Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Agent0range

Conservatives vs Liberals

570 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

No Censorship

Maybe I should have said RC

The major brands bought up many minor brands during the past five to fifteen years. You can see the same kind of thing with candy corporations. There are many mergers and acquisitions that take place on a routine basis, and it sometimes seems like there will come a time when one corporation owns all brands. It's an apt analog for politics.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

No it isn't

Then it's time to prove libel and slander but you must investigate other networks as well so be fair. It's slanderous and libeling to accuse a business of operating on slander and libel. Politicians are public figures and open game for public criticism. I don't believe they have many rights to avoid it. They have to prove actual malice.

Libel and malice happens hourly on this very message board. Should the United States government restrict this public forum?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Then it's time to prove libel and slander but you must investigate other networks as well so be fair. It's slanderous and libeling to accuse a business of operating on slander and libel. Politicians are public figures and open game for public criticism. I don't believe they have many rights to avoid it. They have to prove actual malice.

Libel and malice happens hourly on this very message board. Should the United States government restrict this public forum?

He must believe the govt is smart enough to help him out with his personal problems too, maybe he should give them a call?

The major brands bought up many minor brands during the past five to fifteen years. You can see the same kind of thing with candy corporations. There are many mergers and acquisitions that take place on a routine basis, and it sometimes seems like there will come a time when one corporation owns all brands. It's an apt analog for politics.

Were these predatory M&As or were they mutually beneficial to both parties? Don't think preventing mergers will help things, that's another handcuff for property rights. Let's tear down the barriers to entry instead so new companies can compete in the marketplace, and the trend towards monopoly can't exist. I agree it's a great analogy for politics and the US media both.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbarosso

think of the nastiest workplace politics that you have experienced and then realize that nasty workplace politics takes place at all jobs to some degree or another. then think of washington DC as a workplace. now, because workplace politics usually has something to do with power, what kind of nasty workplace politics can u imagine take place in governments?

my guess is pretty much the unimaginable. the most shocking. the most extreme. ESPECIALLY if you have studied history of empires and governments like the Roman Republic and later Empire. they are the extreme example because they were the extreme power in their time....just like us.

if you think that one party or another is totally benign, then you are a fool. we are and always will be pawns in their re-election/power-holding lifestyle. thats it. think of this whenever there is an issue in the news....

EX: immigration reform.

democrat: "i dont want the border closed or illegals to be removed because its a major source of my votes, which keeps me making exorbitant sums of money"

republican: "i want the border closed and illegals kicked out because I dont like how the democrats are pandering and pretending to be simpathetic in order to create large groups that are used to stay in power"

democrats/liberals: dont have any idea of anything more than 50 years in the past and have no idea of anything more than 1 year into the future.

repubs/conservatives: understand the dynamic of history and the lessons it is teaching us

lots of in betweens too, so i dont seem to be painting with a broad brush

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MiskatonicGrad

think of the nastiest workplace politics that you have experienced and then realize that nasty workplace politics takes place at all jobs to some degree or another. then think of washington DC as a workplace. now, because workplace politics usually has something to do with power, what kind of nasty workplace politics can u imagine take place in governments?

my guess is pretty much the unimaginable. the most shocking. the most extreme. ESPECIALLY if you have studied history of empires and governments like the Roman Republic and later Empire. they are the extreme example because they were the extreme power in their time....just like us.

if you think that one party or another is totally benign, then you are a fool. we are and always will be pawns in their re-election/power-holding lifestyle. thats it. think of this whenever there is an issue in the news....

EX: immigration reform.

democrat: "i dont want the border closed or illegals to be removed because its a major source of my votes, which keeps me making exorbitant sums of money"

republican: "i want the border closed and illegals kicked out because I dont like how the democrats are pandering and pretending to be simpathetic in order to create large groups that are used to stay in power"

democrats/liberals: dont have any idea of anything more than 50 years in the past and have no idea of anything more than 1 year into the future.

repubs/conservatives: understand the dynamic of history and the lessons it is teaching us

lots of in betweens too, so i dont seem to be painting with a broad brush

I see the liberals as the most positive thinking group of people. because despite what thousands of years of human history has taught us they continue to make the same mistakes hoping that they will get it right.

so sure of themselves and their own intellect to finally be able to put the puzzle pieces together in such a way as to have a balanced society.

but I guess if the only history you learn comes from government run schools you don't learn about the liberal mistakes of the past.

which does bring up a good question was any empire, other than the resent attempts at communism, founded on liberal ideals?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

By definition liberal ideals can't make an empire. Empires are built on coercion or force and are usually a monarchy or oligarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Censorship

Were these predatory M&As or were they mutually beneficial to both parties? Don't think preventing mergers will help things, that's another handcuff for property rights. Let's tear down the barriers to entry instead so new companies can compete in the marketplace, and the trend towards monopoly can't exist. I agree it's a great analogy for politics and the US media both.

