Conservatives vs Liberals

[Duke Wellington]

I really think you are been delusional if you don't accept that the Obama Administration (and almost all other administrations) is front loaded with Banking lobbyists;

http://www.businessi...nistration?op=1

An interesting read which significantly underplays the influence that none executive lobbyists have had on the policy towards banks and other sectors.

To attempt to deny that Lobbyists buy policy measures with hard cash and favours seem mighty naive, it wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the fact that the business sector has the deepest pockets and almost always outspends the Civil sector in lobbying activities.

Br Cornelius

Have Police investigations shown a large chunk of the cabinet is in the banks pockets? That means bankers paying politicans to pursue their interests. The answer is no. Cash for questions is a rare event.

When it comes to directors and senior managers lobbying political instituitions for change its normal practice. Its the normal procedure which Governments use to maintain a line of communication with organisations so that they can pick the policies which will bring the greatest economic benefit to the country and value to consumers.

Lobbying is open to all businesses not just large corporations. For SMEs several bodies exist to lobby on their behalf such as the Federation of Small Businesses. Lobbying is valuable because without it the Government receives no feedback for how its policy changes are impacting business. If that were the case your countries GDP would be a lot lower and you'd have less money in your pocket.

If I was President I'd wont some bankers on my team too for determining economic and fiscal policies.

Edited May 16, 2014 by RabidMongoose

[Frank Merton]

If a politician takes a bribe for favors from a businessman in the States, they both go to jail. That is of course as it should be. However, if a politician takes a donation to his or her election campaign and does the businessman favors, it is perfectly legal. Worse, the politician has to do this and even demand the money to raise the sums needed to campaign in the States.

It's all both corrupt and hypocritical. I'm amazed they can bring themselves to look at their reflections in the mirror.

[Guest]

Moving on to the next issue a search on the internet has failed to reveal anything to me about Shell hiring paramilitaries in Ireland. They do in Colombia where a low level civil war is going on and the reason is to protect its faciltiies from rebel forces who try to sabotage them to deny the Government its share of the revenue.

In response, a protestors fishing vessel was boarded at night and the owner was tied to a chair before the ship was holed. This represents at best intimidation and at worst attempted murder;

Shell Mercenaries.

Shell security personnel employed by IRMS (Integrated Risk Management Services) are made up of a mixture of ex-army and 'special forces' personnel, mostly international, some with direct links to criminal organisations. Tibor Revesz, the Hungarian ex-soldier who worked on surveillance for IRMS at the Shell site Glengad is a founding member of a fascist paramilitary organisation called the Szekler Legion and is implicated in an attempted assassination of Bolivian president Evo Morales.

See 'The Shadow over Erris: Shell, IRMS and Bolivia' here: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/92865

In a strange twist of fate Tibor Revesz was asked by Gardaí to give evidence in the case against Terence Conway. It was no surprise that he didn't show up in court.

The truth is stranger than fiction.

The Sunday Mail says that the truth is far worse, here: http://royaldutchshe...d-to-ki...tred/

Hundreds of IRMS security are employed by Shell to work on land at the site at Glengad and at sea in fast Rigid Inflatable Boats (RIBS) in the protection of Shell working boats.

In June 2009 Pat O'Donnell's boat was sunk as the largest pipelaying vessel in the world, the Solitaire prepared to steam through his fishing gear to lay pipe at Broadhaven Bay. Willie Corduff another well known local protester was beaten and hospitalised by Shell security guards in the middle of the night while he sat under a truck when Shell restarted work at Glengad in 2009.

If you're looking for examples of vigilantism and private armies in relation to the Corrib Gas Project, I don't think you'll get much better than the above.

I hope the ironies of Judge Groarke's comments and observations are clear.

http://www.shelltose...l-thugs-bullies

This is just one tiny example of how Shell has broken the law and murdered protestors around the world in order to protect the gas in your tank.

