FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Keiser Report Christmas Edition with Russell Brand

Keiser Report Christmas Edition with Russell Brand

(26:00) Russell Brand discusses his highlights of 2014, inequality, and crypto-currencies, with Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert.
Russell Brand's book 'Revolution' is available from: Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guesting (1043 days ago)

"Inequality – never has been a problem."

Jaw-dropping. Read your history. Or economic theory. Or socioloigical studies. Or psychological studies. Or medicine.

Jaw-dropping. And hugely ignorant.

ReplyVote up (169)down (162)
Original comment

"Inequality – never has been a problem."

Jaw-dropping. Read your history. Or economic theory. Or socioloigical studies. Or psychological studies. Or medicine.

Jaw-dropping. And hugely ignorant.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1045 days ago)

I lived in the UK in the 70’s and I don’t recall clothing costing too much money. Surely the costs didn’t increase more than inflation since then. With all the money that Russell Brand has, why can’t he buy a clean shirt and pants without holes in them? You can buy them cheap at a 2nd hand store or thrift shop. Couldn’t he at least wash the shirt and take a bath?

Regarding the highlights of the video:
Inequality – never has been a problem. You do not want everyone earning the same amount of money as that is not fair. Russell is estimated to be worth $15 million and is in the 1% but thinks everyone should have equality in their income. That’s called a hypocrite.

Crypto-currencies: They mentioned you would be able to move money around the world without incurring any costs. Have they considered how this new currency could impact terrorist funding and money laundering? Who is going to oversee these transfers so appropriate actions can be taken such as taxing corporations that bring in funds from their foreign subsidiaries?

NHS: I found it interesting they mentioned NHS workers did not want their facilities to become privatized. I’m friends with several doctors in the USA and they are afraid of being under more government control. Even in the UK, doctors are allowed to be private doctors and people can pay extra to go to a private doctor instead of going through the NHS system and many people do pay that.

ReplyVote up (170)down (266)
Original comment

I lived in the UK in the 70’s and I don’t recall clothing costing too much money. Surely the costs didn’t increase more than inflation since then. With all the money that Russell Brand has, why can’t he buy a clean shirt and pants without holes in them? You can buy them cheap at a 2nd hand store or thrift shop. Couldn’t he at least wash the shirt and take a bath?

Regarding the highlights of the video:
Inequality – never has been a problem. You do not want everyone earning the same amount of money as that is not fair. Russell is estimated to be worth $15 million and is in the 1% but thinks everyone should have equality in their income. That’s called a hypocrite.

Crypto-currencies: They mentioned you would be able to move money around the world without incurring any costs. Have they considered how this new currency could impact terrorist funding and money laundering? Who is going to oversee these transfers so appropriate actions can be taken such as taxing corporations that bring in funds from their foreign subsidiaries?

NHS: I found it interesting they mentioned NHS workers did not want their facilities to become privatized. I’m friends with several doctors in the USA and they are afraid of being under more government control. Even in the UK, doctors are allowed to be private doctors and people can pay extra to go to a private doctor instead of going through the NHS system and many people do pay that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SAT-A-NA (1044 days ago)

aaaaahhhh... just shut the hell up you old fart!

ReplyVote up (153)down (112)
Original comment

aaaaahhhh... just shut the hell up you old fart!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1044 days ago)

I see you're a Russell lover.

ReplyVote up (157)down (140)
Original comment

I see you're a Russell lover.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SAT-A-NA (1044 days ago)

did you just call me a homo, you duck shagger?

ReplyVote up (151)down (158)
Original comment

did you just call me a homo, you duck shagger?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1044 days ago)

Not directly but you didn't counter any of the points that I made so I made an assumption.

ReplyVote up (144)down (165)
Original comment

Not directly but you didn't counter any of the points that I made so I made an assumption.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SAT-A-NA (1044 days ago)

how old are you anyway? 70? how the hell did you find this website? you should be in a care home or maybe a retirement community since you're a rich capitalist pig. look into Sarasota Bay Club. Take your misses with you.

ReplyVote up (155)down (160)
Original comment

how old are you anyway? 70? how the hell did you find this website? you should be in a care home or maybe a retirement community since you're a rich capitalist pig. look into Sarasota Bay Club. Take your misses with you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1044 days ago)

Are you trying to say that old people don't know how to use a computer? Have you considered with age comes experience and knowledge? I probably finished my education and first couple careers before you were born.

I might end up in a nursing home one day but as long as I'm mobile and able to take care of myself, Iwill continue to stay home and earn as much money that I can to maintain the great lifestyle that I'm used to.

Disclaimer: Subject to change if I get tired of working and want a change in lifestyle. I want to leave my options open.

ReplyVote up (155)down (142)
Original comment

Are you trying to say that old people don't know how to use a computer? Have you considered with age comes experience and knowledge? I probably finished my education and first couple careers before you were born.

I might end up in a nursing home one day but as long as I'm mobile and able to take care of myself, Iwill continue to stay home and earn as much money that I can to maintain the great lifestyle that I'm used to.

Disclaimer: Subject to change if I get tired of working and want a change in lifestyle. I want to leave my options open.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SAT-A-NA (1043 days ago)

so you admit that you're a farting dinosaur, right?

ReplyVote up (136)down (158)
Original comment

so you admit that you're a farting dinosaur, right?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1044 days ago)

Oh, and by the way, you should know approximately how old I am because others have been able to find my social networking pages and have seen photos of Mrs. cengland0 and myself. As young as you are, you should be an expert in finding that information. I have it open to the public so people don't even need to be a friend to view.

ReplyVote up (159)down (157)
Original comment

Oh, and by the way, you should know approximately how old I am because others have been able to find my social networking pages and have seen photos of Mrs. cengland0 and myself. As young as you are, you should be an expert in finding that information. I have it open to the public so people don't even need to be a friend to view.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SAT-A-NA (1043 days ago)

ha ha grandpa.

the truth is that your not that important and that i don't really care about your age or you.

As easy as it might be for me to see the face of your misses or your youtube ducks, i'm not going to do it because i don't care.

you're irrelevant.

i don't care about you , grandpa. I don't care anymore for your senile oppinion either.

lol

death is creeping in on you anyways, lolz.

ReplyVote up (158)down (151)
Original comment

ha ha grandpa.

the truth is that your not that important and that i don't really care about your age or you.

As easy as it might be for me to see the face of your misses or your youtube ducks, i'm not going to do it because i don't care.

you're irrelevant.

i don't care about you , grandpa. I don't care anymore for your senile oppinion either.

lol

death is creeping in on you anyways, lolz.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1043 days ago)

If you don't care then why did you ask? And since I don't have any children of my own, I am not a grandpa. I am a great uncle though.

ReplyVote up (160)down (165)
Original comment

If you don't care then why did you ask? And since I don't have any children of my own, I am not a grandpa. I am a great uncle though.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SAT-A-NA (1043 days ago)

technically, you win.

congratulations, you old fart!

ReplyVote up (158)down (159)
Original comment

technically, you win.

congratulations, you old fart!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1043 days ago)

Don't forget, you claim you are skeptical about EVERYTHING.

Inequality: "Russell is estimated to be worth $15 million and is in the 1% but thinks everyone should have equality in their income." Why do you come out with a statement that doesn't even make sense.? What does "… everyone should have equality in their income" even mean?

Then you call him a hypocrite. C'mon, at least pretend you're thinking. Can a rich guy not criticise the rich because he is rich? Can a poor guy not criticise the poor because he is poor? When a poor guy criticises the rich, does that mean he is jealous? Can a guy not criticise a mother because he will never carry a baby? Why is a rich guy, like Russell Brand, a hypocrite when he fights for the rights of poor people?

Consider the arguments and ditch the ad hominem attacks, that's my advice to you.

Crypto-currencies: "Have they considered how this new currency could impact terrorist funding and money laundering?" I hope so, but I don't yet understand crypto-currencies well enough to comment - except, have you considered how banks impact on terrorist funding and money laundering?

Question to a banking expert: Is it possible that a mafia could exist without the money laundering services of a bank?

NHS: You really don't know what you're talking about. Here's a study that shows the NHS to be among the most efficient and effective health system in the developed world. The US system ranks among the least efficient and effective. LINK

Question is, will you put on your skeptical hat and question your core beliefs with the same enthusiasm as you question everything else?

ReplyVote up (148)down (154)
Original comment

Don't forget, you claim you are skeptical about EVERYTHING.

Inequality: "Russell is estimated to be worth $15 million and is in the 1% but thinks everyone should have equality in their income." Why do you come out with a statement that doesn't even make sense.? What does "… everyone should have equality in their income" even mean?

Then you call him a hypocrite. C'mon, at least pretend you're thinking. Can a rich guy not criticise the rich because he is rich? Can a poor guy not criticise the poor because he is poor? When a poor guy criticises the rich, does that mean he is jealous? Can a guy not criticise a mother because he will never carry a baby? Why is a rich guy, like Russell Brand, a hypocrite when he fights for the rights of poor people?

Consider the arguments and ditch the ad hominem attacks, that's my advice to you.

Crypto-currencies: "Have they considered how this new currency could impact terrorist funding and money laundering?" I hope so, but I don't yet understand crypto-currencies well enough to comment - except, have you considered how banks impact on terrorist funding and money laundering?

Question to a banking expert: Is it possible that a mafia could exist without the money laundering services of a bank?

NHS: You really don't know what you're talking about. Here's a study that shows the NHS to be among the most efficient and effective health system in the developed world. The US system ranks among the least efficient and effective. LINK

Question is, will you put on your skeptical hat and question your core beliefs with the same enthusiasm as you question everything else?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1043 days ago)

Of course not.

The question of Cary's role an an astroturfer has already been raised. That's a definite possibility.

We also have his documented reputation as a pedlar of falsehoods aka liar.

Moreover, we see how he just drops out of discussions (or cranks up the ad hominem attacks) when he's been painted into a corner. This makes me think he's not interested in debate for the purpose of exploring his own ideas, so much as furthering his own political agenda ("educating" us is his expression) - or just plain, old-fashioned sh1t-stirring.

By the way, have you read Jon Ronson's "The psychopath test"? If not, it's an entertaining read and lists a number of chracteristics including:

Failure to conform to social norms
Being deceitful.
Being impulsive.
Being irritable and aggressive.
Showing a lack of remorse.

Far be it from me to suggest Cary is a psychopath, but there's always the question that "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

ReplyVote up (181)down (167)
Original comment

Of course not.

The question of Cary's role an an astroturfer has already been raised. That's a definite possibility.

We also have his documented reputation as a pedlar of falsehoods aka liar.

Moreover, we see how he just drops out of discussions (or cranks up the ad hominem attacks) when he's been painted into a corner. This makes me think he's not interested in debate for the purpose of exploring his own ideas, so much as furthering his own political agenda ("educating" us is his expression) - or just plain, old-fashioned sh1t-stirring.

By the way, have you read Jon Ronson's "The psychopath test"? If not, it's an entertaining read and lists a number of chracteristics including:

Failure to conform to social norms
Being deceitful.
Being impulsive.
Being irritable and aggressive.
Showing a lack of remorse.

Far be it from me to suggest Cary is a psychopath, but there's always the question that "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1043 days ago)

Not sure what makes you believe I'm an astroturfer. Who do you think pays me to type about my personal views? If you think there is a company that would pay for this service, please let me know. I'd like to receive payment for my efforts if I can but I'm not currently receiving any funding. How much money do you think I can earn on a monthly basis by doing my hobby?

ReplyVote up (147)down (159)
Original comment

Not sure what makes you believe I'm an astroturfer. Who do you think pays me to type about my personal views? If you think there is a company that would pay for this service, please let me know. I'd like to receive payment for my efforts if I can but I'm not currently receiving any funding. How much money do you think I can earn on a monthly basis by doing my hobby?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1043 days ago)

Who said I believe you're an astroturfer? I merely commented the question had been raised and it's a possibility.

I notice you didn't comment on the other possibilities so I can only conclude you agree you're a lying, psychopathic, sh1t-stirrer who's not interested in debate to explore your own ideas - but merely to further your own political agenda.

(Do you see how your style of argument works against you yet?)

ReplyVote up (155)down (127)
Original comment

Who said I believe you're an astroturfer? I merely commented the question had been raised and it's a possibility.

I notice you didn't comment on the other possibilities so I can only conclude you agree you're a lying, psychopathic, sh1t-stirrer who's not interested in debate to explore your own ideas - but merely to further your own political agenda.

(Do you see how your style of argument works against you yet?)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1043 days ago)

“I notice you didn't comment on the other possibilities” Have you considered the other things you listed were intended to be insulting and did not need any response?

ReplyVote up (156)down (139)
Original comment

“I notice you didn't comment on the other possibilities” Have you considered the other things you listed were intended to be insulting and did not need any response?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1043 days ago)

We've already documented your lying, so I don't see why you should find such a statement of fact insulting.

As for being a psychopath, that's a description of a mental condition: why should that be insulting? You shouldn't be too touchy about these things - I understand a lot of "successful" bankers display the traits of psychopathy.

In the UK we use the term "sh1t-stirrer" (obviously without substituting the "i" for "1") as a robust term for "wind-up merchant" or "provacateur" - which is what you are. If you find that insulting then your sensibilities are delicate indeed.

So overall, I would have been surprised if you honestly felt insulted - so no insult intended.

ReplyVote up (158)down (154)
Original comment

We've already documented your lying, so I don't see why you should find such a statement of fact insulting.

As for being a psychopath, that's a description of a mental condition: why should that be insulting? You shouldn't be too touchy about these things - I understand a lot of "successful" bankers display the traits of psychopathy.

In the UK we use the term "sh1t-stirrer" (obviously without substituting the "i" for "1") as a robust term for "wind-up merchant" or "provacateur" - which is what you are. If you find that insulting then your sensibilities are delicate indeed.

