We use swastikas in our hindu temples, in our homes, for good luck, in toys, etc - guess nobody told us they weren't "cool"

"joe six pack wants more cheap plastic crap at walmart"

We all want cheap things (or rather, things made more affordable) - that is how wealth is created.
Insisting that all things be produced by 'ourselves' (whether as a family, city, county, state or nation) make us poorer - think of all the things you are using now and think about how hard it would be for all of it to be made by yourself. Or your family. Or with just people in your town. Or with just people in your state.

Division of labour is what creates wealth.The borders of a city or state or country do not change this fundamental fact.

"What's likely to make people anxious about changes to the ADA is uncertainty over what those changes will involve."

Not to mention the possibility of large fines when my (commercial) websites aren't compliant with some obscure requirement in the new guidelines. And the cost involved in me dropping the 10 other things I'm doing to read the guidelines, check all my websites, make sure they're compliant or if they're not, spend time and money to fix them.

So, no, my anxiety is not just about "uncertainty over what those changes will involve".
(And people wonder why small businesses are not hiring!!)

Do I still feel like they're shafting me? Yes.

Who's "they"? And, assuming you're referring to google, how are they shafting you?
It's not your money.

Randian utopia of rugged individualists who have given up on treating each other as human beings.

First of all, this was a local government agency, not a private company.
Secondly, have you seen the size of the Federal Register? To claim that this country is a "Randian utopia", when the size of government has grown so much is ridiculous.
Thirdly, are you so naive as to think that one individual can change the culture of 300 million people? In 2 years?

Seriously, why? If people want to invest in gold, they're generally going to buy it in larger lots than this.

They could. Most people would. But, the companies rolling out these ATMs are betting that *some* people will use these. They've been around for a couple of years now. And, since they're investing millions in this venture, I'm assuming they would have done some market research.
I doubt the people commentating about the wisdom of this venture on slashdot would have done any market research.

to a fear based environment.

I've been buying gold since it was at $600/ounce. You could be correct that the rise in prices is due to fear.
My theory has always been that the debt levels of nations are unsustainable and will lead to default and later, inflation. So far, I've been proved right. That does not mean I will be correct in the future.

But, the difference between people who buy gold and the people who ridicule them is that the people buying gold are putting their money where their mouth is. The people ridiculing them could do the same by shorting the gold market. The ones I've met in person seem reluctant to do this.

Thus you will never know who is funding what campaign,

And what's the problem? Shouldn't you vote based on the facts and the arguments?

if corporations are people too, then isn't stock market really buying and selling people? So owning stock of a corporation makes you a slave owner?

Oh boy!

Uh, it was. Frightened, angry people. Were they polite about it? Yes, and good for them. But their politics is a politics of fear, whether it be fear of the Big Bad Government, fear of muslims, fear of gays, fear of latinos...

Can't you say the same thing about the left? Angry, frightened people - angry and frightened about corporations and rich people?

Whether left or right, the question is, is their anger and fear justified? I think the anger and fear that govt. has grown is correct. The anger and fear of gays and immigrants is baseless. The anger and fear that corporations will take over is silly.

Ford wanted his workers to have a living wage, to be able to afford the products they made.

From http://cafehayek.com/2010/08/fording-the-gorge-between-fiction-and-fact.html:

Ford raised workers’ wages for two reasons, neither of which had anything to do with raising consumer demand for his automobiles. The first reason was to reduce worker turnover. In 1913, the year before the $5 wage was announced in January 1914, the average Ford employee quit after less than four months on the job. A workforce so unstable and inexperienced prevented Ford’s factories from achieving peak efficiency.

Second, because the $5 wage was conditioned upon Ford’s workers learning English, as well as their steering clear of alcohol and gambling – conditions monitored by Ford executives visiting workers’ homes! – the higher wage was an incentive for workers to be more reliable and productive while on the job.

In short, Ford was something of an early supply-sider. He understood (at least in 1914) that the key to economic growth is not in giving people stronger incentives to spend but, rather, in giving people stronger incentives to produce.

Or perhaps we ought

Who's "we"? There are millions of companies - find one that works the way you want it to. If you don't, start one.

Well, at least you can't accuse him of being left or right wing:

people to accept 'Malthus-Darwin science,'
don't know what he meant by the 'Darwin' part, but the Malthus part will get him a job in any university

'ALL immigration pollution.'
and this qualifies him to run for governor in any southern state

You have to read about some actual CFOs and corporations and how they plan for the long term sometime - slashdot and reddit are not the places to learn about how corporations work.

To take 1 example, the airline industry plans at least 20 years ahead - fleet strength, maintenance costs, etc; not just the 'numbers for 3 quarters'.

It is funny how, on the one hand, Microsoft is accused of thinking of the long term to kill rivals even if they lose money in the short term, but at the same time, the meme is that 'corporations only care about the short term'.

but sadly I'm guessing this is par for the course at this level of "leadership" in most companies.

Or countries for that matter. The president gets blowjobs from an intern and he doesn't have to resign; the CEO did something similar and he has to resign. Looks like the corporation has higher standards than the govt.

The govt. already does this (see the lawsuit against Oracle); so do plenty of companies.

Think of Amazon and Apple acting as agents for the consumer - they collect all the buying power of the individual consumers and use that to get the publishers/manufacturers to get their pricing down.

I fail to see what the problem is - it is two entities voluntarily agreeing to certain terms (and please don't tell me it is not voluntary - unless someone holds a gun to your head, it is voluntary).