Ken Saro Wiwa is a better example of how large corporations will use their influence and deadly force to protect their bottom line;

http://en.wikipedia....i/Ken_Saro-Wiwa

You seem to be very naive, or something far worse.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 16, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

If I was President I'd wont some bankers on my team too for determining economic and fiscal policies.

We can all see how well that has worked out

Having a revolving door between the administration and the large corporations has inevitably caused the large industries to be favoured over citizens interests.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

If a politician takes a bribe for favors from a businessman in the States, they both go to jail. That is of course as it should be. However, if a politician takes a donation to his or her election campaign and does the businessman favors, it is perfectly legal. Worse, the politician has to do this and even demand the money to raise the sums needed to campaign in the States.

It's all both corrupt and hypocritical. I'm amazed they can bring themselves to look at their reflections in the mirror.

Indeed it doesn't have to be strictly criminal to represent a corruption of process and governance.

Br Cornelius

[Duke Wellington]

In response, a protestors fishing vessel was boarded at night and the owner was tied to a chair before the ship was holed. This represents at best intimidation and at worst attempted murder;

http://www.shelltose...l-thugs-bullies

You expect people to take a website like that seriously? Its a bit tree huggerish.

This is just one tiny example of how Shell has broken the law and murdered protestors around the world in order to protect the gas in your tank. Ken Saro Wiwa is a better example of how large corporations will use their influence and deadly force to protect their bottom line;

http://en.wikipedia....i/Ken_Saro-Wiwa

You seem to be very naive, or something far worse.

Globalisation has the following catches when it comes to oil companies:

A- Environmental Damage

B- Relocation of villagers

It brings the following benefits:

A- Higher employment for the host nation

B- Economic Growth not only in the host nation but those who it exports oil too as well

C- Higher tax revenues meaning governments have more funds for roads, schools, hospitals, airports, etc

D- Higher quality of life as people can have cars, electricity, etc.

Villagers obviously dont like getting relocated but its morally wrong to put the best interests of 1000 Nigerians before the best interests of the other 180 million. If they start getting militant and arranging murders then the Nigerian Government should prosecute them to the full extent of the law. It is not corruption it is looking after your people. We dont live in a black and white world, often you have to choose the option which does the most moral good.

Edited May 16, 2014 by RabidMongoose

[Guest]

You expect people to take a website like that seriously? Its a bit tree huggerish.

Globalisation has the following catches when it comes to oil companies:

A- Environmental Damage

B- Relocation of villagers

It brings the following benefits:

A- Higher employment for the host nation

B- Economic Growth not only in the host nation but those who it exports oil too as well

C- Higher tax revenues meaning governments have more funds for roads, schools, hospitals, airports, etc

D- Higher quality of life as people can have cars, electricity, etc.

Villagers obviously dont like getting relocated but its morally wrong to put the best interests of 1000 Nigerians before the best interests of the other 180 million. If they start getting militant and arranging murders then the Nigerian Government should prosecute them to the full extent of the law. It is not corruption it is looking after your people. We dont live in a black and white world, often you have to choose the option which does the most moral good.

I live in Ireland and I know the people involved so I do expect you to take it seriously.

More on the sinking of local fishing boat by masked thugs in a mainstream Irish media journal;

http://www.villagema...p/2013/12/5613/

As for the rest - so it justifies Shell killing locals in the name of progress. You lost my vote there. The reality of what happened in Nigeria is that Shell actively colluded with the Military to surpress and kill local protestors and this resulted in Shell settling a court case in America not to have the details revealed in open court;

Shell was involved in the development of the strategy that

resulted in the unlawful execution of the Ogoni Nine. Shell

told the Nigerian regime they needed to deal with Ken

Saro-Wiwa and MOSOP. Shell monitored Ken Saro-Wiwa,

and closely followed the tribunal and his detention. Prior to

the trial, Shell Nigeria told its parent companies that Saro-

Wiwa would be convicted and told witnesses that Saro-

Wiwa was never going free. Shell held meetings with the

Nigerian regime to discuss the tribunal, including with the

military president Sani Abacha himself. Shell's lawyer

attended the trial, which, in Nigeria, is a privilege afforded

only to interested parties. Brian Anderson, the Managing

Director of Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary, met with Owens Wiwa,

Saro-Wiwa’s brother and offered to trade Saro-Wiwa’s

freedom for an end to the protests against the company. At

least two witnesses who testified that Saro-Wiwa was involved

in the murders of the Ogoni elders later recanted, stating that

they had been bribed with money and offers of jobs with Shell

to give false testimony – in the presence of Shell's lawyer.