So overall, I would have been surprised if you honestly felt insulted - so no insult intended.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1043 days ago)

"We've already documented your lying, so I don't see why you should find such a statement of fact insulting." Disagree. I have never lied so it is impossible for you to find any message that shows that I lied.

I will admit to being wrong twice and I admitted my error in the two threads where I realized I was in wrong. One was about the Monty Hall problem and I cannot remember what the other one was.

ReplyVote up (162)down (154)
Original comment

"We've already documented your lying, so I don't see why you should find such a statement of fact insulting." Disagree. I have never lied so it is impossible for you to find any message that shows that I lied.

I will admit to being wrong twice and I admitted my error in the two threads where I realized I was in wrong. One was about the Monty Hall problem and I cannot remember what the other one was.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1043 days ago)

LINK

LINK

LINK

Here's some information on veggie alternatives to oily fish LINK - it's supposed to help with memory

ReplyVote up (162)down (161)
Original comment

LINK

LINK

LINK

Here's some information on veggie alternatives to oily fish LINK - it's supposed to help with memory

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1043 days ago)

What in the world are you talking about? None of those links show that I lied to anything. It seems you just picked a few random threads that I typed something in.

ReplyVote up (146)down (143)
Original comment

What in the world are you talking about? None of those links show that I lied to anything. It seems you just picked a few random threads that I typed something in.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1043 days ago)

We've already touched on deceit being a trait of psychopathy.

In LINK you were called on a "fib" by MyName and you had to backtrack

In LINK you state you heard a cop say something and when pushed to give the time-marker on the video, you had to backtrack again.

I notice you're not even attempting to duck out of being a sh1t-stirrer

ReplyVote up (158)down (144)
Original comment

We've already touched on deceit being a trait of psychopathy.

In LINK you were called on a "fib" by MyName and you had to backtrack

In LINK you state you heard a cop say something and when pushed to give the time-marker on the video, you had to backtrack again.

I notice you're not even attempting to duck out of being a sh1t-stirrer

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1043 days ago)

Unbelievable what you consider a liar. In the MyName situation, I intended to reply to one person and I clicked on the wrong reply (or I thought I replied to one but replied to another — I cannot remember all the details). I made a mistake and came clean about the mistake. That does not make me a liar but it does make me human and that I do make mistakes. Read up on my response and you can see where I admit to the reply being associated with the wrong person and the indention was not correct.

The other one regarding the laser, that’s not lying either. I made a comment about with the video title stating “Laser Pointer Leads to Arrest” and that was different from the Boreme title that says “Laser pointing leads to FBI arrest.” So the error was from you, TheBob, because you made an assumption about which title I was referring and you were wrong. It was a laser pointer that was used according to the video and you thought it was something else. You were wrong, I was right, and now you’re trying to make it look like I was a liar. Fail.

It seems like you feel if someone makes a mistake or error, that makes them a liar. If I had a car accident, that is a mistake, not a lie. A lie is something intentionally and deliberately untruthful. I never do that. If I don’t want someone to know something, I will refuse to give that information instead of making up an untruthful story.

ReplyVote up (143)down (160)
Original comment

Unbelievable what you consider a liar. In the MyName situation, I intended to reply to one person and I clicked on the wrong reply (or I thought I replied to one but replied to another — I cannot remember all the details). I made a mistake and came clean about the mistake. That does not make me a liar but it does make me human and that I do make mistakes. Read up on my response and you can see where I admit to the reply being associated with the wrong person and the indention was not correct.

The other one regarding the laser, that’s not lying either. I made a comment about with the video title stating “Laser Pointer Leads to Arrest” and that was different from the Boreme title that says “Laser pointing leads to FBI arrest.” So the error was from you, TheBob, because you made an assumption about which title I was referring and you were wrong. It was a laser pointer that was used according to the video and you thought it was something else. You were wrong, I was right, and now you’re trying to make it look like I was a liar. Fail.

It seems like you feel if someone makes a mistake or error, that makes them a liar. If I had a car accident, that is a mistake, not a lie. A lie is something intentionally and deliberately untruthful. I never do that. If I don’t want someone to know something, I will refuse to give that information instead of making up an untruthful story.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1039 days ago)

Cary, Cary, quite contrary. Trying to obfuscate again.

Your lie wasn't about the title of the Laser video. You specifically claimed "At the end of the video, you can hear the cop saying they recovered the laser pointer from the suspect."

That wasn't a mistake - it wasn't like the cop said something similar that you misheard. It was deliberate misinformation that you posted, probably hoping nobody was going to check. Well, you've been called and found wanting.

You have an established and documented reputation as a liar.

ReplyVote up (157)down (128)
Original comment

Cary, Cary, quite contrary. Trying to obfuscate again.

Your lie wasn't about the title of the Laser video. You specifically claimed "At the end of the video, you can hear the cop saying they recovered the laser pointer from the suspect."

That wasn't a mistake - it wasn't like the cop said something similar that you misheard. It was deliberate misinformation that you posted, probably hoping nobody was going to check. Well, you've been called and found wanting.

You have an established and documented reputation as a liar.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1043 days ago)

“Why do you come out with a statement that doesn't even make sense.? What does "… everyone should have equality in their income" even mean?” What do you mean by what do I mean? I’m not the one asking for income equality. Russell Brand and the rest of you UK people are upset that some billionaires make more money and own more resources than the rest of the 99% of the citizens. Russell is part of that 1% so it’s obvious he doesn’t really want equality or he would voluntarily redistribute his extra wealth to the poor.

“When a poor guy criticises the rich, does that mean he is jealous?” I think so, yes. What other reasons would you criticize the rich if they don’t directly impact you other than being jealous that you don’t think they deserve to have what they have or earn? The question goes back to you. Do you think the rich deserve what they earn? My guess is that you don't think they deserve it and that's what makes you jealous.

“when he fights for the rights of poor people?” Is that what you think he’s doing? What rights are taken away from the poor people that the rich people have?

“have you considered how banks impact on terrorist funding and money laundering?” Absolutely. I go through training on this every single year at least for 18 of the 24 years of my financial experience. What I can tell you is that banks have processes and procedures in place to help minimize terrorist funding and money laundering. When banks are taken out of the loop and you have direct transferring of funding through crypto-currencies, I do not see how you can have the same processes and procedures. For example, with crypto-currencies, can I transfer a million dollars without the government knowing? If there are dollar limits, can I setup a program to do a million one-dollar transfers to get around that? I see huge gaps in this and it doesn’t seem good for auditing purposes.

“Is it possible that a mafia could exist without the money laundering services of a bank?” There are mafias that exist right now and they do exist without money laundering. What’s your point? Should we get rid of our police force because there are already criminals out there?

“Here's a study that shows the NHS to be among the most efficient and effective health system in the developed world. “ I think you misunderstood the study because it says it’s the most “cost-effective&rdq uo; not the most effective. If I was hurt and needed medical service, I wouldn’t necessarily want the cheapest service — I would want the best service. Your costs in the UK are 9.3% of GDP and ours is 15%. I would pay more for better service especially when it comes to my health.

The additional costs in the USA could be attributed to more obesity and diabetes that cause our costs to go up and is not directly related to the costs of healthcare as much as it is the costs of bad diet.

“The NHS reduced the number of adult deaths a million of the population by 3,951 a year – far better than the nearest comparable European countries.” Convenient that they left off the US for comparison. It was also not clear what their criteria is. For example, if someone goes into the NHS system with a broken arm and leave alive, does that count toward their positive numbers? It is worded awkwardly too. Out of a million, only 3,951 were saved? One thing we know from that article is that cancer survival rates were not included in the numbers. Why not? My skeptical mind makes me think they do things like that to make the numbers look better than they really are.

If the NHS system was so great, the rich people wouldn’t be paying for private doctors but the fact is that they do.

ReplyVote up (155)down (146)
Original comment

“Why do you come out with a statement that doesn't even make sense.? What does "… everyone should have equality in their income" even mean?” What do you mean by what do I mean? I’m not the one asking for income equality. Russell Brand and the rest of you UK people are upset that some billionaires make more money and own more resources than the rest of the 99% of the citizens. Russell is part of that 1% so it’s obvious he doesn’t really want equality or he would voluntarily redistribute his extra wealth to the poor.

“When a poor guy criticises the rich, does that mean he is jealous?” I think so, yes. What other reasons would you criticize the rich if they don’t directly impact you other than being jealous that you don’t think they deserve to have what they have or earn? The question goes back to you. Do you think the rich deserve what they earn? My guess is that you don't think they deserve it and that's what makes you jealous.

“when he fights for the rights of poor people?” Is that what you think he’s doing? What rights are taken away from the poor people that the rich people have?

“have you considered how banks impact on terrorist funding and money laundering?” Absolutely. I go through training on this every single year at least for 18 of the 24 years of my financial experience. What I can tell you is that banks have processes and procedures in place to help minimize terrorist funding and money laundering. When banks are taken out of the loop and you have direct transferring of funding through crypto-currencies, I do not see how you can have the same processes and procedures. For example, with crypto-currencies, can I transfer a million dollars without the government knowing? If there are dollar limits, can I setup a program to do a million one-dollar transfers to get around that? I see huge gaps in this and it doesn’t seem good for auditing purposes.

“Is it possible that a mafia could exist without the money laundering services of a bank?” There are mafias that exist right now and they do exist without money laundering. What’s your point? Should we get rid of our police force because there are already criminals out there?

“Here's a study that shows the NHS to be among the most efficient and effective health system in the developed world. “ I think you misunderstood the study because it says it’s the most “cost-effective&rdq uo; not the most effective. If I was hurt and needed medical service, I wouldn’t necessarily want the cheapest service — I would want the best service. Your costs in the UK are 9.3% of GDP and ours is 15%. I would pay more for better service especially when it comes to my health.

The additional costs in the USA could be attributed to more obesity and diabetes that cause our costs to go up and is not directly related to the costs of healthcare as much as it is the costs of bad diet.

“The NHS reduced the number of adult deaths a million of the population by 3,951 a year – far better than the nearest comparable European countries.” Convenient that they left off the US for comparison. It was also not clear what their criteria is. For example, if someone goes into the NHS system with a broken arm and leave alive, does that count toward their positive numbers? It is worded awkwardly too. Out of a million, only 3,951 were saved? One thing we know from that article is that cancer survival rates were not included in the numbers. Why not? My skeptical mind makes me think they do things like that to make the numbers look better than they really are.

If the NHS system was so great, the rich people wouldn’t be paying for private doctors but the fact is that they do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1043 days ago)

What do you think Russell Brand and others mean be "income equality"? Do you think he means that everyone should be paid the same, whatever their job?

So you think that when a poor guy criticises the rich, he is jealous? That's not my experience. That is you employing your stunning lack of imagination again. You can't imagine that other people may think or feel different to you. Imagination is most certainly not your strong point. Trouble is, you don't have the imagination to imagine the value of imagination.

Russell Brand fighting for poor people? Yes, I think so. LINK

About money laundering: " What I can tell you is that banks have processes and procedures in place … " What are you saying? Banking processes and procedures prevent banks from doing illegal things?

Let's take a pause and see how skeptical with EVERYTHING you are being. Do you spot an inconsistency? Banking processes and procedures prevent banks from doing illegal things - yet every major bank in the world has been fined millions, even billions, for illegal activity. How do you reconcile those 2 opposing "facts"?

About mafias: Of course it should go without saying that I'm talking about serious mafias like Mexican cartels, Sicilian gangsters, Chinese triads, etc, not a school gang. So how do you know there are mafias who don't require the money laundering services of a bank? Did they tell you?

And my point? Simple really, if banks did not money launder, then there would be no mafias. Since mafias are as powerful as ever, then banks must still be money laundering. More conflicting "facts" that should be ringing loudly your skeptical bell.

NHS: Good to see you are questioning that study. It is actually called: 'Comparing the USA, UK and 17 Western countries’ efficiency and effectiveness in reducing mortality". Rather than exercising your lack of imagination by making up scenarios about yourself, why don't you read it. LINK

"If the NHS system was so great, the rich people wouldn’t be paying for private doctors but the fact is that they do." For a start, not all rich people pay to go private. But if you pay through the nose, then you should get a better service than any national system could provide, but it woudn't be value for money. Sad fact is, even that's not true, as this study shows.

How are you getting on with your core beliefs? Any doubts yet?

ReplyVote up (171)down (131)
Original comment

What do you think Russell Brand and others mean be "income equality"? Do you think he means that everyone should be paid the same, whatever their job?

So you think that when a poor guy criticises the rich, he is jealous? That's not my experience. That is you employing your stunning lack of imagination again. You can't imagine that other people may think or feel different to you. Imagination is most certainly not your strong point. Trouble is, you don't have the imagination to imagine the value of imagination.

Russell Brand fighting for poor people? Yes, I think so. LINK

About money laundering: " What I can tell you is that banks have processes and procedures in place … " What are you saying? Banking processes and procedures prevent banks from doing illegal things?

Let's take a pause and see how skeptical with EVERYTHING you are being. Do you spot an inconsistency? Banking processes and procedures prevent banks from doing illegal things - yet every major bank in the world has been fined millions, even billions, for illegal activity. How do you reconcile those 2 opposing "facts"?

About mafias: Of course it should go without saying that I'm talking about serious mafias like Mexican cartels, Sicilian gangsters, Chinese triads, etc, not a school gang. So how do you know there are mafias who don't require the money laundering services of a bank? Did they tell you?

And my point? Simple really, if banks did not money launder, then there would be no mafias. Since mafias are as powerful as ever, then banks must still be money laundering. More conflicting "facts" that should be ringing loudly your skeptical bell.

