Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Is that intended to be a correction to what I'm saying? Well, I'm fine with being wrong, but it's confusing if that is supposed to be correcting me, I thought I was saying basically that.
I think it's less a correction than an elaboration - the South Sea Company in particular is a good example of what Fighteer's referring to (Extra History did a good series on it
).
![]()
![]()
Honestly, I wound up almost resenting the tone of that article, given that Sanders' wins tonight were more than a little substantial - though that might be more my chafing at Google results giving Hillary Arizona and assigning delegates accordingly when 1% of the vote was in, but still being stuck at "23 Sanders, 8 Hillary" when it comes to 93% of Washington reporting... leaving the other 70 delegates seemingly out of the equation? As for the article itself, though, I dislike the assumption that all of the Superdelegates are getting factored in already, when a number of their States haven't even voted in the Primary/caucus season.
edited 26th Mar '16 8:27:16 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
![]()
Even if big business uses cronyism to get (or maintain) its power, a government that's out of the way would still result in it abusing every avenue possible to get or maintain power. Buy out competition that's genuinely threatening, slash prices in markets that have a small competitor and then jack the prices back up when the competitor is gone, etc. A government that actually cares about the fucking people will stop this abuse. A government that's in collusion with the business will accelerate the abuse or allow new abuses (in South Korea, there are people who mockingly call their country "The Republic of Samsung"). A government that's ineffectual or nonexistent is unable to prevent abuse.
So apparently someone at a voting precinct tried to throw away Sanders ballots in Hawaii.
edited 26th Mar '16 9:01:54 PM by theLibrarian
Cassidy, I would suggest you read up on the East India Company
which is a historic example of a government-sponsored MegaCorp, and which had controlled half of the world's trade and had its own private armies at its height.
Again, it is better when big government and big business are opposition to each other. When they work together, that ends up just screwing over the people.
Wizard Needs Food Badly![]()
Well, if it was reported to the Fraud hotline, it should be easy enough to check out. So if it's true, I'm sure we'll see a news site or two publish it tomorrow, unless the cynic in me is right and they opt to quash it (if it's true, that is). Doesn't necessarily reflect on Clinton as a candidate, though.
edited 26th Mar '16 10:28:51 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Given how easy it is to virally spread rumors all over the internet, it behooves us to actually look for proof for anything we post here. The cynic in me says that anything that doesn't have any proof and is basically just a jpeg picture of a post without anything corroborating it makes me think it's a lie at best. Which I'm going to continue to think until the poster gives us something that backs it up instead of all this rumor mongering.
![]()
![]()
In the end, the East India Company was nationalised by the British Government, forming The Raj.
In opposition but not obstructive?
edited 26th Mar '16 11:56:52 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnThat actually sounds really stupid, since opposition tends to mean things like companies DON"T WANT TO OBEY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. The government doesn't put up stuff like that just for shits and giggles.
Frankly this idea that every thing and everyone has to be in opposition to each other just because "balance" or whatever is a terrible idea. It doesn't foster cooperation or healthy debate.
While the government and business being in cahoots is usually a bad idea, them being actively opposed to each other leads to the exact same problem. When business and state are at odds with each other, they'll actively seek to control each other. And ultimately, the real problem at the heart of both communism and cronyism is the combination of state power and market power.
I think the best comparison is that businesses are like players in a sport, and the government is like a referee. Business are here to play the "game" that is the market, and the State is here to make sure the game's rules are followed (along with generally making sure the game is fair). The players and the ref should be friendly enough that rules are followed, but not enough to make the ref biased.
edited 27th Mar '16 1:14:02 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34And how are the players supposed to become friendly with the refs without being too friendly? What incentive do they have to follow the rules if they don't fear the consequences of breaking them? Businesses have no desire to play a friendly sport with each other, they want to win, whatever it takes. Historically they've been fairly sociopathic about this, knowingly causing grievous harm whenever they could get away with it. The idea that they'd suddenly, magically realize that they should be playing nice strikes me as hopelessly idealistic.
It's worth noting that the legal duty of a publicly traded corporation is to maximize profits for their shareholders. That is the only goal they have.
edited 27th Mar '16 1:32:55 AM by Clarste
It's not even a matter of trust. Their job is simply to screw you over. For example, a private insurer wants to help as few people as possible. That's what it says in the job description: help as few people as possible. Because that's how they make money. It's the same with every business: provide as little service as possible while charging as much as possible (and paying their employees as little as possible). The theory is that the existence of competitors will keep them in check, but that doesn't change their motivation. If competitors can conspire to keep prices higher, they will, because why the hell wouldn't they when their explicit motive is to screw people over as much as they can? And if they can't do that, they'll conspire with the government to eliminate competitors because that's their motive. They will spend every waking moment looking for loopholes to screw people over because that's what we encourage them to do.
edited 27th Mar '16 2:04:31 AM by Clarste
![]()
Not that state-owned industries are much better — especially if they were nationalised to stop them going out of business, and run themselves as a profit-making businessnote .
They also need regulation and oversightnote , as the same problems occur.
edited 27th Mar '16 2:08:07 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnIt's a problem with any profit based company. Because as Clarste says, their main goal is to cheat and oppress and make money.
You're right that the same issues arise with nationalized corporations but I think that unless the nationalization is a temporary measure then any government owned business should be focused solely on services or products and not profits.
Oh really when?The problem with declaring that businesses are evil (or good) is that they're morally varied. There are many different businesses with different people with different moral centers. It's more accurate to say that Hobbes Was Right in general, which is part of why anarcho-capitalism is a terrible idea.
As for for-profit being "good", I'd argue it is. Using an extreme opposite example: in a society where all resources are pooled and shared (ala Communism) what's incentivized is working as little as possible and taking off of the pooled resources as much as possible.
By contrast, a more capitalistic-leaning society would incentivize helping more people in order to get your hands on their money.
edited 27th Mar '16 2:58:48 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Businesses aren't evil because they don't even operate on an axis of human morality. They're more like wild animals. Maybe you can keep a rabid dog on your lawn to scare away burglars, or introduce cane toads to your farms to eat pests, but you need to be careful while doing so. "Trusting" them doesn't even come into it because you shouldn't expect them to have your best interests in mind in the first place. They need to be muzzled, not trusted.
I mean, people can be good or bad, and those people are ultimately running the businesses, but the whole point of a corporation is to remove individual responsibility, and that doesn't just mean legally. Responsibility is diluted over a fictitious legal entity, and no one feels truly responsible for anything that happens. "It's not my fault, I was just collecting a paycheck." "It's not my fault for giving the order, I had to appease the shareholders." "Its not my fault, I don't run the business, I just give them my investment and ask them to increase it." They are social engines designed for exploitation of resources, because that's what we designed them for.
edited 27th Mar '16 4:30:11 AM by Clarste
Then I guess you're not a fan of the concept of the limited-liability company (or partnership)?
edited 27th Mar '16 4:58:33 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On

edited 26th Mar '16 8:01:38 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"