How communist of you Gary
More bailouts...
- Thread starter Pablo
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'll stick with the mob and assault the ivory towers.
That's going to be tough when people with real power remove the instruments to revolt.
How many evil CEO's have forced money out of your pocket or placed your grand kids into indentured servitude?
Answer is none.
Politicians on the other hand...
I'll stick with the mob and assault the ivory towers.
That's going to be tough when people with real power remove the instruments to revolt.
How many evil CEO's have forced money out of your pocket or placed your grand kids into indentured servitude?
Answer is none.
Politicians on the other hand...
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
That's going to be tough when people with real power remove the instruments to revolt.
You keep acting like these people of "real power" aren't just servile slaves to those who benefit most.
Quote:
How many evil CEO's have forced money out of your pocket or placed your grand kids into indentured servitude?
Via proxy? All of them. The fundamental instrument of their gain assures a never ending pyramid of slaves to facilitate it.
What makes you blind to this vital tidbit??
That's going to be tough when people with real power remove the instruments to revolt.
You keep acting like these people of "real power" aren't just servile slaves to those who benefit most.
Quote:
How many evil CEO's have forced money out of your pocket or placed your grand kids into indentured servitude?
Via proxy? All of them. The fundamental instrument of their gain assures a never ending pyramid of slaves to facilitate it.
What makes you blind to this vital tidbit??
Who has the power Gary? And who uses it? CEO's have NO power.
If politicians are taking bribes (and they are), then they are that much worse. What makes you blind to this vital tidbit?? You just freely admitted that they are complicit.
Without the power, there would be no bribes. Limit the power.
If politicians are taking bribes (and they are), then they are that much worse. What makes you blind to this vital tidbit?? You just freely admitted that they are complicit.
Without the power, there would be no bribes. Limit the power.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
What's the hole in that, Tempest, is that you're somehow thinking that cutting out government will somehow purify the system. That those who utilize corruption will be pure without the modality. This is a foolish notion. They have this in dysfunctional societies now. The corruption merely morphs and the money has a much easier time of manipulating the environment.
Under your basic theory, eliminating the only (however imaginary or real) safeguard that we have now will magically hobble these string pullers. It's a laughing farce. It would take any and all gloves off and end any doubts about who is in charge ..and allow them 100% free reign.
Under your basic theory, eliminating the only (however imaginary or real) safeguard that we have now will magically hobble these string pullers. It's a laughing farce. It would take any and all gloves off and end any doubts about who is in charge ..and allow them 100% free reign.
I wouldn't say CEOs have no power, as some of them can take bribes from politicians. Or the CEOs bribe the politicians to make the world into whatever they want.
Cutting out government from unnecessary involvement is the goal though. Government has its place, and in my opinion there's too much government involvement in places it shouldn't be. That will only get worse in the coming (at least 2) years, until people wake up and realize that the government can be overthrown and reformed around the Constitution, the way it was meant to be.
Cutting out government from unnecessary involvement is the goal though. Government has its place, and in my opinion there's too much government involvement in places it shouldn't be. That will only get worse in the coming (at least 2) years, until people wake up and realize that the government can be overthrown and reformed around the Constitution, the way it was meant to be.
Quote:
Tempest, is that you're somehow thinking that cutting out government will somehow purify the system.
NO. The free market will allow the people CHOICE. There is no choice with Government.
If people don't like CEO's flying on private jets, they have the right to not buy their products. Such is not the case when a Congress person wants to use a 757 for private use.
Powerful governments INCREASE corruption in every case.
Tempest, is that you're somehow thinking that cutting out government will somehow purify the system.
NO. The free market will allow the people CHOICE. There is no choice with Government.
If people don't like CEO's flying on private jets, they have the right to not buy their products. Such is not the case when a Congress person wants to use a 757 for private use.
Powerful governments INCREASE corruption in every case.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
If people don't like CEO's flying on private jets, they have the right to not buy their products. Such is not the case when a Congress person wants to use a 757 for private use.
Oh really? So if all the providers of products fly in 757's for private use, and are maintained on the boards of all of the corporations by "The League of Distinguished Gentlemen" ..and I'm not a major stock holder that's "not on the take" of in league bonuses ...
..my purchase is going to mean ...what??
You've really got to pull something more substantial out of that philosophy to cut c***, pal.
If people don't like CEO's flying on private jets, they have the right to not buy their products. Such is not the case when a Congress person wants to use a 757 for private use.
