I found this on a live music page I frequent.
Here is the url:
http://hardtimes.ca/themelvins2010 (http://hardtimes.ca/themelvins2010)
Actually that has already been posted in the Melvins Video Thread (i think) but you're certainly right it is a great interview. Its the first time i've ever heard Buzz go into more detail as to his beliefs/the wider world.
Much more interesting questions than the usual .
It was beautiful when he stumped the interviewer with "why didn't they just go to Iraq with a nuclear bomb and say 'look what we found''! The logic he uses to counter is brilliant.
Buzz has such an awesome laugh.
it's such a mischievous giggle....
it's fun listening to him take the interviewer down a peg. the sheep like leftist politics of the punk community can be far too grating.
I don't have a problem with capitalism as long as it doesn't elevate into fascism like some people say, but in the same theory socialism is just as bad! Both ensure a wealthy elite (the government/the rich) and everybody else is 2nd priority.
Quote from: Razor on November 27, 2010, 05:14:00 PM
It was beautiful when he stumped the interviewer with "why didn't they just go to Iraq with a nuclear bomb and say 'look what we found''! The logic he uses to counter is brilliant.
When people say there were bombs in the WTC, I always wonder why people would go through the trouble of crashing planes into the buildings, if there were already bombs in there. It seems like a lot of unnecessary work.
When we are all being opprosed by omicorp instead of the damn guv'ment, then... then we'll be free. :lol:
Quote from: TheLegitMan93 on November 27, 2010, 09:58:52 PM
I don't have a problem with capitalism as long as it doesn't elevate into fascism like some people say, but in the same theory socialism is just as bad! Both ensure a wealthy elite (the government/the rich) and everybody else is 2nd priority.
I guess it's not so much as elevating to fascism, but into undemocratic institutions which by definition corporations are. They are designed to maximize profit as expediently and cost-effectively as possible. That seems to consistently entail lower quality, lower wages, creating desires through advertising and public relations, and lobbying governments to do various things like tax-breaks, bailouts, and the repression of democratic institutions (see Nigeria!). Historically, business has been inextricably linked to government (long before Adam Smith wrote about "the masters of mankind") and couldn't exist without their service. They also have "limited liability" which makes the individuals that compose corporations effectively immune from prosecution. This is also a "failure of government", but at least here, we can participate in it to change it. We just choose not to. It's our failure as much as the government's.
Wow, Thomas Sowell is Buzz's favorite political/economic commentator. I would have guessed P.J. O'Rourke.
I hate that I watched this interview. In yet, I'd wanna talk to him more. Especially about his comments on Wal-Mart. Buzz portrays himself as sort of a conservative Republican almost. I'm sort of upset about the comments on Wal-Mart, saying their crime was, "Selling stuff for cheaper and everyone else." I as a individual would question why? Or how? In which, I know why they can do that. Bigger corporations can afford to pay people in other countries for less than what they could do here and they bring it back and sell it. When you boil it down. A little place owned by local residents, no chance in Hell they could pull that off. Also, the people that make the cheap things they sell don't have any insurance the company has to pay. Now, I hear him talking about health care and jobs. I personally think in that we should take care of ourselves and others for the sole fact that if I got sick or was hurt I'd hope someone would help me not just say, "Well good luck with that." I can understand why someone would say, "Well, I don't wanna pay for some other lowlife who's going to use my money to sit on their ass and do nothing", but I think we've spiraled so far down that we have more people that would do that now just, because of how our life styles have become. Eh, it's a big mess and there's no real solution I know, but it's something we should pay more attention to. For example if people were to all find out that there was no God, that when we die there's nothing, we would maybe try and make life a little bit better while were here instead of not caring about posterity and the others around us.
This probably isn't a well thought out statement, but I'm tired and want to go to bed.
Pretty disappointed in Buzz's Wal-Mart comments but hey I knew the guy was a right-winger. Buzz should educate himself a bit more on the stuff Wal-Mart get up to it's far from his simplistic "their only crime is to sell things cheaper than everyone else". He's not as stupid as that. The guy obviously hasn't got a problem with them screwing over their workers. Then again I can't say I've ever cared for anything I've heard come out of Buzz's mouth. I won't open up on him too much here because I know a lot of melvins fans being fiercely loyal will get their noses out of joint. Stick to appearing on Fox News, Buzz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart)
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2010, 01:29:34 AM
I hate that I watched this interview
Not that Buzz would give a shit but minimum wage in the US is what $7? In Australia a country with a fraction of the USA's wealth it's $15. And we have less unemployment.
$7 an hour? Now that's a crime.
Quote from: Bigval on November 29, 2010, 09:24:04 AMThe guy obviously hasn't got a problem with them screwing over their workers.
They don't have to work there.
QuoteI'm sort of upset about the comments on Wal-Mart, saying their crime was, "Selling stuff for cheaper and everyone else." I as a individual would question why? Or how? In which, I know why they can do that. Bigger corporations can afford to pay people in other countries for less than what they could do here and they bring it back and sell it. When you boil it down. A little place owned by local residents, no chance in Hell they could pull that off.
This really has nothing o do with it. Almost everything is made cheaply in third world countries, or countries with tons of cheap labor (China & India). It's all about economies of scale. Mom & Pop stores buy 100 of something, Wal-Mart buys 10,000,000. Who's going to get the better deal?
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2010, 01:29:34 AM
I hate that I watched this interview. In yet, I'd wanna talk to him more. Especially about his comments on Wal-Mart. Buzz portrays himself as sort of a conservative Republican almost. I'm sort of upset about the comments on Wal-Mart, saying their crime was, "Selling stuff for cheaper and everyone else." I as a individual would question why? Or how? In which, I know why they can do that. Bigger corporations can afford to pay people in other countries for less than what they could do here and they bring it back and sell it. When you boil it down. A little place owned by local residents, no chance in Hell they could pull that off. Also, the people that make the cheap things they sell don't have any insurance the company has to pay. Now, I hear him talking about health care and jobs. I personally think in that we should take care of ourselves and others for the sole fact that if I got sick or was hurt I'd hope someone would help me not just say, "Well good luck with that." I can understand why someone would say, "Well, I don't wanna pay for some other lowlife who's going to use my money to sit on their ass and do nothing", but I think we've spiraled so far down that we have more people that would do that now just, because of how our life styles have become. Eh, it's a big mess and there's no real solution I know, but it's something we should pay more attention to. For example if people were to all find out that there was no God, that when we die there's nothing, we would maybe try and make life a little bit better while were here instead of not caring about posterity and the others around us.
This probably isn't a well thought out statement, but I'm tired and want to go to bed.
Quote from: Bigval on November 29, 2010, 09:24:04 AM
Pretty disappointed in Buzz's Wal-Mart comments but hey I knew the guy was a right-winger. Buzz should educate himself a bit more on the stuff Wal-Mart get up to it's far from his simplistic "their only crime is to sell things cheaper than everyone else". He's not as stupid as that. The guy obviously hasn't got a problem with them screwing over their workers. Then again I can't say I've ever cared for anything I've heard come out of Buzz's mouth. I won't open up on him too much here because I know a lot of melvins fans being fiercely loyal will get their noses out of joint. Stick to appearing on Fox News, Buzz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart)
OMG A MUSICIAN I LIKE HAS OPINIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM MY OWN.
(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/272/5/8/melvins_detroit_bar_gigposter_by_jasongoad-d2zq17k.jpg)
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart)
Unions, religious organisations, grassroots campaigns, environmental groups and labor groups complaining about a businesses? What's exactly new here?
I love Buzz's music, but he does'nt know a damn thing about politics. I mean, this is the guy who said something like "They should have bombed a millon dollar rap video shoot instead" or "If I had my choice, there would be a dead carcass hanging off of every street lamp" (or something like that). He obviously is not one to be taken seriously.
buzz, stick to writing music (which he is still amazing at)
Quote from: rictus on November 29, 2010, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: Bigval on November 29, 2010, 09:24:04 AMThe guy obviously hasn't got a problem with them screwing over their workers.
They don't have to work there.
No, they don't. But again, the point is that they aren't democratically run. Walmart doesn't dig unions (which, like governments are only as good as people can and do make them). When people want better wages at the place they rent themselves out to, not allowing them to have a say in their value is tyrannical. You have to play ball and then you get better wages. Anyone who has had a boss or incompetent supervisor knows this isn't about hard work either.
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 03:39:49 PM
Quote from: rictus on November 29, 2010, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: Bigval on November 29, 2010, 09:24:04 AMThe guy obviously hasn't got a problem with them screwing over their workers.
They don't have to work there.
No, they don't. But again, the point is that they aren't democratically run. Walmart doesn't dig unions (which, like governments are only as good as people can and do make them). When people want better wages at the place they rent themselves out to, not allowing them to have a say in their value is tyrannical. You have to play ball and then you get better wages. Anyone who has had a boss or incompetent supervisor knows this isn't about hard work either.
What on earth do you mean by "democratically run" within a business context? Should a union control how a corporation does business? Where does that leave employees who aren't members of the union? Notwithstanding unions, where does a "democratic" corporation handle shareholders outside the company? How about customers?
Quote from: dead mike on November 29, 2010, 04:50:35 PM
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 03:39:49 PM
Quote from: rictus on November 29, 2010, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: Bigval on November 29, 2010, 09:24:04 AMThe guy obviously hasn't got a problem with them screwing over their workers.
They don't have to work there.
No, they don't. But again, the point is that they aren't democratically run. Walmart doesn't dig unions (which, like governments are only as good as people can and do make them). When people want better wages at the place they rent themselves out to, not allowing them to have a say in their value is tyrannical. You have to play ball and then you get better wages. Anyone who has had a boss or incompetent supervisor knows this isn't about hard work either.
What on earth do you mean by "democratically run" within a business context? Should a union control how a corporation does business? Where does that leave employees who aren't members of the union? Notwithstanding unions, where does a "democratic" corporation handle shareholders outside the company? How about customers?
I said they're NOT democratically run. As an employee, one doesn't have the ability to negotiate one's value. If you're renting out yourself--which is what we do as employees, you either take what you can get or look elsewhere. That's not democratic. Why should businesses be? Well, if we dig "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and we take responsibility seriously, and if you're renting other people for your labor, then perhaps their liberties are being impinged upon if you don't allow them to negotiate the quality of their lives.
No, unions don't need to "control how a corporation does business". As an employee, if you want more say in your destiny, then unions can help if you decide to participate. They're democratic. That said, unions have the potential to influence business. If you think that's the same as "control", then it's no wonder where your comments are coming from. If you don't want to join a union and you don't have to, then don't complain about how much your job and wages suck. Unions can get pretty bad, but again, they're closer to democratic institutions than Walmart (if we're using them as a model).
Corporations are not democratic. By law they are legal humans and the people that make them up are covered under limited liability. Not sure what the "where does a 'democratic' corporation handle..." question means. Democracy and corporate capitalism have been systematically diametrically opposed in both theory and practice.
Customers engage in financial transactions with business. I'm assuming you've steered this to a discussion of capitalism at large. You [edit: not you, but the other guy] were talking about employees as though they were customers (i.e., "don't have to work there" is like "then don't buy it"). These are different relationships. At any rate--Adam Smith's vision of capitalism failed. The very existence of corporations violates his vision. Read Wealth of Nations, compare this to Walmart and then you tell me how closely they fit.
Unions are sometimes greasier than corporations. Especially when it comes to how "democratic" they are.
I can't speak for the states, but some unions up here (Canada) are greasy as fuck, have ties with the mafia and political parties as well as influence legislation. Their influence is, in my opinion, often times fart greater than it needs to be.
Democracy sounds great in theory but unfortunately people are either stupid, lazy, greasy or all of the above.
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 05:19:48 PM
Quote from: dead mike on November 29, 2010, 04:50:35 PM
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 03:39:49 PM
Quote from: rictus on November 29, 2010, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: Bigval on November 29, 2010, 09:24:04 AMThe guy obviously hasn't got a problem with them screwing over their workers.
