Bio not provided
Instagram is better. Big win for them today. The numbers TBD.
1 year, 4 months ago on Narcissism in motion: Instagram’s new video features are a vanity mirror, not a communications tool
@AdamGering @joewardpr I get the 502 "Bad Gateway" error now, but it previously loaded. Homepage + the signup page, although very slow to come up. I didn't login. Unless it was my browser displaying the cache, I was able to see the site at least momentarily. ;)
1 year, 5 months ago on US authorities launch their first attack on bitcoin
The site loaded for me, although running slow as is usual under ddos.
My expectation is that it's always a dual goal. At least, I certainly hope so. I don't fault you for leveraging your platforms! =)
So, I would suggest that nothing is done for free, when you realize there are many different types of currency being exchanged. ;)
I appreciate that you've added some information for perspective, especially regarding the alleged handling of the driver iPhone "retrieval" method, and the Randian influences.
My biggest criticism would be that you seemed to extrapolate too far. As an excellent writer you're able to do so very effectively, although I'm not convinced that the case you've presented so compellingly with the language is actually all that valid.
1 year, 12 months ago on Travis Shrugged: The creepy, dangerous ideology behind Silicon Valley’s Cult of Disruption
@paulcarr @quinthar Surely you would acknowledge that your participation at Pando is a marketing platform for NSFW Corp, Paul. You provide Pando with some controversial topics (stylistically), i.e. good content, and you get to plug NSFW Corp. Just thought that worthy of mention.
Paul, I think this should be re-titled: "Dreams from Kalanick's Real Father".
Amazon VOD is a superior experience. You have lots of free content with Prime; however, you have all kinds of VOD rental choices at the ready. I cancelled Netflix. It had weak content and a user interface that presumed to be smarter than me in my choices. I love the Amazon VOD drill down. I can filter by star, decade, and genre easily in our familiar left column navbar.
What drove me away from Netflix was partially the immense amount of time I'd waste trying to find something that seemed like a good watch, or searching for my favorite actors and finding a dismal selection of choices. Want to watch an old favorite? Probably not available. Amazon VOD doesn't have this problem.
They don't need to buy Netflix. They just need to keep pulling in better content and building through their Prime and Kindle Fire ecosystem. The rental model is far from dead. I'd rather pay more for good choices that I can readily find.
Netflix's entire UI seems to be designed to make all selection choices directed by them, rather than giving us the power of choice. They mask the absences in their catalog by making filtering and search options limited.
I place Vegas odds that Netflix users spend vastly greater amounts of time trying to find something to watch than Amazon VOD users.
1 year, 12 months ago on Netflix must ponder its endgame strategy
If we consider regulatory entities like the TLC to be bureaucratic, "bullies" stifling to innovation, why would we consider Uber a "lousy" house guest? So far their model of challenging these regulatory bodies seems to be working.
These cities want to build up a reputation of being "innovative", and when a company like Uber becomes a symbol of that openness and embrace of innovation, the pressure that Uber supporters can bring to bear is a powerful motivating force.
If I understand the demographic of your readership correctly, then I suspect we collectively are overwhelmingly frustrated by any entity that stands in the way of innovation, for the purpose of defending against competition rather than adapting to changing market conditions and consumer expectations.
Tech media like PandoDaily and TechCrunch have made an art of slapping people, startups, or investors via the blog. It shouldn't be surprising when entrepreneurs start employing the same techniques.
2 years ago on Who’s the real bully, Uber or New York?
Who needs to prove it, and to whom?
You think comparisons of rent/mortgage payments are too divergent, but you've brought Islamic women's rights into the discussion? =)
However, let me be clear about what I am discussing. I suggest:
You can be compelled by law to complete an undesirable action A, and still feel good about some aspects of A, even if A was not done with pure, unbiased or coerced choice. I.e. There were serious penalties for not completing A.
I am required by law to pay taxes. If I do not, I am subject to serious penalties which may include jail time.
I am reluctant to pay any more taxes than required because I have limited disposable income and I want to retain as much as possible for my own needs and desires.
