Author Topic: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?  (Read 944 times)

TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96'

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 13819
  • Thanked: 450 times
  • Karma: -1625
  • Permanent Resident Flat Erth 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2009, 10:05:54 PM »
Brian, I'm not sure Microsoft is the best way to support your case. Without the good services of the government Microsoft wouldn't be the empire that it is. In other words, Bill Gates didn't make it on his own. The question is whether you support the idea of allocating public funds and goods to corporations. You claim you "speak against it". If so then why did you just attempt to justify the parasite nature of Microsoft. Sure, it provides jobs, so did slavery, so do sweatshops, does that make them legitimate? If not, it also doesn't justify the privatization of public funds.

You seem to be concerned with individual rights. Corporations infringe on individual rights non-stop. They dominate the traditional media, they are making attempts to dominate the internet, they dominate the government, they constantly deceive the public through propaganda, not to speak of their tremendous impact on foreign policy.Let's also not forget their institutional structure which is straight totalitarian top-down control.Yet, all of this does not count as infringements on individual rights in your moral calculus.

Now, clearly you understand the idea of collectivist entities existing for their own purpose.I share your disgust with such entities.However, there is hardly a more paradigmatic example for such entities than modern corporations, which were initially designed to be temporary public projects, with revocable charters, untill early in the 20th century when they were granted the rights of human beings, not through legislation, not through the constitution, but through judicial  activism. They were also ordered a new pathological purpose by the courts- to maximize profit, without any regard for the human environment, unless it serves their business interest. Governments, though often corrupt, have at least some accountability to the public.

In addition, people like Adam Smith, not indifferent to individual rights and markets,would be disgusted by such monopolies that totally undermine free markets, while subjecting people's labour to external control.





Obviously im against corporatism, but you can't blame these CEO's for wanting to befriend the government, especially now when the government is firing CEO's.  And even before that they were burdening businesses by having so many tax laws and regulations on the books that its nearly impossible for an employer to know what's legal and not legal.  They can be sued for millions over spilt coffee, have the government strip their liscence or charge exorbitant amounts for liscencing, and so on....

And your explaination of the history of capatlism was nonsense.   There is capatlism everywhere and at everytime in your life.  When you walk into the bar, you are a commodity, and women will bid for you, and if they can offer you what you want, looks, sexuality, money... or just good convo, common interest.... whatever it is you like.... when you take her home you've basically secured a business deal in that you and her are agreeing on something.

Let me take it to an even more basic level.  you decide who you want to have conversation with during the day.... people want to talk to you and you want to talk to other people, but you will only talk if you have something they want to hear or vice versa.. this is also a business transaction at its root....

money is only a means of exchange, but don't let the size of the private sector fool you, its still the same basic principal.  If an employer offers you a better offer than other employers you will deal with him and vice versa, just like you will deal with the girl that offers you what you want, or you will have conversation with those you choose....

Life is a continuous series of exchanges amongst humans and money is only a means of exchange, this is nature and can not be controlled or manufactured by government.

you choose what product to buy and what job to work at, but once government gets involved it becomes and issue of FORCE, and a socialist government can force you to work for a certain cause and pay taxes for whatever the leader feels is most important to him.


My First Officially Schedule Rap Battle on Stage as an undercard to the undercard match



(btw, Earth 🌎 is not a spinning water ball)
 

M Dogg™

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12116
  • Thanked: 19 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2009, 10:18:34 PM »
We need more post like this, lets get legit discussion going in this section again.

See, less Reptile people and more reality, Infinite has more reason that virtuoso and Matty, but I can go either way... lol.
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2009, 02:42:19 AM »
Brian, I'm not sure Microsoft is the best way to support your case. Without the good services of the government Microsoft wouldn't be the empire that it is. In other words, Bill Gates didn't make it on his own. The question is whether you support the idea of allocating public funds and goods to corporations. You claim you "speak against it". If so then why did you just attempt to justify the parasite nature of Microsoft. Sure, it provides jobs, so did slavery, so do sweatshops, does that make them legitimate? If not, it also doesn't justify the privatization of public funds.