You name it. You would have to examine each and every case, but they're all part of a general trend of corporate unification, which seems to be accelerating. Look at the very recent news of AT&T and Comcast. It's starting to sound like the Final Four of information distributors. Just think back when Time and Warner teamed. Now, Comcast wants that corporation, and AT&T has their eyes set on a prize too. They want to acquire Directv. Just think if those combinations happened, and those new corporations joined forces. You would see a media-provider behemoth. It would be a leviathan of communication and information distribution. It would be close to a monopoly. It's doubtful that the lack of competition, that would result, would be beneficial for most of the people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Censorship

By definition liberal ideals can't make an empire. Empires are built on coercion or force and are usually a monarchy or oligarchy.

A "liberal" now is extremely different than a liberal in the past. Liberals in the past actually were tolerant. Now, there are factions in both main political parties that are intolerant in their own ways. Now, we have a paradigm of libertarianism and statism, not one of just left-wingers and right-wingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You name it. You would have to examine each and every case, but they're all part of a general trend of corporate unification, which seems to be accelerating. Look at the very recent news of AT&T and Comcast. It's starting to sound like the Final Four of information distributors. Just think back when Time and Warner teamed. Now, Comcast wants that corporation, and AT&T has their eyes set on a prize too. They want to acquire Directv. Just think if those combinations happened, and those new corporations joined forces. You would see a media-provider behemoth. It would be a leviathan of communication and information distribution. It would be close to a monopoly. It's doubtful that the lack of competition, that would result, would be beneficial for most of the people.

Agreed. I think competition will drag, but less so in a global marketplace at least. Even assuming the worst case, what do we do about it? If you own something, do you not have the right to sell it, or buy something someone else is voluntarily selling to you? Do we prohibit free trade on scale (or market share) alone, because of the repercussions to competition/innovation/value/quality from it? I wouldn't agree with that. Doesn't the marketplace punish the lack of quality and innovation eventually? At least in cases where there isn't a monopoly but monopolies aren't always legal. Other than giving small businesses and start-ups greater freedom to exist and compete, along with ending subsidies and sweetheart deals to the biggest corporations e.g. "too big to fail" which bastardizes the honesty in the marketplace, I don't know how else to address this trend.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Libertarianism is largely fantasy politics, devoid of almost all connection with reality. Just look at the influence of the TEA party on the current government.

Unfortunately the reality is that there are only flavours of statism and it has always been this way since we left the caves and banded together in cities.

There seems to be an illusion that modern liberals are different to historic liberals, but this is just plain wrong - we live in a world shaped in most ways by the progress towards a liberal reality and the only difference between old and new liberal is that we are further along the path. Occasionally we have a conservative convulsive backlash - but always the progression is towards a more liberal society.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

The major brands bought up many minor brands during the past five to fifteen years. You can see the same kind of thing with candy corporations. There are many mergers and acquisitions that take place on a routine basis, and it sometimes seems like there will come a time when one corporation owns all brands. It's an apt analog for politics.

You can bet when this happens they'll be selling it at Wal-Mart. It's the same business model perfected by John D, Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Fortunately, Roosevelt reined him in or, years ago, Standard Oil would have become the first multi-trillion dollar corporation, and no one not on their board of directors would have any political power at all. An unregulated financial sector, coupled with a reactionary supreme court, has us in a similar danger today. Edited by spacecowboy342
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster

Some very interesting articles highlighting PEER REVIEWED studies. I, for one, am not surprised at the findings.

http://www.american....n-conservatives

http://www.addicting...-answer-is-yes/

And here are the flaws in the research - http://www.thesecula...r-iqs-myth.html

Mistakes:

1. The IQ test used was an identify the picture test not a proper IQ test.

2. The researcher assumes all non-liberals are Conservatives. Unfortunately he therefore groups in socialists, theologists and people with no political leaning.