NHS: Good to see you are questioning that study. It is actually called: 'Comparing the USA, UK and 17 Western countries’ efficiency and effectiveness in reducing mortality". Rather than exercising your lack of imagination by making up scenarios about yourself, why don't you read it. LINK

"If the NHS system was so great, the rich people wouldn’t be paying for private doctors but the fact is that they do." For a start, not all rich people pay to go private. But if you pay through the nose, then you should get a better service than any national system could provide, but it woudn't be value for money. Sad fact is, even that's not true, as this study shows.

How are you getting on with your core beliefs? Any doubts yet?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1043 days ago)

“What do you think Russell Brand and others mean be ‘income equality’? Do you think he means that everyone should be paid the same, whatever their job?” Perhaps you can educate me then because I thought equality meant “equal” or the “same.” From past videos and other conversations with you, I know you don’t like CEO’s getting paid as much as they do. You don’t like the fact Bill Gates, the Walton Family, and the Koch brothers have so much wealth. So I thought you were for everyone getting paid the same and getting rid of the rich and wealthy. Please correct me on what you think Income Equality means to you.

“So you think that when a poor guy criticises the rich, he is jealous? That's not my experience. That is you employing your stunning lack of imagination again. You can't imagine that other people may think or feel different to you. Imagination is most certainly not your strong point. Trouble is, you don't have the imagination to imagine the value of imagination.” Then again, educate me. Why do poor people criticize the rich?

“Russell Brand fighting for poor people? Yes, I think so. LINK” He got lucky because Westbrook voluntarily sold the business. Had they kept it, they would have been within their rights to do whatever they wanted with the property. You make it sound bad that Westbrook wanted to raise rents “ to market values .” That would be like your grocery store offering oranges for less than cost for several years and then raising them to be comparable in the marketplace. You could always enact laws like what is in New York city about rent control. Let the laws do the job. LINK

“About money laundering: ‘ What I can tell you is that banks have processes and procedures in place … ‘ What are you saying? Banking processes and procedures prevent banks from doing illegal things?” No silly. The processes and procedures are there to prevent money laundering and funding of terrorist organizations. Please try to follow the conversation.

“how do you know there are mafias who don't require the money laundering services of a bank? Did they tell you?” Because those organizations exist and so do banking regulations. If you know of another UK bank that is money laundering, let the authorities know.

“NHS: Good to see you are questioning that study.” It’s called being skeptical.

“why don't you read it. LINK” Did you read it? It was all about GDPHE not about much of anything else. I already commented on it in the previous post about our GDPHE being 15% and the UK being 9.3% (by the way, Japan beats you at 8%.) There are some things in life worth paying for.

How much do you think one life is worth? Let’s say, in the UK, someone is dying but it would cost $800,000 in surgery to let that person live. Would the NHS system pay that bill or let them die? What if they needed a specialist that is only in the USA and that USA doctor doesn’t work for free. Would the NHS pay for that doctor?

“but it woudn't be value for money.” We aren’t discussing value for money. I drive a luxury vehicle so do you think I got the best value for my money? I could have bought a Kia or Hyundai if that was my concern. We are talking about people’s lives here and if they are going to die, have a chance to walk again, or be free from cancer. That is hard to put a price tag on and it’s why we have insurance here. You pay taxes for NHS so your government decides the level of care you get instead of your doctors.

ReplyVote up (131)down (152)
Original comment

“What do you think Russell Brand and others mean be ‘income equality’? Do you think he means that everyone should be paid the same, whatever their job?” Perhaps you can educate me then because I thought equality meant “equal” or the “same.” From past videos and other conversations with you, I know you don’t like CEO’s getting paid as much as they do. You don’t like the fact Bill Gates, the Walton Family, and the Koch brothers have so much wealth. So I thought you were for everyone getting paid the same and getting rid of the rich and wealthy. Please correct me on what you think Income Equality means to you.

“So you think that when a poor guy criticises the rich, he is jealous? That's not my experience. That is you employing your stunning lack of imagination again. You can't imagine that other people may think or feel different to you. Imagination is most certainly not your strong point. Trouble is, you don't have the imagination to imagine the value of imagination.” Then again, educate me. Why do poor people criticize the rich?

“Russell Brand fighting for poor people? Yes, I think so. LINK” He got lucky because Westbrook voluntarily sold the business. Had they kept it, they would have been within their rights to do whatever they wanted with the property. You make it sound bad that Westbrook wanted to raise rents “ to market values .” That would be like your grocery store offering oranges for less than cost for several years and then raising them to be comparable in the marketplace. You could always enact laws like what is in New York city about rent control. Let the laws do the job. LINK

“About money laundering: ‘ What I can tell you is that banks have processes and procedures in place … ‘ What are you saying? Banking processes and procedures prevent banks from doing illegal things?” No silly. The processes and procedures are there to prevent money laundering and funding of terrorist organizations. Please try to follow the conversation.

“how do you know there are mafias who don't require the money laundering services of a bank? Did they tell you?” Because those organizations exist and so do banking regulations. If you know of another UK bank that is money laundering, let the authorities know.

“NHS: Good to see you are questioning that study.” It’s called being skeptical.

“why don't you read it. LINK” Did you read it? It was all about GDPHE not about much of anything else. I already commented on it in the previous post about our GDPHE being 15% and the UK being 9.3% (by the way, Japan beats you at 8%.) There are some things in life worth paying for.

How much do you think one life is worth? Let’s say, in the UK, someone is dying but it would cost $800,000 in surgery to let that person live. Would the NHS system pay that bill or let them die? What if they needed a specialist that is only in the USA and that USA doctor doesn’t work for free. Would the NHS pay for that doctor?

“but it woudn't be value for money.” We aren’t discussing value for money. I drive a luxury vehicle so do you think I got the best value for my money? I could have bought a Kia or Hyundai if that was my concern. We are talking about people’s lives here and if they are going to die, have a chance to walk again, or be free from cancer. That is hard to put a price tag on and it’s why we have insurance here. You pay taxes for NHS so your government decides the level of care you get instead of your doctors.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1043 days ago)

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to educate you. I'll have a go. I wonder whether you'll take anything I say on board, however compelling my argument is.

If you want a more formal definition of income equality, look it up. I'll just see if I can get that skeptical mind of yours firing in both hemispheres.

"Fairness" is the key word. Here's a real world example. From Business Insider: LINK

"The chief executives of McDonald's and Starbucks earn more than $9,200 an hour, which is at least 1,000 times the hourly wages of their sales associates."

Is that fair? There are many angles you could come at this with, but I cannot think of any, that a reasonable conclusion would be - it is fair. For example, does a CEO work 1000x harder? Obviously not.

Another angle would be to ask, if $9,200 an hour is fair, then why is $5,000 an hour not enough? Or even $500 an hour?

Or if the CEOs objective is looking after his shareholders, he could take a mere $5,000 an hour and donate $4,200 an hour to his shareholders.

Or he could even drop as low as $1,000 an hour and donate $8,200 an hour to raise the wages of his lowest paid staff, who are probably getting state help paid from taxes his company is avoiding.

There is no definitive answer, but there is a right or wrong answer with a grey bit in between. Even you must agree - $9,200 an hour, when sales staff are paid about $8 an hour - is not in the grey bit.

But there is a bigger picture. You have to question the point of a business. Is a business just a way for people to make money? What happens if a business damages a society, or the environment, or the lives of a minority, etc? You may think that this has no relevance to levels of pay, but it does.

You could justify $9,200 an hour, if society agreed that a business is simply a mechanism for anyone to make as much money as possible no matter what the consequences.

But you could never justify $9,200 an hour if society agreed that a business also has responsibilities - it should provide a 'useful' service/product, it should contribute to the infrastructure that allows businesses to thrive (paying taxes), it should treat its staff with respect, it should not damage the health of the nation… I could go on.

I wish you could see the bigger picture better. Every time we have a conversation like this, you start making up loads of silly scenarios involving yourself. I think you'd do much better - instead of zooming into trivia, zooming out and seeing the bigger picture.

ReplyVote up (179)down (170)
Original comment

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to educate you. I'll have a go. I wonder whether you'll take anything I say on board, however compelling my argument is.

If you want a more formal definition of income equality, look it up. I'll just see if I can get that skeptical mind of yours firing in both hemispheres.

"Fairness" is the key word. Here's a real world example. From Business Insider: LINK

"The chief executives of McDonald's and Starbucks earn more than $9,200 an hour, which is at least 1,000 times the hourly wages of their sales associates."

Is that fair? There are many angles you could come at this with, but I cannot think of any, that a reasonable conclusion would be - it is fair. For example, does a CEO work 1000x harder? Obviously not.

Another angle would be to ask, if $9,200 an hour is fair, then why is $5,000 an hour not enough? Or even $500 an hour?

Or if the CEOs objective is looking after his shareholders, he could take a mere $5,000 an hour and donate $4,200 an hour to his shareholders.

Or he could even drop as low as $1,000 an hour and donate $8,200 an hour to raise the wages of his lowest paid staff, who are probably getting state help paid from taxes his company is avoiding.

There is no definitive answer, but there is a right or wrong answer with a grey bit in between. Even you must agree - $9,200 an hour, when sales staff are paid about $8 an hour - is not in the grey bit.

But there is a bigger picture. You have to question the point of a business. Is a business just a way for people to make money? What happens if a business damages a society, or the environment, or the lives of a minority, etc? You may think that this has no relevance to levels of pay, but it does.

You could justify $9,200 an hour, if society agreed that a business is simply a mechanism for anyone to make as much money as possible no matter what the consequences.

But you could never justify $9,200 an hour if society agreed that a business also has responsibilities - it should provide a 'useful' service/product, it should contribute to the infrastructure that allows businesses to thrive (paying taxes), it should treat its staff with respect, it should not damage the health of the nation… I could go on.

I wish you could see the bigger picture better. Every time we have a conversation like this, you start making up loads of silly scenarios involving yourself. I think you'd do much better - instead of zooming into trivia, zooming out and seeing the bigger picture.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1043 days ago)

“‘Fairness&rs quo; is the key word. Here's a real world example. From Business Insider: LINK” I understand your concern but I respectfully disagree because CEO pay is fair. You just don’t realize how difficult that job is and how much a good CEO can improve the financial performance of a company. The board of directors hire the CEO and they feel it is appropriate compensation and so I do too.

"The chief executives of McDonald's and Starbucks earn more than $9,200 an hour, which is at least 1,000 times the hourly wages of their sales associates." Yes that’s fair. You could probably fire 1,000 of those Starbucks workers and hire them with replacements with very little impact to the bottom line. Fire the CEO and get a new one and that can change the entire strategic direction of the company.

“does a CEO work 1000x harder?” Not harder but smarter.

“Another angle would be to ask, if $9,200 an hour is fair, then why is $5,000 an hour not enough? Or even $500 an hour?” Because there are other companies out there trying to hire the same person to be their CEO and you have to offer compensation that is attractive to the person to encourage them to work for you instead of the competition.

“Or if the CEOs objective is looking after his shareholders, he could take a mere $5,000 an hour and donate $4,200 an hour to his shareholders.” Apple has 5.86 billion shares outstanding so that would give each share 0.00000072413793 dollars back. It’s so petty that it is not worth discussing.

“Or he could even drop as low as $1,000 an hour and donate $8,200 an hour to raise the wages of his lowest paid staff, who are probably getting state help paid from taxes his company is avoiding.” Apple has 92,600 employees. LINK That would give everyone a raise of 0.08855291576674 dollars an hour on average. Hardly worth it again.

“Even you must agree - $9,200 an hour, when sales staff are paid about $8 an hour - is not in the grey bit.” No, I disagree.

“You have to question the point of a business. Is a business just a way for people to make money?” By law, that is the charter of a corporation. They took investor money so they must attempt to make money back for the investor. If you wish to start your own company without investors and do it without attempting to make a profit, you’re allowed to do that.

“What happens if a business damages a society, or the environment, or the lives of a minority, etc? “ Damages are subjective. If a company breaks laws and it has these effects, they should suffer the consequences of their actions. If they produce food that people enjoy eating and the consumers get fat from eating too much of it, that’s a problem with the consumer and not the corporation. Citizens are just as much accountable for their actions as the corporations are for their actions.

“But you could never justify $9,200 an hour if society agreed that a business also has responsibilities - “ Irrelevant what society agrees on because society doesn’t own the corporation, the investors do. If the people that own the company want to pay the CEO $9,200 an hour, they should have the right to do that. We live in a free society and can make decisions like that even if you personally think it’s foolish.

“it should provide a 'useful' service/product” I agree but there are many company failures because they think they are providing something wanted by the public but then they were wrong and the company folds. The company should be allowed to try selling any service or product they think is useful regardless how useful you personally think it is. This has nothing to do with income equality.

“it should contribute to the infrastructure that allows businesses to thrive (paying taxes)” They all pay taxes as long as they are companies operating in the USA and they make a profit.

“it should treat its staff with respect” Treating staff with respect is a nice gesture but is not required in the eyes of the law. If you don’t like the job because you don’t get enough respect, you can leave and go somewhere else where they respect you more.


“I wish you could see the bigger picture better. Every time we have a conversation like this, you start making up loads of silly scenarios involving yourself. I think you'd do much better - instead of zooming into trivia, zooming out and seeing the bigger picture.” If only you knew how big my picture really was. I have told you numerous times that I was born into poverty. I was given nothing and had to work for every single thing that I had. Growing up, I was even wearing second-hand clothes and hand-me-downs from my brother. My mother cut my hair because we couldn’t afford a barber. Later in my career, I ended up having to support my parents. Don’t try to tell me I don’t understand because I do.

So in summary, if this is what you think income inequality means, then please start referring to it as CEO pay is too high. That will at least narrow it down for people like Warren Buffet who earns his money in the markets.

So how would you feel about it if I started my own business and I was the only employee and created a device that was needed desperately by the government so they bought it and I became a billionaire overnight. Since I wasn’t a CEO, that is acceptable? Or what if I bought Microsoft Stock when it first went public and never sold it until I became a billionaire. Would that be acceptable then? Or what if I bought land for cheap and discovered there was oil on it and sold it to the Koch brothers for a couple billion? Would that be acceptable?