You seem to be concerned with individual rights. Corporations infringe on individual rights non-stop. They dominate the traditional media, they are making attempts to dominate the internet, they dominate the government, they constantly deceive the public through propaganda, not to speak of their tremendous impact on foreign policy.Let's also not forget their institutional structure which is straight totalitarian top-down control.Yet, all of this does not count as infringements on individual rights in your moral calculus.

Now, clearly you understand the idea of collectivist entities existing for their own purpose.I share your disgust with such entities.However, there is hardly a more paradigmatic example for such entities than modern corporations, which were initially designed to be temporary public projects, with revocable charters, untill early in the 20th century when they were granted the rights of human beings, not through legislation, not through the constitution, but through judicial  activism. They were also ordered a new pathological purpose by the courts- to maximize profit, without any regard for the human environment, unless it serves their business interest. Governments, though often corrupt, have at least some accountability to the public.

In addition, people like Adam Smith, not indifferent to individual rights and markets,would be disgusted by such monopolies that totally undermine free markets, while subjecting people's labour to external control.





Obviously im against corporatism, but you can't blame these CEO's for wanting to befriend the government, especially now when the government is firing CEO's.  And even before that they were burdening businesses by having so many tax laws and regulations on the books that its nearly impossible for an employer to know what's legal and not legal.  They can be sued for millions over spilt coffee, have the government strip their liscence or charge exorbitant amounts for liscencing, and so on....

And your explaination of the history of capatlism was nonsense.   There is capatlism everywhere and at everytime in your life.  When you walk into the bar, you are a commodity, and women will bid for you, and if they can offer you what you want, looks, sexuality, money... or just good convo, common interest.... whatever it is you like.... when you take her home you've basically secured a business deal in that you and her are agreeing on something.

Let me take it to an even more basic level.  you decide who you want to have conversation with during the day.... people want to talk to you and you want to talk to other people, but you will only talk if you have something they want to hear or vice versa.. this is also a business transaction at its root....

money is only a means of exchange, but don't let the size of the private sector fool you, its still the same basic principal.  If an employer offers you a better offer than other employers you will deal with him and vice versa, just like you will deal with the girl that offers you what you want, or you will have conversation with those you choose....

Life is a continuous series of exchanges amongst humans and money is only a means of exchange, this is nature and can not be controlled or manufactured by government.

you choose what product to buy and what job to work at, but once government gets involved it becomes and issue of FORCE, and a socialist government can force you to work for a certain cause and pay taxes for whatever the leader feels is most important to him.




First of all, notice you didn't dispute any of the corporate infringements on individual rights I pointed to. Plus, you once again tried to justify government intervention by saying "you can't blame these CEO's for wanting to befriend the government". "Befriend" is not the most accurate term, try "influence". There's a good study on the mechanics of this. Just look up Thomas Ferguson's "Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Parties and the Logic of Money Driven Politics", at the local library.

Second of all, I didn't offer an "explanation of the history of capitalism". Instead, I gave a general outline of the evolution of corporate law. If you want to dispute it-you appear to think it's "nonsense"- you might want to write a critique on the excellent series of studies called "The Transformation of American Law" by this guy from Harvard named Morton J. Horwitz, cause that's where I got it from.