One month after the executions of the Ogoni Nine, Shell

signed an agreement to invest $4 billion in a liquefied natural

gas project in Nigeria.

What’s the Status of “The Case Against Shell”?

Beginning in 1996, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR),

EarthRights International (ERI) and other human rights attorneys

brought a series of cases to hold Shell accountable for human

rights violations in Nigeria, including summary execution,

crimes against humanity, torture, inhuman treatment and

arbitrary arrest and detention. The lawsuits were brought

against Royal Dutch Shell, Shell Nigeria, and Brian Anderson,

the head of its Nigerian operation.

The cases were brought under the Alien Tort Statute, a 1789

statute giving non-U.S. citizens the right to file suits in U.S. courts

for international human rights violations, and the Torture Victim

Protection Act, which allows individuals to seek damages in the

U.S. for torture or extrajudicial killing, regardless of where the

violations take place.

Over the course of thirteen years, Shell made many attempts to

have these cases thrown out of court, which the plaintiffs

defeated. The United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York set a trial date of March 27, 2009. On

the eve of the trial, the lawsuits were settled for $15.5 million in

what is being hailed as a milestone moment in the movement

towards corporate accountability and human rights.

http://ccrjustice.or...against-shell-0

The reality is that for most people in developing countries who are in the oil fields receive no financial gain and suffer considerable community disruption. The Government tends to syphon off most of the profits into personal bank accounts. This is a well known phenomena and is refereed to as the curse of oil;

The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty, refers to the paradox that countries and regions with an abundance of natural resources, specifically point-source non-renewable resources like minerals and fuels, tend to have less economic growth and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. This is hypothesized to happen for many different reasons, including a decline in the competitiveness of other economic sectors (caused by appreciation of the real exchange rate as resource revenues enter an economy, a phenomenon known as Dutch disease), volatility of revenues from the natural resource sector due to exposure to global commodity market swings, government mismanagement of resources, or weak, ineffectual, unstable or corrupt institutions (possibly due to the easily diverted actual or anticipated revenue stream from extractive activities).

http://en.wikipedia..../Resource_curse

You should know that nothing I ever say is not supportable with evidence or well understood concepts.

The point I made earlier, which I maintain I have demonstrated, is that companies will do whatever is necessary to get the job done - regardless of whether it is legal or not. the only restraint they feel is whether they believe they can get away with it, and that is where strong government and strong regulation is essential, and where lobbying presents an existential threat to the correct functioning of the state.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 16, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

What has happened in my own country, Ireland, is a perfect example of the resource curse as applied to the gas industry. You should look into the give away terms the government (a very corrupt and venal bunch of criminals who lived off brown envelopes) decided on before they issued exploration licenses to Shell. The Irish exchequer will receive virtually nothing from the billions that Shell is projected to earn from the Corrib gas field. Contrast this to the deal and terms negotiated by Norway at the same time.

This is a perfect education in the reality for the population of Libertarian economic models.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 16, 2014 by Guest

[Myles]

Have Police investigations shown a large chunk of the cabinet is in the banks pockets? That means bankers paying politicans to pursue their interests. The answer is no. Cash for questions is a rare event.

When it comes to directors and senior managers lobbying political instituitions for change its normal practice. Its the normal procedure which Governments use to maintain a line of communication with organisations so that they can pick the policies which will bring the greatest economic benefit to the country and value to consumers.