However, after making my tax payment, I can still feel positive that (if I do have to pay taxes at all) at least I understand why it is required, and know that I have made a contribution.
I can feel patriotic about paying my taxes, even as I work with an accountant to minimize the amount payable and feel the hesitation of reducing my own disposable income.
All or nothing logic does not reflect reality.
2 years ago on Samuel L Jackson’s Patronizing, Hypocritical Viral Message To Obama Voters
@PatrickR I didn't suggest that it "makes you" a caring person. I suggested that not wanting to be there didn't preclude you from feeling a sense of care for the people you serve. I suggested it's not all or nothing logic. Not sure how Nazi got stuck in there. Assuming you just love Seinfeld. ;)
@PatrickR @s5 @JustinPollard @JudyWang I wrote a more elaborate reply and it was apparently lost.
To quickly re-state, it's not discrete, all or nothing logic.
You can be reluctant about an act, and still feel good about it's completion.
I can resent working at a soup kitchen, but feel genuine care and positivity when providing a bowl of soup to someone who is hungry.
I can work with an accountant to minimize my taxes payable, grunt and groan when I realize how much I have to pay, and still feel good that my tax dollars are going to support the country.
It just doesn't have to be all or nothing.
It's silly. Being in support of food stamp programs and a social safety net does not mean someone wants to "increase welfare".
I often hear the claims that Obama wants to increase welfare. Why on earth would he "want" to do that? You can argue his policies will unknowingly lead to growth in welfare utilization, but that he actually wants growth in welfare utilization? That is the result of all or nothing logic in combination with political propaganda.
However, I do understand that it's hard to measure virtues that are compelled, just as it is hard to determine if virtue is genuine when it comes at little or no "relative" personal cost. I don't think the majority of us possess much pure virtue. It's always fuzzy logic. There will always be a situation that tests each component of who we are (or think we are). ;)
@PatrickR @s5 @JustinPollard @JudyWang I think you're using discrete, all or nothing logic.
I can never feel any sense of independent care or concern for another person, because I'm forced to work at (let's say for example) a soup kitchen?Not true. I can NOT want to go to the soup kitchen, resent the fact I am compelled to do so, dislike my experience there, and still feel good dishing up a bowl of soup to someone that looks hungry.
These are not all or nothing propositions.
In fact, it also assumes that YOU are making the independent judgement of whether or not your act is virtuous. You may resent paying taxes and disbelieve that it is a patriotic act, and I may still consider your act of paying taxes as a patriotic act "by you" - even when you disagree. So you have to consider the observer as well.
In my own life, I would definitely take all legal measures to reduce my taxes owing, but would still feel good that my required taxes payable are used to support the country.
I don't think most people enjoy having rent or the mortgage payment due. However, I know that many feel very happy after paying it, as they feel the pride of establishing a safe, secure, comfortable place to live.
@PatrickR @s5 @JustinPollard @JudyWang I think it's deeper than that. Lots of virtues are difficult to maintain. Making choices that sacrifice something you value are harder choices.
I suggest it's possible to both:
(a) be reluctant to pay taxes, and simultaneously
(b) feel patriotic about their necessity after they are paid.
I don't like paying for my iPhone, but I feel good about paying my bills. =)
@Todd Dunning @alldayhustle You took that quote and then interpreted it as "demonizing" and that it was applicable to all successful people.
Read it again. They were talking about Romney specifically. It's also far from demonizing. In fact, his preceding paragraphs also clarify the position.
You should debate against what was actually said. You can't create extrapolations and then argue against stuff you made up, but attributed to someone else. Well... you can... but you shouldn't. ;)
@JustinPollard @PatrickR @droskill @JudyWang PS - I follow Robert Reich. http://robertreich.org/
@JustinPollard @PatrickR @droskill @JudyWangInvesting money or buying stock doesn't remove it from your assets, it just re-classifies it.
BTW - I'd love to see an infographic of how the net capital assets of the 1% or 10% are actually deployed (or not, and where). =)
Some of these investments do make it to new or expanding businesses. However, most businesses fail and the shifting of wealth to the top indicates that any such investment is not (at present time) resulting in growth of the middle class. In other words, any such investment activity is just resulting in more cash at the top, not growth of the middle.