Third of all, you seem to think you're living under capitalism, where there is competition and free markets. You'll notice I referred earlier to Adam Smith, who provided the intellectual foundation for free markets and capitalism. I said he would be disgusted by the current shape of the system. The reason I said this-and this should be obvious to anyone who hasn't lost touch with reality-is that free markets and competition don't really exist in systems like the U.S, where the leading players rely on huge government subsidies, as well as other practices (the ones I mentioned earlier) that are designed to undermine markets. There may exist some limited degree of competition between the few bodies receiving huge government subsidies,  but this is oligopoly, not what Adam Smith had in mind in "The Wealth of Nations".
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 04:54:40 AM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

Javier

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 8585
  • Karma: 284
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2009, 12:38:48 PM »
Expansions of presidential powers has happened every time there has been a major crisis in the country.  Lincoln is the most guilty of this, but it's mainly been modern Presidents from the 1920s and on.  It's not shocking, it's something I expect during any crisis. 
 

virtuoso

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 333
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2009, 12:43:59 PM »

Thanks for the informative posts Geezy  ;D, I will be reading the Adam Smith mentioning first and foremost below is the link for anyone else that wants to read it to.
http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/65/112/frameset.html
 

TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96'

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 13819
  • Thanked: 450 times
  • Karma: -1625
  • Permanent Resident Flat Erth 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #20 on: April 04, 2009, 09:37:20 AM »


First of all, notice you didn't dispute any of the corporate infringements on individual rights I pointed to. Plus, you once again tried to justify government intervention by saying "you can't blame these CEO's for wanting to befriend the government". "Befriend" is not the most accurate term, try "influence". There's a good study on the mechanics of this. Just look up Thomas Ferguson's "Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Parties and the Logic of Money Driven Politics", at the local library.

Second of all, I didn't offer an "explanation of the history of capitalism". Instead, I gave a general outline of the evolution of corporate law. If you want to dispute it-you appear to think it's "nonsense"- you might want to write a critique on the excellent series of studies called "The Transformation of American Law" by this guy from Harvard named Morton J. Horwitz, cause that's where I got it from.

Third of all, you seem to think you're living under capitalism, where there is competition and free markets. You'll notice I referred earlier to Adam Smith, who provided the intellectual foundation for free markets and capitalism. I said he would be disgusted by the current shape of the system. The reason I said this-and this should be obvious to anyone who hasn't lost touch with reality-is that free markets and competition don't really exist in systems like the U.S, where the leading players rely on huge government subsidies, as well as other practices (the ones I mentioned earlier) that are designed to undermine markets. There may exist some limited degree of competition between the few bodies receiving huge government subsidies,  but this is oligopoly, not what Adam Smith had in mind in "The Wealth of Nations".


Your acting as if I consider America in 2009 to be a great and shining example of capitalism and the free market.  Which I don't.  And no matter how many times I say I am against corporatism (which consists of businesses using government to strengthen their position in the market) or government interference in the market; you still keep saying the same damn thing over and over.   

This discussion has taken a wrong term, because you stopped acknowledging what I was really saying, and just started arguing against America's current state of corporatism; which I already disagree with.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2009, 09:40:15 AM by Infinite African AND American West Coastin »
My First Officially Schedule Rap Battle on Stage as an undercard to the undercard match



(btw, Earth 🌎 is not a spinning water ball)
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2009, 10:20:18 AM »
If you disagree with "America's current state of corporatism", explain why " you can't blame these CEO's for wanting to befriend the government"?(my emphasis).In your answer remember to address the fact corporatism means, as you said, "businesses using government to strengthen their position in the market".

Secondly, I didn't claim you "consider America in 2009 to be a great and shining example of capitalism and the free market". Instead, I was commenting on your statement that "There is capitalism everywhere and at everytime in your life". And I pointed out that if the intellectual foundation of capitalism matters, then capitalism doesn't really exist in the US. To borrow your words, capitalism is not "everywhere and at every time".
« Last Edit: April 04, 2009, 10:22:24 AM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96'

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 13819
  • Thanked: 450 times
  • Karma: -1625
  • Permanent Resident Flat Erth 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2009, 10:38:54 AM »
If you disagree with "America's current state of corporatism", explain why " you can't blame these CEO's for wanting to befriend the government"?(my emphasis).In your answer remember to address the fact corporatism means, as you said, "businesses using government to strengthen their position in the market".

