Screw 'em if they hate us by 6ixStringJack

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That's exactly the way it's done. In China, most medium to large-sized businesses are owned by the government. In Taiwan it's about 50%. Wages are set by the government, as are the number of employees, employment policies etc. The EU has nationalized banks, transportation, energy, health insurance etc. In other industries (auto mfr) in Germany for example government and the unions sit at the table as equals with the owners to determine things like output, prices, wages etc. Businesses have to take responsibility for dipsosing of the packaging that they ship/ distribute the product with (which menas they use a LOT less packaging than we do!) In the EU, industries pay VAT (Value Added Tax).

None of those regions conform to ALL the conditions you outlined in your previous post. Each of them may conform to SOME, but not to all. If fulfilling one of those conditions is sufficient, you should've said so before.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In ALL areas, the differential between the upper echelon and the rank and file is far less than the USA.

There was a huge scandal in Germany a couple of months ago about how many millions of Euros retiring CEOs get payed...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, I'm confused: Why are YOU confused?

Because of this:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
When I talk with my daughter, I'm VERY careful NOT to say "Toyota makes..." or "GE makes..." As far as I'm concerned that's like telling her that the Easter bunny exists. And it's part of your essential confusion. Corporations are not necessary. For anything.

Oops.

So now Toyota is allowed to exist in your world view, as are corporations. Just American corporations aren't, so GE is still like the Easter bunny. If you changed your mind, that's okay, we all do it on occasions, but maybe you should stop lecturing people on how the world should be before you've figured it out for yourself.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There was a huge scandal in Germany a couple of months ago about how many millions of Euros retiring CEOs get payed

And they STILL get paid far less than ours. It just means the Germans have a stronger sense of fairness.

Quote:
Oops. So now Toyota is allowed to exist in your world view, as are corporations. Just American corporations aren't, so GE is still like the Easter bunny.

There is a difference between being allowed to exist and being necessary.

"Organization" is necessary to build complex technologies. But not all organizations are corporations. Or is that you conflating corporations with... well, everything? What's so difficult to understand?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And I suspect Khyron has the 'single drop of blood' concept when it comes to corporations (like some people do when to comes to being black).

Anything in any organization that remotely resembles a corporation - hey, they have managers - makes it a corporation just like ours ! Which means their economies are just like ours !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
I suggest if this sounds intriguing to you to contact your State's Attorney and get the real scoop...

What if this sounds disgusting to me?

(No offense to you though, rallem. I appreciate the spirit of helpful suggestions.)

The fact that our legal structure promotes such idiocy is flat out insane. This kind of bureaucratic gaming is my biggest beef with the tax code. Politicians can't resist the urge to use taxes as a tool for social engineering, rather that just a way to collect revenue. The result is that we end up with arcane rules and regulations that exist as little more than friction on society.

I'm all about beating the system, at least when the system is as nonsensical and arbitrary as ours is - so I have no beef with the people taking advantage of such loopholes. It's the asswipes on capitol hill who produce such convoluted crap ... arrghh!!!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Do you actually live in America, and simply want to change the system even though you know it is impossible, or do you live outside of America and are just talking crap about us?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What's so difficult to understand?

A lot, it seems. I'm really confused because first, it seemed, you were arguing against all corporations, but now corporations in China, Taiwan, Japan and the EU are acceptable because they're "not as bad" as American ones. I ask again: are you arguing against the concept of corporations, or are you arguing for more regulation of corporations? And please, for a change, could you give me a straight answer? None of this "I know perfectly well what I mean, so what's so difficult to understand!?" stuff.

Anyway, suppose we've answered the question of where FMRIs come from ("We import them, silly!"), I have another question. Let's assume we have a corporation that manufactures cars, and let's assume we're a couple of years in the future when everything's automated. There are a couple of people around to make sure the robotic arms etc don't mess up, but on the whole, the process is almost wholly independent of human input. Who makes the cars then? People, because they supervise? Robots? The corporation?

Rue, clearly you missed my point, so just stay out of this.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:45 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
China, Japan, Taiwan, the EU. (None of them are fully capitalist)

But it's the capitalist, corporate parts of them that make FMRIs. You can't show me an FMRI made by a non-capitalist and non-corporate business, because no such businesses are out there to make one, or to make most anything that requires complex processes and infrastructure. Any of the communist countries who once made similar stuff did so only by becoming monopolies.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
Do you actually live in America, and simply want to change the system even though you know it is impossible, or do you live outside of America and are just talking crap about us?