3. The research was conducted on adolescents not a cross section of the entire population.

4. The research was conducted only on Americans despite average IQ levels varying by country. The average IQ level in the US is 98, France is 94, Britain is 100 and Hong Kong is 107. The research should have expanded its boundaries before making assumptions.

If you weren't linking to stories from pro-liberal websites you might have got the full picture. Its like expecting the Daily Mail not to post stories with distortions in them about socialists. As the uneducated working classes tend to vote socialist and as they're grouped in with Conservatives thanks to this poor quality research its no wonder the average IQ level is lower.

Edited by RabidMongoose
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Censorship

Agreed. I think competition will drag, but less so in a global marketplace at least. Even assuming the worst case, what do we do about it? If you own something, do you not have the right to sell it, or buy something someone else is voluntarily selling to you? Do we prohibit free trade on scale (or market share) alone, because of the repercussions to competition/innovation/value/quality from it? I wouldn't agree with that. Doesn't the marketplace punish the lack of quality and innovation eventually? At least in cases where there isn't a monopoly but monopolies aren't always legal. Other than giving small businesses and start-ups greater freedom to exist and compete, along with ending subsidies and sweetheart deals to the biggest corporations e.g. "too big to fail" which bastardizes the honesty in the marketplace, I don't know how else to address this trend.

I couldn't agree more with your points about competition and innovation. The former is like a grinding stone that sharpens the latter. It's one way that we progress as a society. Thousands of people strive to build better mousetraps. What happens when that economic mechanism is controlled by just one corporation? One wonders if it will slow or stop the wheels of progress. Such a future scenario might bring us a life of shoddy Chinese goods combined with crappy cable service. The consumers will just have to take what they can get in such a world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Censorship

You can bet when this happens they'll be selling it at Wal-Mart. It's the same business model perfected by John D, Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Fortunately, Roosevelt reined him in or, years ago, Standard Oil would have become the first multi-trillion dollar corporation, and no one not on their board of directors would have any political power at all. An unregulated financial sector, coupled with a reactionary supreme court, has us in a similar danger today.

Are you sure that the Rockefellers aren't running the show *now*? I'm not saying that they rule our country and world, but they still remain influential through trusts and such. You can say the same thing for the Rothschilds. It's a financial Gordian Knot that would require a team of forensics specialists to pull the first few strands. Now, we have entities who want to recreate the halcyon days of sole ownership of resources. The difference is that the contemporary entities concentrate on the internet and satellites. Information is the new oil. Just ask AT&T, Comcast, Google, etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Censorship

Libertarianism is largely fantasy politics, devoid of almost all connection with reality. Just look at the influence of the TEA party on the current government.

Unfortunately the reality is that there are only flavours of statism and it has always been this way since we left the caves and banded together in cities.

There seems to be an illusion that modern liberals are different to historic liberals, but this is just plain wrong - we live in a world shaped in most ways by the progress towards a liberal reality and the only difference between old and new liberal is that we are further along the path. Occasionally we have a conservative convulsive backlash - but always the progression is towards a more liberal society.

Br Cornelius

I don't agree with most of that. First, libertarians are anything but deluded. We want a country with more freedom where people can make their own choices about their own lives without interfering in other peoples lives. We want less intrusion and involvement by the government. The degree to which that lessens varies by each person. We aren't a bunch of anarchists. We want law and order guided by our Constitution. That's not exactly a radical proposal.

Yes, Democrats and liberals have changed through the years. Just look at the days of Kennedy, and you'll see a difference. Most groups don't remain stagnant if they last a long time. It would be instructive to read an article on classical liberalism (different animal) too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I don't agree with most of that. First, libertarians are anything but deluded. We want a country with more freedom where people can make their own choices about their own lives without interfering in other peoples lives. We want less intrusion and involvement by the government. The degree to which that lessens varies by each person. We aren't a bunch of anarchists. We want law and order guided by our Constitution. That's not exactly a radical proposal.

Yes, Democrats and liberals have changed through the years. Just look at the days of Kennedy, and you'll see a difference. Most groups don't remain stagnant if they last a long time. It would be instructive to read an article on classical liberalism (different animal) too.

The majority of Libertarians are from the Bible belt and do not want freedom to do your individual thang. They are social conservatives who want to dictate what you can and cannot do. The only serious Libertarian faction, the TEA party, is chocked full of them and as I said look at their behaviours since they entered power. Libertarianism is a nice idea - but in practice it has been a disaster and I cannot see that changing any time soon.

