Comments for This Week in Crazy: Landry brings the sign, forgets the comb at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 55 out of 20 comments http://www.theind.com Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:41:24 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-22428 There is nothing wrong with Jeff's sign. It is a common sense solution. Obama's solutions don't make sense. - LA Republican Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:24:51 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-22064 I've owned my own companies for 30 years. Let me tell you who the slave is, it's the owner, trying to make payroll, trying to motivate employees to get off their butt and think, trying to comply with a forest of new and often conflicting regulations, watching your competition move their labor offshore and undercut your costs. Watching your government lumber along, full speed ahead, wrong way and ignoring that iceberg ahead. Back to the original premise, Drilling = Jobs. Whether you drive your car using oil products, solar panels, a little windmill on the roof, or pull it with two unicorns, the most effective way to get the car to move is oil products. "Global warming" is a hoax. "Climate change" is just another way of saying "if you don't like the weather, wait a minute". And referencing "peer-reviewed" literature is a little like saying Copernicus admitted he was wrong, and the earth indeed was flat, cuz everybody else sez so. And BP had a spill, because the existing federal inspectors were not doing their job, and the upper management of BP was deliberately doing every possible wrong thing to blow that well. Because they are STUPID. And stupid people tend to end up in charge of stuff that they have not the slightest understanding of. The tool pusher on the rig was telling them what they were doing wrong, yet they continued to do the same things. The same could be said for our current leadership. They do everything wrong to create jobs. We keep telling them what they are doing wrong (like Landry's sign), and they keep on doing the wrong thing. Meanwhile calling us childish, churlish, and terrorists. The first rule when you find yourself in a hole is: stop digging. - PhilNdeBlanc Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:53:43 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-22012 "You are a slave to the rich because you can't go out and start a company." Now you're just a dumbass. I DO own a company! Started it myself two years ago, part time employees, I've even discussed it here. I am, at the same time, BOTH an employee AND an employer. I am a slave to no one. I freely negotiated with my employer what my salary would be, what would be the terms of my employment, and what I would be expected to do for my salary. I am GLAD that the owners of the company that employs me did whatever it was that they did to start the company. Because of their initiative, and their entrepreneurial spirit, they were able to create a business venture that can afford to pay me the very high salary that my skills command. If not, I would have had to move out of the area to find work, or I would still be running tools in the Gulf of Mexico. - ragin_cajun Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:59:21 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-22004 " The owners have HUGE houses, drive $90,000 cars, dress like mobsters, and talk about their trips to Europe and their kids private schools. The rest of us show up, do our work, and go home as long as the paychecks keep coming" Yea, tell me again. Who is actually doing the work? Who is actually EARNING the money to provide them with those things? YOU ARE. And that's ok with you because they took out a loan, found some rich people to put up some money or more typically got some money from Daddy Warbucks. Yes, that's right. You are a slave to the rich because you can't go out and start a company. But more importantly you are oblivious to your fate. If your owners make some bad decisions and you get laid off because of it, oh well. That's not in your control. Oblivious. - Resident 2 Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:52:17 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21990 So I'm a slave because I don't demand wealth that I didn't earn? Because I don't demand that the owners of my company "share the wealth" with me, I deserve your insults and derision? Because I reject the notion that the world is unfair, because I see an ordered universe that works predictably and a fair society that rewards effort with wealth, you say I'm oblivious? NO ONE would open a business, take the risk, spend the time working and worrying to make it successful, if there weren't some financial reward to it. A successful business owner DESERVES every nickel he earns. You have no right to it. - ragin_cajun Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:05:12 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21989 RC: All I can say is that you would've been one happy slave. Long as the master is happy and you have a roof over your head, it's all good right? Must be nice being so oblivious. - resident2 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:50:11 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21983 "In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands." I've heard this drivel way too much in my short lifetime already. It amounts to very wealthy people, living in the richest and freest society the world has ever known, complaining because they're not as rich as they think they should be. You live in America, which is still the biggest, richest, most decadent and luxurious society the world has ever seen. POOR people in America are better off here than "average" or "middle class" people are in Western Europe. The BOTTOM 10-20% here live in bigger nicer houses with more amenities than the middle class of Europe. You want to make us more like Europe? Because that's what you're saying. "Look, capitalism works...In theory... ONLY in theory." Now you're really showing your ass. Karl Marx even conceded that Capitalism is the way to go if you want economic expansion. Most every other economist