Forum Replies Created
-
You do not get the simplest of concepts. Either a politician has principles or doesn’t. Once elected the principled politician works for the people rather than courting special interest money and relying upon congressional privilege yielding a very high re-election rate to ignore the best interests of their constituents.
You do not get the simplest of concepts. The private sector has far more power to harm individual Americans on a day to day basis than the government, and it owns that govermment. Whether we have venal politicians or not, the private sector, especially under capitalism, will screw people over, create massive poverty and suffering, and there is little the government can do about it. Unless, of course, you favor strong governmental intrusion and control over the economy, along with redress and mitigation — which, unless I misread you, you don’t.
So which is it? Do you want those politicians to crack down on all detrimental private sector activities, to constrain their bad practices, to prevent them from doing as they please? Or do you believe government should let business do business as business sees fit?
You can’t have it both ways.
Oh, and you also have to fund those public sector efforts, if you want government to stop the private sector from screwing over the people and corrupting society. You’d have to be in favor of much, much higher tax rates, especially on the rich for that — and, if I am not mistaken, you called our incredibly low taxes, “egregious beyond belief.”
So, please, bnw, spell it out. Because I’m very confused by your comments. Are you in favor of government letting business owners do as they please? Are you in favor of minarchy? Are you in favor of laissez faire? Or do you want the government to have the funding, staffing and power to come down hard on private sector wrongdoers.
In short, you can’t have it both ways, and I think you’re tying to do just that.
We’re a democratic republic, to distinguish us from other forms.
From Wiki:
Montesquieu included in his work “The Spirit of the Laws” both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.[6]
At least in theory. In practice, we’ve become an oligarchy, with a capitalist aristocracy running the show.
Beyond all of that, America is what we make it. It’s never been anything set in stone. It’s never remained “as the founders wanted it.” If that were so, we’d still have a slaveocracy, and only white men with property could vote.
If we want it to be a full and direct democracy, we have the ability to make that happen, as a people, and there is nothing to prevent that. If we want to democratize the economy, we can do that too. It’s up to us.
Thanks for the article, WV.
Speaking of Walter Karp. I read his excellent Liberty Under Siege, and highly recommend it.
And the book that pointed me in its direction, George Scialabba’s What are Intellectuals Good For. To me, it’s a must-read, especially for leftists.
(I’ve had discussions online with Scialabba. He has a very sharp mind, and a good heart. Good sense of humor as well.)
The thing is…if 9/11 was an elaborate inside job…and ELABORATE is what it would have been…they would have made it look like Iraqis did it. How easy would that have been? And that would have been that.
Instead, it inconveniently involved Saudis (our allies) and the trail led to Afghanistan, a country that is a complete waste of time to invade economically or strategically.
I mean…if you are going to go the monumental effort of working through the logistics of demolishing the WTC, it would have been small potatoes to frame somebody worth framing.
Very true. And, again, why on earth would the powers that be try to blow up the powers that be? It makes zero sense. It’s far too easy to inflict great harm on others outside the power structure, and blame whomever they want. It’s just absurd to believe they would try to blow up the Pentagon, the White House and one of the strongholds of the financial world in NYC.
Matt Taibbi demolished the truthers in several articles back in the day.
Edit: Now this is weird. Try googling “matt taibbi demolishes truthers.” It will take you to sites like the Rolling Stone, where he published them, but the stories seem to be gone. Hmmm. Perhaps the rabid truthers did their best to shut down anyone who dared suggest they were nuts. Online, I remember them being like flying monkeys. Crazed stalkers, too.
I view workers under contract as stakeholders too.
Thanks, bnw. That helps a lot. But you also probably know that most people, when they say “stakeholders,” mean investors, not workers. So that’s what threw me. I agree with your definition, btw, not “most people.”
Edit: But that leads to the next part of my confusion. Do you also consider those who are fired as a result of bankruptcies and takeovers as “stakeholders” too? Or just the workers who end up keeping their jobs even after the shenanigans go down?
bnw,
Okay. Well, if I read in volumes, please explain why you made most of your post about “protecting stakeholders,” and not workers. If I misread you, please say specifically what I got wrong. Me misreading someone wouldn’t be the first time, and it won’t be the last. So I’m fine with being corrected.
