sell! sell! sell!

[tiznow]

War drums starting to get beaten loudly again...

• Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad.
  
  • Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1798-05-13); published in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. II, p. 141
  
  Roughly 3287 people worldwide will die in car crash tomorrow... http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics
  
  random thoughts...
  
  
  
  
  

 

[tiznow]

An elite that actually gets it.. As I keep saying we are heading towards Mexico north since the system is rigged for the wealthy..

-------------

Charles Koch: We’re creating welfare for the wealthy

Charles Koch, the billionaire CEO of Koch Industries, says welfare is making people’s lives worse, but he’s not talking about welfare for low-income parents or the elderly. He’s aiming at a much bigger target. He’s talking about welfare for some of the most valuable companies in the world in the form of government handouts such as tax breaks and subsidies.
Before you go on a rant about how Koch’s own company—the second largest private company in the United States behind Cargill—benefits from the very same corporate benefits, he readily acknowledges that fact.
In his new book, Good Profit: How Creating Value for Others Built One of the World’s Most Successful Companies, Koch writes:

“We advocate the elimination of all these distortions, even those from which we currently benefit – such as ethanol mandates, restrictions on the export of crude oil and natural gas, and import tariffs. As an ethanol producer and large consumer of U.S. crude oil and natural gas, we profit short term from these market distortions. But rules like these – that don’t lead to good profit – leave virtually everyone worse off long term, including us.”
​

In an effort to change that, Koch is advocating for CEOs to reject the tax breaks and to push for changes in the laws that have netted America’s largest corporations hundreds of billions of dollars. It may seem like a fool’s errand to try to convince a CEO of a massive multinational corporation who must answer to a board and shareholders to forego anything that boosts their company’s bottom line.
It is asking a lot. According to a report from Good Jobs First, which tracks government subsidies, some of the biggest companies in the United States received hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants and tax credits. General Electric (GE) received $836,000,000 and General Motors (GM) received $529,000,000.
Get the Latest Market Data and News with the Yahoo Finance App
So why would these companies want to give that up? In Koch’s view, the dangers far outweigh the lost profits. He sees a not-too-distant future in which the federal government, largely through the Federal Reserve, will control American companies. If that sounds far-fetched, consider the too-big-to-fail phenomenon of the last decade, in which the federal government, represented by the Federal Reserve chairman, gathered the CEOs of some of the nation’s largest banks in a room and essentially handed them cash and engineered deals that allowed them to remain viable businesses.
It is one example of what Koch describes as the government picking winners and losers and leaving the most needy behind.
“This is creating a two-tiered system where opportunities for the disadvantaged are being destroyed and we’re creating welfare for the wealthy, so it’s unjust,” he told Yahoo Finance editor-in-chief Andy Serwer at the EY Strategic Growth Forum in California. “It’s an unjust system, and it’s making people’s lives worse.”
Household income last year was $53,657 adjusted for inflation, according to the Census Bureau. That’s down 6.5% since 2007, the year before the recession began.
The unemployment rate is down to 5%, but the labor force is at its lowest level since 1977, and the U.S. saw a sharp slowdown in economic growth in the third quarter, growing at just 1.5%.
Would cutting tax breaks and government subsidies for corporations encourage companies to hire? Or would it have the opposite effect?
Koch believes that allowing the free market and the customer to drive companies’ decisions will ultimately benefit the greater good, more so than if the government drives those decisions. Do you agree? Post a comment below and share your thoughts.
More from Yahoo Finance
Charles Koch wants to find 'common ground' with Obama administration

 

[CHOPTALK]

Man MSLP getting crushed .

Should I get in

 

[CHOPTALK]

Does frost still have anything to do with them

 

[MattyMatt]

Man MSLP getting crushed .

Should I get in

They all took a pretty good hit(GNC and Vitamin Shoppe) with the DoJ possibility of bringing charges on herbal supplement makers.

I'm surprised to hear you like the products so much. I know of no one around here that uses them, especially in the fight game, which is surprising with the UFC endorsement and all, but that's right, they just lost that as well. Personally, I also think their products aren't that great and refuse to use them as well...

good luck with your trades if you decide to get in...

 

[PatsFan1283]

An elite that actually gets it.. As I keep saying we are heading towards Mexico north since the system is rigged for the wealthy..

