A New Hope: Stomping Out Corporatism

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, April 2, 2009 06:53
VIEWED: 11466
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

SERGEANTX

Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...you seem to have this "blame the gubmint" ...

Is this really a stereotype you believe in? Do you mean it to be personally insulting? Or just to insinuate that anyone distrustful of government is an idiot?

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:24 PM

Sorry if it came off that way. There are people who unthinkingly blame everything on the government. And they deserve the stereotype. Just like rapo blames everything on the dems. You're not one of them.

Couple of things to add: On reflection, I know what you mean about government regulation. I run a laboratory approval program, and I have long maintained that a program which doesn't distinguish between good labs and bad labs is worse than no program at all since it skews the market.

BUT, also on reflection, it occurs to me that this has little bearing on the current situation. Not only did investment banks, commercial and insurance companies scam their ultimate customers (institutional investors like pension funds and "average people" investors) they also scammed EACH OTHER. That's why the LIBOR (London Interbank Overnight Rate) was so high: the banks didn't trust EACH OTHER! So those investors who were in the thick of things... who knew what was going on because THEY were the ones doing it... didn't know, really, what OTHER BANKS were doing! What the average joe or jane didn't know, or which regulations they had faith in... has no bearing on how so much money got sucked into a black hole.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:35 PM

On further reflection Sarge, I think your argument breaks down historically. We've been here before; except that in 1929 there was NO FDIC/ FSLICA, no SEC, no FDA, etc.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:57 PM

That Dodd had his arm twisted is a load of crap. He pretended not to know, but played cya once CNN nailed him. And props to them! Please, don't buy Dodd's partisan b.s. and accept that line that he HAD to vote for it. Don't play that dumb

KWICKO

Monday, March 30, 2009 12:12 AM

Sig and Rue:

I think what Sarge is trying to say is that most people tend to think that because these are large corporations, and BECAUSE we have things like the SEC and FDIC, we ASSUME that there must be oversight and regulation. We ASSUME that we're not falling for the same old snake-oil sales pitch and the same old Ponzi schemes, because we've been somewhat conditioned to believe that the government is looking out for us, keeping an eye on companies like AIG and Bear Stearns.

And I think that Sarge is also saying that if those companies AREN'T being watched over, that's something that should probably be announced and talked about a bit more than it has.

Honestly, does anyone really remember hearing about Credit Default Swaps being made unregulated, or anything about how risky they were?

At least, that's what I got from Sarge's posts. I don't think he's railing against regulation - just saying that if we're going to DEREGULATE some area of the market, it might be a good idea for someone (the gubmint, maybe?) to let us know in no uncertain terms that these new areas are going to be a gamble, a crap-shoot, a wild-west-style gold rush, and that we should absolutely, as buyers, beware. Instead, what happens is that we hear a little mumble about deregulation, which gives the appearance of tacit government approval of these kinds of scams, and we figure, "Eh, if the gubmint says it's okay, it must be okay."

Instead of being a headline, the risks associated with deregulation tend to get tacked on in very small type, like the disclaimers on Big Pharma commercials: "In testing, a very small percentage of investors lost every penny they ever had or will ever earn. Your results may vary. Results portrayed in this commercial are not typical. As with all investments, there is substantial risk of losing your ass."

Sarge, is that about the gist of it? If so, I get it; if not, I apologize for muddying your point.

One thing that helps me with stuff like this is to remember a simple adage: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

Mike

\m/

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 12:17 AM

Signym,

That's quite a lot of reflection.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're considering to be "my argument". The main point I was trying to make in this thread is that once you've established the precedent of regulation, removing it can put you in a more dangerous place than if you never had it at all, especially if it's done carelessly.

You and rue jumped all over that - not because of the conclusion (I think you agree with me that the deregulation was bad), but because of the premise that a regulatory environment gets people accustomed to exercising less of their own judgment and caution. It clearly does that. When you think about it, it's the whole point. We pass regulations and oversight legislation so we don't have to worry as much about things going south.

We certainly want some of that kind of government oversight. At a minimum we need basic norms concerning contractual obligations and transparency. Beyond that, I see a role for at least flagging operations that operate on dangerously low capital reserves and those that run ponzi like schemes. But at some point, investors have to be trusted to make their own decisions about how much risk that want to assume. They also need to understand clearly that they are responsible for the outcome of that judgment.

As far as the historical precedent, the Federal Reserve system was established in 1913 to maintain more stable banking and prevent widespread bank failures.... *ahem*

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

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 12:26 AM

Yes Kwicko, like you said.

I suppose that I really can't blame Signym and rue for their assumptions. I am frequently making the case against regulation in general - in part for the moral hazard aspect we've been discussing. But in this case I merely meant to point out that that "feature" or regulation makes it particularly dangerous when the level of oversight goes up on down for political reasons.

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

SIGNYM

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:19 AM

Quote:
As far as the historical precedent, the Federal Reserve system was established in 1913 to maintain more stable banking and prevent widespread bank failures.

But lack of "the Fed" did not prevent the Panic of 1873. Also, I didn't say that "the Fed" didn't exist, just that the FDIC and the SEC weren't around. (Founded 1933 and 1934 respectively)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

KWICKO- the difference between me and sarge is that he tends to think that "the answer" is deregulation, and that the reason why it didn't work (in this instance) is that it was done badly. But, that if done (somehow) properly it would be OK. But I think he's ignoring historical precedents - areas and activities where regulation did NOT exist (for example, environmental, food, and safety regulations) and all it produced was a bunch of poisoned, swindled, maimed people. Buyer beware doesn't work... just like bargaining for a job doesn't work... if you're an individual versus a big entity.

Perhaps I'm overstating Sarge's argument, but what I get of it seems kinda naive.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 30, 2009 3:22 AM

Quote:
don't buy Dodd's partisan b.s.

Dodd's "partisan" BS? Which party does he belong to? The Democratic Party??? So, how is it "partisan" to point the finger at Geithner? Doesn't Geithner ALSO belong to the Democratic party?

You DO know the meaning of the word "partisan", right?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
don't buy Dodd's partisan b.s.
Dodd's "partisan" BS? Which party does he belong to? The Democratic Party??? So, how is it "partisan" to point the finger at Geithner? Doesn't Geithner ALSO belong to the Democratic party?

You DO know the meaning of the word "partisan", right?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Dodd knew. Just stop it already.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But lack of "the Fed" did not prevent the Panic of 1873.

Hmmm... so I guess maybe it's a wash. Bad stuff happens with or without. The only net effect is instruments of power for people who want power.