They don't have to work there.
No, they don't. But again, the point is that they aren't democratically run. Walmart doesn't dig unions (which, like governments are only as good as people can and do make them). When people want better wages at the place they rent themselves out to, not allowing them to have a say in their value is tyrannical. You have to play ball and then you get better wages. Anyone who has had a boss or incompetent supervisor knows this isn't about hard work either.
What on earth do you mean by "democratically run" within a business context? Should a union control how a corporation does business? Where does that leave employees who aren't members of the union? Notwithstanding unions, where does a "democratic" corporation handle shareholders outside the company? How about customers?
I said they're NOT democratically run. As an employee, one doesn't have the ability to negotiate one's value. If you're renting out yourself--which is what we do as employees, you either take what you can get or look elsewhere. That's not democratic. Why should businesses be? Well, if we dig "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and we take responsibility seriously, and if you're renting other people for your labor, then perhaps their liberties are being impinged upon if you don't allow them to negotiate the quality of their lives.
No, unions don't need to "control how a corporation does business". As an employee, if you want more say in your destiny, then unions can help if you decide to participate. They're democratic. That said, unions have the potential to influence business. If you think that's the same as "control", then it's no wonder where your comments are coming from. If you don't want to join a union and you don't have to, then don't complain about how much your job and wages suck. Unions can get pretty bad, but again, they're closer to democratic institutions than Walmart (if we're using them as a model).
Corporations are not democratic. By law they are legal humans and the people that make them up are covered under limited liability. Not sure what the "where does a 'democratic' corporation handle..." question means. Democracy and corporate capitalism have been systematically diametrically opposed in both theory and practice.
Customers engage in financial transactions with business. I'm assuming you've steered this to a discussion of capitalism at large. You [edit: not you, but the other guy] were talking about employees as though they were customers (i.e., "don't have to work there" is like "then don't buy it"). These are different relationships. At any rate--Adam Smith's vision of capitalism failed. The very existence of corporations violates his vision. Read Wealth of Nations, compare this to Walmart and then you tell me how closely they fit.
So what's the alternative then?
Quote from: ManWithNoName on November 29, 2010, 05:36:25 PM
Unions are sometimes greasier than corporations. Especially when it comes to how "democratic" they are.
I can't speak for the states, but some unions up here (Canada) are greasy as fuck, have ties with the mafia and political parties as well as influence legislation. Their influence is, in my opinion, often times fart greater than it needs to be.
Democracy sounds great in theory but unfortunately people are either stupid, lazy, greasy or all of the above.
No doubt. But you can participate in them. Like I said earlier, they're as good as they're members make them. And yeah, if we're mostly stupid, lazy, and greasy (which we are), then it will be. But I seriously question whether they are "greasier than corporations". Structurally, the latter are inherently totalitarian. By design they're greasy. Unions by design maximize decision-making potential of its members.
I do support unions on a local level as I believe a man or a woman should have some say in their work place. It's when you get into the upper echelons that you get into the dirt and grime.
You also have a choice if you want to "sell" your time to an employer if the overall price is right. What's not democratic about that?
So what's the alternative then?
[/quote]
Plenty of alternatives. Remember, when Wealth of Nations was written, corporations were banned in Britain. Thomas Jefferson despised them (and paper money interestingly enough). These guys both knew how money and politics work. I mean, REAL capitalism would be great I think (Smith sounds like a pinko commie by today's retarded standards). But with unaccountable concentrations of capital (i.e., corporations) it doesn't work and too many people get fucked over (and I think we get stupid and lazy, but it's a hypothesis). Real capitalism would heighten accountability at least. But then again, economists (see Bowles and Gintis) have found...empirically...that when employees own their products, they are more productive, quality of production skyrockets, and life satisfaction is higher. Well, duh. There are a lot of worker-owned publishers, agriculture co-ops, record labels, etc. etc. It's perfectly doable.
Quote from: Joe Deutrom on November 29, 2010, 05:56:03 PM
I do support unions on a local level as I believe a man or a woman should have some say in their work place. It's when you get into the upper echelons that you get into the dirt and grime.
You also have a choice if you want to "sell" your time to an employer if the overall price is right. What's not democratic about that?
It's not a matter of democracy to choose who is going to pay you the best. It's taking what options you have. We're not debating free will here. Who dictates the price (operative word being "dictate")?
Quote from: Leroy on November 29, 2010, 02:33:16 PM
\ I mean, this is the guy who said something like "They should have bombed a millon dollar rap video shoot instead" or "If I had my choice, there would be a dead carcass hanging off of every street lamp" (or something like that). He obviously is not one to be taken seriously.
Because Buzz was completely, 100% serious about bombing a rap video and there isn't the slightest hint of a joke there.
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 06:00:05 PM
There are a lot of worker-owned publishers, agriculture co-ops, record labels, etc. etc. It's perfectly doable.
Until the company realizes it has to start laying people off and cutting benefits and gold-plated pensions in order to survive an economic downturn. Or until the "worker-owned" company has to compete with a foreign company that is able to make the same widget at half the cost of the feel-good union shop here in the United States. This whole time, you've assumed that the workers' interest is necessarily the public's interest. That is not always the case. Just look at GM. (Although thanks to our union-friendly President, they can now expect to get a bailout, shift the taxpayers' money around and call it a victory.)
Also, I'm pretty sure your characterization of corporate limited liability is incorrect.
Quote from: Bigval on November 29, 2010, 09:24:04 AM
Pretty disappointed in Buzz's Wal-Mart comments but hey I knew the guy was a right-winger.
There are more than two ideologies. Labeling Buzz as a right-winger is as silly as labeling the Melvins grunge.
Come on everyone, stop arguing! :cry:
R.E.M. - Furry Happy Monsters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7_xzAWLv-g#)
Quote from: MrLuck87 on November 29, 2010, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: Leroy on November 29, 2010, 02:33:16 PM
\ I mean, this is the guy who said something like "They should have bombed a millon dollar rap video shoot instead" or "If I had my choice, there would be a dead carcass hanging off of every street lamp" (or something like that). He obviously is not one to be taken seriously.
Because Buzz was completely, 100% serious about bombing a rap video and there isn't the slightest hint of a joke there.
Damn. I was really starting to get amped up about his "carcass-on-every-street-lamp" proposal.
.[/quote]Until the company realizes it has to start laying people off and cutting benefits and gold-plated pensions in order to survive an economic downturn. This whole time, you've assumed that the workers' interest is necessarily the public's interest. That is not always the case. Just look at GM. (Although thanks to our union-friendly President, they can now expect to get a bailout, shift the taxpayers' money around and call it a victory.)
Also, I'm pretty sure your characterization of corporate limited liability is incorrect.
[/quote]
Companies lay people off to boost profit. These large outfits (who we're talking about) can afford it. Who's economy are you referring to? Boston Globe did a study which found that the government paid companies to boost employment. These are subsidies. Our taxes. They took the money and fired a shitload of people anyway. In order to "survive an economic downturn"? Have you looked at the Fortune 500 lately? These cretins have also been getting tax breaks for decades. What's the President's "union-friendliness" have anything to do with bailouts? The government's been giving tax breaks in the millions to these outfits for years in ludicrous amounts. They get these breaks to "remain competitive". That's what Harry Frankfurt would call "bullshit". Competition should entail living to the basic standards of capitalism, not getting handouts to continue existing. Obama's a gnat's fart of difference between all the rest of them as far as these things go.
Um, limited liability is worse than I presented it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability
I also never assumed that the workers' interest is necessarily the public's interest. It just happens to be the fact that most of the public are employees. Yeah, look at GE. Look at GM.
Arguing is healthy!
You have to love the irony of a Capitalist organization like Wal-Mart finding and using the cheapest labor available (Chinese Communists).
Amazing how we can waste a hundred years of political organizing to get fair labor practices (no child/slave labor, time off, benefits, etc.) put in place only to allow US corporations to go around the law by hiring outside the country. The right cheers this on as if the outsourcing of the American worker and the use of child and slave labor benefits them...
Not that I care what Buzz thinks about politics, but that's my take.
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 06:32:25 PM
Companies lay people off to boost profit. These large outfits (who we're talking about) can afford it. Who's economy are you referring to? Boston Globe did a study which found that the government paid companies to boost employment. These are subsidies. Our taxes. They took the money and fired a shitload of people anyway. In order to "survive an economic downturn"? Have you looked at the Fortune 500 lately? These cretins have also been getting tax breaks for decades. What's the President's "union-friendliness" have anything to do with bailouts? The government's been giving tax breaks in the millions to these outfits for years in ludicrous amounts. They get these breaks to "remain competitive". That's what Harry Frankfurt would call "bullshit". Competition should entail living to the basic standards of capitalism, not getting handouts to continue existing. Obama's a gnat's fart of difference between all the rest of them as far as these things go.
Um, limited liability is worse than I presented it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability
I also never assumed that the workers' interest is necessarily the public's interest. It just happens to be the fact that most of the public are employees. Yeah, look at GE. Look at GM.
Arguing is healthy!
This is hilarious. So you're all for "REAL capitalism" but not for being profitable, or even (apparently) staying out of bankruptcy. And given what you said earlier about limited liability shielding people who "compose" a company from "prosecution" (technically prosecution refers to something else, but I get your drift) your enthusiasm for employee-owned companies makes about as much sense.
You guys are missing out on the soundbite of the century.
Buzz looks maniacal when talking of the education system and how he would raise his children.
"I'd do it myself."
21:42
Awesome.
Quote from: dead mike on November 29, 2010, 06:51:43 PM
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 06:32:25 PM
Companies lay people off to boost profit. These large outfits (who we're talking about) can afford it. Who's economy are you referring to? Boston Globe did a study which found that the government paid companies to boost employment. These are subsidies. Our taxes. They took the money and fired a shitload of people anyway. In order to "survive an economic downturn"? Have you looked at the Fortune 500 lately? These cretins have also been getting tax breaks for decades. What's the President's "union-friendliness" have anything to do with bailouts? The government's been giving tax breaks in the millions to these outfits for years in ludicrous amounts. They get these breaks to "remain competitive". That's what Harry Frankfurt would call "bullshit". Competition should entail living to the basic standards of capitalism, not getting handouts to continue existing. Obama's a gnat's fart of difference between all the rest of them as far as these things go.
Um, limited liability is worse than I presented it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability
I also never assumed that the workers' interest is necessarily the public's interest. It just happens to be the fact that most of the public are employees. Yeah, look at GE. Look at GM.
Arguing is healthy!
This is hilarious. So you're all for "REAL capitalism" but not for being profitable, or even (apparently) staying out of bankruptcy. And given what you said earlier about limited liability shielding people who "compose" a company from "prosecution" (technically prosecution refers to something else, but I get your drift) your enthusiasm for employee-owned companies makes about as much sense.
Glad you're laughing. Unfortunately, it's impairing your ability to read. No, I compared what I called "real capitalism" with that of the corporate variant. There's a massive distinction. I never said I was against profit, nor did I say "staying out of bankruptcy" is problematic. That's called a straw man argument. What I said was Fortune 500 companies get record profits AND major tax breaks. That's a perpetual bailout. But ignore it--as you have--switch the focus--as you also have--and attribute arguments to me that I didn't make--check...In fact, I said "more productive" and "better quality" follows from "workers' ownership". And therefore...profit.
Limited liability allows the owners of GM to continue to pollute, illegally sell arms to other countries, inflate prices, etc. etc. etc. GM is slapped with a fine and continue to do so because it's more cost effective than NOT BREAKING THE LAW. While the shareholders and executives are protected, if you or I did only one of the dozens of things they and other outfits had, we'd be fucked forever. But if you want to keep ignoring evidence, go for it.
The "enthusiasm" you detected was marked with "It's doable." Heaps o' enthusiasm there. It's an IDEA. That empirically works no less. Capitalism and communism are both decent in theory, but history shows that in reality, they both lead to tyrannies. Why that's funny or should be taken as "enthusiasm" rather than stating facts in support of arguments is beyond me.
