Corporations are PURE EVIL !
Superdave
Corporations have NO conscience !
Corporations have NO morals !
Corporations have NO vote !
Corporations will RUIN your community !
Corporations will RUIN your state !
Corporations will RUIN your country !
For $$$$$$$$$$
If a Corporation has to KILL people for Profit, it WILL.
Life means NOTHING to a Corporation.
Money means everything.
It is time We The People showed them who is BOSS !!
People VOTE ! Corporations Don't !
FUCK BP FUCK GOLDMAN SACHS FUCK AIG FUCK THE MPAA FUCK THE RIAA
Amen
Superdave
wrote:
Former EPA investigator charges, "What the government has done over the past
several years is taught BP that it can do whatever it wants and will not be held
accountable"
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0520/watchdog-groups-file-foia-requests-learn-true-extent-oil-spill/
BP destroys the Gulf Coast of the USA and laughs all the way to the bank ?
kaennorsing
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 17:52:59 +0800, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Corporations have NO conscience !
>
> >Corporations have NO morals !
>
> >Corporations have NO vote !
>
> >Corporations will RUIN your community !
>
> >Corporations will RUIN your state !
>
> >Corporations will RUIN your country !
>
> >For $$$$$$$$$$
>
> >If a Corporation has to KILL people for Profit, it WILL.
>
> >Life means NOTHING to a Corporation.
>
> >Money means everything.
>
> >It is time We The People showed them who is BOSS !!
>
> >People VOTE ! Corporations Don't !
>
> >FUCK BP FUCK GOLDMAN SACHS FUCK AIG FUCK THE MPAA FUCK THE RIAA
>
> >Amen
>
> Former EPA investigator charges, "What the government has done over the past
> several years is taught BP that it can do whatever it wants and will not be held
> accountable"
>
>
> BP destroys the Gulf Coast of the USA and laughs all the way to the bank ?
It seems a clear case of government creating the moral hazard through
special interest. Look also at the Russian oil industry, how
government corrupts it with biased enforcement of regulation and the
environmental devastation there that is rule rather than exception.
The solution again is less government involvement in the industry and
stricter enforcement of existing clear-cut legislation that punishes
environmental destruction.
Industries should obviously pay for the total cost of environmental
destruction and private property violations rather than only for
production and distribution. This will lead to higher oil prices, a
shrinking oil industry and an acceleration in the marketing of
clean(er) energy. Unfortunately, as with any highly regulated
industry, the government cronies obviously have a great interest in
the oil industry and maintaining the status quo.
Superdave
wrote:
This is why I now support Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement.
Fuck the Republicans Fuck the Democrats.
We need some radically new HONEST government by the people and
for the people and not the corporatist bough and paid for morons we
now have in Washington.
kaennorsing
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:44:22 -0700 (PDT), kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com>
Yes, Ron Paul has great economic, moral and historical understanding.
Corporations like BP are the vehicle of corrupted government officials
to make an extra buck on the side and expand their power through
fascist enterprise. A part of the establishment and centralized power
Paul is so offended by and made his lifework fighting against.
Carey
In the USA a Corporation is recognized as having the all rights of a
Person and none
of the responsibilities. As such, it will do as it does: maximize
profit, externalize costs,
and be without blame. It could be changed, but tremendous public will
would be needed-
and the corporate pr apparatus excels in keeping the populace asleep.
Pedro Dias
Your argument implies that corporations don't act to further their
self-interest: politicians make money from corporations because
corporations want a permissive regulatory environment. If politicians
were in control of the process, they could derive an income without
the quid pro quo. In other words, politicians are acting on behalf of
corporations, not the other way around.
The problem isn't politicians. It isn't even corporations, as such.
The problem is the accumulation of economic power that distorts the
political process, and corporations, generally speaking, are much
larger economic actors than even the wealthiest individuals, so they
do the most damage.
Carey
You have it precisely backwards.
Corrupted politicians and their functionaries exist, indeed are
necessary, for the
more-or-less laissez-faire corporate structure to thrive, or even
survive.
In the USA a legislator of significance *cannot be elected without
first being deeply
compromised*. That's the American Way, all your second-hand
proselytizing aside.
Carey
kaennorsing wrote:
>
> Industries should obviously pay for the total cost of environmental
> destruction and private property violations rather than only for
> production and distribution. <snip>
And by what marketplace process (your notion) will this occur?
Your Reaganite nostrums- eg "get guv' mint off our backs" have
never worked before, in any context.
BTW, where do you live? I have a hunch you're in Scandinavia,
living in a highly regulated, rather egalitarian and well-functioning
society- while preaching naive Reaganite "libertarianism".. heh.
Calimero
I like Corporations.
I work for one.
And I have made some money by buying stocks of other ones.
Max
kaennorsing
Corporations are clearly not laissez-faire, since they have government
backing.
kaennorsing
So you know what corporations are, but you still call it laissez faire?
kaennorsing
Right. I never implied corporation don not act on self-interest. I
understand full well that's exactly what they do. I don't like it when
government acts on behalf of any private actor or business venture
because that's when economic power is unfairly shifted in the hands of
the few (corporations) and there is no free market mechanism.
The concept of a corporation itself is immoral IMO.
