PDA

View Full Version : Conservatives Love Their Porn!


cobra
September 8th, 2009, 02:38
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=6977202&page=1

Sorry, this has nothing to do with restoring. I just love hypocrites. Especially right wing nutters.

Americans may paint themselves in increasingly bright shades of red and blue, but new research finds one thing that varies little across the nation: the liking for online pornography.

A new study shows that the states that consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption.
(ABC News Photo Illustration)A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.

Political Divide
Edelman spends part of his time helping companies such as Microsoft and AOL detect advertising fraud. Another consulting client runs dozens of adult websites, though he says he is not at liberty to identify the firm.

That company did, however, provide Edelman with roughly two years of credit card data from 2006 to 2008 that included a purchase date and each customer's postal code.


After controlling for differences in broadband internet access between states – online porn tends to be a bandwidth hog – and adjusting for population, he found a relatively small difference between states with the most adult purchases and those with the fewest.

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.

Number 10 on the list was West Virginia at 2.94 subscriptions per 1000, while number 41, Michigan, averaged 2.32.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

You'd think these states would all be restored by now with all the pud pullin' going on.

Someone mundane
September 8th, 2009, 09:51
This is a highly amusing read... I suppose it all comes down to basic human nature.

People of that side tend to preach the wholesome values, and yet look at what these statistics suggest...

Perhaps there is some sort of backwards psychology at play? Maybe repression and self-loathing involved? Being raised in a religious environment, I used to feel pretty guilty myself for looking at naughty things and liked to convince myself that I shouldn't be, (although I failed miserably at that) and when given the opportunity told others that I had no real interest in sexual matters, that I was an "asexual". I would also penalize myself in some way for the lack of mental discipline, feeling that it would in some way compensate for how I was doing "sinful" things and for how dirty I felt for that. Probably would have also favored moral-sounding things to that end too.

Overall this rings pretty true to me. At this point I don't care anymore, I just consider myself lucky to have the kind of maturity allowing me to admit to this sort of stuff. Many don't appear to be past that still. I wonder why...

It seems that for many things, face value is rarely the truth. It's usually deeper and more complicated.

Misha
September 9th, 2009, 11:25
Well this study has to be taken in context. It's obviously skewed </sarcasm>. The stats are only for one porn site. If the red states love this site so much more, maybe it's because it's an animal lovers porn site or something...

cobra
September 9th, 2009, 15:21
LOL! Family values Republican forgets to check his microphone....

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/gop_lawmakers_graphic_sex-bragging_caught_on_tape.php

She wears little eye-patch underwear. So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And
 so, we had made love Wednesday--a lot! And so she'll, she's all, 'I am going 
up and down the stairs, and you're dripping out of me!' So messy!

Lobbyists don't just bribe our officials... they fuck 'em. Even the fat, old ugly ones.

So, I am getting into spanking her. Yeah, I like it. I like spanking her. She goes, 'I know you like spanking me.' I said, 'Yeah! Because you're such a bad girl!'

As the OC Weekly reports, 
Duvall has "blasted" efforts to promote gay marriage, and got a 100 percent score from the Capitol Resource Institute, which describes its mission as to "educate, advocate, protect, and defend family-friendly policies in the California state legislature". In March, a spokeswoman for the group called Duvall "a consistent trooper for the conservative causes," adding that "for the last two years, he has voted time and time again to protect and preserve family values in California."

Unregistered
September 9th, 2009, 15:32
I too loathe right wingers in general, but I find it interesting how the politics of circumcision play out.

It's very hard to place whether circ'ing tends to be liberal or conservative. Yes, the white midwest tends to have the highest circ rates, but I believe Rush Limbaugh actually is using the new HIV scare to make people fear that the CDC will mandate circumcisions.

And over at a liberal blog I frequent, they were all mocking Limbaugh for this suggestion, saying it was anti-semitic, anti-science, a conservative "obsession with masculinity."

So as much as I hate conservatism, some of them may actually be an ally on the cutting issue.

Misha
September 9th, 2009, 20:38
Hahaha! I was just gonna add this same note about Duvall. I live in Yorba Linda (so does he). I should totally get a big rally of people to all go egg his house. Anyway, it does seem that the most excessively conservative people (especially politicians) are the most hypocritical.

Anyway, about liberal vs. conservative, I rarely ever agree with conservatives, and I don't think I would ever count on them being on my side. If the liberals are pro circ, I would think it's due mainly to a lack of education. Let's face it. Most people don't really know anything about circumcision. I didn't even really know what it was until my curiosity finally got the best of me a few years ago and I looked it up. I just thought a circ'd penis was normal. I'd bet you $100 that if circumcision actually came up as a hot topic across the US and people learned more about, it wouldn't be long before the liberals were on our side.

goskin
September 16th, 2009, 18:51
I greatly dislike "Conservative" "Liberal" labels and i think they are a sham. What is a Conservative? What is a liberal? the definition seems to change from person to person to the point where there really is no definition at all.

The whole left right dichotomy is just as bad. most people don't even know where it comes from which is important to understanding what is truly politically left and truely politically right.

What really amazes me about self-proclaimed liberals is that they say "The right wing is a bunch of Nazi's" this while admitting that the hard left is a bunch of communist. does anyone get the trick thats played? let me show you Communism is the hardest form of socialism does anyone know what Nazi means? National Socialists workers party. See the trick? Socialism on the Right Socialism on the left. The dumbest part is that the self proclaimed "conservatives" let them get away with this. The original dichotomy was the Pro-Monarch (right) vs Anti-Monarch/Pro-Democrat/Socialist during the french revolution. The original left right analogy is really just as false as the modern left right dichotomy unless you place it in its proper context namely in this specific case you had Statist (pro-monarch) vs Statist (Socialist), the only way in which you can properly call this a clash between the left and right is by making clear that you are talking about two different types of statist views.

There are two ways of properly defining left and right.
ONE

Left
STATIST-Communist/Socialist/Democrat/Monarch

Right
Anarchist

In this definition you have complete government control on one had and no government on the other, two opposing views.

The other proper definition of left right is

Left
STATIST (those who believe the state should regulate and control peoples actions)

Right

laissez faire or Free Market Capitalist. (Anarcho-Capitalists do not fall under Right)
Again these are two opposing philosophies of government and are clearly definable.

Defined
Capitalist: Holds the belief that the only proper role of government is the Police, the Military, and the Courts. Lives by the rule that no man may initiate the use of force against another.

To bring this back to circumcision I am a laissez faire Capitalist as such in a Capitalist government circumcision would be illegal because it violates the core principle of Capitalism, circumcision of infants and youths either through brute force or through deception or coersion is by its nature contrary to "No one man may initiate the use of force against another".

And before I get blasted by someone im going to remind you Hitler was a Socialist I am a Capitalist so if someone decides to use a pejorative make sure its one that fits.

And that's what I have to say about it.

goskin
September 16th, 2009, 19:13
Well this study has to be taken in context. It's obviously skewed </sarcasm>. The stats are only for one porn site. If the red states love this site so much more, maybe it's because it's an animal lovers porn site or something...

I am not defending the so called conservatives but before you so called liberals start blasting I would ask a few question and really place this in context. How many of these porn lovers are under 30? The majority of people that view porn are in their early teens all the way up to mid 20's. I would like to see a more indepth study stating ages of viewers, and if your going to make this about the so called conservatives I would like to see how many of these viewers call themselves conservative vs liberal.

This is entirely to broad for Red to blast Blue or Blue to blast Red. In college i learned something about statistics and that is that 1 they are a snap shot of a given group of individuals which may or may not be indicative of other individuals within a given geographical location. and 2 you can make statistics say anything you want. Come on guys you know this, its exactly what the anti-foreskin crowd does and then when you actually start getting into the data on their so called proof that their anti-foreskin ways are better you discover very quickly several flaws with the data presented. I will give you an example and i don't remember exactly what survey it was but, there was a survey done in three African countries proving that circumcision prevented HIV. What the Survey failed to report was that the majority of men in these countries were Muslim and that non-Muslim men were like 90%+ uncired, and that Muslim men were less likely to engage in sexual activities with someone other then their spouse then the tribal religion population (the uncirced segment.). Also in India something similar was pulled.

Statistics can say anything before you blast the so called conservatives more research needs to be done.

I hate it when people blast each other just to blast each other, I swear so called liberals and so called conservatives are like a bunch of little kids "mom mom guess what joey did?"

Yunus
September 17th, 2009, 10:01
I just thought a circ'd penis was normal.