For me what is more disturbing about the Libertarian movement is where it has got its finance and what that says about who is pulling the strings and its agenda. Its big business and they have done so to further their deregulation agenda. In a world where Corporations are becoming more powerful than Sovereign Governments the last thing we need is a naive withdrawal of even more control in the flawed belief that there will be no consequences and that business has our best interests at heart. This follows on from another naive belief that the Market will always produce the best result (another wheeze thought up by big business).

A nice analysis of why Libertarianism is just another brand of fantasy politics;

Some people aren't much bothered by libertarianism's lack of real-world success. After all, they argue, if no one tried anything new, nothing would ever change.

In fact, I'm all for experimentation; that's how we learn. Create a libertarian state. But run it as a proper experiment. Start small-scale. Establish exactly how your claims will be tested: per capita income? median income? life expectancy? property value? surveys on happiness? Set up a control: e.g. begin with two communities as close as we can get them in size, initial wealth, resources, and culture, one following liberalism, one following libertarianism. Abide by the results-- no changing the goalposts if the liberals happen to "win".

I'm even willing to look at partial tests. If an ideology is really better than others at producing general prosperity, then following it partially should produce partially better results. Jonathan Kwitny suggested comparing a partly socialist system (e.g. Tanzania) to a partly capitalist one (e.g. Kenya). (Kenya looked a lot better.) If the tests are partial, of course, we'll want more of them; but human experience is pretty broad.

It's the libertarians, not me, who stand in the way of such accountability. If I point out examples of nations partially following libertarian views-- we'll get to this below-- I'm told that they don't count: only Pure Real Libertarianism Of My Own Camp can be tested.

Again, all-or-nothing thinking generally goes with intellectual fraud. If a system is untestable, it's because its proponents fear testing. By contrast, I'm confident enough in liberal and scientific values that I'm happy to see even partial adoption. Even a little freedom is better than dictatorship. Even a little science is better than ideology.

An untested political system unfortunately has great rhetorical appeal. Since we can't see it in action, we can't point out its obvious faults, while the ideologue can be caustic about everything that has actually been tried, and which has inevitably fallen short of perfection. Perhaps that's why Dave Barry and Trey Parker are libertarians. But I'd rather vote for a politician who's shown that his programs work in the real world than for a humorist, however amusing.

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

I am a huge fan of personal freedom and personal liberty - but the only political movement which has delivered on its promises are the Liberal democracies.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Let me quote another passage from that website which I think puts the whole Libertarian argument in perspective:

Unacceptable Morality

Ultimately, my objection to libertarianism is moral. Arguing across moral gulfs is usually ineffective; but we should at least be clear about what our moral differences are.

First, the worship of the already successful and the disdain for the powerless is essentially the morality of a thug. Money and property should not be privileged above everything else-- love, humanity, justice.

(And let's not forget that lurid fascination with firepower-- seen in ESR, Ron Paul, Heinlein and Van Vogt, Advocates for Self-Government's president Sharon Harris, the Cato Institute, Lew Rockwell's site, and the Mises Institute.)

I wish I could convince libertarians that the extremely wealthy don't need them as their unpaid advocates. Power and wealth don't need a cheering section; they are-- by definition-- not an oppressed class which needs our help. Power and wealth can take care of themselves. It's the poor and the defenseless who need aid and advocates.

The libertarians reminds me of G.K. Chesterton's description of people who are so eager to attack a hated ideology that they will destroy their own furniture to make sticks to beat it with. James Craig Green again:

Typical excuses are "the common good", "public morality", "traditional family values", "human rights", "environmental protection", "national security", and "equality". Each appeals to the confused hysteria of a segment of the population. Each allows property to be denied its rightful owner. Each denies the concept of self-ownership.

Here's a very different moral point of view: Jimmy Carter describing why he builds houses with Habitat for Humanity:

From my rural boyhood, when I often spent the night with black neighbors who lived in unheated and dilapidated shacks, to my years in the White House when I saw the plight of the homeless and those trapped in poverty housing worldwide, I have known that shelter matters. And I know, as a Christian, that I have a responsibility to serve where I can, that as I treat "the least of these", I treat my Creator.

Is this "confused hysteria"? No, it's common human decency. It's sad when people have to twist themselves into knots to malign the human desire (and the Biblical command) to help one's neighbor.

