Want a PAID internship w/ a think tank?

[Matt Collins]

Via e-mail from the State Policy Network (http://spn.org/):


Please promptly forward this information to college students who would be interested in a summer, paid internship with a state think tank.



Application deadline: January 31




Students apply here: www.TheIHS.org/ksfp (http://www.TheIHS.org/ksfp)


The 10-week (June 1-Aug. 9) SPN/IHS Koch Summer Fellow Program (http://www.theihs.org/koch-summer-fellow-program/state-policy-internships):



has placements for 52 interns
includes:

A week-long policy seminar in Washington, D.C.
Career development workshops
Mentoring


offers interns:

A $1,500 stipend
Housing assistance


<>oTravel scholarships

[sailingaway]

The Kochs?

[Confederate]

If it started two weeks later I would apply :(

[Matt Collins]

The Kochs?Yep, they do a lot of good work.

[sailingaway]

They have a much more corporatist - crony capitalist slant on it, which is why they fought Ron so much.

But people might be able to make use of the position; they should just be aware of where they are going.

If you go to your link, their link to the intern picture has been removed, though.

[Matt Collins]

They have a much more corporatist - crony capitalist slant on it, You obviously have not had any interaction with the Kochs or what they do or any of the organizations that they support. Or if you do, you don't know it. Yes there is no doubt that the Kochs have corporate interests, that's not in question. However you fell into this - http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division


I can tell you their money does a lot of good things, and the SPN and other state think tanks are not all little fiefdoms or puppets of the Kochs :rolleyes:

[sailingaway]

Their money supports isolated issues I also support. Their approach, to my mind, is corporatist, they just cater to a smaller group of corporate interests.

I am certainly not saying the entire SPN is theirs, but that they use money to have the most 'influence' at the end of the day.

but people have heard both sides now, and all are able to make up their own minds.

--

edit, to clarify, I'm not saying an internship would be a bad idea, it might be interesting, educate and develop connections. I don't think I have to suggest to Ron Paul supporters that they analyze what they hear independently.

[Matt Collins]

Their approach, to my mind, is corporatist, they just cater to a smaller group of corporate interests. Their company may be, but the think tanks they support don't seem to be corporatist at all.

[sailingaway]

Actually, some do seem so. Cato for one, if you parse what they write, and the candidates they support through 'their' student organizations ... well, last time students for liberty's funded events supported Johnson, even with Ron having a much better chance.

Had they got behind Ron, who know what may have happened? We weren't far off, in Iowa.

Regardless, the internship terms should speak for themselves, and people can do their own analysis. Does the internship still exist? As I said, I tried to click through to the internship on your link and I couldn't find it.

[Matt Collins]

Cato for one, if you parse what they write, and the candidates they support through 'their' student organizations Cato doesn't support anyone, and I haven't seen Cato support corporatism, in fact just the opposite. Not to mention that Cato isn't monolithic; they are kind of like a college, they write reports and hold lectures.



... well, last time students for liberty's funded events supported Johnson, even with Ron having a much better chance.I am sure the Kochs had nothing to do with that :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

Does the internship still exist? As I said, I tried to click through to the internship on your link and I couldn't find it.For questions, e-mail this guy: kurt@spn.org

[Confederate]

Matt, will you write me a recommendation letter?

[sailingaway]

Cato doesn't support anyone, and I haven't seen Cato support corporatism, in fact just the opposite. Not to mention that Cato isn't monolithic; they are kind of like a college, they write reports and hold lectures.


I am sure the Kochs had nothing to do with that :rolleyes:

they funded it according to the details on the receptions at the time. I checked.

Also, CATO may not be monolithic, but they tread the Koch demarcation of issues line as far as I can tell. But I am not trying to convince you, and others can look into it for themselves.

Still, there are such things as coalitions. You just need to figure out for yourself who you can trust to follow for action when the chips are down and you don't personally have all the details.

[Matt Collins]

Also, CATO may not be monolithic, but they tread the Koch demarcation of issues line as far as I can tell. Are you kidding? Cato nearly revolted when Koch tried to gain controlling interest in the organization. Nearly half the staff there threatened to walk out if the Koch's got control of the place for fear they would turn it into a political apparatus. There were massive lawsuits about it.

So no, Cato is not exactly a Koch mouthpiece even though they do receive some funding from them.





Still, there are such things as coalitions. You just need to figure out for yourself who you can trust to follow for action when the chips are down and you don't personally have all the details.Trust no one, but come to understand the motivation of others, and ensure that gets used to your advantage. Once you know what others want, you then are able to position yourself not to get screwed.