How could the mutilation be a normal?
If you agreed that mutilation were a normal,why don't you mutilate your other parts of your body like your eyelid?

1Taoist
September 17th, 2009, 11:46
Read "Republican Gommorah" by max blumenthal.

cobra
September 17th, 2009, 13:15
You have your left, your right and then those with no sense of humor. I wasn't blasting anyone, just laughing at hypocrites. If you find a news article about liberals doing something... umm... non-liberal, I guess-- feel free to post it. I consider myself a liberal person, sort of, but not "A Liberal" and reserve the right to laugh at any and all political groups. It is my personality and my First Amendment right to parody any public official who reveals him or herself to be a hypocrite.

I also believe that pure capitalist and pure socialist systems are doomed. Pure capitalism leads to unchecked corporate enslavement of the people-- kind of like what we got now in America. Pure socialism leads to government enslavement of the people.

1Taoist
September 17th, 2009, 14:37
Goskin: interesting views and historical refs, but you are drowning in logic. Much of what goes on is illogical.

There IS psychology involved. There really isn't much dif between conservative and liberal, just that they each suffer from some imbalance in consciousness/unconsciousness. Liberals tend to be educated, conservatives un. Conservs that ARE educated invariably mis-apply their own intelligence. Liberals mistake their own education for intelligence.

Hitler and the Nazis were indeed considered progressive and liberal. But that was a false front. At their core they were conservative. This inverted sense of affiliation describes their insanity.

All conservative parties kill themselves. They eat their own and commit suicide. Liberal parties only lose power because the ignorant and the stupid tear down their intelligence and periodically put humanity backwards in order to go forward. Otherwise, unchecked progressivism goes too fast.

Liberals get blown by their female interns. Conservatives blow their male, underage interns. Liberals get blown, conservatives blow. Both lose their load, just one ends up with it all over their face.

Conservatives in America only espouse "less government, free-market", but they actually do the opposite: they want more government, and become government, so they can control business and people without incurring the cost or liability. They use the government as their lever, charge us for their costs, and when it goes wrong blame "the government", then stick us with the bill. They want more government- as in literally MORE CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT, because they want more levers over the business and market. By creating more government control for themselves, they limit the free market, thus reducing competition in their business. A true free market means more competition. Follow the logic here.

Liberals espouse more government only to regulate the businesses which exploit the people. The liberal blueprint on this has to change, because they can't control the businesses- they have too much $$$. Liberals create government to make the market field more even so competition can come in. Follow the logic here.

Liberals don't want "more" government, they want more EFFECTIVE government. Conservatives want less government people, so those people can control the government.

Conservatives have raped and exploited our government to an unprecedented level, and America was too stupid to stop it. Now there has to be more government in order to stop them. The republicans have imploded, as conservatives always do. Liberals wait, and they inherit tge earth.

cobra
September 17th, 2009, 23:04
<object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HFKPTPn800g&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HFKPTPn800g&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object>

Right wing conservatives are really old rich basterds who don't want to share the money or the pussy... or the cock, as the case may be. Here's some proof that Fox's core audience is just a bunch of dumb rednecks brainwashed by the elite. They are actually talking about having sex with farm animals. Keep fucking that chicken, dude, and be sure to vote Republican! LOL!!!

Misha
September 18th, 2009, 23:26
You have your left, your right and then those with no sense of humor. I wasn't blasting anyone, just laughing at hypocrites. If you find a news article about liberals doing something... umm... non-liberal, I guess-- feel free to post it. I consider myself a liberal person, sort of, but not "A Liberal" and reserve the right to laugh at any and all political groups. It is my personality and my First Amendment right to parody any public official who reveals him or herself to be a hypocrite.

I also believe that pure capitalist and pure socialist systems are doomed. Pure capitalism leads to unchecked corporate enslavement of the people-- kind of like what we got now in America. Pure socialism leads to government enslavement of the people.

Exactly. In the same sense, I don't consider myself a Liberal because I don't agree with enough things that Liberals fight for. I don't like Conservatives because Conservatives are generally described as the people who want to force everyone to share their narrow-mindedly defined sense of morality. I'm not always a big fan of Liberals either. When you talk Republican vs. Democrat, it's now a slightly different story. I could almost consider myself a Republican because I generally agree with the Republican platform (the things they say they believe in), but with the new Religious Right regime becoming so powerful, Republican now really means uber-Conservative.

And in agreement with Cobra, I'll take the opportunity to blast any hypocrite, regardless of what they say they stand for.

goskin
September 19th, 2009, 17:10
You have your left, your right and then those with no sense of humor. I wasn't blasting anyone, just laughing at hypocrites. If you find a news article about liberals doing something... umm... non-liberal, I guess-- feel free to post it. I consider myself a liberal person, sort of, but not "A Liberal" and reserve the right to laugh at any and all political groups. It is my personality and my First Amendment right to parody any public official who reveals him or herself to be a hypocrite.[/qoute]

Left of what? Right of what? I did not say you were blasting me I said for those who were going to blast me to make sure they got their pejoratives right. I'm a Capitalist pig not a Nazi. Which kind of liberal would you brand yourself a Neo-liberal, progressive liberal, a Classical liberal.

Again the reason I dislike the terms right and left is because they are undefined and can mean nearly anything.

[quote]
I also believe that pure capitalist and pure socialist systems are doomed. Pure capitalism leads to unchecked corporate enslavement of the people-- kind of like what we got now in America. Pure socialism leads to government enslavement of the people.
What I was attempting to point out in my original post is that Capitalism is not an economic policy it is a moral system. The idea that "unchecked corporations" can enslave anyone is a myth which has been exploded by the Austrians and even to some extent the Chicagoites. In a free market Capitalist system no one can enslave anyone, no one is forced to work for anyone and no one is forced to hire anyone. If you believe that we have any recognizable form of true Capitalism and that big Corporations in this country (GE, Microsoft, GM, Google, Yahoo.) support Capitalism I would strongly suggest that you take a closer look at the people in charge of those companies and the policies they advocate. FREE trade means exactly that I am free to trade the products of my time with those who are willing to buy them at the price I am asking, I am also free to sell my time to others if they are willing to buy it at the price I am asking. No Capitalist sacrifices himself to other people, nor does he sacrifice other people to himself, Freemarketeers trade with each other for mutual gain for mutual benefit. By its very nature the FREE market (ie Capitalism) is anti-slavery as slavery violates the fundamental principle of Capitalism namely "no man may initiate the use of force against another.". If i force a man to work for me then I am initiating the use of force, if I am forced to hire anyone then that person is initiating the use of force against me. The employer does not sacrifice the employee nor does the employee sacrifice the employer.

"Crony Capitalism" is not Capitalism it is government interference in the free market granting special privileges to select individuals. What we have in America is a Socialist system not a Capitalist system, the socialist system in the US was first introduced politically to the US by Herbert Hoover (Not a lazzie fair capitalist) and has grown ever sense. Right now we have government enslavement when the government claims as its Right 56% of an individuals EARNINGS.

Read some Austrian Economics after all they were the one running around since 2002 saying "The sky is falling" and lo and be hold in September of last year it came crashing down. and guess what they are still saying "If you think the Government stopped the sky from falling your an idiot".

Misha
September 20th, 2009, 01:49
Your ideal concept of what Capitalism should be sounds great, but so did Marx's ideal concept of Communism. The fact is that real world implementations of ideal concepts never work out the way they were expected to. Strict Capitalism (free market) left unchecked leads to companies getting smart and using unethical practices to take over the market. Fair competition is great, but without restrictions, a big company will buy out its competition and end up with a monopoly. With a completely unchecked system, you will end up with a military-industrial complex. And even in a regulated system, you still end up with companies with unethical practices like Enron or AIG. The perfect system is virtually impossible to find, but it seems to me to be some sort of compromise between Socialism and Capitalism.

cobra
September 20th, 2009, 03:10
Goskin, your pussy-like naivete astounds and saddens me. You think I was talking about you in any way? I assure you, I wasn't. Then you ask me what kind of liberal I consider myself when I said I wasn't "A liberal" just "a liberal person", meaning I don't mind describing myself but I am not going to politically label myself. You think I am wrong about unchecked capitalism and corporate enslavement?

What I was attempting to point out in my original post is that Capitalism is not an economic policy it is a moral system. The idea that "unchecked corporations" can enslave anyone is a myth which has been exploded by the Austrians and even to some extent the Chicagoites.

Capitalism is not a moral system. It is an AMORAL system. The only rule of unchecked capitalism is "make a profit" and if that includes enslaving human beings, so be it.