Secondly, I didn't claim you "consider America in 2009 to be a great and shining example of capitalism and the free market". Instead, I was commenting on your statement that "There is capitalism everywhere and at everytime in your life". And I pointed out that if the intellectual foundation of capitalism matters, then capitalism doesn't really exist in the US. To borrow your words, capitalism is not "everywhere and at every time".

Yes my friend, capitalism is everywhere at every time, there is no way around that.   Once again, I will break it down into simpler terms for you, so that you can get out of your Noam Chomsky socialist utopia fantasy world; and allow me to present you the world as it really exists....

Capitalism is everywhere at every time in everything we do. 

-When you woke up this morning, you went to brush your teeth.  The toothpaste you used was the one that you felt best fit your needs, whether it was an affordable price of toothpaste, the store being close to your home, or the right brand.  You went out into the free-market and chose which brand of toothpaste you use.  Various toothpaste companies competed for you dollars, and local shops worked to help supply you with what you needed.

-You took a shit on the toilet.  The toilet company struck a deal with your apartment complex or home to provide toilets in your area.  They competed with other toilet companies to provide your biulding owners with what they needed at the most affordable price in comparison to other toilet companies in the market.

-Your girlfriend Z, who is in your home, I imagine.  Was the best out of all the other alternatives made available.  You could of had other women, but you chose her over the others, because she provides you with what you want in a relationship; you were in a free market and able to choose the woman you liked so long as you agreed to provide her in return with the companionship she also desired.


....I could go on forever but I hope you get the point.


Now, you say, how is capitalism and free market everywhere, because in America you said it's not a good example, and look at all the corporatism, and so on...?

Good question.  You see, that my friend is the THIEF.  And the thief also exists.  When you were in elementary school you had to guard against him beating you up and taking your lunch money.  In the adult world you have to guard against him stealing your money in taxes or burdening you with regulations.  In it's various forms it is still the THIEF.

So... to be more clear, let me rephrase what I said above... Capitalism exists everywhere and in every place AND THE THIEF ALSO EXISTS.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2009, 10:41:07 AM by Infinite African AND American West Coastin »
My First Officially Schedule Rap Battle on Stage as an undercard to the undercard match



(btw, Earth 🌎 is not a spinning water ball)
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2009, 11:03:00 AM »
Although I am duly impressed with your storytelling skills, I'm afraid the criteria for capitalism lie elsewhere. Sure, in some areas of your life you can find instances of competition, few would doubt that. The question is whether the competition is ubiquitous, whether it exists everywhere, within the system. Now, in systems like ours, we have state subsidized corporations, we have propaganda-advertising and P.R - which is intended to undermine markets. That means competition is not ubiquitous, it's highly localized, as is wealth. Capitalism, in the Adam Smith sense, means market competition under conditions of perfect freedom, conditions which are absent from our societies, if only for the government intervention in favor of big business. I can see you have some problem with Chomsky, but I'm not quoting Chomsky, I'm relying on the intellectual foundation of capitalism.

And again, if u're opposed to corporatism, why can't we blame the CEOs seeking government intervention?
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96'

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 13819
  • Thanked: 450 times
  • Karma: -1625
  • Permanent Resident Flat Erth 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2009, 11:19:25 AM »

Now, in systems like ours, we have state subsidized corporations, we have propaganda-advertising and P.R - which is intended to undermine markets.


Subsidies are the examples of the THIEF, as mentioned in the analogy in my previous post.  They are just another form of the bully in grade school who beat you up and stole your lunch money.   

However, propaganda advertising is a different case.  It is not the thief.  Because to consider it the thief would be to disregard personal responsibility.  You were stupid enough to be fooled by the propaganda.  It was ultimately your choice.   So it's kind of like the girl in your 4th grade classroom that you wrote love letters to everyday, and then later you found out she was letting all the other students read and laugh those letters and you became the class joke.  So you wasted your time, but it was your fault for believing she was sincere in the first place.  But hey, that's the risk you take for love.