Vari L. Cinicke
Well, they do allow governments to let them do what they please, don't they?
--
Cheers,
vc
kaennorsing
> kaennorsing wrote:
>
> > Industries should obviously pay for the total cost of environmental
> > destruction and private property violations rather than only for
> > production and distribution. <snip>
>
> And by what marketplace process (your notion) will this occur?
> Your Reaganite nostrums- eg "get guv' mint off our backs" have
> never worked before, in any context.
On the contrary, it has always worked. Seems you need a lesson in
history. BTW what we have in the west today is not free market
capitalism. It's crony capitalism. Very different.
> BTW, where do you live? I have a hunch you're in Scandinavia,
> living in a highly regulated, rather egalitarian and well-functioning
> society- while preaching naive Reaganite "libertarianism".. heh.
You're hunch is wrong.
kaennorsing
Of course. Because they benefit from the deal.
Pedro Dias
No, the idea that wealth is a personal attribute is immoral.
Everything else stems from that.
Pedro Dias
No, sometimes they don't. It's called a "legal shield".
Pedro Dias
> On 22 mei, 16:07, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > kaennorsing wrote:
>
> > > Industries should obviously pay for the total cost of environmental
> > > destruction and private property violations rather than only for
> > > production and distribution. <snip>
>
> > And by what marketplace process (your notion) will this occur?
> > Your Reaganite nostrums- eg "get guv' mint off our backs" have
> > never worked before, in any context.
>
> On the contrary, it has always worked. Seems you need a lesson in
> history.
Wrong. But you were about to tell me *when* that "always" took place.
> BTW what we have in the west today is not free market
> capitalism. It's crony capitalism. Very different.
That's because the closer we get to a "free" market, the more it looks
like a particularly vicious brand of chaos.
> > BTW, where do you live? I have a hunch you're in Scandinavia,
> > living in a highly regulated, rather egalitarian and well-functioning
> > society- while preaching naive Reaganite "libertarianism".. heh.
>
> You're hunch is wrong.
You're hunching wrongly yourself. But *my* hunch is that you're living
in a society that consumes 35% of the world's resources, with only 5%
of the world's population, and then pats itself on the back for its
wealth-"producing" "resourcefulness", and the "rightness" of its
appalling "ideology" - if I were able to think of egoism as an
ideology, which I'm not: as far as I'm concerned, it's just a
character defect blown up to national dimensions.
kaennorsing
> On May 22, 1:28 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 22 mei, 16:07, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > kaennorsing wrote:
>
> > > > Industries should obviously pay for the total cost of environmental
> > > > destruction and private property violations rather than only for
> > > > production and distribution. <snip>
>
> > > And by what marketplace process (your notion) will this occur?
> > > Your Reaganite nostrums- eg "get guv' mint off our backs" have
> > > never worked before, in any context.
>
> > On the contrary, it has always worked. Seems you need a lesson in
> > history.
>
> Wrong. But you were about to tell me *when* that "always" took place.
> > BTW what we have in the west today is not free market
> > capitalism. It's crony capitalism. Very different.
>
> That's because the closer we get to a "free" market, the more it looks
> like a particularly vicious brand of chaos.
Excuse me, but you've clearly been brainwashed by the leftist agenda.
*Everything* the government gets involved in gets messy. Don't be so
be blind to ignore it. Look at finance, insurance, health care and
education. Those are - and have been - the most heavily state
regulated industries. Don't tell there was no regulation when the
bubble was inflating because there was *never* more regulation before
- except right now. Why have health care cost spiralled out of control
the minute welfare programs like medicare were introduced?
There's no denying freedom and responsibility works, whether socially
or economically. Just look at clothing, entertainment and information
technology, which is hardly regulated by government. Which markets
work better than others? These? Or the ones the governments are
heavily regulating? Where is more innovation and where are prices
generally falling and where are they rising *continually* while at the
same time service levels keep deteriorating?
Also look at the cost of mailing a letter. Then look at the telephone
costs. Which one is the private sector and which is the public sector?
Then tell me which one is more efficient. Do you need more examples?
Maybe you prefer to be controlled by the state and have all decisions
taken be our wise overlords, but perhaps you can understand others
prefer to live in a free society and will not surrender their freedom
without a fight.
> > > BTW, where do you live? I have a hunch you're in Scandinavia,
> > > living in a highly regulated, rather egalitarian and well-functioning
> > > society- while preaching naive Reaganite "libertarianism".. heh.
>
> > You're hunch is wrong.
>
> You're hunching wrongly yourself. But *my* hunch is that you're living
> in a society that consumes 35% of the world's resources, with only 5%
> of the world's population, and then pats itself on the back for its
> wealth-"producing" "resourcefulness", and the "rightness" of its
> appalling "ideology" - if I were able to think of egoism as an
> ideology, which I'm not: as far as I'm concerned, it's just a
> character defect blown up to national dimensions.
I didn't make a hunch and your hunch is wrong. Also, egoism is not an
ideology, it's a fact of life and you either accept it and face
reality or deny it and live in fantasy land. Pretending egoism doesn't
exist and assuming if only the government can write a law to protect
us from it is like saying you don't agree with the laws of gravity and
if only there could be a law against it we can all go fly.