[sailingaway]

CATO didn't want to give up autonomy. That is not the same as not focusing on select issues out of sensitivity to financial backing.

[Matt Collins]

CATO didn't want to give up autonomy. That is not the same as not focusing on select issues out of sensitivity to financial backing.Valid point. What select issues do they focus on?

[Confederate]

Matt, will you write me a recommendation letter?

I guess not :(

[sailingaway]

Valid point. What select issues do they focus on?

I'm not sufficiently interested in this conversation to jump through your hoops. Managed trade is one they DON'T focus on. People can look into it for themselves.

My overarching impression is that the entire idea of sovereignty/local self-determination vs centralized corporatist allocation of resources to the well connected is a line they don't want to man.

[Carson]

I think I've got more memories for them, than against.

I wonder what their toilets are like...you know, for thinking. My easy chair has had it.



While I'm thinking on it I've got a problem they might be able to help me with.

How is a regular person suppose to save for the future?

With the counterfeiting out pacing earning that puts a person in one kind of a bind.

The counterfeiting has also broken banking in both directions. That's another.

The Stock Market only moves to account for inflation. Sure you can keep up with it but if your one of the people that pays things like capital gains taxes then your dragged right back down to less than you had. About 30% less.

Silver, Gold, the same thing.


If you look at this chart and come up with your own figure for inflation we are all in trouble. It's no wonder none of the old tried and true ways of earning a living can keep up.

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/followthemoney/RobertSahrcurrencyvalue.jpg

If they double the money supply by counterfeiting the dollar becomes worth half as much. You could recreate the same inflation by printing up twenty six times the money we had at the baseline.

I sort of figure inflation is more like 8%. Here is how.

If you take the $5.00 as a base figure and double it you get $10.00. That is a 100% increase.

If you take the $10.00 as a base figure and double it you get $20.00. That is a 200% increase.

If you take the $20.00 as a base figure and double it you get $40.00. That is a 300% increase.

If you take the $40.00 as a base figure and double it you get $80.00. That is a 400% increase.

And you still have a ways to go. All of that has happened in about the last 50 years.

So like I say, "I sort of figure inflation is more like 8%."


If you go to a bank website and use a calculator to see what the change is it comes out to over 500% and 10% a year. I figure what is a couple of percentage points like 2% a year; UNLESS IT'S A 2% THAT IS FLAT OUT LIE.


P.S. If there had been any truth to their 2% a year inflation the gasoline that was 17 to 25 cents would now be running at about 34 to 50 cents a gallon after fifty years.

[sailingaway]

carson, of course you are right with the second. it is almost as if what the government wanted was dependency on government, isn't it?

As to the first, he didn't ask the good points I found in CATO, they have been the only voice of reason imho on the points where we do agree. It is just that if you don't stand true to principles when you could benefit otherwise, can you be trusted when the chips are down? I prefer them to Heritage, definitely.

[Carson]

carson, of course you are right with the second. it is almost as if what the government wanted was dependency on government, isn't it?

As to the first, he didn't ask the good points I found in CATO, they have been the only voice of reason imho on the points where we do agree. It is just that if you don't stand true to principles when you could benefit otherwise, can you be trusted when the chips are down? I prefer them to Heritage, definitely.

I really don't know much about the issues they would be working on.

I was thinking much more base.

I heard people really work up a hate against the Koch's, which at times I thought was pretty cool. You see the people that were hating them weren't peoples opinions I really respected.

I hope that comment doesn't offend anyone here as you guys certainly aren't amongst them.

As for these think tanks as a whole, I can see good coming out of the concept, but with them able to wield so much power through their access to counterfeited money, I'm mostly turned off by them. At least until they get cut off.

[sailingaway]

I think the Kochs expect return on their money in ways that makes me uncomfortable. I have also recoiled some from some of the vitriol against them, but I reached my own conclusion. People's opinions can and do vary, of course.

Lew Rockwell appears to think the Kochs have 'their man' on the Fed Board. I don't exactly know the details, and do consider Lew 'too close to' the fight to take without some independent analysis, but I haven't known him to be outright wrong on a fact like that. I tentatively believe it. But if that were what I rested my opinion on, I'd check into it myself.

[Carson]

I think the Kochs expect return on their money in ways that makes me uncomfortable. I have also recoiled some from some of the vitriol against them, but I reached my own conclusion. People's opinions can and do vary, of course.

Lew Rockwell appears to think the Kochs have 'their man' on the Fed Board. I don't exactly know the details, and do consider Lew 'too close to' the fight to take without some independent analysis, but I haven't known him to be outright wrong on a fact like that. I tentatively believe it. But if that were what I rested my opinion on, I'd check into it myself.