Second, it's the philosophy of a snotty teen, someone who's read too much Heinlein, absorbed the sordid notion that an intellectual elite should rule the subhuman masses, and convinced himself that reading a few bad novels qualifies him as a member of the elite.

Third, and perhaps most common, it's the worldview of a provincial narcissist. As I've observed in my overview of the 20th century, liberalism won its battles so thoroughly that people have forgotten why those battles were fought.

It's hard to read libertarians without concluding that they've never been out of the country-- perhaps never out of the suburbs. They don't know what Latin American rule by the elite looks like; they don't know any way of running an industrial economy but that of the US; they don't know what an actually oppressive government looks like; they've never experienced a depression; they've never lived in a slum or experienced racial discrimination. At the same time, they have a very American sense of entitlement: a gut feeling that they've earned the prosperity they were born into, that they owe the community nothing, that they deserve to have whatever they want, that no one should stand in their way.

In short, they're spoiled, and they've evolved a philosophy that they should be spoiled.

I don't want to leave out the possibility of honest confusion. Some people may be attracted by parts of the libertarian program without buying into its underlying morality.

In short its just another Utopian flight of fancy which never has to deal with the consequences of its logical fallacies. The justification for the Republican "liberalization of the economy" and the inevitably widening gulf between the rich and the poor that ensues - all because utopias are always better in the end - better for who I ask ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster

Agreed. I think competition will drag, but less so in a global marketplace at least. Even assuming the worst case, what do we do about it? If you own something, do you not have the right to sell it, or buy something someone else is voluntarily selling to you? Do we prohibit free trade on scale (or market share) alone, because of the repercussions to competition/innovation/value/quality from it? I wouldn't agree with that. Doesn't the marketplace punish the lack of quality and innovation eventually? At least in cases where there isn't a monopoly but monopolies aren't always legal. Other than giving small businesses and start-ups greater freedom to exist and compete, along with ending subsidies and sweetheart deals to the biggest corporations e.g. "too big to fail" which bastardizes the honesty in the marketplace, I don't know how else to address this trend.

Political, economic, social and technological factors in business external environments are constantly changing. Those firms which dont adapt at the pace of change have lower profits and risk going bust. Thats one of the ways the market elimates companies which are no good.

Market failures are legislated against and a form of market failure are monopolies. Not all monopolies are bad, some are beneficial to the customer and if they remain that why their existance is allowed. Take Microsoft for example. People get quite a lot of leading software bundled in with their version of Windows so Governments allow it to exist as a near monopoly. When it isnt in the customers best interests Governments break them up.

Businesses which don't take care of their stakeholders such as ones who do over their customers get negative media attention for it, alienate potential customers, attract the watchful eyes and actions of the Government, find it difficult to lend money from those who don't want to be associated with that type of business and ultimately they suffer as a result. This form of market correction eliminates corrupt and dodgy businesses.

All ltd businesses earning over £4 million in profit a year have to have audits. That picks out corrupt behaviour and tightens the ship to prevent it even happening. Its rare that a company gets away with it, the number of corporations which are corrupt are very low (you can count them on your hands from the last decade), and when it does happen it requires some kind of collusion between the Government, regulatory bodies and the firm in question to happen. Regulatory bodies are not incompetant or blind. Those who think they are dont have the slightest understanding of accounting.

People who think most corporations are corrupt are the kind who think you get somewhere in life by doing everyone over. They pick out that odd example to paint a picture of a big, bad, nasty world. When someone like that does go into business they quickly go bust when they learn things dont work like that. This is not the face of capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Censorship

The majority of Libertarians are from the Bible belt and do not want freedom to do your individual thang. They are social conservatives who want to dictate what you can and cannot do. The only serious Libertarian faction, the TEA party, is chocked full of them and as I said look at their behaviours since they entered power. Libertarianism is a nice idea - but in practice it has been a disaster and I cannot see that changing any time soon.

For me what is more disturbing about the Libertarian movement is where it has got its finance and what that says about who is pulling the strings and its agenda. Its big business and they have done so to further their deregulation agenda. In a world where Corporations are becoming more powerful than Sovereign Governments the last thing we need is a naive withdrawal of even more control in the flawed belief that there will be no consequences and that business has our best interests at heart. This follows on from another naive belief that the Market will always produce the best result (another wheeze thought up by big business).

A nice analysis of why Libertarianism is just another brand of fantasy politics;

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

I am a huge fan of personal freedom and personal liberty - but the only political movement which has delivered on its promises are the Liberal democracies.