BTW,
I googled capital gains rates. They’re far, far lower than they were from the 1930s through the 1970s (until Reagan lowered them):
2016 federal income tax brackets
Tax rate on ordinary income Single Tax rate on qualified dividends and long term capital gains
over to
10% $0 $9,275 0%
15% $9,275 $37,650 0%
25% $37,650 $91,150 15%
28% $91,150 $190,150 15%
33% $190,150 $413,350 15%
35% $413,350 $415,050 15%
39.60% $415,050 20%I brought up the two taxes as examples of what politicians can legislate, taxes so egregious as to defy belief. Therefore protecting stakeholders as those in the Hostess Cakes scam would be a step in the right direction.
“So egregious as to defy belief”? Given the fact that American business and rich people in America in general pay the lowest in effective taxes of all but two OECD nations, you might want to dig deeper into that claim. And beyond those low, low effective taxes, no nation on earth is so good to business overall . . . in terms of defending, protecting, bailing out and promoting capitalism, externalizing its costs, supplementing its rotten wages, etc. . . . nor does any other nation on earth spend as much in wars designed to cram capitalism down the throats of nations that don’t want it.
In short, businesses in America pay a tiny fraction of a fraction of what they receive from government. They never come close to giving value for value.
Also, you’ve emphasized Trump’s supposed focus on jobs jobs jobs. But your main concern here appears to be with “stakeholders,” most of whom don’t hold their stocks for more than a day, and none of whom lifts a finger for that company. Labor appears as an after-thought, and you also qualify that with those under contract. Of course, in these situations, hundreds or thousands tend to be fired, so would they be justly compensated as well? Or, better yet, not fired in the first place?
From where I sit, your focus is misplaced and the idea that any American taxes on business and the rich are “egregious beyond belief” really, really baffles me — to put it most gently.
Talking monkeys with weapons-of-mass-destruction,
and a mega-efficient-corporate-system.Ah well.
At least we can embrace the knowledge that humans
have a ‘cooperative’ nature to go along with their
savage-nature. So, ya know, tribes of humans can cooperate
while their destroying the ‘others’.How should one live on such a planet-of-the-apes,
Billy? Such a challenge. I think i will have a banana
and weed my yard.I have no idea. And I’m guessing that question was mostly rhetorical, and you asked it with hands up in the air, flailing away. And I can only answer in the same way, hands in the air, flailing away.
Perhaps it’s all just another fiction to believe in, but I honestly think our best hope is that most people want to live in peace, and that most people don’t want to be Napoleons or caesars or tsars. And if we ever get to the point where no one needs to go to work for those Napoleons or caesars or tsars . . . we won’t have any real support for sociopaths, so they won’t be able to hurt others any more. No one will support their savagery.
Another lesson I’m drawing from the bio of the Romanovs — and strangely enough, from watching Game of Thrones over the years — is that those all-powerful leaders, even those with absolute power, are a mere mistake or two away from being assassinated themselves, and that they never could have terrorized their own people, much less others, on their own. It took massive compliance and complicity, from people who didn’t get the chance, or didn’t believe it was possible, to band together and resist.
So, I hope someday — and I won’t live to see it — we evolve enough that a critical mass of people see they don’t need to submit to monsters anymore. That those monsters really are nothing without mass support and the weapons of war. And that no one fears monsters any longer. Reverse engineer that . . . and the answer is kind of obvious to me. People need to join hands and say no to sociopaths and all forms of hierarchy.
The Bundys are right-wing domestic terrorists, deadbeats and criminals. Nothing more. No, the government didn’t “sucker them.” The government has been letting them off the hook for years for their unpaid fees and criminal abuse of public lands . . . and when the Bundy terrorists gathered, fully armed, to prevent the lawful execution of government duties a few years ago, regarding the Bundy’s own failure to pay their debts, the government backed down.
Imagine a group of armed blacks doing that. Or Native Americans. They’d be slaughtered.