and theorist since has agreed with him. Where the actual debate lies is whether Capitalism is "fair" to the "working class", whatever the hell all that means. But I'll tell it to you like this. In my company, there are 2 owners and 90 employees. The owners have HUGE houses, drive $90,000 cars, dress like mobsters, and talk about their trips to Europe and their kids private schools. The rest of us show up, do our work, and go home as long as the paychecks keep coming. That's how it SHOULD be. Because none of us lay awake at night worrying about the company, the debt, whether to hire or fire, the employees' benefits, the competitors, the manufacturers whose gear we sell, how to drum up sales, etc. THAT'S why 80% of people in this country aren't as rich as the top 20%. Because 80% of the people in this country show up, do what they're told, get their check, and don't worry about it the rest of the day. 80% of the people in this country don't work much more than 40-50 hours in a week, and don't risk much more than borrowing to buy a house. Maybe 80% of America SHOULDN'T own much more than 15% of the wealth of the world's richest society. - ragin_cajun Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:50:01 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21981 Guys, all of you are making great points and I agree with many of them. But the fact remains that Jeff Landry is a "fool", and should be called out by local Republican leadership. Speak up Ernie and company. And "THE BROTHEL KING," decided a Saints party was more important than atttending the address. Wow, we have leadership to be proud of. I'm will say this Boustany has always served with dignity and class. - beheard Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:34:38 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21980 resident2 -- I can see that information in your hands is like a nuclear weapon in the hands of a savage. You have trouble grasping the concept, but you see clearly how to use it to attack your neighbors. Let me point you to a few other passages from the article that MIGHT help you understand the incestuous relationship between the government and ATT that spawned one of the world's biggest and most well known monopolies. "Although it is impossible to say exactly what would have happened if AT&T had not been pressured into the Kingsbury Commitment" So AT&T was pressured into it. " Numerous federal and state officials began arguing quite openly that the telephone industry would function most efficiently if unified as one system." "House of Representative committee report noted, "There is nothing to be gained by local competition in the telephone business" "A Michigan Public Utilities Commission report (1921: 315) from that same year also illustrates this prevailing sentiment, "Competition resulted in duplication of investment. . . . The policy of the state was to eliminate this by eliminating as far as possible, duplication." Many state regulatory agencies began refusing requests by telephone companies to construct new lines in areas already served by another carrier and continued to encourage monopoly swapping and consolidation in the name of "efficient service" (Lavey 1987: 184-85). Kellogg, Thorne, and Huber (1992: 17) sum up the prevailing sentiment: "To judge by actions, then, rather than words, government officials had no strong objection to monopoly telephone service. This was especially true for state regulators. For them, a local telephone monopoly was both welcome and convenient." "Thus, Vail obviously saw government regulation as the way to eliminate competitors: the one-way ticket, not only to universal service, but also to monopoly profits." " once the nationalized system was in place, AT&T wasted no time applying for immediate and sizable rate increases. High service connection charges were put into place for the first time. AT&T also began to realize it could use the backing of the federal government to coax state commissions into raising rates. " "Potential competitors were, and still are required to obtain from the FCC a "certificate of public convenience and necessity." The intent of the licensing process was again to prevent "wasteful duplication" and "unneeded competition." In reality, it served as a front to guard the interests of the regulated monopoly and the FCC's social agenda. " "The overall hostility to competition by the FCC and the drafters of the legislation that gave birth to it is best illustrated by a 1988 Department of Commerce report on the development of the telecommunications industry. The report notes, "The chief focus of the Communications Act of 1934 was on the regulation of telecommunications, not necessarily its maximum development and promotion. [T]he drafters of the legislation saw the talents and resources of the industry presenting more of a challenge to the public interest than an opportunity for national progress" So, go back and re-read the article, in its entirety, and as you read it, think about the hue and cry you hear now in the media about regulating the Internet. Pay particular attention to the remark in the article by the authors that the Government found it much easier to regulate one big company, like AT&T, than thousands of smaller regional phone companies. That exact point is being made in Washington right now about the Internet and ISP's. "No. Instead we should place a penalty on hoarding money." That has been tried by many dictators in the past. That you would propose it here is telling. - ragin_cajun Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:14:59 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21978 RC: "That is the most ignorant, uninformed, and patently incorrect statement I've ever heard about Capitalism. I would explain to you why you're wrong, IF I HADN'T ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS IN DETAIL HERE AT LEAST TWICE IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS. " Dude we are already there. In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html http://www.alternet.org/economy/152010 http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png - resident2 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:46:25 