I never imagined I would have to pull back the curtains and show you guys something I thought was common knowledge because I always figured restorers were non-conformists and thinkers-- being that we're regrowing our foreskins in a traditionally penis mutilating culture-- but when I say enslavement, I mean literal enslavement.

Literal. Fucking. Slaves.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/24/shrimp.retailers/index.html

and

Wal-Mart’s Latest Import? Slave Labor.

Wal-Mart’s use of sweatshop labor in developing countries has been well documented, but what about the use of slave labor inside their U.S. stores?

A recent investigation in York, Pennsylvania has turned up a case of forced labor occurring right inside a Wal-Mart store. According to the report, two Vietnamese women were brought from Vietnam to work without compensation in a DaVi salon located inside the Wal-Mart store at the West Manchester mall.

In the seemingly unregulated borders of a Wal-Mart store, almost anything can happen:

Wal-Mart’s established history of violating workers rights includes locking employees in stores overnight, forcing employees to work unpaid overtime, as well as a host of other egregious problems.

At a Wal-Mart supercenter in Jinling, China, sales promotion employees were being forced to work 365 days a year with little or no rest. Those who took time off work were “severely reprimanded”.

Because Wal-Mart is often aware of the problems in its stores, employees are threatened for reporting violations. Workers demanding their rights and attempting to unionize are fired.

Wal-Mart’s low prices come at the cost of human rights and human dignity. Wal-Mart has a responsibility to its employees and its customers to ensure a fair and safe working environment for all workers at all stages of the supply chain.

and the accounts continue...



Wal-Mart Violated Worker Rights More than 2 Million Times, Minnesota Judge Rules Wal-Mart violated the law more than 2 million times over a six-year period by denying workers time for breaks and forcing them to work "off the clock" for no pay, a Minnesota judge has ruled. Dakota County District Judge Robert King ordered the company to pay $6.5 million in back pay. In addition, Wal-Mart faced fines as high as $2 billion for the wage-and-hour violations. The case ultimately ended in settlement, with Wal-Mart paying out $54 million in lost wages. [Workday Minnesota, 7/2/08; Associated Press, 12/9/08]
Family Leave Laws. Wal-Mart has received numerous fines for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act in locations all over the country -- firing workers while on federally protected medical leave. In 2005, Wal-Mart was fined $188,000 by the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission for violating California state law by failing to reinstate a woman after she completed her maternity leave. [U.S. Department of Labor, via Freedom of Information Act; California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, case no. E 200203 M-0774-00-pe, C 03-04-026; Sacramento Bee, 6/14/05.]
Off-the-Clock Work. In 2000, Wal-Mart paid $50 million to settle a lawsuit that involved 69,000 workers in Colorado who had allegedly been forced to work off the clock. In 2002, a federal grand jury in Oregon found Wal-Mart employees were forced to work off the clock and awarded back pay to 83 workers. In December 2005, Wal-Mart was ordered to pay $172 million to 116,000 current and former California workers for violating a 2001 state law that requires employers to give 30-minute, unpaid lunch breaks to employees who work at least six hours. In the United States, Wal-Mart has 53 class action lawsuits over wage and hour violations. [New York Times, 11/19/04; Associated Press, 2/17/04; Associated Press, 9/19/05; Associated Press, 12/22/05.]


Wal-Mart's Wage and Hour Violations
Thousands of employees have sued Wal-Mart for unpaid overtime and unfair break practices, so-called "wage and hour" suits. Download our fact sheet to learn more about these suits, former and present. (PDF)


Hiring Undocumented Workers. Wal-Mart paid $11 million to settle a federal investigation called "Operation Rollback," which found hundreds of undocumented immigrants working off the clock to clean stores. In 2003, federal agents raided 61 Wal-Mart stores and arrested 250 undocumented immigrants. [Washington Post, 3/19/05; Los Angeles Times, 10/24/03.]
Skipping Work Breaks. In 2000, an internal Wal-Mart audit found that of 128 stores, 127 of them were "not in compliance" with company policies providing for work breaks. [Indiana Lawyer, 5/7/03.]

While much of the focus has been on supply plants in developing countries, US suppliers have also felt the pressure of Wal-Mart's relentless pricing demands. A December 2003 story in Fast Company magazine did not mince words: "Wal-Mart wields its power for just one purpose: to bring the lowest possible prices to its customers. At Wal-Mart, that goal is never reached. The retailer has a clear policy for suppliers: On basic products that don't change, the price Wal-Mart will pay, and will charge shoppers, must drop year after year. But what almost no one outside the world of Wal-Mart and its 21,000 suppliers knows is the high cost of those low prices. Wal-Mart has the power to squeeze profit-killing concessions from vendors. To survive in the face of its pricing demands, makers of everything from bras to bicycles to blue jeans have had to lay off employees and close U.S. plants in favor of outsourcing products from overseas."





You cannot have a free market when your competition is free to make use of slave labor in foreign countries, and abuse the rights of its employees here. How can I, as a small businessman with real morals, hope to compete with a corporation that trades in slavery? I employ 3 guys and make sure they are paid for their time and get their breaks. Hell, I even buy them dinner sometimes when money is good.

I avoid shopping with slave labor traffickers when possible because I am not going to fund corporate enslavement of human beings. But I am just one person. My piddly income is not going to make retail corporations like wal-mart or factories in China, Taiwan and Thailand bat one eyelash.

The only thing that ensures free market conditions in reality is government regulation... enforcing morality on amoral corporate entities. You've been trained by your corporate masters (by their paid representatives: right wing government officials and news organizations like FOX) to consider government regulation "socialism" as if its some kind of dirty word.

But socialism is simply a theory of economic organisation advocating public or direct worker ownership of business with wealth and compensation according to work done.

I think a mixed system works best, with government intervening only to enforce moral behavior on business entities concerning labor and production and ensuring fair competitive practices between them.

This was how the US economy worked until recently, when corporate monsters took control and made ideas like government oversite and regulation sound distasteful to the very culture who should be most outraged by slave labor and unfair business practices.

"Ewww, that's socialism!"

Wake up and smell the fucking coffee.

What's morally reprehensible is not that 56% of your income is being stolen by the government in taxation, but that they are not compensating you for it adequately with government representation, heath care or whatever else you think you should get for your contribution to our society. Your income is being used to bail the elite out of bad business decisions and abject squandering of their riches. The same time your corporate masters are diving into your taxes like Scrooge McDuck, their PR men are hard at work convincing you and everyone else that you having a tooth filled at the dentist paid for by the government is somehow a nasty communist thing.

You're an idiot.

Anyone who believes the PR of the elite and their corporations are idiots.

"The myth of corporate enslavement"... ha! The slaves exist, they're just being hidden from you... and not even that well. Just enough to assuage your guilt.

You can live in denial or do what I do: spend your income morally. I try to always shop with privately owned businesses... mom and pops, if you will. For every mega corporate retail outlet there is a small and moral, privately owned alternative. You should think about it every time you go out. It's something you have to make a habit of because we are so trained to go to corporate outlets. You can even make a little adventure out of it. Hmmm, I need a tooth brush... now where can I buy them that does not promote human slavery? Ah yeah! Chuck and Rae's Market down the block! They're privately owned. Or you can just keep spouting your community college political naivete, and pat yourself on the back how smart you sound.

goskin
September 20th, 2009, 03:14
Your ideal concept of what Capitalism should be sounds great, but so did Marx's ideal concept of Communism."
I learned about Marxism in 7th grade history when I pointed out that I did not like how it sounded the teacher told me she was not doing a very good job of explaining it so I read the communist manifesto. I have heard it said that communism looks great on paper. I have never agreed with that statement it looks just as bad on paper as it does in real life. "We are the borg resistances futile"


The fact is that real world implementations of ideal concepts never work out the way they were expected to. Strict Capitalism (free market) left unchecked leads to companies getting smart and using unethical practices to take over the market. Firstly monopolies are not bad contrary to popular myth. Secondly granted Consumer Sovereignty (a prerequisite of Capitalism) Monopolies are very hard to form and cannot last long. Innovation makes constant monopoly impossible. As far as ethics go. Who's ethics are we talking about. The Capitalist ethic has already been summed up by me several times. The ban of the initiation of force is all that is required of an ethical system to work. It means that no one can force you to do something against your will, it also disallows for purposeful deception. I recommend for your reading "Capitalism:the unknown ideal".

