Robert Ringer

The Nutty Newt Saga Continues

By Robert Ringer - Monday, January 16, 2012

Every time you think the media is about to run out of ideas for transforming a nonstory into a spectacular news event, they manage to come up with yet another gem.  That said, forgive me for adding my two cents worth to the Bain Capital brouhaha.

Those who know Newt Gingrich best have long predicated he would implode, even after he shot to the top of the polls, which he managed to do by cleverly playing the role of the calm, intellectual, peacemaking elderly statesman who was above the fray.  So Gingrich’s angry obsession with taking down MittMan, even if it means destroying his own chances of winning the Republican nomination, is not surprising.

After observing his words and actions — from his climate-changing love-fest with Nancy Pelosi on the couch to his infamous “right-wing social engineering” comment about Paul Ryan’s budget plan — and then his scorched-earth attacks on free-market capitalism — I’ve come to the conclusion that Newt is not just a nasty, egomaniacal, self-destructive, undisciplined flip-flopper.

I hate to make excuses for him, but I truly believe the man is illegally insane — a classic example of a mad genius.  So even though I condemn Nutty Newt for his attacks against the free market, I feel compelled to declare him not guilty by reason of insanity.

That said, I believe that Mitt Romney exemplifies everything that’s wrong with politics in this country, so my condemnation of Gingrich for his anti-capitalism remarks is not a defense of MittMan.  It’s a defense of capitalism.

Where pundits and conservative politicians are off target in this whole time-wasting affair is that they all seem to agree that Romney should “come clean” and explain his modus operandi while at Bain Capital.  Nutty Newt, in a back-pedaling mode, said, “I think he [Romney] owes the country a much more detailed answer about what his career was like.”

That’s a real head scratcher, even coming from Newt.  Was Romney ever convicted of a crime — or even indicted?  Did he ever lose a lawsuit claiming fraud against him or Bain Capital?  If not, what’s to explain?

Gingrich, using the language of the class-warfare crowd, accused Romney of being a “predatory capitalist.”  We’re talking serious sticks and stones here.  Can you imagine how crummy you’d feel if someone accused you of being — Gasp! — a predatory capitalist?  Neither can I, because there is no such thing.

The Einstein of the field, Rick Perry, even went so far as to call the Mitt a “vulture capitalist.”  If both Gingrich and Perry are right, that makes Romney the worst of all creatures — a predatory vulture capitalist.   Bring out the guillotine!

The fact is that Bain Capital, under Romney’s leadership, helped to launch or rebuild hundreds of companies, including such well-known brand names as Staples, The Sports Authority, and Domino’s Pizza, which resulted in tens of thousands of jobs.  But how many jobs Romney created or “destroyed” or how much money he made or lost while he was with Bain Capital misses the point of what capitalism is all about.

Capitalism is a system whereby consenting adults are free to deal with one another on any terms that are mutually agreeable to them, without government interference.  You cannot understand capitalism unless you begin with a correct premise.  And the premise that even many adherents of capitalism ignore is that the primary — some would argue the sole — purpose of a business is to make as much money as possible for its owner(s).

Of course, it’s true that, in the process of making profits, a business creates jobs, but creating jobs is not — repeat, not — its chief objective.  Creating jobs is a byproduct of operating a successful business.

As to charges of “raiding” and “looting” companies, how does a person raid or loot a company he owns?  What does raiding or looting a company even mean?  If you enter into a free-market transaction to buy controlling interest in a company, you have a right to do whatever you want with that company.

If Bain invested in a company, then decided to sell off its assets and close it down, making a profit in the process, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Businesses are not charities; they are vehicles for making money.

If Romney wants to shed his well-earned image of being a big-government progressive, this is a good time for him to stand up and be bold in defending capitalism.  Not by arguing that he was not a predatory capitalist, but by explaining that his objective at Bain was to make money by turning around failing companies and helping small companies to become larger and more profitable — for Bain!

It’s time to end all the silly talk about raiding, looting, and predatory capitalism.  And, while we’re at it, it would be nice if we could also stop all the babbling about creating jobs and stimulating the economy.  The issue we should be talking about is freedom.  Where freedom exists, the economy takes care of itself and jobs automatically follow.

Unemployment is a symptom of a bad economy, and a bad economy is a symptom of a lack of freedom.  You cannot have prosperity under a government whose chief goal is to eliminate freedom and equalize income through the use of force.

But instead of focusing on our loss of freedom, presidential debate moderators would rather ask questions like, “What if you had a son who came to you and said he was gay?”  We’re $15 trillion in debt and the most important question he can think of is how Rick Santorum would react if he found out his son was gay?