There is also passing around investments at the top tier, which doesn't make its way down to the middle.
They can also acquire stock positions, but long term the middle class pension funds or 401k investments will drive those prices up, creating further margins for the more sophisticated top tier investors. Will the real Gordon Gekkos please stand up. :P
Also, some actually have cash on hand I believe. Apple being an easy example. However, 66% of their $100 Billion in cash reserves is locked in foreign subsidiaries and they don't want to repatriate it to the US because of (you guessed it) avoiding taxation. ;)
These top tier businesses are so efficient, taxation really doesn't matter in the long term. You could tax them and write the lower middle class huge checks, and it would almost entirely gush (not trickle) back *up*. Lower class and middle class consumers... consume. They have no choice. Essentials and perceived essentials (i.e. LCD TVs, smartphones, and designer clothes) take up the majority of their income. In fact, for many it's 100% since they're over-extended in high interest credit card debt! =)
@PatrickR @JustinPollard @droskill @JudyWangTax policy is related (i.e. revenue), but also distinct from budget considerations for "individual" programs. I talked a lot in my previous posts about the rich poor gap and wealth concentration. I did suggest taxation as a way to adjusting this imbalance. However, the sustainability of existing programs is another matter. Even increasing taxation is not, alone, going to ensure the sustainability of programs like Medicare over the long term. Agree.
I'm really hoping technology begins to drive the costs down for medical care. I love experiments like Bloomberg is trying in New York with the soft drink size limitations, etc.
This is no easy problem for either party. I just think the Democrats have the better approach right now.
I think government "leadership" has a compassionate interest, and that interest should be reflected in everything they do. Hopefully that compassion "trickles down". ;)
However, I don't expect employees to share in that compassion, just to follow the laws and regulations created by that compassionate leader.
@PatrickR @s5 @JustinPollard @JudyWang I agree that voluntarily giving up some of your wealth for the good of humanity is a greater good than non-voluntary. That includes charitable donations in excess of what results in tax reduction. However, requirement or not, I think paying taxes is still a patriotic act. If you believe it helps your country and its citizens, why not consider it a good thing? The fact that it is required or that there is a penalty for non-compliance is secondary. How you feel about it is up to you.
@JustinPollard @droskill @JudyWang
Hi Justin, I always enjoy a good discussion. It's more important that we simply participate than have the right answers. The process of debate opens up new ideas for us all. I'm not an economist (other than an arm-chair version), so my ideas are largely based on bits and pieces offered by those who I consider authorities and the various media sources I've consumed. I suspect most people here will be similar, with a few MBAs and Economics majors dropping in as well! ;)
We definitely need the "Maker" class. My theory is that taxation must be cyclical. Trickle down economics works best (IMO) in situations where a corporation had a defined need for growth in production (goods or services), but lacks the resources (and cannot finance them privately). It doesn't work in scenarios where the corp already has sufficient resources to do what they want regardless of taxation level (think Apple and Google cash reserves - they can already invest in whatever they want).
When the rich poor gap widens and wealth concentrates at the top, the economy slows. The consumer class can only acquire a limited amount of credit to continue consumption. Unless exports bring so much revenue into the United States that employers keep creating new jobs to pursue new opportunities, the consumer class loses its spending power as that wealth gets locked up in the Maker class' net worth accumulation.To balance out that disparity, taxation levels need to be adjusted/increased. That unfreezes the economy. It is redistribution, but it should be thought of as redistribution "to the economy", not to the poor. FYI - Right now, it's redistribution as well, to the top. Any time the rich poor gap is moving in either direction, redistribution is happening through economic policy.
I don't want to see them bumping up welfare benefits or providing subsidized healthcare to those who can afford to pay for it either. I know that creates dependency. People are not going to go to work if it's too easy to live without doing so, courtesy of the tax payers.