Inglourious Basterd
amoral, not immoral.
Bob
> It seems a clear case of government creating the moral hazard through
> special interest. Look also at the Russian oil industry, how
> government corrupts it with biased enforcement of regulation and the
> environmental devastation there that is rule rather than exception.
> The solution again is less government involvement in the industry and
> stricter enforcement of existing clear-cut legislation that punishes
> environmental destruction.
30+ years of deregulation of industry and "free market" religion leading to
countless environmental and social-economic disasters and all you can think
about is there is too much government intervention? dude, people like you
are dangerous zealots who will never acknowledge when their entire
ideological construct has been completely invalidated (repeatedly I might
add because the other spectular financial collapses in history were also due
to laissez faire capitalism)
Bob
> This is why I now support Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement.
>
> Fuck the Republicans Fuck the Democrats.
>
> We need some radically new HONEST government by the people and
> for the people and not the corporatist bough and paid for morons we
> now have in Washington.
dude, you're confused. Libertarians have pushed for the deregulation that
led to this entire mess. Laissez faire doesn't lead to a freer market, it
leads directly to olypolies and market distortion as we can witness all
around us. Try to identify one sector of industry that has been deregulated
that hasn't been subject to drastic consolidation, reduced competition,
increase in prices/decrease in services, etc ...
Moreover, Paul is a cagey closet bigot who still speaks every year for the
far right John Birch Society. Don't be fooled by the "freedom" rhetoric of
the demagogues.
Superdave
wrote:
>On 22 mei, 16:07, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> kaennorsing wrote:
>>
>> > Industries should obviously pay for the total cost of environmental
>> > destruction and private property violations rather than only for
>> > production and distribution. <snip>
>>
>> And by what marketplace process (your notion) will this occur?
>> Your Reaganite nostrums- eg "get guv' mint off our backs" have
>> never worked before, in any context.
>
>On the contrary, it has always worked. Seems you need a lesson in
>history. BTW what we have in the west today is not free market
>capitalism. It's crony capitalism. Very different.
It's actually corporatism.
Superdave
you like nazis
you worked for one once
you gassed some joos and made some soap out of them
then what happened ?
thunder...@gmail.com
If you'd substitute government & goverments for corporation &
corporations, a new
section of your brain could get oxygen and blood supply.
Go Fed !!!!!
cheers
thunder...@gmail.com
> Corporations have NO conscience !
>
> Corporations have NO morals !
>
> Corporations have NO vote !
>
> Corporations will RUIN your community !
>
> Corporations will RUIN your state !
>
> Corporations will RUIN your country !
>
> For $$$$$$$$$$
>
> If a Corporation has to KILL people for Profit, it WILL.
>
> Life means NOTHING to a Corporation.
>
> Money means everything.
>
> It is time We The People showed them who is BOSS !!
>
> People VOTE ! Corporations Don't !
>
> FUCK BP FUCK GOLDMAN SACHS FUCK AIG FUCK THE MPAA FUCK THE RIAA
>
> Amen
corporations are PEOPLE combining their resources
governments are cancerous in nature & U.S. gov. is a stage 5 patient.
cheers lib nut, but go Fed
kaennorsing
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. There was no deregulation in
the last 30 years. After the Reagan era regulation only *enhanced*.
Check the Federal Register and look at the facts. Regulation actually
*increased* to a record high under George W. Bush and is ever
increasing under Obama.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n6/cpr30n6-1.html
The Federal Register, which lists new regulations, averaged 72,844
pages annually during the Carter years from 1977 to 1980. These were
presumably, by Pearlstein's 25-year standard, the last time before now
that Americans didn't have "faith" in open, unregulated markets. Then
the average fell to 54,335 during the Reagan years, rose to 59, 527
during the Bush I years, to 71,590 during the Clinton years, and,
finally, to a record 75,526 during the administration of that great
believer in laissez-faire, George W. Bush.
Also, the other financial collapses in history were not caused by
capitalism either, but by central banks inflationary policies... Just
as they were this time around. Check the facts, research them and get
back to me.
kaennorsing
Yes, but corporations as they exist today - specifically in the US -
are chartered by government and granted special special privileges.
The problem is the people leading them are not responsible for the
losses. The way they are structured and the amount of regulation
required for them to function make them liable to fraud and fascist
enterprise.
IMO corporations aren't really necessary to fulfil consumer needs.
Free enterprise (with individual responsibility) have done a better
job of it historically.
Bob
> On 22 mei, 23:29, "Bob" <B...@Bob.com> wrote:
>> kaennorsing wrote:
>>> It seems a clear case of government creating the moral hazard
>>> through special interest. Look also at the Russian oil industry, how
>>> government corrupts it with biased enforcement of regulation and the
>>> environmental devastation there that is rule rather than exception.
>>> The solution again is less government involvement in the industry
>>> and stricter enforcement of existing clear-cut legislation that
>>> punishes environmental destruction.
>>
>> 30+ years of deregulation of industry and "free market" religion
>> leading to countless environmental and social-economic disasters and
>> all you can think about is there is too much government
>> intervention? dude, people like you are dangerous zealots who will
>> never acknowledge when their entire ideological construct has been
>> completely invalidated (repeatedly I might add because the other
>> spectular financial collapses in history were also due to laissez
>> faire capitalism)
>
> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. There was no deregulation in
> the last 30 years.
and war is peace, too? Positively Orwellian.