ReplyVote up (183)down (148)
Original comment

“‘Fairness&rs quo; is the key word. Here's a real world example. From Business Insider: LINK” I understand your concern but I respectfully disagree because CEO pay is fair. You just don’t realize how difficult that job is and how much a good CEO can improve the financial performance of a company. The board of directors hire the CEO and they feel it is appropriate compensation and so I do too.

"The chief executives of McDonald's and Starbucks earn more than $9,200 an hour, which is at least 1,000 times the hourly wages of their sales associates." Yes that’s fair. You could probably fire 1,000 of those Starbucks workers and hire them with replacements with very little impact to the bottom line. Fire the CEO and get a new one and that can change the entire strategic direction of the company.

“does a CEO work 1000x harder?” Not harder but smarter.

“Another angle would be to ask, if $9,200 an hour is fair, then why is $5,000 an hour not enough? Or even $500 an hour?” Because there are other companies out there trying to hire the same person to be their CEO and you have to offer compensation that is attractive to the person to encourage them to work for you instead of the competition.

“Or if the CEOs objective is looking after his shareholders, he could take a mere $5,000 an hour and donate $4,200 an hour to his shareholders.” Apple has 5.86 billion shares outstanding so that would give each share 0.00000072413793 dollars back. It’s so petty that it is not worth discussing.

“Or he could even drop as low as $1,000 an hour and donate $8,200 an hour to raise the wages of his lowest paid staff, who are probably getting state help paid from taxes his company is avoiding.” Apple has 92,600 employees. LINK That would give everyone a raise of 0.08855291576674 dollars an hour on average. Hardly worth it again.

“Even you must agree - $9,200 an hour, when sales staff are paid about $8 an hour - is not in the grey bit.” No, I disagree.

“You have to question the point of a business. Is a business just a way for people to make money?” By law, that is the charter of a corporation. They took investor money so they must attempt to make money back for the investor. If you wish to start your own company without investors and do it without attempting to make a profit, you’re allowed to do that.

“What happens if a business damages a society, or the environment, or the lives of a minority, etc? “ Damages are subjective. If a company breaks laws and it has these effects, they should suffer the consequences of their actions. If they produce food that people enjoy eating and the consumers get fat from eating too much of it, that’s a problem with the consumer and not the corporation. Citizens are just as much accountable for their actions as the corporations are for their actions.

“But you could never justify $9,200 an hour if society agreed that a business also has responsibilities - “ Irrelevant what society agrees on because society doesn’t own the corporation, the investors do. If the people that own the company want to pay the CEO $9,200 an hour, they should have the right to do that. We live in a free society and can make decisions like that even if you personally think it’s foolish.

“it should provide a 'useful' service/product” I agree but there are many company failures because they think they are providing something wanted by the public but then they were wrong and the company folds. The company should be allowed to try selling any service or product they think is useful regardless how useful you personally think it is. This has nothing to do with income equality.

“it should contribute to the infrastructure that allows businesses to thrive (paying taxes)” They all pay taxes as long as they are companies operating in the USA and they make a profit.

“it should treat its staff with respect” Treating staff with respect is a nice gesture but is not required in the eyes of the law. If you don’t like the job because you don’t get enough respect, you can leave and go somewhere else where they respect you more.


“I wish you could see the bigger picture better. Every time we have a conversation like this, you start making up loads of silly scenarios involving yourself. I think you'd do much better - instead of zooming into trivia, zooming out and seeing the bigger picture.” If only you knew how big my picture really was. I have told you numerous times that I was born into poverty. I was given nothing and had to work for every single thing that I had. Growing up, I was even wearing second-hand clothes and hand-me-downs from my brother. My mother cut my hair because we couldn’t afford a barber. Later in my career, I ended up having to support my parents. Don’t try to tell me I don’t understand because I do.

So in summary, if this is what you think income inequality means, then please start referring to it as CEO pay is too high. That will at least narrow it down for people like Warren Buffet who earns his money in the markets.

So how would you feel about it if I started my own business and I was the only employee and created a device that was needed desperately by the government so they bought it and I became a billionaire overnight. Since I wasn’t a CEO, that is acceptable? Or what if I bought Microsoft Stock when it first went public and never sold it until I became a billionaire. Would that be acceptable then? Or what if I bought land for cheap and discovered there was oil on it and sold it to the Koch brothers for a couple billion? Would that be acceptable?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1042 days ago)

You touched on the crux of why we so fundamentally disagree.

You said this: "Irrelevant what society agrees on because society doesn’t own the corporation, the investors do..."

That is such a different perspective on society, and it fits perfectly my view that libertarianism is a pre-civilisation ideology, not dissimilar to primitive ideas like "an eye for an eye". In other words, libertarianism and civilisation don't mix well.

Society is basically everyone, or "the people". The people decide the rules to create the world the people want. The people's tool is government, funded by the people, with a mandate to create this world. Isn't that the basis of democracy?

If corporations are outside of society (the people), then that is dictatorship - a group of people, usually small, who try to control everyone else.

A traditional dictatorship would use force and fear to control the people. Corporations however try to control the people by infiltrating government, the place where the rules of society are created. It's called corporatism, and I don't like it.

And that's how you see it. Corporations are outside of society, looking for anyway to profit from society, with no recourse.

Libertarianism is a primitive ideology, which by putting 'freedom of the individual' before 'the many', it naturally favours highly-driven power-mad individuals into positions of power, whether that is in corporations, or government.

And if you can't see that, I can only conclude you are genuinely stupid, or employing the same techniques that religious fanatics employ to make sense of their crazy ideologies - which incidently is by not rigorously questioning their core beliefs.

Talking of which, how are you getting on with questioning your core beliefs? Have you spotted any chinks yet?

ReplyVote up (199)down (118)
Original comment

You touched on the crux of why we so fundamentally disagree.

You said this: "Irrelevant what society agrees on because society doesn’t own the corporation, the investors do..."

That is such a different perspective on society, and it fits perfectly my view that libertarianism is a pre-civilisation ideology, not dissimilar to primitive ideas like "an eye for an eye". In other words, libertarianism and civilisation don't mix well.

Society is basically everyone, or "the people". The people decide the rules to create the world the people want. The people's tool is government, funded by the people, with a mandate to create this world. Isn't that the basis of democracy?

If corporations are outside of society (the people), then that is dictatorship - a group of people, usually small, who try to control everyone else.

A traditional dictatorship would use force and fear to control the people. Corporations however try to control the people by infiltrating government, the place where the rules of society are created. It's called corporatism, and I don't like it.

And that's how you see it. Corporations are outside of society, looking for anyway to profit from society, with no recourse.

Libertarianism is a primitive ideology, which by putting 'freedom of the individual' before 'the many', it naturally favours highly-driven power-mad individuals into positions of power, whether that is in corporations, or government.

And if you can't see that, I can only conclude you are genuinely stupid, or employing the same techniques that religious fanatics employ to make sense of their crazy ideologies - which incidently is by not rigorously questioning their core beliefs.

Talking of which, how are you getting on with questioning your core beliefs? Have you spotted any chinks yet?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1042 days ago)

I find your latest comment interesting in the fact it completely ignored the root part of the discussion which was Income Inequality. You didn’t even answer the questions I had in my last paragraph which I thought was very important because it seemed your Income Inequality was limited to CEO pay being too high and I needed more clarification on your views.

So now you are talking mostly regarding my statement about society does’t own a corporation, investors do. You misinterpreted that. Investors are part of society but it is a small subset and it’s not the entire population that owns the corporation. If you want it where society owns the corporations, it’s pure communism where the government (representing society) owns all the companies.

So how big or granular is your society? I told you that, in my opinion, my immediate family comes first, then my extended family, then my friends. In yours, it’s all the citizens of the UK? Or is it the UK plus Europe? Or is the the whole planet?

It’s an important question because if you think it’s everyone then I would like to begin getting my social benefits from your NHS system for free. You think it’s everyone’s right to free healthcare right? I pay taxes so I should be able to benefit from any country’s social services, move around from country to country, and even start up my own business in the UK. We will have a citizenship of planet Earth instead of a USA and UK citizenship. Is that what you want or are you still thinking small enough that your society is the UK only?

ReplyVote up (189)down (134)
Original comment

I find your latest comment interesting in the fact it completely ignored the root part of the discussion which was Income Inequality. You didn’t even answer the questions I had in my last paragraph which I thought was very important because it seemed your Income Inequality was limited to CEO pay being too high and I needed more clarification on your views.

So now you are talking mostly regarding my statement about society does’t own a corporation, investors do. You misinterpreted that. Investors are part of society but it is a small subset and it’s not the entire population that owns the corporation. If you want it where society owns the corporations, it’s pure communism where the government (representing society) owns all the companies.

So how big or granular is your society? I told you that, in my opinion, my immediate family comes first, then my extended family, then my friends. In yours, it’s all the citizens of the UK? Or is it the UK plus Europe? Or is the the whole planet?

It’s an important question because if you think it’s everyone then I would like to begin getting my social benefits from your NHS system for free. You think it’s everyone’s right to free healthcare right? I pay taxes so I should be able to benefit from any country’s social services, move around from country to country, and even start up my own business in the UK. We will have a citizenship of planet Earth instead of a USA and UK citizenship. Is that what you want or are you still thinking small enough that your society is the UK only?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1042 days ago)

You asked me to educate you. I keep on trying to get you to zoom out and see the bigger picture, you keep trying to zoom in.

If your roots are rotten, then so will your leaves be. You haven't put forward any argument that suggests your roots are not rotten. You haven't offered one situation where 'fend for yourself' works better than 'fend for each other', other than a bizarre cashiers at Walmart example.

So far, in support of 'fend for each other', we've had anything that involves teamwork or more than 1 person - which is pretty much everything in a civilised world. You haven't even come up with some obscure exception - your cashiers at Walmart example is not even a real world scenario.

I ignore many of your questions because they become distractions. We go back and forth forever, and statistically I will win out, simply because I'm more reasonable.

So how about a real-world example where 'fend for yourself' works better than 'fend for each other'?

-------

PS, I didn't say society owns corporations. I said society creates the rules for corporations. Otherwise, who should? The point is not what the rules are, but that the people create them in a democratic process. Otherwise you have a dictatorship.

Please don't avoid giving an example where 'fend for yourself' works better than 'fend for each other'. And if you can't, then you are compelled to accept that it's a rubbish idea.

ReplyVote up (198)down (149)
Original comment

You asked me to educate you. I keep on trying to get you to zoom out and see the bigger picture, you keep trying to zoom in.

If your roots are rotten, then so will your leaves be. You haven't put forward any argument that suggests your roots are not rotten. You haven't offered one situation where 'fend for yourself' works better than 'fend for each other', other than a bizarre cashiers at Walmart example.

So far, in support of 'fend for each other', we've had anything that involves teamwork or more than 1 person - which is pretty much everything in a civilised world. You haven't even come up with some obscure exception - your cashiers at Walmart example is not even a real world scenario.

I ignore many of your questions because they become distractions. We go back and forth forever, and statistically I will win out, simply because I'm more reasonable.

So how about a real-world example where 'fend for yourself' works better than 'fend for each other'?

-------

PS, I didn't say society owns corporations. I said society creates the rules for corporations. Otherwise, who should? The point is not what the rules are, but that the people create them in a democratic process. Otherwise you have a dictatorship.

Please don't avoid giving an example where 'fend for yourself' works better than 'fend for each other'. And if you can't, then you are compelled to accept that it's a rubbish idea.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1041 days ago)

Jesus Christ Walter. How can we have a serious conversation when we are talking about one thing such as Income Inequality and then you ignore some important components and questions and then try to steer the conversation into libertarianism.

I will consider this a win on my side because it’s obvious to me that you had no ability to counter the questions that I had so Income Inequality is not an issue for you now. I’m glad you finally came to your senses.

ReplyVote up (179)down (142)
Original comment

Jesus Christ Walter. How can we have a serious conversation when we are talking about one thing such as Income Inequality and then you ignore some important components and questions and then try to steer the conversation into libertarianism.

I will consider this a win on my side because it’s obvious to me that you had no ability to counter the questions that I had so Income Inequality is not an issue for you now. I’m glad you finally came to your senses.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1041 days ago)

Sorry, it's just when you wrote: "Irrelevant what society agrees on because society doesn’t own the corporation, the investors do" , I couldn't resist the opportunity to focus on this, because it is so core to why we disagree.

If you believe that corporations sit outside of society, then in TTIP, where a corporation can sue a foreign country if its laws affect the corporation's profits - makes sense.

If corporations sit outside of society, there's nobody to oversee them. They are acting as dictators.

I see corporations as within society. Society (the people) decide on the rules that govern corporations. It is not a small group of society, the investors, who govern corporations, It is government working in the interests of all the people decide the rules that corporations run under.

So if the people decide that corporations should only be required to benefit a tiny few, and that there should be no minimum wage - then so be it.

If the people decide that corporations should overall benefit society, not damage the environment, not waste or pollute resources, care for the health and safety of their staff, contribute to infrastructure, respect human, animal, gay, women's rights, etc - then so be it. That is the democratic process.

-----------

"So how would you feel about it if I started my own business and I was the only employee and created a device that was needed desperately by the government so they bought it and I became a billionaire overnight..."

I wouldn't put a limit on what people can earn. I don't mind as long as in earning that money, they respect their staff, pay reasonable wages, don't damage the environment, don't damage people's health, etc.

If you made millions, had 1 employee and paid him minimum wage, so that taxpayers had to help out in benefits, I'd have a problem with that.

If you made your millions by overcharging the taxpayer because your device was desperately needed, then I'd have a problem with that.

If your business was struggling, and you couldn't afford to pay your staff a living wage, I wouldn't have a problem with the taxpayer helping out until you could afford to pay a living wage.