Br Cornelius

That's just not true. A lot of libertarians are agnostics or atheists, and they live in different areas of the USA. Even so, who cares where they live? It makes no difference to me. I live in the Midwest. I would stand with them if they're from the Deep South or the Bronx. I couldn't care less about it. Anyway, you're mistaken on your take on libertarians' views on personal liberties. Most of them want to end the war on drugs, for instance. They aren't identical to conservative Christians or mainstream Republicans, and they're not all members of the Tea Party movement, which has *great* ideas for the country. They want *less* government involvement in our lives, and they have a live and let live take on life.

They support the free market because it works. That said, a good amount don't trust the multinational banks and corporations. Their economic philosophies vary, but they lean towards laissez faire. You're right in that they're capitalists.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Political, economic, social and technological factors in business external environments are constantly changing. Those firms which dont adapt at the pace of change have lower profits and risk going bust. Thats one of the ways the market elimates companies which are no good.

Market failures are legislated against and a form of market failure are monopolies. Not all monopolies are bad, some are beneficial to the customer and if they remain that why their existance is allowed. Take Microsoft for example. People get quite a lot of leading software bundled in with their version of Windows so Governments allow it to exist as a near monopoly. When it isnt in the customers best interests Governments break them up.

Businesses which don't take care of their stakeholders such as ones who do over their customers get negative media attention for it, alienate potential customers, attract the watchful eyes and actions of the Government, find it difficult to lend money from those who don't want to be associated with that type of business and ultimately they suffer as a result. This form of market correction eliminates corrupt and dodgy businesses.

All ltd businesses earning over £4 million in profit a year have to have audits. That picks out corrupt behaviour and tightens the ship to prevent it even happening. Its rare that a company gets away with it, the number of corporations which are corrupt are very low (you can count them on your hands from the last decade), and when it does happen it requires some kind of collusion between the Government, regulatory bodies and the firm in question to happen. Regulatory bodies are not incompetant or blind. Those who think they are dont have the slightest understanding of accounting.

People who think most corporations are corrupt are the kind who think you get somewhere in life by doing everyone over. They pick out that odd example to paint a picture of a big, bad, nasty world. When someone like that does go into business they quickly go bust when they learn things dont work like that. This is not the face of capitalism.

Great reply. I think there are many sensible regulations for businesses but I'm afraid there are too precious few for government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Great reply. I think there are many sensible regulations for businesses but I'm afraid there are too precious few for government.

I would have to disagree with most of the original reply. Businesses have been caught to many times concealing their nefarious activities for anyone to take the assertion seriously that they are paragons of virtue. As an example Shell was even caught hiring paramilitary thugs to intimidate (and nearly kill) protestors in rural Ireland as recently as 4years ago. In the field of the oil industry at least underhand and violent activity is accepted practice - and generally there is Government collusion facilitating that activity. Insider trading is quite common in the financial industry and the number of times banks have been caught mis-selling financial products gets to numerous to count. If it wasn't for strong regulatory frameworks in most developed countries - the abuses of position would become horrendous - because to cut corners is generally better for the bottom line. Remember all corporate governance rules are subservient to the law that demands they maximize their profits.

Government works under much the same regulatory burden as business - its more sloganizing again Yamato.

Law's are enacted and apply to all citizens and government bodies alike.

Like all institutions businesses are as corrupt and corruptable as any other institution such as Government. Is not the lobbying industry, paid for by corporations, the root cause of most corruption within Government ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I would have to disagree with most of the original reply. Businesses have been caught to many times concealing their nefarious activities for anyone to take the assertion seriously that they are paragons of virtue. As an example Shell was even caught hiring paramilitary thugs to intimidate (and nearly kill) protestors in rural Ireland as recently as 4years ago. In the field of the oil industry at least underhand and violent activity is accepted practice - and generally there is Government collusion facilitating that activity. Insider trading is quite common in the financial industry and the number of times banks have been caught mis-selling financial products gets to numerous to count. If it wasn't for strong regulatory frameworks in most developed countries - the abuses of position would become horrendous - because to cut corners is generally better for the bottom line. Remember all corporate governance rules are subservient to the law that demands they maximize their profits.

Government works under much the same regulatory burden as business - its more sloganizing again Yamato.

Law's are enacted and apply to all citizens and government bodies alike.

Like all institutions businesses are as corrupt and corruptable as any other institution such as Government. Is not the lobbying industry, paid for by corporations, the root cause of most corruption within Government ?