The key is to invest in R&D (small biz), improve infrastructure (which helps biz and creates jobs), invest in education and re-training programs that produce a higher skilled and more adaptable workforce, etc. When these types of tax dollar investments create jobs, it drives consumption. That's what is needed to keep domestic small business thriving.
Even welfare benefits end up helping businesses grow. Poor people don't have savings accounts with anything significant in them. Instead they have high interest credit cards. Their income is so low, they need to spend it to live. So ultimately monies injected there also end up positively impacting businesses.
Keeping people in poverty is a failure scenario because that state of living leads to social problems. If Romney was born in a trailer park to a Meth-using single mother, I doubt very much he'd currently be running for President. Imagine how discouraging and challenging it must be to break out of that class structure. Imagine the psychological state of being. Yet we villainize them as though we are all born with equal opportunity AND resources. All else being equal, an average person can achieve great success when born into wealth. However, it takes an incredible person to do the same thing when born into poverty.
We need classes in order for the economy to function. We just can't allow for times when the wealth gets too heavily concentrated and locked at the top. The economy begins to collapse that way. We adjust and one of the fundamental tools of doing so is taxation.
If we could ever make all of our revenue from exports, perhaps we could get to an era where taxes were drastically reduced for all classes. =)You talk about choice in selection of services that your tax dollars pay for. I understand the sentiment. However, I also realize that there are certain essential national programs that rely on full participation. That's a citizen's contribution to maintaining a great moral and compassionate country. Ayn Rand had some cool ideas. I don't like the idea of people dying without adequate medical care. These are not socialist ideals. It's just basic morality.
Stuff like vouchers for medical insurance that are being suggested are very risky. There is absolutely no indication that private enterprise would provide full quality services for the value of the vouchers. In fact, it's just a game of supply and demand/pricing elasticity. They'd calculate exactly how much they could extract. That calculation would include stuff like the average amount of equity seniors have in their homes and their access to credit in the form of home equity lines of credit, etc. They are not going to be concerned with seniors who thought their 401k would allow for 1 vacation every two years in their retirement. That just becomes a target for them. It's a revenue source they'll tap into. Any MBA that read Atlas Shrugged would agree with that suggestion. ;)
We hear horror stories all the time about the internal workings of medical insurance claim denials, and deadly/depressing calculations by actuaries. :(
Since the government has a compassionate interest in these services and not a financial one, except in the sense of ensuring these programs can be funded for the foreseeable future, they are better equipped to ensure provision of these programs. I definitely think there is need for regulation in these contexts. In fact, as a side note, I think the Libertarians provide a frightening thought experiment of deregulation and private enterprise control.
Since I've rambled on for quite awhile now, I might as well add that I prefer targeting income from capital gains more so than ordinary income. To me, ordinary income represents non-passive production. You had to deliver a product or service to generate it, not manipulate stock. Capital gains is passive income. IMO, it's only logical that passive income be taxed more readily than income from actual production. I don't buy into the whole "but we take the risks" philosophy.
@jordanambra @Jacurtis @s5 I've heard a lot about food stamps in particular referenced in the media recently. Makes sense. If unemployment rates are so high, we'd eventually have to see growth in the utilization of these programs. It's not good, but I'm glad people are not starving to death prior to economic recovery.
@Jacurtis Are you Paul Ryan's speech writer? Kidding. =)
Re: Uncertain outcome
Bill Clinton outlined some very good data on how Democratic vs. Republican policy has impacted the economy and jobs - through multiple presidencies - at the Democratic National Convention.
Although, each decade comes with its own complexities, his overview suggested the clear superiority in Democratic based economic policy. A strong middle class is preferred over reliance on the "Maker" class and trickle down economics.
@JustinPollard @JudyWang 1. Judy said:
"You make it sound like anyone who is wealthy is necessarily out-of-touch".
I understood her to mean:
"You [I.e. Paul] make it sound like [Sam Jackson] is suggesting [that] anyone who is wealthy is necessarily out-of-touch".
I think she's disagreeing with Paul regarding his suggestion of what Sam Jackson intends. I can see how that sentence is unclear.