> After the Reagan era regulation only *enhanced*.
> Check the Federal Register and look at the facts. Regulation actually
> *increased* to a record high under George W. Bush and is ever
> increasing under Obama.
>
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n6/cpr30n6-1.html
> The Federal Register, which lists new regulations, averaged 72,844
> pages annually during the Carter years from 1977 to 1980. These were
> presumably, by Pearlstein's 25-year standard, the last time before now
> that Americans didn't have "faith" in open, unregulated markets. Then
> the average fell to 54,335 during the Reagan years, rose to 59, 527
> during the Bush I years, to 71,590 during the Clinton years, and,
> finally, to a record 75,526 during the administration of that great
> believer in laissez-faire, George W. Bush.
it does stand to reason that the Libertarian at CATO don't want their
anti-government zealotry be seen as responsible for letting the looters do
whatever they want. Whether there are more statutes on the books doesn't
tell us anything about whether they were actually enforced or whether they
were meant to regulate industry. Only the clueless or the dishonest trying
to pass the buck for the disasters that resulted from their advocacy would
claim that effective regulation has increased over the last 30 years.
>
> Also, the other financial collapses in history were not caused by
> capitalism either, but by central banks inflationary policies... Just
> as they were this time around. Check the facts, research them and get
> back to me.
they were speculative bubbles aided by massive fraud like what just happened
at the wall street casino.
Bob
Here you go:
Stealth Deregulation: The Untold Story
"The takeover of regulatory agencies by special interests and
anti-government ideologues was an assault on public protections."
Whenever possible, Republican presidents have pursued a policy of widespread
deregulation. They have used a variety of stealth tactics to undermine
important financial, environmental, consumer and workplace regulations.
The 2009 outbreak of salmonella in several peanut butter factories was yet
another case of the breakdown of regulation and oversight by the federal
government. Consider also the Security and Exchange Commission's inability
to catch the massive fraud schemes of investment charlatans like Bernie
Madoff and R. Allen Stanford. And of course it is now clear that the
deregulation of the financial sector was a major cause of the mortgage
crisis and the resulting meltdown of the American economy.
Some people have blamed such regulatory lapses on the inherent incompetence
of the federal government. But these failures have little to do with
incompetence and everything to do with the rise of a conservative,
anti-government ideology that has been fundamentally hostile to regulation.
"Deregulation" was the mantra of President Bush and his Republican
predecessors, and many of the problems we are now facing are the predictable
result of this failed political philosophy. Importantly, these
conservatives not only undermined federal oversight of the food system and
the financial sector, they also worked to reduce protections for consumers,
workers, and the environment.
But most Americans do not know the full story about this effort to weaken
and dismantle regulatory protections for the public. Indeed, most were not
even aware that it was happening on such a wide scale. That is because much
of this deregulation was accomplished behind closed doors, deep in the
bowels of the federal bureaucracy where it got little attention.
This article will bring to light how this strategy of stealth deregulation
was pursued in the administrative branch under George W. Bush. It is a
story of devious appointments, slashed budgets, weakened rules, and relaxed
enforcement. I will also discuss what needs to be done to solve the
problems caused by this era of runaway deregulation.
The Attack of the Anti-Regulators
Imagine the following scenario: a new president comes into office and
announces that he will appoint a dedicated pacifist to head the Department
of Defense and a mafia lawyer as Director of the FBI. What would be the
reaction? Many in the public would be outraged and the media would go into a
feeding frenzy. In short, all hell would break loose.
In reality, of course, the chances of a president getting away with such
ridiculous and disruptive appointments would be slim to none. And yet
President George W. Bush did essentially the same thing: he routinely
appointed officials whose political priorities ran exactly counter to the
missions of the agencies they were charged with running. And many of these
appointees worked for or represented the very industries that these agencies
were supposed to be policing. For example, important posts in the Food and
Drug Administration were filled by people who had careers working for the
drug industry.
more at: http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=15
Joe Ramirez
> kaennorsing wrote:
>
> >http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n6/cpr30n6-1.html
> > The Federal Register, which lists new regulations, averaged 72,844
> > pages annually during the Carter years from 1977 to 1980. These were
> > presumably, by Pearlstein's 25-year standard, the last time before now
> > that Americans didn't have "faith" in open, unregulated markets. Then
> > the average fell to 54,335 during the Reagan years, rose to 59, 527
> > during the Bush I years, to 71,590 during the Clinton years, and,
> > finally, to a record 75,526 during the administration of that great
> > believer in laissez-faire, George W. Bush.
>
> it does stand to reason that the Libertarian at CATO don't want their
> anti-government zealotry be seen as responsible for letting the looters do
> whatever they want. Whether there are more statutes on the books doesn't
> tell us anything about whether they were actually enforced or whether they
> were meant to regulate industry. Only the clueless or the dishonest trying
> to pass the buck for the disasters that resulted from their advocacy would
> claim that effective regulation has increased over the last 30 years.
