Tucker Carlson: What is destroying rural America?

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe "cash register libertarians" understand economics?

...and so know that these problems won't be solved by making government even larger, as the current popular saint is doing?



No, we probably just hate white men (i.e. ourselves)...

...part of the Deep State plot.

Economics =/= Liberty.

They go together but they are not the same.

Impoverishing Americans so they are susceptible to communist propaganda while enriching our enemies in Communist China and importing millions of communists may make a buck in the short term but it will destroy liberty and that will end up ruining the economy.

[r3volution 3.0]

Economics =/= Liberty.

It's not an identity, but almost.

The vast majority of people don't need freedom of speech, for instance, because they have nothing to say. Everybody needs food, and shoes, and a place to live. One of the reasons that the "liberals" of the 20s and 30s didn't object enough to the USSR was that Stalin paid lip service to the all-important right of illiterate peasants to write (which they couldn't do anyway, of course). The self-important intellectuals in the West (like Keynes) thought that was swell. Nevermind that half the population of Russia was literally starving to death, some jackass pseudo-intellectual could write bad poetry.

importing millions of communists

They've been here the whole time: no Chinese (or Russians) required.

Look to New York and Boston.

[Swordsmyth]

It's not an identity, but almost.

The vast majority of people don't need freedom of speech, for instance, because they have nothing to say. Everybody needs food, and shoes, and a place to live. One of the reasons that the "liberals" of the 20s and 30s didn't object enough to the USSR was that Stalin paid lip service to the all-important right of illiterate peasants to write (which they couldn't do anyway, of course). The self-important intellectuals in the West (like Keynes) thought that was swell. Nevermind that half the population of Russia was literally starving to death, some jackass pseudo-intellectual could write bad poetry.

But in this case I have pointed out how the worship of economics will destroy liberty. (and economics)

They've been here the whole time: no Chinese (or Russians) required.

Look to New York and Boston.

We have had some for a long time, that's all the more reason not to let them import enough reinforcements to finish liberty off for good or to let them destroy our economy and empower our enemies.

[r3volution 3.0]

But in this case I have pointed out how the worship of economics will destroy liberty. (and economics)

I must have missed that lecture...

We have had some for a long time, that's all the more reason not to let them import enough reinforcements to finish liberty off for good or to let them destroy our economy and empower our enemies.

They were among the earliest people to populate this hemisphere.

Only oyarde could call them immigrants.

Wall Street and Boston Brahmin people supported the bolshevik revolution as it was occurring.

These people were not recent immigrants; they were the creme of WASP society, old English families.

Your culture-based theory is all wet.

[Swordsmyth]

I must have missed that lecture...

Impoverishing Americans so they are susceptible to communist propaganda while enriching our enemies in Communist China and importing millions of communists may make a buck in the short term but it will destroy liberty and that will end up ruining the economy.

They were among the earliest people to populate this hemisphere.

Only oyarde could call them immigrants.

Wall Street and Boston Brahmin people supported the bolshevik revolution as it was occurring.

These people were not recent immigrants; they were the creme of WASP society, old English families.

And we shouldn't allow them to import enough reinforcements to finish liberty off for good or to let them destroy our economy and empower our enemies.

Your culture-based theory is all wet.

Says the guy who points to a culture group as being a large part of the problem.

Yankees are not the only or the worst anti-liberty culture in the world but they are intent on overwhelming us with people from the worst cultures.

[tod evans]

Tucker's trying to create a new political movement, [snip]

So, these people are not friends, and there's no reason to read, let alone post, any jibber-jabber they might scribble.

Oh really?

I'll make the determination of what I read or what/who I post about all by myself.

[tod evans]

Vulture capitalism isn't something that exists. It's a Bernie Sanders word. And Singer was involved in a mutually beneficial transaction. Bass Pro Shop made an offer for the company. The board of directors of Cabela's accepted.

Johnny Morris is every bit as ruthless as Singer, if not more so, in fact it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't mastermind this whole "deal" from start to finish and used Singer as his instrument.

[Origanalist]

Now why is Paul Singer familiar? Oh yeah, prominent neoconservative. Rubio was his boy.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Reference-List





And another prominent neoconservative, Dan Senor, was a partner at Elliot.

Pro-Israel, Pro LGBTXYZ, All American guy.

[RJB]

Very weird the hatred finance gets. I remember Ron Paul commending Mitt Romney's background. I guess this really is Pat Buchanan/Dotard Forums now.