Br Cornelius

Businesses get caught, as they should. We can site example after example of regulations on business. The govt gets away with it. Billions go missing and "uh duh" is all it takes to get away with it. While it's reasonable that punishment is impossible, so are preventative regulations to keep it from happening again because government officials have no interest in handcuffing themselves with regulations.

And your claims here are bogus, sorry. Yeah how right it would be for me to get a printing press and create money so I can keep interest rates low, stimulate the economy, and create jobs! I'll take that money and start lending it out fractional reserve style plus interest! Excuse me? Why is the Federal Reserve self regulating but the the marketplace is not? Why do you assign magic powers to bankers that you can't extend to normal people? Are you just a sucker for a banker in a suit if they're created by the govt and here to help?

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Businesses get caught, as they should. We can site example after example of regulations on business. The govt gets away with it. Billions go missing and "uh duh" is all it takes to get away with it. While it's reasonable that punishment is impossible, so are preventative regulations to keep it from happening again because government officials have no interest in handcuffing themselves with regulations.

And your claims here are bogus, sorry. Yeah how right it would be for me to get a printing press and create money so I can keep interest rates low, stimulate the economy, and create jobs! I'll take that money and start lending it out fractional reserve style plus interest! Excuse me? Why is the Federal Reserve self regulating but the the marketplace is not? Why do you assign magic powers to bankers that you can't extend to normal people? Are you just a sucker for a banker in a suit if they're created by the govt and here to help?

A failure of regulation doesn't mean that we should not regulate. Who has been driving the economic agenda recently - the government or the banks (the Fed been the main voice for the banking sector). It is a perfect example of what i am talking about - a sector corrupting the process of Governance by lobbying the executive for favours. If it wasn't for the fact that the banking sector has a considerable chunk of the Cabinet in its pocket the whole disaster of the financial crash and ongoing refusal of the Government to adequately regulate it would not be the issue.

As I have said many times before - you tilt at the wrong windmill. The correct windmill is the Fascistic amalgam of Government-corporation-banking which has been allowed to capture your country through treating businesses as citizens and allowing them undue influence on policy. Lobbyists are the problem - not the institutions as such. If we follow your small government agenda, rather than reforming the institutions to rain in the corporations, then the corporate lobbyists will have won and we the people will have lost. I suspect it is already to late to correct the systemic imbalance of power within government and the terrible consequences will have to play out before sense is regained.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster

A failure of regulation doesn't mean that we should not regulate. Who has been driving the economic agenda recently - the government or the banks (the Fed been the main voice for the banking sector). It is a perfect example of what i am talking about - a sector corrupting the process of Governance by lobbying the executive for favours. If it wasn't for the fact that the banking sector has a considerable chunk of the Cabinet in its pocket the whole disaster of the financial crash and ongoing refusal of the Government to adequately regulate it would not be the issue.

As I have said many times before - you tilt at the wrong windmill. The correct windmill is the Fascistic amalgam of Government-corporation-banking which has been allowed to capture your country through treating businesses as citizens and allowing them undue influence on policy. Lobbyists are the problem - not the institutions as such. If we follow your small government agenda, rather than reforming the institutions to rain in the corporations, then the corporate lobbyists will have won and we the people will have lost. I suspect it is already to late to correct the systemic imbalance of power within government and the terrible consequences will have to play out before sense is regained.

Br Cornelius

I've just read two of your replies including this and you assert things without evidence. Examples are:

Have Police investigations uncovered widespread evidence of insider trading?

Have Police investigations shown a large chunk of the cabinet is in the banks pockets?

Believing in things without evidence sets a dangerous precedent especially when someone sounds as militant as yourself. Some of your comments make you sound like you believe you're in some kind of war against corporations. I dread to think what type of people you've grown up around as you have some quite negative views of business and the world around you.

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.

Banks cause major recessions every few decades. The cause is not corruption but complatency. After a few decades of relatively good times they start to believe there's never going to be another major recessions so their controls become lax. It caused both the Wall Street Crash and the current problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

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

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

33 out of 37 Goldman Sachs lobbyists in 2013 have previously held government jobs

http://www.opensecre...p?id=d000000085

fh4eca65e4.png

http://prof77.wordpress.com/politics/an-updated-list-of-goldman-sachs-ties-to-the-obama-government-including-elena-kagan/

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

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.