What's happened is that there has been a steady increase in the amount
of "red tape" across most industries, i.e., minor compliance measures
that cumulatively create a mountain of paperwork, but don't
necessarily restrict, or even influence, industry decision making on
crucial substantive matters. Are there endless regulations requiring
all sorts of disclosures by players in the finance industry? Yes, but
none of these prohibited the creation and trading of mountains of
worthless derivatives. Are there endless regulations requiring
environmental impact statements and equipment standards for offshore
oil drilling? Yes, but none of these required oil companies to know
how to cap a leak, or to demonstrate the safety of a platform through
anything other than, "Oh, it's perfectly safe, so don't worry about
it," which the "regulators" accepted.
Calimero
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:33:55 -0700 (PDT), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >On 22 Mai, 11:52, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Corporations have NO conscience !
>
> >> Corporations have NO morals !
>
> >> Corporations have NO vote !
>
> >> Corporations will RUIN your community !
>
> >> Corporations will RUIN your state !
>
> >> Corporations will RUIN your country !
>
> >> For $$$$$$$$$$
>
> >> If a Corporation has to KILL people for Profit, it WILL.
>
> >> Life means NOTHING to a Corporation.
>
> >> Money means everything.
>
> >> It is time We The People showed them who is BOSS !!
>
> >> People VOTE ! Corporations Don't !
>
> >> FUCK BP FUCK GOLDMAN SACHS FUCK AIG FUCK THE MPAA FUCK THE RIAA
>
> >> Amen
>
> >I like Corporations.
> >I work for one.
> >And I have made some money by buying stocks of other ones.
>
> >Max
>
> you like nazis
I don't.
While you support the Saddams of this world.
> you worked for one once
Never ever.
> you gassed some joos and made some soap out of them
I wouldn't know how to do that.
>
> then what happened ?
You tell us?
Max
kaennorsing
How do you think the looters get to do the looting in the first place?
It's because of government guarantees and inflation that keeps
interest rates artificially low. Of course there was and still is
massive fraud in the markets but *because* of government regulation.
Regulation in the form of Fannie and Freddie guarantees, bank deposit
guarantee, an institute that acts as "lender of last reserve". The
bail outs that have been going on for more than a decade mean profits
are privatized and losses get socialized. This is *not* a function of
free markets. It's fascism. The merger of corporate and state power.
In a free market these looters you speak of would have gone bankrupt
ten times over. They wouldn't have even acted as irresponsibly in the
first place. To understand this you have to understand that an
interest rate is the prize of money. In a free market they are set by
supply and demand of money. When governments (central banks) creates
money out of thin air this function gets distorted and a bust is
inevitable. Inflation creates lower interest rates because the credit
supply grows. These artificially low interest rates create false
signals to investors. They cause investors to confuse credit for
actual savings. This in turn guarantees projects can't be completed
because the resources don't correspond with the credit supply. Or put
differently; it forces people to speculate with their money rather
than invest for the long term or actually save their money in the bank
for a reasonable return.
So... the moral hazard was created by government. The inflation was
created by government.The markets got messed up by government, the
bubble was created by government and so the financial and economic
misery is a product of government.
> > Also, the other financial collapses in history were not caused by
> > capitalism either, but by central banks inflationary policies... Just
> > as they were this time around. Check the facts, research them and get
> > back to me.
>
> they were speculative bubbles aided by massive fraud like what just happened
> at the wall street casino.
Yes, but the fraud is in government. It's political incentives that
creates inflation. Basically, it's politicians trying to offer
something for free to their constituency. Inflation is the hidden tax.
It's when they transfer your purchasing power to someone else.
Usually, government contractors and of course their banker and
corporate friends.
kaennorsing
Yes, the problem is that government is involved in these industries in
the first place. This is what makes these firms and corporations feel
they are "too big to fail" and so they act accordingly - or get wiped
out by the competition instead. No amount of regulation can save it
IMO. We should just let them go bankrupt. That will clean out these
industries and have competent and responsible people take over the
assets for a much lower price. The market price of bankruptcy.
Caroll A. Barker
<pedr...@snip.net> wrote:
>On May 22, 7:33�am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22 mei, 12:58, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:44:22 -0700 (PDT), kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >On 22 mei, 11:59, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 17:52:59 +0800, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >Corporations have NO conscience !
>>
>> > >> >Corporations have NO morals !
>>
>> > >> >Corporations have NO vote !
>>
>> > >> >Corporations will RUIN your community !
>>
>> > >> >Corporations will RUIN your state !
>>
>> > >> >Corporations will RUIN your country !
>>
>> > >> >For $$$$$$$$$$
>>
>> > >> >If a Corporation has to KILL people for Profit, it WILL.
>>
>> > >> >Life means NOTHING to a Corporation.
>>
>> > >> >Money means everything.
>>
>> > >> >It is time We The People showed them who is BOSS !!
>>
>> > >> >People VOTE ! Corporations Don't !
>>
>> > >> >FUCK BP FUCK GOLDMAN SACHS FUCK AIG FUCK THE MPAA FUCK THE RIAA
>>
>> > >> >Amen
>>
>> > >> Former EPA investigator charges, "What the government has done over the past
>> > >> several years is taught BP that it can do whatever it wants and will not be held
>> > >> accountable"
>>
>> > >>http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0520/watchdog-groups-file-foia-requests-l...