The problem comes when there is not enough tax money to fund the society people want, which is always. Of course the world is way more complicated than this, but as an overall principle, I'd try to design a tax system that hurts least but can fund the society people decide they want. So I would tax a billionaire's income at a higher rate than his secretary's, because a billionaire's tax burden, even though much higher than his secretary's, will probably hurt him less.

Libertarians see tax as theft of their hard earned money. Socialists see tax as a contribution to the building and maintenance of society.

ReplyVote up (196)down (133)
Original comment

Sorry, it's just when you wrote: "Irrelevant what society agrees on because society doesn’t own the corporation, the investors do" , I couldn't resist the opportunity to focus on this, because it is so core to why we disagree.

If you believe that corporations sit outside of society, then in TTIP, where a corporation can sue a foreign country if its laws affect the corporation's profits - makes sense.

If corporations sit outside of society, there's nobody to oversee them. They are acting as dictators.

I see corporations as within society. Society (the people) decide on the rules that govern corporations. It is not a small group of society, the investors, who govern corporations, It is government working in the interests of all the people decide the rules that corporations run under.

So if the people decide that corporations should only be required to benefit a tiny few, and that there should be no minimum wage - then so be it.

If the people decide that corporations should overall benefit society, not damage the environment, not waste or pollute resources, care for the health and safety of their staff, contribute to infrastructure, respect human, animal, gay, women's rights, etc - then so be it. That is the democratic process.

-----------

"So how would you feel about it if I started my own business and I was the only employee and created a device that was needed desperately by the government so they bought it and I became a billionaire overnight..."

I wouldn't put a limit on what people can earn. I don't mind as long as in earning that money, they respect their staff, pay reasonable wages, don't damage the environment, don't damage people's health, etc.

If you made millions, had 1 employee and paid him minimum wage, so that taxpayers had to help out in benefits, I'd have a problem with that.

If you made your millions by overcharging the taxpayer because your device was desperately needed, then I'd have a problem with that.

If your business was struggling, and you couldn't afford to pay your staff a living wage, I wouldn't have a problem with the taxpayer helping out until you could afford to pay a living wage.

The problem comes when there is not enough tax money to fund the society people want, which is always. Of course the world is way more complicated than this, but as an overall principle, I'd try to design a tax system that hurts least but can fund the society people decide they want. So I would tax a billionaire's income at a higher rate than his secretary's, because a billionaire's tax burden, even though much higher than his secretary's, will probably hurt him less.

Libertarians see tax as theft of their hard earned money. Socialists see tax as a contribution to the building and maintenance of society.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1041 days ago)

“If you believe that corporations sit outside of society” That is not what I said or meant. Corporations exist as a subset of a larger society; however so do I. I do not have do whatever the pressures of society makes me do unless there is a legal requirement to do it. Corporations are the same way.

“where a corporation can sue a foreign country if its laws affect the corporation's profits - makes sense.” Yes, that does make sense. You can sue foreign countries that agreed to abide by particular contracts and then did something against that contract. You couldn’t sue North Korea, for example, because they did not enter into the agreement.

“If corporations sit outside of society, there's nobody to oversee them. They are acting as dictators.” You are clearly not understanding it. Corporations are part of society but they do not have to do what society wants them to do. There is oversight and laws that they must abide by and libertarians do not want lawlessness and anarchy. I’m not sure why you keep thinking that. I just think that corporations should be allowed to pay whatever they want to pay their CEOs and you as a bystander that has no financial interest in that company shouldn’t have any voice in CEO pay. You can, however, boycott any company that you disagree with and if too many other people do the same thing then that company will need to change or go bankrupt.

“So if the people decide that corporations should only be required to benefit a tiny few, and that there should be no minimum wage - then so be it.” There is a minimum wage so no problem for you and your views. Corporations benefit all employees and all customers so no problem for your views.
-----------
“I wouldn't put a limit on what people can earn. I don't mind as long as in earning that money, they respect their staff, pay reasonable wages, don't damage the environment, don't damage people's health, etc.” Awesome then you don’t care what a CEO makes. I am finally getting through to you.

“If you made millions, had 1 employee and paid him minimum wage, so that taxpayers had to help out in benefits, I'd have a problem with that.” That’s where we disagree because you have some delusion that all employees contribute to the financial success of the company. What if my employee was my nanny or lawn care service? Should I give that person half of my billions just because he’s my only employee? Have you considered that those people felt they were getting paid what they deserve for their job and that’s why they do it otherwise they would quit and go somewhere else. I do not see any reason a business owner needs to share profits with the employees.

Oh, this brings up a good question. If you think employees should be paid part of the profits, what if the company has a loss, should the employees be required to pay for that loss out of their pockets too?

“If you made your millions by overcharging the taxpayer because your device was desperately needed, then I'd have a problem with that.” Overcharging is subjective. Of course you would ask for as much as you possibly can and through the negotiation process, you would come upon a price that both the government and the business owner feels is acceptable for both parties. Look at how Ross Perot got his billions for an example.

“If your business was struggling, and you couldn't afford to pay your staff a living wage, I wouldn't have a problem with the taxpayer helping out until you could afford to pay a living wage.” You say that the taxpayer helps out as if it’s helping the corporation but it’s not. It’s helping the worker. The worker may not be able to work all the hours necessary to get paid a living wage or have the skills necessary to get enough money to earn a living wage. You’re not subsiding the corporation in these cases but you are helping the uneducated, lazy, and unskilled.

“So I would tax a billionaire's income at a higher rate than his secretary's,” Where did you get the idea that someone that earns a billion in income pays a lower rate than his secretary? Warren Buffett? You should try fact checking that. According to the IRS, the tax rate for someone that makes over 406,750 is 39.6%. A secretary making 30K would only pay 13.5%. LINK

“Libertarians see tax as theft of their hard earned money. Socialists see tax as a contribution to the building and maintenance of society.” If everyone paid the same tax dollar amount, I would agree. However, the amount of taxes that I pay is larger than many of my friend’s entire annual salary. Is that fair? Do I get any more benefits from that extra money? Does the government defend me more than anyone else? Do I get better police service than my neighbor? Does my vote count more when deciding who I want as President? Nope. I get no additional benefits for paying more money than everyone else. I think that is what’s unfair.

Let’s use another hypothetical situation so you can see how taxes are unfair. You go to Walmart to buy a bundle of bananas. The cashier asks to see your last pay stub and you ask why. She then says it’s so they can determine how much to charge you for those bananas. If you earn more, you should pay more. They are the same bananas that everyone else gets but, in your society, you should pay more than others just because you earn more. Does that sound fair?

ReplyVote up (173)down (133)
Original comment

“If you believe that corporations sit outside of society” That is not what I said or meant. Corporations exist as a subset of a larger society; however so do I. I do not have do whatever the pressures of society makes me do unless there is a legal requirement to do it. Corporations are the same way.

“where a corporation can sue a foreign country if its laws affect the corporation's profits - makes sense.” Yes, that does make sense. You can sue foreign countries that agreed to abide by particular contracts and then did something against that contract. You couldn’t sue North Korea, for example, because they did not enter into the agreement.

“If corporations sit outside of society, there's nobody to oversee them. They are acting as dictators.” You are clearly not understanding it. Corporations are part of society but they do not have to do what society wants them to do. There is oversight and laws that they must abide by and libertarians do not want lawlessness and anarchy. I’m not sure why you keep thinking that. I just think that corporations should be allowed to pay whatever they want to pay their CEOs and you as a bystander that has no financial interest in that company shouldn’t have any voice in CEO pay. You can, however, boycott any company that you disagree with and if too many other people do the same thing then that company will need to change or go bankrupt.

“So if the people decide that corporations should only be required to benefit a tiny few, and that there should be no minimum wage - then so be it.” There is a minimum wage so no problem for you and your views. Corporations benefit all employees and all customers so no problem for your views.
-----------
“I wouldn't put a limit on what people can earn. I don't mind as long as in earning that money, they respect their staff, pay reasonable wages, don't damage the environment, don't damage people's health, etc.” Awesome then you don’t care what a CEO makes. I am finally getting through to you.

“If you made millions, had 1 employee and paid him minimum wage, so that taxpayers had to help out in benefits, I'd have a problem with that.” That’s where we disagree because you have some delusion that all employees contribute to the financial success of the company. What if my employee was my nanny or lawn care service? Should I give that person half of my billions just because he’s my only employee? Have you considered that those people felt they were getting paid what they deserve for their job and that’s why they do it otherwise they would quit and go somewhere else. I do not see any reason a business owner needs to share profits with the employees.

Oh, this brings up a good question. If you think employees should be paid part of the profits, what if the company has a loss, should the employees be required to pay for that loss out of their pockets too?

“If you made your millions by overcharging the taxpayer because your device was desperately needed, then I'd have a problem with that.” Overcharging is subjective. Of course you would ask for as much as you possibly can and through the negotiation process, you would come upon a price that both the government and the business owner feels is acceptable for both parties. Look at how Ross Perot got his billions for an example.

“If your business was struggling, and you couldn't afford to pay your staff a living wage, I wouldn't have a problem with the taxpayer helping out until you could afford to pay a living wage.” You say that the taxpayer helps out as if it’s helping the corporation but it’s not. It’s helping the worker. The worker may not be able to work all the hours necessary to get paid a living wage or have the skills necessary to get enough money to earn a living wage. You’re not subsiding the corporation in these cases but you are helping the uneducated, lazy, and unskilled.

“So I would tax a billionaire's income at a higher rate than his secretary's,” Where did you get the idea that someone that earns a billion in income pays a lower rate than his secretary? Warren Buffett? You should try fact checking that. According to the IRS, the tax rate for someone that makes over 406,750 is 39.6%. A secretary making 30K would only pay 13.5%. LINK

“Libertarians see tax as theft of their hard earned money. Socialists see tax as a contribution to the building and maintenance of society.” If everyone paid the same tax dollar amount, I would agree. However, the amount of taxes that I pay is larger than many of my friend’s entire annual salary. Is that fair? Do I get any more benefits from that extra money? Does the government defend me more than anyone else? Do I get better police service than my neighbor? Does my vote count more when deciding who I want as President? Nope. I get no additional benefits for paying more money than everyone else. I think that is what’s unfair.

Let’s use another hypothetical situation so you can see how taxes are unfair. You go to Walmart to buy a bundle of bananas. The cashier asks to see your last pay stub and you ask why. She then says it’s so they can determine how much to charge you for those bananas. If you earn more, you should pay more. They are the same bananas that everyone else gets but, in your society, you should pay more than others just because you earn more. Does that sound fair?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

"Corporations exist as a subset of a larger society; however so do I. I do not have do whatever the pressures of society makes me do unless there is a legal requirement to do it. Corporations are the same way."

OK, so we agree that corporations are a subset of society, and don't sit outside of society.

You imply that since you, as a part of society, are required to abide by society's laws, then corporations are too. Did I understand that correctly?

Do we agree that society (the people of a nation) decide on the rules that govern corporations.

Do you agree that the people's 'tool' to decide on the rules that govern society, is government?

-------

I'll comment on your other comments later.

ReplyVote up (166)down (140)
Original comment

"Corporations exist as a subset of a larger society; however so do I. I do not have do whatever the pressures of society makes me do unless there is a legal requirement to do it. Corporations are the same way."

OK, so we agree that corporations are a subset of society, and don't sit outside of society.

You imply that since you, as a part of society, are required to abide by society's laws, then corporations are too. Did I understand that correctly?

Do we agree that society (the people of a nation) decide on the rules that govern corporations.

Do you agree that the people's 'tool' to decide on the rules that govern society, is government?

-------

I'll comment on your other comments later.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

“You imply that since you, as a part of society, are required to abide by society's laws, then corporations are too. Did I understand that correctly?” I will agree to that.

“Do we agree that society (the people of a nation) decide on the rules that govern corporations.” I will agree to that too.

“Do you agree that the people's 'tool' to decide on the rules that govern society, is government?” The legislative and judicial branches are but those have have more control than they should have.

There are government controls that shouldn’t be there. For example, I have to pay hundreds of dollars every year to file my annual report. There is a $400 penalty if I don’t pay on time. What is the purpose of that payment other than to give the government more money? LINK The annual report is not a financial report — all that goes to the IRS and there is no fee for filing my taxes every year. The annual report just lists who I have assigned as my scretary, treasurer, vice president, and me as the president. It doesn't change and, even if it does, the fees to document it every year is excessive.

Why do I have to pay for a drivers license? If you want to get married, why do you have to pay for a marriage license? What about a fishing license? It becomes crazy where the government controls every aspect of our lives. If I want to get married, I shouldn’t have to apply though any government agency for permission to do that and have to pay for that privilege. This is where libertarians think government should stay out of people’s lives.

ReplyVote up (136)down (120)
Original comment

“You imply that since you, as a part of society, are required to abide by society's laws, then corporations are too. Did I understand that correctly?” I will agree to that.

“Do we agree that society (the people of a nation) decide on the rules that govern corporations.” I will agree to that too.

“Do you agree that the people's 'tool' to decide on the rules that govern society, is government?” The legislative and judicial branches are but those have have more control than they should have.

There are government controls that shouldn’t be there. For example, I have to pay hundreds of dollars every year to file my annual report. There is a $400 penalty if I don’t pay on time. What is the purpose of that payment other than to give the government more money? LINK The annual report is not a financial report — all that goes to the IRS and there is no fee for filing my taxes every year. The annual report just lists who I have assigned as my scretary, treasurer, vice president, and me as the president. It doesn't change and, even if it does, the fees to document it every year is excessive.

Why do I have to pay for a drivers license? If you want to get married, why do you have to pay for a marriage license? What about a fishing license? It becomes crazy where the government controls every aspect of our lives. If I want to get married, I shouldn’t have to apply though any government agency for permission to do that and have to pay for that privilege. This is where libertarians think government should stay out of people’s lives.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

Great. So to sum up, you agree the rules that govern society (including corporations) should be decided by society. And like almost everybody else, you don't like some of the rules society decides on.