Second. The problem with "checked" companies is who is doing the checking? Governments are easily corrupted and take a long time to correct (per example the current state of American affairs[the past 70-80 years])
I disagree with Friedman on a lot of things but he also gets a lot of things right check out this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76frHHpoNFs&feature=related) and think about his argument. (I am an Austrian not a Chicagoite)


Fair competition is great, but without restrictions, a big company will buy out its competition and end up with a monopoly.
Again you are operating under the assumption that monopolies are bad. Let me ask this question. If a company can produce a better and cheaper product then their competitor or would be competitor and the sovereign consumer chooses to buy their product over the competition then who has the right to force the consumer to buy a more expensive and less well made product. this is a legitimate monopoly. A coercive monopoly on the other hand is not legitimate and can only come about with aid from the Government. For example the big three are a government sponsored Triopoly. The regulations on manufacturing and vehicles are such that it makes it nearly impossible for a competitor to enter the field of vehicle production in the United States. non-coercive monopolies do not forbid entry into the any given field and are always under threat of loosing their monopoly position. Even if a company has a monopoly on a certain product (say the Ipod for example) that company is in competition with every other company in existence and must compete for the consumers money. for example I may decide that instead of an Ipod I wish to buy a dell computer, or I may wish to buy a new DVD player, or make repairs on my car, or host a party at my house, or buy books. Every product must compete with every other product which is what prevents a coercive price in a monopoly. If Carnegie set the price of steel too high then people would turn to other metals, copper, nickel, iron. you get my point. So long as Consumer Sovereignty is not violated then there can be no such thing as "unethical" competition.

With a completely unchecked system, you will end up with a military-industrial complex.
You will? I have heard this myth spouted for as long as I can remember but no one can tell me why you will end up with a military industrial complex. The closest thing I have heard to an answer amounts to "war is the fault of the greedy rich". However one examination of the facts would quickly disspell this myth. Lets begin by recognizing that the government does not PRODUCE anything it only consumes resources. This being true it is not in the interest of Capitalists to go to war as it will end up consuming too many resources to make daily operations easy. It is true that you do have Capitalists who will be able to adapt temporarily to a war and turn a profit, private security firms are an example of this. but even PSF's have a peace time function and are simply adapting the specific set of skills developed to a new situation. even given this however most businesses will find the day to day operation of their business disrupted and will find that post war they must re-establish a customer base which takes time and a lot of money. All and all wars are not profitable for anyone but governments.

And even in a regulated system, you still end up with companies with unethical practices like Enron or AIG. If you really wish to get into a discussion about what the real problems behind Enron and AIG were we can. As far as AIG goes government regulation was directly the problem. As for Enron you would be surprised at how many politicians sold their stock of Enron before the companies collapse. I was born in the south where it was very common to hear as a child "power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely". As well Enron would have collapsed much sooner under a Free Market system. I want you to note that I am not saying that there will not be corruption and an attempt to game the system under a Capitalist system, what I am saying is that under a Capitalist system those who produce will be rewarded while those who try to game the system (snake oil sales men) will be punished and punished very very very hard.


The perfect system is virtually impossible to find, but it seems to me to be some sort of compromise between Socialism and Capitalism.
In a compromise between good and evil it is always evil that wins and good that looses. Compromise between slavery (Socialism) and freedom (Capitalism) is not possible, you cannot be a slave part of the time and free the other part. You are either property of the government or you are not, you are either property of your fellow men to do with as they please or not.

In philosophy you have what is called the law of non contradiction and it states that "something cannot be true and untrue in the same way at the same time", or "A thing cannot be 100% black and 100% white at the same time". Socialism and Capitalism are 100% opposite and therefore mutually exclusive systems. Socialism advocates ownership of the individual by the state, Capitalism advocates ownership of the individual by THAT individual, what kind of compromise is possible between someone who claims they have a right to the effort of my production (my life) and myself who holds that no one but me holds the right to the efforts of my production?

What kind of moral compromise is possible between a Socialist who believes in self-sacrifice and the sacrifice of others, and a Capitalist who's moral principle's reject any kind of sacrifice either of oneself to others or others to oneself and further holds rational egoism to be the root of morality.

The idea that one can take this part of Socialism and that part of Capitalism put them together and have a long lasting functioning system is like a child trying to fit a large red triangle block through a small circle hole it just wont work. The two systems were developed to be self sustaining and while you can tweak here and tweak there and make the system more consistent with itself Capitalism and Socialism go together like oil and water, it doesn't matter how hard you try to mix them its never going to work.

Finally given that these two systems are not compatible and can never co-exist (the US has never been a Free Market Capitalist system it has just been more free market then the other guy but in the end it all comes to the same end) the question to ask if your statement that a perfect system does not exist (I will grant this for arguments sake) the question then becomes what is the most perfect system to date.

goskin
September 20th, 2009, 15:19
Goskin, your pussy-like naivete astounds and saddens me. You think I was talking about you in any way? I assure you, I wasn't. Then you ask me what kind of liberal I consider myself when I said I wasn't "A liberal" just "a liberal person", meaning I don't mind describing myself but I am not going to politically label myself. You think I am wrong about unchecked capitalism and corporate enslavement?

Now if you care to actually read what I have written and listen to what I am saying you would have read that I have said 1) the US is not a Capitalist system. it is a "Mixed economy" which means essentially that is a socialist economy with elements of Capitalism. 2) you are not paying attention to what is being said at all. Rather then listening to an ACTUAL Capitalist explain the position and views of Capitalism you are ignoring what is being said and saying "no this is what you believe". excuse me are you in my head? How many books written by Capitalists about Capitalism have you read? Which books? You are taking second hand information about what others non-Capitalists have told you Capitalism believes and does. Why don't you take this opportunity to get first hand information. 3) you have not challenged a single statement I have made instead you have asserted that the statements I have made are not Capitalist positions. I find this rather ironic, its like telling a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Christian "here are your beliefs", and having no clue what your talking about. If you had read anything from the Austrians then you could point out where the Capitalists get it wrong, instead your ignoring Capitalist positions all together and imposing your false idea of Capitalism on the Free Market.

Read Human Action by Mises you can get a free audio copy and txt copy at www.mises.org

If you find a problem in what i present ie i say non-coercive monopolies are not bad, and you are able to prove that they are bad then please do so. However do not impose false examples. You blast Wal-Mart and my response is simple, wal-mart breaking contract with its employees is a violation of Capitalism.

Further to get a better understanding of what Capitalism actually believes I present the following link
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826

Its shorter then Human Action but you should read both.

Again pick something out of what I posted and try to attack it, do not give wild distractions like "well this is what wal-mart does" as i have said the violation of contracts is a violation of the Free Market. Slavery is also a violation of the FREE Market. If you want to ask a question and find out what a Capitalist perspective is on this or that then feel free to ask and I will gladly answer.

However I will ask that you refrain from false diversions, blasting Wal-Mart as Capitalist when it violates Free Market Principles does not help your argument it just goes to show that Wal-Mart has violated Free Market Principles.

A “coercive monopoly” is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand. An economy dominated by such monopolies would be rigid and stagnant.

The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry—the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises. Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independent of the rest of the economy. For if he attempted to set his prices and production at a level that would yield profits to new entrants significantly above those available in other fields, competitors would be sure to invade his industry.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “Antitrust,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 68.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 19

cobra
September 22nd, 2009, 02:56
What's the difference between a capitalist economy with socialist elements and a socialist economy with capitalist elements? ;) Does one sound better than the other? I'm not ignoring what you say. I was only pointing out the offenses of lawless capitalism. One of the dangers of unbridled capitalism is that business can become more powerful than government and law-- and this inevitably leads to corruption... the corruption we are seeing right now. I don't see how pointing out the pitfalls of a pure economic theory is like telling someone how to practice their own religion. Are your beliefs so shaky you don't want them questioned? How can you breathe with your head in the sand? We should question all points of view... but your prime argument seems to be that I do not have the right to question you. Welcome to Nazi-land, Adolph.

The reason I posted the Wal-mart articles were to illustrate a point. I wasn't trying to distract you but provide proof that capitalism has its dark side. You stated that corporate slavery was a myth. I showed that it wasn't a myth. Just because the slaves are not chained to the check out registers doesn't mean they do not exist. Wal-mart has a very friendly, family-oriented facade-- it's the fucking Disneyland of retail shopping-- but back behind the curtain (across the seas) real people are being enslaved and abused so you can save 17 cents on tube socks.

Call it what you like. Socialism. Marxism. Dingleberryism. Government must maintain checks and balances to prevent abuses of the capitalist theory. \

now... keep fucking that chicken!