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 07:11:31 PM
Quote from: dead mike on November 29, 2010, 06:51:43 PM
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 06:32:25 PM
Companies lay people off to boost profit. These large outfits (who we're talking about) can afford it. Who's economy are you referring to? Boston Globe did a study which found that the government paid companies to boost employment. These are subsidies. Our taxes. They took the money and fired a shitload of people anyway. In order to "survive an economic downturn"? Have you looked at the Fortune 500 lately? These cretins have also been getting tax breaks for decades. What's the President's "union-friendliness" have anything to do with bailouts? The government's been giving tax breaks in the millions to these outfits for years in ludicrous amounts. They get these breaks to "remain competitive". That's what Harry Frankfurt would call "bullshit". Competition should entail living to the basic standards of capitalism, not getting handouts to continue existing. Obama's a gnat's fart of difference between all the rest of them as far as these things go.
Um, limited liability is worse than I presented it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability
I also never assumed that the workers' interest is necessarily the public's interest. It just happens to be the fact that most of the public are employees. Yeah, look at GE. Look at GM.
Arguing is healthy!
This is hilarious. So you're all for "REAL capitalism" but not for being profitable, or even (apparently) staying out of bankruptcy. And given what you said earlier about limited liability shielding people who "compose" a company from "prosecution" (technically prosecution refers to something else, but I get your drift) your enthusiasm for employee-owned companies makes about as much sense.
Glad you're laughing. Unfortunately, it's impairing your ability to read. No, I compared what I called "real capitalism" with that of the corporate variant. There's a massive distinction. I never said I was against profit, nor did I say "staying out of bankruptcy" is problematic. That's called a straw man argument. What I said was Fortune 500 companies get record profits AND major tax breaks. That's a perpetual bailout. But ignore it--as you have--switch the focus--as you also have--and attribute arguments to me that I didn't make--check...In fact, I said "more productive" and "better quality" follows from "workers' ownership". And therefore...profit.
Limited liability allows the owners of GM to continue to pollute, illegally sell arms to other countries, inflate prices, etc. etc. etc. GM is slapped with a fine and continue to do so because it's more cost effective than NOT BREAKING THE LAW. While the shareholders and executives are protected, if you or I did only one of the dozens of things they and other outfits had, we'd be fucked forever. But if you want to keep ignoring evidence, go for it.
The "enthusiasm" you detected was marked with "It's doable." Heaps o' enthusiasm there. It's an IDEA. That empirically works no less. Capitalism and communism are both decent in theory, but history shows that in reality, they both lead to tyrannies. Why that's funny or should be taken as "enthusiasm" rather than stating facts in support of arguments is beyond me.
In any BBS argument, there comes a point where one side, suddenly realizing the logical inconsistency with his overarching arguments, attempts to subtly revise his position by declaring that the other side has "misread" his argument and by splitting hairs over subjective interpretations of the preceding exchanges. I'd say we've reached that point here, wouldn't you? It almost makes me wonder what it's all for.
Anyway, there is nothing in that Wikipedia article (
the source for authoritative, reliable information, I know) that says limited liability allows corporate personnel to violate criminal statutes. But once I finish studying the law of Business Entities next semester, I'll text you a lengthy dissertation. Cool? Great. Meantime, I can tell you that corporate executives are subject to criminal
and civil liability. Just ask Bernie Ebbers, Jeff Skilling, Richard Scrushy, et al.
For every Fortune 500 company that posts "record profits" and gets "major" tax breaks, there is another (former) Fortune 500 company that is operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (or has liquidated its assets under Chapter 7).
Your "evidence" that the corporate model is inherently unfair (or evil, or whatever) consists of conclusory statements of generalized assumptions. I also question your assumption that higher productivity and better quality necessarily lead to higher profits, but I'm not an MBA. Nor are you, I'd wager.
Quote from: dead mike on November 29, 2010, 08:00:26 PM
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 07:11:31 PM
Quote from: dead mike on November 29, 2010, 06:51:43 PM
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 06:32:25 PM
Companies lay people off to boost profit. These large outfits (who we're talking about) can afford it. Who's economy are you referring to? Boston Globe did a study which found that the government paid companies to boost employment. These are subsidies. Our taxes. They took the money and fired a shitload of people anyway. In order to "survive an economic downturn"? Have you looked at the Fortune 500 lately? These cretins have also been getting tax breaks for decades. What's the President's "union-friendliness" have anything to do with bailouts? The government's been giving tax breaks in the millions to these outfits for years in ludicrous amounts. They get these breaks to "remain competitive". That's what Harry Frankfurt would call "bullshit". Competition should entail living to the basic standards of capitalism, not getting handouts to continue existing. Obama's a gnat's fart of difference between all the rest of them as far as these things go.
Um, limited liability is worse than I presented it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability
I also never assumed that the workers' interest is necessarily the public's interest. It just happens to be the fact that most of the public are employees. Yeah, look at GE. Look at GM.
Arguing is healthy!
This is hilarious. So you're all for "REAL capitalism" but not for being profitable, or even (apparently) staying out of bankruptcy. And given what you said earlier about limited liability shielding people who "compose" a company from "prosecution" (technically prosecution refers to something else, but I get your drift) your enthusiasm for employee-owned companies makes about as much sense.
Glad you're laughing. Unfortunately, it's impairing your ability to read. No, I compared what I called "real capitalism" with that of the corporate variant. There's a massive distinction. I never said I was against profit, nor did I say "staying out of bankruptcy" is problematic. That's called a straw man argument. What I said was Fortune 500 companies get record profits AND major tax breaks. That's a perpetual bailout. But ignore it--as you have--switch the focus--as you also have--and attribute arguments to me that I didn't make--check...In fact, I said "more productive" and "better quality" follows from "workers' ownership". And therefore...profit.
Limited liability allows the owners of GM to continue to pollute, illegally sell arms to other countries, inflate prices, etc. etc. etc. GM is slapped with a fine and continue to do so because it's more cost effective than NOT BREAKING THE LAW. While the shareholders and executives are protected, if you or I did only one of the dozens of things they and other outfits had, we'd be fucked forever. But if you want to keep ignoring evidence, go for it.
The "enthusiasm" you detected was marked with "It's doable." Heaps o' enthusiasm there. It's an IDEA. That empirically works no less. Capitalism and communism are both decent in theory, but history shows that in reality, they both lead to tyrannies. Why that's funny or should be taken as "enthusiasm" rather than stating facts in support of arguments is beyond me.
In any BBS argument, there comes a point where one side, suddenly realizing the logical inconsistency with his overarching arguments, attempts to subtly revise his position by declaring that the other side has "misread" his argument and by splitting hairs over subjective interpretations of the preceding exchanges. I'd say we've reached that point here, wouldn't you? It almost makes me wonder what it's all for.
Anyway, there is nothing in that Wikipedia article (the source for authoritative, reliable information, I know) that says limited liability allows corporate personnel to violate criminal statutes. But once I finish studying the law of Business Entities next semester, I'll text you a lengthy dissertation. Cool? Great. Meantime, I can tell you that corporate executives are subject to criminal and civil liability. Just ask Bernie Ebbers, Jeff Skilling, Richard Scrushy, et al.
For every Fortune 500 company that posts "record profits" and gets "major" tax breaks, there is another (former) Fortune 500 company that is operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (or has liquidated its assets under Chapter 7).
Your "evidence" that the corporate model is inherently unfair (or evil, or whatever) consists of conclusory statements of generalized assumptions. I also question your assumption that higher productivity and better quality necessarily lead to higher profits, but I'm not an MBA. Nor are you, I'd wager.
Reread what was stated. I prefer good old capitalism to what most seem to confuse it with, which is what we have today. You asked for an alternative, I provided it which a worker-owned model of business. I gave you what you asked for and you couldn't critique it! Rather, you wrote I was against profit and the prevention of bankruptcy. Now I'm splitting hairs? Give me a break. If you can't address an argument, don't stay in one. Here's yet another example:
"limited liability allows corporate personnel to violate criminal statutes". I didn't make this argument. I said limited liability protects individuals from being personally responsible for the corporate entity's bad decisions. I never said immunity, nor did I say "allows personnel to violate criminal statutes." The very fact that GE still exists after systematic violations and no one has been imprisoned for life (which we would be) for their crimes is a case in point. We were talking about the nature of these institutions and their incompatibility with democracy.
"or evil or whatever" or "unfair". Never said that either. They're inherently undemocratic. If people like determining their own destinies and they don't have a say, then yeah, I'd say that's unfair. Generalized assumptions? It's the way they work. Milton Fucking Friedman says it! And he was in the Chicago School! They are amoral, legal people. And as for the productivity "assumption" (it was a premise), I gave you a source for the evidence so you could check yourself.
A lack of an MBA is no excuse for a poor argument.
I knew this would happen, but I'm glad to see we all have pretty well balanced opinions on stuff.
I also recall somewhere Buzz saying not to turn to artists for political views somewhere. He said something about why would people to turn to say, Lady Gaga, for an opinion on something like 9/11, or the disaster in Haiti? It is just his opinion and I do agree that politicians are soulless creatures, there is no politician that can truly connect to anyone of us, on account they are in a whole different class. My immediate thought to one president who came from a point of poverty up to where he was president was Lincoln. There could be one or two more, but they all had an aristocratic background. If anything if an artist states is opinions or ideas you should research it yourself. Like, Noam Chomsky would probably say, "Don't take my word for it, find out for yourself." One shouldn't just go on what someone says, because of who they are. And while on the subject of Chomsky, if there is anyone who agrees with this man or disagree he is right in saying to individuals to go look it up themselves so they can formulate their own opinion on different matters.
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 09:20:34 PM
Reread what was stated. I prefer good old capitalism to what most seem to confuse it with, which is what we have today. You asked for an alternative, I provided it which a worker-owned model of business. I gave you what you asked for and you couldn't critique it! Rather, you wrote I was against profit and the prevention of bankruptcy. Now I'm splitting hairs? Give me a break. If you can't address an argument, don't stay in one. Here's yet another example:
"limited liability allows corporate personnel to violate criminal statutes". I didn't make this argument. I said limited liability protects individuals from being personally responsible for the corporate entity's bad decisions. I never said immunity, nor did I say "allows personnel to violate criminal statutes." The very fact that GE still exists after systematic violations and no one has been imprisoned for life (which we would be) for their crimes is a case in point. We were talking about the nature of these institutions and their incompatibility with democracy.
"or evil or whatever" or "unfair". Never said that either. They're inherently undemocratic. If people like determining their own destinies and they don't have a say, then yeah, I'd say that's unfair. Generalized assumptions? It's the way they work. Milton Fucking Friedman says it! And he was in the Chicago School! They are amoral, legal people. And as for the productivity "assumption" (it was a premise), I gave you a source for the evidence so you could check yourself.
A lack of an MBA is no excuse for a poor argument.
Ah, jeez. Here we go again.
You said first: Limited liability "makes the individuals that compose corporations effectively immune from prosecution."
Then: "GM is slapped with a fine and continue to do so because it's more cost effective than NOT BREAKING THE LAW" (implying that
And then: "executives are protected." Because this immediately follows "NOT BREAKING THE LAW," this can only mean "protected from criminal and/or civil liability."
I just gave three real world examples of corporate executives who not have only been criminally sanctioned, but also have been defendants of civil suits as well. You gave me a Wikipedia article that doesn't support your argument. In the absence of an on-point rebuttal by you, the only logical conclusion is that limited liability is NOT a Harry Potter-esque cloak that renders corporate personnel invisible to prosecutors and plaintiffs attorneys, as you claim (in so many words) in your argument that the corporate model is unfair/undemocratic/un-whatever.