That means competition is not ubiquitous, it's highly localized, as is wealth.


So what... it's impossible to make everyone equal.  Just like Beyonce is sexier than the Lady of Rage.


Capitalism, in the Adam Smith sense, means market competition under conditions of perfect freedom, conditions which are absent from our societies, if only for the government intervention in favor of big business. I can see you have some problem with Chomsky, but I'm not quoting Chomsky, I'm relying on the intellectual foundation of capitalism.


Yes, because Adam Smith is describing capatalism at it's best.  But just because the thief exists, doesn't mean that capitalism no longer exists.  Capatalism is still there, it just does not thrive as much as it could otherwise.  Just because the Thief is there beating you up and taking you lunch money, doesn't mean you die and never get to eat.  Some days he beats up another kid and leaves you alone. 

By the way, I like Chomsky as a person and a human being; but he's a dreamer and not looking at reality.  But then again, alot of people I love are dreamers and not looking at reality.  I can't blame them, because much of reality looks like shit.



And again, if u're opposed to corporatism, why can't we blame the CEOs seeking government intervention?


You can blame them if you want, on principal.  But to seek is one thing; it's another thing to actually do.  If I seek to want to rule the whole world with an iron fist that's not a big deal.  But if Obama hands me over the nuclear trigger, well then now you got a problem.  The point being, it is the government which makes big business dangerous; they are not dangerous on their own, because you don't have to work for them and you don't have to buy from them.
My First Officially Schedule Rap Battle on Stage as an undercard to the undercard match



(btw, Earth 🌎 is not a spinning water ball)
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2009, 11:42:48 AM »
I didn't say capitalism doesn't exist as an idea, I said it doesn't exist in reality due to the way our systems function. You may call it a thief. But theives are marginal, while this is the core of the system.

Secondly, the question that was posed to you was indeed a question of principle. And I don't see how one can both support government intervention and be against it at the same time.

As for government being that which makes big business dangerous, I don't think there's evidence for that. As I said earlier- and also bothered to refer you to the relevant scholarship- the law was transformed to make the businesses more powerful and more indifferent to public concerns.By law, maximizing profit was to be the chief concern for big business, while ,to a large extent, it was prohibited from considering human consequences. I also gave a reference to a study dealing with business exerting pressure on government. Now in such conditions,  where else do you go to mitigate the harm of publicly unaccountable entities, other than to the government, which is at least accountable to some extent.
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96'

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 13819
  • Thanked: 450 times
  • Karma: -1625
  • Permanent Resident Flat Erth 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2009, 12:15:09 PM »
I didn't say capitalism doesn't exist as an idea, I said it doesn't exist in reality due to the way our systems function. You may call it a thief. But theives are marginal, while this is the core of the system.


Then it's a BIG thief.  But it's still a thief no matter the size of it.  Which is the whole premise of libertarian politics, which is to make the thief as small as possible.  Whereas, you democratic socialist politics seek to turn the thief into a "good thief" like Barack Obama.  I think Barack Obama is a good guy.  He's a "good thief".  But still a thief.


Secondly, the question that was posed to you was indeed a question of principle. And I don't see how one can both support government intervention and be against it at the same time.


LOL.. I don't either, so I guess it's a good thing I don't support government intervention ;)... for the thousandth time.  All I said was that I can understand why businesses would want to get the government on their side, how you understood that statement to mean that I supported corporatism (government intervention in business) I will never know.


As I said earlier- and also bothered to refer you to the relevant scholarship-


Thanks, let me also offer you some links and books for you to read as well.. www.harrybrowne.org

Why Government Doesn't Work-  by Harry Browne
How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World-  by Harry Browne
How You Can Profit From The Coming Devaluation-  by Harry Browne

...Now I've provided you with relevant scholarship, when you read that I will read some of yours


 maximizing profit was to be the chief concern for big business,


Only in your Noam Chomsky utopia that will never exist, is the chief concern of big business not to make money... over here in the real world everything seeks to profit by it's very nature.  Just as you try to improve your life a business seeks to improve it's business.   


 also gave a reference to a study dealing with business exerting pressure on government. Now in such conditions,  where else do you go to mitigate the harm of publicly unaccountable entities, other than to the government, which is at least accountable to some extent.