-------------

Charles Koch: We’re creating welfare for the wealthy

Charles Koch, the billionaire CEO of Koch Industries, says welfare is making people’s lives worse, but he’s not talking about welfare for low-income parents or the elderly. He’s aiming at a much bigger target. He’s talking about welfare for some of the most valuable companies in the world in the form of government handouts such as tax breaks and subsidies.
Before you go on a rant about how Koch’s own company—the second largest private company in the United States behind Cargill—benefits from the very same corporate benefits, he readily acknowledges that fact.
In his new book, Good Profit: How Creating Value for Others Built One of the World’s Most Successful Companies, Koch writes:

“We advocate the elimination of all these distortions, even those from which we currently benefit – such as ethanol mandates, restrictions on the export of crude oil and natural gas, and import tariffs. As an ethanol producer and large consumer of U.S. crude oil and natural gas, we profit short term from these market distortions. But rules like these – that don’t lead to good profit – leave virtually everyone worse off long term, including us.”
​

In an effort to change that, Koch is advocating for CEOs to reject the tax breaks and to push for changes in the laws that have netted America’s largest corporations hundreds of billions of dollars. It may seem like a fool’s errand to try to convince a CEO of a massive multinational corporation who must answer to a board and shareholders to forego anything that boosts their company’s bottom line.
It is asking a lot. According to a report from Good Jobs First, which tracks government subsidies, some of the biggest companies in the United States received hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants and tax credits. General Electric (GE) received $836,000,000 and General Motors (GM) received $529,000,000.
Get the Latest Market Data and News with the Yahoo Finance App
So why would these companies want to give that up? In Koch’s view, the dangers far outweigh the lost profits. He sees a not-too-distant future in which the federal government, largely through the Federal Reserve, will control American companies. If that sounds far-fetched, consider the too-big-to-fail phenomenon of the last decade, in which the federal government, represented by the Federal Reserve chairman, gathered the CEOs of some of the nation’s largest banks in a room and essentially handed them cash and engineered deals that allowed them to remain viable businesses.
It is one example of what Koch describes as the government picking winners and losers and leaving the most needy behind.
“This is creating a two-tiered system where opportunities for the disadvantaged are being destroyed and we’re creating welfare for the wealthy, so it’s unjust,” he told Yahoo Finance editor-in-chief Andy Serwer at the EY Strategic Growth Forum in California. “It’s an unjust system, and it’s making people’s lives worse.”
Household income last year was $53,657 adjusted for inflation, according to the Census Bureau. That’s down 6.5% since 2007, the year before the recession began.
The unemployment rate is down to 5%, but the labor force is at its lowest level since 1977, and the U.S. saw a sharp slowdown in economic growth in the third quarter, growing at just 1.5%.
Would cutting tax breaks and government subsidies for corporations encourage companies to hire? Or would it have the opposite effect?
Koch believes that allowing the free market and the customer to drive companies’ decisions will ultimately benefit the greater good, more so than if the government drives those decisions. Do you agree? Post a comment below and share your thoughts.
More from Yahoo Finance
Charles Koch wants to find 'common ground' with Obama administration

He has a good message regarding the governments relationship with business but when your team of superPACs are spending close to a billion dollars on 2016 elections then I'm not sure how much your message is going to resonate.

 

[CHOPTALK]

They all took a pretty good hit(GNC and Vitamin Shoppe) with the DoJ possibility of bringing charges on herbal supplement makers.

I'm surprised to hear you like the products so much. I know of no one around here that uses them, especially in the fight game, which is surprising with the UFC endorsement and all, but that's right, they just lost that as well. Personally, I also think their products aren't that great and refuse to use them as well...

good luck with your trades if you decide to get in...

I should have said I love their combat crunch bars. I don't use their protein, pre workouts , or any of the other products but the cc bars on its own puts my north $250 per month on muscle pharm.
They have great MACROs and the best taste over all the competition. I've tried them all at least once .

 

[MattyMatt]

I should have said I love their combat crunch bars. I don't use their protein, pre workouts , or any of the other products but the cc bars on its own puts my north $250 per month on muscle pharm.
They have great MACROs and the best taste over all the competition. I've tried them all at least once .

Cool. I'll grab a single of a Peanut Butter Cup Crunch when I reup this weekend and see what I think.