I have no idea what you mean by "good old" capitalism or "REAL" capitalism. It seems you don't either. The modern corporation's predecessor, the joint-stock company, in which
investors put money into a business venture in the hopes of making a profit goes back at least as far as the 1600s. Farm co-ops, record labels and small-time publishers, which you mentioned earlier, are bad examples to raise in support of your argument. Please name one such "worker-owned" company that is able to raise the sort of capital needed to be competitive on an international or even national level. Can't do it? Well, I hate to break it to you, but an economy of a country the size of the U.S., in order to be sustainable, needs to be composed of something more than niche-market enterprises catering to the disposable incomes of hipsters.
Yeah, I'm real impressed that you're able to name-drop Milton Friedman and the "Chicago school" and everything. But the fact of the matter is your argument actually
isn't that corporations are bad because they're "undemocratic." This assertion is actually false to the extent that shareholders of publicly traded companies elect members of the board of directors. Moreover, you've repeatedly argued that workers should own the companies they work for and so be able to set the terms on which they work. You're actually arguing in favor of more union-friendly collective bargaining laws. This has nothing to do with most facets of executive decision-making, i.e., what widgets to make, how, in what quantities and whom to sell them to. If this is not the true nugget of your argument, then you're saying such decisions should be made by a vote of the workers. You definitely don't need an MBA to realize that if this isn't lunacy, it certainly isn't the way to organize a national economy.
In conclusion, if I'm a little lost as to what you're talking about, then you're totally adrift at sea. Without a life jacket, no less.
Also, assumptions can be premises.
Quote from: dead mike on November 29, 2010, 11:31:49 PM
Yeah, I'm real impressed that you're able to name-drop Milton Friedman and the "Chicago school" and everything
Lol when I read this line I totally imagined you as Will Hunting in that bar :lol:
(Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood).
smoke some weed like seriously.
Quote from: the baron on November 29, 2010, 11:40:03 PM
Quote from: dead mike on November 29, 2010, 11:31:49 PM
Yeah, I'm real impressed that you're able to name-drop Milton Friedman and the "Chicago school" and everything
Lol when I read this line I totally imagined you as Will Hunting in that bar :lol:
(Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood).
:lol: On this board it'd be more like Good Will Hunting 2.
Jay & Silent Bob - Good Will Hunting 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ70hbvaPdU#ws)
Just gonna point out that libertararians have no problem not funding armies through the goverment and that macro-economics is a bastard science based on missapropriating physics equations. Then I'm going to leave this thread and never, ever come back.
Quote from: dead mike on November 29, 2010, 11:31:49 PM
Quote from: buzunool on November 29, 2010, 09:20:34 PM
Reread what was stated. I prefer good old capitalism to what most seem to confuse it with, which is what we have today. You asked for an alternative, I provided it which a worker-owned model of business. I gave you what you asked for and you couldn't critique it! Rather, you wrote I was against profit and the prevention of bankruptcy. Now I'm splitting hairs? Give me a break. If you can't address an argument, don't stay in one. Here's yet another example:
"limited liability allows corporate personnel to violate criminal statutes". I didn't make this argument. I said limited liability protects individuals from being personally responsible for the corporate entity's bad decisions. I never said immunity, nor did I say "allows personnel to violate criminal statutes." The very fact that GE still exists after systematic violations and no one has been imprisoned for life (which we would be) for their crimes is a case in point. We were talking about the nature of these institutions and their incompatibility with democracy.
"or evil or whatever" or "unfair". Never said that either. They're inherently undemocratic. If people like determining their own destinies and they don't have a say, then yeah, I'd say that's unfair. Generalized assumptions? It's the way they work. Milton Fucking Friedman says it! And he was in the Chicago School! They are amoral, legal people. And as for the productivity "assumption" (it was a premise), I gave you a source for the evidence so you could check yourself.
A lack of an MBA is no excuse for a poor argument.
Ah, jeez. Here we go again.
You said first: Limited liability "makes the individuals that compose corporations effectively immune from prosecution."
Then: "GM is slapped with a fine and continue to do so because it's more cost effective than NOT BREAKING THE LAW" (implying that
And then: "executives are protected." Because this immediately follows "NOT BREAKING THE LAW," this can only mean "protected from criminal and/or civil liability."
I just gave three real world examples of corporate executives who not have only been criminally sanctioned, but also have been defendants of civil suits as well. You gave me a Wikipedia article that doesn't support your argument. In the absence of an on-point rebuttal by you, the only logical conclusion is that limited liability is NOT a Harry Potter-esque cloak that renders corporate personnel invisible to prosecutors and plaintiffs attorneys, as you claim (in so many words) in your argument that the corporate model is unfair/undemocratic/un-whatever.
I have no idea what you mean by "good old" capitalism or "REAL" capitalism. It seems you don't either. The modern corporation's predecessor, the joint-stock company, in which investors put money into a business venture in the hopes of making a profit goes back at least as far as the 1600s. Farm co-ops, record labels and small-time publishers, which you mentioned earlier, are bad examples to raise in support of your argument. Please name one such "worker-owned" company that is able to raise the sort of capital needed to be competitive on an international or even national level. Can't do it? Well, I hate to break it to you, but an economy of a country the size of the U.S., in order to be sustainable, needs to be composed of something more than niche-market enterprises catering to the disposable incomes of hipsters.
Yeah, I'm real impressed that you're able to name-drop Milton Friedman and the "Chicago school" and everything. But the fact of the matter is your argument actually isn't that corporations are bad because they're "undemocratic." This assertion is actually false to the extent that shareholders of publicly traded companies elect members of the board of directors. Moreover, you've repeatedly argued that workers should own the companies they work for and so be able to set the terms on which they work. You're actually arguing in favor of more union-friendly collective bargaining laws. This has nothing to do with most facets of executive decision-making, i.e., what widgets to make, how, in what quantities and whom to sell them to. If this is not the true nugget of your argument, then you're saying such decisions should be made by a vote of the workers. You definitely don't need an MBA to realize that if this isn't lunacy, it certainly isn't the way to organize a national economy.
In conclusion, if I'm a little lost as to what you're talking about, then you're totally adrift at sea. Without a life jacket, no less.
Also, assumptions can be premises.
Sigh. Effectively immune from prosecution when the corporation is responsible for a crime. Read the externality part. I gave you GM as an example. They've got a long criminal record. Go ahead and focuses on the relationship between shareholders and that they get to vote. Good for them! And then customers getting to choose whether they buy or not. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat.
You can can it "lunacy" if you want, but it's been empirically demonstrated to work. That was my point. "Organizing a national economy" sounds eerily like Soviet Russia. You have no idea what I mean by good old capitalism because you haven't read what I wrote. Read Adam Smith. Milton Friedman actually shares your position it sounds like. Chief architect for neo-liberalism? I was "name-dropping" him to point out that corporate cheerleaders, too, can acknowledge that corporations are amoral and undemocratic. Sorry if you think that was snobbery.
"if I'm a little lost as to what you're talking about, then you're totally adrift at sea."
It's logic like this that makes me wonder why I try. Or is this just dividing the losings?
You do realize that Adam Smith's work was mostly theoretical and that the capitalism he's referring to isn't an analysis of the actual system in place but how it should be, right?
So, in essence, this "good old capitalism" or "real capitalism" you're talking about isn't real and never existed -- it's an idea/concept.
Also, Adam Smith never claimed that corporations were amoral or undemocratic because no such thing existed in his time.
Quote from: ManWithNoName on November 30, 2010, 08:03:26 AM
You do realize that Adam Smith's work was mostly theoretical and that the capitalism he's referring to isn't an analysis of the actual system in place but how it should be, right?
So, in essence, this "good old capitalism" or "real capitalism" you're talking about isn't real and never existed -- it's an idea/concept.
Also, Adam Smith never claimed that corporations were amoral or undemocratic because no such thing existed in his time.
Yeah, I said this earlier. Good in theory, execution didn't work as well. Same with communism. What works is syndicalism...if we're privileging democracy, quality, and productivity over private power.
I'm not aware of Smith's saying that, I referred to Milton Friedman. I suspect Smith was against them though:
I thought Buzz was just fucking with this guy because he was Canadian. Think about it, Buzz has never had a single good thing to say about Canada and was probably bummed about the lack of revenue because of the merch situation (none, remember?). What this interview showed me is that Buzz is and has been committed to making money by playing shows, and these shows in Canada were not cost effective. Oh, and he hates paying taxes, which I can cut him some slack on because he is an artist and I think they should get some kind of break.
Quote from: DCGod on November 30, 2010, 01:46:27 PM
Buzz has never had a single good thing to say about Canada and was probably bummed about the lack of revenue because of the merch situation (none, remember?). What this interview showed me is that Buzz is and has been committed to making money by playing shows, and these shows in Canada were not cost effective.
He doesn't have to play there.
I know he doesn't have to play there and don't know why they did. Pressure from the record label? I don't think so. Probably felt obligated, it had been 10 years.
i'm certain they did alright overall up here. they were likely lured up by good guarantees, esp. given how much advance tickets were in toronto ($26). obviously they could have made a tonne more with merch and by not having to rent equipment (which i thought somebody here said they did), but i doubt it was a money losing venture....
Quote from: DCGod on November 30, 2010, 02:18:22 PM
I know he doesn't have to play there and don't know why they did. Pressure from the record label? I don't think so. Probably felt obligated, it had been 10 years.
And now it's going to be another 10 years. Where is the suicide button?
Quote from: Justafilthylurker on November 30, 2010, 04:41:09 AM
Just gonna point out that libertararians have no problem not funding armies
Wait, what? Where did you hear that?
http://www.lp.org/platform (http://www.lp.org/platform)
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.
The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as
policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
The more demand for a given profession has the more value is placed on it. If there is a glut of a certain thing in a free market the less value it has. It is with this knowledge that one can negotiate their price. The more options you have through education, skills, experience, the better off you potentially are in gainful employment. The choice is yours then to sell your time and talents to a prospective buyer. Choice and democracy go hand in hand. No one is forcing you to settle.
There are "Libertarians" and then there are libertarians. I seen a picture of Buzz sporting a Barry Goldwater shirt. That's pretty conspicuous. My guess is that he leans libertarian but is sympathetic towards a mainstream political ideology.
Goldwater was an interesting fellow.
Quote from: Joe Deutrom on November 30, 2010, 07:19:37 PM
There are "Libertarians" and then there are libertarians. I seen a picture of Buzz sporting a Barry Goldwater shirt. That's pretty conspicuous. My guess is that he leans libertarian but is sympathetic towards a mainstream political ideology.
Ever since the Tea Parties the word libertarian has become has meaningless as the word liberal. It's gets thrown around
way too much.
Not really. That word has been around for some time. Another phrase for it is classical liberalism.
Quote from: buzunool on November 30, 2010, 07:42:41 AM
Sigh. Effectively immune from prosecution when the corporation is responsible for a crime. Read the externality part. I gave you GM as an example. They've got a long criminal record. Go ahead and focuses on the relationship between shareholders and that they get to vote. Good for them! And then customers getting to choose whether they buy or not. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat.
You can can it "lunacy" if you want, but it's been empirically demonstrated to work. That was my point. "Organizing a national economy" sounds eerily like Soviet Russia. You have no idea what I mean by good old capitalism because you haven't read what I wrote. Read Adam Smith. Milton Friedman actually shares your position it sounds like. Chief architect for neo-liberalism? I was "name-dropping" him to point out that corporate cheerleaders, too, can acknowledge that corporations are amoral and undemocratic. Sorry if you think that was snobbery.
"if I'm a little lost as to what you're talking about, then you're totally adrift at sea."
It's logic like this that makes me wonder why I try. Or is this just dividing the losings?
See, the thing is, you haven't backed up your arguments with
anything that actually supports them. Not. One. Thing. You seem to think that name-dropping economists and telling me to "read" them will somehow convince me that you have any idea what you're talking about. Well, you haven't and you don't, and you have no one to blame but yourself. If you had actually provided at least a title to the Bowles/Gintis study that supposedly empirically proves you right, I might have been willing to at least look at it and draw my own conclusions. Turns out they wrote a lot together, and I don't have time or inclination to try to figure out which article or study you keeping pointing to as your Exhibit A, read it and figure out whether it actually proves what you say it proves. So the only thing I have to go on are your examples of farm co-ops and independent record labels. You argue that they are a viable alternative to the corporate model at a national or global scale, but you have yet to show me one concrete example.