Quote:
the difference between me and sarge is that he tends to think that "the answer" is deregulation, and that the reason why it didn't work (in this instance) is that it was done badly. But, that if done (somehow) properly it would be OK.

I dunno. I'm not sure it's possible to do it right anymore. We seem to be past the point where the trend can be reversed - at least not without some kind of complete meltdown, which I don't look forward to, even if it would give a clean slate.

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

SIGNYM

Monday, March 30, 2009 4:56 AM

Quote:
Dodd knew.

So what? Who the frak cares what he "knew"? What did he DO?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 30, 2009 5:56 AM

Quote:
The only net effect is instruments of power for people who want power.

So the question is... how do we take power back from the PTB? More importantly, how do we KEEP it from accumulating back into only a few hands?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But lack of "the Fed" did not prevent the Panic of 1873.

Hmmm... so I guess maybe it's a wash. Bad stuff happens with or without. The only net effect is instruments of power for people who want power.

Quote:
the difference between me and sarge is that he tends to think that "the answer" is deregulation, and that the reason why it didn't work (in this instance) is that it was done badly. But, that if done (somehow) properly it would be OK.

I dunno. I'm not sure it's possible to do it right anymore. We seem to be past the point where the trend can be reversed - at least not without some kind of complete meltdown, which I don't look forward to, even if it would give a clean slate.

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

The avalanche has already started it is to late for the pebbles to vote.

Kosh - Babylon 5

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The only net effect is instruments of power for people who want power.
So the question is... how do we take power back from the PTB? More importantly, how do we KEEP it from accumulating back into only a few hands?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Well, I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw once, by the great genius, B. Kliban. It showed a king, on a balcony, speaking to his people. The caption read "I'm the king, and you must do as I command, or else I can't be king anymore."

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

SIGNYM

Monday, March 30, 2009 6:42 PM

Well, ONE thing is that we have a democracy, and presumably free speech. I suggest we start USING IT. Write, and get others to write, to your so-called representatives and to the WH. Let them know what you think. Hold their feet to the fire.... there's gonna be another election coming up sooner than you think!

If your current representative galls you (like one of mine does me) start NOW to unseat them

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, ONE thing is that we have a democracy, and presumably free speech. I suggest we start USING IT. Write, and get others to write, to your so-called representatives and to the WH. Let them know what you think.

Well, I think they shouldn't bow to the whim of the majority. Where does that put me?

Democracy is of little solace in these circumstances because the offices and institutions in question are generally created and supported democratically. People may grow agitated at a particular leader or policy, but the concentration of power will likely not be removed - just transfered to different hands. The only way I see democracy changing things is if people can agree to live and let live, can agree that government shouldn't be used in these ways, and in that case government power becomes moot. Which was the point of the cartoon I mentioned. They only rule us because we let them.

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

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 30, 2009 8:02 PM

It's even worse when people just vote in the same Senators and Representatives time after time out of laziness.

I kind of like to vote against the incumbent, just on principle. Never does any good though, I tend to be in the minority around here.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 30, 2009 8:24 PM

First things first Sarge.

We can talk about reform after we've kicked butt.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:30 PM

Hmmm.... and "first things" is?

You brought up wresting power away from the PTB. What I'm getting at is that in most of the ways that matter, the "powers-that-be" means us - or at least the majority of voters who support business as usual. Democracy what got us into this mess. I'm not seeing how it gets us out.

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

SIGNYM

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:48 PM

Getting people to get involved and to give a damn is the first step.

BTW- Sarge... I'm tempted to say... oh, what the hell, between you and WUlf and Geezer I'm so annoyed I WILL say it: Scratch most libertarians and you'll find a fascist.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

OUT2THEBLACK

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, ONE thing is that we have a democracy, and presumably free speech.

Actually , we have neither...

Article 4 , Section 4 , United States Constitution :

"...The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html

One has to know and understand the Constitution in the hope of having and maintaining free speech...

Millions of people are working on this very matter presently...Unfortunately , SignyM isn't yet one of them...

'Course , those who understand the Republic and the intentions of its Founders support the rights of others to remain ignorant...

We don't like it , mind , and all we can hope to do is inform folk of their erroneous ideas and encourage their involvement...

OUT2THEBLACK

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Getting people to get involved and to give a damn is the first step.

...Scratch most libertarians and you'll find a fascist.

Walk into any pasture and tip over a 'liberal', and you'll find a Bolshevik...

RUE

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:50 PM

"Sig and Rue:

I think what Sarge is trying to say is that most people tend to think that because these are large corporations, and BECAUSE we have things like the SEC and FDIC, we ASSUME that there must be oversight and regulation. We ASSUME that we're not falling for the same old snake-oil sales pitch and the same old Ponzi schemes, because we've been somewhat conditioned to believe that the government is looking out for us, keeping an eye on companies like AIG and Bear Stearns."

But WE did not create the problem and so our assumptions are irrelevant. The people who created the mess - the financial sector - assumed no such thing. They KNEW different. It would be very hard to draw a cause and effect sequence through lack of regulation and assumed government insurance on the part of the financial sector.

It's a shorter explanation, and it fits the facts better - to say that the drive to maximize profit drives excess and risk, while regulations limit that excess and risk.

Also, regulation = presumed insurance is not even part of the equation.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:57 PM

And yet the other end of that argument, is flake the paint off a Libertarian and you'll find an Anarchist.

It always amuses me that both "sides" hate us.

But Sarge nails the salient point, they do this shit cause we let em.

Simplest way to break that ?
DO. NOT. COMPLY.

I'll let you mentally chew on what that exactly means.

-Frem

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

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:01 PM

Oh Frak you, Siggy.

For your reference:

"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race. Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution. In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, fascists believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate."

Sounds more like liberals and conservatives to me. (edit for Rue..)

You can apply the ABOVE definition for FASCISM to both Liberals and Conservatives. As an EXAMPLE:

Libs: a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race.

Cons: promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution. In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, (conservatives) believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate.

NOT my bag, sweetheart.

RUE

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:04 PM

My general observation: libertarians come in two flavors - the really far right and the really far left. Most, but not all, of the libertarians here seem to be of the 'far right' variety. That's the kind that says what most people want is irrelevant, they're just sheeple anyway. They're the ones who say we're going to do things MY way. And THEN the sheeple will be free. MY way.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:09 PM

"But Sarge nails the salient point, they do this shit cause we let em.
Simplest way to break that ?
DO. NOT. COMPLY."