So keeping that in mind - when a corporation like tobacco giant Philip Morris sues Australia over new rules demanding plain packaging for cigarettes, and Uruguay for printing health warnings on them? And that the hearings are "… held in private, in international courts at the World Bank in Washington DC, bypassing the legal system of the country being sued, meaning details are often impossible to uncover. In some cases the very existence of the case is not made public …" LINK

Isn't that corporations acting outside of society? What should society do about it?

ReplyVote up (108)down (115)
Original comment

Great. So to sum up, you agree the rules that govern society (including corporations) should be decided by society. And like almost everybody else, you don't like some of the rules society decides on.

So keeping that in mind - when a corporation like tobacco giant Philip Morris sues Australia over new rules demanding plain packaging for cigarettes, and Uruguay for printing health warnings on them? And that the hearings are "… held in private, in international courts at the World Bank in Washington DC, bypassing the legal system of the country being sued, meaning details are often impossible to uncover. In some cases the very existence of the case is not made public …" LINK

Isn't that corporations acting outside of society? What should society do about it?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

“you agree the rules that govern society (including corporations) should be decided by society. And like almost everybody else, you don't like some of the rules society decides on.” Right and there are many rules that I don’t like but have to deal with them the way they are because our republic has decided it will be that way.

“when a corporation like tobacco giant Philip Morris sues Australia over new rules demanding plain packaging for cigarettes, and Uruguay for printing health warnings on them?” Yes, that should be allowed as long as Australia and Uruguay signed the agreement to allow that. I, as an individual, can sue Philip Morris. That doesn’t mean that I would win but I have the right to go in front of a Judge, and sometimes a jury.

“And that the hearings are … held in private” The countries involved agreed to that.

“in international courts at the World Bank in Washington DC” The countries involved agreed to that.

“bypassing the legal system of the country being sued” The countries involved agreed to that.

“Isn't that corporations acting outside of society? What should society do about it?” No, in fact it is the opposite. It makes the corporations part of an even bigger global society. They may have been isolated into a small country before but now they are part of planet Earth.

ReplyVote up (98)down (116)
Original comment

“you agree the rules that govern society (including corporations) should be decided by society. And like almost everybody else, you don't like some of the rules society decides on.” Right and there are many rules that I don’t like but have to deal with them the way they are because our republic has decided it will be that way.

“when a corporation like tobacco giant Philip Morris sues Australia over new rules demanding plain packaging for cigarettes, and Uruguay for printing health warnings on them?” Yes, that should be allowed as long as Australia and Uruguay signed the agreement to allow that. I, as an individual, can sue Philip Morris. That doesn’t mean that I would win but I have the right to go in front of a Judge, and sometimes a jury.

“And that the hearings are … held in private” The countries involved agreed to that.

“in international courts at the World Bank in Washington DC” The countries involved agreed to that.

“bypassing the legal system of the country being sued” The countries involved agreed to that.

“Isn't that corporations acting outside of society? What should society do about it?” No, in fact it is the opposite. It makes the corporations part of an even bigger global society. They may have been isolated into a small country before but now they are part of planet Earth.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

"... The countries involved agreed to that. " Except they didn't. The Australian and Uruguayan people never even knew about the secret trade agreements until they were leaked via Wikileaks and through other avenues. LINK

So society did not agree. Remember, you agreed it is society that should create the rules that govern corporations. So what should society do about TTIP and other trade agreements, when the people are not even invited to take part in the negotiations?

ReplyVote up (127)down (119)
Original comment

"... The countries involved agreed to that. " Except they didn't. The Australian and Uruguayan people never even knew about the secret trade agreements until they were leaked via Wikileaks and through other avenues. LINK

So society did not agree. Remember, you agreed it is society that should create the rules that govern corporations. So what should society do about TTIP and other trade agreements, when the people are not even invited to take part in the negotiations?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

Huh? It says it right in the document you linked:

"Negotiations for the TPP have included representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei, but have been conducted behind closed doors."

Urugay wasn't mentioned.

ReplyVote up (99)down (115)
Original comment

Huh? It says it right in the document you linked:

"Negotiations for the TPP have included representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei, but have been conducted behind closed doors."

Urugay wasn't mentioned.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

How can you have negotiations conducted behind closed doors, and still be representative of what the people want?

It's like me negotiating something on your behalf, and you not even knowing I'm doing it. How could I legitimately claim that you agreed?

Remember, you did agreed that society (the people) creates the rules that govern corporations. In this case, the people were never even at the negotiating table, never mind about being informed that negotiations were even taking place.

So what should we do about it?

ReplyVote up (99)down (107)
Original comment

How can you have negotiations conducted behind closed doors, and still be representative of what the people want?

It's like me negotiating something on your behalf, and you not even knowing I'm doing it. How could I legitimately claim that you agreed?

Remember, you did agreed that society (the people) creates the rules that govern corporations. In this case, the people were never even at the negotiating table, never mind about being informed that negotiations were even taking place.

So what should we do about it?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

We are a representative republic so we elect people to make decisions for us. We do not have a direct vote on every issue. So we sent our representatives to do those negotiations -- just like every negotiation that occurs.

When our leaders are considering a bill and what to put into it, several of the representatives working in a group get together to formulate the wording of it and it gets put into a larger bill. Those bills are then voted on in the House of Representatives and then the Senate. How many of those do you get a chance to read before the vote? And, even if you did get the chance, you have no power to change anything since you have no voting rights.

In the USA, we cannot even vote for our President. We vote for a member of our electoral college to cast a vote for us. They should vote for who they are representing but there is no law prohibiting them for voting for a different president — and that has happened before.

In the UK, you cannot vote for your Prime Minister either. It is chosen from the political party that has the most seats in parliament. Your dictator (a.k.a., the Queen) can refuse that pick and grant a dissolution of Parliament.

Your Queen has the right to regular private meetings with your Prime Minister. Those discussions are strictly confidential. And, you cannot pick who your next monarch is so don't try to say the USA is the only country with voting flaws.

ReplyVote up (114)down (124)
Original comment

We are a representative republic so we elect people to make decisions for us. We do not have a direct vote on every issue. So we sent our representatives to do those negotiations -- just like every negotiation that occurs.

When our leaders are considering a bill and what to put into it, several of the representatives working in a group get together to formulate the wording of it and it gets put into a larger bill. Those bills are then voted on in the House of Representatives and then the Senate. How many of those do you get a chance to read before the vote? And, even if you did get the chance, you have no power to change anything since you have no voting rights.

In the USA, we cannot even vote for our President. We vote for a member of our electoral college to cast a vote for us. They should vote for who they are representing but there is no law prohibiting them for voting for a different president — and that has happened before.

In the UK, you cannot vote for your Prime Minister either. It is chosen from the political party that has the most seats in parliament. Your dictator (a.k.a., the Queen) can refuse that pick and grant a dissolution of Parliament.

Your Queen has the right to regular private meetings with your Prime Minister. Those discussions are strictly confidential. And, you cannot pick who your next monarch is so don't try to say the USA is the only country with voting flaws.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

Most democracies are representative democracies, and for practical reasons, that makes a lot of sense. But representatives democracies are also open to corruption. Fortunately there are some simple ways to minimise these.

Remember, society decides the rules that govern corporations. A simple rule could be that no negotiation for any trade agreement is allowed in secret. That's a no-brainer isn't it? As a member of society, why would you not insist on a safeguard like that?

How about the Swiss system where if enough people sign a petition, they can force a referendum on any government action. Why not fine-tune that idea for Americans?

Let's sum up where we've got to. You agree that society decides the rules that govern corporations, but in our representative democracies, government (the people's tool to create the rules we all abide by) is not working as it should because it is not representing the people.

Maybe you could use your lack of imagination and suggest ways that the people can be better represented by their government?

ReplyVote up (110)down (107)
Original comment

Most democracies are representative democracies, and for practical reasons, that makes a lot of sense. But representatives democracies are also open to corruption. Fortunately there are some simple ways to minimise these.

Remember, society decides the rules that govern corporations. A simple rule could be that no negotiation for any trade agreement is allowed in secret. That's a no-brainer isn't it? As a member of society, why would you not insist on a safeguard like that?

How about the Swiss system where if enough people sign a petition, they can force a referendum on any government action. Why not fine-tune that idea for Americans?

Let's sum up where we've got to. You agree that society decides the rules that govern corporations, but in our representative democracies, government (the people's tool to create the rules we all abide by) is not working as it should because it is not representing the people.

Maybe you could use your lack of imagination and suggest ways that the people can be better represented by their government?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

“Let's sum up where we've got to. You agree that society decides the rules that govern corporations, but in our representative democracies, government (the people's tool to create the rules we all abide by) is not working as it should because it is not representing the people.”

Yes, that sums it up. If I was happy with the way our government was spending our tax dollars and the laws that they create, then I wouldn’t care if they were democratic, republican, or libertarian. There are others like authoritarian but I absolutely would never want that.

The type of government is independent of the type of economy you have. We have a capitalistic economy and that is more important to me than the type of government. I wouldn’t want someone taking my ability away to earn at my potential and I wouldn’t want the majority of the businesses to be owned by the government. Where I live, the water, sewage, and electric companies are private non-government companies and I like that. One is even a co-op so I share in the profits and get money back if they make a profit.

I don’t care if prisons are owned by private companies either. It sort of makes sense because with large government, there is a lot of bureaucracy where the state officials make the decisions and they don’t care about price or efficiency. The only thing they care about is their pay check and how fast the time is passing so they can go home.

A for-profit company will run things more cheaply. So when the state puts prisoners in a for-profit prison system, the idea there is that the government is supposed to save money. It is the same idea if the government wants to buy a hammer. They have the option of manufacturing one themselves or buying one at the local hardware store. Which one will be cheaper? The private company especially if there are multiple companies that produce the same product and the government has to pick the cheapest one that fits their needs. (Unlike some no-bid contracts that we had during the war with Halliburton.)

I sometimes hire contractors instead of permanent employees. Those contractors typically get paid more than an employee but then do not get paid for holidays, vacation, sick days, and do not get health benefits. So sometimes, it’s still cheaper to go outside your own entity to get a specialist and pay them for their expertise than it is to have one on staff. I’ve had to hire electricians, plumbers, concrete companies, handyman services, etc. I do not keep them on my staff and pay them more than a reasonable hourly wage to not have to worry about additional employee expenses. Even home builders that use these services all the time still sub contract that work out. So why can’t the government do the same thing by sub contracting out work when it makes sense to do so?

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

“Let's sum up where we've got to. You agree that society decides the rules that govern corporations, but in our representative democracies, government (the people's tool to create the rules we all abide by) is not working as it should because it is not representing the people.”

Yes, that sums it up. If I was happy with the way our government was spending our tax dollars and the laws that they create, then I wouldn’t care if they were democratic, republican, or libertarian. There are others like authoritarian but I absolutely would never want that.

The type of government is independent of the type of economy you have. We have a capitalistic economy and that is more important to me than the type of government. I wouldn’t want someone taking my ability away to earn at my potential and I wouldn’t want the majority of the businesses to be owned by the government. Where I live, the water, sewage, and electric companies are private non-government companies and I like that. One is even a co-op so I share in the profits and get money back if they make a profit.

I don’t care if prisons are owned by private companies either. It sort of makes sense because with large government, there is a lot of bureaucracy where the state officials make the decisions and they don’t care about price or efficiency. The only thing they care about is their pay check and how fast the time is passing so they can go home.

A for-profit company will run things more cheaply. So when the state puts prisoners in a for-profit prison system, the idea there is that the government is supposed to save money. It is the same idea if the government wants to buy a hammer. They have the option of manufacturing one themselves or buying one at the local hardware store. Which one will be cheaper? The private company especially if there are multiple companies that produce the same product and the government has to pick the cheapest one that fits their needs. (Unlike some no-bid contracts that we had during the war with Halliburton.)

I sometimes hire contractors instead of permanent employees. Those contractors typically get paid more than an employee but then do not get paid for holidays, vacation, sick days, and do not get health benefits. So sometimes, it’s still cheaper to go outside your own entity to get a specialist and pay them for their expertise than it is to have one on staff. I’ve had to hire electricians, plumbers, concrete companies, handyman services, etc. I do not keep them on my staff and pay them more than a reasonable hourly wage to not have to worry about additional employee expenses. Even home builders that use these services all the time still sub contract that work out. So why can’t the government do the same thing by sub contracting out work when it makes sense to do so?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

You are zooming in before you've fully grasped the bigger picture. I can tell because when you zoom in, you are inconsistent with the bigger picture we were just discussing. So let's zoom back out again.

Government is the 'tool' the people have to create the society the people want. It is the people who should decide what type of society/economy they want. The tool should be incorruptible, effective, and represent the people. You have already agreed with that.

So if government represents corporations rather than the people, i.e. it is corrupt, how does the libertarian approach of smaller government, help change a government that represents corporations, to one that represents the people? Which you have already agreed is how it should be - that society creates the rules that govern corporations.

ReplyVote up (118)down (88)
Original comment

You are zooming in before you've fully grasped the bigger picture. I can tell because when you zoom in, you are inconsistent with the bigger picture we were just discussing. So let's zoom back out again.

Government is the 'tool' the people have to create the society the people want. It is the people who should decide what type of society/economy they want. The tool should be incorruptible, effective, and represent the people. You have already agreed with that.

So if government represents corporations rather than the people, i.e. it is corrupt, how does the libertarian approach of smaller government, help change a government that represents corporations, to one that represents the people? Which you have already agreed is how it should be - that society creates the rules that govern corporations.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

“So if government represents corporations rather than the people, i.e. it is corrupt, how does the libertarian approach of smaller government, help change a government that represents corporations, to one that represents the people? “ That might be where you’re confused. The government represents both corporations and the individuals not just corporations like you stated. There are laws that prohibit corporations from doing things and laws for individuals too. Both pay taxes. I don’t know why you think that a libertarian government will only represent corporations. You seem to be stretching reality to make libertarians look bad but, in reality, they are actually good concepts.