And GM (or was it GE? You can't even get the names right!) has "a long criminal record"? Really?? What were they charged with? Were they convicted? When? More importantly, how does this prove that limited liability shields executives? Externality? Do you mean this part from the Wikipedia entry which claim says more than it actually does in support of your theory: "It has also been argued that it distorts the free market by allowing the entrepreneur to externalise some risk and impose it on society at large"? If this is what you're referring to (and I can't think of anything else you might be referring to) and even if this statement is true, it doesn't help your argument either. Because it clearly does NOT say executives, even when acting within the scope of their jobs, are "effectively immune" from criminal or civil liability, as my examples of Ebbers et al show. Go ahead and read the cited (sketchy) article. It doesn't say that either.
But here's my favorite quote from you so far: "'Organizing a national economy' sounds eerily like Soviet Russia."
So now I'm a Communist? Hahaha! You are really out of ammunition when you start taking quotes out of context and spinning them to mean something that would contradict your basic argument. Here I am, a dyed in the wool pinko arguing that publicly traded corporations are a necessary part of a large, modern, globally competitive economy. Not an effective use of irony.
I do retract my earlier comparison of you to a person lost at sea. You're more like someone trapped in quick sand: the more you flail about, the quicker you sink.
Dosvedanya, comrade.
Melvins will be back in Canada when the new album drops! Mark my words!
Quote from: MrLuck87 on November 30, 2010, 07:08:21 PM
Quote from: Justafilthylurker on November 30, 2010, 04:41:09 AM
Just gonna point out that libertararians have no problem not funding armies
Wait, what? Where did you hear that?
http://www.lp.org/platform (http://www.lp.org/platform)
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.
Surely the invisible hand of the free market would find a better solution.
Edit: Oh shit, that should read "have no problem
not funding armies." I'm jabbering incoherently, you should definately listen to my ideas about the economy.
Quote from: dead mike on November 30, 2010, 10:28:25 PM
Quote from: buzunool on November 30, 2010, 07:42:41 AM
Sigh. Effectively immune from prosecution when the corporation is responsible for a crime. Read the externality part. I gave you GM as an example. They've got a long criminal record. Go ahead and focuses on the relationship between shareholders and that they get to vote. Good for them! And then customers getting to choose whether they buy or not. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat.
You can can it "lunacy" if you want, but it's been empirically demonstrated to work. That was my point. "Organizing a national economy" sounds eerily like Soviet Russia. You have no idea what I mean by good old capitalism because you haven't read what I wrote. Read Adam Smith. Milton Friedman actually shares your position it sounds like. Chief architect for neo-liberalism? I was "name-dropping" him to point out that corporate cheerleaders, too, can acknowledge that corporations are amoral and undemocratic. Sorry if you think that was snobbery.
"if I'm a little lost as to what you're talking about, then you're totally adrift at sea."
It's logic like this that makes me wonder why I try. Or is this just dividing the losings?
See, the thing is, you haven't backed up your arguments with anything that actually supports them. Not. One. Thing. You seem to think that name-dropping economists and telling me to "read" them will somehow convince me that you have any idea what you're talking about. Well, you haven't and you don't, and you have no one to blame but yourself. If you had actually provided at least a title to the Bowles/Gintis study that supposedly empirically proves you right, I might have been willing to at least look at it and draw my own conclusions. Turns out they wrote a lot together, and I don't have time or inclination to try to figure out which article or study you keeping pointing to as your Exhibit A, read it and figure out whether it actually proves what you say it proves. So the only thing I have to go on are your examples of farm co-ops and independent record labels. You argue that they are a viable alternative to the corporate model at a national or global scale, but you have yet to show me one concrete example.
And GM (or was it GE? You can't even get the names right!) has "a long criminal record"? Really?? What were they charged with? Were they convicted? When? More importantly, how does this prove that limited liability shields executives? Externality? Do you mean this part from the Wikipedia entry which claim says more than it actually does in support of your theory: "It has also been argued that it distorts the free market by allowing the entrepreneur to externalise some risk and impose it on society at large"? If this is what you're referring to (and I can't think of anything else you might be referring to) and even if this statement is true, it doesn't help your argument either. Because it clearly does NOT say executives, even when acting within the scope of their jobs, are "effectively immune" from criminal or civil liability, as my examples of Ebbers et al show. Go ahead and read the cited (sketchy) article. It doesn't say that either.
But here's my favorite quote from you so far: "'Organizing a national economy' sounds eerily like Soviet Russia."
So now I'm a Communist? Hahaha! You are really out of ammunition when you start taking quotes out of context and spinning them to mean something that would contradict your basic argument. Here I am, a dyed in the wool pinko arguing that publicly traded corporations are a necessary part of a large, modern, globally competitive economy. Not an effective use of irony.
I do retract my earlier comparison of you to a person lost at sea. You're more like someone trapped in quick sand: the more you flail about, the quicker you sink.
Dosvedanya, comrade.
You know how to use the internet. I suggest using Google to find Bowles and Gintis.
The strange thing about all of this is that you asked for an alternative and I gave you one that has been demonstrated to work (beyond niche markets). I never claimed I'm committed to it. I gave you an example and this turned into my "enthusiasm". You're the one on the defensive.
I never said you were a communist, I said you couldn't read. Same case here, but if you actually use "organize" in any useful sense, it means to make order. Since the institutions you're defending are top-down institutions by definition, they're doing the organizing. Soviets use the state for this. Recall my original comparison to theory-practice. Relax!
The burden of proof is on me to address GE since I brought it up. But again, a quick search can do this as well. Let me put this gently:
1 Feb 1977D.C. - GE ordered to stop misleading ad claims on color televisions and other home appliances16 June 1981Lincoln NE- GE ordered to pay damages over storage of spent nuclear fuel $8.5 millionMay 1985D.C.- GE fined for defrauding Defense department on contracts $1.04 million5 June 1987Los Angeles CA- GE subsidiary fined $25.3 million for insider trading20 Nov 1987Cincinnati Ohio- GE ordered to pay damages on safety defects at Zimmer nuclear plant-$78 million3 June 1988San Francisco- GE and others ordered to cleanup groundwater contamination-$5.3 million initial settlement29 March 1989D.C.- GE fined for defrauding government on defense contracts $ 3.5 million5 Oct 1989Tennessee- GE ordered to refund overcharges on work at Brown's Ferry Plant-$2.6 million23 March 1990Shepherdsville KY- GE and others ordered to cleanup PCB contamination of soil and water27 March 1990Wilmington, NC - GE fined for discrimination against employees who report safety violations-$20,00011 May 1990Ft. Edward/Hudson Falls- GE ordered to cleanup PCB contamination of Hudson River -$10 million27 July 1990Philadelphia PA- GE fined for defrauding government in defense contacts-$30 million11 Oct 1990Waterford NY- GE fined for pollution at Silicone Products plant- $176,00020 May 1991D.C. - GE Ordered to pay damages over improperly tested aircraft parts for Air Force and Navy- $1 million27 Feb 1992Allentown, PA - GE ordered to pay damages on design flaws of nuclear plants -$80 million4 March 1992Orange County CA - GE fined for violation of worker safety rules on handling PCB's-$11,00013 March 1992Wilmington, NC- GE fined for safety violations at nuclear fuel plant $20,00022 May 1992Illinois - GE ordered to pay damages on design flaws of nuclear plants $65 million22 July 1992D.C.- GE fined for money laundering and fraud over illegal sale of fighter jets to Israel-$70 million13 Sep 1992Chicago, IL- GE ordered to pay damages for airplane crash-$1.8 million12 Oct 1992Nashville TN - GE ordered to pay damages from deceptive advertising on lightbulbs -$165,00027 Oct 1992D.C.-GE ordered to pay damages from overcharging on defense contracts $576,21512 May 1992D.C.-GE ordered to pay damages to whistleblower on illegal sale of fighter jets to Israel-$13.4 million2 March 1993Riverside CA - GE and others ordered to pay damages for contamination from dumping of industrial chemicals-$96 million 11 March 1993Grove City PA - GE and others ordered to cleanup mining site $1.81 million 16 Sep 1993NY - GE ordered to compensate commercial fisherman for PCB contamination of the Hudson River-$7 million11 Oct 1993San Francisco- GE ordered to offer rebates to consumers after deceptive light bulb advertising - $3.25 million18 July 1993Hudson Falls NY- GE ordered to clean up PCB contamination of Hudson River -$2.5 Million2 Feb 1994Perry OH - GE settles with utility companies on defective Perry Nuclear Plant. 14 Mar 1994Ft. Edward NY - GE ordered to cleanup contamination of sediment from reaching Hudson River $100,00014 Sep 19949.14.94 D.C.- GE fined for overcharges in defense contracts-$20 million2 Sep 1995Waterford NY - GE fined for air pollution and contamination of the Hudson River, -$1.5 million15 Sep 1995Brandon Fl- GE fined for groundwater contamination- $137,0009 Sep 1996Waterford, NY -GE Fined for Clean Air Act violations -$60,0007 Oct 1996Hendersonville NC - GE ordered to cleanup contamination of soil and groundwater- $1.029 million8 Oct 1996Cook County IL- GE ordered to pay settlement from airline crash in Sioux City -$15 million22 Feb 1997Somersworth NH - GE and others ordered to cleanup contamination of groundwater and public water supply -$ 7 millionFeb 1998Waterford NY- GE fined for pollution violations $234,00020 April 1998Waterford NY- GE fined for pollution violations- $204,000Oct 1998United Kingdom - GE ordered to cleanup asbestos and pollution claims $2 billion pounds26 Oct 1998Puerto Rico - GE and others ordered to cleanup contamination of drinking water supply -$4.2 million5 Nov 1998South Whitehall PA- GE and others ordered to cleanup contamination $1.035 million24 Jan 1999Chicago- GE ordered to reimburse consumers over unfair debt collection practices-$147 million19 Aug 1999Piscataway NJ -GE and others ordered to cleanup contamination of groundwater-$23 million2 Sep 1999Malvern PA- GE and others ordered to cleanup groundwater contamination- $18.8 million17 Sep 1999Moreau NY - GE ordered to build drinking water system after PCB contamination of water supply-$5 million9 Oct 1999Pittsfield MA -GE ordered to cleanup PCB pollution in Housatonic river $250-750 million18 Oct 2000New York, NY- GE and others ordered to clean up contamination of soil $28 millionJan 2001NY- GE and others ordered to refund overcharges on mortgage insurance $4 million4 Feb 2001NY - State Supreme Court rules GE deceptively mislead consumers into purchasing new dishwashers after recall while sending commercial customers a replacement part.
And this is just up to 2001. GE got in trouble (merely fined) for all of these since it's a legal person that can be sued. The individuals who made these decisions were NOT penalized as individuals. They can't NOT break the law. They're the US's largest defense contractor. So, yeah, maybe "effectively immune" was too strong if you ignore the fact that it means "virtually". Sniff.
And incidentally, (not directed at the other post, but as a pre-emptive strike) anyone who parrots "hidden hand" also needs to realize that this one mentioned ONCE (and probably ironically) in the entire volume of WoN. It's not remotely central to his thesis. I don't know how this happened beyond it's a nice sound bite. I suspect it prevents people from actually reading it.
So, you can keep repeating the charge that I don't know what I'm talking about or coming up with analogies with water, sand, pudding, mashed potatoes, whatever, but you can't get any closer to evaluating the actual factual claims and logic of what amounts to giving YOU an example of something that works--because you asked--and then suddenly you're defending the entire global economy. Democracy and corporations are ultimately incompatible as they are at odds. Always. This is an uncontroversial position (again, expressed by the name dropped supporter of neoliberalism). Doesn't sound to me like I'm the one who hasn't thought through things.