 

[CHOPTALK]

Cool. I'll grab a single of a Peanut Butter Cup Crunch when I reup this weekend and see what I think.

Yes the peanut butter cup crunch and the chocolate chip cookie dough are the 2 best.
Less then 220 cals and 22 grams of protein to with almost the same amount of fiber as quest bars

 

[MattyMatt]

Yes the peanut butter cup crunch and the chocolate chip cookie dough are the 2 best.
Less then 220 cals and 22 grams of protein to with almost the same amount of fiber as quest bars

Cool! I like the Quest, Detour, and Supreme Protein the best as far as taste and stuff goes. A little extra sugar and a few extra calories here and there don't bother me...

 

[tiznow]

Bezos takes to Twitter for the first time to brag about blue origin successful landing and poke at musk I'm sure Lol.. As musk said suborbital landing quite different/easier than what spacex is trying to do.... But a great accomplishment nonetheless.. and probably the smarter approach taking baby steps... Soon they will be able to take rich humans up to suborbital space for the view/thrill etc .. and those funds can be pumped into further development/moving towards space hotels etc..

 

[PatsFan1283]

What an amazing accomplishment and reaffirmation of what is possible through ingenuity. Sure it is suborbital but it is still landing a reusable rocket. Probably won't be another 15 years until commercial viable at the earliest. Bit more risky than skydiving...

[video=youtube;9pillaOxGCo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=192&v=9pillaOxGCo[/video]

 

[tiznow]

[h=1]When leagues pay for patriotic acts, sports fans cover the cost[/h]This story appears in ESPN The Magazine's Dec. 7 WR Issue. Subscribe today!
THE INFLUENCE OF the military represents the most significant and uncomfortable change in sports in post-9/11 America. Significant because the game, on TV and at the stadium, has been awash in military overtones since the destruction of the World Trade Center, and uncomfortable because the root of the change has been an unstable metastasizing of fear, nationalism, patriotism -- and especially commerce. Like green and organic, patriotism has devolved into a lucrative Good Housekeeping seal for marketers everywhere.
Sporting events often resemble exhibitions sponsored by the Pentagon. The New York Mets and San Diego Padres routinely wear camouflage alternate jerseys. Football coaches wear camo gear and headsets. Sections of uniformed military personnel receive gratuitous camera time. Instead of patriotic, sports feel inauthentic, pandering, manipulative.
Two Republican senators from Arizona -- Vietnam veteran John McCain and junior senator Jeff Flake -- recently released a report explaining the underside of stadium patriotism: For the past few years, the U.S. Department of Defense and the major sports leagues have embedded military-themed programs into the game-day experience, not for goodwill, not in support of the troops, but for money. McCain and Flake call it "paid patriotism" and say the DOD has spent at least $53 million of taxpayer money on at least 50 teams to stage these events, hoping to recruit new soldiers while duping fans into believing these gestures are voluntary expressions of teams' gratitude for returning soldiers. The two senators have drafted laws to make it stop. "It is time to allow major sports teams' legitimate tributes to our soldiers to shine with national pride rather than being cast under the pallor of marketing gimmicks paid for by American taxpayers," the 145-page report notes.
The U.S. remains involved in two armed conflicts, each more than a dozen years old. Terrorism fears allow the military presence in the culture to exist unquestioned, and those who do question it risk accusations of anti-Americanism. Still, McCain and Flake are correct: The public is being robbed of its tax money and its trust, and soldiers are being used. Following the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, according to the report, the DOD paid the Patriots $700,000 of taxpayer money to stage military-themed events; the Red Sox were paid $100,000; the Celtics and Bruins took $195,000 and $280,000. The Wisconsin Army National Guard paid the Brewers $49,000 to play "God Bless America" at games in 2014 during the seventh-inning stretch. The Atlanta Falcons held a surprise homecoming during a game. The fans cheered, but the reunion wasn't organic or voluntary. The DOD has paid the Falcons $879,000 of taxpayer money since 2012 for the privilege. The TV shots of veterans and outfield-sized American flags look great. The announcers talk about honoring service. McCain and Flake say the practices are legal but morally fraudulent.
There is not just deceit in these practices but also an insulting distortion of history and images. The Chicago Blackhawks ostensibly honored Veterans Day with a camouflage jersey containing the Blackhawks' logo in the center, clearly uninterested in the colliding imagery -- the systematic removal of native tribes occurred at the hands of the U.S. Army. Since 9/11, America has conflated the armed forces with first responders, creating a mishmash of anthem-singing cops and surprise homecomings in a time of Ferguson and militarized police. Tensions mount in aggrieved communities, yet the LA Dodgers pandered to police by holding Law Enforcement Appreciation Night in September.
The leagues dispute the idea that they are misleading the public; MLB says the cost for promotional events exceeds what it charges the military and is encouraging teams to "take steps to avoid any appearance that they are being paid by a military organization for any such ceremonies." Regardless, what McCain and Flake want is transparency, and after 14 years of war, it has all gone too far. The real question is why both sides -- the military and the billion-dollar sports industry -- feel this embedding is necessary. Maybe fans should again be allowed to watch a game without having to guess when they're being recruited by the National Guard, and maybe instead of billionaires profiting off veterans, the best way to honor returning soldiers is to hire them.