It doesn't matter. And I ain't talking crap about you, unless you're a politician passing stupid laws.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What SergeantX and FremD can't quite seem to wrap their minds around are these two little pieces of reality:

Corporations have more power than government by virtue of their wealth. Not b/c of any supposed laws but by sheer power of the purse.

And businesses inevitably consolidate into monopolies. Not b/c of any laws but by the nature of accumulation of capital.

...

Well, one person's "reality" is another person's bad joke.

Regardless, my hope is that there can be some intersection of values on this issue, that libertarians and liberals can at least agree that corporations shouldn't get special privileges at our expense.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:01 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you want to see a free society with a socialistic economy look at Sweden.

You sure have a strange idea of Socialism. Most Swedish industry is in private control and the government is selling off what they still have as fast as they can. Maybe you confuse socialsim with social welfare. Google 'swedish socialism' and see what you find.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
Do you actually live in America, and simply want to change the system even though you know it is impossible, or do you live outside of America and are just talking crap about us?

It doesn't matter. And I ain't talking crap about you, unless you're a politician passing stupid laws.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

And I appreciate that, but I am trying to understand your motivations, because if you do live in America and are trying to change a system where too many politician and business people are making money from it, I would reccomend the only thing you change is your Country. I understand that some people do want to change the way their country is run, but when there is no chance of it, maybe they should try to find a country which is run the way you like and move there. My Dad grew up and lived in Hungary, and for a brief period he stood up against the Soviet Union, but when he saw that he had rocks to throw and they had tanks my Dad decided to move to America.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
Do you actually live in America, and simply want to change the system even though you know it is impossible, or do you live outside of America and are just talking crap about us?

It doesn't matter. And I ain't talking crap about you, unless you're a politician passing stupid laws.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

And I appreciate that, but I am trying to understand your motivations, because if you do live in America and are trying to change a system where too many politician and business people are making money from it, I would recommend the only thing you change is your Country. I understand that some people do want to change the way their country is run, but when there is no chance of it, maybe they should try to find a country which is run the way you like and move there. My Dad grew up and lived in Hungary, and for a brief period he stood up against the Soviet Union, but when he saw that he had rocks to throw and they had tanks my Dad decided to move to America.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
My Dad grew up and lived in Hungary

Huh. Small world. So did my SO. He even wrote a short story for his HS paper about the invasion and how his family walked across a minefield. He recalls 50 caliber shells hitting the stone walls of the family apartment in Budapest, and rounding a corner an coming face to face with a T-50. Despite that, he though the Soviet soldiers looked lonely and sad. The title of his story was No One Left to Hate

Did your dad ever go to Margitsziget (Margaret Island)? My SO has fond memories even to this day.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:49 AM

I don't know. My Dad lived in Cegled Hungary and he went back a few times to visit his mother who passed away last year. I don't know if he ever visited other parts of the Country while he was there but I would think he did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:49 AM

Quote:
I would recommend the only thing you change is your Country. I understand that some people do want to change the way their country is run, but when there is no chance of it, maybe they should try to find a country which is run the way you like and move there.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not one to cut and run. I think the odds for improving things are considerably greater than 'none'. But if my assessment was as pessimistic as yours, I'd probably be thinking about getting the hell out. Where are you headed?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
I would recommend the only thing you change is your Country. I understand that some people do want to change the way their country is run, but when there is no chance of it, maybe they should try to find a country which is run the way you like and move there.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not one to cut and run. I think the odds for improving things are considerably greater than 'none'. But if my assessment was as pessimistic as yours, I'd probably be thinking about getting the hell out. Where are you headed?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

I don't have a problem with the system of American Government or Business, so I think I will stay put. I will tell you that if I could move anywhere I wanted I would like to move to New Zealand, but then again after the Lord of the Rings movie I bet lots of people have begun moving there or at least started visiting there and it would be too crowded for me. I like solitude, and now that Vermont's population had jumped from about 500,000 to about 600,000 people I am beginning to feel crowded out here, but I don't know where else to go.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:43 PM

So, rallem, I'm curious what you're getting at. You seem to be suggesting the old 'love-it-or-leave-it' line. Does that mean you're ok with a legal framework that favors the shenanigans you mentioned in your previous post? Does it seem right to you that Ted Kennedy was able skirt responsibility by exploiting legal loopholes?

You seem to be saying we shouldn't try to change how our country is run, but if the results are clearly unjust, why not try to make things better?

Or are you saying that things aren't likely to change, so everyone should be quiet and accept things as they are?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:43 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Khyron - why is it when you post you try to shut down other opinions ?