Onward.
Quote from: anaconda on December 01, 2010, 03:42:27 AM
Melvins will be back in Canada when the new album drops! Mark my words!
I hope you're right, man. I'm hoping the great response they got in MTL will convince them to come back again. I'm assuming they got a great response in Toronto as well.
Dude! a standing ovation! 15-20 straight minutes of applause and cheering at the end of the show even when we knew they wouldn't encore!
Quote from: buzunool on December 01, 2010, 06:26:08 AM
Quote from: dead mike on November 30, 2010, 10:28:25 PM
Quote from: buzunool on November 30, 2010, 07:42:41 AM
Sigh. Effectively immune from prosecution when the corporation is responsible for a crime. Read the externality part. I gave you GM as an example. They've got a long criminal record. Go ahead and focuses on the relationship between shareholders and that they get to vote. Good for them! And then customers getting to choose whether they buy or not. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat.
You can can it "lunacy" if you want, but it's been empirically demonstrated to work. That was my point. "Organizing a national economy" sounds eerily like Soviet Russia. You have no idea what I mean by good old capitalism because you haven't read what I wrote. Read Adam Smith. Milton Friedman actually shares your position it sounds like. Chief architect for neo-liberalism? I was "name-dropping" him to point out that corporate cheerleaders, too, can acknowledge that corporations are amoral and undemocratic. Sorry if you think that was snobbery.
"if I'm a little lost as to what you're talking about, then you're totally adrift at sea."
It's logic like this that makes me wonder why I try. Or is this just dividing the losings?
See, the thing is, you haven't backed up your arguments with anything that actually supports them. Not. One. Thing. You seem to think that name-dropping economists and telling me to "read" them will somehow convince me that you have any idea what you're talking about. Well, you haven't and you don't, and you have no one to blame but yourself. If you had actually provided at least a title to the Bowles/Gintis study that supposedly empirically proves you right, I might have been willing to at least look at it and draw my own conclusions. Turns out they wrote a lot together, and I don't have time or inclination to try to figure out which article or study you keeping pointing to as your Exhibit A, read it and figure out whether it actually proves what you say it proves. So the only thing I have to go on are your examples of farm co-ops and independent record labels. You argue that they are a viable alternative to the corporate model at a national or global scale, but you have yet to show me one concrete example.
And GM (or was it GE? You can't even get the names right!) has "a long criminal record"? Really?? What were they charged with? Were they convicted? When? More importantly, how does this prove that limited liability shields executives? Externality? Do you mean this part from the Wikipedia entry which claim says more than it actually does in support of your theory: "It has also been argued that it distorts the free market by allowing the entrepreneur to externalise some risk and impose it on society at large"? If this is what you're referring to (and I can't think of anything else you might be referring to) and even if this statement is true, it doesn't help your argument either. Because it clearly does NOT say executives, even when acting within the scope of their jobs, are "effectively immune" from criminal or civil liability, as my examples of Ebbers et al show. Go ahead and read the cited (sketchy) article. It doesn't say that either.
But here's my favorite quote from you so far: "'Organizing a national economy' sounds eerily like Soviet Russia."
So now I'm a Communist? Hahaha! You are really out of ammunition when you start taking quotes out of context and spinning them to mean something that would contradict your basic argument. Here I am, a dyed in the wool pinko arguing that publicly traded corporations are a necessary part of a large, modern, globally competitive economy. Not an effective use of irony.
I do retract my earlier comparison of you to a person lost at sea. You're more like someone trapped in quick sand: the more you flail about, the quicker you sink.
Dosvedanya, comrade.
You know how to use the internet. I suggest using Google to find Bowles and Gintis.
The strange thing about all of this is that you asked for an alternative and I gave you one that has been demonstrated to work (beyond niche markets). I never claimed I'm committed to it. I gave you an example and this turned into my "enthusiasm". You're the one on the defensive.
I never said you were a communist, I said you couldn't read. Same case here, but if you actually use "organize" in any useful sense, it means to make order. Since the institutions you're defending are top-down institutions by definition, they're doing the organizing. Soviets use the state for this. Recall my original comparison to theory-practice. Relax!
The burden of proof is on me to address GE since I brought it up. But again, a quick search can do this as well. Let me put this gently:
1 Feb 1977D.C. - GE ordered to stop misleading ad claims on color televisions and other home appliances16 June 1981 .......
And this is just up to 2001. GE got in trouble (merely fined) for all of these since it's a legal person that can be sued. The individuals who made these decisions were NOT penalized as individuals. They can't NOT break the law. They're the US's largest defense contractor. So, yeah, maybe "effectively immune" was too strong if you ignore the fact that it means "virtually". Sniff.
And incidentally, (not directed at the other post, but as a pre-emptive strike) anyone who parrots "hidden hand" also needs to realize that this one mentioned ONCE (and probably ironically) in the entire volume of WoN. It's not remotely central to his thesis. I don't know how this happened beyond it's a nice sound bite. I suspect it prevents people from actually reading it.
So, you can keep repeating the charge that I don't know what I'm talking about or coming up with analogies with water, sand, pudding, mashed potatoes, whatever, but you can't get any closer to evaluating the actual factual claims and logic of what amounts to giving YOU an example of something that works--because you asked--and then suddenly you're defending the entire global economy. Democracy and corporations are ultimately incompatible as they are at odds. Always. This is an uncontroversial position (again, expressed by the name dropped supporter of neoliberalism). Doesn't sound to me like I'm the one who hasn't thought through things.
Onward.
I did google Bowles/Gintis. That was about as helpful as your telling me that this study proves your point. Which is to say, not helpful at all. Same deal with Wikipedia. So I made a good-faith effort. You just keep offering conclusory statements that make no sense when picked apart. And anyway, since when does one study "prove" anything, especially as sweeping a claim as you're making, that the business model used by farm co-ops and indie record labels is able to sustain a huge economy that needs to be global in reach? (Don't say that's not what you're saying, because it is, even if you don't realize it.) This question, of course, is assuming the study is even on-point for the purposes of our little conversation.
You know how you mentioned "straw man" arguments earlier? That's what your whole argument is about democracy and corporations being "incompatible as they are at odds" (to say that statement is circular logic is giving you too much credit; it's just redundant. But I digress). Again your real argument seems to be that we need more collective bargaining. Which is a fine opinion to have, albeit one that I don't necessarily share. I just wish you'd be more upfront about it. Ultimately, you're drawing a meaningless distinction. What's sad is that you're apparently married to it; it seems to gird your entire world view. Who cares if the structure of a publicly traded corporation is "undemocratic"? Surprise, many many human institutions are undemocratic. Do you have a family? That's undemocratic. Do you belong to a church? Undemocratic. Belong to a bowling league? Why, they're nothing more than elitist oligarchies. But if by "democratic," you're trying to say that publicly corporations are incompatible with democracy as a system of government, take a look around you, assuming you live in the U.S. You remember those elections we had last month? We had them, even though evil corporations had their boots firmly pressed on the necks of the proletariat for, like, the past 200-odd years. How we did, I'll never know. Oh wait, we did because your argument is irrelevant and meaningless. I don't care whether or not you read something Milton Friedman wrote that you think says what you're saying. I'm not going to contest that because I've only ever read one Friedman book, and that was about monetary policy and that was nearly ten years ago as an undergrad.
And your regurgitating a list of judgment against GE doesn't actually prove your claim that limited liability means "effective immunity" for executives from prosecution and civil liability. You still haven't explained how Bernie Ebbers is in prison if your characterization is correct. Which it isn't. Your latest attempt to backpaddle fails -- in this context there is no connotative difference between "virtual" and "effective."
But let's suppose for one crazy moment, your points about un-democracy and limited liability = effective immunity for company personnel are correct. If you could wave a magic wand, you would undo both of these situations and make all companies wholly owned by their employees AND attach full liability to all company personnel. So what happens to the 90-year-old Wal-Mart greeter and single-mom-with-eight-kids cashier in Phoenix when Wal-Mart is convicted of violating human rights in Uganda, and the company is forced to shut down and sell all its assets to pay off the judgment?
THIS IS HOW YOU FAIL. So whatever.
Quote from: dead mike on December 01, 2010, 10:10:38 PM
Quote from: buzunool on December 01, 2010, 06:26:08 AM
Quote from: dead mike on November 30, 2010, 10:28:25 PM
Quote from: buzunool on November 30, 2010, 07:42:41 AM
Sigh. Effectively immune from prosecution when the corporation is responsible for a crime. Read the externality part. I gave you GM as an example. They've got a long criminal record. Go ahead and focuses on the relationship between shareholders and that they get to vote. Good for them! And then customers getting to choose whether they buy or not. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat.
You can can it "lunacy" if you want, but it's been empirically demonstrated to work. That was my point. "Organizing a national economy" sounds eerily like Soviet Russia. You have no idea what I mean by good old capitalism because you haven't read what I wrote. Read Adam Smith. Milton Friedman actually shares your position it sounds like. Chief architect for neo-liberalism? I was "name-dropping" him to point out that corporate cheerleaders, too, can acknowledge that corporations are amoral and undemocratic. Sorry if you think that was snobbery.
"if I'm a little lost as to what you're talking about, then you're totally adrift at sea."
It's logic like this that makes me wonder why I try. Or is this just dividing the losings?
See, the thing is, you haven't backed up your arguments with anything that actually supports them. Not. One. Thing. You seem to think that name-dropping economists and telling me to "read" them will somehow convince me that you have any idea what you're talking about. Well, you haven't and you don't, and you have no one to blame but yourself. If you had actually provided at least a title to the Bowles/Gintis study that supposedly empirically proves you right, I might have been willing to at least look at it and draw my own conclusions. Turns out they wrote a lot together, and I don't have time or inclination to try to figure out which article or study you keeping pointing to as your Exhibit A, read it and figure out whether it actually proves what you say it proves. So the only thing I have to go on are your examples of farm co-ops and independent record labels. You argue that they are a viable alternative to the corporate model at a national or global scale, but you have yet to show me one concrete example.
And GM (or was it GE? You can't even get the names right!) has "a long criminal record"? Really?? What were they charged with? Were they convicted? When? More importantly, how does this prove that limited liability shields executives? Externality? Do you mean this part from the Wikipedia entry which claim says more than it actually does in support of your theory: "It has also been argued that it distorts the free market by allowing the entrepreneur to externalise some risk and impose it on society at large"? If this is what you're referring to (and I can't think of anything else you might be referring to) and even if this statement is true, it doesn't help your argument either. Because it clearly does NOT say executives, even when acting within the scope of their jobs, are "effectively immune" from criminal or civil liability, as my examples of Ebbers et al show. Go ahead and read the cited (sketchy) article. It doesn't say that either.
But here's my favorite quote from you so far: "'Organizing a national economy' sounds eerily like Soviet Russia."
So now I'm a Communist? Hahaha! You are really out of ammunition when you start taking quotes out of context and spinning them to mean something that would contradict your basic argument. Here I am, a dyed in the wool pinko arguing that publicly traded corporations are a necessary part of a large, modern, globally competitive economy. Not an effective use of irony.
I do retract my earlier comparison of you to a person lost at sea. You're more like someone trapped in quick sand: the more you flail about, the quicker you sink.
Dosvedanya, comrade.
You know how to use the internet. I suggest using Google to find Bowles and Gintis.
The strange thing about all of this is that you asked for an alternative and I gave you one that has been demonstrated to work (beyond niche markets). I never claimed I'm committed to it. I gave you an example and this turned into my "enthusiasm". You're the one on the defensive.
I never said you were a communist, I said you couldn't read. Same case here, but if you actually use "organize" in any useful sense, it means to make order. Since the institutions you're defending are top-down institutions by definition, they're doing the organizing. Soviets use the state for this. Recall my original comparison to theory-practice. Relax!