Yunus
September 22nd, 2009, 04:30
What's the difference between a capitalist economy with socialist elements and a socialist economy with capitalist elements? ;) Does one sound better than the other? I'm not ignoring what you say. I was only pointing out the offenses of lawless capitalism. One of the dangers of unbridled capitalism is that business can become more powerful than government and law-- and this inevitably leads to corruption... the corruption we are seeing right now. I don't see how pointing out the pitfalls of a pure economic theory is like telling someone how to practice their own religion. Are your beliefs so shaky you don't want them questioned? How can you breathe with your head in the sand? We should question all points of view... but your prime argument seems to be that I do not have the right to question you. Welcome to Nazi-land, Adolph.

The reason I posted the Wal-mart articles were to illustrate a point. I wasn't trying to distract you but provide proof that capitalism has its dark side. You stated that corporate slavery was a myth. I showed that it wasn't a myth. Just because the slaves are not chained to the check out registers doesn't mean they do not exist. Wal-mart has a very friendly, family-oriented facade-- it's the fucking Disneyland of retail shopping-- but back behind the curtain (across the seas) real people are being enslaved and abused so you can save 17 cents on tube socks.

Call it what you like. Socialism. Marxism. Dingleberryism. Government must maintain checks and balances to prevent abuses of the capitalist theory. \

now... keep fucking that chicken!

It seems that the conversations in this thread was directed to politics.

I don't know so much about politics.
:D:D:D

Dr. Cool
September 22nd, 2009, 10:21
What's the difference between a capitalist economy with socialist elements and a socialist economy with capitalist elements? ;) Does one sound better than the other? I'm not ignoring what you say. I was only pointing out the offenses of lawless capitalism. One of the dangers of unbridled capitalism is that business can become more powerful than government and law-- and this inevitably leads to corruption... the corruption we are seeing right now. I don't see how pointing out the pitfalls of a pure economic theory is like telling someone how to practice their own religion. Are your beliefs so shaky you don't want them questioned? How can you breathe with your head in the sand? We should question all points of view... but your prime argument seems to be that I do not have the right to question you. Welcome to Nazi-land, Adolph.

The reason I posted the Wal-mart articles were to illustrate a point. I wasn't trying to distract you but provide proof that capitalism has its dark side. You stated that corporate slavery was a myth. I showed that it wasn't a myth. Just because the slaves are not chained to the check out registers doesn't mean they do not exist. Wal-mart has a very friendly, family-oriented facade-- it's the fucking Disneyland of retail shopping-- but back behind the curtain (across the seas) real people are being enslaved and abused so you can save 17 cents on tube socks.

Call it what you like. Socialism. Marxism. Dingleberryism. Government must maintain checks and balances to prevent abuses of the capitalist theory. \

now... keep fucking that chicken!

Cobra, refresh my memory please, but why is it that your beloved government is better or more trustworthy than any corporation? Government is nothing more than the biggest corporation of all. Oh, yeah, democracy right? You bought it? Do you mean that we all should follow the dictatorship of the majority? If the majority would vote that we all should be forced into circumcision, do you think that this would make it right? Can you choose your president at a grocery shelf, or are you obliged to live with the Bushs and their equals the Obamas as your bosses even when you cannot withstand seeing their faces? Does this system give you any alternative, any option?

Liberal political thinking is a shame, it's an intellectual disease. It empowers megalomaniacs in power, it reduces the power of the individual, it eliminates market competition, it ends up serving as a tool for the biggest private interests in the country, including the interests of the so-called corporations that they say they "despise" so much. Just notice how *this* administration (like the previous one) protected New York bankers and big Detroit automakers at the cost of everybody else. No better example could ever exist. If you really want to reduce the power of large corporations, you should defend *COMPETITIVE FREE MARKETS*, and not defend easily corruptible *BIG GOVERNMENT*, the ultimate friend of the big guys.

Notice that I'm not saying that political conservatism is much better. It's also another lame excuse to increase government power at the cost of individual freedom. Give it some thought man, search for the answer outside of the box.

Dr. Cool
September 22nd, 2009, 10:34
By the way, good posts Goskin. There's much truth in what you say.

1Taoist
September 22nd, 2009, 11:41
Before all you genius' get totally drowned in your conceptualism, capitalism isn't a belief system- it is very simple: those with capital use it to make money. That's ALL capitalism is. Nothing more, nothing less.

And we are not really a capitalist society, because very few have capital. Cash. Very few make money off investing their money. I'm talkin real money. Sure, people invest and make some money, but I'm not talkin about buyin 5 grand in apple stock. Capitalism is taking a million dollars and investing it in a business complex that in 10 years yields 10x that in revenue and value. Capitaism is the rich. Only difference is that the rich don't actually use THEIR money to do it. They could...but they don't. They get banks and the government to do it. All their "capital" does is secure their loans. They leave their actual cash in bonds and interest, making money on their money.

So any average person starting up a business and gettin a loan by tapping their house or 401k to cover a down-payment isn't a capitalist.

Capitalism is money that is put to use making more money WITHOUT TRADE. Without investors or loans. Banks, in this country, are the only true capitalists, besides the uber-rich. That's why you always hear "I've got to raise capital to start my business".

Dr. Cool
September 22nd, 2009, 12:04
Before all you genius' get totally drowned in your conceptualism, capitalism isn't a belief system- it is very simple: those with capital use it to make money. That's ALL capitalism is. Nothing more, nothing less.

And we are not really a capitalist society, because very few have capital. Cash. Very few make money off investing their money. I'm talkin real money. Sure, people invest and make some money, but I'm not talkin about buyin 5 grand in apple stock. Capitalism is taking a million dollars and investing it in a business complex that in 10 years yields 10x that in revenue and value. Capitaism is the rich. Only difference is that the rich don't actually use THEIR money to do it. They could...but they don't. They get banks and the government to do it. All their "capital" does is secure their loans. They leave their actual cash in bonds and interest, making money on their money.

So any average person starting up a business and gettin a loan by tapping their house or 401k to cover a down-payment isn't a capitalist.

Capitalism is money that is put to use making more money WITHOUT TRADE. Without investors or loans. Banks, in this country, are the only true capitalists, besides the uber-rich. That's why you always hear "I've got to raise capital to start my business".

1Taoist, this is the definition of capitalism (Random House):
"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

And there's nothing conceptual about what we're saying. Big government is a very real concept, just ask people that lived under Nazi or Soviet rule. And competitive free markets are also a very real concept, it's something you can experience every day in this country every time you're given the option to buy/sell whatever you want from/to whoever you want. Government messes it up a lot, but you can yet get the feeling of it.

You can see all degrees of variation regarding government size and level of market freedom across history and countries, but there's nothing purely conceptual here, we're talking very real stuff.

It's a very simple question in the end: be the puppet of politicos or empower individual freedom of choice. I choose the latter.

cobra
September 22nd, 2009, 13:51
No one seems to understand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the government controlling everything and everyone. Merely enforcing laws which curtail the illegal activity of big businesses. Furthermore, the moment the government levied taxes against the American people to fund public works like the post office and the library, we became a quasi-socialist state.

You think corporations are less corrupt than the government? Last time I checked, I could vote against my local representatives. Hell, I can run against them and take their political power. Is that going to happen with the board members of some mega corporation? Nope.

As a small businessman, I deal with the reality of corporations every day. All I want is a level playing field. It's hard to compete with a corporation that not only breaks the rules but breaks the laws. When corporations are given free reign, their first priority is to kill competitors, which leads to the death of innovation and consumer choice. I stay in business because I am good at thinking of ways around all the roadblocks that have been erected to keep small businesses from flourishing.

Small business in America is almost dead now. Why are you guys so eager to shovel the dirt on its grave? What's the difference between government and corporations? You can vote your reps out of office or take their jobs.

Dr. Cool
September 22nd, 2009, 14:37
No one seems to understand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the government controlling everything and everyone. Merely enforcing laws which curtail the illegal activity of big businesses. Furthermore, the moment the government levied taxes against the American people to fund public works like the post office and the library, we became a quasi-socialist state.

You think corporations are less corrupt than the government? Last time I checked, I could vote against my local representatives. Hell, I can run against them and take their political power. Is that going to happen with the board members of some mega corporation? Nope.

As a small businessman, I deal with the reality of corporations every day. All I want is a level playing field. It's hard to compete with a corporation that not only breaks the rules but breaks the laws. When corporations are given free reign, their first priority is to kill competitors, which leads to the death of innovation and consumer choice. I stay in business because I am good at thinking of ways around all the roadblocks that have been erected to keep small businesses from flourishing.