I didn't express hate. I asked questions. I could pretend to be offended as well and claim you hate the working man and claim this is a slum Lord forum, but that would be just as silly. Shaming language doesn't work. That's so early 2000s.

[Krugminator2]

Johnny Morris is every bit as ruthless as Singer, if not more so, in fact it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't mastermind this whole "deal" from start to finish and used Singer as his instrument.

Have never heard of him until now but he looks like a pretty smart guy and someone who should be celebrated. Would make sense if previously expressed interest in buying Cabela's and had some reason for not doing. Not sure how Singer was necessary to make the process move along but maybe. If things buying his major competition is the right thing, then good for him.

I didn't express hate. I asked questions. I could pretend to be offended as well and claim you hate the working man and claim this is a slum Lord forum, but that would be just as silly. Shaming language doesn't work. That's so early 2000s.

I didn't want to combine multiple posts like this post. More a general statement of the sentiment of this thread. That said, I would take slum lord as a compliment. I lived an apartment for a long time run by a slum lord. Paint completely peeled off the bathroom wall, ratty carpet, refrigerator that didn't work, linoleum that peeled up. Super cheap rent. $400/mo in a higher cost area. Was great for me at that point in my life. Slum lords and corporate raiders are heroes as Walter Block might say. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...g-the-slumlord

[osan]

Lessee... um... Americans?
Just guessing.

[Anti Globalist]

Why is Trump popular? This type of story was once the staple on PBS and NPR. Trump and a portion of the GOP apparatus are combining typical points from both the Republican and Democratic platforms.

Democratic points Tucker, Trump, etc seem to be for: smaller foreign policy footprint, fighting tariffs on our exports, fighting illegals that take blue collar jobs, fighting vulture capitalism, pro 1st Amendment...

GOP points: Strong defense, pro 2nd Amendment, prolife, less red tape against businesses.

Whether they are sincere or not remains to be seen, but this is what I think is behind Trump's success.

The Democratic Party is for: free abortions for male to female transgenders, free healthcare for illegals, and other insanities.

That right there shows you how insane the Democrats have become.

[Zippyjuan]

But in this case I have pointed out how the worship of economics will destroy liberty. (and economics)

.

Ban economics!

We have had some for a long time, that's all the more reason not to let them import enough reinforcements to finish liberty off for good or to let them destroy our economy and empower our enemies

So on one hand, economics is bad. On the other hand, we need to protect economics and ban foreigners.

[tod evans]

Have never heard of him until now but he looks like a pretty smart guy and someone who should be celebrated. Would make sense if previously expressed interest in buying Cabela's and had some reason for not doing. Not sure how Singer was necessary to make the process move along but maybe. If things buying his major competition is the right thing, then good for him.

Morris owns a chain of liquor stores too, he built it up by squashing the mom-n-pop stores then jacking prices, exactly as he'll do with the Cabela deal.

His business model follows that of Wal-Mart to an extent........However he does make an effort to exploit/employ locally in his own manufacturing facilities and he probably does more for the local communities than the Walton clan.

None of this behavior rises to the point of government interference.

[devil21]

I didn't watch the vid but if there's no mention of Agenda 2030 then it's a gloss over.

[Brian4Liberty]

But if you own a big share of the business like Paul Singer, you get a big say. He bought it at $38 and the company sold for $60. Hard to see anything wrong with that.

And if someone starts a business and wants to control it, they don't need list it publicly and sell off most of their shares, now do they?

Nothing wrong with investing in a company that goes up in value, that grows, that expands sales and revenue, etc.

And privately held companies are preferable for a business owner who cares about their business.

Publicly owned companies start to resemble government in many ways. Ownership so diffuse that there is no real ownership control, where executives resemble politicians trying to line their own pockets. Once there is no founding owner who really cares about the business itself, it can become an exercise in cashing out. M&A time.

Vulture capitalism isn't something that exists. It's a Bernie Sanders word. And Singer was involved in a mutually beneficial transaction. Bass Pro Shop made an offer for the company. The board of directors of Cabela's accepted.

Beneficial transactions. So what product or service did Singer provide for his $90-$100 million payout? Forced a company to accept a buyout? Why didn’t that happen without Singer if it was so mutually beneficial? If there are two similar companies, both healthy and competitive, what is the benefit to the economy and society for one of them to be absorbed, eliminating competition?

[RJB]

Publicly owned companies start to resemble government in many ways.

And both can resemble this:



We should respect Tony. He earned.

[Krugminator2]

Ownership so diffuse that there is no real ownership control, where executives resemble politicians trying to line their own pockets. Once there is no founding owner who really cares about the business itself.