In a libertarian society, the government would not subsidize farmers to grow wheat. Today, the price of bread is very cheap because our tax dollars help pay farmers to grow wheat. If we had a libertarian government, the subsidies would stop and the price of bread would increase. In that way, the people who buy the bread products will pay more for it distributing the costs to the people using it instead of everyone. As for me, I have a gluten intolerance so I don’t use wheat but I’m still paying for others to get it for cheap.

If your house is burning down and you need the services of the fire department, you should have to pay for that service. If it was caused by someone else, you may have the ability to sue that person to recover your costs. Why should I continue paying my tax dollars to prevent other people’s houses from burning down when I take all the necessary precautions to prevent that at my house? If people are afraid they cannot afford it, perhaps that cost could go into a private insurance policy. At least it should be optional.

I don’t have to carry flood insurance so if my house was lost to a flood, I’ve lost my home. So why do I have to pay taxes to make sure there’s a fire department available for free? This is where the differences are with democrats wanting to have taxes pay for all social services and libertarians wanting people that use those services to pay for them.

ReplyVote up (105)down (109)
Original comment

“So if government represents corporations rather than the people, i.e. it is corrupt, how does the libertarian approach of smaller government, help change a government that represents corporations, to one that represents the people? “ That might be where you’re confused. The government represents both corporations and the individuals not just corporations like you stated. There are laws that prohibit corporations from doing things and laws for individuals too. Both pay taxes. I don’t know why you think that a libertarian government will only represent corporations. You seem to be stretching reality to make libertarians look bad but, in reality, they are actually good concepts.

In a libertarian society, the government would not subsidize farmers to grow wheat. Today, the price of bread is very cheap because our tax dollars help pay farmers to grow wheat. If we had a libertarian government, the subsidies would stop and the price of bread would increase. In that way, the people who buy the bread products will pay more for it distributing the costs to the people using it instead of everyone. As for me, I have a gluten intolerance so I don’t use wheat but I’m still paying for others to get it for cheap.

If your house is burning down and you need the services of the fire department, you should have to pay for that service. If it was caused by someone else, you may have the ability to sue that person to recover your costs. Why should I continue paying my tax dollars to prevent other people’s houses from burning down when I take all the necessary precautions to prevent that at my house? If people are afraid they cannot afford it, perhaps that cost could go into a private insurance policy. At least it should be optional.

I don’t have to carry flood insurance so if my house was lost to a flood, I’ve lost my home. So why do I have to pay taxes to make sure there’s a fire department available for free? This is where the differences are with democrats wanting to have taxes pay for all social services and libertarians wanting people that use those services to pay for them.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1040 days ago)

jesus christ grandpa, give it a rest will ya?

ReplyVote up (127)down (95)
Original comment

jesus christ grandpa, give it a rest will ya?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

Ooops, you've zoomed in again. You're trying to run before you can walk. Let's step back and review the basics: Society decides the rules that govern corporations. We both agreed on that.

So when you say " The government represents both corporations and the individuals … ", it doesn't.

Let's review: We have agreed that corporations are a subset of society, that the people decide the rules that govern corporations, and that government is the people's tool for enacting these rules. Therefore, government does not represent corporations and individuals as you think, it represents the people who decide the rules that govern corporations. Are you still with me?

When government represents corporations, it means corporations have hijacked government, so they can decide the rules that govern corporations, and as we have already agreed, that's not how it should be.

So how does making government smaller, prevent corporations from taking control of government and writing the rules to suit themselves?

ReplyVote up (91)down (102)
Original comment

Ooops, you've zoomed in again. You're trying to run before you can walk. Let's step back and review the basics: Society decides the rules that govern corporations. We both agreed on that.

So when you say " The government represents both corporations and the individuals … ", it doesn't.

Let's review: We have agreed that corporations are a subset of society, that the people decide the rules that govern corporations, and that government is the people's tool for enacting these rules. Therefore, government does not represent corporations and individuals as you think, it represents the people who decide the rules that govern corporations. Are you still with me?

When government represents corporations, it means corporations have hijacked government, so they can decide the rules that govern corporations, and as we have already agreed, that's not how it should be.

So how does making government smaller, prevent corporations from taking control of government and writing the rules to suit themselves?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1040 days ago)

actually sir, corporations decide the rules that govern corporations

ReplyVote up (103)down (87)
Original comment

actually sir, corporations decide the rules that govern corporations

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

Yes that is how it is. But we are talking about how it should be.

ReplyVote up (118)down (105)
Original comment

Yes that is how it is. But we are talking about how it should be.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1040 days ago)

“We have agreed that corporations are a subset of society, that the people decide the rules that govern corporations, and that government is the people's tool for enacting these rules. Therefore, government does not represent corporations and individuals as you think, it represents the people who decide the rules that govern corporations. Are you still with me?”
No, you lost me. How did our conversation about income inequality get morphed into this mess where you’re trying to convince me that the government doesn’t represent corporations or that they do or whatever you’re trying to say. It doesn’t matter because the government has created rules (a.k.a. laws) that both corporations and individuals need to follow.

Since our government has never come up with a law that says CEOs are not allowed to earn any money, then they will continue to get paid for the job.

“When government represents corporations, it means corporations have hijacked government,” And government represent people so that means people have hijacked the government too. Your logic is so flawed.

Do you finally agree that CEO pay is valid considering that the board of directors, picked by the investors, selected the CEO and salary? If not, then you are okay with everyone else making money except the CEOs of large corporations? Everyone else is okay including Gordon Ramsey from the UK that has come over to the USA to make millions.

ReplyVote up (78)down (109)
Original comment

“We have agreed that corporations are a subset of society, that the people decide the rules that govern corporations, and that government is the people's tool for enacting these rules. Therefore, government does not represent corporations and individuals as you think, it represents the people who decide the rules that govern corporations. Are you still with me?”
No, you lost me. How did our conversation about income inequality get morphed into this mess where you’re trying to convince me that the government doesn’t represent corporations or that they do or whatever you’re trying to say. It doesn’t matter because the government has created rules (a.k.a. laws) that both corporations and individuals need to follow.

Since our government has never come up with a law that says CEOs are not allowed to earn any money, then they will continue to get paid for the job.

“When government represents corporations, it means corporations have hijacked government,” And government represent people so that means people have hijacked the government too. Your logic is so flawed.

Do you finally agree that CEO pay is valid considering that the board of directors, picked by the investors, selected the CEO and salary? If not, then you are okay with everyone else making money except the CEOs of large corporations? Everyone else is okay including Gordon Ramsey from the UK that has come over to the USA to make millions.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1040 days ago)

How this relates to income equality is simple. You agreed with me that society (the people) SHOULD decide the rules that govern corporations. The rules that govern income should also be decided by the people.

The people may decide to leave it up to corporations to pay whatever they like, or the people may decide that corporations pay at least a minimum wage, or whatever - the point is, the people should decide.

Government is the tool for doing government business like law making. The question is, who has access to this tool.

Obviously it should be the people, because how could the people decide the rules that govern corporations, or the rules that govern income, or taxes, etc. without access to government.

But the reality is corporations are replacing the people in government, and deciding the rules that govern themselves. TTIP is an example of corporations deciding the rules that govern corporations. Bankers not going to jail for crimes on a massive scale, is also an example of corporations deciding the rules that govern corporations. There are many more examples. Can you think of any?

You are having difficulty because your core libertarian beliefs like 'small government' and 'fend for yourself' are inconsistent with "Society should decide the rules that govern corporations".

Talking of which, any progress on a real-world example of 'fend for yourself' working better than 'fend for each other'?

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

How this relates to income equality is simple. You agreed with me that society (the people) SHOULD decide the rules that govern corporations. The rules that govern income should also be decided by the people.

The people may decide to leave it up to corporations to pay whatever they like, or the people may decide that corporations pay at least a minimum wage, or whatever - the point is, the people should decide.

Government is the tool for doing government business like law making. The question is, who has access to this tool.

Obviously it should be the people, because how could the people decide the rules that govern corporations, or the rules that govern income, or taxes, etc. without access to government.

But the reality is corporations are replacing the people in government, and deciding the rules that govern themselves. TTIP is an example of corporations deciding the rules that govern corporations. Bankers not going to jail for crimes on a massive scale, is also an example of corporations deciding the rules that govern corporations. There are many more examples. Can you think of any?

You are having difficulty because your core libertarian beliefs like 'small government' and 'fend for yourself' are inconsistent with "Society should decide the rules that govern corporations".

Talking of which, any progress on a real-world example of 'fend for yourself' working better than 'fend for each other'?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1039 days ago)

“But the reality is corporations are replacing the people in government, and deciding the rules that govern themselves.” Not true. People vote for who we want as our representatives through a direct vote. The president is decided through an electoral college. We should be selecting these representatives based on the issues and how they would be voting on those issues.

“TTIP is an example of corporations deciding the rules that govern corporations.” I do not agree. Who was it in those secret meetings? CEO’s of corporations or the representatives of the countries?

“Bankers not going to jail for crimes on a massive scale,” Again not true but that has nothing to do with income inequality. You hear about a UK bank doing money laundering in Mexico and made an assumption that the people who accepted the money did not go to jail. What you thought was appropriate was that the CEO who is probably 15 or more management levels away from them should go to jail.

“is also an example of corporations deciding the rules that govern corporations. There are many more examples. Can you think of any?” No, I cannot think of any and apparently neither can you because the examples you provided are not examples of corporations making laws. Our congress and senate both need to agree about what laws are going to pass and then the President needs to sign the bill or Veto it so there are many layers of approval before it becomes law and none of them have anything to do with the approval by any corporations.

ReplyVote up (80)down (101)
Original comment

“But the reality is corporations are replacing the people in government, and deciding the rules that govern themselves.” Not true. People vote for who we want as our representatives through a direct vote. The president is decided through an electoral college. We should be selecting these representatives based on the issues and how they would be voting on those issues.

“TTIP is an example of corporations deciding the rules that govern corporations.” I do not agree. Who was it in those secret meetings? CEO’s of corporations or the representatives of the countries?

“Bankers not going to jail for crimes on a massive scale,” Again not true but that has nothing to do with income inequality. You hear about a UK bank doing money laundering in Mexico and made an assumption that the people who accepted the money did not go to jail. What you thought was appropriate was that the CEO who is probably 15 or more management levels away from them should go to jail.

“is also an example of corporations deciding the rules that govern corporations. There are many more examples. Can you think of any?” No, I cannot think of any and apparently neither can you because the examples you provided are not examples of corporations making laws. Our congress and senate both need to agree about what laws are going to pass and then the President needs to sign the bill or Veto it so there are many layers of approval before it becomes law and none of them have anything to do with the approval by any corporations.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cengIand0 (1028 days ago)

you stupid, fekin codger bastard!

no good banker, duck rapist!

did you not delete the boreme account? are you still getting emails?

you cu*t!

aa ha ha ha!

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

you stupid, fekin codger bastard!

no good banker, duck rapist!

did you not delete the boreme account? are you still getting emails?

you cu*t!

aa ha ha ha!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1027 days ago)

It's an optional setting to alert you if someone comments to one of your messages. If you ever logged in as a real user, you would have known that.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

It's an optional setting to alert you if someone comments to one of your messages. If you ever logged in as a real user, you would have known that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1042 days ago)

" So how about a real-world example where 'fend for yourself' works better than 'fend for each other'? ". You obviously didn't get the gist of the "I pencil" essay, the real world works by every one fending for themselves and in the process benefiting society as a whole while not actually having that aspect in mind. I didn't create my businesses to employ people but as I expanded that became necessary to further MY ambitions and those people don't come to work to work for me but to work so that they may have a better life. As in "I Pencil "we may appear to work as a team but In essence none of us work for anyone other than ourselves, that is part of the invisible hand at work.

ReplyVote up (131)down (97)
Original comment

" So how about a real-world example where 'fend for yourself' works better than 'fend for each other'? ". You obviously didn't get the gist of the "I pencil" essay, the real world works by every one fending for themselves and in the process benefiting society as a whole while not actually having that aspect in mind. I didn't create my businesses to employ people but as I expanded that became necessary to further MY ambitions and those people don't come to work to work for me but to work so that they may have a better life. As in "I Pencil "we may appear to work as a team but In essence none of us work for anyone other than ourselves, that is part of the invisible hand at work.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1041 days ago)

'I, Pencil' says that by everyone fending for themselves, the process will benefit society because God will make sure of it. Less wacky but not by much, is the more popular libertarian view: by everyone fending for themselves, the process will benefit society because of human nature, or despite human nature - I'm not sure which.

Whichever, it's a stupid idea. Let me explain. Out of every 1000 people, you will get a small proportion who are highly-driven, super-greedy, and power-mad. In a 'fend for yourself' world, people with these traits will rise into positions of power, over the majority of nice people who just want to mind their own business, without breaking the law, damaging the environment, or pissing off their neighbours.

A system that favours highly-driven, super-greedy, power-mad individuals, into positions of power is a stupid idea that will only end in tears. Don't you agree?

ReplyVote up (130)down (120)
Original comment

'I, Pencil' says that by everyone fending for themselves, the process will benefit society because God will make sure of it. Less wacky but not by much, is the more popular libertarian view: by everyone fending for themselves, the process will benefit society because of human nature, or despite human nature - I'm not sure which.

Whichever, it's a stupid idea. Let me explain. Out of every 1000 people, you will get a small proportion who are highly-driven, super-greedy, and power-mad. In a 'fend for yourself' world, people with these traits will rise into positions of power, over the majority of nice people who just want to mind their own business, without breaking the law, damaging the environment, or pissing off their neighbours.