Small business in America is almost dead now. Why are you guys so eager to shovel the dirt on its grave? What's the difference between government and corporations? You can vote your reps out of office or take their jobs.

Cobra, I feel your pain. Without the Obama and Bush administrations, large corporations such as Citi and GM would have ended, RIP, gone. This is the market's way of getting rid of bloodsucking big leeches. Only the best firms stay, large companies or otherwise. It was Bush and then Obama that kept these parasites on life support, ready to start sucking the life out of your small business once more.

Now tell me, how can you really defend government as someone on your side? They've never been and will never be. I've lived in four different countries, and the story is always the same. Exploitation of the politically naive and the taxpayer.

And I agree with you on this one: governments should focus on their really important task: to keep a leveled playing field, with *no privileges to anyone*. No meddling, no preferences. Normally, small governments are the ones that do it best. Big governments have too many "special interests" behind them to be neutral. They just become too pervasive, too interested as a part, too corrupt and corruptible. After all, football referees cannot be players, and players cannot be referees. In government it's not different.

But you're wrong about democracy. Once the politico gets elected, you'll usually have to live with him or her for years. The Clintons, the Bushes, the Kennedys and now the Obamas... They come to stay. Sometimes for decades. Many times you hate them, and you have no other choice than to live with them, because it's always about the dictatorship of the majority. They'll always impose something on you that's against your will, because everybody is different and you'll always be a minority when it comes to some aspect of your life.

At least when it comes to corporations you'll always have a simple and easy choice: don't buy from them, don't deal with them. You can vote with your money, which is a much more powerful way to vote than what is offered (or not offered) to you in hugely imperfect political systems based on majority rule (or in even more imperfect systems based on totalitarianism).

That's why the real solution to most social problems is to reinforce competitive free markets (to empower individual free choice) and to restrict government powers (to restrict the rule of the majority over the minority through physical coercion by the state).

1Taoist
September 22nd, 2009, 20:40
Doc cool, your definition is just a conceptual wording of what I said. But it stands...capitalism is about capital. Nevermind the people/co's that have it.

This IS a real topic, though, and an important one.

One thing about big business...they don't want to get rid of small business entirely, cuz it's a good way to foster innovation. They DO want to exploit them. Once some small business gets a good model, they buy it or simply run it out and steal it's idea.

Small biz's create interesting models. Big biz don't have to experiment as much, and if they own a small biz they can create the illusion of boutique without actually risking big money on a wide scale.

I see what you're saying cobra. It's funny though...business says "less government" but they want BIG business. It's like if you're for "more" government (or BIG government), you want less business (small biz). I think all big anything collapses under it's own weight. Just look at the steel and manufacturing industries of the 20th century.

Nobody knows what will work in this economy. Despite what you guys have cited, Bush and Obama COULD NOT let these big companies fail, for very real reasons. My father is an attorney who is suing Lehman Bros. Did you know Lehman still exists? Yes. The Lehman you heard went down was only a sub-division. Lehman Bros Inc is fine. And bigger than Lehman Bros holdings. That "failure" was just a balance sheet failure. They were being sold and the government just didn't guarantee the acquisition, so it "failed". Lehman Inc is still goin, kids.

Back to the "too big to fail" fact. GM is an example. If it fails, the ripple effect of bankruptcy puts ALL the businesses that work with GM on lockout, meaning NOBODY gets paid and ALL work stops. Without going into details, suffice it that total bankruptcy causes ALL OTHER BUSINESS related to car manufacturing to halt until the process is finished, which takes A LONG TIME. So what happened? The government had to step in and guarantee the re-structuring SO GM could emerge from it's limited bankrupcy re-structured QUICKLY. And no work stops. Understand? This isn't a bail-out. It's actually a life-saver. Simple bankrupcy law, if anybody cares to know.

That's why GM's BK was the quickest restructure EVER- they didn't file dissolution. The government had to guarantee them, and the price was to agree to a new biz model quickly so NO RIPPLE collapse occurred. You have no idea what would have happened had they NOT done this. It is staggering. And they had NO choice.

Many small businesses work in conjunction with GM, in all sorts of ways. So before everybody gets all opinionated about big government vs free-market, take a step back and consider you have no idea.

The sub-prime market and the derivative market (credit default swaps) all drove a world-wide unprecedented expansion of free market enterprise that was unprecedented. Loans were sold into pools that are bigger than your imagination. And this didn't just happen in the US. This business model was worldwide. And so would be the collapse.

For the average homeowner, probably many million people own your home. The loans, and their pools, consist of millions of investors. That's why nobody cared to check if you could pay it back, why loans were sold to every dick and Harry at no money down. You pay a servicer of loans. In effect, nobody can tell you who owns your home. People all over the world own a piece of it. And this is troublesome.

So it's both. Big business, big government. Free market and socialism. And right now...government is holding up the mess big business created. Years ago some geniuses came up with this rediculous ponzi and NObody knows what to do. In fact, the smartest people out there...

are saying we should do it all over again. Seriously.

Dr. Cool
September 22nd, 2009, 21:40
Doc cool, your definition is just a conceptual wording of what I said. But it stands...capitalism is about capital. Nevermind the people/co's that have it.

This IS a real topic, though, and an important one.

One thing about big business...they don't want to get rid of small business entirely, cuz it's a good way to foster innovation. They DO want to exploit them. Once some small business gets a good model, they buy it or simply run it out and steal it's idea.

Small biz's create interesting models. Big biz don't have to experiment as much, and if they own a small biz they can create the illusion of boutique without actually risking big money on a wide scale.

I see what you're saying cobra. It's funny though...business says "less government" but they want BIG business. It's like if you're for "more" government (or BIG government), you want less business (small biz). I think all big anything collapses under it's own weight. Just look at the steel and manufacturing industries of the 20th century.

Nobody knows what will work in this economy. Despite what you guys have cited, Bush and Obama COULD NOT let these big companies fail, for very real reasons. My father is an attorney who is suing Lehman Bros. Did you know Lehman still exists? Yes. The Lehman you heard went down was only a sub-division. Lehman Bros Inc is fine. And bigger than Lehman Bros holdings. That "failure" was just a balance sheet failure. They were being sold and the government just didn't guarantee the acquisition, so it "failed". Lehman Inc is still goin, kids.

Back to the "too big to fail" fact. GM is an example. If it fails, the ripple effect of bankruptcy puts ALL the businesses that work with GM on lockout, meaning NOBODY gets paid and ALL work stops. Without going into details, suffice it that total bankruptcy causes ALL OTHER BUSINESS related to car manufacturing to halt until the process is finished, which takes A LONG TIME. So what happened? The government had to step in and guarantee the re-structuring SO GM could emerge from it's limited bankrupcy re-structured QUICKLY. And no work stops. Understand? This isn't a bail-out. It's actually a life-saver. Simple bankrupcy law, if anybody cares to know.

That's why GM's BK was the quickest restructure EVER- they didn't file dissolution. The government had to guarantee them, and the price was to agree to a new biz model quickly so NO RIPPLE collapse occurred. You have no idea what would have happened had they NOT done this. It is staggering. And they had NO choice.

Many small businesses work in conjunction with GM, in all sorts of ways. So before everybody gets all opinionated about big government vs free-market, take a step back and consider you have no idea.

The sub-prime market and the derivative market (credit default swaps) all drove a world-wide unprecedented expansion of free market enterprise that was unprecedented. Loans were sold into pools that are bigger than your imagination. And this didn't just happen in the US. This business model was worldwide. And so would be the collapse.

For the average homeowner, probably many million people own your home. The loans, and their pools, consist of millions of investors. That's why nobody cared to check if you could pay it back, why loans were sold to every dick and Harry at no money down. You pay a servicer of loans. In effect, nobody can tell you who owns your home. People all over the world own a piece of it. And this is troublesome.

So it's both. Big business, big government. Free market and socialism. And right now...government is holding up the mess big business created. Years ago some geniuses came up with this rediculous ponzi and NObody knows what to do. In fact, the smartest people out there...

are saying we should do it all over again. Seriously.

Well, even assuming that ripple effects were important and had to be contained (there exists serious data-based evidence that their importance has been overstated for political gains), you could achieve the same outcomes without having to save those big corporations and their CEOs and investors. For example, and this is just one among many alternatives, you could have lent the money instead to smaller investors, like healthy small and mid-size Midwest banks, or non-vested new investors, people just like you and me, so they could buy the wreck from the big boys in NY and their cronies in DC, the ones that bankrupted those firms under the expectation the the suckers (taxpayers) would be there to fill up the holes.