>>
>> > >> BP destroys the Gulf Coast of the USA and laughs all the way to the bank ?
>>
>> > >It seems a clear case of government creating the moral hazard through
>> > >special interest. Look also at the Russian oil industry, how
>> > >government corrupts it with biased enforcement of regulation and the
>> > >environmental devastation there that is rule rather than exception.
>> > >The solution again is less government involvement in the industry and
>> > >stricter enforcement of existing clear-cut legislation that punishes
>> > >environmental destruction.
>>
>> > >Industries should obviously pay for the total cost of environmental
>> > >destruction and private property violations rather than only for
>> > >production and distribution. This will lead to higher oil prices, a
>> > >shrinking oil industry and an acceleration in the marketing of
>> > >clean(er) energy. Unfortunately, as with any highly regulated
>> > >industry, the government cronies obviously have a great interest in
>> > >the oil industry and maintaining the status quo.
>>
>> > This is why I now support Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement.
>>
>> > Fuck the Republicans Fuck the Democrats.
>>
>> > We need some radically new HONEST government by the people and
>> > for the people and not the corporatist bough and paid for morons we
>> > now have in Washington.
>>
>> Yes, Ron Paul has great economic, moral and historical understanding.
>>
>> Corporations like BP are the vehicle of corrupted government officials
>> to make an extra buck on the side and expand their power through
>> fascist enterprise. A part of the establishment and centralized power
>> Paul is so offended by and made his lifework fighting against.
>
>Your argument implies that corporations don't act to further their
>self-interest: politicians make money from corporations because
>corporations want a permissive regulatory environment. If politicians
>were in control of the process, they could derive an income without
>the quid pro quo. In other words, politicians are acting on behalf of
>corporations, not the other way around.
>
>The problem isn't politicians. It isn't even corporations, as such.
>The problem is the accumulation of economic power that distorts the
>political process, and corporations, generally speaking, are much
>larger economic actors than even the wealthiest individuals, so they
>do the most damage.
Here's the real problem!
Corporations are pure EVIL
White males own Corporations
Therefore White males are pure evil!
Banish them all to Iceland!
Bob
Your basic logic is faulty. Nobody ever concluded we didn't need a police
because robbers occasionally pretended to be cops when robbing the bank.
Corporate take over of government doesn't mean we need less government, it
means we need better government that is independent from corporations. There
has never been a free market and there never will be. Charlatans use free
market rhetoric to justify inequalities, consolidations in all economic
sectors, decreasing competition and oligoplies.
kaennorsing
See, I'd turn that argument upside down. Hypocritical and naive
politicians blame free markets so they can grow in power and control
and profit from 'regulating', overseeing and controlling business and
capital. Remember, the worst crimes in history have been committed by
government. Not free markets. Corporate take over of government
happens only when government gets involved in business in the first
place. It means they can be bought. If government didn't get involved
in business operations they wouldn't be able to bribe the politicians,
would they?
You're of course right to say there is no purely free market, but not
because there is the rule of law, but because money - the means of
exchange in every single transaction - is controlled and manipulated
by government dictatorship. But to claim there has never been a free
market is silly. Do you think laws existed before markets, before
trade? Of course not. Laws only came into place after men got into
business. Or to quote Bastiat: "Life liberty and property do not exist
because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that
life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make
laws in the first place".
There are free markets principles in plenty of industries, even today.
A free market doesn't mean there are no laws. It includes laws against
fraud. Just no interventionist policies based on coercion. Of course,
if you think people are inherently evil because they destroy resources
and intrude the 'natural' evolution of the planet by building capital
to enjoy a higher standard of living that's your good right. But then
you have to be principled enough to not live in a civilized society
and hunt for squirrels in the forest.
Joe Ramirez
> You're of course right to say there is no purely free market, but not
> because there is the rule of law, but because money - the means of
> exchange in every single transaction - is controlled and manipulated
> by government dictatorship. But to claim there has never been a free
> market is silly. Do you think laws existed before markets, before
> trade? Of course not. Laws only came into place after men got into
> business. Or to quote Bastiat: "Life liberty and property do not exist
> because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that
> life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make
> laws in the first place".
With respect to property (and probably liberty as well, but that's an
argument for another day), that is a naive view. Property "existed"
only in the trivial sense that there was land, and there were things
in the world. But property as a *concept* -- the notion of protected,
transferable individual or clan dominion over land and things in the
world -- is clearly a creature of custom and law. There have been
functioning societies in which no one was thought to "own" anything.
Cultures have to define what property is -- it doesn't pre-exist them.
Bob
Despite your voluminous spin and claim that you'd turn my argument upside
down, you essentially dodged my comment: just like the existence of corrupt
policemen has never meant that we don't need police, bad government has
never meant we need less government. Not only is there no "free" market (and
there never will be) but nobody cares what you call the rules (laws versus
regulations) needed to make sure business respect public welfare, both
social and environmental. Economic development and enforcement of "laws"
require government intervention since we can see every day that public
welfare doesn't coincide with private profit and no genuflecting on
Bastiat's grave is going to change that.