That makes cents. I don't mind that so much.

The think tanks that creep me out are more into social engineering.

I do find the Koch brothers interesting.

I'm not good at keeping track of what everyone is up to or trying to figure out what they believe. About the time I do they've went and changed or grown up or something.


Even if your someone like the Koch's how do you save? I don't think they can either. They would have to just keep going and going. If they stop it will all dry up just like for us.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

I think the Kochs expect return on their money in ways that makes me uncomfortable. I have also recoiled some from some of the vitriol against them, but I reached my own conclusion. People's opinions can and do vary, of course.

Lew Rockwell appears to think the Kochs have 'their man' on the Fed Board. I don't exactly know the details, and do consider Lew 'too close to' the fight to take without some independent analysis, but I haven't known him to be outright wrong on a fact like that. I tentatively believe it. But if that were what I rested my opinion on, I'd check into it myself.

Lew Rockwell is smart but often posts crappy conjecture on his blog.

He is jealous that CATO gets the money. If Mises got it he would be singing the praises of the Kochs.

The only reasons CATO didn't get behind Ron Paul, are 1-they are a policy thinktank which doesn't get too involved in races, and 2-Ron Paul comes off as crazy which would have made them look bad by association.

Now of course the Kochs also have business interests and aren't pure libertarian, but their money has done a lot of good.

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul does not come off as crazy, and my understanding, without direct knowledge, is that the split between the Kochs and the Rothbardians was due to the Rothbardians refusing to play the corporatist game. It would be interesting, but isn't now possible, to have been a fly on the wall as those events occurred.

[Danan]

Lew Rockwell is smart but often posts crappy conjecture on his blog.

He is jealous that CATO gets the money. If Mises got it he would be singing the praises of the Kochs.

The only reasons CATO didn't get behind Ron Paul, are 1-they are a policy thinktank which doesn't get too involved in races, and 2-Ron Paul comes off as crazy which would have made them look bad by association.

Now of course the Kochs also have business interests and aren't pure libertarian, but their money has done a lot of good.

No, Lew dislikes them because they clashed with Murray Rothbard and wanted to get rid of any mentioning of Mises.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mer09FiICow

[Danan]

Ron Paul does not come off as crazy, and my understanding, without direct knowledge, is that the split between the Kochs and the Rothbardians was due to the Rothbardians refusing to play the corporatist game. It would be interesting, but isn't now possible, to have been a fly on the wall as those events occurred.

I don't know if it really had to do with corporatism. I believe it was more of a philosophical argument about economic theory (Austrian vs. Chicago school and other free market branches).

[MelissaWV]

Matt you are becoming the Sally Struthers of RPFs.

[Tpoints]

They have a much more corporatist - crony capitalist slant on it, which is why they fought Ron so much.

But people might be able to make use of the position; they should just be aware of where they are going.

If you go to your link, their link to the intern picture has been removed, though.

but they funded the Tea Party movement, without the Kochs, we'd probably not even have a 2012 election!

[sailingaway]

I don't know if it really had to do with corporatism. I believe it was more of a philosophical argument about economic theory (Austrian vs. Chicago school and other free market branches).

Why did they give the max to Trey Grayson against Rand Paul in his senate bid when all they knew was that he was Ron Paul's son?

[acptulsa]

Matt you are becoming the Sally Struthers of RPFs.

This.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeH14bh6ciU

[Matt Collins]

Why did they give the max to Trey Grayson against Rand Paul in his senate bid when all they knew was that he was Ron Paul's son?Probably to keep McConnell happy and/or they didn't think Rand could win.

[LibertyEagle]

Cato doesn't support anyone, and I haven't seen Cato support corporatism, in fact just the opposite. Not to mention that Cato isn't monolithic; they are kind of like a college, they write reports and hold lectures.

Now, Matt, you know as well as I do that some of the higher-ups came out in support of establishment candidates; not Ron. I remember it from Ron's first run. I also seem to recall an individual from Cato being on the Judge's show and slamming Dr. Paul in the last campaign. As I recall, they backed Johnson.

[Matt Collins]

Lew Rockwell is smart but often posts crappy conjecture on his blog.

He is jealous that CATO gets the money. If Mises got it he would be singing the praises of the Kochs.

The only reasons CATO didn't get behind Ron Paul, are 1-they are a policy thinktank which doesn't get too involved in races, and 2-Ron Paul comes off as crazy which would have made them look bad by association.