The burden of proof is on me to address GE since I brought it up. But again, a quick search can do this as well. Let me put this gently:
1 Feb 1977D.C. - GE ordered to stop misleading ad claims on color televisions and other home appliances16 June 1981 .......
And this is just up to 2001. GE got in trouble (merely fined) for all of these since it's a legal person that can be sued. The individuals who made these decisions were NOT penalized as individuals. They can't NOT break the law. They're the US's largest defense contractor. So, yeah, maybe "effectively immune" was too strong if you ignore the fact that it means "virtually". Sniff.
And incidentally, (not directed at the other post, but as a pre-emptive strike) anyone who parrots "hidden hand" also needs to realize that this one mentioned ONCE (and probably ironically) in the entire volume of WoN. It's not remotely central to his thesis. I don't know how this happened beyond it's a nice sound bite. I suspect it prevents people from actually reading it.
So, you can keep repeating the charge that I don't know what I'm talking about or coming up with analogies with water, sand, pudding, mashed potatoes, whatever, but you can't get any closer to evaluating the actual factual claims and logic of what amounts to giving YOU an example of something that works--because you asked--and then suddenly you're defending the entire global economy. Democracy and corporations are ultimately incompatible as they are at odds. Always. This is an uncontroversial position (again, expressed by the name dropped supporter of neoliberalism). Doesn't sound to me like I'm the one who hasn't thought through things.
Onward.
I did google Bowles/Gintis. That was about as helpful as your telling me that this study proves your point. Which is to say, not helpful at all. Same deal with Wikipedia. So I made a good-faith effort. You just keep offering conclusory statements that make no sense when picked apart. And anyway, since when does one study "prove" anything, especially as sweeping a claim as you're making, that the business model used by farm co-ops and indie record labels is able to sustain a huge economy that needs to be global in reach? (Don't say that's not what you're saying, because it is, even if you don't realize it.) This question, of course, is assuming the study is even on-point for the purposes of our little conversation.
You know how you mentioned "straw man" arguments earlier? That's what your whole argument is about democracy and corporations being "incompatible as they are at odds" (to say that statement is circular logic is giving you too much credit; it's just redundant. But I digress). Again your real argument seems to be that we need more collective bargaining. Which is a fine opinion to have, albeit one that I don't necessarily share. I just wish you'd be more upfront about it. Ultimately, you're drawing a meaningless distinction. What's sad is that you're apparently married to it; it seems to gird your entire world view. Who cares if the structure of a publicly traded corporation is "undemocratic"? Surprise, many many human institutions are undemocratic. Do you have a family? That's undemocratic. Do you belong to a church? Undemocratic. Belong to a bowling league? Why, they're nothing more than elitist oligarchies. But if by "democratic," you're trying to say that publicly corporations are incompatible with democracy as a system of government, take a look around you, assuming you live in the U.S. You remember those elections we had last month? We had them, even though evil corporations had their boots firmly pressed on the necks of the proletariat for, like, the past 200-odd years. How we did, I'll never know. Oh wait, we did because your argument is irrelevant and meaningless. I don't care whether or not you read something Milton Friedman wrote that you think says what you're saying. I'm not going to contest that because I've only ever read one Friedman book, and that was about monetary policy and that was nearly ten years ago as an undergrad.
And your regurgitating a list of judgment against GE doesn't actually prove your claim that limited liability means "effective immunity" for executives from prosecution and civil liability. You still haven't explained how Bernie Ebbers is in prison if your characterization is correct. Which it isn't. Your latest attempt to backpaddle fails -- in this context there is no connotative difference between "virtual" and "effective."
But let's suppose for one crazy moment, your points about un-democracy and limited liability = effective immunity for company personnel are correct. If you could wave a magic wand, you would undo both of these situations and make all companies wholly owned by their employees AND attach full liability to all company personnel. So what happens to the 90-year-old Wal-Mart greeter and single-mom-with-eight-kids cashier in Phoenix when Wal-Mart is convicted of violating human rights in Uganda, and the company is forced to shut down and sell all its assets to pay off the judgment?
THIS IS HOW YOU FAIL. So whatever.
THIS IS HOW YOU FAIL. So whatever.
Heh. Are you flexing in front of a mirror?
Was Ebbers convicted of fraud? He engaged in fraud which pissed shareholders off right? Shareholders actually sued him right and not the public? Personal profit over the company's gain? Right? How can GE continue to exist with all of those cases and no one has as of yet individually (real humans, not fictional legal ones) been prosecuted for this? How is it possible that these institutions regularly breaks laws and only the institution in fined and the actual real people making decisions aren't? Again, limiting shareholders' and executives' individual, personal liability for their decisions because. It doesn't "prove" a claim, but it demonstrates that a repeat offender (GE) can continue to act illegally without actual individuals making those decision getting into trouble. DeBeers in Botswana. Exxon in Colombia. Monsanto in India. The two dozen some odd energy interests in the Black Hills. And so on. Again, none of my characterizations are controversial and this fact has been the case for a long time. It isn't "back-peddling", it's comparing examples which support a point. I didn't say that individuals are never convicted of crimes. I said they're effectively immune when the fictional human does the behavin'.
"So what happens to the 90-year-old Wal-Mart greeter and single-mom-with-eight-kids cashier in Phoenix when Wal-Mart is convicted of violating human rights in Uganda, and the company is forced to shut down and sell all its assets to pay off the judgment?
Setting aside the appeals to emotion in those cases, I doubt Wal-Mart would engage in human rights violations if employees had a say. Take a look at the polls of John Q. Public and faith in big business (and government) is fairly low. Presidents too.
Thomas Jefferson—"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Woodrow Wilson—"Big business is not dangerous because it is big, but because its bigness is an unwholesome inflation created by privileges and exemptions which it ought not to enjoy."
Franklin D. Roosevelt—"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
Surely this is just more "regurgitating" things that don't "prove" any point that I'm trying to make. American leaders have recognized the conflict between democracy and big business. My point is that this is an uncontroversial position. That presidents have said this supports this point.
"What's sad is that you're apparently married to it; it seems to gird your entire world view. "
You know nothing about my worldview, let alone what "girds" it. You asked for an alternative (again). Which works (but you don't want to read). You charged me with "enthusiasm". I shrugged it off. Now I'm "married" to it. Sigh. Yes, I have wet dreams of anarchist utopias and masturbate to Bakunin every night. And it's delicious.
"Who cares if the structure of a publicly traded corporation is "undemocratic"?"
People who like more democracy. People whose lives it affects negatively. Of course one would have to ask this question who hasn't bothered to look at a perspective beyond the safe boundaries your perspective. The Sioux might have appreciated Union Carbide asking them before polluting their aquifer with tons of uranium tailings mined from their land. Thems called stakeholders ennit? The Hopi and Dene mined uranium for UC . Had UC informed them about the stuff, they probably wouldn't have knowingly risked lung cancer for a few bucks. People in the pacific northwest never voted for the Green Run Test. People don't vote for a bombardment of advertising in every step of public space. Any why should they? See the conflict?
"Surprise, many many human institutions are undemocratic. Do you have a family? That's undemocratic. Do you belong to a church? Undemocratic."
No surprise there. I never said everything had to or should be democratic. Repeatedly, you take a stronger position than I ever made and critique that. Armies couldn't be democratic. Corporations shouldn't be if their objective is to maximize profit. Shareholders should be not held personally responsible for corporations' decisions because their legal obligations are to themselves. Top-down governance is expedient, sort of efficient, and no critical thought and participation makes for change on a mass scale. Democratic institutions are very slow in action because more have a say in what goes on. Capitalism provides choices. Democracy is all about choice. They're two sides of the same coin. Ah, metaphors!
What do you think, Adam?
"Division of labour destroys intellectual, social, and martial virtues unless government takes pains to prevent it."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
For all your name dropping, quote-regurgitating, and chronic googling, you have yet to answer some basic, bona fide questions. Instead of googling soundbites from long-dead presidents that you think support your arguments, you should have googled the study you claim proves your point or at least have provided me a title or some other identifying information. But you didn't. The only possible reasons for this are (1) the study does not exist, (2) you haven't actually read it, or (3) you've read it but it doesn't prove what you've said it proves either because you've misinterpreted it or because it's materially faulty.
I asked you to explain how full liability for company personnel is going to keep rank-and-file employees from being punished for the misdeeds of other employees or managers. You dismissed this question -- which I think is at least probative to the issue here -- as an "appeal to emotion" just before jumping into another round of quotes. (By the way, do you have any thoughts that are actually your own?)
So shareholders sued Bernie Ebbers, not "the public," by which I assume you mean the government. But the issue here is not who files the suit. The issue is whether any one -- private plaintiff or government agency -- can file a suit or prosecute an executive. Your actively pointing out that this was a lawsuit by shareholders (while remaining tellingly silent about the criminal charges) actually proves the point I was arguing and disproves yours. Thanks!
In case you haven't noticed, we are well past the point of arguing about the merits of your beliefs. Whether or not they are at any level correct is no longer relevant. That's because the inescapable truth -- as you've demonstrated time and again -- is that you simply are incapable of defending them. Even by the exacting rhetorical standards of an Internet bulletin board flame war.
"Repeatedly, you take a stronger position than I ever made and critique that. Armies couldn't be democratic. Corporations shouldn't be if their objective is to maximize profit. Shareholders should be not held personally responsible for corporations' decisions because their legal obligations are to themselves. Top-down governance is expedient, sort of efficient, and no critical thought and participation makes for change on a mass scale. Democratic institutions are very slow in action because more have a say in what goes on. Capitalism provides choices. Democracy is all about choice. They're two sides of the same coin. Ah, metaphors!"
I confess I don't understand what you're trying to convey here. Are you attempting to be sardonic? If so, it needs work. Otherwise, you're actually arguing against yourself. Again, rhetorical skills.
Don't bother answering any of these questions I just now asked. I no longer care. The opinions you've expressed here have been worth far less than amount of time I've spent attempting to goad you into filling in the gaping logical holes in them. I'm no Milton Friedman, but I believe this what economists and savvy investors call "the law of diminishing returns." Feel free to go back to whatever "radical" forum you congealed from.
For all your name dropping, quote-regurgitating, and chronic googling, you have yet to answer some basic, bona fide questions. Instead of googling soundbites from long-dead presidents that you think support your arguments, you should have googled the study you claim proves your point or at least have provided me a title or some other identifying information. But you didn't. The only possible reasons for this are (1) the study does not exist, (2) you haven't actually read it, or (3) you've read it but it doesn't prove what you've said it proves either because you've misinterpreted it or because it's materially faulty.
Or because 4) I want you to pull your weight in this conversation, or 5) I like playing or 6) I have actually read their work and it isn't me who needs the homework assignment, or 7) I have it sitting right here (along with everything else I've been copying and pasting) just waiting, or 8) It's just a waste of time because of everything else that's been revealed here, or 9) maybe I have an MBA after all and took really good notes, or, or. One who usually resorts to listing "only possible reasons" generally just ain't thinkin'. Not one shred of evidence I've mentioned are you capable of addressing other than "that ain't convincin'". I'm not trying to convert you. Identifying two authors is fair enough, I think. You don't want to do the work required to challenge yourself. And that's okay.
I asked you to explain how full liability for company personnel is going to keep rank-and-file employees from being punished for the misdeeds of other employees or managers. You dismissed this question -- which I think is at least probative to the issue here -- as an "appeal to emotion" just before jumping into another round of quotes. (By the way, do you have any thoughts that are actually your own?)
I applaud your skepticism, I'm just looking for an indication of the device responsible for it. Sadly, no original ideas here. Just me and google.
So shareholders sued Bernie Ebbers, not "the public," by which I assume you mean the government. But the issue here is not who files the suit. The issue is whether any one -- private plaintiff or government agency -- can file a suit or prosecute an executive. Your actively pointing out that this was a lawsuit by shareholders (while remaining tellingly silent about the criminal charges) actually proves the point I was arguing and disproves yours. Thanks!