Like here ...
We've been challenging AURaptor for years and all it did was waste everyone's time.
... and here ...
Rue, clearly you missed my point, so just stay out of this.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, rallem, I'm curious what you're getting at. You seem to be suggesting the old 'love-it-or-leave-it' line. Does that mean you're ok with a legal framework that favors the shenanigans you mentioned in your previous post? Does it seem right to you that Ted Kennedy was able skirt responsibility by exploiting legal loopholes?

You seem to be saying we shouldn't try to change how our country is run, but if the results are clearly unjust, why not try to make things better?

Or are you saying that things aren't likely to change, so everyone should be quiet and accept things as they are?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

I think basically it is a good system SergeantX, but yes there are loopholes which can and will be exploited by people like the Kennedys, and for that I feel bad. I am thinking I would like to incorporate my family name to prevent myself from wrongfully being sued, so I don't lose all I've earned to some shyster. There are other reasons for my wanting to incorporate my name too, but I don't want to get into that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:18 PM

That wasn't what I was questioning at all. The system is what the system is and anyone and everyone should use it to their advantage (within reason). I was just wondering what you were getting at by suggesting I should leave the country rather than try to change things.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rockqu

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:27 PM

Rue: If you ain't even gonna pretend to tell the truth, just keep your mouth shut, right-O.

I know damn well that corporate power springs in part from being able to "buy off" the gov - and that the Sherman, and later Clayton, anti-trust acts and trust busting were intended to prevent that particular problem from coming about in the first place, so once again you flat refuse to acknowledge what I just said and then shovel a load of shit on top of it.

Part of the reason such trust-busting failed was that in practice it became a tool for established corps with the financial and political influence to remain unmolested while having potential up and coming competitors destroyed, one nasty side effect of this has been the decline of effective competition and any real motive to keep prices low or innovate.

Which then leads to...

The consolidation and monopolisation also mentioned, as the path of maximum profit, least accountability - something that is a damned frequent bitch of mine and thus I can't possibly see how your insulting and ficticious statement could even possibly apply unless once again you've categorised folk and responded by category instead of addressing folk as individuals.

Believe me, I ain't the only one pissed off, ask ANY hard core videogamer how they feel about Electronic Arts using the America Online model of buying, then more or less devouring smaller, more innovative (and arguably better) game companies resulting in a lack of quality games that is probably going to cause a repeat of the original video game market crash, and will almost certainly cause the implosion of the Xbox360 platform due to lack of decent content.

I am well aware of the dangers of such corporatism and have addressed it at length and repeatedly here, on so many occasions that your statement is at best woefully ignorant and at worst maliciously false.

Did I not just expend considerable effort pointing out that the primary and most effective check and balance AGAINST this problem was more or less strangled in it's crib by the combined forces of both Gov and Corps ?

Look at it from an ecological model - releasing a prolific species into the wild while killing off all it's natural predators is the same kind of disaster, yes ?

The simplest corrective action would be to somehow prevent Gov from interfering on the Corp side, and remove the legislative straightjacket from the Unions.

As eviscerated and crippled as they currently are, that wouldn't have a very immediate impact but over time it WOULD add at least to the level of difficulty by requiring a Corp to at least in part answer to the folk they are employing instead of making employment almost a condition of de-facto servitude.

More wasted words, no doubt, but there you have it.

Siggy: Not my point at all, actually - I was pointing out that in times when the people HAVE engaged at the ballot box, quite successfully, those in power simply refused to accept the result.... which brings up the question of what do you DO then ?

I think that is a very valid question, myself.

As for the small percentage, I am well aware of the problem of the smaller your core group, the more radical they must be - one need look no further than the right to effective self defense and how we're only hanging onto that by our fingernails *because* of the downright rabidity of the few defending it, something I would very much like to change, but I am going for a wider horizon here.

Rather than a teensy tiny ultra radical collective, our method is to get to our younger generations and give them information and resources other than Gov-Corp propaganda - something that has strangely become easier every year, for a multitude of reasons, one of which seems that the more divergent the message from the obvious realities around them, the harder it's becoming for this social order to force kids to swallow it, this being IMHO one of the reasons for the ever increasing flood of chemical intervention to smooth this bumpy ride out....

Remember how long I been doin this, we're talkin generations now, kids that have grown up and had their own kids and have begun to pass on those values, and we're in a race between self destruction and reaching the "hundred monkey point" at which these kind of social changes not only become possible, but inevitable.