Those crooks must be celebrating right now, having a good laugh at the cost of all the political lambs that once felt so good for having been given the "opportunity" to put an (x) on a piece of paper and vote for "change" (not me, thanks). Politics is really the art of obfuscation.

1Taoist, there's no excuse for what this administration did. They chose to help their friends in Detroit and NY at the cost of everybody else, that's all. This is the way politics works. It's always been like this, it'll always be like this. That's why the solution is less government and more individual freedom of choice. Government should be a referee, not a player.

Tally
September 22nd, 2009, 22:25
At least when it comes to corporations you'll always have a simple and easy choice: don't buy from them, don't deal with them. You can vote with your money, which is a much more powerful way to vote than what is offered (or not offered) to you in hugely imperfect political systems based on majority rule (or in even more imperfect systems based on totalitarianism).
Nice fantasy. Wish it were possible on the planet I live on. One problem with mega corporations is there is no choice. Do I buy my gas from Exxon or Chevron or Citgo? Some choice.

Capitalism fails when corporations get to be larger than most countries. To be precise, the problem is not capitalism, it is the concentration of wealth and its resulting power in too few individuals/corporations. One thing I really wish they would do is break up the Too Big to Fail companies into a bunch of Small Enough to Go Broke companies. Then, you could vote with your dollars.

Dr. Cool
September 22nd, 2009, 23:21
Nice fantasy. Wish it were possible on the planet I live on. One problem with mega corporations is there is no choice. Do I buy my gas from Exxon or Chevron or Citgo? Some choice.

Capitalism fails when corporations get to be larger than most countries. To be precise, the problem is not capitalism, it is the concentration of wealth and its resulting power in too few individuals/corporations. One thing I really wish they would do is break up the Too Big to Fail companies into a bunch of Small Enough to Go Broke companies. Then, you could vote with your dollars.

I'll assume that you're joking Tally. Here in the US we at least have some choice when it comes to gas. Oil markets are by nature concentrated (large economies of scale). In most countries, it's usually just one *government* company, and that's it. Those are government run monopolies, the worst kind of monopoly, written on stone, and not coincidentally they fuck the shit out of their citizens until it bleeds. No coincidence that the US has the cheapest gas in the world among all developed nations, even after deducting for taxes.

Historical, theoretical and empirical evidence is pretty clear: it's in nations based on capitalism, free markets and small governments where we find the lowest survival rates among large companies, and consequently it's among those economies where we see most business innovation and creativity. For example, it's a well known fact that, among the companies that were originally part of the Dow Jones, only General Electrics remains listed. *All* other original corporations shrunk or went bankrupt. On the other hand, it's in countries with large governments and highly regulated economies where you'll find companies existing for ages, never going out of business, like let's say in Japan.

Why is it? It's very simple really. Large governments are given lots of power, that humongous power allows them to control the "suckers," so they can easily obtain the resources necessary to protect large companies from going the way of dinosaurs, and they can easily *regulate away competition*. They do this because large corporations develop, almost by definition, a symbiotic relationship with big governments. One doesn't exclude the other, on the contrary, they reinforce one another. Just take a look at any European country. There's no exception to this rule. There has never been.

Another example: if Microsoft or Apple would be starting out today, the Feds would probably kill them, so IBM could survive. By the way, IBM almost went bankrupt once, and in those wiser times the government chose to not help IBM. It looks like they've done just fine without the help of the suckers (taxpayers, voters).

Keep these numbers also in mind:
Revenue of the largest corporation in the US in 2007 (ExxonMobil): US $390 billions. Number of employees: 90,800.
Revenue of the US federal government in 2007: US$ 2,400 billions. Number of employees: 14,600,000

Even the largest corporation in the world is a pygmy when compared to the US federal government.

Liberalism is an intellectual disease. I rest my case.

1Taoist
September 22nd, 2009, 23:59
Conservatism is a sexual disease.

I think you see things too idealistically and statistically. As I mentioned before, big companies collapse under their own weight, and you showed us that.

You think cuz IBM survived- in a completely different era -that this is evidence all these other banks and corps could, too. You're just mad cuz you don't have a relevant perspective. Payin CEO's, to you, sounds austentacious and frivolous, as if you're bein screwed. I know it feels that way. I felt that way, too. But what you fail to grasp is the reality that it's just business as usual. Small change. Made no difference in the scheme of things and that's just what these people are paid. Their bonuses are almost irrelevant in the equation. It's like a restaurant getting public funding and you getting mad cuz fifty bucks was given to the head waiter. It seems like somethin to you, but it just ain't. And neither is the bail-out quota. It dont make sense to you, but guess what. It don't matter. Your opinion don't matter. That's like one of the millions of loan pool investors who own your home sayin he don't like the lawn you put in.

1Taoist
September 23rd, 2009, 00:13
And Tally...you raise a good point. The breakup of standard oil is an example. And it may happen again. But as cool pointed out, big companies of big government don't go down. How does that relate to us? The Bush era was the complete takeover of the government BY big business. The corporations ARE our government. That's why the Bush's got into government in the first place- for the reason you stated: government HAD broken up business in the past, so they're takin that principle and inverting it: now they want it to prop it up. How? By BEING the government. And all the while they tell you government is the enemy. If that's the case, why has the Bush family two presidents and workin on a third? Hmm? That's like the Bushes tellin you al Qaeda is the problem at the same time they run those fuckers. Think about it.

Dr. Cool
September 23rd, 2009, 00:26
Conservatism is a sexual disease.

I think you see things too idealistically and statistically. As I mentioned before, big companies collapse under their own weight, and you showed us that.

You think cuz IBM survived- in a completely different era -that this is evidence all these other banks and corps could, too. You're just mad cuz you don't have a relevant perspective. Payin CEO's, to you, sounds austentacious and frivolous, as if you're bein screwed. I know it feels that way. I felt that way, too. But what you fail to grasp is the reality that it's just business as usual. Small change. Made no difference in the scheme of things and that's just what these people are paid. Their bonuses are almost irrelevant in the equation. It's like a restaurant getting public funding and you getting mad cuz fifty bucks was given to the head waiter. It seems like somethin to you, but it just ain't. And neither is the bail-out quota. It dont make sense to you, but guess what. It don't matter. Your opinion don't matter. That's like one of the millions of loan pool investors who own your home sayin he don't like the lawn you put in.

Maybe you're right about conservatives, I'm not one of them anyway so I'm not qualified to judge.

1Taoist, I couldn't care less if the companies would survive or not or how much money they make or how much they pay their CEOs, as long as they are not paid with taxpayers money and as long as the government doesn't force me to buy anything from them. I know however that mediocre companies such as Citi and GM should be seven feet under by now, and they're not, on the contrary, they're laughing at us.

And please don't worry about my financial status, I work with finance and I'm pretty good at making lemonade out of lemons. Economic knowledge is power (when wisely employed).

1Taoist
September 23rd, 2009, 10:22
Has anybody heard about this conserv congressman/whatever who is claiming watching straight porn will make you gay?

?

FFS.

cobra
September 23rd, 2009, 10:49
Straight Porn Makes You Gay (Who Knew?)

Josh Marshall | September 21, 2009, 11:59AM

At the Values Voters Summit over the weekend, Sen. Tom Coburn's chief of staff opened a new front in the War Against Hormones (WAH) when he explained that if we tell teenage boys that straight porn will make them gay, they'll never touch the stuff again.

:confused:

U.S. Senator’s Chief Of Staff Says Straight Porn Will Make You Gay
By Kleinheider

Posted on September 21, 2009 at 12:03 pm
And he wants to get the word out:

“One of the things he said to me,” said Schwartz, “that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark… he said ‘All pornography is homosexual pornography, because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards.”

There were murmurs and gasps from the crowd. “Now, think about that,” said Schwartz. “And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants! You know, that’s a good comment, it’s a good point, and it’s a good thing to teach young people.”

:mad: If masturbation makes one homosexual, then I guess we're all gay men. But does it make my wife a gay man?