2. Judy said:
"The point is, being wealthy should not be mutually exclusive from wanting to help others and acknowledging that the government and infrastructure paid by public dollars all contributed to your success"
You referenced the first part of her sentence:
"The point is, being wealthy should not be mutually exclusive from wanting to help others"
My interpretation is that she feels Paul is equating all millionaires to be equally unrepresentative of lower classes. He seems to suggest it's hypocritical of Jackson to call out another millionaire when he's equally non-representative of the demographic he's reaching out to.
Judy suggests that Paul is focusing only on wealth, as though it excludes understanding or being sympathetic to the living standards and political implications for lower classes. Sam's method of "helping others" for the purposes of this video is to inform them of his beliefs on how a Republican victory would be detrimental to them.
While contributions to charity are fantastic, it doesn't preclude him being out of touch. The 47% video is the clearest indication of how he's actually out of touch.
If he actually believes trickle down economics will yield the best results for the country, he may even be acting out of pure goodwill for all.
We have to be very careful how we interpret "out of touch". Does he hate poor people? Unlikely. Does he understand who they are and what they are like? Very unlikely. Is he resentful of them based on generalizations he's made about them? Very likely.
Note: I would guess that most wealthy citizens contribute to charities for taxation purposes, religious affiliation, social standing, and general goodwill. I'd be surprised if Jackson doesn't also do so.
I don't think comparisons of Romney vs. Obama's charitable donation metrics is relevant. There is a huge disparity in their income levels. Likewise, Romney is also probably compelled by his Mormon faith (?). It's a very good thing regardless of purpose.
3. I don't know the definition of a "public dollar". Government agencies do provide services to citizens. Likewise, taxation funds the provision of infrastructure, defense, social services, Medicaid, etc.
The constitution of the United States is not all about the interests of private enterprise. However, I do NOT believe that a fully privatized infrastructure (and all other aspects of government services referenced) would lead to a country that is a great place to live for all citizens - although there is a place for it.
The government provides and secures the environment in which private entities contribute to the improvement of the entire country.
4. I don't think it's about the ability to "establish" a business. It's about the efficiency of operation because of all the technology and infrastructure the United States provides or makes possible, including the products and services of other private enterprises made possible in a recursive manner.
Note: I haven't watched the TED talk yet.
5. You requested a response, so I thought it was only fair. Honestly, I was disappointed in Paul's article. He said he stopped the video because he didn't like how it failed to rhyme and then jumped into a bunch of rhetoric that seemed off-base given that I personally don't think there was any irony or hypocrisy by Jackson to make the video.
I'd put Vegas odds that Paul is just ranting for a bit of sensational linkbait, because it tends to be his style - and many readers like that style.
I did mistake him for being partisan, while he attempts to offer comparison to critiques of the GOP as well. Whichever way he leans, I just think he happens to be wrong this time out, and this is not one of his best contributions to PandoDaily.
@Jacurtis @s5 Jobs go over seas because the labor is cheap.I'd also like to see the source of your %-ages. Sounds like pre-election propaganda.
@JustinPollard @JudyWang You said:
"The point of this article was simple: A very wealthy man wants you to vote for one pretty wealthy man over another very wealthy man. That's pretty ironic."
That's one of the suggestions; however, it lacks the irony you suggest.
Sam Jackson is attempting to compel people to vote. The concern is that Obama supporters may rest on their laurels. Doing so, given the potential for voter suppression, could allow Romney to win the election. Romney is the "out of touch" millionaire.
He's not suggesting he's a bad guy because he's a millionaire. He's suggesting he's a bad choice for America because he is out of touch with lower classes.
The whole 47% secret video is a clear example.
Sam's a millionaire. He's not criticizing Romney for having money. He's criticizing him for being "out of touch" with people who do not have money. There's no irony there.
Great reply, Judy. Agree.
Before reading your reply, I had the same thought. There's so much wrong here, I don't think it's worth the effort to address. The points weren't really strong enough. There's clearly some structural or chemical differences in our brain structures vs these GOP enthusiasts! =)
I think these guys are just so ego driven, they've never actually thought about the economics. It's not just class structure. It's a growing rich poor gap where "redistribution" is flowing up to the top and harming the economy. Whether they'll agree or not, they'll be better off with a Democratic reelection in 2012, 2016, and likely 2020.