Uncomfortable.. not so much, Hamlet and the Founding Fathers agree, folk will generally take shit until it becomes flat out impossible to do anything BUT react violently, and that kind of thing can go in a lot of directions, few of em good.

We're lookin for pissed off, or perhaps more appropriately, outraged - and in a slow burn and controlled fashion that allows a sustained push like a changing tide or a tree root under a sidewalk - you'll note that the beach and sidewalk always lose that one in the end, right ?

Not sure if that's quite as clear as I'd like it to be, but hopefully the gist of it gets across.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 2:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That wasn't what I was questioning at all. The system is what the system is and anyone and everyone should use it to their advantage (within reason). I was just wondering what you were getting at by suggesting I should leave the country rather than try to change things.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rockqu

Like I said somewhere above I didn't know where you were coming from and what was motivating you. As far as calling you a person who would abandon his country, I wouldn't do that and I don't think choosing to move to another country for political reasons a bad thing because of my father. If my dad didn't leave Hungary I wouldn't be me or here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I know damn well that corporate power springs in part from being able to "buy off" the gov - and that the Sherman, and later Clayton, anti-trust acts and trust busting were intended to prevent that particular problem from coming about in the first place

I was under the impression that the anti-trust acts simply had to do with preventing monopolistic (anti-competitive behavior) with no reflection on the government at all.

Quote:
Part of the reason such trust-busting failed was that in practice it became a tool for established corps with the financial and political influence to remain unmolested while having potential up and coming competitors destroyed

If you meant to say the law is a tool for destroying small businesses or propping up big ones, that is not the case. Using Microsoft as an example, most of what MS did was clearly illegal even under our relatively weak laws. But the laws' biggest flaw is simply that it wasn't enforced. (Kollar-Kotelly)

Quote:
Did I not just expend considerable effort pointing out that the primary and most effective check and balance AGAINST this problem was more or less strangled in it's crib by the combined forces of both Gov and Corps?... The simplest corrective action would be to somehow prevent Gov from interfering on the Corp side, and remove the legislative straightjacket from the Unions.

I'm not sure that would prevent monopolism. What I think would happen is that the corporation side would get more and more concentrated, and the union side would do likewise, until only two world-straddling giants would remain. There is NO getting around the fact that monopolies are more efficient due to economies of scale.

Quote:
Not my point at all, actually - I was pointing out that in times when the people HAVE engaged at the ballot box, quite successfully, those in power simply refused to accept the result.... which brings up the question of what do you DO then ? I think that is a very valid question, myself.

Well, it depends. The civil rights marches were pretty successful.

Quote:
Uncomfortable.. not so much, Hamlet and the Founding Fathers agree, folk will generally take shit until it becomes flat out impossible to do anything BUT react violently, and that kind of thing can go in a lot of directions, few of em good.

Except that I would point to the many successful movements of the past 40 years which were generated (apparently) by nothing more than discomfort.

Quote:
We're lookin for pissed off, or perhaps more appropriately, outraged - and in a slow burn and controlled fashion that allows a sustained push like a changing tide or a tree root under a sidewalk - you'll note that the beach and sidewalk always lose that one in the end, right ? Not sure if that's quite as clear as I'd like it to be, but hopefully the gist of it gets across.

Well, any successful movement requires radicals. But the biggest problem is the frigging media. THOUSANDS of people have been tear-gassed, clubbed, and arrested over nothing. But since the media refused to air the tape, their story never got out. You have to BRING YOUR OWN CAMERA and POST IT ON THE INTERNET.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:08 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But your talking about a system of government, not an economic system.

Communism requires that the economy is directed by the government, so you can't really have one without the other.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:11 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Khyron - why is it when you post you try to shut down other opinions ?

See the pot. See the pot call the kettle black. Call the kettle black, pot. Call the kettle black.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer

When have I ever told someone not to post ? Please ... go find it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Frem

"I know damn well that corporate power springs in part from being able to "buy off" the gov ..."

Yes, PART of corporate power springs from that. And the rest ? From the power of life and death - literally. Who gets to work, how much they earn, whether or not it affords them water, food, clothing and shelter. If that isn't direct power over you and me I don't know what is. And, BTW, it has NOTHING to do with the government.

"I am well aware of the dangers of such corporatism and have addressed it at length and repeatedly here ..."

Please show me where, b/c your biggest solution seems to be - well, gee, if everybody had a gun ... and we just somehow became more local ... No kidding, that's what comes across. Somehow the nature of capitalism, to expand and agglomerate and eventually control, will just ... go away.