Oh really? So if all the providers of products fly in 757's for private use, and are maintained on the boards of all of the corporations by "The League of Distinguished Gentlemen" ..and I'm not a major stock holder that's "not on the take" of in league bonuses ...
..my purchase is going to mean ...what??
You've really got to pull something more substantial out of that philosophy to cut c***, pal.
Quote:
my purchase is going to mean ...what??
It means you can do something. You are free to encourage others to do the same, and they can vote with their dollars. Get enough people to stop buying and you cut into their viability.
Big 3 car makers are a PERFECT example...and long before the private jet story.
Of course, government comes along and FORCES the people to give them money for nothing. That is not the people having free choice.
my purchase is going to mean ...what??
It means you can do something. You are free to encourage others to do the same, and they can vote with their dollars. Get enough people to stop buying and you cut into their viability.
Big 3 car makers are a PERFECT example...and long before the private jet story.
Of course, government comes along and FORCES the people to give them money for nothing. That is not the people having free choice.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
It means you can do something. You are free to encourage others to do the same, and they can vote with their dollars. Get enough people to stop buying and you cut into their viability.
Oh ..I see. I can "boycott" all products that are supporting all of the same people ..who produce everything ..when they're (typically) all members of various chapters of The League of Distinguished Gentlemen??
Quote:
Big 3 car makers are a PERFECT example...and long before the private jet story.
Please explain
It means you can do something. You are free to encourage others to do the same, and they can vote with their dollars. Get enough people to stop buying and you cut into their viability.
Oh ..I see. I can "boycott" all products that are supporting all of the same people ..who produce everything ..when they're (typically) all members of various chapters of The League of Distinguished Gentlemen??
Quote:
Big 3 car makers are a PERFECT example...and long before the private jet story.
The major flaw in Tempest's logic is the fantasy that corporations are any less greedy and corrupt than governments. Or that they aren't already in major control of the government.
There's been a great series on TV the last few weeks "7 wonders of the modern world", including great engineering feats like the Hoover Dam, Golden Gate Bridge and London sewers.
In these docos, the treatment of the workers indicates absolutely the need for certain government regulation over OH&S, pay etc. (and also provides a strong argument for unionism).
Without government regulation, industry would still have 6 year olds losing limbs cleaning up cotton gins.
In these docos, the treatment of the workers indicates absolutely the need for certain government regulation over OH&S, pay etc. (and also provides a strong argument for unionism).
Without government regulation, industry would still have 6 year olds losing limbs cleaning up cotton gins.
Quote:
Please explain
People stopped buying as many cars as they did, so they almost went under. Simple enough?
Quote:
The major flaw in Tempest's logic is the fantasy that corporations are any less greedy and corrupt than governments.
No fantasy behind it. I fully realize people will be corrupt. That is why it is best to give everyone choice.
The fantasy behind your argument is that people automatically become philanthropic because they are a member of government.
Yes, Shannow, some regulation is needed. I have never stated otherwise. And the government run Chinese coal mines have by far the worst safety record on earth. So where does that leave you?
Please explain
People stopped buying as many cars as they did, so they almost went under. Simple enough?
Quote:
The major flaw in Tempest's logic is the fantasy that corporations are any less greedy and corrupt than governments.
No fantasy behind it. I fully realize people will be corrupt. That is why it is best to give everyone choice.
The fantasy behind your argument is that people automatically become philanthropic because they are a member of government.
Yes, Shannow, some regulation is needed. I have never stated otherwise. And the government run Chinese coal mines have by far the worst safety record on earth. So where does that leave you?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Well, I'm not ready to reduce humanity to cattle being traded on the commodity market. What you look at as the consumer dictating the market is somewhat flawed. You assume that you have much more choice than you truly have and that your dollar has much more influence than it truly has.
Even if you're correct ..on whatever level ..there's a backdrop environment that will have some standard of functionality ..or not. Natural selection with humans can have some odd "unintended side effects" that aren't favorable.
Under your philosophy, there's no need for a democracy or a republic. The Almighty $$ will run the show ..automatically. Why do you adhere to the false notion of a constitutional government ..when the market allegedly can do it all ..all by itself?
Even if you're correct ..on whatever level ..there's a backdrop environment that will have some standard of functionality ..or not. Natural selection with humans can have some odd "unintended side effects" that aren't favorable.
Under your philosophy, there's no need for a democracy or a republic. The Almighty $$ will run the show ..automatically. Why do you adhere to the false notion of a constitutional government ..when the market allegedly can do it all ..all by itself?