Our loss of freedom didn’t begin with Barack Obama, but it will surely end with him if he is reelected.  Wake up, Republicans!  Stop the nonsense and start focusing on the issue of freedom.

You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:

Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.

To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.


Respond to Writer

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.

62 Responses to “The Nutty Newt Saga Continues”

  1. Mark Wells says:

    Yes Robert you are right but I’m afraid the vast majority of the country is just not willing to hear and process your analysis. The progressive agenda has poisoned the electorate and those who will vote in the future. It’s a shame too since the freedom formula would mean a prosperous future for those willing to participate. Honorable ideals have been hijacked and turned upside down to everyones detriment. Well ; except those who occupy powrful positions, elected or not. I know you try your best to spread the word but it seems to get worse with every cycle. What are we going to do? What has to happen to turn the tide?

  2. Reality Seeker says:

    “I hate to make excuses for him, but I truly believe the man is illegally insane —”

    Funniest line I’ve read in awhile. Of course, I’ll be borrowing that one. I also agree that anybody who attacks free market capitalism like Nutty Newt and Tricky Perry did, shows everybody just whom they really are: Grand Orwellian Party Collectivists and true lovers of Big Brother.

    Ron Paul made the proper distinction when he pointed out that attacking free market capitalism was nothing more than naked demagoguery or inexcusable ignorance. Of course, now RJR has pointed out that there is a third possibility: Insanity. Lol.

    Speaking of Ron Paul, has anybody noticed how some inside of the GOP machine are starting to rolling over? For example, here’s the bottom line according to Jim Demint: “I don’t agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy and his disengagement around the world, but we’re going to end up where he is because we don’t have any money.”

    I see other key individuals inside of the Washington machine and a number of presstitutes shape-shifting their positions and softening their rhetoric. So what happened?

    I’ll tell you want happened: The massive GOP assault against Ron Paul isn’t working out as planned. Paul’s showing in New Hampshire was like a brick crashing threw the glass ceiling over at FAUX NEWS and landing right in the lap of Charles Krauthammer. A shocked and bewildered Krauthammer picked up the brick and read what was written on it: RON PAUL. End The Welfare-Warfare State

    • David A. Welber says:

      Unless we adopt Paul’s economic and domestic policies, we will not be able to afford the foreign policies promoted the the other candidates.

      • reunion says:

        sounds like a pragmatic argument to free up peter enough so that he can produce enough to rob him of for paul’s (different paul) sustenance.

        there are no compartments, or alternative dimensions with contradictory physical laws. specialization is a mass reflex that has been inculcated, to blinding effect.

      • Quantum Ghost says:

        “Unless we adopt Paul’s economic and domestic policies, we will not be able to afford the foreign policies promoted by the the other candidates.”

        That’s the first and only good “argument” I’ve heard yet for not adopting RP’s economic and domestic policies.

  3. Reality Seeker says:

    Correction: *threw* should be through and *rolling* should be roll.

  4. David A. Welber says:

    Either one is predatory or one is a vulture, and of the metaphors, vulture capitalist is the liest descriptive. A vulture devours the bones of dead animals, getting rid of trash, making room for new generations. Come to think of it, “vulture capitalist” could be taken as a compliment – someone who devours dead companies, making room for new ones.

    • reunion says:

      fine by me – if the vc did it in a free market. far more likely, however, given where the mitt now is, that he has parasited via connection to the body politic, for a long time. top deer tick on the massachusetts polity is an automatic indictment…..

  5. Dagney says:

    Unfortunately, we are in the throes of mediocrity. The GOP candidates are all mediocre, even Ron Paul. His style of anarchy will be interesting to try, I know, simply because we’ve had enough of totalitarinism. The pendulum of public opinion is swinging away from totalitarianism, so we’ll get anarchy. The Libertarian/Anarchists are just as thuggishly arrogant as the Totalitarians. Everything in moderation…..that’s where the Constitution lies. Yet, people tend to not do anything half-measure. Because, they don’t control themselves, have discipline, they make a muddle of everything. Mediocrity ensues. It’s depressing.

    • Reality Seeker says:

      Reply to Dagney

      Moderation can be a good thing with regards to certain aspects of life such as eating and drinking, however, when it comes to the size of government, moderation=mediocrity, excessive= tyranny, limited = prosperous economy, Constitutional= booming economy, and Henry David Thoreau’s vision of a government which is best is one which governs not at all= ideal when the ignorant masses are ready for said lack of government..

      • Dagney says:

        Please…Limited government is the Constitution. Moderation is limited government. The center is the Constitution. DISCIPLINE is the Constitution. The far-right is Anarchy….the far-left is Totalitarianism. The Founders KNEW that there is need for SOME government (you know, “necessary evil”) and they did their best to restrain how people would run this government. It’s no more complicated than that. People who like to make it more complicated, and have throughout our history, have done so to accomodate their own adjenda.