IF pushed you MAY say that sure government might have some possible usefulness here or there - but nowhere have I seen you actually propose a solution that I remember. And certainly none that involves the cooperative power of society to deal with things too big for individuals.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:01 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

When have I ever told someone not to post ? Please ... go find it.

Never said you did. You just insult, demean, obfuscate, lie, redefine words and concepts to fit your agenda, and - when all else fails - bullshit.

BTW, how's that research on Sweden as a Socialist country coming?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

How's that research coming along to find just ONE good thing to say about the ol' US of A ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:08 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
From the power of life and death - literally. Who gets to work, how much they earn, whether or not it affords them water, food, clothing and shelter. If that isn't direct power over you and me I don't know what is. And, BTW, it has NOTHING to do with the government.

Ask the folks who lived under Communist rule in Russia and Eastern Europe about the government having the economic power of life and death. Hell, folk in Zimbabwe are starving to death right now because they didn't support Mugabe and the ZANU-PF. The generals in Burma are using economic pressure to shut down dissent. China is forcing over a million people to move so they can build the Three Gorges Dam project, to support their economic plans.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:09 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How's that research coming along to find just ONE good thing to say about the ol' US of A ?

QED

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You just insult, demean, obfuscate, lie, redefine words and concepts to fit your agenda, and - when all else fails - bullshit.

Whoa Geezer... are you SURE you want to go down this road???

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FREM: economies of scale

I'm not sure you know what I mean by "economies of scale". Basically what it means is that it's far cheaper per unit to produce 1000 widgets instead of 10, and cheaper still to produce a million widgets. I can point to a lot of reasons why that's so: There's less administrative costs, the more you produce the more likely you'll automate, when you DO automate there are fewer re-tooling costs, transporting in bulk is more efficient and therefore cheaper than transporting in small lots.

So, even assuming that a large business takes no "unfair" advantage over a small one, a large producer will always have lower per-unit costs than a small producer. That means large producers will always be able to offer lower prices, and according to market forces they will simply continue to get larger and larger. And that's assuming no specific anti-competitive practices, like forming cartels with other large producers.

The point is that market forces cause monopolism, even w/o government intervention.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Khyron - why is it when you post you try to shut down other opinions ?

I'm trying to understand what SignyM's standpoint is. Wouldn't that be the opposite of trying to shut down somebody else's opinion?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Like here ...
We've been challenging AURaptor for years and all it did was waste everyone's time.

There are so many things to discuss, but around 40% of all discussions in RWED revolve around the same bloody thing, over and over and over and over and over. Is it trying to shut down other people's opinions by wanting to move on?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
... and here ...
Rue, clearly you missed my point, so just stay out of this.

It's obvious that you were trying to bully me from the sidelines, and didn't even bother to read my posts properly to find out what my point was. Clearly, you were not about to play a constructive part in the discussion (do you ever?), so asking you to stay out of it was totally reasonable.

You're not completely wrong though, when it comes to me wanting to shut down other people's opinion, at least when it applies to you. I don't want your opinion. I don't value your opinion. The way you behave and the way you treat others on this board who disagree with you, well, you're just not somebody I have enough respect for to want to know where they stand on the issues (even though we seem to agree on the majority of them).

But I see I've once again fallen for the old Rue-SignyM tag-teaming trick. Everybody who challenges SignyM has to deal with your bullshit instead, while SignyM moves on to other discussions.

SignyM, I'd appreciate it if you could answer my questions. You were lecturing us, so I'd be grateful if you could give proper responses when there's a question from the audience on something that isn't clear.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:15 PM

Quote:
I was under the impression that the anti-trust acts simply had to do with preventing monopolistic (anti-competitive behavior) with no reflection on the government at all.

Actually, while not explicitly mentioned, in the context of the times and various historical statements by those behind such anti-trust acts, a corporation or trust becoming big enough to "buy off' the Gov was considered a significant threat, and while much of that legislation is toothless or unenforced, I do believe that was one of the stumbling blocks that helped Smedley Butler hamstring the Business Plot.

Ironically, and anything but coincidentally, if you run the names of the families involved in union busting and such, to the business plot, to modern day exploitive Corporatism, they're all the same ones, ain't they ?

Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Chase, Dupont, Hearst, Hughes etc...

Not to add a shade of PN flavoring, but these folk are no longer even remotely "like us" especially after a hundred years of dynastic corporate supremacy, and in my personal (as in not operational) opinion is that the only proper solution to THEM was invented by the french.... Schwick-Thump!