And then there was Oregon. No one asked them to grandstand there. The town didn’t want them there. Hell, the two pyromaniacs they supposedly came to support admitted their guilt and didn’t want any more trouble. The Bundys threatened the locals and scared the people thier half to death. The Bundy terrorists, fully armed, decided they needed to occupy a national park preserve and prevent all other Americans from enjoying it.
They’re classic terrorists. They sought to threaten locals towns people, park employees and local authorities and their families in order to make a political statement. That statement boils down to the bizarre belief that our national park lands somehow belong rightfully to private ranchers, and not all of us.
They’re scum, and most of them are white supremacists to boot.
From where I sit, no one should be a cop on the streets if he or she thinks shoot first, or feels instantly threatened by unarmed teens they are supposed to “protect and serve.” They shouldn’t be on the streets if they do as the cop did in the Michael Brown case . . . get out of his car, after Brown had walked away, go after him — while saying he felt in fear of his life — and shoot him down.
Wait in the car, call for backup. Or send other officers to Brown’s home if he must. But there is no reason or excuse to escalate the confrontation — especially when the cop says he fears for his life.
If a cop is too fearful to try to deescalate things with citizens, he’s too fearful to be on the streets with a badge and a gun. If the first thing he or she thinks about is self-preservation at all costs, he or she is in the wrong line of work.
So many cases now to look at, tragically. But the Laquan McDonald murder comes to mind. A teen with a knife, obviously having major issues. The cops could easily have gotten him off the streets without firing a shot. They have all kinds of tools at their disposal, and if they don’t feel competent to deal with it, if they can’t talk him down, call for backup. Nets, sprays, hell, tear gas, while causing a great deal of pain, is preferable to shooting someone to death. There is just no reason in 99% of these cases to jump straight to killing mode.
Yes it is all on the politicians. It is easy to see the new owners turned the company around to take their windfall profit. They screwed over people they owed money. It is a form of fraud or should be. That is up to the politicians. The politicians who remain easily bought. The value in the company is the product it produced. The company still exists making the same products so those creditors should be paid. Labor under contract should have some value stake in the business but again that is up to the politicians.
It always starts with the politicians.
I guess you and I will just never see things like this the same way. And not saying you believe this, cuz I don’t know, but most people on the right constantly tell us that government should get out of the way, leave business alone, let it do as it pleases. They want our gubmint to be laissez faire. But, at the same time, they’re the first people to blame government when it fails to stop private sector venality. Can’t have it both ways. Do they want the government in or out? If they say out, they can’t then blame it for failing to step in and stop fraud, abuse, exploitation, etc. etc.
Another way to look at this: Rapists and murderers. Government can’t always prevent their actions. When it can’t, is that “all on the politicians,” or is that on the rapists and murderers? Moving over to the actions of business owners, financiers, hedge fund guys, corporate raiders and the like . . . . These are adults. They know right from wrong. They know when their actions hurt workers, their families, the communities and so on, but they still do these things. Shouldn’t they be held responsible for their own choices, and the consequences of those choices? Their own actions, and the repercussions? Is it really the fault of mommy and daddy gubmint for not preventing adults who should know better from doing these things?
As to the question regarding how these things transfer from generation to generation. It’s pretty much how things like religious preference transfer, too. A lot of people just “trust” their parents and don’t think they’d tell them something that was wrong — to believe in or do. Lots of studies also show that people will dig in even deeper when confronted with evidence that goes against their beliefs.
These studies say this is more common with those on the right than the left — but it’s something that impacts a lot of people. They dig in. They’re just more likely to believe their own parents, or their ministers, or their neighbors, than any “ivory tower egg-head.” Though I’m sure they’re using different terms for that these days.
Sadly, changing these attitudes is just going to take time, and we’ll have to move through the generations a bit longer. It’s so much a part of our American history, as you’ve noted . . . and even with people like Lincoln, who fit the classic definition of “racist,” at least until his last two years or so. And he was one of the good guys in his day, being an anti-slavery advocate for his entire adult life.
Tragedy, thy name is America.
