I got to thinking about this theory of corporate subjugation of people... which seems to be the big fear and need for more BIG government protection (as if the rule of law somehow wasn't sufficient... THAT I still don't get). Not only that, but the government has to be centralized, you know, where's it's "harder" to corrupt a few officials at the top (yeah, that's sarcasm). Anyhow, your fear that Apple (one of the largest wealthiest companies in the world) is somehow out to subjugate you, I was wonder.... IS there ANY examples of a company ever in the history of humanity subjugating people WITHOUT using government as a proxy? I mean, I can think of examples of Big Government subjugating people all f-ing day long: North Korea, Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, Theocratic Iran/KSA/, Syria, Egypt etc... etc... etc.... YET, I don't seem to be able to come up with a corporation actually subjugating people. YET, this is the big argument... we need government to "protect us"? Protect us from who??? The only examples I see of people getting subjugated IS from government. Corporations run with their tails between their legs the minute class action law suits are tossed into their face. USUALLY to their mates in BIG government to try to "do something" to change the law or delay it. See, what it seems to really come down to for most people is they don't want to loose their entitlements. They love big government because big government steals from one group to give to another. Well, THAT is violence. If you want to address THAT issue then I think it can be addressed monetarily. Let's face it, most people actually would like to work in a productive job. So, it's again, a monetary issue.
Yeah a better economy for every one, including that poor sap working for Walmart. The economy today is certainly much better than it was when President Obama was sworn in to office in January of 2009 and the economy continues to grow under President Obama. In 2014 that poor sap will have full access to complete and affordable healthcare, assuming Republicans (e.g. Paul) don't achieve power, something he/she does not now enjoy. Michael, not everything you read from right wing whacko blogs is truthful especially when they immediately contradict themselves. per your reference, "In “Bernanke Admits He’s Clueless On Economy’s Soft Patch”, Forbes blogger Agustino Fontevecchia notes: Brutally honest, Bernanke admitted that he had no clue what was actually causing the current fragility in the U.S. economic recovery. While the FOMC statement assigned blame outside of the U.S., pointing at Japan along with rising food and oil prices, " Saying in one sentence that Bernanke admits he is clueless about the slowness in the economy and then in the next sentence giving the Feds/his explanation for the slowness. Two, you need to stop referencing advocates who are being paid to advance a position rather than independent objective credible sources. Milton Freidman, while popular with right wingers, has been debunked. Additionally, Freidman's theories applied to a condition we do not now have nor have had for decades - stagflation. Friedman endorsed the Federal Reserves roll in moderately expanding the money supply. No for several reasons, one being the Constitution does not allow it.
A couple of things Michael, first hearsay is not proof which is what your article amounts to, hearsay no less from a partisan advocate. Two, no one including the current Federal Reserve Chairman, Bernanke is saying that monetary solutions are the cure to all that ails the nation. In fact Bernanke has testified before Congress on many occasions noting that fact. There is this little thing called fiscal policy that needs to work in conjunction with monetary policy to move the economy to full capacity. But it just so happens that given Republican intransigence and devotion to irresponsible fiscal behavior (e.g. intentionally causing an unnecessary default), there is little room for responsible fiscal policy until at least after the election. And finally, you want a case for the Fed? Just look at what is happening to Europe. The EU now has a mess on their hands in no small part because they have chosen to go down the path you and your fellows are advocating. That is why they are now choosing to form a stronger central government and enhancing the roll of the European central bank - moving more similar to the US central bank.
Why do you think a powerless, ineffective government will be more effective than one that has the authority to perform its functions? That's even dumber.
To perform what functions? Why will it be powerless? It won't be powerless. We will still live under the rule of law. Who said small Government will be ineffective? Government's enforce the Law - regardless if it's a big or small the government is. A good example of ineffective government is Corzine - he literally stole money directly out of people's accounts (something that has NEVER been done since the East Indian Tea Company created Markets) and he's not going to go to jail. Big government, is doing nothing to prevent Banking theft. Yeah, they wrote a new bill, and it did nothing. Why don't you go down and take some money directly from a private account - see how fast you find yourself in prison. How many Banking CEOs, who stole TRILLIONS, are in prison? NONE. How many OWS protestors are in or went to prison .... THOUSANDS!