 

[eek.]

You certainly have an interesting system.
A wealthy elite with a huge military running a country with the larget prison population on the entire planet whichever way you look at it. A form of democratic fascism

 

[eek.]

Yet the constitution gives you freedoms most countries citizens can only dream of...

Go figure

 

[tiznow]

They chipping away at the freedoms part little by little that's been the hardest part for the fascists to widdle away at.. Post 9/11 world has helped them in that respect.. Never let a good crises go to waste

Now we got American born/citizen Muslims going off into the deep end with the latest mass shooting .. All that debting, and invading Iraq , and drone fest getting us nowhere.. For every terrorist we kill we crate 10 more people that hate us .. Military industrial complex is happy though....

--------

yellen gonna actually finally pull the plug on zirp corporate welfare bubble? Market starting to say yes..

 

[tiznow]

[h=1]Saudi Arabia at tipping point due to oil plunge[/h]If Saudi Arabia maintains oil production at current levels amid the oil price crash, then it's going to have to cut its budget — or it will likely be bankrupt by the end of the decade . The big issue is Saudi Arabia's big spending ways, especially increased government spending on social welfare programs.
According to the IMF, government expenditures in Saudi Arabia are expected to reach 50.4 percent of GDP in 2015, up from 40.8 percent in 2014. That increase can be attributed to two things: falling oil prices (it's bringing in less revenue) and an inflated budget (it's spending more money).
It's no secret that a large portion of Saudi Arabia's roughly 30 million people rely on the government for economic support. In February, the newly crowned King Salman doled out a reported $32 billion to the Saudi people in bonuses and subsidies to celebrate his ascension to the throne.
"We are a welfare society, so the population depends a lot on government subsidies, directly and indirectly," Abdullah Al-Alami, a Saudi writer and economist, recently told The New York Times. "But one day we are going to run out of oil, and I don't believe it is wise to be pampered and subsidized."
Saudi Arabia is expected to run a deficit of more than 20 percent of GDP in 2015, according to the IMF.
The Saudi kingdom itself projected a 6 percent deficit in its 2015 forecast, but more importantly, this year marked the first time Saudi Arabia predicted a budget deficit since 2011.
Saudi Arabia budgeted at the beginning of the year for expenditures of $229 billion, a record level, but also the lowest level of spending growth since 2002. That figure is likely to be higher as actual spending typically outpaces the estimated number by, on average, 25 percent over the past decade. Last year the actual spend reached $293 billion. The 2015 forecast was based on a predicted $79-per-barrel price for Brent crude.

Of the budgeted total for 2015, 25 percent was allocated for education, 19 percent for health and social affairs, 7 percent for transportation and infrastructure, 7 percent for water and agriculture and 5 percent for municipal services. Meanwhile, 36 percent of expenditures were unspecified in the Saudi budget.

Saudi Arabia noted in its 2015 budget that while the forecast represented "almost flat growth, it nonetheless sends an important message to the private sector that the fall in oil prices will not prevent the government from implementing and expanding on its investment plans. High fiscal spending remains psychologically important for the private sector, in our view," it said.
Saudi reserves were approximately $736 billion coming into the year.
"Saudi Arabia can afford its oil regime and the economic status-quo in the near-term," Jean-Michel Saliba, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, wrote in a report in August. "However, the domestic macro costs of its unchanged policy choices are likely to become more acute and apparent."
Part of the problem is Saudi Arabia's growing population. The kingdom supported roughly 4 million people in 1960, and since then, its population has grown rapidly, to the 30 million population level it's at today. Although far-off population boom highs hit in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia's population growth rate is still positive, with the overall population increasing at around 2 percent per annum.