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l8tQwtuzqpc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l8tQwtuzqpc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

How do these people get away with such discrimination? He's implying gay is a sickness, like cancer, and not simply an alternative lifestyle. I wonder how long these loonies are going to be tolerated by their own political party? I also wonder how many cocks this dude sucks a week. :rolleyes:

Tally
September 23rd, 2009, 11:14
Keep these numbers also in mind:
Revenue of the largest corporation in the US in 2007 (ExxonMobil): US $390 billions. Number of employees: 90,800.
Revenue of the US federal government in 2007: US$ 2,400 billions. Number of employees: 14,600,000
Reading comprehension counts. I said larger than most countries. Using GNP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29) and your revenue number, which is comparable to GNP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product), ExxonMobile would be the 27th largest country in the world. Sounds pretty big and powerful to me. Keep on believing that you and a few others can sway that company's policies by buying gas from another company almost the same size. Do you know how well the boycott against Citgo is working?

Liberalism is an intellectual disease. I rest my case.
I am not sure why you think this is relevant, unless you are pointing at that modern conservatives are brainless. My values lean toward the conservative side (particularly financial), as that term meant before the right-wing fanatics changed what it meant to be conservative.

PS: To address the OP, I love my porn!

1Taoist
September 23rd, 2009, 14:04
Cobra- TOTALLY. You nailed it. My guess is he's run into Larry Craig's cock with his face a few times. Dude sucks cock, case closed.

How does this stupidity even get spoken? Why don't we have a psych-panel that interprets what these senators say? Would make things a lot clearer.

1Taoist
September 23rd, 2009, 14:24
My guess is that some people are just not made able to function sexually. Kinda makes circ seem irrelevant. Even intact, these types aren't gonna get it right. No matter what.

Telling kids that masturbation makes you gay is just downright poison. This is the modern-day version of masturbation makes you go blind.

So many social studies show that really nothing makes you go anything, except drugs. Even child abuse, which does indeed make some people sexually confused, ultimately doesn't make them gay. And porn ain't abuse. But I guess that myth is gonna persist forever.

Someone mundane
September 23rd, 2009, 15:34
Another political debate. Awesome. *Grabs a seat and proceeds to spectate with a bag of popcorn.*

EDIT: Omg... Cobra. Straight porn turning people gay? That is absolutely among one of the most retarded things I have ever heard to date. Too bad it doesn't trump (some of) the justifications for circ in terms of outright stupidity, though... But it does come close.

cobra
September 23rd, 2009, 17:22
Straight porn doesn't turn young men gay. Gimme a break. Gay porn wouldn't even make you turn gay.

People are born the way they are and while environment and history does have an effect on behavior, many of our emotional/mental responses are simply hardwired into our heads.

Let me confess something very personal. When I was a boy, I was sexually abused. This lead to me acting out as a teenager and doing drugs and being sexually promiscuous early on, but as an adult I am pretty square sexually and yes I have some issues, but I am still basically wired in my head for straight sex. I have viewed gay porn and it made me horny but I wanted to have sex with my wife, not some strange guy. I guess I am unusual because I can be arroused by straight, gay and lesbian porn, but when my hormones are perking and I need to get off, I just want to have sex with my wife. I love my wife. I wouldn't want to be with anyone but her.

I used to feel guilty for my wide range in tastes, porn-wise. But then, while watching porn with my wife, she said she liked watching the girl-girl scenes because they were "pretty" and I realized that sex is just sex, and what really turned me on was watching people enjoying their bodies and indulging themselves in pleasure. It wasn't about what part went where.

I don't understand why we have to stigmatize pleasure and make it a bad thing while at the same time we war-monger as a nation and promote and glorify violence in our media. Why is it okay to show someone being tortured and murdered on television, but an erect penis is a moral affront? It doesn't make sense. It seems destructive. It seems to be anti-life.

I was watching the news yesterday and a female teacher was sentenced to three years for emailing a picture of her boobs to a student. Later, we watched a reality crime program about three men who broke into an older couple's home to rob them. They shot them both multiple times, beat them, robbed them. One of the assailants was caught and got sentenced to... three years. How can a photo of boobs possible equate in severity to robbery, attempted murder and greivous assault? We live in a fucked up world.

This politician's message isn't going to keep boys from looking at porn. All he's going to do is fuck them up in the head. That's just what we need... more sexually fucked up men. Don't we have enough gay bashers and serial killers?

It's time to stop feeling bad about feeling good.

Someone mundane
September 23rd, 2009, 19:06
I largely agree with you.

But... A thought: Could the three year sentence have to do with them being sent to a "student"? I just wonder how old he/she was.

1Taoist
September 23rd, 2009, 22:15
FTR it was me that brought up the porn-makes-you-gay story, not cobra. But since you're a kid, quit lookin at porn or you'll be "someone gay".

cobra
September 23rd, 2009, 22:34
Yeah, that was Taoist's find. And mundane... how does a picture of a boob equal attempted murder? Even if it WAS sent to a student? If the similar sentences don't make you wonder about our sense of proportion, I don't know what will. People who get caught with an unprescribed painpill get more time in jail sometimes than convicted killers. This is a symptom of a fanatical culture, not much different than our neighbors in the middle east: extreme punishment for moral violations coupled with little regard for human life.

Why not just ban her from teaching, give her counselling and make her register as a sex offender? Why does she need to go to prison? She didn't hurt him. He probably sees more tits on Cinemax. Like I said, no sense of proportion...

Someone mundane
September 23rd, 2009, 22:49
Oh, I was aware that it was his find. I posted that before I thoroughly skimmed the thread. Cobras post was just more eye-grabbing in general.

EDIT: Yes, Cobra. I know what you meant. The scale of crime. Hence why I said "I largely agree with you." Still, I was just wondering how old the person she sent it to was.

goskin
September 23rd, 2009, 23:47
Big business is in bed with big government. Hello... is anybody paying attention. GE, ACORN, and the GOV. they are all in bed together have been for a long time(it didnt just start with this president). The corporations go to the government seeking protection against composition.

1Taoist
September 24th, 2009, 11:36
Man, I wish a few of my teachers sent me pics of their boobs. I wonder, though, if she'd sent it snail mail, could she claim she never sent it and it was stolen? Think about that, in modern terms.

If my boy gets sent boob pics, and she's hot- that is winning the lottery. If she's hiddy- then she gets 3 years. Some gross titty you can't ever erase from your mind. Like a horrible war casualty. It's as simple as that. The crime is violent if she's a hiddy-titty monster.

I agree, there is a problem with pleasure. It's cuz so many people get pleasure from wrong things. Even right things- like a simple beautiful nude woman -cause people to think or do wrong things. Pleasure has a wrong element to it. We must accept that. Some people simply can't channel the "wrong" into right. That's why people join the right- they can't really get it right.

If my kid got boob pics from his teacher- my first thought is to go to her and throw them down on her desk and ask her to explain. When she hesitates, nervously, I ask her what she thinks a young boy feels when he sees her bare tits, her nipples hard and full like that. That he'll want more; her to take off her panties and spread her legs for him, maybe touch herself. Does she think about that? When she still can't answer, I'd say maybe she does. I'd tell her she is right now, cuz her nipples are showing right now through her blouse. I'd tell her she better not think about takin off her shirt for me, or showin me how wet she's gettin right now. Does she know how much trouble she's in? Maybe she thinks I'd like to see her, to see if I'd get hard, but I tell her she better not, cuz I might fuck her right on this desk. I'd say you're a nice girl who is very bad, and if she wants to stay out of jail she should show me how good she is. How hot she is. And she'd open her blouse, and pull her panties aside. For me. I'd fuck her on her desk from behind, cum inside her, then leave, without a word.

cobra
September 24th, 2009, 14:11
Nice... I mean-- shame on you! You made me have a dirty fantasy. Now I'm gay. I turned my sexuality inwards. Or something.... oh, those Conservatives are making me confused.

Someone mundane
September 24th, 2009, 15:52
If my boy gets sent boob pics, and she's hot- that is winning the lottery. If she's hiddy- then she gets 3 years. Some gross titty you can't ever erase from your mind. Like a horrible war casualty. It's as simple as that. The crime is violent if she's a hiddy-titty monster.

Oh I don't know about that, Tao. I've seen a certain few gore series pictures online before. (Shock value things) It's been my experience that stuff like that gives you a better perspective (not to mention appreciation) in terms of what is and isn't defined as "beauty" once your eyes have been opened to it. But for the simple minded (sheltered? overly sensitive?) majority you're probably right.

I agree, there is a problem with pleasure. It's cuz so many people get pleasure from wrong things. Even right things- like a simple beautiful nude woman -cause people to think or do wrong things. Pleasure has a wrong element to it. We must accept that. Some people simply can't channel the "wrong" into right. That's why people join the right- they can't really get it right.

I agree with this, though.