        • Reality Seeker says:

          “Moderation is limited government.”

          That all depends on how you define moderation. For example, according to your definition, do you really think that we currently have or have had for some time a moderate form of government abiding by the Constitution? If you do, then there is a place in the Newtty House for you, too.

          As for me, I’ll stick with a constitutional expert who is far more “right” than you are….The Constitution is far right of today’s center.

          Ron Paul Revolution: Give us back our Constitution!

        • reunion says:

          < Please…Limited government is the Constitution.

          since when? truth is, con-stitution describes a limited gov — that never was.

          resonant, pretty words, on parchment – adding to aesthetic, and anesthetic, value.

          if anybody, during the day to day of your normal, anarchic, life sold you a product or service basis a pitch just as fine sounding as the con-stituion and then immediately fell as far short of the pitch as the foundling cabalists (not to mention their offspring) have, you would not think twice about not only firing them, but about the unreality of the pitch claims, themselves (too good to be true).

          holy words inscribed onto a paper chain will keep the beasts tethered. right…..

          jefferson did not just say, "it's all downhill from here" (post revolution); he hopped into the toboggan, himself. that was right at the top of the hill; today the juggernaut is near to the bottom.

        • Quantum Ghost says:

          “Please…Limited government is the Constitution. Moderation is limited government. The center is the Constitution. DISCIPLINE is the Constitution. The far-right is Anarchy….the far-left is Totalitarianism.”

          Ms. Taggert, that sounds immoderately arrogant to me. Heh. Semantical contortions. It is what it is, and truly Constitutional government in America would, on a relative scale, be very near “anarchy” and IMHO a very nice and very big change. Aynarchy?

    • David A. Welber says:

      To equate libertarianism with anarchy shows ignorance on your part. Please change your nickname.

      • reunion says:

        it’s not an equation, it’s a continuum. taken to logical, and correct, conclusion, or end (of) state, anarchy is the sine qua non. and it’s not typically ignorance that occludes sight of this so much as it is not thinking it through, or recognition of how much of normal daily life is, always has been, anarchic.

    • Hillfarmer says:

      This is the first I have heard anyone refer to Paul as an anarchist. He supports the constitution and that is not anarchy
      .
      Anarchy would be an improvement over what we have.

      Government is the worst invention of man and if you don’t think so see what God said about it in I Samuel Chapter 8

      • Gill O’Teen says:

        1 Samuel 8, which was heavily referenced by Thomas Paine in his “Common Sense” does not oppose gum’mint. It opposes replacing God with a king; replacing a system in which rights are God-given with one in which rights are based on the whims and desires of fallible mortals. Unfortunately, until such time as all peoples are motivated by a desire to serve only God, gum’mints are needed to protect each of us from those intent on our destruction.
        “(18) Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
        http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+8&version=NASB
        To me 1 Samuel 8:18 is the most chilling verse in The Bible.

        • reunion says:

          gov is not bent on “destruction”. any more than any other organized criminality is. control, cartelization, maximimization of rent-seeker returns…these are the goals.

          citing the revered con-stitution idol and citing the bible, however, are precisely the same.

    • reunion says:

      “the pendulum” is acted upon, it does not act. and “fortune” has nothing to do with anything: stimulus/response, action/reaction, cause/effect. determinism.

      everything in moderation – including moderation, right? no? then the statement is internally contradictory, i.e., nonsense.

      anarchy vs. conservatism? no contest. it’s anarchy that requires superiority and conservatism that epitomizes mediocrity; therefore the quaverers will continue their march (to the cliff).

  6. Naura Hayden says:

    I am truly surprised at you, Robert Ringer. You are one of the world’s smartest brains, on a par with Thomas Sowell, Charles Krauthammer and Ralph Waldo Emersonl, yet you did not say one word about how Mitt destroyed Newt with attack ads in Iowa. Newt was not attacking Capitalism, only Mitt’s lies (says he left Bain in 1999, documents prove 2001), and destruction of companies that left many people job-less. Newt apologized for his past mistakes, and he’s by far the smartest of the nominees, and I believe the only man capable of beating Obama. Mitt is a charmer, but too weak to beat Obama. He’s just not sharp enough.

    • Reality Seeker says:

      “Newt was not attacking Capitalism, only Mitt’s lies”

      As far as Mitt’s lies, yes, there are many told by Mittens, because he is not a really a free-market capitalist. Both Mitt and Newt hide behind the label, and they’ve convinced a large number of BoobisAmericanis that they are free-market capitalists—-but they’re not. Why aren’t they?