Any business is automatically accountable to it's customers and employees.  Who could quit or not purchase their products if they chose to.  So you don't need government to force business to be accountable.  And even if you did try to do that it would look something like what Obama has done with GM (BEST CASE SCENARIO) and worst case scenario it would be Bush and Halliburton; either way it won't work.

My First Officially Schedule Rap Battle on Stage as an undercard to the undercard match



(btw, Earth 🌎 is not a spinning water ball)
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2009, 12:36:04 PM »
I kinda feel like we're talking in circles now.

I didn't mention the literature to impress you, I did it in order to document the judicial activism that took place, which decreased the accountability of big business to the public.I also wanted to document the intention of big business to dominate government.

You also said we shouldn't blame big business for wanting government intervention, while claiming to be against government intervention.

Finally, big business is accountable to its shareholders, not to its employees-whose salaries often need to be kept at a minimum for reasons of profit(Remember what happent to Ford early in the 20th century-Dodge vs. Ford-  when he wanted to give his employees greater salaries- the shareholders sued him and won on grounds that business should not engage in altruistic deeds unless it is for more profit). It is also not accountable to it's consumers unless we're talking about business-to-business. Human consumers, as opposed to other corporations, can be, and are, routinely deceived through what you regard as legitimate methods like propaganda.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2009, 12:38:49 PM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96'

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 13819
  • Thanked: 450 times
  • Karma: -1625
  • Permanent Resident Flat Erth 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #28 on: April 04, 2009, 12:48:08 PM »
I kinda feel like we're talking in circles now.


And who's fault is that?


You also said we shouldn't blame big business for wanting government intervention, while claiming to be against government intervention.



Okay.  Why is this sooooooo hard for you to understand.  Big business has an obvious incentive to want government on their side... THEY WILL MAKE MORE MONEY.   That is fucking obvious dude.  In fact, in general, we as human beings want people to be on our side.  So what is so confusing to you?   

Shitt... I want government on my side.  Even you want government on your side.   Because if I had government on my side then I could tell them to go away and they would do it.  And if you had government on your side you could tell them to make Noam Chomsky King of the World and they would do it.  Which by the way, if Noam Chomsky was made king, I could see it now... you saying... "Well, he was really good, and then when he got power he kind of changed".   

So can we drop that argument now?  This doesn't mean that I am for government to say that in general people want government to be on their side.



Finally, big business is accountable to its shareholders, not to its employees-whose salaries often need to be kept at a minimum for reasons of profit(Remember what happent to Ford early in the 20th century-Dodge vs. Ford-  when he wanted to give his employees greater salaries- the shareholders sued him and won on grounds that business should not engage in altruistic deeds unless it is for more profit). It is also not accountable to it's consumers unless we're talking about business-to-business. Human consumers, as opposed to other corporations, can be, and are, routinely deceived through what you regard as legitimate methods like propaganda.


So now business isn't accountable to it's consumers?   Then if that's the case why doesn't Wall-Mart charge 1 million dollars for each one of it's products? 
My First Officially Schedule Rap Battle on Stage as an undercard to the undercard match



(btw, Earth 🌎 is not a spinning water ball)
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2626
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: So anybody else find it shocking that Obama basically took over GM?
« Reply #29 on: April 04, 2009, 01:13:14 PM »
So you don't wanna talk about institutionalized deception of the public, cause that doesn't go very well with accountability to consumers. Let's discuss Wal Mart instead. This is a moving target debate.

And when you're against government intervention, you don't come up with alibis to justify it.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2009, 01:16:51 PM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?