|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 26 2014 16:00 zlefin wrote:
The problem was they put it up to a vote; democracies put in areas without heavily developed institutions reliably just end up with crappy corrupt scum.
Especially since, from my POV, they do a terrible job designing the institutions as well.
Maybe if the US would use someone competent at nation building.
Like Yasser Arafat?
|
On February 26 2014 12:36 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2014 12:32 Mindcrime wrote:
ah, yes, the "freedom" to ostracize minorities What are you supposed to do? Enforce transactions just because the client is interested? Truly discriminatory business owners would be literally chasing off their business. They wouldn't last long. This is the glazed over bit in today's discussions. If they're the scum of the earth and are just looking for legal ways to discriminate, why not let them pay the price in customers? They certainly aren't getting favorable publicity these days. Why is the point repeatedly laid in that they're most certainly bigots? It's an article of faith these days that the issue does not involve religious liberty, and it must be pounded repeatedly to make sure nobody thinks otherwise. I wonder if any here think the majorities in Arizona's House and Senate that passed this bill were constituted of mostly bigots, religious nutcases, and haters out to ostracize minorities.
|
United States43953 Posts
On February 26 2014 22:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2014 12:36 cLAN.Anax wrote:On February 26 2014 12:32 Mindcrime wrote:
ah, yes, the "freedom" to ostracize minorities What are you supposed to do? Enforce transactions just because the client is interested? Truly discriminatory business owners would be literally chasing off their business. They wouldn't last long. This is the glazed over bit in today's discussions. If they're the scum of the earth and are just looking for legal ways to discriminate, why not let them pay the price in customers? They certainly aren't getting favorable publicity these days. Why is the point repeatedly laid in that they're most certainly bigots? It's an article of faith these days that the issue does not involve religious liberty, and it must be pounded repeatedly to make sure nobody thinks otherwise. I wonder if any here think the majorities in Arizona's House and Senate that passed this bill were constituted of mostly bigots, religious nutcases, and haters out to ostracize minorities.
Like all "invisible hand" based arguments this assumes perfect consumers acting with perfect information while discriminatory businesses are competing with an otherwise equal business that has the same access to the market.
|
On February 26 2014 23:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2014 22:50 Danglars wrote:On February 26 2014 12:36 cLAN.Anax wrote:On February 26 2014 12:32 Mindcrime wrote:
ah, yes, the "freedom" to ostracize minorities What are you supposed to do? Enforce transactions just because the client is interested? Truly discriminatory business owners would be literally chasing off their business. They wouldn't last long. This is the glazed over bit in today's discussions. If they're the scum of the earth and are just looking for legal ways to discriminate, why not let them pay the price in customers? They certainly aren't getting favorable publicity these days. Why is the point repeatedly laid in that they're most certainly bigots? It's an article of faith these days that the issue does not involve religious liberty, and it must be pounded repeatedly to make sure nobody thinks otherwise. I wonder if any here think the majorities in Arizona's House and Senate that passed this bill were constituted of mostly bigots, religious nutcases, and haters out to ostracize minorities. Like all "invisible hand" based arguments this assumes perfect consumers acting with perfect information while discriminatory businesses are competing with an otherwise equal business that has the same access to the market.
Even economics professors have moved away from "the invisible hand", realizing it is a extremely flawed view of predicting trends. Sad to see people hold on to it >_<
|
Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent
... Big Busines Parents of Subsidy Recipients Identified So Far: 965
Total number of subsidy awards associated with these parents: 25,000
Total value (as known) of the awards received by these companies: $110 billion source
mmm, corporate wellfare.
|
[...]Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation, has joined a lawsuit to stop a 15-story water tower, to be used for fracking, from being built near his 83-acre Texas ranch. Tillerson and his fellow plaintiffs—among then former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey—argue that the proposed water tower would "devalue their properties and adversely impact the rural lifestyle they sought to enjoy." The plaintiffs state their ranches are all worth at least $1 million; Tillerson's in particular sounds wonderful, with "homes, barns, and a state-of-the-art horse training facility."[...] Source
Hey, so fracking is actually really cool, well except if you're the CEO of an energy company that heavily employs fracking and won't want the value of your five million dollar ranch ruined.
|
On February 27 2014 02:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote + [...]Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation, has joined a lawsuit to stop a 15-story water tower, to be used for fracking, from being built near his 83-acre Texas ranch. Tillerson and his fellow plaintiffs—among then former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey—argue that the proposed water tower would "devalue their properties and adversely impact the rural lifestyle they sought to enjoy." The plaintiffs state their ranches are all worth at least $1 million; Tillerson's in particular sounds wonderful, with "homes, barns, and a state-of-the-art horse training facility."[...] SourceHey, so fracking is actually really cool, well except if you're the CEO of an energy company that heavily employs fracking and won't want the value of your five million dollar ranch ruined.
Fracking: Great when it gains me money, shitty when it loses me money.
|
On February 27 2014 00:16 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent
... Big Busines Parents of Subsidy Recipients Identified So Far: 965
Total number of subsidy awards associated with these parents: 25,000
Total value (as known) of the awards received by these companies: $110 billion sourcemmm, corporate wellfare.