Bob
Indeed, and even before there was property to tranfer, there was community
(unsurprisingly absent from Libertarian rhetoric) and rules to promote group
welfare. Hunters and gatherers had rules for harvesting and distribution of
food that promoted egalitarianism because it was the best survival strategy
in the face of the variability of access to food. It is especially ironic
that kaennorsing wants us to adopt a model that could only have possibly
existed before any community of humans, while at the same time he urges
those aware of the critical role of institutions to abandon civilization and
stick to squirrel hunting.
kaennorsing
No, the concept of property clearly existed before it came in to law,
therefore property existed before it became law. This is how society
structured and grew. The idea that law creates a concept is simply
wrong. There has to be a concept created by society to make it into
law. There needs to be some public pressure - and political will - to
create legislation.
kaennorsing
No, laws are different from regulations. Regulation comes from the
word regular. It means to keep something functioning regularly, or
normal. Or free from coercion and interventions. That's why actual
free markets are self-regulating. A natural process, and it works
fine. Much better than non-free markets, which is what exist in the
global monetary system, banking, mortgage, insurance and health care
industries.
People should stop listening to all the propaganda by politicians,
mainstream media and Keynesian economists. They are the ones creating
the voluminous spin, which unfortunately, most people have come to
believe as factual.
Joe Ramirez
"Legislation"? Wrong, wrong era. Try going back many thousands of
years if you want to discuss the origins of anything. The law of
primitive societies did not consist of legislation; it consisted of
rules created by a combination of custom, mandates from the chief/
elders, and possibly shamanistic/priestly sanction. But without these
rules, there was no property as such. You just had fields, forests,
stones and logs. It's the rules that created the "property" out of
mere matter. Nothing is owned unless society recognizes it as owned in
some formal way. The concept of property is *inseparable* from the
rules by which a particular society defines, manages, and protects it.
Today, those rules are complex and codified. In the deep past, the
rules were simpler and unwritten. But they were still essential to
property.
Pedro Dias
That's only true if you define law as "something written by a
government". It's obvious to anyone with a brain that something can
only be "yours" if everyone around you understands and agrees about
what "yours" means. Once that agreement is in place it is in every
important sense a "law". This is hugely different from other concepts,
such as "up" and "ouchies are bad" that can be viewed as integral to
the world, or to our essential nature.
That's one of the (many) foundational fallacies of Libertarianism,
this notion that "property" is somehow a given of Natural Law. It
isn't: it's a cultural construct.
kaennorsing
Hunter gatherer societies didn't have laws. They were more in line
with self-regulating markets. They structured their societies based on
the concept of private property and production to grow society - or
got extinct. They didn't work with communist utopianism, where some
all-knowing bureaucrats controlled all economic activity and kept
everyone on equal foot.
> in the face of the variability of access to food. It is especially ironic
> that kaennorsing wants us to adopt a model that could only have possibly
> existed before any community of humans, while at the same time he urges
> those aware of the critical role of institutions to abandon civilization and
> stick to squirrel hunting.
Completely wrong. You may actually have serious comprehension problems.
kaennorsing
Yes, there were rules, not laws. I thought we were talking about laws.
Unwritten rules had to exist before they made it into laws.
kaennorsing
Sure, the concept of private property isn't perfect, but it's worked
better than anarchy or central planned economies. The alternatives of
free markets have failed miserably every time.
Pedro Dias
Since there have never been "free markets", and the closest
approximations have been disastrous, and since the planned economies
we've had have had other problems not intrinsic to a planned,
cooperative system, I fail to see what your belief is based on. And
since logic, arithmetic, and game theory tell me cooperation is a far
more efficient model than competition, I'll reserve my judgment until
I have something a bit closer to a real test of a cooperative society
before I give up on the concept.
Pedro Dias
A distinction without a difference: a rule universally accepted and
widely enforced *is* a law, whether or not it's printed in a big
leather-bound, gold-embossed book.
Joe Ramirez
First of all, law does not have to be written. Second, the rules of a
primitive society *are* its law. If the only point of the quotation
you supplied is that property existed in France before the Second
Republic enacted some particular bill, I will agree with that.
However, that doesn't take us very far toward understanding the true
relationship between property and law.
kaennorsing
I don't understand where people get the notion that free markets never
existed. There must be a misunderstanding of what free markets entail.
Most consider the US to have had a free market in the first couple
hundred years. During the industrial revolution there was something
far, far closer to a free market than to a central planned one. There
wasn't even an income tax since 1913, yet people's standard of living
improved dramatically.
I think you need to reconsider your position on the concept on what
made your society the wealthiest one in the history of the world. Of
course it's no longer the case today, certainly since the abolishing
of the gold standard in '71.
kaennorsing
We're arguing semantics. However, the relation between the general
acceptance of property and an orderly, structured society seems pretty
clear to me.
kaennorsing
er, *until* 1913.
Bob
> On 25 mei, 18:40, "Bob" <B...@Bob.com> wrote:
>> Indeed, and even before there was property to tranfer, there was
>> community (unsurprisingly absent from Libertarian rhetoric) and
>> rules to promote group welfare. Hunters and gatherers had rules for
>> harvesting and distribution of food that promoted egalitarianism
>> because it was the best survival strategy
>
> Hunter gatherer societies didn't have laws.
Hair-splitting about whether rules are laws won't get you very far.