So the fear of that threat, being financially overpowered by the robber barons WAS there, but damned if anyone was going to say it out loud till a certain politician went a trust-busting, but never quite went after the right folk, or went far enough with it.

Quote:
If you meant to say the law is a tool for destroying small businesses or propping up big ones, that is not the case. Using Microsoft as an example, most of what MS did was clearly illegal even under our relatively weak laws. But the laws' biggest flaw is simply that it wasn't enforced. (Kollar-Kotelly)

In effect, making the case EXACTLY as I stated it - the big daddies can rely on it never being enforced against THEM by the folk who's campaign coffers they can afford to fill, but their smaller competitors have no such protection.

So in THEORY, it is not, but in FACT, it is - see ?

Quote:
the biggest problem is the frigging media.

That's what Youtube and half a million kids with cameras are for - but everyone is so goddamn terrified to make a stand unless there's already a huge crowd already making it and their cowardly fairweather pissant bitch ass can hide in it...

I've always been against the idea of pulling a captain midnight or electronically commendeering a radio tower/satellite/etc, but times change, and I've just travelled cross country for a pretty good bit under some rough circumstance and got a nice good look at just how totally fucked we are on infrastructure and economy, not to mention production or even maintainence of that infrastructure... it's BAD, kiddo, very much so.

Ergo, I will not gainsay or vote against that option should it be officially proposed, and that's sayin a hell of a lot.

Quote:
THOUSANDS of people have been tear-gassed, clubbed, and arrested over nothing.

This is what concerns me greatly, cause eventually folks are gonna start shootin back, and there are a LOT of angry folk in this country, many of them with conflicting, confused, or nonexistent political agendas, and once the shooting starts, it's HELL to stop it - I reccommend David Drakes novels for a good capsule concept of the political and social ramifications once caps start popping, cause that's just toooo long to get into here.

And now you might wanna duck, Siggy....

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:16 PM

Quote:
BTW, it has NOTHING to do with the government.

Bullshit, it has everything to do with it.

Or need I remind you that Hawaii was annexed BY the Gov for their corp buddies, or how about Smedley Butler flat out admitting that certain of our military actions were entirely for the benefit of corporations, not the least of which was united fruit, but goddamn it's a long list innit ?
(See Also: War is a Racket)

The "military-industrial-complex" has nothing to do with the government ?
Well then perhaps you can tell me where they're getting those juicy no-bid contracts from, eh ?

Or best of how, HOW, exactly, did our oil companies get those oh-so-lucrative deals on foreign oil... sheer gratitude and milk of kindess then, yeah ?

Sure, the Shah just naturally came to power and handed it to us cause he's such a good guy, uh-huh - pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Our fucking military is both the enforcers and protectors of the corporate mafia (for lack of a better word) that has our government so financially dependant on them that they COULDN'T serve the people as they should even if they wanted to - and this has been the case since the beginning of this shit back in the late 1800's, only since americans are as a general rule cowardly little shits, any pathetic and laughable amount of fearmongering sends them scurrying under the bed begging for big daddy gov to protect them at all cost, and until the populace as a whole grow a fucking set, they damn well DESERVE the situation, you ask me.

Quote:
but nowhere have I seen you actually propose a solution that I remember. And certainly none that involves the cooperative power of society to deal with things too big for individuals.

Gee, not siccing the fucking entire army on the unions when they DO stand up for themselves doesn't qualify ?

Actually HAVING unions that aren't at best a lame ass and disempowered drinking club doesn't qualify ?

AND.. golly fucking gee, what IS a union BUT the cooperative power of a certain section of society against something too big to individually handle ?

Maybe if you weren't too busy shovelling bullshit to listen you might have actually fucking heard me say these things, but no, as usual, once again, I get told I never said what I did....

And folks wonder why I have so little sympathy for the rest of the pissants who live on this particular section of dirt - to be fucking blunt about it, I LAUGH when they come up on the very tragedy and misfortune their own fanatical and treasured ignorance and cowardice has brought unto them, it's naught more than karmas swift justice.

Were it not for the future generations we keep creating and then feeding into the maw of this hellspawned society that is dead set against everything HUMAN in us, I'd just as soon condemn the whole fucking species to the lifeless radioactive wasteland that is all which they deserve, but those kids ain't responsible for OUR fuckups, and be damned if I plan to leave them nothing but a grim future of the sum of OUR failures, like they're some kind of janitorial cleanup squad... fuck that.

You ever wanna real answer to something ? it's dead bang simple.
If you don't KNOW the answer, then you must BE the answer, or at least try to be.