The House of Saud provides its citizens with housing, education, health care — even electricity tariffs tend to be low.
In addition to bonuses, Saudi citizens are not subject to a personal income tax and enjoy perks like subsidized gasoline. According to the International Energy Agency, gasoline prices in Saudi Arabiaare less than 10 percent of average prices in Europe. And the IMF estimates that the kingdom spends about $60 billion subsidizing gasoline and other energy resources.
With a growing population and oil hovering around $40 a barrel, how long will it be able to sustain the status quo?
According to the IMF, Saudi Arabia's fiscal breakeven — the price per barrel of oil that it needs to balance its budget — was about $106 in 2014, and it is estimated to remain at about that level for this year as well.
"The simple truth is more people means more expense," said Simon Henderson, director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute.
To compensate, Saudi Arabia has turned to the bond market, issuing $5.33 billion in new debt, while tapping into its vast reserves. Domestic debt was only 1.6 percent of GDP at year-end 2014. Budget cuts seem like an obvious option, and the Saudi government has taken steps to pull back on infrastructure spending. But for a regime that had front row seats to the Arab Spring, scaling back benefits to its citizens probably doesn't seem too attractive — even if it means burning through its cash.
"There's an implicit contract," Henderson said. "In Saudi Arabia, it's you will respect our power, and we will provide for you."
The Saudi cabinet is stepping up efforts to cooperate with other oil-producing countries in order to stabilize the oil market, with this Friday's big meeting of OPEC nations likely to provide a key read on Saudi oil policy.
Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Naimi, the Saudi minister for petroleum and mineral resources, said in a recent statement, "Perhaps it would be fitting here to mention the role of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the stability of the oil market, and its continued willingness and prompt, assiduous efforts to cooperate with all oil producing and exporting countries, both from within and outside OPEC, in order to maintain market and price stability."
"Saudi Arabia hasn't said they won't cut, but that doesn't mean they are going to increase production either," SEB analyst Bjarne Schieldrop recently told CNBC.
Several reports in the financial press this week quoting sources familiar with the views of those attending this week's OPEC meeting indicated that the Saudis and the Persian Gulf nations are willing to cut production if Iran, Iraq and non-OPEC countries participate, evidencing a rift among OPEC nations that has existed for some time.
—By Kate Drew, special to CNBC.com

More From CNBC

• Top News and Analysis
• Latest News Video
• Personal Finance

 

[snoop]

 

[tiznow]

Speaking of Saudi Arabia.. Like 9/11 .. This lone wolf crazy Muslim terrorist attack has ties to Saudi Arabia (woman from there, guy visited there ).. Nothing to see here.. Keep bombing Syria, Iraq, Pakistan etc.. hating on Iran.. The true danger for the us lies within the borders of our allies in the region.. Those that control vast riches and throw scraps to the poor under our watch.. people there know we/the west support their corruption and power and I'm sure many despise it..

 

[eek.]

The Wests' true policy on the middle east is to destabilise the entire area whilst sooking as much oil out of the place as possible at the same time
When the middle east was at peace they all got together and attacked Israel(1960s) so now the only places allowed to be stable are Egypt(The Suez canal) and saudi(oil and gas)

Lebanon was a mess in the 1980s and early 90s, they eventually sorted themselves out and it was all looking great by 2006 so Israel intervened and sent them back to the stone age.
The west tried to destablilise Iran in the early 1980s with an invasion but unlike the Syrians, the Iranians stood their ground and fought for their country. It was a long war but the Iranians held on to their country so now they have something worthwhile for the future, something which belongs to them that the West doesn't own
Next up for destabilisation was Iraq and the policy worked so well they went after Syria too

If the Syrians don't stand and fight for their country then they'll have nothing too, it doesn't matter who runs the place as long as the stand and fight for it. If they give up and run away they're stuffed

As far as "tewwowists" are concerned... well you've 30 to 100 times more chance of being killed or maimed in an automobile accident (even in Israel)