Joe, I'm awaiting your opinion on the fact that numerous Nobel Prize winning Professors of Economics support ending the corrupt Federal Reserve system. Do you agree? I mean, these are "Scientists" (to you anyway) and they've "Done the Math" and Won the Nobel Prize in Economics and are calling to END THE FED! Do you agree with Science Joe? Should we END THE FED?
The Rule of Law is how corruption is dealt with. As I said, Apple Corp is one of the largest corporations on the Planet (in History) and I am in no way shape or form worried about Apple. I do not think that Apple did not become some evil empire only because some douche bureaucrat in Washington came up with some regulation. Markets just don't work that way unless there's monopoly - for which we have laws. Those Laws came out of a pretty small government. My guess is Apple wouldn't want to tarnish it's image by doing something that was overtly against the population. Take the example of an executive groping a woman at Apple. Paul said she could leave. But that's only part of his answer. He suggests that the employer would probably fire the executive as this would tarnish the brand. I agree. In a healthy economy that woman could probably go and work at another business. AND, get this, it is against the law to grope. She could sue him. Lastly, making personal sexual wisecracks that if they were really intrusive would probably see the executive canned because productivity would decrease as lots of employees wouldn't be happy at work. In a competitive market there's no place for it. But, you seem to think NO what we need is a BIGGER more intrusive bureaucracy... as if this is magically dong to change a pig into a man. THAT'S what's crazy talk. Paul's the only one that actually makes any logical well thought out sense. JUST like in the case of the Federal Reserve. He wrote a book called End the Fed. Now we have the 2011 Nobel Prize winner calling to end the federal reserve system. THAT should tell you the actually Paul is on to something. He's thought about it, he understands it. Both as a person who has been in and out of government for 3 decades and as a business person and as an economist. Lastly, Obama just signed into Law on New Years Eve the National Defense Authorization Act into Law. Now the military can pick American Citizens up inside America and detain them Indefinitely without trial. There's your Big Government Joe. I hope you're happy. Keeping you safe from Scary Islamic Terrorists and Scary Apply Corporation one Civil Right at a time.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think you clearly demonstrated my point. You don't understand that corruption exists in private industry. I suggest you go back and read some recent history (e.g. the great recession of 2008). You don't have to look far to find cases of corporate corruption. In your example of the woman being wronged, you clearly don't understand what it takes for a woman/individual to bring a law suit against a fully staffed money rich corporation. It isn't as easy as you seem to think. And yeah we have laws against monopolies, but that does not mean they don't exist. Because they do. They have gotten Congress to exempt them from the antitrust laws. Our antitrust laws are riddled with exemptions just like our tax code, because special interests can buy the legislation they want. And two, you don't have a Noble Prize winning economists calling for the end of the Federal Reserve - that is just more fantasy. No one of merit is seriously calling for the end of the Federal Reserve/the central banking system.
There is just one small problem with your position which has been repeatedly pointed out to you and for which you have repeatedly ignored. There is no evidence to support your claims - one of those minor details you like to repeatedly ignore because reality does not support your notions.
You are as ignorant of the history of Civil Rights in this country as you are of the growth of the Railroads in the US which led to the Robber Barons which led to the large investment Banks which you routinely disparage. http://www.raken.com/american_wealth/Gilded_age_index4.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877
True, but then I don't expect Apple to promote domestic tranquility or keep the peace or regulate the money supply or do any of the many things that I DO expect the government to do. It's not even comparing Apples to Oranges its more like comparing an Apple to a whole grocery store.
Why yes, because no Banking CEOs in fact stole TRILLIONS. You just make this BS up don't you? More BS, a few got arrested most on misdemeanors but NONE went to Prison.