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21977 What RC doesn't get is that the goverment (aka congress) is populated with people doing the bidding of the rich. “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html Look, capitalism works...In theory... ONLY in theory. Just like Communism. The problem is when people with power use that power to better their lives. And that will never happen because humans are greedy. Especially rich materialistic ones. - resident2 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:34:37 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21972 I'd also like to point out the current situation with employment as compared to 5 years ago. 5 years ago employers we having a REALLY hard time finding workers. The economy was booming, credit was easy to get, just any old person could get out there and start up a company. This was a problem to the rich. Their costs were skyrocketing because they actually had to pay their employees a decent wage to keep them. Now look where we are. unemployment is high. Credit is very difficult to get and they have droves of people begging for jobs at any rate. Coincidence? I don't think so. It's no secret that the biggest reason we can't seem to get out of this situation is because businesses refuse to hire people. The Fed is making the money available to the banks for next to nothing, the banks are making the money available to the businesses for next to nothing. What's holding the recovery back? Oh yea, the business leaders (aka rich) refuse to do anything till we lower their taxes. Maybe we should just exempt them from taxes all together right? No. Instead we should place a penalty on hoarding money. - resident2 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:00:34 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21971 The Kingsbury Commitment was thought to be pro-competitive. Yet, this was hardly an altruistic action on AT&T's part. The agreement was not interpreted by regulators so as to restrict AT&T from acquiring any new telephone systems, but only to require that an equal number be sold to an independent buyer for each system AT&T purchased. Hence, the Kingsbury Commitment contained a built-in incentive for monopoly-swapping rather than continued competition. Brock (1981: 156) noted, "This provision allowed Bell and the independents to exchange telephones in order to give each other geographical monopolies. So long as only one company served a given geographical area there was little reason to expect price competition to take place." So in otherwords, the CORPORATION tricked the government into an agreement that further solidified their position. So see, even your libertarian leaning propaganda shows that it was Corporations corrupting the government. Sorry RC, but you just don't get it. - resident2 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:49:28 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21969 First of all, you're giving me a link from the Cato institute which is a libertarian think tank "aka propaganda machine" Second of all, if you think that AT&T did not have anything to do with the government decisions then that's just naive. Of course those laws were written into place by congressmen who were bought and paid for by AT&T. Are you really that dense that you think corporations don't play a role in influencing the laws that congress passes? Do you even know what a lobbyist is? Let me make it simple for you RC. People with lots of money can use that money to support election campaigns of those who will do their bidding. They have "conversations" with these candidates to discuss their needs. If their needs are not met, the candidate doesn't get more money from that company to get elected. Candidates will do whatever it takes to get re-elected. Why is that concept so forigen to you? - resident2 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:40:03 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21966 I will agree that corruption is a two-way street. It's impossible to tell anymore where the corruption begins, from corporations or government. The revolving door is in full swing. Government certainly does enable monopolies instead of preventing them like it's supposed to, and enables things like oil, gas and coal being exempt from certain provisions of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. Factory farms that are destroying water quality in the Chesapeake Bay are also exempt from the CWA. That's why I call it the corporatocracy. Government acting on behalf of corporations, many times in direct opposition to consumer rights. And again, this is not to say that corporations are bad. Government enabling corporate tyranny is the problem. Monsanto is a perfect example. Its history or aggressively shutting down smaller seed producers, actually contaminating non-GMO corn fields with their GMO product and then suing the farmer for patent infringement, lobbying a willing Congress to write laws that shut down local and non-GMO food procution. This stuff doesn't happen without the implicit consent of government, nor does it happen without the corporation spending millions of dollars to co-opt legislators and agencies. Monsanto even has a former attorney of theirs on the Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas). Oh, and about jobs, I stand by my statement that ramping up renewable energy research, development, and use will create far more jobs than drilling for oil. But I also support opening some offshore areas for drilling, IF regulations are put in place that mirror those in the North Sea and other deepwater areas. I also stand by my statement that environmental regulations are not the only thing, or even the most significant thing, holding up new refineries. Refinery operators will tell you that it's cheaper to add to existing infrastructure, considering that the average cost of a new refinery is $2 billion. Refineries produce huge amounts of air and water pollution; if there was a "moratorium" on pollution regulations, the area would be a toxic waste field. The hidden costs of fossil fuel use have been and are being