      Many reasons, but the one most overlooked is the fact that it’s impossible to have a genuine, free-market capitalist system absent a free market money supply. Both Mitt and Newt support a centralized banking cartel overseen by the Federal Reserve Bank which holds a monopoly on the money supply. To make matters worse, the money is not even honest money with intrinsic value. This highly corrupt banking system has grown from 2 % of the U.S. GDP in the 1950′s to somewhere between 8-50 % depending on which numbers you believe and incorporate in the aggregated GDP.

      I was reading one interesting study were it was posited that for every dollar a banker contributes to the real economy he sucks out eight as profit for himself. That’s not a useful banker, that’s a parasite. The bottom line is that you can’t have free-market capitalism and parasitic banksters both at the same time. There is only one candidate who understands this and who is a free-market capitalist. And I think you know who he is.

      • reunion says:

        < Both Mitt and Newt support a centralized banking cartel overseen by the Federal Reserve Bank which holds a monopoly on the money supply.

        edit "support". these people are creatures of 'the bank', exist at whim of 'the bank'. they are tail, not dog.

    • Hillfarmer says:

      Neutered Gingrich has no chance whatsoever against Oboma.

      Ron Paul is the only Republican who can beat Oboma. Paul is the only one who is substantially different then Oboma. Besides, many Ron Paul supporters will not vote for any other Republican candidate in the general election. I have quit voting for the lesser of two evils. Those who participate in this election only because they hate Oboma better see to it that Paul is nominated. I do not support Paul because I hate Oboma; I support Paul because I love freedom. Paul is the only candidate who supports freedom over big government

      Romney cannot call out Oboma on ObomaCare Because Oboma will be thanking Romney for the great ideas on health care reform. Neutered Gingrich cannot mention ethics violations since he is King of ethics violations. Only Paul can call out Oboma on Oboma’s evil foreign policy of nation building and foolish intervention.

      If the Republicans want the support of freedom-loving-Democrats, independents and libertarians they must nominate Ron Paul. If they don’t have that support they will give Oboma a second term.

      The discussion is over in this election the next president will be either Ron Paul or Oboma. Take your choice and get over it.

      • reunion says:

        < If the Republicans want the support of freedom-loving-Democrats, independents and libertarians they must nominate Ron Paul. If they don’t have that support they will give Oboma a second term.

        "i'm in pain; make it stop!", should not be equated with "freedom-loving". liberty is the red-headed stepchild, and most dread it.

      • Quantum Ghost says:

        I know that polls can change, but for months now, the polls (see realpolitics(dot)com) have shown almost daily polls by leading orgs on each Repub candidate vs. Obama. Paul has been steadily gaining ground, while the others bounce up and down vs Obama and never even get close, except Romney, who has been pretty much statistically tied with Obama for months. Now, Paul is too, while Obama would beat Newt or Rick by 12% or so. Up against Obama, Romney will seem extremely unlikeable to most Americans, so much so that IMHO he can’t possibly win. With RP I think it would be the other way around.

  7. KBC says:

    Get some facts straight

    1) Newt was not attacking capitalism. He questioned Mitt on 3 or 4 transactions at Bain… THAT’s ALL! Watch his meetings and quit copying others soundbites…

    2) Mitt brought up his private sector experience in creating jobs as a qualification for being President, so the public has the right to vet him on this part of his record.

    3) Looks like there’s some truth to his questionable transactions at Bain. Check out this story by the Myrtle Beach Sun Times which goes into a lot of detail

    http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120114bain_capital_made_millions_off_sc_steelmaker_as_mill_morale_finances_suffered

  8. Reality Seeker says:

    I read the article, and most of it is based on union whining;however, the tactic, which I quoted below, of buying companies and juicing up the short-term profits in order to get a nice fat bank loan is not capitalism when you know beforehand that you’re going to pay yourself a big chunk of cash from the loan and then hand over a mess to the bank who will, in turn, hand it over to the tax-payer. There is a name for that type of capitalism and it’s called fraud. This type of fraudster capitalism, where the profits and privatized and the losses and public, is universally practiced.

    Ron Paul is opposed to such fraud and the others are eyeball deep in it.

    “Bain [Bane] Capital propped up short-term earnings, Romney opponents say, so the venture capital firm could borrow money that went toward investors’ dividends – enriching Bain Capital but leaving the companies with unsustainable debt.”

    • reunion says:

      if it’s a lock, if there is no actual risk, if return is guaranteed by connection to a cartel, then it is not capitalism, nor any prefixed chimera of capitalism. pregnant / not pregnant (and there ain’t no immaculate conception, either…).