A system that favours highly-driven, super-greedy, power-mad individuals, into positions of power is a stupid idea that will only end in tears. Don't you agree?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1035 days ago)

Wow, you still insist on going back to points that don't exist. Nothing was mentioned about God taking care of anything, unless you think "The invisible hand" is God, which I doubt very much. And it has nothing to do with leaving it up to human nature either, rather MARKET forces which are too complex for any person, or group of persons to comprehend which is why, when govt. try to influence the markets they fail miserably and or create a host of unintended circumstances like we see in housing bubbles for example. What I do agree with you on, and it appears you finally "get it" is your last paragraph. Which is WHY a limited govt. is necessary. Why on earth you would want to give these types of individuals carte Blanche on deciding our lives is beyond me.

ReplyVote up (105)down (112)
Original comment

Wow, you still insist on going back to points that don't exist. Nothing was mentioned about God taking care of anything, unless you think "The invisible hand" is God, which I doubt very much. And it has nothing to do with leaving it up to human nature either, rather MARKET forces which are too complex for any person, or group of persons to comprehend which is why, when govt. try to influence the markets they fail miserably and or create a host of unintended circumstances like we see in housing bubbles for example. What I do agree with you on, and it appears you finally "get it" is your last paragraph. Which is WHY a limited govt. is necessary. Why on earth you would want to give these types of individuals carte Blanche on deciding our lives is beyond me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1034 days ago)

Were you replying to my post? Because very little of what you said is related.

Anyway... you said: " And it has nothing to do with leaving it up to human nature either, rather MARKET forces which are too complex for any person, or group of persons to comprehend... "

Markets and human nature are inextricably linked. It is 'how humans react' that controls the markets, and although that is very complicated in detail, we know what happens overall. If you remove the rules, the wrong people get to the top and corruption creeps into positions of power - in government and in corporations.

The problem is not government or corporations - it is corruption.

The answer is to remove corruption from government, not remove government and let corruption run free. Corruption cannot be removed from corporations without an incorruptible government. Who can keep a check on corporations so they don't exploit ordinary people, pollute the planet, cause catastrophic climate change etc. if not an incorruptible government, totally transparent, and paid for by the people?

That's why people are calling for "get money out of politics", because money is the corrupting factor.

The libertarian solution of "smaller government = less corruption" is a nonsense. It is just not understanding the problem.

ReplyVote up (73)down (107)
Original comment

Were you replying to my post? Because very little of what you said is related.

Anyway... you said: " And it has nothing to do with leaving it up to human nature either, rather MARKET forces which are too complex for any person, or group of persons to comprehend... "

Markets and human nature are inextricably linked. It is 'how humans react' that controls the markets, and although that is very complicated in detail, we know what happens overall. If you remove the rules, the wrong people get to the top and corruption creeps into positions of power - in government and in corporations.

The problem is not government or corporations - it is corruption.

The answer is to remove corruption from government, not remove government and let corruption run free. Corruption cannot be removed from corporations without an incorruptible government. Who can keep a check on corporations so they don't exploit ordinary people, pollute the planet, cause catastrophic climate change etc. if not an incorruptible government, totally transparent, and paid for by the people?

That's why people are calling for "get money out of politics", because money is the corrupting factor.

The libertarian solution of "smaller government = less corruption" is a nonsense. It is just not understanding the problem.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1034 days ago)

Yes, you have it right, markets and human nature, "animal instincts" is what Keynes called it I think because it defies most logic. Which means economists invariably only know what it means after the fact, just listen to Bernankes testimony that he sees no bubble in realestate! Witness also govts. attempts at influencing the market through central bank intervention and the huge problems THAT has wrought the world over from America, Japan and Europe. You keep on going on about "removing the rules" why do you continue to harp on about that worn out theory when Libertarians, more than anybody, hold the rule of law applys equal to everybody?

Yes the problem is corruption but to think you can stop it with a rule that says no money in politics you are incredibly naive about human nature and its ways to get around the rules, just look at how the big banks get around whatever rules they make, Bill Clinton signed away Glass Steagel...the payoff probably came years later, there are a hundred ways to circumvent what you suggest, Dianne Fienstein, another liberal, her husbands company stands to make $1BILLION from the sale of post office realestate! It's the power they want and through that power flows money, make govt. as small and unobtrusive as possible in the affairs of men and make its main theme the equal application of the rule of law, a level playing field, limited terms for politicians and the problem is mainly solved.

when you have an all powerful govt. as you now have in America, it does what it wants, who is going to stop them? Not only do you have Corporations abusing the law you have politicians doing the same thing! Where is your recourse? The people must hold the power, at the moment Govt. holds the power, look around Walter, what do you see? You see the result of what YOU suggest! Even way back in Adam Smiths day, The Wealth of Nations they understood that the regulator will always be corrupted by the regulatee, that's human nature, thinking another law will change that is naive. There are at least 3000 new laws go on the books every year....getting any better Walter? No, just getting harder for the average business man to do what he does best.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

Yes, you have it right, markets and human nature, "animal instincts" is what Keynes called it I think because it defies most logic. Which means economists invariably only know what it means after the fact, just listen to Bernankes testimony that he sees no bubble in realestate! Witness also govts. attempts at influencing the market through central bank intervention and the huge problems THAT has wrought the world over from America, Japan and Europe. You keep on going on about "removing the rules" why do you continue to harp on about that worn out theory when Libertarians, more than anybody, hold the rule of law applys equal to everybody?

Yes the problem is corruption but to think you can stop it with a rule that says no money in politics you are incredibly naive about human nature and its ways to get around the rules, just look at how the big banks get around whatever rules they make, Bill Clinton signed away Glass Steagel...the payoff probably came years later, there are a hundred ways to circumvent what you suggest, Dianne Fienstein, another liberal, her husbands company stands to make $1BILLION from the sale of post office realestate! It's the power they want and through that power flows money, make govt. as small and unobtrusive as possible in the affairs of men and make its main theme the equal application of the rule of law, a level playing field, limited terms for politicians and the problem is mainly solved.

when you have an all powerful govt. as you now have in America, it does what it wants, who is going to stop them? Not only do you have Corporations abusing the law you have politicians doing the same thing! Where is your recourse? The people must hold the power, at the moment Govt. holds the power, look around Walter, what do you see? You see the result of what YOU suggest! Even way back in Adam Smiths day, The Wealth of Nations they understood that the regulator will always be corrupted by the regulatee, that's human nature, thinking another law will change that is naive. There are at least 3000 new laws go on the books every year....getting any better Walter? No, just getting harder for the average business man to do what he does best.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1033 days ago)

But we actually agree on so much. You said "The people must hold the power, at the moment Govt. holds the power, look around Walter, what do you see? You see the result of what YOU suggest!" I agree on everything you say except that what we have today is the result of what I suggest. Also, it's not govt alone that holds power, it's govt paid for by corporations, that hold power.

I am suggesting we remove corruption from government by reforming government funding, and adding full transparency and safeguards against corruption. With today's technology, I don't think it is naive, or beyond the wit of man, to design and build a corrupt-free system, that acts in the interests of the people. We just have to debate it, then do it. As Nelson Mandela said: "It always seems impossible until its done".

You think that by reducing the power and reach of corrupt government, somehow, the people will then hold power. How? It just means we'll have a smaller corrupt government still controlled by corporations, with no ability for the people to do anything, except get out their hand guns and be angry. It makes no sense. It is nonsense.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

But we actually agree on so much. You said "The people must hold the power, at the moment Govt. holds the power, look around Walter, what do you see? You see the result of what YOU suggest!" I agree on everything you say except that what we have today is the result of what I suggest. Also, it's not govt alone that holds power, it's govt paid for by corporations, that hold power.

I am suggesting we remove corruption from government by reforming government funding, and adding full transparency and safeguards against corruption. With today's technology, I don't think it is naive, or beyond the wit of man, to design and build a corrupt-free system, that acts in the interests of the people. We just have to debate it, then do it. As Nelson Mandela said: "It always seems impossible until its done".

You think that by reducing the power and reach of corrupt government, somehow, the people will then hold power. How? It just means we'll have a smaller corrupt government still controlled by corporations, with no ability for the people to do anything, except get out their hand guns and be angry. It makes no sense. It is nonsense.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1028 days ago)

I now see where we diverge, you mistakenly beleive corporations are the biggest threat, they are MINOR compared to govt. itself. You are fixated on those evil corporations and can't see the forest for the trees. Yes corporations have influence but they are not responsible for the myriad of evils govts. have, and still do, perpetrate against the world. This is not at the will of corporations, however you might like to beleive that, it's been going on for centuries, the lust for power, stupid and inept policies, wars, economic policies that, in the end, impoverish EVERYONE. Do you think what's happening in Greece, France, Argentina ad nauseum are the results of big businesses? Destroying their own environment? Look at history, govt. , not business, has been responsible for the decay in society and the eventual loss of rights, repression of the people eventually leading to revolution. You say make laws and regulations! They've trashed the constitution for chrissake! Whose going to regulate some one who has the power to put you in jail and throw away the key? LINK it ALWAYS ends this way. Look what happened in Argentina recently to the prosecutor who was going to embarrass the govt. THATS what you get when you empower govt. Look at zero interest rate policies around the world which are impoverishing the most vulnerable in our society, the old. The fact that some corporations don't pay tax or hold sway here and there is a pimple on a fleas balls, it's a diversion to the real problem and its a diversion used often by failed govt. blame the rich for the problems govt created becaus it's easy for people, like you, to accept for various reasons but in the end the people wise up and throw GOVT. out, not the businesses.

ReplyVote up (75)down (108)
Original comment

I now see where we diverge, you mistakenly beleive corporations are the biggest threat, they are MINOR compared to govt. itself. You are fixated on those evil corporations and can't see the forest for the trees. Yes corporations have influence but they are not responsible for the myriad of evils govts. have, and still do, perpetrate against the world. This is not at the will of corporations, however you might like to beleive that, it's been going on for centuries, the lust for power, stupid and inept policies, wars, economic policies that, in the end, impoverish EVERYONE. Do you think what's happening in Greece, France, Argentina ad nauseum are the results of big businesses? Destroying their own environment? Look at history, govt. , not business, has been responsible for the decay in society and the eventual loss of rights, repression of the people eventually leading to revolution. You say make laws and regulations! They've trashed the constitution for chrissake! Whose going to regulate some one who has the power to put you in jail and throw away the key? LINK it ALWAYS ends this way. Look what happened in Argentina recently to the prosecutor who was going to embarrass the govt. THATS what you get when you empower govt. Look at zero interest rate policies around the world which are impoverishing the most vulnerable in our society, the old. The fact that some corporations don't pay tax or hold sway here and there is a pimple on a fleas balls, it's a diversion to the real problem and its a diversion used often by failed govt. blame the rich for the problems govt created becaus it's easy for people, like you, to accept for various reasons but in the end the people wise up and throw GOVT. out, not the businesses.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1028 days ago)

Casey, the sucker of libertarina hore-cocks!

Casey, the licker of libertarian duck-arseholes!

Casey, the eater of libertarian hamster-pussy!

Why are you so stupid Casey?

ReplyVote up (107)down (61)
Original comment

Casey, the sucker of libertarina hore-cocks!

Casey, the licker of libertarian duck-arseholes!

Casey, the eater of libertarian hamster-pussy!

Why are you so stupid Casey?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1025 days ago)
Latest comment:

"... you mistakenly beleive corporations are the biggest threat, they are MINOR compared to govt. itself." With respect, you just don't get it, or you live on a different planet.

In a democracy, government is the institution that carries out the will of the people. (Isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work?)

Because the rules and regulations that govern society are decided by government, the society we get depends on who controls government. Corrupt government is by definition, government NOT controlled by the people.

The thing about unregulated capitalism, is that at some point, it becomes more profitable to manipulate government, than to compete in more traditional ways - like improving your product or service. For example: "Private Prisons Spend $45 Million On Lobbying, Rake In $5.1 Billion For Immigrant Detention Alone" LINK

"Do you think what's happening in Greece, France, Argentina ad nauseum are the results of big businesses?" Actually, yes. You can't separate government and corporations in the way you do. The world simply doesn't work like that. For example: "How Goldman Sachs helped mask Greece’s debt" LINK

The idea that smaller government will reduce corruption is simply not understanding reality. Size of government is irrelevant, who controls government is the issue.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

"... you mistakenly beleive corporations are the biggest threat, they are MINOR compared to govt. itself." With respect, you just don't get it, or you live on a different planet.

In a democracy, government is the institution that carries out the will of the people. (Isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work?)

Because the rules and regulations that govern society are decided by government, the society we get depends on who controls government. Corrupt government is by definition, government NOT controlled by the people.

The thing about unregulated capitalism, is that at some point, it becomes more profitable to manipulate government, than to compete in more traditional ways - like improving your product or service. For example: "Private Prisons Spend $45 Million On Lobbying, Rake In $5.1 Billion For Immigrant Detention Alone" LINK

"Do you think what's happening in Greece, France, Argentina ad nauseum are the results of big businesses?" Actually, yes. You can't separate government and corporations in the way you do. The world simply doesn't work like that. For example: "How Goldman Sachs helped mask Greece’s debt" LINK

The idea that smaller government will reduce corruption is simply not understanding reality. Size of government is irrelevant, who controls government is the issue.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Worst foods to eat at a restaurant, according to chefs
Worst foods to eat at a restaurant, according to chefs
Bill Maher - Checking in on Jared
Bill Maher - Checking in on Jared
TYT - Ellen Page's statement on sexual abuse in Hollywood
TYT - Ellen Page's statement on sexual abuse in Hollywood
The Daily Show - President Trump's big day out in China
The Daily Show - President Trump's big day out in China
The Daily Show - Trump tells Japan who's boss
The Daily Show - Trump tells Japan who's boss