And that's a damn sight better than anyone else seems to be doin these days.

-Frem

PS. Do you REALLY think imma discuss the details of any particular plan in public when I feel the public is a bunch of cowardly shits without even the moral fortitude to have the decency to remain fucking silent when they can get a pat on the head from the very folk fucking them over the worst ?

Get real.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:18 PM

RE: Economies of Scale.

There's that, but it doesn't account for the basic humanity of people, and quality control does fall off at certain levels of production.

If *I* build a widget for ya, it'll last forever, you've seen the dollhouse, yes ?

So there's that factor to regard as well.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:27 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
There's that, but it doesn't account for the basic humanity of people, and quality control does fall off at certain levels of production.

Quality control falls off at certain levels of profitability, actually.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:36 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whoa Geezer... are you SURE you want to go down this road???

I'd prefer it if none of us had to. I'd prefer that we not get caught up in the game of tit for tat insult that Rue's so good at initiating. I'd prefer straight answers to questions rather than deceit, dissembling, or insult. Heck, I'd prefer for you or Rue to specify a non-corporate source for an FMRI.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ah, Khyron, I missed your question:

Quote:
A lot, it seems. I'm really confused because first, it seemed, you were arguing against all corporations, but now corporations in China, Taiwan, Japan and the EU are acceptable because they're "not as bad" as American ones. I ask again: are you arguing against the concept of corporations, or are you arguing for more regulation of corporations?

If I had my 'druthers, I'd do away with corporations altogether and replace them with a different business form: the cooperative. There is still "management", and it's still possible to have large entities, but the strategic control of those entities (including the distribution of earnings) belongs to the people who work there. I don't know if I want to flesh this out in detail right now. Geezer, Fletch2 and I had a long discussion about this. BTW- There are several highly successful cooperatives that range from primary production (the State of Kerala in India only allows cooperatives, and not surprisingly has the highest living standard in India, Mondragon in Spain, and Zeiss Optical) but if I can I'll try to find the original thread and link it.

But failing that, I'd go for changing corporate law. At the least, I would take away the corps the special privileges over real people. At the most, I would eliminate the stock market.

Quote:
[b[]Anyway, suppose we've answered the question of where FMRIs come from ("We import them, silly!"), I have another question. Let's assume we have a corporation that manufactures cars, and let's assume we're a couple of years in the future when everything's automated. There are a couple of people around to make sure the robotic arms etc don't mess up, but on the whole, the process is almost wholly independent of human input. Who makes the cars then? People, because they supervise? Robots? The corporation?

People, because they supervise the machines, and they made the machines which made the machines.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FREM:

Quote:
Economies of Scale.There's that, but it doesn't account for the basic humanity of people, and quality control does fall off at certain levels of production.

1) I bang the factory-slave or plantation-slave image in my head against the image of the millions who flock to Walmart and I don't see much "basic" humanity there. Wish I could. It's not a factor I'd want an entire economic system to depend on.

2) AFA quality control: Quality control is a measure of how consistent a product is, not whether it is more durable or better engineered or more useful, and I've never seen a relationship between mass production and quality control. In fact. I've seen the reverse of what you propose: slider valves drilled by hand in India failed at a phenomenal rate compared to slider valves drilled robotically. Same for boards assembled by hand v robotically, etc. So I can't say there is an automatic connection either way between QC and produciton size.

I';m gonna have to duck out of this discussion for a few days. I've spent way too much time here, and I have a very busy schedule to keep.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:33 AM

Thank you SignyM, that's what I wanted to know. No need to flesh it out in detail on my behalf, I just got confused about your standpoint on corporations because you seemed to be contradicting yourself, but you've cleared it up now.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'd prefer it if none of us had to. I'd prefer that we not get caught up in the game of tit for tat insult that Rue's so good at initiating. I'd prefer straight answers to questions rather than deceit, dissembling, or insult. Heck, I'd prefer for you or Rue to specify a non-corporate source for an FMRI.

This from The Strawman? I'm gonna point to China. I'm pretty sure they make fMRIs... I know they make equally complex technology (supercomputers, jets etc)... and they are mostly non-corporate. There are other entities, like universities and cooperatives that have the capacity to make fMRIs because they have the capacity to make technologies that are equally or more complex, but don't happen to be in that business. (For example, the fastest supercomputers are usually built by governments or government/ university collaboration, and the human genome was sequenced by a group of non-profits.)

So I've answered your question: It IS possible to build highly complex machines/ technologies w/o corporations. I can point to non-corporate entities that create and mass produce complex technologies and I can point to theoretical alternatives to corporations.