    • Quantum Ghost says:

      Regardless of Romney’s history, be it “good” or “bad”, TODAY he is an utter tool, has no principle, can’t be trusted, and would do anything his puppet masters require of him. The devil you know is better than the one you don’t, and I’m not sure I’d want him to beat Obama. Then again, that’s just tinkering around the edges…we’re WAY past all that. Anything short of a Second American Revolution in the fullest sense of the term is, in my opinion, not enough to stop the authoritarian freight train before it goes over the cliff.

      • reunion says:

        there has been 1 successful secession (tho from frying pan into fire), 1 unsuccessful secession. whatever, if anything, comes next will be number 3…….

  9. Mike Rael says:

    I can’t see the person who created RomneyCare as a conservation, on the one hand.
    On the other hand, I am genuinely surprised that Newt would attack the way Romney ran his own companies.
    I agree that Romney should now state, as Ringer has, that his business is to make profits for his shareholders. That profits are *good*. That having many jobs is an effect of acting upon proper premises. That having many jobs is not the reason to have a business.
    I don’t see Romney actually doing that, though–despite the fact that, however much controversy would ensue, he would probably be elected in a storm of acclaim.

    • reunion says:

      cartelism is conservatism in action.

      contra rr, profits, exactly as is job creation, is “byproduct”.

      ignorance of this truism has filled countless mantles with unearned trophies, and has rendered the competitive landscape into a cynical world wrestling entertainment show. the boobs hoot, holler, love it.

  10. john bear says:

    Mencken said: every two to four years they give the idiots the vote to make them feel important.

    The system is beyond repair; time to scrap it and start fresh.

    Ron Paul has the right words but is unelectable. Even if, by some miracle, he was able to win he would be ineffectual as a president: can talk the talk but not walk the walk. Mitt “white Obama” Romney is, like Baby Bush the Idiot, another Leftist in Conservative Drag. Rick “big hat no cattle” Perry is just another socialist. Newt “the old toot” Gingrich is part of the problem, not the solution. Rick “Sans Ideas” Sanatorium is just another wanna be. The (D)emons will, as they always do, pick the (R)at’s candidate, the one that cannot possibly win.

  11. Randy Gage says:

    Well said. For these other Republicans to go after Romney by attacking free market capitalism is kind of like Donna Summer chastising the Bee Gees for disco.

    -RG

  12. ◄Dave► says:

    True laissez faire capitalism will never be permitted in our ineptocracy, no matter who is elected…

    Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) n. a moribund system of government, where the least honorable are elected by the least capable, to plunder unearned sustenance, from the rapidly diminishing ranks of the still productive.

    …with emphasis on the moribund. ◄Dave►

    • reunion says:

      if the elected are moribund, the voters must be the coffin nails…..

    • Reality Seeker says:

      Ineptocracy.

      Yes, I like that urban term. I will add it to the lexicon.

    • Stephan F. says:

      Dave:

      Ineptocracy — hmm…sounds like something Mencken would say…or mebbe even R.J.R.

      But call it what you want — the definition fairly describes our current political/economic dilemma. And this is EXACTLY what happens in a democracy that ultimately & predictably evolves into tyranny of the majority. Does history not teach us anything?

      “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” – Anonymous

      “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” – Henry (HL) Mencken

  13. Matt says:

    Thanks Robert-

    Your writings are astute, informed, didactic, witty, and ironic-

    They also continue to exponentially illuminate the massive, unchartable chasm between the theoretical, and the objective, concrete reality that we live in today as Americans-

    I’m not sure how to bridge that gap anymore to the masses- Mere elucidation and viral exposure as afforded us by today’s technology doesn’t seem to be as effective as, well in “theory” as it should-

    But I guess we’ll know more when we see how things ultimately turn out in November 2012-

    • reunion says:

      “chasm” is a good word.

      life is a divide, a chasm, a gorge, a bay. the job of each life is to bridge build.

      that begins internally: synapses are bridges.

      rickety rope bridge synapses are all too amenable to being “sold” more substantial bridges…like the proverbial one in brooklyn…..or more “substantial”, like the one in philly, circa 1787.

  14. Bryan says:

    And the premise that even many adherents of capitalism ignore is that the primary — some would argue the sole — purpose of a business is to make as much money as possible for its owner(s).

    Of course, it’s true that, in the process of making profits, a business creates jobs, but creating jobs is not — repeat, not — its chief objective. Creating jobs is a byproduct of operating a successful business.

    YES YES YES!!!!!! Thank you, Robert. Now, how does one go about getting everyone else to understand this?

    • reunion says:

      too many already have this misunderstanding. it is exactly this misunderstanding that underlies all the shortcuts taken – gov coercion & force being by far the largest. this understanding is indistinguishable from that of any common criminal’s understanding (looping back to gov – organized common criminals).

      free markets, capitalism, put customers/buyers at pole – not profits, not jobs, not any of the byproducts of the fundamental cause/effect.

      if winning, profit, is the main thing, you are not a capitalist. capitalism is a “how”, not an end. profit is a result, not an end. and if you don’t care how you got, as long as you got, that’s morally as bad as not caring whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good.

      these are critically important distinctions.

