying, and yet still never volunteers to pay more.

Warren Buffet hypocritical? You think?

A Race to Liberty, Not a Race to the Bottom

Chris — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:58:45 +0000

The phrase "Race to the Bottom" is a semantic slight of hand used to attempt to color your opinion prior to even looking at the situation over which the phrase is used. The phrase "Race to the bottom" was coined by US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1933 case, Ligget Co. v. Lee (288 U.S. 517, 558-559). Brandeis didn't fail to see that competition helps to increase liberty, Brandeis merely believed that this was a bad thing. Coining a phrase like "race to the bottom" is a wonderful technique if you wish to stifle dissent and put other views immediately on the defensive.

In fact, the often disparaged "race to the bottom" is in fact a race to freedom. The "race to the bottom" is a race to give each individual person the liberty to control their own lives in the manner they see fit without interference from others. Only those who are trying to control someone else via the state view you as being unable to make your own intelligent decisions about what is best for you. Using the term "race to the bottom" is a bit of intellectual dishonest that the authors use to attempt to subconsciously alter your opinion based on emotion rather than fact.

So, when you hear the phrase "race to the bottom" read a little closer and see who is advocating more individual choice and who is advocating more regulation and government control. Protect your rights.

The fact that Brandeis, a Supreme Court Justice, coined the phrase is disgraceful in someone who is supposed to weigh law, not emotion. In a Supreme Court Justice sworn to uphold the Constutition of the United States it is even worse.

Christian H F Riley