quantified. I have not looked up any links lately, although I have in the past. This is not a political thing dreamed up by "committed leftists." "Utopian" is a word that can be tossed around anywhere. I could just as easily say that your idea that if government would just get out of the way, everything would be fine, is utopian. But I recognize that there are many ideas out there and no one is entirely right. Governing will never be a single, pure ideology, but an ever-evolving form agreed upon by (hopefully) reasonable people with different thoughts. - Resident Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:25:19 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21961 Also, you make my point when YOU bring ATT into the conversation. ATT is a perfect example of the corrupting influence of government on corporations. The ATT monopoly was created, given over, maintained by, and enforced by Federal and State Governments. As Branden points out, a monopoly is BY DEFINITION, created and enforced by the action of a government. Here is a long, detailed, and stunning report on the history of AT&T's monopoly over telecommunications in this country. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html Read in particular the section "The Development of Competition, 1894-1913" Look what happened to phone service. The federal government stepped in and created the phone monopoly you so despise. The States all happily jumped into the regulation game, too. For the "common good". - ragin_cajun Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:47:24 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21959 "Anyone who knows anything about economics can tell you that capitalism ultimately leads to one player owning all of the cards. It's just how it works. " That is the most ignorant, uninformed, and patently incorrect statement I've ever heard about Capitalism. I would explain to you why you're wrong, IF I HADN'T ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS IN DETAIL HERE AT LEAST TWICE IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS. I'll take a page from Gaius, instead, and point you to some more educated and knowledgeable people on the subject who are recognized experts in the field. Go read. http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/question_of_monopolies.html Milton Friedman "Free to Choose" www.vonmises.org Nouriel Roubini--for balance, since he is a more a "mixed economy" type than a "laissez-faire capitalist" And you need to rethink your simplistic view of the role of American corporations in the global economy. It is WAY more than just "fire all the Americans". Why don't you spend a few days watching CNBC? America exports knowledge, services, products, financial know-how, and technology all over the world. Did you know that if you stripped away the "service sector" of the US economy and left only the "manufacturing sector", that the US would STILL be the 3rd largest economy in the world. Go look at NAM's website. - ragin_cajun Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:01:53 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21953 Landry is an intelligent guy, it's too bad that he chooses to align himself with the Tea Party Terrorists... - Jack Rabbit Tue, 13 Sep 2011 01:30:49 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21950 "You seem to deny that multinational corporations have a large and corrupting influence on government." I think it's the other way around...government has a large and corrupting influence on business. It's at LEAST a two way street, wouldn't you agree?" Uh, No. Tell me, how many government lobbyists do you think you will find hanging around the Exxon Board room? Look. Corporations are designed and mandated by contract to serve one and only one purpose. Make money for the investors. They are not there to provide a widget or a service, that is all secondary to their number one goal. MAKE MORE MONEY. If the board make any decision that is not designed to MAKE MORE MONEY then they can not only be fired, but sued by the stockholders. Furthermore, if they do not continue to MAKE MORE MONEY then the CEO gets replaced, the Board of Directors gets replaced. ANYONE AND EVERYONE who stands in the way of a corporation making money GETS REPLACED. If you haven't noticed, there has been a trend in the actions of CEOs over the last 10-15 years. It's a real easy job. Become CEO. Move manufacturing to china, support to india and fire all of the Americans and close the American offices. Suddenly the CEO is a HERO! Without "government interference" in the market what you'll have is runaway corporations, gobbling up every competitor in their path. Sure there may end up being two or three companies in the end, like AT&T, but they will be so insanely powerful that no one will stand a chance. That's pretty much were we are today. Anyone who knows anything about economics can tell you that capitalism ultimately leads to one player owning all of the cards. It's just how it works. But please, do explain, why is it you think that the "free market" is so honest and pure and uncorruptable, except by the ,LOL, Government. The government is the only think keeping the corporations from eating America alive. - resident2 Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:01:09 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/8990-this-week-in-crazy-landry-brings-the-sign-forgets-the-comb#comment-21948 Resident & ragin_cajun: I have immensely enjoyed your exchanges here! I wanted to post a comment contrasting your views by high intellectual standards. However, you two have exceeded my expectations! You have added considerably more pertinent information. Don't forget what the Roman poetical satirist, Gaius Lucilius [ca. 180-ca. 102 BCE], (Pompey the Great was his nephew) asserted in his "saturae": Cupiditas ex homine, cupido ex stulto numquam tollitur! [English, "A man can be cured of his lust, but never a fool of his greed"] (F. Marx, C. Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae, 1904-5)! Our Oil & Gas Industry captured well by an ancient critic! - Gaius Cilnius Maecenas Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:49:53 +0100