What kind of subsidies are they looking at? Development incentives, as I understand them, aren't necessarily wasteful - they get used to encourage a business to open up shop in a particular community which is an important aspect of city planning / economic development.
From wiki:
Economic Development Incentives are a component of economic development policy which seeks to encourage growth in traditionally impoverished or underdeveloped areas in the United States. Incentives come in the various policy forms, but traditionally focus on tax incentives and infrastructure improvements. Development Incentives come from various levels of government on the local, state and national level.
I'm sure it gets abused sometimes, just like anything else, but there's a positive intent at play as well.
|
On February 27 2014 02:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote + [...]Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation, has joined a lawsuit to stop a 15-story water tower, to be used for fracking, from being built near his 83-acre Texas ranch. Tillerson and his fellow plaintiffs—among then former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey—argue that the proposed water tower would "devalue their properties and adversely impact the rural lifestyle they sought to enjoy." The plaintiffs state their ranches are all worth at least $1 million; Tillerson's in particular sounds wonderful, with "homes, barns, and a state-of-the-art horse training facility."[...] SourceHey, so fracking is actually really cool, well except if you're the CEO of an energy company that heavily employs fracking and won't want the value of your five million dollar ranch ruined.
It's similar to greens getting upset when a windmill is proposed for their area. Suddenly wind energy becomes bad.
NIMBY-ism at its finest!
|
On February 27 2014 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 02:28 Nyxisto wrote: [...]Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation, has joined a lawsuit to stop a 15-story water tower, to be used for fracking, from being built near his 83-acre Texas ranch. Tillerson and his fellow plaintiffs—among then former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey—argue that the proposed water tower would "devalue their properties and adversely impact the rural lifestyle they sought to enjoy." The plaintiffs state their ranches are all worth at least $1 million; Tillerson's in particular sounds wonderful, with "homes, barns, and a state-of-the-art horse training facility."[...] SourceHey, so fracking is actually really cool, well except if you're the CEO of an energy company that heavily employs fracking and won't want the value of your five million dollar ranch ruined. Fracking: Great when it gains me money, shitty when it loses me money.
switch out Fracking with Anything and you got neo-liberalism in a nutshell, har har.
|
On February 27 2014 02:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 02:28 Nyxisto wrote: [...]Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation, has joined a lawsuit to stop a 15-story water tower, to be used for fracking, from being built near his 83-acre Texas ranch. Tillerson and his fellow plaintiffs—among then former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey—argue that the proposed water tower would "devalue their properties and adversely impact the rural lifestyle they sought to enjoy." The plaintiffs state their ranches are all worth at least $1 million; Tillerson's in particular sounds wonderful, with "homes, barns, and a state-of-the-art horse training facility."[...] SourceHey, so fracking is actually really cool, well except if you're the CEO of an energy company that heavily employs fracking and won't want the value of your five million dollar ranch ruined. It's similar to greens getting upset when a windmill is proposed for their area. Suddenly wind energy becomes bad. NIMBY-ism at its finest!
can you cite that happening, and can you equate fracking with windmills?
|
On February 27 2014 02:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 02:28 Nyxisto wrote: [...]Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation, has joined a lawsuit to stop a 15-story water tower, to be used for fracking, from being built near his 83-acre Texas ranch. Tillerson and his fellow plaintiffs—among then former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey—argue that the proposed water tower would "devalue their properties and adversely impact the rural lifestyle they sought to enjoy." The plaintiffs state their ranches are all worth at least $1 million; Tillerson's in particular sounds wonderful, with "homes, barns, and a state-of-the-art horse training facility."[...] SourceHey, so fracking is actually really cool, well except if you're the CEO of an energy company that heavily employs fracking and won't want the value of your five million dollar ranch ruined. It's similar to greens getting upset when a windmill is proposed for their area. Suddenly wind energy becomes bad. NIMBY-ism at its finest!
Well there' a difference between your average Nike wearing attac college protester and the CEO of a company. I think it takes the hypocrisy to a new level and really shows how big of a negative impact fracking really has on people being exposed to it.
|
On February 27 2014 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 00:16 nunez wrote:Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent
... Big Busines Parents of Subsidy Recipients Identified So Far: 965
Total number of subsidy awards associated with these parents: 25,000
Total value (as known) of the awards received by these companies: $110 billion sourcemmm, corporate wellfare. What kind of subsidies are they looking at? Development incentives, as I understand them, aren't necessarily wasteful - they get used to encourage a business to open up shop in a particular community which is an important aspect of city planning / economic development. From wiki: Show nested quote +Economic Development Incentives are a component of economic development policy which seeks to encourage growth in traditionally impoverished or underdeveloped areas in the United States. Incentives come in the various policy forms, but traditionally focus on tax incentives and infrastructure improvements. Development Incentives come from various levels of government on the local, state and national level. I'm sure it gets abused sometimes, just like anything else, but there's a positive intent at play as well.