Two things we have to clear up now: 1) National Defense Authorization Act Really Arther? You support this bullshit? You're really THAT worried about "Islamic Terrorists" that you're willing to give up even more freedoms and to give the government even MORE legal authority over your life? I really don't know what to say??? I suppose I didn't realize Americans had been reduced so low. Sure, I was expecting Obama to repeal the Patriot Act... instead he has strengthened it. I knew Americans were cattle but I hadn't realized they'd been domesticated to this extent.... I really don't know what to say. The country is f*cked. Thank the Gods I can watch from the sidelines. Three myths about the detention bill Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill Think about this logically. We've fought two World Wars - we didn't pass any draconian laws like this. The whole 9/11 official record is that a minority of radicals from a small group of fanatical Muslims drove some plans into the buildings. Well, Osama is dead and the network dismantled. Why more restrictions on US and why NOW? It just makes NO logical sense to restrict our freedoms. For f*cks sake. Even if it's theoretically possible we need to get rid of these laws. Who in their right mind could support Obama after this? It's crazy. 2) Argument FROM Professors and Nobel Prize winning Economists to either END or severely curtail the Federal Reserve System. Famed economist Milton Friedman and Nobel Laurette wanted to end the Fed: Joseph Stiglitz – former head economist at the World Bank and a nobel-prize winner – said yesterday that the very structure of the Federal Reserve system is so fraught with conflicts that it is “corrupt” and undermines democracy. Thomas Sargent, current 2011 Nobel Prize winner of Economics: While I'll agree he didn't come out and say END THE FED he does hint around that this is his feeling. Perhaps he's worried he'd tip over an already f*cked up system had he been more direct? There's no denying he thinks it should be dramatically changed. Original interview here. Again, logically speaking, you should be OPEN at least to the idea that the Federal Reserve system can and should be improved (even ended) - which may mean reducing it's size and stranglehold over the economy. Any "Scientist" must be open to their pet theory being proven wrong. That's how it works Joe. You wanted to be an scientist - - start acting like one Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What caused the financial crises of 2009? What role did Banks play? ANY? Oh yeah, I forgot, you still think Cortzine is innocent of any and all wrong doing and hey, so he pilfered people's private accounts, something that's never been done ever - f*ck em. Yeah, you'll never agree the Bankers ever did anything wrong or illegal because they will never be prosecuted. Nice little trick. Really no different than most mafioso if you think about it. Most of them never did anything illegal either - as most never went to prison. Only someone living in la la land would think that. Yes, innocent until proven guilty. But you know what, when dead bodies are found in a Bankers' backyard YOU GOD DAMN look into it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You know what Obama did instead - hired the bastards! More than any previous POTUS. Can't look into the Banks misdeeds.... THAT might upset the market. He's not doing anything about it, he's part it. People keep clamoring for the government to save them from the Banks and Corporations - the government sold you to the Banks and Corporations and they're doing their utmost to seal the deal.
You are great at accusations, but you have yet to produce a shred of evidence to support your accusations. Unfortunately for Republicans/conservatives we just don't throw people into jail in this country on a whim or because it is politically expedient to do so.
Ron Paul looses in his strongest state. The real question now is does Ron Paul run as a third party candidate?
OK, Joe, I have a couple questions for you. Do you think that the Bush administration purposely misled the American public into the Iraq War with false claims of WMD and tying 9/11 to Iraq in the minds of most Americans? Tens of thousands of American Citizens are either DEAD or missing limbs, eyes, arms and/or permanently damaged mentally. Where is their justice Joe?
He's going to stay in the GOP primary race. Sanatorium Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! is evidence of one thing in my mind: Americans will not elect a Mormon no more than they'll elect an Atheist. At least not that massive Conservative Christian fundamental base that is the GOP. Even I, were I to run for office in America, would pretend to be a Christian. That leaves Paul. Santorum is like a Gingrich or Trump or Bachmann etc... they peak and subside, while RP supporters redouble their efforts and continue the fight. 90% of Santorum voters picked him that day or the week before, they'll leave him just as quickly. That's the way I see things anyway :shrug: That said, I'd love to see a third Libertarian party in the USA. Sign me up.