      • Reality Seeker says:

        Yes, reunion, thanks for doing the heavy lifting by offering some perspective.

        If profit is the sole driver and the end justifies the means, then, big gov & banks, for example, can be a means for Bain (aka Bane) to extract profit from the ignorant masses without them having a clue as to how they’ve been had.

        When I was born, the average CEO made 24 times that of the average worker. Now, it is well over 400 times; And the spread is widening. This is not the result of free market capitalism, but, rather, Bane Capitalism. Contrary to popular belief, free markets tend to be more egalitarian in nature and much “more fair” than the current capitalism amerika sufferers under: Bane Capitalism.

        “Free market capitalism is the best means to prosperity.” Larry Kudlow

        Conclusion: “Hypocrites! Do as they say and not as they do…….beware the leaven of the pharisees”…….Jesus Christ

        “And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.”

        I repeat, beware the pigeons that Bane Capitalism and his white-shod cronies are peddling lest you become one………. Elect somebody who will drive out the money changers. Ron Paul 2012!

        • reunion says:

          the banes (and there are sooooo many, at every level) are not capitalists. they are modern privateers, who have been given leave, for fees paid via lobbying – incl voting, to loot the captive populations of the variously shifting maplines. absent “permission” these same people are called pirates.

          point is, was, this very basic misunderstanding of capitalism – what its prime directive is – is a very real ‘incentive misallocation’, to be as austrian about it as possible. the “capitalists” get it wrong, screw it up, arm capitalism’s adversaries, enabling their swallowing of vast feedlots of moo’s, class warfare, etc, etc, etc.

          “the great obstacle to progress is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge.” ~daniel boorstin

          to which i would suffix: what’s in your wallet?, who butters your bread?…self-deception, rationalization, denial, envy, jealousy, fear/avarice/greed….the human condition remains perennial – but it is watered & fertilized by primitive institutional mechanisms, in symbiotic parasite/host thriving.

          so, take your pick: do away with the mechanisms, or continue, forever, to rearguard against the zombies the mechanisms pump out.

          oh, a bit more perspective: the larrys saying such things could only be hypocrisy if all things were equal. they aren’t. larryisms are much more analogous to the ringing bell sound pavlov’s pooches were trained to salivate to. catechisms for the witless.

          • Reality Seeker says:

            Good points, reunion,

            All the “illusion”-confusion over the term capitalism is why Ludwig von Mises stated, “I prefer the term free markets; however, free-market capitalism is what the The United States of America is practicing imperfectly.”

            What constitutes a free market? Voluntary exchange between two or more parties whose interests coincide absent uncompensated externalities and government interference. Private property, private money or trade, individual liberty and the strict adherence to the natural law of non-aggression are the bedrock of a genuine free market. All else is “Bane.”

            You are perceptively correct about Larry(isms) being pavlovian in nature. In that respect, dear Larry would have been a perfect character for one of Aldous Huxley’s novels; however, I stand by my assertion that Larry is a big, fat, hypocritical-CNBC-Presstitute-Shill. An Allan Greenback sellout who would tout the “market” as a buying opportunity at Dow 6000 or 66000.

            In fact, Larry would have been a perfect pitchman for the tulipomania market during the peak of tulip mania when, in February 1637, “some single tulip bulbs sold for more than 10 times the annual income of a skilled craftsman.”

          • reunion says:

            mises was too generous. “imperfectly”. mercantilists have been kicking butt, taking names since the ink began to dry on the long c ( there’s short cons & there’s long cons…).

            larry is a paid drover, singing the doggies to bed.

            or dow 666 or 666,666 for all the beezlebub numerologists out there. lol

            here’s to tiptoeing thru the even more expensive tulips atop the cartelistas grave. my ukelele is ready.

          • Quantum Ghost says:

            Dem & Repub politicians, with the exception of Ron Paul, are a bunch of Elsworth Toohey wannabees, regardless of what bromides they may throw around.

  15. Rocketman says:

    Speaking strictly for myself, I will not vote for any other republican if Paul is not the nominee. Obama is a disaster as President but any of the others would be nearly as bad in there as he is. I will vote third party most likely Libertarian. Paul can draw in independents, conservatives, libertarians and even moderate working democrats the way that Ronald Reagan did back in 1980. Nominate any other than Paul you Republicans and you have just given 4 more years to Obama.