Now, I'm sure you'll strawman my argument to death, and at some future time I'll bird-dog each of your points until you disappear, but right now I'm too busy to go chasing after this.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:17 AM

MAL4PREZ

My employer - a small private company, 16 employees total - builds machines for geophysical research that are quite complex. Not fMRIs, but comparable. We don't control the market or buy out politicians, neither do we need special legal rights. We just build shit and sell it.

You want an fMRI? With enough startup cash, you can buy the lab equipment, hire an expert to set down the design, and bring in a handful of technicians to do the handiwork. No evil corporationness needed.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Now, I'm sure you'll strawman my argument to death, and at some future time I'll bird-dog each of your points until you disappear, but right now I'm too busy to go chasing after this.

Rather than trot thru the usdual dynamic of people proposing ideas and you (Geezer) nitpicking, strawmanning and caviling from the sidelines, I suggest that you tell us: What specific aspects of corporations make them necessary for complex technological production? Just to get you going with some ideas, I would wonder: Is it their size? Ability to accumulate capital? Inventiveness?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:36 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm gonna point to China. I'm pretty sure they make fMRIs

True. Chinese companies owned by corporations like Philips, G.E., Siemens, Medtronic, etc. make MRIs and other medical equipment.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_19/b4083032420969.htm?
chan=magazine+channel_news

Quote:
... I know they make equally complex technology (supercomputers, jets etc)... and they are mostly non-corporate.

Most of China's airlines use Boeing, Airbus, and other outsourced planes. They have just started their first commercial design, the ARJ21, manufactured by the China Aviation Industry Corporation I. Hmmm. Corporation.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1670256,00.html

Quote:
There are other entities, like universities and cooperatives that have the capacity to make fMRIs because they have the capacity to make technologies that are equally or more complex, but don't happen to be in that business.

They might make them for their own use, but how do I get one?

Quote:
So I've answered your question: It IS possible to build highly complex machines/ technologies w/o corporations. I can point to non-corporate entities that create and mass produce complex technologies and I can point to theoretical alternatives to corporations.

Actually, you haven't answered my question. I don't care if it's theoretically possible that some university or government could build an FMRI. I don't care if a million monkeys in a room with components could eventually assemble one. How do I, right now, without having to either be a government or a university, get (You know, buy and have delivered to my house) an FMRI, absent a corporate structure to manufacture it or it's components?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:47 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[BWhat specific aspects of corporations make them necessary for complex technological production? Just to get you going with some ideas, I would wonder: Is it their size? Ability to accumulate capital? Inventiveness?

Nothing makes corporations necessary, just like nothing makes democracy necessary, or pizza necessary. Corporations are just generally more successful at producing a wide range of products that meet consumer demand at lower prices. I'm sure there are examples of successful cooperatives, but the vast majority of goods and services that most folk in the developed world use are provided by corporations. Economic Darwinism perhaps?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
without having to either be a government or a university

You appreantly do not understand my answer. You don't have to be a government or university to "get" an fMRI, you can prolly buy one (or indeed many complex technologies) from nationalized industries - which are not corporations in my sense of the word. I'm going to say "probably" because I haven't looked up fMRI specifically, but it is no different that buying a commercial jet (China Aviation Industries, Airbus) or a nuclear power plant (CanDU from Canada for example). Now, if you're going to stick on fMRIs as the ONLY complex technology that can be discussed then I'm going to say you're being a dick.

So, since I've answered your question, will you answer mine? What is it about corporations that is necessary for complex technological production?
-----------------

OK. I see we xposted.

Okay, so corporations aren't necessary. That's good to hear. Now, the question is, does their utility in some areas (cheap production) balance their dis-utility in other areas (impoverishing all of their workers, causing economic busts thru concentration of capital)? Are there ways to get the upsides of corporations w/o the downsides?

Also, I point to the roughly 4 billion people for whom corporations are NOT a major player.

One more comment b4 I leave for a while: You said that communism required a government and that therefore economic and government entities were identical or at least strongly linked under communism. Apparently you do not know your communist theory! In theory, under communism the state is supposed to "wither away". Ironically, the early proponents of communism saw "the state" as being an organ of oppression, pretty much like today's libertarians.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Economic Darwinism perhaps?

Possibly, but it's also possible they maintain their clout through government fiat. In any case, if they're worthwhile companies they should be able to survive without special rules in their favor. I'm not really with the people who want to see corporations 'brought to heel'. I just want them to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:21 AM