Fortunately, if current polling is at all accurate, the majority of Americans are figuring out that the "out of touch millionaire" label has less to do with Romney's total wealth or percentage income taxed, and everything to do with all the indications he's given that he is completely "out of touch": (1) the 47% dismissal, (2) just "borrow money from your parents", etc.
So let's just let Paul continue to critique the rhyming scheme and whether not the type of shock jock antics he employs in his own writing and appearances is effectively used by Mr. Jackson. ;)
@Todd Dunning Todd, I think you're too quick to jump to abstract ideology and talking points. We need to drill down and think of things more objectively, with less absolutes.
Politically, choosing a side and sticking to it, no matter what, is a very bad decision. There is never one side that gets it all right. I actually consider myself independent, but personally believe that a Democratic government is the right choice right now.
The debt began with the Bush tax cuts and the wars he started. Then it got out of control after the big finance world got caught experimenting and droves us into recession.
We need to solve the issues of how to pay for the growing cost of "entitlements" (if you prefer) like Social Security and health care, but it wasn't the cause of the current economic situation, nor was Obama.
It was the economic policies of the Republicans that lead us here. There was nobody from either party that could have caused an instant recovery. Obama stopped the bleeding, and then spent the last two years getting shut down by the obstructionist GOP.
I like rich people who are successful. I also like rich people who are not successful in their own pursuits if they are good people. I don't begrudge them. However, I do believe in progressive taxation including taxation on non-productive capital gains income.
I believe the economy, in one very simplistic way, acts much like the game of "Monopoly". I.e. someone inevitably wins and the game freezes up, as someone holds all the capital.
Their success may be admirable, but the economy becomes non-liquid. At that stage of the game, the idea of trickle down economics doesn't work via lowering taxation. The top tier "producers" already have sufficient resources to operate. Reducing taxation on their income or capital gains does not lead directly to job creation.
They'll produce as efficiently as possible, including outsourcing, and retain as much profit as possible. Their goal is not growth in United States GDP. It's profit. In the long run, it doesn't help them either because making the economy illiquid kills their consumption base.
The government functions as the entity that has to be concerned with the entire country, including the health and sustainability of its markets, and the overall happiness and well being of its citizens. They can't function like that of a profit-driven corporation, although they do need to ensure that their operation is sustainable.
That is the challenge right now. The middle class and small business sector has to remain healthy in order for the overall economy to do well, and that is why there is a necessity for progressive taxation. Being anti-success or anti-wealth is absolutely not a requirement for believing that concentrated wealth, an illiquid economy, a weakened middle class, or trickle down economics is damaging to the well being of the entire country and its future.
Wealth and success are made more easily achievable by the ecosystem that America provides. Damaging that ecosystem will make it more challenging for all participants in the economy, from every class; to start, continue, or accelerate their success.
Unless you are a Ron Paul fan and are advocating absolutely no taxes, then you should realize that both parties are for some taxation. Without it, there is no government. If Mitt Romney would like to state that he'll eliminate all taxes and cancel all programs provided by the government, he'll lose this election by a greater landslide than already anticipated. It's not to buy votes for either side. It's to fund the American ecosystem. It's why you (I hope) love your country.
Concentrated wealth creates debt because it slows growth and leads to frozen economies. Poorly performing economies create debt and get forced into austerity measures that reduce the quality of living. This is a matter of concern for governments that care about the well being of all citizens.
You suggest that Democrats "love" debt. Ridiculous. You can argue that they create debt with their policies, but loving debt is absurd. Clinton was a Democrat. How was his economic performance? Was he upset he didn't succeed at creating more debt? =)
2 years, 1 month ago on Romney May Suck at Social Media, Doesn’t Mean He Won’t Be President
- My argument was only made by appending your statements with wrong. Wrong. Most had brief, but clear, counterpoint statements like this one. ;)
- Everyone who is against current Republican policy is a Marxist. Wrong. Ridiculous. No explanation needed.