Here, your three consistencies converge: a) your failure to discern between the corporation as a legal person and b) the individuals that make them up, and c) you uncanny ability to address arguments I never made. "The issue is whether any one -- private plaintiff or government agency -- can file a suit or prosecute an executive." I'm really sorry, but I never made this argument. I really don't want to be mean or patronizing, but go look at the original claim--the one that I wrote, not how you quoted it.
In case you haven't noticed, we are well past the point of arguing about the merits of your beliefs. Whether or not they are at any level correct is no longer relevant. That's because the inescapable truth -- as you've demonstrated time and again -- is that you simply are incapable of defending them. Even by the exacting rhetorical standards of an Internet bulletin board flame war.
I think I've been generous, but that's a self-assessment. Something we're all good at, but some of us, not too accurate with.
"I confess I don't understand what you're trying to convey here. Are you attempting to be sardonic? If so, it needs work. Otherwise, you're actually arguing against yourself. Again, rhetorical skills."
You ever run into an atheist who knew the Bible better than most Christians?
Don't bother answering any of these questions I just now asked. I no longer care. The opinions you've expressed here have been worth far less than amount of time I've spent attempting to goad you into filling in the gaping logical holes in them. I'm no Milton Friedman, but I believe this what economists and savvy investors call "the law of diminishing returns." Feel free to go back to whatever "radical" forum you congealed from.
Just as long as I have the last word, okay?
Hebrews 13:2
I love Buzz. After watching this I want to give him a great big kiss.
Quote from: buzunool on December 02, 2010, 10:49:17 PM
Just as long as I have the last word, okay?
Hebrews 13:2
Fine by me, but you would have appeared a lot less foolish by forming a coherent argument and stating verifiable facts than by merely relying on someone else's out-of-context words. I can't think of any study or famous quote that leads me to say this. You'll just have to trust me.
Quote from: dead mike on December 04, 2010, 03:35:01 PM
Quote from: buzunool on December 02, 2010, 10:49:17 PM
Just as long as I have the last word, okay?
Hebrews 13:2
Fine by me, but you would have appeared a lot less foolish by forming a coherent argument and stating verifiable facts than by merely relying on someone else's out-of-context words. I can't think of any study or famous quote that leads me to say this. You'll just have to trust me.
Thanks for allowing me the last word. Can this be it?
My original claim was that there is a conflict between democracy and corporate capitalism. Judging by your original "what on earth do you mean..." question, we actually agree on this (you asked why in a business context should be democratic). Also judging by your responses and defense of current corporations' structures and laws, you agree that they
shouldn't be democratic. I
never stated my personal attitudes towards this, I just identified an age-old conflict. Let's remember that you asked for an alternative. Had I said "no governments and only business institutions", we'd have had an entirely different conversation. To support this uncontroversial claim, I quoted American presidents and Friedman. They disagree on solutions, but they understand that there is a fundamental conflict between powerful monied interests and democracy. Come on, you can't just say I took these out of context because it's convenient for you. That's a little irresponsible. There is a difference between IS and OUGHT. I'm arguing for IS in this case, not OUGHT.
The other matter was with Gintis and Bowles. This was offered as a
huge body of work that has both theoretically and empirically demonstrated that worker-owned businesses (i.e., more democratic) are more productive and profitable. After about a day, you claimed that it wasn't helpful (or even not what I claim), rather than say "well, I don't have time to actually look into this considering they've written voluminously on this". Thick reciprocity? If you don't know what that is, you didn't look closely enough. Credit market imperfections? Again, you didn't look. Doesn't matter--economists have long understood and empirically supported the hypothesis that worker-owned businesses are better in terms of output and life-satisfaction. There are plenty of sources out there. I gave you two authors who have worked on it for a lifetime, I could readily give you more. Let's remember too, that I never once said I subscribe to this politically or socially. You've told me to "go back to the radical forum I congealed from", you've called me "comrade", etc. This is remarkable considering I never once said anything about my personal stance. I'm going to defend my worldview with "higher sources", as Buzz would say, not on some band forum. Who is being foolish here?
The sub-claim was that there wouldn't be enough capital and "niche market" comment. Again, this requires your support since you made a claim. But nevertheless, G&B demonstrate this too. Doucouliagos has as well. Craig, Pencavel et al. have demonstrated this too. And plenty more. It doesn't take a college degree to find this stuff out. It does, however, require a willingness to do the proper footwork to challenge your own view of the world. Again, nothing I ever said on this forum could be accurately described as "unverifiable" or "controversial". You called it "radical". That's very, very odd.
"Unverifiable facts" is an amazing claim this day and age. In all of the cases I mentioned, they are easily verified. The limited liability thing was supported by a list of GE and other institutions that have been fined for their crimes. The corporation as a legal human gets fined and if your liability is limited to the amount of money that you put in, decisions that the corporation "makes". People don't want to be personally liable for accidents and other things that their institutions do. LLC investors know its a decision one makes based on risk assessment. A place like GE requires it, otherwise, it'd have been liquidated a long time ago. I think the worst you could have used against me is that I was stacking the deck. But it doesn't look like there's much of an understanding of basic informal logical fallacies. When I detected this, I should have just stopped then and there. But I didn't. Nevertheless, I then provided you with plenty of other examples from all over the world. But not once were they addressed. You dismissed them as "unverifiable". This, I have no idea how to respond to since it's patently false. God's existence is unverifiable. Union Carbide's involvement in Indian Country is remarkably easy to look into. One can strategically push an argument toward the point where an opponent has to, after looking at the evidence, accept it, continuously deny it, or make
ad ignorantium arguments.
Again, I never made a moral argument about it outside of "those who like democracy" don't like these things. I'm trying to understand all perspectives before I rush to defend one or another. I started defending corporate capitalism and this started confusing you ("sardonic"). I tried to point out repeatedly that all I did was provide examples and the reasoning behind them and all I got was name-calling and claims that I'm some big radical. This is impressive and remarkably reactionary. It hasn't been the first time that people call me this simply for pointing out particular facts, but I guess it tells me more about the psychology of those who do this than it does about my alleged "perspective". Judging by your posts, we probably agree on more than not. But I try to ensure that my clarity outweighs my passion.
I'm not going to apologize for the fact that I can actually cite studies and names and quotes and I think it's too bad that this elicited the things it did (not just you, but others). It's awkward too that you're suggesting I bone up on my rhetorical skills after clearly misunderstanding. After the first few posts, I didn't think you were being serious (not because of your position, but because of the manner in which my comments were dealt with), but after a while it became fairly clear that I had misjudged quite a bit more than not. If you feel I've wasted your time, then by all means, I genuinely apologize. However, if one spends the rest of his life not questioning his own position or takes on these things, then there's utterly nothing anyone can do for him.
Quote from: buzunool on December 05, 2010, 04:01:58 PM
Quote from: dead mike on December 04, 2010, 03:35:01 PM
Quote from: buzunool on December 02, 2010, 10:49:17 PM
Just as long as I have the last word, okay?
Hebrews 13:2
Fine by me, but you would have appeared a lot less foolish by forming a coherent argument and stating verifiable facts than by merely relying on someone else's out-of-context words. I can't think of any study or famous quote that leads me to say this. You'll just have to trust me.
Thanks for allowing me the last word. Can this be it?
My original claim was that there is a conflict between democracy and corporate capitalism. Judging by your original "what on earth do you mean..." question, we actually agree on this (you asked why in a business context should be democratic). Also judging by your responses and defense of current corporations' structures and laws, you agree that they shouldn't be democratic. I never stated my personal attitudes towards this, I just identified an age-old conflict. Let's remember that you asked for an alternative. Had I said "no governments and only business institutions", we'd have had an entirely different conversation. To support this uncontroversial claim, I quoted American presidents and Friedman. They disagree on solutions, but they understand that there is a fundamental conflict between powerful monied interests and democracy. Come on, you can't just say I took these out of context because it's convenient for you. That's a little irresponsible. There is a difference between IS and OUGHT. I'm arguing for IS in this case, not OUGHT.
The other matter was with Gintis and Bowles. This was offered as a huge body of work that has both theoretically and empirically demonstrated that worker-owned businesses (i.e., more democratic) are more productive and profitable. After about a day, you claimed that it wasn't helpful (or even not what I claim), rather than say "well, I don't have time to actually look into this considering they've written voluminously on this". Thick reciprocity? If you don't know what that is, you didn't look closely enough. Credit market imperfections? Again, you didn't look. Doesn't matter--economists have long understood and empirically supported the hypothesis that worker-owned businesses are better in terms of output and life-satisfaction. There are plenty of sources out there. I gave you two authors who have worked on it for a lifetime, I could readily give you more. Let's remember too, that I never once said I subscribe to this politically or socially. You've told me to "go back to the radical forum I congealed from", you've called me "comrade", etc. This is remarkable considering I never once said anything about my personal stance. I'm going to defend my worldview with "higher sources", as Buzz would say, not on some band forum. Who is being foolish here?
The sub-claim was that there wouldn't be enough capital and "niche market" comment. Again, this requires your support since you made a claim. But nevertheless, G&B demonstrate this too. Doucouliagos has as well. Craig, Pencavel et al. have demonstrated this too. And plenty more. It doesn't take a college degree to find this stuff out. It does, however, require a willingness to do the proper footwork to challenge your own view of the world. Again, nothing I ever said on this forum could be accurately described as "unverifiable" or "controversial". You called it "radical". That's very, very odd.
"Unverifiable facts" is an amazing claim this day and age. In all of the cases I mentioned, they are easily verified. The limited liability thing was supported by a list of GE and other institutions that have been fined for their crimes. The corporation as a legal human gets fined and if your liability is limited to the amount of money that you put in, decisions that the corporation "makes". People don't want to be personally liable for accidents and other things that their institutions do. LLC investors know its a decision one makes based on risk assessment. A place like GE requires it, otherwise, it'd have been liquidated a long time ago. I think the worst you could have used against me is that I was stacking the deck. But it doesn't look like there's much of an understanding of basic informal logical fallacies. When I detected this, I should have just stopped then and there. But I didn't. Nevertheless, I then provided you with plenty of other examples from all over the world. But not once were they addressed. You dismissed them as "unverifiable". This, I have no idea how to respond to since it's patently false. God's existence is unverifiable. Union Carbide's involvement in Indian Country is remarkably easy to look into. One can strategically push an argument toward the point where an opponent has to, after looking at the evidence, accept it, continuously deny it, or make ad ignorantium arguments.
Again, I never made a moral argument about it outside of "those who like democracy" don't like these things. I'm trying to understand all perspectives before I rush to defend one or another. I started defending corporate capitalism and this started confusing you ("sardonic"). I tried to point out repeatedly that all I did was provide examples and the reasoning behind them and all I got was name-calling and claims that I'm some big radical. This is impressive and remarkably reactionary. It hasn't been the first time that people call me this simply for pointing out particular facts, but I guess it tells me more about the psychology of those who do this than it does about my alleged "perspective". Judging by your posts, we probably agree on more than not. But I try to ensure that my clarity outweighs my passion.
I'm not going to apologize for the fact that I can actually cite studies and names and quotes and I think it's too bad that this elicited the things it did (not just you, but others). It's awkward too that you're suggesting I bone up on my rhetorical skills after clearly misunderstanding. After the first few posts, I didn't think you were being serious (not because of your position, but because of the manner in which my comments were dealt with), but after a while it became fairly clear that I had misjudged quite a bit more than not. If you feel I've wasted your time, then by all means, I genuinely apologize. However, if one spends the rest of his life not questioning his own position or takes on these things, then there's utterly nothing anyone can do for him.
No.
/thread
Didn't y'all buy/listen to the Jello Biafra w/ the Melvins albums ?
I'd say between those albums and any "Conservative" leanings, the Melvins have given equal time to Left, Right & between.
IMO, Mr. Osborne & Co. aren't on this planet to give political advice, they're here to ROCK...............and roll.