What does intent have to do with it? How about the fact that a sizable percentage of fortune 500 companies have actually been bailed out by the government in the last 100 years? Yeah the car industry, airline industry, banks have been bailed out recently. What about Lockheed? The computer industry itself was built on corporate subsidies. IBM's very first forays into the industry were heavily subsidized until they could sell computer chips to regular people rather than build massive calculators that filled rooms. Good intention, but never would have happened in anything resembling a free market. Standard operating procedure for America, whose business is business: socialize risk, privatize gains.
|
On February 27 2014 02:57 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 02:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2014 02:28 Nyxisto wrote: [...]Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation, has joined a lawsuit to stop a 15-story water tower, to be used for fracking, from being built near his 83-acre Texas ranch. Tillerson and his fellow plaintiffs—among then former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey—argue that the proposed water tower would "devalue their properties and adversely impact the rural lifestyle they sought to enjoy." The plaintiffs state their ranches are all worth at least $1 million; Tillerson's in particular sounds wonderful, with "homes, barns, and a state-of-the-art horse training facility."[...] SourceHey, so fracking is actually really cool, well except if you're the CEO of an energy company that heavily employs fracking and won't want the value of your five million dollar ranch ruined. It's similar to greens getting upset when a windmill is proposed for their area. Suddenly wind energy becomes bad. NIMBY-ism at its finest! can you cite that happening, and can you equate fracking with windmills?
Yeah a lot of prominent Democrats in my state came out to oppose the Cape Wind project. Can't be spoiling the view from the Kennedy compound 
|
On February 27 2014 03:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 02:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2014 02:28 Nyxisto wrote: [...]Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation, has joined a lawsuit to stop a 15-story water tower, to be used for fracking, from being built near his 83-acre Texas ranch. Tillerson and his fellow plaintiffs—among then former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey—argue that the proposed water tower would "devalue their properties and adversely impact the rural lifestyle they sought to enjoy." The plaintiffs state their ranches are all worth at least $1 million; Tillerson's in particular sounds wonderful, with "homes, barns, and a state-of-the-art horse training facility."[...] SourceHey, so fracking is actually really cool, well except if you're the CEO of an energy company that heavily employs fracking and won't want the value of your five million dollar ranch ruined. It's similar to greens getting upset when a windmill is proposed for their area. Suddenly wind energy becomes bad. NIMBY-ism at its finest! Well there' a difference between your average Nike wearing attac college protester and the CEO of a company. I think it takes the hypocrisy to a new level and really shows how big of a negative impact fracking really has on people being exposed to it.
The real hypocrisy is that he's going to court over it. This is America where you can use privately accumulated wealth to insulate yourself from the unsightly externalities generated by (your) business. He should have to buy the land rights to stop the fracking operation from going up.
|
On February 27 2014 03:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2014 00:16 nunez wrote:Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent
... Big Busines Parents of Subsidy Recipients Identified So Far: 965
Total number of subsidy awards associated with these parents: 25,000
Total value (as known) of the awards received by these companies: $110 billion sourcemmm, corporate wellfare. What kind of subsidies are they looking at? Development incentives, as I understand them, aren't necessarily wasteful - they get used to encourage a business to open up shop in a particular community which is an important aspect of city planning / economic development. From wiki: Economic Development Incentives are a component of economic development policy which seeks to encourage growth in traditionally impoverished or underdeveloped areas in the United States. Incentives come in the various policy forms, but traditionally focus on tax incentives and infrastructure improvements. Development Incentives come from various levels of government on the local, state and national level. I'm sure it gets abused sometimes, just like anything else, but there's a positive intent at play as well. What does intent have to do with it? How about the fact that a sizable percentage of fortune 500 companies have actually been bailed out by the government in the last 100 years? Yeah the car industry, airline industry, banks have been bailed out recently. What about Lockheed? The computer industry itself was built on corporate subsidies. IBM's very first forays into the industry were heavily subsidized until they could sell computer chips to regular people rather than build massive calculators that filled rooms. Good intention, but never would have happened in anything resembling a free market. Standard operating procedure for America, whose business is business: socialize risk, privatize gains.
Eh? Are you arguing that subsidies are good or bad? You seem to be arguing with me while citing reasons that subsidies are good....
|
Yes subsidies are delightful. They are especially fantastic when you ignore their ubiquity in successful industry and pretend that the best businesses rise to the top, while the uneconomic ones sink to the bottom, and build a mythology around a limited liability entity that reflects the nation's favorite virtues of perseverance, self-reliance, and the pursuit of happiness.
|
|
|
On February 27 2014 03:36 IgnE wrote:
Yes subsidies are delightful. They are especially fantastic when you ignore their ubiquity in successful industry and pretend that the best businesses rise to the top, while the uneconomic ones sink to the bottom, and build a mythology around a limited liability entity that reflects the nation's favorite virtues of perseverance, self-reliance, and the pursuit of happiness.
So... capitalism ftw?
Edit: I mean, what I'm taking from your posts is that capitalism is great, but myth-making around it isn't. I'm fine with that.
|
if jonny had a full body rectal prolaps he'd make an excellent communist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