That only works as a mass movement. And what if the masses don't care ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

OUT2THEBLACK

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And yet the other end of that argument, is flake the paint off a Libertarian and you'll find an Anarchist.

It always amuses me that both "sides" hate us.

But Sarge nails the salient point, they do this shit cause we let em.

Simplest way to break that ?
DO. NOT. COMPLY.

Non-compliance is my forte'...

If one finds their self hated from more than one side , something is being done right...

OUT2THEBLACK

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

That only works as a mass movement. And what if the masses don't care ?

The 'majority' doesn't care , because of their massive ignorance...

But millions DO care , and are working the problem...

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:13 PM

*laughs*

And then there's me...

Depending on your viewpoint that's either Miltant-Moderate...

Or This.

Your mileage may vary, offer void where prohibited, some restrictions and conditions may apply.

-Frem

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

OUT2THEBLACK

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:16 PM

Rue :

See new thread--

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37580

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:19 PM

Quote:
That only works as a mass movement. And what if the masses don't care ?

Then you see to your own, and let them get what they so fervently desired without understanding the consequences thereof.

While, of course, continuing to bitch, just in case some blinding realisation of the obvious occurs to them.

At this point "the masses" are getting what they foolishly wished for, despite good advice, and gettin it good and hard without even the benefit of a reacharound.

Me, well, other than catching a bit of fallout specifically AIMED at me by folks pursuing a moral/religous agenda with Government power, imma do ok - even if the whole damn thing crumbles, but that doesn't mean I don't have sympathy or will not render aid to those who did *NOT* have a voice, and were crushed under the wheels of the machine anyway.

Those who used that voice to urge the machine to go faster, crush harder, thinking they we're gonna be sitting in the luxury seats instead of the first to go under the treads - AS I REPEATEDLY WARNED THEM THEY WOULD BE...

Do you really think at this point I have an iota of sympathy left for em ?

-Frem

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

RUE

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:24 PM

"The 'majority' doesn't care , because of their massive ignorance..."

Ah yes, they are the sheeple. Their expressed interests are just plain wrong and so they don't count. They need be re-educated.

"But millions DO care , and are working the problem..."

Written like a true Trotskyist. (I say that b/c they are a vanishingly small 'vanguard' ready to be at the forefront of the mass uprising, when it happens. Any day now.)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:30 PM

Wulfie

Quote:
Libs: a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology ...
Cons: promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance ...

I'd be really curious just how far up your colon you reached for these 'definitions'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:34 PM

Not that far Rue,

Just a trip to Wiki-land.

However, I'm sure it gives you a shiver to think that I'd be "reaching up my colon". Makes you think about me reaching up other things in YOU.

But, again, Im not interested, Rue.

Sorry sweetie.

(Edit) Now unless you have anything of value to add....why don't you stop trolling?

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:42 PM

I'd say they're not all that far off.

That whole "For your own good" crap from the Left...
While you get "Kill them over there so they don't come here" from the Right...

You do get that crap from the extreme ends of the spectrum, let's not deny it.

To me, well - they all have one thing in common, and so do other terrorists.

They want me to do what THEY want me to do, instead of freeing me to do what *I* wanna do, so long as it harms no one else.

By that standard, none of them are innocent.

-Frem

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

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- Sarge... I'm tempted to say... oh, what the hell, between you and WUlf and Geezer I'm so annoyed I WILL say it: Scratch most libertarians and you'll find a fascist.

Where did that come from? Just when I think we've found a shred of common ground you say something completely ridiculous. You either have severe misconceptions about libertarianism, or you don't know the definition of fascism. So, how are you defining "fascist" anyway?

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

RUE

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:30 PM

What Wulfie said
"Libs: a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race."

What he claimed about his post:
"Just a trip to Wiki-land."

What WIKI really says
"Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.[1]
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity."

What Wulfie said
"Cons: promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution. In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, (conservatives) believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate."

What he claimed about his post:
"Just a trip to Wiki-land."

What WIKI really says
"Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. [1] As the name suggests it usually indicates support for the status quo or the status quo ante, though the meaning has changed in different countries and time periods. Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:41 PM

ERRR, I was making a point:

I quoted "Fascism" and applied it to both Liberalism, and Conservatism.....

to show how BOTH were REALLY fascist.

RUE

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:44 PM

Well then.

I'll define 'day' as the period of time when the sun is normally visible outdoors (absent weather cover or eclipses), and apply that definition to 'night' in order to show that they are the same.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:09 PM

If you say so

CITIZEN

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
ERRR, I was making a point:

I quoted "Fascism" and applied it to both Liberalism, and Conservatism.....

to show how BOTH were REALLY fascist.

That swastika embellished poodle won't hunt.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:39 PM

Quote:
But Sarge nails the salient point, they do this shit cause we let em.

Quote:
Where did that come from? Just when I think we've found a shred of common ground you say something completely ridiculous. You either have severe misconceptions about libertarianism, or you don't know the definition of fascism. So, how are you defining "fascist" anyway?

I've already told you: Government in service to business. Mandated capitalist control.

It was the hand-wringing about democracy I was referring to. Because the WRONG decisions will be made! Because the average person will only look out for their own comfort and economic viability! Because they will give up on the idea of free enterprise and turns to the government for assistance!

Unlike capitalists, I suppose, who only look out for their own economic viability and turn to.... oh, well, nevermind.

Oy.

In my view, history says anytime capitalism goes into the crapper (which is does with regularity) peeps tend to split into two camps: fascism and socialism. What I think it happening is that two camps are fighting for control of the government and its resources. Granted, Libertarians would rather there be no government to fight over, but at times, as in Germany, it comes down simply to a choice of EITHER/OR. (People forget, or never knew, that in Germany fascists and socialists were mortal enemies, and that trade unionists and socialists were the FIRST to go under Hitler.) IMHO it's not a case of six of one/ half dozen of another. I think there are real differences between the two directions. As distasteful as the choices are, if it came down to that choice, which do you choose?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:25 PM

What do you think, Sarge?

Valid question or blowing smoke?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You either have severe misconceptions about libertarianism, or you don't know the definition of fascism. So, how are you defining "fascist" anyway?
I've already told you: Government in service to business. Mandated capitalist control.

Heh.... ok, so it's not either/or, it's both.

I've never heard that definition of fascism, but we use words to mean things, and as long as we're clear what you mean, I'll roll with it, for the sake of the current discussion at least. So, how are you applying your definition to libertarianism?

