Hilarious Proof Regarding the Truth About Minimum Wage Jobs

Screen Shot 2015-05-21 at 5.58.45 PM


Everyone knows that minimum wage jobs are not meant to be careers. If you try to argue against that, you’re just being stubborn for the sake of being argumentative.

They are there to provide people who don’t need much money a few bucks. The high school and college kid, for example.

Once you take the proper steps – either going to college or becoming an entrepreneur – then you move on from that $8.00/hr job, and you begin to pay those beneath you that type of wage you earned when you were their age.

Makes sense.

Anyone arguing for $15.00 or more to be a fast food worker is out of their mind, and in no way should we appease them. Prices for the employer would go up costing the customer to pay more, followed by employee hours going down because the employer can only pay a certain number of people the required minimum wage.

Eventually the company folds and nobody gets paid.

You get the picture.

Big bucks, but no bankers jailed in $5.7B settlement


By Peter Schroeder – 05/20/15 08:57 PM EDT

Six of the biggest names in global finance shelled out billions of dollars Wednesday to settle charges of rigging currency markets, but liberal lawmakers complain the government is just doling out slaps on the wrist.

On Wednesday, the Justice Department announced a settlement that also saw five banks plead guilty to illegal gaming of financial markets. But the new settlement, the latest in a long series of hefty payouts by bad-acting banks, did little to tamp down vocal criticism from the left that the Obama administration is doing little to actually change Wall Street’s course and culture.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) criticized the new settlement hours after the Justice Department hailed its historic nature — specifically that no individual bank employees faced criminal charges, even as the overall institutions pleaded guilty to criminal wrongdoing.
“The big banks have been caught red-handed conspiring to manipulate financial markets … but not a single trader is being held individually accountable,” she said in a statement. “That’s not accountability for Wall Street. It’s business as usual, and it stinks.”

Since the financial crisis, nearly every major financial institution has struck some sort of government deal to close probes on a sundry list of wrongdoing, including mortgage servicing flaws, offshore tax evasion and aiding rogue nations like Iran in evading U.S. sanctions.

But while the government has pulled in the largest monetary settlements in history during that time, with several reaching billions of dollars, the continued failure to prosecute high-ranking executives at any of these firms remains a sore point for some groups and lawmakers.

Liberal critics lament that the fines appear to be doing little to change the culture of the financial sector, making them just the cost of doing business.

“Since 2009, huge financial institutions have paid $176 billion in fines and settlement payments for fraudulent and unscrupulous activities,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is running for president, said Wednesday. “The reality is that seven years after too-big-to-fail banks crashed the economy, fraud still appears to be the business model on Wall Street.”

The latest settlement announced by the Justice Department saw the government assessing penalties and accepting guilty pleas from a host of banks for conspiring to rig currency markets to maximize profits.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the agreement brings to an end a manipulation scheme of “breathtaking flagrancy,” in which traders conspired across institutions to artificially alter currency exchange markets to obtain illicit profits, forming a group they dubbed “the cartel.” Dating back to 2007, Lynch said traders “acted as partners rather than competitors” in a “brazen display of collusion.”

The settlement marked the first against the financial industry since Lynch took over the Justice Department. Her predecessor, Eric Holder, was dogged by comments he made during a congressional hearing, which he later refuted, that seemed to imply the government was wary of bringing serious charges against large banks because it could damage the economy.

The banks will pay the Justice Department and the Federal Reserve a total of $5.7 billion in criminal penalties, with most of the institutions also agreeing to plead guilty to some criminal charges.

Barclays, Citigroup, JPMorgan and the Royal Bank of Scotland all agreed to plead guilty to charges of conspiring to fix prices. UBS agreed to plead guilty to charges stemming from a previous investigation after the bank’s role in this new probe led the Justice Department to toss out a prior agreement not to seek criminal charges. Bank of America agreed to pay a fine as well.

The announcement is just the most recent in a string of settlements the government has struck with huge banks over industry-wide bad behavior.

In April, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a record $2.5 billion in fines, and fire several employees, for its role in rigging benchmark interest rates. And in November, five large banks agreed to pay a combined $4.25 billion in penalties to U.S. and British authorities on the same matter.

That’s on the heels of Bank of America agreeing to pay $16.6 billion for its role in the financial crisis, $2.6 billion by Credit Suisse for helping wealthy Americans evade taxes, and $1.9 billion by HSBC after laundering money for Mexican drug cartels and violating sanctions against Iran, Libya and Sudan, among others.

In many of those cases, bank executives assigned the bad actions to a handful of rogue employees. As part of the most recent settlement, the Justice Department threw out a non-prosecution agreement it struck with UBS following a rate-rigging probe in 2012.

The discovery of new illegal behavior during the currency-rigging investigation prompted the U.S. to toss out that deal, and forced the bank to plead guilty to charges. But UBS said Tuesday that the $545 million it was paying to settle the new claims, after paying $1.5 billion during the previous investigation, was due to “a small number of employees.”

But Wall Street critics argue the settlements are sign that bad behavior is a cultural issue in the finance sector. Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen has expressed concern that banks are failing to properly police themselves, sometimes “brazenly” breaking the law.

And recent research seems to back up that sentiment. One day before the new settlement was announced, a survey of 1,200 financial services workers found that 47 percent of executives believe their competitors have engaged in illegal or unethical behavior — up from the 39 percent found in 2012.

The poll, from the law firm Labaton Sucharow and the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, also found 23 percent of Wall Street professionals suspect their colleagues of serious wrongdoing, up from 12 percent in 2012.