I like their punniness: My local newspaper folded.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Yes, Shannow, some regulation is needed. I have never stated otherwise. And the government run Chinese coal mines have by far the worst safety record on earth. So where does that leave you?
Where do you draw the line? Wouldn't the notion and knowledge of child labor issues naturally regulate the child chimney sweeps in England? I mean, people could just stop buying coal if the lives of children were that important to them. Maybe they could go without heat and let their shilling vote for them ..in the market.
Nope ..you're on that slippery slope to nanny state once you pass regulation number one.
It took some bleeding heart liberal to install those types of regulations ....and look what happened
Yes, Shannow, some regulation is needed. I have never stated otherwise. And the government run Chinese coal mines have by far the worst safety record on earth. So where does that leave you?
Where do you draw the line? Wouldn't the notion and knowledge of child labor issues naturally regulate the child chimney sweeps in England? I mean, people could just stop buying coal if the lives of children were that important to them. Maybe they could go without heat and let their shilling vote for them ..in the market.
Nope ..you're on that slippery slope to nanny state once you pass regulation number one.
It took some bleeding heart liberal to install those types of regulations ....and look what happened
"The fantasy behind your argument is that people automatically become philanthropic because they are a member of government."
I never said or implied such a thing, are you having trouble understanding what you read?
I never said or implied such a thing, are you having trouble understanding what you read?
A lot of the regulations are not quite helpful. FDA proves this with their p*** poor idea that melamine is ok to stay in baby formula (though women should be breastfeeding, but that's a different argument). Child labor laws, and other regulations that caused unions to form, were once needed, but not anymore. Information is more readily available, and consumers can just flat out boycott an industry for their misconduct. Even if a small percentage of people boycott, it's enough to cripple the industry.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Child labor laws, and other regulations that caused unions to form, were once needed, but not anymore. Information is more readily available, and consumers can just flat out boycott an industry for their misconduct. Even if a small percentage of people boycott, it's enough to cripple the industry.
There's a reason that those things aren't needed anymore. The reasons for their creation were neutralized. The false notion is that conditions will stay the same without them. You're looking at the effects already. Just about everyone got paid medical care ONLY due to employers having to compete with organized labor. Now that most of the organized labor has been destroyed, people aren't getting paid medical care. The next evolution will be medical care being available to fewer and fewer people (which we already see) ..and the retreat to no medical care for more and more of our population.
So the "unneeded" assertion is 100% false. Perhaps "unaffordable" would work. That is, "sorry, but you're just too darn expensive to bother with. Back to the chimney sweeps with you".
Now I have no real issue with this attitude ..but that's what it will end up being. There is no way to maintain high standards in the midst of a shrinking producer base to fund it.
The problem is the loss of producers ..not the cost of the standard of living.
Now those currently producing are most interested in dumping what they perceive as "dead weight" ..which they will probably become for someone else ..at some point.
It's a great personal philosophy, but hardly one that can be adopted as a successful policy with anything but a "more bad" future to it.
Now as long as you can say "Well, it will suck for most of you ..and I'll take my chances" fine ..but anyone who calls it "better" is speaking only from a personal perspective and not one inch outside of their personal existence bubble.
Child labor laws, and other regulations that caused unions to form, were once needed, but not anymore. Information is more readily available, and consumers can just flat out boycott an industry for their misconduct. Even if a small percentage of people boycott, it's enough to cripple the industry.
There's a reason that those things aren't needed anymore. The reasons for their creation were neutralized. The false notion is that conditions will stay the same without them. You're looking at the effects already. Just about everyone got paid medical care ONLY due to employers having to compete with organized labor. Now that most of the organized labor has been destroyed, people aren't getting paid medical care. The next evolution will be medical care being available to fewer and fewer people (which we already see) ..and the retreat to no medical care for more and more of our population.
So the "unneeded" assertion is 100% false. Perhaps "unaffordable" would work. That is, "sorry, but you're just too darn expensive to bother with. Back to the chimney sweeps with you".
Now I have no real issue with this attitude ..but that's what it will end up being. There is no way to maintain high standards in the midst of a shrinking producer base to fund it.
The problem is the loss of producers ..not the cost of the standard of living.
Now those currently producing are most interested in dumping what they perceive as "dead weight" ..which they will probably become for someone else ..at some point.
It's a great personal philosophy, but hardly one that can be adopted as a successful policy with anything but a "more bad" future to it.
Now as long as you can say "Well, it will suck for most of you ..and I'll take my chances" fine ..but anyone who calls it "better" is speaking only from a personal perspective and not one inch outside of their personal existence bubble.
- Status