    • Quantum Ghost says:

      THANK YOU. I can’t see most Paul supporters voting for a non-Paul Repub candidate (I sure won’t) when they can vote Libertarian or right in RP. I’m not going to “waste” my vote on some Repub socialist jackarse any more than I would on Obama. I’ll use it wisely by voting my conscience.

  16. Reality Seeker says:

    “my ukelele is ready.”

    Lol.

    Well, it’s just about time to get lied to and that means it’s time to watch the GOP debate….

    Goodnight all.

    • reunion says:

      awhile since i read rothbard’s collection of essays. one in today’s lrc that speaks to the con-serve confusion (“left & right: the prospects for liberty”). owe yourselves to read uncle murray’s synthesis.

      “pessimism, however, both short-run and long-run, is precisely what the prognosis of conservatism deserves, for conservatism is a dying remnant of the ancien régime of the preindustrial era, and, as such, it has no future.” (primitivism)

      “for too many libertarians mistakenly link the prognosis for liberty with that of the seemingly stronger and supposedly allied Conservative movement…”

      “soon there developed in western europe two great political ideologies, centered around this new revolutionary phenomenon: one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the industrial revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the old order. since liberalism admittedly had reason on its side, the conservatives darkened the ideological atmosphere with obscurantist calls for romanticism, tradition, theocracy, and irrationalism.”

      “what happened to liberalism? …first is the abandonment of natural rights and “higher law” theory for utilitarianism…the second great philosophical influence on the decline of liberalism was evolutionism, or social darwinism…” (your “when they are ready”, rs).

  17. frank says:

    dear right again robert:

    yes newt is showing his character defects…..romney is
    in his career in business a role model of what used to be right about america.free enterprise system and someone who excelled…at it…on the other hand as a gop politician
    he is also excelling in a system of terrible decline and he will do nothing to halt amerika’s demise into a socialist police state…

    ron paul is best but until the usa is hopelessly bankrupt
    someone like him will not be elected…america it seems will not elect a ron paul until in a state of total bankruptcy there literally is no other choice… there is nothing like bankruptcy to turn drunken sailors and spendttrifts into frugal people…

    in the meantime all that people who believe in the founding fathers can do is move to states or countries that encourage free enterprise…shun the welfare state, and resist the socialist police state we see developing…in the usa…

  18. topeka says:

    While I agree with Robert, understanding his comments in the political and economic context of our time, I am not sure there are very many voters who understand it. Call them drones, brainwashed, true-believers, or whatever; they either cannot understand, refuse to understand, or have strong misunderstandings based on false information.

    Consider Solyndra: The company gets a massive govt loan to engage in activity any child with a little familiarity with thermodynamics and manufacturing would recognize as a scam. Media reports it as capitalism straight up. No naming names, no relation to the “O” or his cronies, no mention of soaking the business, and no mention of the worthlessness of the jobs “created.” To the drones this is capitalism. Whining about it on a right-wing blog is irrelevant.

    Gingrich and Perry are taking advantage of this misunderstanding to attack Rombama. It’s an underhanded, dirty trick, but I think it has punch with the Liberals, Independents and Moderates.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    Even so, being wronged doesn’t make one a good candidate for POTUS. Rombama must answer charges like this regardless of the merit of the charges to show he is qualified to be a POTUS candidate.

    “O” gets to pull Solyndra, AND any “R” must answer for it.

    Rombama therefore, IMHO, needs to man-up and come up with a winning response in a one-sided contest where his opponent can openly cheat.

    The Lefties will hit him much harder than this in October if he’s the man

    • reunion says:

      not many children are even a little familiar with thermo d’s or mfg; no harm or foul, that. complacent adults who know nothing of history, or econ, & cog-interlock with the state, does harm, is foul. more relevant passages from rothbard’s same piece I quoted before:

      “the conservative has long been marked, whether he knows it or not, by long-run pessimism: by the belief that the long-run trend, and therefore time itself, is against him. hence, the inevitable trend runs toward left-wing statism at home and communism abroad. it is this long-run despair that accounts for the conservative’s rather bizarre short-run optimism, for since the long run is given up as hopeless, the conservative feels that his only hope of success rests in the current moment. in foreign affairs, this point of view leads the conservative to call for desperate showdowns with communism…at home, it leads him to total concentration on the very next election, where he is always hoping for victory and never achieving it. the quintessence of the practical man, and beset by long-run despair, the conservative refuses to think or plan beyond the election of the day.”

      “as we have seen, conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the “left” of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve liberal ends by the use of conservative means.”

  19. Robby Bonfire says:

    I hear all over the place, Hannity, here, and elsewhere, how wonderful Gain Capital is. Well, for the uninitiated, I invite you to put some of your hard-earned investment savings into a Gain Capital Forex account. (They are known as http://www.forex.com, online – same company.)