Hard work, achievement, and fairness are not mutually exclusive. Fairness doesn't mean welfare, but, yes, fairness is important for the well being of the country.
I don't think people who have more are unfair by default, although they are very fortunate. However, I think politicos having a philsophy that presupposes lower class citizens have an even playing field are delusional. The belief that they (the poor) are there entirely due to the summation of their own choices or laziness is also delusional.
Greed is not exclusive to class either. However, the outcome of greed can be more profound in the hands of those who control great resources. Leverage matters. Think AIG.
America is an ecosystem. Anyone claiming full responsibility for their own success within this great ecosystem is delusional and ungrateful for what their country offers them. Yes, I absolutely agree with Elizabeth Warren and President Obama.
I'm not anti-success or wealth; quite the contracy, in fact. However, a successful middle class is more important to the country than ineffective economic policies that result in concentrated wealth that actually reduces the overall economic prosperity of the entire country, i.e. trickle down.
The economy is cyclical. There are times for tax increases and times for tax decreases. It is always time to do what's best for the middle class, and encouraging those of lower classes to work towards it, without stacking the deck against them or writing them off... as Romney just did.
@Todd Dunning Wow:- Only the "47%" don't pay taxes. Wrong. Upper echelon people find ways to dodge them also. Romney's tax returns?- If you're not paying taxes, you're not working. Wrong. There is a class called the "working poor". There's also another class called "senior citizens". There's another class called "job seekers". There are many in the class of "hobbled by circumstance". There are lazy people too, but it's not one size fits all, right them off Romney-style.- The 47% are all Obama voters. Wrong. The 47% he's talking about live in lots of red states.- Everyone who doesn't pay tax is a lazy, entitled citizen. Wrong.- Everyone who pays tax is a model citizen. Wrong.- Tax cuts for corps empowers the job creators. Wrong. Are tax cuts for Apple or Google, sitting on massive cash reserves and outsourcing jobs (i.e. Apple) going to compel them to create more jobs?- Republican economic philosophy creates more jobs. Wrong. Over 50 years of leadership data indicates Democratic leadership creates more jobs and economic growth.- Romney's comment is considered a goldmine for GOP supporters. Wrong. Top tier Republicans just see this as a continuation of the flip flops and gaffes of someone not fit to lead them: http://j.mp/OcQfMp. His campaign is falling apart.- The 1% make it regardless. Wrong. Get Superman to do a few laps around the globe so we can go back in time. Now drop off baby Romney in a trailer park and see how well he does. True entitlement is being born into it, not being born out of it.- The reality is that he's effectively labeled and dismissed citizens (and voters) including those who support his own party - and he's wrong.- Obama will win. Right.- Obama will win because of a gravy train. Wrong. He'll win because the majority of voters agree more with his philosophies than they do Romney's.- Every American is receiving a portion of their fellow American's income, but the top tier, most wealthy Americans are taking the most. It's called "consumption". You really want to take away the spending power of the consumer class? They are certainly not storing that money in offshore accounts. It gets directly re-injected into the economy.
Just had a thought. Interesting comparison might be made with Piers Morgan. He is somewhat the PandoDaily of CNN. Yet, his Celebrity Apprentice participation is not unlike the lens Bravo is applying to Silicon Valley culture. While there will certainly be unreality and Jersey Shore-like clips taking priority in the editing room (because it likely fits with the interests of their viewer demographic), it doesn't necessarily take away from the potential of the participants. Discuss.
2 years, 6 months ago on An Open Letter To Randi Zuckerberg: How Could You Do This to Real Entrepreneurs?
@romangeyzer @joewardpr Perhaps. I guess he wins when you guys show thin skin and give it value and additional attention by responding. If I were moderating, I'd be more concerned with Paul's antics. I wonder if the Bravo show will have any scenes with techies throwing fits over asinine comments on a blog? ;)
@paulcarr @romangeyzer That sounds a bit paranoid, Paul. Chase him out of here. He has an idea that conflicts with a Pando writer? No drama in the Valley at all, right Sarah? ;)