"Government in service of business". That's diametrically opposed to libertarian ideals. According to the core ideology, the government's primary purpose should be to protect individual rights - and that's about it. We're the first ones to speak out about government getting in bed with business, and adamant about keeping government and the economy separate. You might not like these priorities, but they sure aren't government in service of business.

Now, I'm not exactly sure what "mandated capitalist control" means. The only way it could possibly apply to libertarianism is in the legal support of private property, which is, admittedly, fundamental to the basic philosophy. I guess in some odd way you could consider this 'mandating capitalist control', but I gather you're hinting at something more. You seem to want to push the image of corporate domination of society as a libertarian value, which it's not.

Quote:
It was the hand-wringing about democracy I was referring to. Because the WRONG decisions will be made! Because the average person will only look out for their own comfort and economic viability! Because they will give up on the idea of free enterprise and turns to the government for assistance!...

Even using your definition, democracy isn't incompatible with fascism, though I'd make the case that libertarianism is. In fact, our nation is currently democratically acting in service to business, using tax money to pay extortion to businesses that are "too big to fail". And more than a few fans of democracy are advocating the "individual mandate" for health insurance, which sounds a lot more like "mandated capitalist control" than anything I hear from libertarians.

Quote:
In my view, history says anytime capitalism goes into the crapper (which is does with regularity) peeps tend to split into two camps: fascism and socialism. ... I think there are real differences between the two directions. As distasteful as the choices are, if it came down to that choice, which do you choose?

It would depend entirely on the details of the choice I suppose. Since your definitions aren't necessarily clear to me I couldn't really say. But, fortunately, reality always offers more than two shitty choices - even if our voters have forgotten that - and I'd be speaking up for other alternatives, rather than teaming up with a faction I believed to be overwhelmingly wrong.

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

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 12:31 AM

dp

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:04 AM

Yanno, that Fascism or Socialism choice sounds a lot like what the Shadows and Vorlons put to Sheridan in Babylon 5...

I'm rather fond of his response, which more or less amounted to "BOTH of you piss off!".

-Frem

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:12 AM

How is it that I haven't seen Babylon 5?

In truth, I *did* watch lots of the first season, but that damned wooden-headed actor they used for the captain just completely put me off.

I understand they replaced him for S2, so maybe I'll have to track it down...

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:49 AM

I think you're still not getting it, but maybe its just me.

Capitalism crashes. Suddenly, corporations and people are scrambling for a life preserver... and there's the government: with the power of the purse, and guns to back it up.

Now, we may argue about whether such a behemoth should or shouldn't exist. Some liken it to the Ring of Sauron: great power, wielded initially for good but corrupting to anyone who uses it. A system which should never require spying on its citizens or the amount of firepower currently invested but somehow seems to. You and I might even agree that total deconstruction is preferable, but nonetheless here we are: with a militarily aggressive government that's taken over the world (more or less), with a currency that for better or worse is still the default currency, and a zillion dollars in debt all over the world.

WHO is going to control it? To what end? Who benefits?

As much as you and I may want it to be different it's wishful thinking to want it to just all go away. And I can guarantee you that while you and I may be mooning after another world, corporate heads are getting out their checkbooks, planning their strategies, getting out their knives and forks and figuring out how to divvy up this big fat turkey.

So, will government power be used to further concentrate wealth? To wring even more money out of average working folks, squeezing them out of jobs and out of the economy, one by one?

Or will government be used to bypass health insurances and pharmas which have been sucking money out of sick people and bleeding the rest of the economy dry dry? Will government reconstruct the infrastructure which had been the basis of our success, and create fairer trade practices?

It's a real question with real consequences. I don't think we can just give up the field.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, we may argue about whether such a behemoth should or shouldn't exist. Some liken it to the Ring of Sauron: great power, wielded initially for good but corrupting to anyone who uses it.

Whole 'nother discussion I suppose but I always sort of saw it that way, though I know Tolkein discouraged attaching allegory to his stories.

Quote:
As much as you and I may want it to be different it's wishful thinking to want it to just all go away. And I can guarantee you that while you and I may be mooning after another world, corporate heads are getting out their checkbooks, planning their strategies, getting out their knives and forks and figuring out how to divvy up this big fat turkey.

And that reminds me of one of the speeches in Network - brilliant movie if you haven't seen it.

When pressed, or really, really bored, I can argue pragmatics. It's not as much fun, I'm far more attracted to philosophy and ideals. But at some point we have to live in the real world and I make suboptimal choices to avoid the really crappy ones. My thread on nationalizing health care wasn't purely cynical or facetious.

Quote:
So, will government power be used to further concentrate wealth? ...
Or will government be used to bypass health insurances and pharmas which have been sucking money out of sick people and bleeding the rest of the economy dry dry?...

I wish I could be so optimistic. But in this case, pragmatism is exactly what gives me pause. Government will always be used to further concentrate wealth. You can break everything down and start over, in which case the newly formed government might be relatively clean for awhile. But the vector is always toward the concentration. Even if you do away with property and money, the government will still be the central purveyor of power and privilege - possible more so. I guess that's why I've always leaned toward "containment".

Anyway, I appreciate the thoughtful post. You've made some good points, and I'll think about them.

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

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:37 AM

I wish that the democrats, now that they're in power, will do something about health care. The pharmaceuticals, insurance, social security, medicare, medicaid, all of them need to be reformed. The social programs are going to bankrupt us (further?) unless we find some way to make them sustainable, and those leeches are about as obsolete as bleeding people to get rid of bad humours.

But I don't think democrats will be able to do it... Not only because there's going to be inevitable feet dragging on the hill, but because I've become jaded enough to think a lot of the party platforms (both democrats and republicans) are just a front. They tell us what we want to hear and we keep them in power, making token efforts to keep their promises, while they just further their own agenda.

At the risk of putting words in your mouth, SignyM, I suspect the point we're getting to is that, with libertarianism, you're concerned that the hands off approach to business is actually fulfilling the perhaps sinister interests of business. And as much as government makes me wary, that is a concern.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:40 AM

Quote:

Now, we may argue about whether such a behemoth should or shouldn't exist. Some liken it to the Ring of Sauron: great power, wielded initially for good but corrupting to anyone who uses it.

Thanks, Signy - That's pretty much the point I was trying to walk Anthony towards in the GM/Obama thread.

Yes, I agree that it sucks that GM is so big that it's pulling the entire economy down in its whirlpool.

Yes, I think we should fund alternatives. And should have been doing so for some years now - it's not like we haven't seen this same scenario before, more than once.