    When you lose on a position at 50-1 leverage, they will hit you up for a 100-1 leverage loss, it happened to me and they agreed with me I was right – BUT DIDN’ T fix it. When you lose on a position at 100-1 leverage, they will hit you up for a 200-1 leverage loss, it happened to me and they agreed I was right – BUT DIDN’T fix it.

    They have FOUR OTHER accounting tricks they also use to STEAL your money, all of which they hit me and others with. So good luck extolling the virtues of one of the most blatantly dishonest and thieving companies in America. The Forex market is unregulated, by the way, so they have no oversight agency or accountability to answer to.

    This is a company which was FOUNDED by Mitt Romney. End of story, but not the end of Newt bashing, I am sure. Newt, I will say, never cheated me in business.

  20. Frank Nelson says:

    I started reading Robert Ringer’s books back in the 1970s. His ideas, along with those of the late F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand and Harry Browne have formed the basis of my political philosophy for three decades now. Libertarian philosopy is no more than an everyday lesson in honesty and clear thinking. Mr. Ringer’s definition and discussion of capitalism in this article is absolutely correct. If you don’t understand that you’ve got a ways to go yet. As always Mr. Ringer hits the nail squarely on the head in this article, as he depicts these “political comedy hours” alias the 2012 Republican Presidential debates in their proper light. I love the Ringerian method of ridiculing these so-called presidential candidates by his humorous characterizations of their shady thinking and shenanigans. With the exception of Ron Paul, of course. Ron Paul is imminently electable, and he is the only candidate whose background, personal and professional, makes him “Presidential” in the best since of the word. But make no mistake about it, the majority of the “goings on” at all levels of government in the United States today are an affront (and extremely dangerous) to personal liberty. By Mr. Ringer’s insightful articles and books we plainly see just how critically aware he is of our political predicament. With the exception of Ron Paul, the other men in these debates are nothing more than clever liars! They are “habitual offenders” and there is simply no reason to trust any of them, ever!

  21. Frank Nelson says:

    Any rational, even half-way rational, man or woman should be very troubled by the thought of just how we keep getting “candidates” of such dubious character and qualifications as Nutty Newt, MittMan, Einstein Perry and Tricky Rick Santorum. How do we find thieves, cutthroats and reprobates once again center stage in our political arena, vying for the highest political office in the land? With the remarkable exception of Ron Paul, how does this continue to happen? That is the question, as Hamlet would say. How do these notoriously corrupt politicians just keep popping up year after year, like rats in the corn, in our most important elections? It is deeply disturbing to me and I’m not really sure what we can do about them, short of a old French-style revolutionary purge! However, it helps a lot to know that there are astute men around, like Robert Ringer, Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano, who will never be fooled by Nutty Newt, MittMan and the like. As the character William Wallace said in the movie Braveheart; “What will you do without freedom?” Indeed, what will we do?

  22. Miami Fl Cuban-American says:

    After experiencing Castro’s betrayal in m country of origin, and seeing how Mr. Obama and his gang are repeating his steps: Lye about their true ideology and plans until in power and then while in power slowly but surely divide the population between rich and poor, blacks an whites, Christians an others to turn this great country into a Communist Dictatorship where everyone depends on Big Brother, I say, let’s get together and support whoever is the candidate that runs against Obama! If Obama is reelected in 2012, we can say good by to the USA as we have know it.

  23. Quantum Ghost says:

    Just have to say, this blog is quite a step up from CNBC’s blog. It’s like graduating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute from Craigslist Rants and Raves.

Leave a Reply

1500 characters maximum.

To Receive Free Daily
Articles Via E-mail
Click Here

Featured Columnists

Liberty Education
Interview Series

Robert Ringer interviews top political, economic, and social leaders on today's most vital and controversial issues.

Grover Norquist Interview

Featured Interview:
Grover Norquist

Audio file loading...

More Interviews


Recent Comments

  • Hugh May 22, 12:55 PM
    on The Repudiation of Romney the Repudiator Sorry, Robert, Obama is right. The election IS about Bain Capital; it's the symbol of...
  • Obomney May 21, 11:28 PM
    on Romney Nightmare: Ron Paul Resurfaces Yet Again So what are you freedom lovers doing to stop me from dick tating over the...
  • Rick May 21, 9:24 PM
    on Was Saving GM Worker’s Job Fair? If he hadn't bailed them out, our country's unemployment insurance system would have been overloaded...
  • Bill May 21, 4:45 PM
    on John Stossel on Intuitively Trusting the Government Your bullet point questions are excellent, could not have been stated better. ["defective intuition —...
  • Marte May 21, 3:11 PM
    on John Stossel on Intuitively Trusting the Government Robert - What I want to know is how we can use gradualism to turn...