Lobbying is open to all businesses not just large corporations. For SMEs several bodies exist to lobby on their behalf such as the Federation of Small Businesses. Lobbying is valuable because without it the Government receives no feedback for how its policy changes are impacting business. If that were the case your countries GDP would be a lot lower and you'd have less money in your pocket.

If I was President I'd wont some bankers on my team too for determining economic and fiscal policies.

Lobbying (bribing) should be made illegal in the form that it is used in the states.

[Yamato]

What has happened in my own country, Ireland, is a perfect example of the resource curse as applied to the gas industry. You should look into the give away terms the government (a very corrupt and venal bunch of criminals who lived off brown envelopes) decided on before they issued exploration licenses to Shell. The Irish exchequer will receive virtually nothing from the billions that Shell is projected to earn from the Corrib gas field. Contrast this to the deal and terms negotiated by Norway at the same time.

This is a perfect education in the reality for the population of Libertarian economic models.

Br Cornelius

"the population of Libertarian economic models"?

[Guest]

"the population of Libertarian economic models"?

Small government, low taxes and liberal regulation. The Corrib-Shell project ticks all those boxes and the Irish national will gain almost nothing from the gas extracted.

This is the reality of where Libertarian economic theory will lead.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

Small government, low taxes and liberal regulation. The Corrib-Shell project ticks all those boxes and the Irish national will gain almost nothing from the gas extracted.

This is the reality of where Libertarian economic theory will lead.

Br Cornelius

That's not true.

Claims of a tax yield of some €1.7 billion over the life of the field have been made by the Irish government based on data about the field's size and 2008 gas prices.^[20] Up to 2007, the Irish Petroleum Licensing Terms imposed a flat 25% income tax on gas production revenues. In August 2007, the top rate of tax on the most profitable fields was increased to 40%.^[21][22] The new licensing terms called for changes to the tax imposed based upon fields ' profit ratios (equal to the rate of profit less 25% divided by the accumulated level of capital investment). Where this ratio is greater than 4.5, an additional 15% tax was imposed, where it is between 3.0 and 4.5 an additional 10% was imposed and where the profit ratio is between 1.5 and 3.0, and additional 5% tax was added. Less profitable fields were not affected.^[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrib_gas_project#Tax

As if, if the govt was only bigger and the taxes were even higher, this would be okay and not "libertarian economics" whatever that means. That's not the problem with this. Government and corporations making big money together isn't "libertarian" in the slightest. If libertarians were interested in corporate profits and taxation first like liberal democrats and conservative republicans, they'd be the mainline party in politics today not the other guys. Democrats want to raise taxes to increase tax revenues and republicans want to lower taxes to increase tax revenues. Libertarians want to decrease tax revenues which isn't helpful for any of the "economics" we have today every time we look at govt to solve another problem for us.

[Guest]

Yamato, you missed the write off's allowed. The reality is that the projected tax take for the gas field is just $1.7b of a revenue stream of between $50-60 billion. That is one of the lowest ratios in the world.

This was neghotiated on the back of the last time the IMF were consulted on Government policy and was in contrast to a tax regime originally proposed by an expert committee modelled on the Norwegan model which is about 50-50, for the government accepting a proportion of the risks. It was a bad deal and the people of Erris will be put at consierable risk due to the fact that Shell were allowed to bring the gas onshore without a downstream pressure regulator (the cheapest option), a system not allowed anywhere else.

A totally bad deal and the sort of deal which corporations would get away with on a regular basis if you have your small government way.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 18, 2014 by Guest

[Yamato]

You're getting taxed on revenue now and not profit? No. The small govt way would be private landowners not allowing corporations to turn their property into a hole in the ground, but instead we have government authorizing the corporations to do so as usual.

[Guest]

You're getting taxed on revenue now and not profit? No. The small govt way would be private landowners not allowing corporations to turn their property into a hole in the ground, but instead we have government authorizing the corporations to do so as usual.

Shell do not own the gas, they have only a right to receive profits on the work they do - not the raw materials which belong to the nation. This is how it is in nearly all oil producing countries and the tax take is generally in excess of 50% to reflect this basic fact.