No, I don't think those initiatives and alternative industries are ready to go yet. They're still blue-sky ideas, not "shovel-ready" jobs. It sucks to prop up GM for now, but if the alternative is having some 3 million people (GM workers and failing suppliers and related industries) out of work RIGHT NOW.

Anybody got three million jobs ready to fill right this second?

Nah, I didn't think so.

So we're in essence left with Shitty Choice # 1 or Shitty Choice # 2. We can dream all we want about having Choice # 3, which would be the Ideal Choice, but it's just not there right now. Why? Because WE as a nation didn't invest in it, didn't DEMAND that our government fund it, didn't DEMAND that our domestic auto industry invest in it with the profits they were pulling in from SUV sales. In short, we did what the automakers did - looked at the money and figured we'd always have tomorrow to worry about tomorrow's problems.

Guess what? It's tomorrow!

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 4:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yes, I agree that it sucks that GM is so big that it's pulling the entire economy down in its whirlpool. ...

Anybody got three million jobs ready to fill right this second?

Nah, I didn't think so.

See, that's where I think we're being bamboozled. There's this notion that our future depends on keeping the dinosaurs alive. That without them we will all be starving. I think that is at best an overstatement and at worst a complete load.

It's the same thing with the bankers, and the health care industry. We aren't helpless idiots. Just because the corporate house of cards collapses on itself doesn't mean that there's nothing left for us to do. Wealth isn't necessarily about money, and as long as we have the will to work, to create, to thrive, we can do so. And we'll do it better in the long run without the corrupt leeches bleeding away our vitality.

Health care is the same story. I'm hearing more and more stories about doctors finding out how much better it can be dealing directly with their patients - finding out how much money they can save cutting the insurance companies out of the mix. SOOOO much of the cost of health care goes to insurance overhead, ridiculous liability claims, and government imposed friction. We've allowed our economy to be slowly strangled by middle men. It's high time we clean house.

Wealth is about making the world a better place, about providing real value to our fellow human beings. I don't believe that the only way that can happen is by feeding the corporate vultures.

Quote:
Why? Because WE as a nation didn't invest in it, didn't DEMAND that our government fund it, didn't DEMAND that our domestic auto industry invest in it with the profits they were pulling in from SUV sales.

Are you telling me it was the taxpayer's responsibility to fund automotive research for the auto manufacturers??? All we ever needed to do was to stop artificially supporting them. It's what we need to do now. We've propped them up for far too long. And now that the weight is becoming too great to bear, what are we going to do? Break our backs in a last ditch effort to keep them alive?

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

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 6:02 AM

Hello,

Indeed, we act as though we are saving millions of jobs by saving the American Auto, but in reality most of those jobs are probably going to disappear soon anyhow.

The auto companies can not sustain themselves with the current demand for their product. Paying them to stay open until they find a way to become profitable again is like murdering a dead monkey.

Let's bolster new innovative companies and new industries. It'll take them a while to get up to speed? Fine. I have no confidence that the American Auto will do any better as things currently sit.

I will say that I like the infrastructure projects. They are productive with immediate and long term benefit.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 12:07 PM

Quote:

Are you telling me it was the taxpayer's responsibility to fund automotive research for the auto manufacturers???

Absolutely not. That was more in response to Anthony's push to fund alternatives with government money. There have been ample opportunities in the past to do just that, and they were passed by.

I'm not proposing that we keep the auto industry alive forever by propping up GM. I'm saying that it's in our best interests AT THIS MOMENT to keep them alive until we get other manufacturing up and running in this country. I don't think Tesla is the be-all and end-all that it's touted as, but I think it's certainly a step in the right direction, and I'd like to see it get more funding and grants - both from the government and from the private sector. ONE success in an alternative transportation source will kick off MASSIVE competition to find the other innovations, just as it did at the beginning of the 20th century, when there were DOZENS of American car makers.

Prop up GM in the near term, while using those government purse strings to break their stranglehold on the US automotive industry and open it up for more competition here at home - and encourage funding here at home!

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:10 PM

Hello,

Kwicko, GM has less than a 20% market share. They're not strangling anything about the US Auto Market, unless you count our collective wallets.

The fact that you want to prop them up even though you admit they aren't viable is mind-boggling to me. You'd honestly be better off just giving money directly to the GM employees rather than filtering it through the company's decaying corpse.

And if paying people to not work sounds like madness to you, remember that it just goes to show how virtually ANY expenditure of funds is a better expenditure than keeping a failed business alive.

What really makes me feel bad is that when everyone is forced to concede the inevitable and let these businesses fail, we will find we have already dismantled worker protections like the job bank that might have benefited people. And we would have done it in the name of sacrificing tomorrow to the altar of a damned enterprise today.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:22 PM

Quote:
Let's bolster new innovative companies and new industries

There's more than enough work to go around, from high-tech to very physical
Spiral wind turbines take up less space than traditional windmills

Tidal energy

Solar energy farms

Cool roofs

Maglev trains
(I'll find a smaller picture!)

Energy efficient skyscrapers
http://www.betterhumans.com/photos/videos/images/19068/original.aspx

DC power tranmission (the Pacific Intertie)

Reforestation

Selective timber harvesting
http://www.buskirklumber.com/images/tree_drop_for_website.bmp

Like I said: more than enough work, more than enough opportunity.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:30 PM

Hello Frem,

I think this is more your speed:

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:33 PM

Hello Signey,

Is that spiral windmill covered in solar cells?

That seems to me like the cat's pajamas.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 4:05 PM

Very quickly -

What people don't seem to realize is that ALL auto sales are down - import as well as domestic. Import sales are down even further than domestic. The Japanese though do have a private/ public partnership between government and industry (not just auto, but all major industries). They will weather the storm better. AND, due to their development of fuel efficient vehicles and their superior reliability/ quality records, they will bounce back more quickly than US automakers.

SHOULD something be done about that ? As long as the US keeps it business model - quarterly profit above all - it will be at a disadvantage.

I don't think the US auto industry should be singled out for special protection and oversight. I would extend that to other industries as well (ones that have mostly or completely gone out of business in the US without outcry or even notice) - chip manufacturing, textile, steel, petrochemical, and other basic industries necessary to a modern society. As long as the US is dependent on imports for basic goods, it will be at the mercy of international trade and politics.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 4:49 PM

Anthony, whatever image that is ain't workin for me.

Mikey ?

Quote:
That was more in response to Anthony's push to fund alternatives with government money. There have been ample opportunities in the past to do just that, and they were passed by.