Right. That is why guys like Singer and corporate raiders or shareholder activists are so important. They provide a voice that otherwise doesn't exist with spread out shareholders and impose a discipline on business. Gekko very astute.

Why didn’t that happen without Singer if it was so mutually beneficial?

See last point. I don't know anything about this situation. But often companies don't get bought out because that means redundant employees (namely management) get fired. You don't need two CEOs, two CFOs, etc. Boards are often just management cronies. People like to protect their jobs even if it is bad for the company.

He doesn't need to come up with a new product. Earnings were declining in Cabela's. The stock price declined. A stock price might stay depressed if the market doesn't have confidence in management. Someone might buy the company if they think they can make changes that will create more value. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/b...n-cabelas.html

[Brian4Liberty]

Right. That is why guys like Singer and corporate raiders or shareholder activists are so important. They provide a voice that otherwise doesn't exist with spread out shareholders and impose a discipline on business.

I probably owned shares in Cabela’s. Singer was not speaking for me. Or most likely any of the other shareholders.

See last point. I don't know anything about this situation. But often companies don't get bought out because that means redundant employees (namely management) get fired. You don't need two CEOs, two CFOs, etc. Boards are often just management cronies. People like to protect their jobs even if it is bad for the company.

I have been through a big merger. You end up with double the bureaucracy, even though you might reduce the number of CEOs. They might even co-CEO. It’s a complete $#@!show of survival of the feces, with the most aggressive ladder climbers trying to sabotage others. It’s not good for a company, and it is no guarantee that the good guys will “win”. Being best at schmoozing and back stabbing does not equate with running a quality business.

He doesn't need to come up with a new product. Earnings were declining in Cabela's. The stock price declined. A stock price might stay depressed if the market doesn't have confidence in management. Someone might buy the company if they think they can make changes that will create more value. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/b...n-cabelas.html

He was essentially paid $90 million or more. What did he provide for that money, other than pump and dump the stock?

And if we talk about the larger economy and customers, how does eliminating completion help?

[Krugminator2]

I probably owned shares in Cabela’s. Singer was not speaking for me. Or most likely any of the other shareholders.

So you think a lot of people are furious about doubling their money?

I have been through a big merger. You end up with double the bureaucracy, even though you might reduce the number of CEOs. They might even co-CEO. It’s a complete $#@!show of survival of the feces, with the most aggressive ladder climbers trying to sabotage others. It’s not good for a company, and it is no guarantee that the good guys will “win”. Being best at schmoozing and back stabbing does not equate with running a quality business.

A lot of mergers are a disaster and destroy value. Many create value. Charles Koch has built Koch Industries on successful mergers. He has created hundreds of billions of value to society as a result.

He was essentially paid $90 million or more. What did he provide for that money, other than pump and dump the stock?

But it wasn't a pump and dump. The stock rose and stayed high. The service he provided was a better allocation of resources for the owners of Cabela's and presumably society because trade is win-win.

And if we talk about the larger economy and customers, how does eliminating completion help?

One plus one can equal three. If the Bass Pro Shop guy runs the business better then society is better off. More store owners aren't inherently good if they are laggards. Clearly he thinks buying the company will create value, that's why he did it. He might be wrong, but it is his money.

[revgen]

This is what happens when you decide to make your company a publicly traded corporation. People like Paul Singer will come in and do this. The solution? Make your company a private corporation. Instead of an "open border" where just about anybody can come in, you control who invests in your company. One example of a private corporation where I live is In-N-Out Burger.

[Brian4Liberty]

So you think a lot of people are furious about doubling their money?

Maybe Bass shareholders are mad about overpaying for a company that was going out of business?

But it wasn't a pump and dump. The stock rose and stayed high. The service he provided was a better allocation of resources for the owners of Cabela's and presumably society because trade is win-win.

Cabelas was pumped, and after the buyout, no one had any Cabelas stock. It was “dumped” in that it was sold.

The rest is hopeful thinking. Better allocation of resources? The company was sold. That’s that for them, they no longer exist.

One plus one can equal three. If the Bass Pro Shop guy runs the business better then society is better off. More store owners aren't inherently good if they are laggards. Clearly he thinks buying the company will create value, that's why he did it. He might be wrong, but it is his money.

In the real world, Bass has to raise prices to make up for money spent on the buyout. And they can do that due to the elimination of competition.

