Excellent King Buzz interview from 10/25/2010

[erin]

Come on everyone, stop arguing! 


R.E.M. - Furry Happy Monsters

[dead mike]

\ 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.

[bgpurzycki]

.[/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!

[deatheats]

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.

[dead mike]

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.

[Braykfast]

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.

[bgpurzycki]

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.

[dead mike]

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.

[bgpurzycki]

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.

[Jaron]

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.

[dead mike]

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.

[the baron]

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 


(Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood).

[ZOMBIE-BUDDHA92]

smoke some weed like seriously.

[MrLuck87]

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 


(Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood).

On this board it'd be more like Good Will Hunting 2.


Jay & Silent Bob - Good Will Hunting 2

[Justafilthylurker]

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.