In your scenario, there would be no oil because it would be impossible to negotiate with the land owners to extract it. I am not a big fan of oil, as you might guess, but if you base your economy on it then you have to be practical about the details.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 18, 2014 by Guest

[Yamato]

Shell do not own the gas, they have only a right to receive profits on the work they do - not the raw materials which belong to the nation. This is how it is in nearly all oil producing countries and the tax take is generally in excess of 50% to reflect this basic fact.

In your scenario, there would be no oil because it would be impossible to negotiate with the land owners to extract it. I am not a big fan of oil, as you might guess, but if you base your economy on it then you have to be practical about the details.

Br Cornelius

Let's get this straight for both of us here. First you say the raw materials belong to the nation, then you admit it's necessary to dig them out, and then you blame libertarian economics after it happens. I don't think raw materials belonging to the state have the first thing to do with libertarians. Libertarians are notoriously distrustful of govt. They don't want to say the nation owns anything so the govt can then come in and control it and bless contracts and collect taxes and drill holes wherever it wants. You can call that many things, libertarian isn't one of them.

[No Censorship]

You can call that many things, libertarian isn't one of them.

Thank you! Brother Cornelius might enjoy reading stories about Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. He'll likely appreciate the fact that they're not establishment conservatives. They're definitely *not* control freaks on social issues.

[Guest]

Let's get this straight for both of us here. First you say the raw materials belong to the nation, then you admit it's necessary to dig them out, and then you blame libertarian economics after it happens. I don't think raw materials belonging to the state have the first thing to do with libertarians. Libertarians are notoriously distrustful of govt. They don't want to say the nation owns anything so the govt can then come in and control it and bless contracts and collect taxes and drill holes wherever it wants. You can call that many things, libertarian isn't one of them.

How do the civilian population benefit from natural resources if there are no taxes from them to distribute the profits from the nations resources ?

In an every man for himself world - the most ruthless and strongest will grab the resources for themselves and damn the rest of the population and immediate neighbours. Are you really that social darwinist in your outrlook ?

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

How do the civilian population benefit from natural resources if there are no taxes from them to distribute the profits from the nations resources ?

In an every man for himself world - the most ruthless and strongest will grab the resources for themselves and damn the rest of the population and immediate neighbours. Are you really that social darwinist in your outrlook ?

Br Cornelius

Let's get this straight. You actually do want profits, so long as the taxes on them are high enough (and you'll even boldly go where no man has gone before and tax losses to make sure of it); otherwise it's "libertarian economics" and "social darwinism."

[Frank Merton]

I would like to see government living off the profits of enterprises it owns. Private enterprises manage and pay huge salaries to executives and sometimes decent dividends. When a government has a monopoly they should be able to do much better -- but they never do. They always have to be tax supported.

I understand that sometimes this is because they are doing something society needs but that left to cover its own costs would not make it -- like defense or education for the poor or mass transit. But other government businesses, especially in socialist countries, tend to be run for the benefit of the managers and constantly need tax money to keep going even though private firms to fine even in competition with them.

I am a socialist and think for the most part private enterprises have the wrong set of incentives and ultimately this leads to their doing harm, but socialists must also consider what incentives they need to watch out for. State enterprise managers should be removed if they can't make money for the treasury.

[Gromdor]

Certain government functions are inherently not profitable. War for instance. You are quite literally shooting away money with every missile, bullet, or bomb. Services also generally tend not to be profitable unless you charge your customers (tax them) enough to cover the expenses and then some. The idea is to make them revenue neutral, take in taxes only enough to pay for them. If anything, one of the biggest problems the US has is the politicians using their position to further the profits of their corporate and lobbyist friends instead of trying to keep costs down.

That being said, I do feel that some sort of planned economy would be in America's best interests. Watching countries like China acquire monopolies on rare earths and other resources while the US continues with the same old capitalist free for all for resources is somewhat alarming. Especially considering that many US companies are multi-national and might not have the US's interest at heart in their decision making.