No Debate, No Amendments on TPP Fast Track

Published on May 21, 2015
To fast-track the fast-track authorization, Sen McConnell moved today to shut down debate on the comprehensive treaty affecting not only jobs & commerce, but also sovereignty transfers & expansive copyright claims by a few corporation to ownership of everything. We also look at the FCC, who recently asserted its control of the internet, planning to shift internet control to a yet unknown international organization.


Governments dig in and prepare as economy continues slide


Despite constant reassurances from federal overseers, Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the economy’s frail nature.

While media pundits and analysts desperately push the failure of central planning and Keynesian economics, these five experts continue to be proven right on the dangers of reckless spending and debt.

Here are five renowned experts who warned of the now-present, slow-motion financial collapse.

Ron Paul

Former presidential candidate Ron Paul is known best in financial circles for his clear 2003 prediction of the housing bubble crisis. Paul joined the Alex Jones Show in late 2014 to once again warn of the country’s slide into economic disaster.

Paul Craig Roberts

Known as the father of Reaganomics, Paul Craig Roberts gave his views on the coming collapse during a show last January.

Gerald Celente

A renowned trends forecaster, Gerald Celente, known worldwide for his accuracy on global events, provided tips on surviving hard economic times earlier this year.

Peter Schiff

Peter Schiff, a respected financial expert who also predicted the housing bubble crisis, talked last January on America’s future and what he feels will happen once this latest bubble bursts.

Max Keiser

Economist and television broadcaster Max Keiser discussed the dollar’s sluggish collapse and other telltale signs of the sinking economy during a 2014 interview.


Screen Shot 2015-05-18 at 11.52.31 AM

Obamacare treats not for the patient in particular, but for the patient on average, globally, or in the abstract


The economics profession today continues to face mounting criticism for its failure to predict and explain economic crises.

According to Austrian school critics of Keynesian and neoclassical methods, this failure is in large part due to a foolish determination to bring into economics the mathematical precision of the physical sciences. To achieve this precision, neo-classical economists disproportionately focus their inquiry on global measures of economic activity: gross national product, aggregate demand, global supplies of money, goods, or labor, and other variables that lend themselves to quantification and numerical modeling. Lost in mainstream economic analysis is the attention due to the individual economic actor who, by virtue of his or her power of self-determination, is ill-suited for the equation or the graph.

A similar love affair with quantitative methods has rapidly taken over the medical field over the last several decades. As in mainstream economics, equations and predictions can only come about when one turns one’s attention away from the individual patient to focus instead on the aggregated group, or population, as the prime target of analysis and intervention. Thus, population medicine is an apt term to describe the discipline that seeks to mathematize medical practice by caring not for the patient in particular, but for the patient on average, globally, or in the abstract.

For the promoters of population medicine, the individual clinical interaction is of no interest. It is dismissed as quaint, anecdotal, and inconsequential to a proper understanding of health issues. Instead, the data of interest are those garnered from large epidemiological studies and clinical trials. From such research, one can derive “risk factors” for disease, elucidate the “determinants of health,” and promote prescriptive measures in wide swaths.

A Key to Centrally Planning Health Care

Advancing the convenient fiction that whatever is good for the group must be good for the individual, population medicine has become an indispensable framework of analysis for the central planning of health care. Accordingly, government agencies can now avail themselves of the findings of this discipline to decide which services, drugs, and interventions should be paid for and promoted, and which must be deemed unnecessary or even fraudulent. The decisions can thus be rendered under cover of “scientific proof.”

An example of activities promoted by population medicine is the “risk calculation,” which doctors are expected to embrace, or else face penalties for practicing outside of the desired norm. Risk calculation involves inputting a handful of patient factors — age, weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, and the like — into a formula to obtain the patient’s “personal risk” of dying or suffering a specific outcome in the future. Based on this mathematical insight, an intervention is prescribed. A patient can thus enjoy the privilege of being treated like a number not just figuratively, but quite literally.

Needless to say, the architects of population medicine overlook that the concept of “personal risk” is rather devoid of meaning, as statistician Richard von Mises explained many decades ago. Willful or naïve, this oversight is turning medicine into an enormous risk management enterprise aimed at solving an impossible game of health optimization.

According to the wisdom of population medicine, for example, to be healthy is to confine our weight, our blood cholesterol, or our blood sugar to an ever-more narrow range of “normal values” defined — and repeatedly revised — not on the basis of any physiological reality, but by the will of committees of medical technocrats. With each new revision in the definitions of what constitutes a “normal” blood pressure, blood cholesterol, or blood sugar, millions of hapless citizens whose numbers happen to fall outside the desired range are instantly turned into patients, to the great delight of the pharmaceutical industry.

And it’s not just anthropomorphic variables which are so narrowly defined. What we eat, how much we drink, how long we sit, and how fast we move are all of interest to population scientists eager to show us the narrow path to healthy living measured in precise servings per meal, ounces per day, hours per week, or miles per minute.

The scientific advice, unfortunately, does not always lead to a healthy outcome. A population-wide push to discourage consumption of saturated fats, for example, led to a population-wide increase in the consumption of carbohydrates, and thus may have unwittingly played a role in the obesity epidemic of the last twenty years. At the very least, lifestyle fads advocated through the bullhorns of population medicine are undoubtedly causing epidemics of food and exercise neuroses.

Population medicine ambitiously aims to improve the health of entire nations. To do so, it proceeds to sketch an ever-more quantified but all-the-more unrealistic portrait of the human being, to be analyzed by those who enjoy directing medical care from the remote comfort of their academic or governmental chairs.