They did worse than that, they'd get freakin grants and funding for such, and then play games by setting up experiments and lines of "research" DESIGNED to fail, quite deliberately, while sucking up as much funding as possible, much of which was siphoned off in the usual fashions, of course.

I recall one experiment where, unfortunately, the damn thing actually WORKED, so they decided (being engineers and KNOWING what would happen) to "lighten the weight" by replacing the vehicles standard driveshaft with an aluminum one, which distinigrated in most satisfactory fashion, much to their delight - and flung shrapnel all over the parking lot, which wasn't, cause some of it nearly hit them and did damage an employees car.

This allowed them to scrap the entire line of research on that particular project before they were forced to produce a working prototype, of course.

I can tell you FOR A FACT, that GM has had the ability to create roadworthy and effective hybrid, flex-fuel and electric powered vehicles, but as long as they could squeeze every last drop of use out of standard petrol engines they meant to do it - while gouging as much research funding and grants as they could for projects they sabotaged from the get go quite deliberately.

Remember that I happen to know a hell of a lot of the folk supplying the parts and materials to the bastards, and far more of the intricate details that go on in the supply chain management than I ever really cared to or wanted to know... people talk, and when it's so bloody obvious that everyone who works at the facility not only knows, but is offering their own suggestions for making sure the tests fail, well...

I've also seen a rare few Ford testbed vehicles around here with manufacturer/test plates, at least one of which HAD to have been electric cause it had no visible tailpipe or emissions system.
(I snuck up on it and took a quick peek under cause he stopped at a local shop and I couldn't resist)

They can do it, it's just not as profitable for them, especially not when they can DEPEND on the Gov coming to their rescue no matter how badly they screw up - GM knew this bailout was coming EIGHT YEARS AGO, and was actually planning for it to happen and making arrangements to take maximum advantage, their only predictive failure was they expected it to come from a no-questions-asked corp-friendly republican administration, and did not adapt their business plan fast enough when it became clear that simply wasn't gonna happen.

You know what I think might be an acceptable alternative to loppin some heads off, cause I been thinkin about this...

Fine, we bail em out - and that automatically invalidates ALL their fuckin patents, making them public domain, since we in effect bought the goddamn things.

THAT, I would accept, follow the logic of where that goes.

Believe me, many industries would *STOP* bailout begging on the very spot if you made THAT a condition.

-Frem

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

CITIZEN

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
How is it that I haven't seen Babylon 5?

Because you suck.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
In truth, I *did* watch lots of the first season, but that damned wooden-headed actor they used for the captain just completely put me off.

I understand they replaced him for S2, so maybe I'll have to track it down...

Yeah, he became a religious leader from thousands of years ago. You know how it goes, girl meets boy, girl loses boy, boy flies back in time in a conveniently placed space station thousands of years into the past to fight a universe shattering war against an ancient evil, girl finds another boy. It's a classic tale.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 5:14 PM

Hello,

“Anthony, whatever image that is ain't workin for me.”

It should have been an image of V from the recent film V for Vendetta, above the words CHAOTIC GOOD, followed by “Governments should be afraid of their People.”

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 5:28 PM

Hello,

As much as I loved Star Trek, I have to say that Babylon 5 was a much better written sci-fi show. (Well, most episodes, anyway.) It was magic in a bottle, though. The creator has been chronically unable to recapture the essence of his creation. All attempts to spin-off or continue the story past its core have resulted in unmitigated disaster.

Some things seem to find their own time and place to come into the world.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

As much as I loved Star Trek, I have to say that Babylon 5 was a much better written sci-fi show. (Well, most episodes, anyway.) It was magic in a bottle, though. The creator has been chronically unable to recapture the essence of his creation. All attempts to spin-off or continue the story past its core have resulted in unmitigated disaster.

I agree, I watched a handful of Crusade episodes, and I think I'm being fair to them, they, and the entire concept, are a big steaming pile of beagle shit. I wonder if many people who create these show are just getting lucky sometimes, I mean George Lucas created the original Star Wars films, and has shown himself to be a talentless prick ever since (IMHO Obviously). I'd be more scathing on Lucas, but don't have the time.

Anyway. I think the major thing about B5 is that is had a direction, and it was the first major show to really know, at least in broad strokes, where it was going. It had a super story arc, which has since almost become a norm among successful TV shows.

Though few shows do it as well as B5 did. Just look at what a lurching nonsense Battlestar Gallactica turned their "over arching" storyline into. Word to the wise, if it's going to have an overarching storyline, work it out first and stick to the motherfucking thing, because throwing it together as you go along doesn't fucking work.

Actually I really liked Battlestar, but that's why the slapdash nature of it all pisses me off so.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 5:59 PM

Well, to be fair to JMS, all the B5 spin-offs he's attempted have had a lot of interference from the studio involved. TNT forced many changes to Crusade before and durring production. WB pulled a big chunk of funding on the Lost Tales at the last minute.

He has said that after all the frustrations he's had with the attempts, that the only way he'll ever revisit B5 is as a big-budget feature, with no interferecne from suits. Which is the same as saying - never.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 6:01 PM

Hello,

I really loved the reimagined Battlestar, too...

But I agree with you - they shouldn’t have embarked on a multi-season story arc when the end game wasn’t yet conceived of. They actually started the final season without having the final episode sorted yet. They say you can’t know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’ve been, but it’s equally true that you can’t know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’re going.

In the end, Battlestar was like a lavish cruise to international waters and back again. The ride is eminently satisfactory, but the destination is ultimately disappointing.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

STORYMARK

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 7:12 PM

Not all writers subscribe to the school of thought that you must know the end before you start.

Just read an interview with Moore on the subject. He says his writing philosophy has always been to let the story evolve, and be open to new directions. He didn't want to set a narror path that would hinder future creativity.

Granted, this led to many places in the series where you could tell they were winging it, but they still pulled it all togwether in the end.

On the flip side, you have B5, which was so plotted from the start, that any time something unexpected happened, it threw things off. Thus the oddly repeating characters, and the almost pointless season 5.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:09 PM

Oh believe me, I could go on for DAYS laying it into the Vorlons as the actual bad guys, much like I give it to the Federation over the Maquis, I rather liked B5 because while from the perspective of the (manipulated to see it that way) characters, the Shadows are "bad guys" but from an audience perspective, you do get to see that in the end the Vorlons were bigger dicks.

And when it came right down to it, head on, both sides were acting like bratty little children throwing their toys (those being us and the other younger races) at each other in a petty, spiteful fashion more reminiscent of small children than supposed Elder races.

And they got "sent to their room" for it, too!