[Yamato]

Speaking of profit where government is concerned is troublesome at best but defense companies in particular when so much of their revenue comes from government contract. When good old capitalism can't finish on time and budget, a customer goes elsewhere. But when a weapons system has 20 years of cost overruns, when 44 of 50 states all have a hand in its development, 88 of 100 senators will continue buying into it no matter what and the developer will still make a profit at any cost. Market forces are distorted into government guarantees and cost-plus accounting schemes.

And speaking of service and profit, how about military service? How to tax them enough to cover the expenses and then some? By using them to some advantage, a war against a tinpot dictator in the Middle East sitting on large proven reserves of oil wouldn't surprise me. So there is plenty of profit in war, it's just a question of profit for who? The defense companies? Absolutely. They've already made their money on the missiles and bombs they already built. They'll make more money on the replacements after those are shot away.

[Guest]

The National Health Service is the most cost effective health delivery system in the developed world - run for the people by the Government.

It is another example of hollow rhetoric to claim that private is always better and cheaper - it is not.

Another example would be the staggering increase in energy costs (beyond the cost of raw materials) since it was privatized in the UK.

Many things simply cannot be done without cost increases by the private sector, since there is always significant overheads in high executive pay and dividents. It is fair to say that many public services have been badly run, but if the Government wants a cost effective public service they have the means to demand it. Privatization is not the only solution, accountability, auditing and regulations are just as effective in the public sector as they are in the private - if they are applied.

I have just read where the UK government wants to privatize child protection services to the same security companies who have recently been found to be systematically overbilling the government for offender tagging services they did not provide. Ultimately though the real risk is that we end up in the situation like the US prision service is where innocent people are been imprisoned for minor offenses because it is profitable for the private corporations to fill their spaces - at government expense.

Child protection services stealing children because its good for the bottom line. These are the realities of for profit public services.

Privatizing frequently fails to produce the claimed saving and more often produces perverse insentive.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Speaking of profit where government is concerned is troublesome at best but defence companies in particular when so much of their revenue comes from government contract. When good old capitalism can't finish on time and budget, a customer goes elsewhere. But when a weapons system has 20 years of cost overruns, when 44 of 50 states all have a hand in its development, 88 of 100 senators will continue buying into it no matter what and the developer will still make a profit at any cost. Market forces are distorted into government guarantees and cost-plus accounting schemes.

And speaking of service and profit, how about military service? How to tax them enough to cover the expenses and then some? By using them to some advantage, a war against a tinpot dictator in the Middle East sitting on large proven reserves of oil wouldn't surprise me. So there is plenty of profit in war, it's just a question of profit for who? The defence companies? Absolutely. They've already made their money on the missiles and bombs they already built. They'll make more money on the replacements after those are shot away.

Railing at the defense companies for doing what they were designed for is hardly enlightening.

Maybe you should attack the culture of preferred defence contractors and war for profit which your Government has followed.

Its a failing of the American empire's foreign policy - not the innate function of the government. As I keep saying, its not a fault of Government as such, its a fault of your government in particular.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 18, 2014 by Guest

[Yamato]

People should be allowed to shop for lower prices and better quality and why shouldn't that include their health care? Providers were regulated right out of the marketplace and the lack of competition was driving costs up. What difference does it make where Geico's Headquarters is? I can get insurance from it regardless. Just couldn't get my health insurance from anyone but my employment approved provider. More centralization and inefficiency wasn't the solution to government created barriers to entry.

Sounds like this is diverging into socialism vs capitalism again. Like republicans and democrats, those are no substitutes for 'conservatives vs liberals'.

Fiscal liberals never met a budget they couldn't sign, which is pretty much the entire government these days. Social conservatives want to come into my bedroom and tell me what kind of sex to have. Neoconservatives want to go to foreign countries and drop bombs on them. Social liberals are so wrapped up in special interests and legislation that favors one group over the other, I can't identify with them either. Both liberals and conservatives, these words have lost all of their value and most of their meaning.