M&A is not inherently bad, but there is an entire industry around it, and it can be abused by outside forces looking to extract all they can. Those people are certainly making money for themselves, but that money is extracted from businesses and shareholders, and eventually, customers. Not necessarily good for the overall economy or consumers.

And who cares if some businesses are “laggards”? There is no inherent good for the economy to destroy and pillage a business just because some hedge fund thinks they can. If they are in business, they are providing a service and employment. The only thing that should decide if they are “laggards” are consumers. If a business can not remain profitable, then they will naturally fail. No need for a predator (or scavenger or thief) to speed up the process.

Competition is good. Eliminating all competition in favor of the “leader” of the moment is bad. A business in second place today could be in first place tomorrow. If elimination of all competition was a good thing, then a single, nationalized healthcare system would be the best option for everyone. It would be good for a few, but definitely not good for consumers and the economy.

And no, I don’t buy the “economics” sold in a Hollywood movie.

[Swordsmyth]

Ban economics!



So on one hand, economics is bad. On the other hand, we need to protect economics and ban foreigners.

Nobody said economics was bad.
Many good things can be misused.

[Swordsmyth]

[Swordsmyth]

[r3volution 3.0]

Impoverishing Americans so they are susceptible to communist propaganda while enriching our enemies in Communist China and importing millions of communists may make a buck in the short term but it will destroy liberty and that will end up ruining the economy.

"Communist" China isn't the cause of America's economic problems.

It's a vote-generating scapegoat/distraction.

If the trade war ends improbably in China's total and abject surrender, America's economic trajectory will be unaffected.

And we shouldn't allow them to import enough reinforcements to finish liberty off for good or to let them destroy our economy and empower our enemies.

Reinforcements, invasion, genocide...

Webster needs to issue a special edition for you folks.

Says the guy who points to a culture group as being a large part of the problem.

Culture is of almost no importance in the long-term; material self-interest determines almost all important historical developments, including the growth of the state over time. The yankees were particularly obnoxious statists, but things would not have been noticeably different if they'd never made landfall. I was simply pointing out that, if you must obsess over culture, at least blame the right people.

[susano]

Why is Trump popular? This type of story was once the staple on PBS and NPR. Trump and a portion of the GOP apparatus are combining typical points from both the Republican and Democratic platforms.

Democratic points Tucker, Trump, etc seem to be for: smaller foreign policy footprint, fighting tariffs on our exports, fighting illegals that take blue collar jobs, fighting vulture capitalism, pro 1st Amendment...

GOP points: Strong defense, pro 2nd Amendment, prolife, less red tape against businesses.

Whether they are sincere or not remains to be seen, but this is what I think is behind Trump's success.

The Democratic Party is for: free abortions for male to female transgenders, free healthcare for illegals, and other insanities.

Who are these Democraps who want a smaller foreign policy footprint, care about illegal immigration or the first amendment? As far I can see, Democraps are just slightly more left wing neocons. The only reason any opposed the Iraq war because it was Dubya's war (the opposing team). They fully supported the destruction of Libya, Syria and the CIA overthrowing the govt of Ukraine which they are using as their cudgel in the over century long Jew vendetta against Russia. They hate freedom of speech and Christians so oppose the first amendment. Granted, there's Tulsi Gabbard but she's an extreme outlier and hated by her own party. The only people I see in favor of what you've mentioned would be paleoconservatives and Trump has a touch of that in him which is what I think resonated with so many people.

[RJB]

Who are these Democraps who want a smaller foreign policy footprint, care about illegal immigration or the first amendment? As far I can see, Democraps are just slightly more left wing neocons. The only reason any opposed the Iraq war because it was Dubya's war (the opposing team). They fully supported the destruction of Libya, Syria and the CIA overthrowing the govt of Ukraine which they are using as their cudgel in the over century long Jew vendetta against Russia. They hate freedom of speech and Christians so oppose the first amendment. Granted, there's Tulsi Gabbard but she's an extreme outlier and hated by her own party. The only people I see in favor of what you've mentioned would be paleoconservatives and Trump has a touch of that in him which is what I think resonated with so many people.

I am talking old school union blue collar, peacenik Dems. 1960s - 1990s. The Democratic party does NOT even pay lip service to those groups anymore.

[susano]

I am talking old school union blue collar, peacenik Dems. 1960s - 1990s. The Democratic party does even pay lip service to those groups anymore.

Okay, gotcha. yeah, they're long dead.

[RJB]

Okay, gotcha. yeah, they're long dead.

Exactly. Trump pretty much united old school Democrats and old school Republicans with his rhetoric and some actions.