Now of course the Kochs also have business interests and aren't pure libertarian, but their money has done a lot of good.Exactly. But the Rothbard / Koch and Cato split happened a long time ago, I think it's time to get over it and move on, Cato and LVMI have a lot of commonalities. But yes, Lew and Ron do tend to say things that can cause damage to others by association so it makes sense. But Ron I believe has spoken at Cato before, and Cato does mention Ron quit a bit in their podcasts when relevant. But remember Cato isn't about the political scene as much as they are about pure policy.

[sailingaway]

but their policy is slanted by the liberty they don't WANT people to pay attention to, in my view. They are for selective liberty.

[acptulsa]

Exactly. But the Rothbard / Koch and Cato split happened a long time ago, I think it's time to get over it and move on, Cato and LVMI have a lot of commonalities.

You think it's time to get over it and move on, and you want to talk about commonalities. Yet you won't be specific. Is it that you don't want people to think for themselves? Or is it that you're not thinking for yourself, so you don't want to get into specifics because you don't know the specifics and for all you know the specifics are a minefield?

[compromise]

Koch Industries gave $10,000 each to Amash and Massie in 2012.
www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00236489

I think the Kochs just don't like the Paul family in particular.

Not sure about Cato though. Their new president, Allison is very interventionist on foreign policy.

[Danan]

Not sure about Cato though. Their new president, Allison is very interventionist on foreign policy.

Is he really? I can only find speculation that he has to be hawkish since he is a hardcore Randian (which is really one big cult). The current president of the Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook, is as awful on foreign policy as one could get. So I guess it would make sense.

But it would be really bad if it were true, the Cato institue was quite good on foreign policy (that is, non-interventionist) in the last couple years.

There are a couple of good articles on this subject:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/09/the_new_president_of_the_cato_institute_wants_the_ think_tank_to_adopt_the_personal_philosophy_of_ayn _rand_as_policy_.html
http://lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon107.html
http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/how-hawkish-is-john-allison
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/07/kochs-cato-john-allison.html

I also don't like the idea that he might try to purge Cato of non-Randians. I don't know the man, but anyone high up in the official Rand-hirarchy is suspicious to me. As far as I know these people are really, really cultish and you normally don't last long if you dare to disagree with Ayn Rand or the current leadership on anything.

[sailingaway]

Koch Industries gave $10,000 each to Amash and Massie in 2012.
www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00236489

I think the Kochs just don't like the Paul family in particular.

Not sure about Cato though. Their new president, Allison is very interventionist on foreign policy.

I think they became convinced the new breed is more malleable, or want to get behind what is winning, whichever. they backed Rand in the general election I believe, but not right off the bat. What I was looking at was their bias. Why would so called libertarians back TREY GREYSON against Ron Paul's son, when that was all they new of them? It isn't conclusive on its own, but it is one of the things I put together with others to come down where I did on them.

[Danan]

I think they became convinced the new breed is more malleable, or want to get behind what is winning, whichever. they backed Rand in the general election I believe, but not right off the bat. What I was looking at was their bias. Why would so called libertarians back TREY GREYSON against Ron Paul's son, when that was all they new of them? It isn't conclusive on its own, but it is one of the things I put together with others to come down where I did on them.

Because Rand Paul is Ron's son and Ron is heavily influenced not by Ayn Rand and Friedman but by Mises and Rothbard and he was quite important in the origin of the Mises Institute which is a giant thorn in the Kochs' flesh. For some reason the Kochs' split from the Rothbardian/Misesian view at some time and become its greatest enemy, trying to purge their names from history.

I believe its really a personal/philosophical issue, rather than a corporatist issue. I could be wrong, though.

[sailingaway]

Because Rand Paul is Ron's son and Ron is heavily influenced not by Ayn Rand and Friedman but by Mises and Rothbard and he was quite important in the origin of the Mises Institute which is a giant thorn in the Kochs' flesh. For some reason the Kochs' split from the Rothbardian/Misesian view at some time and become its greatest enemy, trying to purge their names from history.

I believe its really a personal/philosophical issue, rather than a corporatist issue. I could be wrong, though.

My understanding is that what they split on was precisely the anti corporatist agressiveness of Rothbardian thought. As opposed to go along to get along with those in power.

caveat, I understand that from Rothbardians.... but it seemed to hold true when I looked at what they financed, and positions they pushed, and their preferred candidates.

[Matt Collins]

My understanding is that what they split on was precisely the anti corporatist agressiveness of Rothbardian thought. As opposed to go along to get along with those in power.

caveat, I understand that from Rothbardians.... but it seemed to hold true when I looked at what they financed, and positions they pushed, and their preferred candidates.

hmmmm, I always thought it was more of a Chicago vs Austrian conflict. Chicago School doesn't take the Fed for what it really is where the Austrian School does. But I'm by no means an expert here