-Frem

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:18 PM

Okay, I wanted to get to all this MUCH earlier, since Anthony brought up a few things that I think perfectly illustrate the problems inherent in trying to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in one's head at the same time.

And no, Anthony, this isn't aimed at singling you out by any means; it's just that you posted things in two roughly related threads that seemed to jar with each other somewhat, so I thought it would be a great time to bring it up. I've quoted parts of the replies from both threads, and offered my own snarky commentary to help illustrate how bad the situation is for ALL involved, not just "fat cat" CEOs.

Quote:

Hello,

I hate being put in the position of the Scarlet Pimpernel. But once the blade starts falling, it is generally indiscriminate.

--Anthony

Yes, the "blade" of letting car companies fail will take out good workers as well as bad.

Which is to say, yes it sucks to lop off the heads of managers who are merely doing their jobs, but letting the company fail and crash does the exact same thing to WORKERS who are merely doing THEIR jobs. Seems a bit indiscriminate, eh?

Quote:

Hello,

Nobody cries for the witches during a witch hunt, because nobody likes a warty witch. But when someone points at YOU and calls you witch, you might feel differently.

Especially if you’re just an hourly employee trying your best to do a good job…

More than a few people around here have laid the entire blame for GM's demise at the feet of the hourly employees, as if they set the direction for the company and management merely follows them, instead of the other way 'round.

Quote:

There's more to bonuses and 'fat cat' luxurious business retreats than meets the eye sometimes.

Yes, and there’s more to “fat cat” overpaid union jobs than meets the eye sometimes, too.

Quote:

Where I work, the most efficient workers are nominated to attend a yearly retreat in some exotic locale, like a trip to Vegas or a nice Cruise ship to nowhere, or Hawaii.

It's important to recognize that even in a business that is losing money, there are individuals who do their jobs VERY well, and if you don't reward such individuals via incentives, they tend to slow down or disappear.

This is possibly doubly important in a poor economy, because you may not be able to promote a good employee or give substantial raises, but the cost of a business retreat is comparatively small in the long run.

Where I work, I *AM* the most efficient employee. I work alone in the warehouse; I run the warehouse single-handed. I handle all of the imports and exports. I do all the assembly, I do all of the shipping and receiving. Before I came to work here, there were FOUR employees in the warehouse – one full-time and three part-timers. You know what I got for my bonus this year? Zilch. You know how pissed I am about that? Not one whit. My boss pulled me aside to meed with me at year's end, and told me how things were going - in a word, badly. I told her I understood that times have changed and that we're in survival mode, and if I finish out this year still having my job, I'm ahead of the game and doing better than lots of people. She cried. I *KNOW* I'm a valuable employee and a good worker, and I *KNOW* that if we survive and thrive, I'll be rewarded when times are better. I also explained to my boss, the owner of the company, that if she tried to give me a hefty bonus or a raise right now, I'd turn her down flat; we're just not in a financial position to afford it right now.

Quote:

Unfortunately, due to public disapproval, there are amazing employees where I work who are getting zilch for their efforts. People who do the work of 2 or 3 average employees are being thanked with a big "Sorry, it's bad PR to send people on 'fat cat' retreats in this environment. Please keep being a stellar employee anyway, even with no tangible reward."

I've yet to see a witch hunt where only the witches burn. But by all means, enjoy the bonfire.

--Anthony[/

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
How is it that I haven't seen Babylon 5?

Because you suck.

Dang. I knew there must be a reason...

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:33 PM

Quote:

Fine, we bail em out - and that automatically invalidates ALL their fuckin patents, making them public domain, since we in effect bought the goddamn things.

THAT, I would accept, follow the logic of where that goes.

Still catching up after a BUSY day at work (and damned glad to have it, honestly!).

But yes, this does seem like a hell of a proposal. How BAD do you want a bailout?

And seriously, what's the alternative? I mean, if GM goes into bankruptcy and China comes along with cash in hand, do we really want to let the patents go that route? Not that the Chinese have ever had much need or use for such mundane things as "patents" or "intellectual property" or anything...

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And yes, it grinds my gears to have to stand here and defend GM. I loathe GM vehicles. I haven't bought an "American" vehicle in years, because I find them to be laughably crappy, cheaply built out of sub-quality parts, and woefully unreliable and short-lived. But I'm asking that GM be kept alive right now for the sake of the good workers there.

Forgive me, but this reminds of the "patriots" who insisted that we must keep fighting in Iraq because doing otherwise would betray the good intentions of our soldiers. Something in that kind of logic just seems backasswards to me. The simple fact is, if they're building a product no one wants, they should stop, as soon as possible.

I'm wondering if you've considered how this sort of policy effects companies who didn't make the mistakes GM has. Smaller, upstart companies wait in the wings for just such an opportunity and they should be allowed to reap the benefits of their agility and/or foresight. Propping up the fatcats just because they have more employees is punishing the very companies we should be rewarding.

Quote:
If nothing else, keep them working and producing while we figure out how to manageably dismantle the auto giant and break off the pieces into smaller, faster, better, more innovative car companies.

But the thing is, in a free market economy "we" don't make those decisions. The way such changes take place is through the natural incentives of the marketplace - a company either adequately meets market needs, or it perishes. If we monkey with that, we're throwing sand in the gears of the system and making things worse.

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

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:52 PM

Hello Mike/Kwicko,

My principle point, sorely missed, is that these companies our nation is so desperately trying to save are failing. I am not proposing a witch hunt by letting them fail. The result may be that good employees lose their jobs along with bad employees, but you won’t see me lighting the fire. That fire is already burning, and we are incapable of extinguishing it.

It would be like trying to save a falling man by diving after him. The gesture has no significance. You are both now going to die.

As we discuss this, Chrysler and GM are on the cusp of bankruptcy. This is very much a WHEN and not an IF scenario. When they go bankrupt, the monies spent to save them will have been wasted. When they go bankrupt, the desperate union renegotiations will have been a shot in the foot. When they go bankrupt, everything bad we’ve been trying to avoid will still have happened, except that we’d have wasted several billion in the interim.

Letting a terminal patient die is not inhumane. It’s not cruel. It’s not vindictive, and it’s not a witch hunt or a guillotine party. It’s merely inevitable. Resources should be spent on the living. I don’t want to buy Chrysler or GM a shinier coffin. I want to buy the American people a shinier tomorrow. That tomorrow is not to be found in the cabin of a discontinued Cadillac or Hummer.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:09 AM

"a company either adequately meets market needs, or it perishes"

So many people seem to have a view of capitalism that's quaint. They think it's exemplified by a cobbler in his shop, crafting shoes and then going out to the local market-place to hawk his wares by haggling over the trade.