> They were more in line
> with self-regulating markets.
rules about food distribution were likely very strictly enforced, which has
little to do with self-regulation. Individuals weren't free to chose how
food was divied up.
Joe Ramirez
Not entirely.
> However, the relation between the general
> acceptance of property and an orderly, structured society seems pretty
> clear to me.
I don't dispute the need for property rights in a contemporary, well-
ordered society. I dispute the contention that property is
analytically *prior* to any ordered society, which seems to be what
you've been arguing. My position is that property is in the fact the
product of such a society.
kaennorsing
Maybe, but then starvation was probably wide spread.
Pedro Dias
You think a society that was grotesquely skewed to favor the
hereditary perpetuation of enormous wealth, and barred the poor from
participation in the political process (to name just two of the
hundreds on non-free-making details - see also, "Slavery") was a "free
market"?
And the incredible legally-sanctioned, oligarch-perpetrated atrocities
of the Golden Age strike you as a *good* thing?
Dood, you rilly rilly need to read a little history from someone other
than the crazy-person blogs.
To the extent that America *is* a success, I credit the Union movement
with forcing the re-distribution of wealth, creating the middle-class
and affluent laborers that made the New Deal politically possible.
> I think you need to reconsider your position on the concept on what
> made your society the wealthiest one in the history of the world. Of
> course it's no longer the case today, certainly since the abolishing
> of the gold standard in '71.
What made our society the wealthiest in the history of the world was
access to enormous natural resources, and a geographic barrier to
having our industrial capacity damaged in the wars that handicapped
our rivals. Then, we used the resulting advantage to lock up access to
still more of the world's resources, using cash when we could, but
being quite liberal in the use of guns as needed - which was often.
What's damaged our standing since is the shift from actual wealth-
creation to spending our labor in the desert air, by turning an
enormous portion of our economy to the finance industry.
Pedro Dias
Only *one* possible form of orderly society. There are others.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ Well, semantics here might be your friend... Joe is an American
lawyer after all... there is a difference between 'territory' and
property... but that would devolve the 'debate' here too much, I
suspect... rules (normative notions upon which consent can be gained,
as opposed to relativized propositions asserted for the purposes of
exercising authority) not written (codified) are not really the same
as 'laws' in the modern sense... and there is a difference between
common agreement, territorial prerogative and legal protections
'under" law as it relates to securing land well, though only
historians, perhaps, make those differences...
P
kaennorsing
But how does a society structure and grow? My sense is that there
can't possible be any individual - or any bureaucracy - with the
required information to control economic activity and distribute goods
and services efficiently. The concept of property rights would have
been able to do that.
The US government didn't even have economic advisers during the
industrial revolution, when living standards increased more
significantly than during any other period before or since. The
council of economic advisers started only in 1946.
kaennorsing
> On May 26, 12:01 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You think a society that was grotesquely skewed to favor the
> hereditary perpetuation of enormous wealth, and barred the poor from
> participation in the political process (to name just two of the
> hundreds on non-free-making details - see also, "Slavery") was a "free
> market"?
Well, sure it was the government that discriminated and perpetuated
the racism and slavery. It didn't protect individual rights of blacks.
However, markets *were* mostly free and uninterrupted by government
policy. Much more so than today and so output grew rapidly, despite
slavery. Not because of it.
> And the incredible legally-sanctioned, oligarch-perpetrated atrocities
> of the Golden Age strike you as a *good* thing?
>
> Dood, you rilly rilly need to read a little history from someone other
> than the crazy-person blogs.
In general, yes, markets were much freer then than today. Today there
is oligopoly in government *and* business. Much worse, less free.
> To the extent that America *is* a success, I credit the Union movement
> with forcing the re-distribution of wealth, creating the middle-class
> and affluent laborers that made the New Deal politically possible.
You should thank the constitution, granting rights and freedom for all
individuals and the ability to participate in business enterprise
pretty much without restrictions. Unions generally bankrupt the
economy in the long haul as they tend to protect the interest of only
the rich, skilled workers and thereby undermine employment of the less
skilled, poor people. Resulting in fewer chances for the poor, less
economic output and more civil unrest.
> > I think you need to reconsider your position on the concept on what
> > made your society the wealthiest one in the history of the world. Of
> > course it's no longer the case today, certainly since the abolishing
> > of the gold standard in '71.
>
> What made our society the wealthiest in the history of the world was
> access to enormous natural resources, and a geographic barrier to
> having our industrial capacity damaged in the wars that handicapped
> our rivals. Then, we used the resulting advantage to lock up access to
> still more of the world's resources, using cash when we could, but
> being quite liberal in the use of guns as needed - which was often.
What about Russia, they had access to enormous natural resources. They
didn't get their industry damaged during the wars. In fact, they
hardly had an industry comparable to that of the US.
> What's damaged our standing since is the shift from actual wealth-
> creation to spending our labor in the desert air, by turning an
> enormous portion of our economy to the finance industry.
Here we agree. Ironically, it may have begun because of introduction
of the welfare state in the sixties, the dirty wars to serve the
interest of the bankers and of course - crucially - having a monopoly
on money and credit in the hands of the Federal Reserve who got a
carte blanche to inflate in '71.