But in capitalism, you are not the 'owner' of your product. You not do set the valuation of the goods you have produced. You do not benefit reap the full benefit of its sale.

And in the market-place, no one is at least theoretically paying too much. When the two sides settle on a price, they BOTH think it's the fairest deal they're going to get. In capitalism, you are not free to settle on individual valuation. In capitalism, if you want it, you pay what they ask.

Capitalism is ownership of the means of production. Those who don't own the means of production trade their work for their lives. In capitalism, the goal is not to 'produce goods', or 'serve a market need' - it's to MAXIMIZE PROFIT ON THE SALE OF GOODS PRODUCED BY OTHERS.

It's that simple.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"a company either adequately meets market needs, or it perishes"

So many people seem to have a view of capitalism that's quaint. ...

It's that simple.

How so? I didn't really see how any of your comments addressed my statement, or proved it to be "quaint".

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

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:26 AM

"The way such changes take place is through the natural incentives of the marketplace - a company either adequately meets market needs, or it perishes. If we monkey with that, we're throwing sand in the gears of the system and making things worse."

This is quaint. It assumes capitalism = free market. It assumes the 'goal' of business under that model is to 'serve a market need' and not to maximize profit by any means necessary. It assumes that if a business 'fails' in its 'goal' (of serving a market need) then the system will self-correct, rather than have some larger and more predatory organization take over.

It's VERY quaint, and naive.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:50 AM

No, it's not.

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

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:52 AM

“Let them Die.” --Captain Kirk, Star Trek VI, the Undiscovered Country

**********

“The General Motors Ultralite was a 1992 low emission vehicle concept car intended to demonstrate the benefits of advanced materials and low fuel consumption. The carbon fiber shell was fabricated by Scaled Composites and it amounted to only 420 pounds (191 kg). The total weight was 1,400 pounds (635 kg). Its 3 cylinder 1.5 L two stroke engine could produce 111 hp (83 kW), which made a speed of 135 mph (217 km/h) possible. The goal was to make a four passenger show car capable of 100 miles per US gallon (2.4 L/100 km; 120 mpg-imp). It was rated at 88 miles per US gallon (2.7 L/100 km; 106 mpg-imp) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

The shape was reminiscent of the Ford Probe concept, and the Ultralite presaged the production General Motors EV1 electric vehicle and other production models.”

**********

There are drivers on the road today who weren’t even born yet when this prototype rolled off the assembly line. The American Automaker didn’t suffer from a lack of foresight. Or innovation. They saw exactly where the world was headed, predicted exactly what the consumer would want, and they built it. By God, they built it, and they were pioneers. 88 miles per gallon, 135 miles per hour.

HALF that performance (44 miles per gallon, 67 miles per hour) would likely find buyers. Not only American buyers, but buyers all around the world. So even if that seventeen year old prototype had to give up HALF of its performance in order to make it into production, and even if it took them FIVE YEARS to go from prototype to production, they’d have beat the Toyota Prius to American distribution by FOUR YEARS.

The American Auto is in the shape it’s in today because companies like GM tried to bury the next-gen technology they developed instead of putting it into production. It wasn’t a failure to innovate. They innovated. Then they actively tried to retard the advancement of industry.

This was seventeen years ago. That is how long I can confirm that GM was headed in reverse while foreign companies were in fifth gear. They led the charge into irrelevance. Let them die. If we are very lucky, new upstarts will bring us back into the 21st century. But that can’t happen as long as we coddle our diseased elder giants.

--Anthony

(Writing to confirm Frem's earlier supposition about GM technology.)

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Forgive me, but this reminds of the "patriots" who insisted that we must keep fighting in Iraq because doing otherwise would betray the good intentions of our soldiers. Something in that kind of logic just seems backasswards to me. The simple fact is, if they're building a product no one wants, they should stop, as soon as possible.

I'm wondering if you've considered how this sort of policy effects companies who didn't make the mistakes GM has. Smaller, upstart companies wait in the wings for just such an opportunity and they should be allowed to reap the benefits of their agility and/or foresight. Propping up the fatcats just because they have more employees is punishing the very companies we should be rewarding.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Mike/Kwicko,

My principle point, sorely missed, is that these companies our nation is so desperately trying to save are failing. I am not proposing a witch hunt by letting them fail. The result may be that good employees lose their jobs along with bad employees, but you won’t see me lighting the fire. That fire is already burning, and we are incapable of extinguishing it.

It would be like trying to save a falling man by diving after him. The gesture has no significance. You are both now going to die.

Letting a terminal patient die is not inhumane. It’s not cruel. It’s not vindictive, and it’s not a witch hunt or a guillotine party. It’s merely inevitable. Resources should be spent on the living. I don’t want to buy Chrysler or GM a shinier coffin. I want to buy the American people a shinier tomorrow. That tomorrow is not to be found in the cabin of a discontinued Cadillac or Hummer.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Interesting points, both of you. I'm not immovable. And now I've got new perspectives to look from. Thanks for that!

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 1:59 AM

AnthonyT

American auto makers exclusively pursued high-profit models like SUV's. It was in the interests of maximizing short-term profits.

They could have made and sold a high gas-mileage model as well, but then they'd have to spend twice as much (or more, since most components would not have been able to be borrowed from other car lines) on facilities and tooling and workforce. It would have cut down their profit margin. They went with what was immediately easy, convenient, available, and most of all - maximally profitable - future be damned.

BTW - you will find that true of all innovations over the years - fought tooth and nail by the auto industry as a whole: seat belts, catalytic converters, higher CAFE standards ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:13 AM

Hello,

You know what really chaps my shorts? A big, ugly, box-shaped monster of a vehicle like the Hummer could have easily been turned into a pure electric. In smaller cars, getting the right location and number of battery cells is a challenge. A Hummer’s gargantuan size would have solved any problems of finesse. They could have easily had a soul-crushing electric SUV operating on EV-1 technology that would’ve pleased both the Monstrous Truck and Tree Hugger demographic. Then, concept proved, they could have refined it to make electric SUV’s of smaller size, down to the smallest Jeep-like-vehicles.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:30 AM

Not about that in particular ...

I'm still waiting for my dream car - sigh. I guess I'll just have to keep on waiting.

Uses ethanol \ reformer \ fuel cell \ direct electric drive \ ...
***************************************************************

What more could anyone want ?

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:53 AM

Hello,

If I read that right, it uses a lot of different power sources?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2