Note that while you referred to "big business" the hypothesis under examination is about financial institutions. "Big business" historically refers to private industry, not finance. — frank

It's just an intro-post. You'll have to fill in the blanks with your own research.

From United Fruit to Rex Tillerson (read: Exxon) et al, big business is very much a part of the revolving door.

I do believe in something like the rule of law, that all people and institutions should be subject to the same laws, principles, customs, whatever, but that’s just another reason why it bothers me that states can get away with theft, murder, kidnapping, imprisonment, but anyone else would not. — NOS4A2

:lol:

It's just an intro-post. You'll have to fill in the blanks with your own research.

From United Fruit to Rex Tillerson (read: Exxon) et al, big business is very much a part of the revolving door. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I was just commenting that "big business" usually refers to manufacturing, not finance.

Are you going to evolve into one of those brain dead leftist pit bulls? That would be a shame.

Are you going to evolve into one of those brain dead leftist pit bulls? — frank

No, the left is just as nutty as the right.

It wouldn't surprise me if Sting got it right: there is no political solution.

Oh good.

Schopenhauer said there's no solution period. I think that's correct.

I’ve never understood the criticism of laissez-faire. — NOS4A2

But then you've never understood justice.

Schopenhauer said there's no solution period. I think that's correct. — frank

Our cardinal consolations are not to be sneezed at: literature, music, visual art, mythology, meditation, stoicism, dialectic, philosophy...

But no, no Final Solution short of a nuclear inferno - or, let's say, a genocide of the Other.

On the other hand, we'll always have Pascal's pseudo-solution: cultivating the ability to sit quietly in a room.

:grin:

Talking about the US government and industry, in 2001 there was an anti-trust case against Microsoft which echoed another such case in 1984, which famously broke up the "Bell System.". The fact that nobody today even knows what a Bell System is testifies to the occasionally extremely antagonistic relationship between the US government and American corporations.

In other countries, like Japan, that relationship is totally different, with government doing its utmost to protect and accommodate industry.

The situation in America reflects a bloody labor movement and an astonishingly successful American left. Those days are gone, though.

Today, financial institutions are at the core of the US economy, not manufacturing. The story is all about Wall St.

That's my 10 second phone history. :razz:

Interesting. The more you know...

I'm no expert, but I've read enough history to know NOS4A2 hasn't.

Those days are gone, though. — frank

Yep, labor has lost its power. The left has lost its mind.

I'm no expert, but I've read enough history to know NOS4A2 hasn't. — ZzzoneiroCosm

:up:

...an astonishingly successful American left. — frank

What?

Yeah I laughed out loud at that one.

You don’t know what I understand, but assert it anyways. You are not just.

You don’t know what I understand... — NOS4A2

We can make inferences from your comments. Notions of justice and equity do not loom large therein. The criticism of laissez-faire that you claim never to have understood centres on the continuation of inequity. Anything goes means everything stays, or more likely, gets worse.

States do not control corporations. There’s no law telling boards of directors to distribute 90% of profits to shareholders. Corporations are gifts from the state— and they are run by the people who own and run the state: the wealthy.

We can run a corporation to beneficent ends. We cannot run a state towards beneficent ends. — NOS4A2

There’s no reason either cannot be run for beneficent ends.

As it stands, corporations are not generally run for beneficent ends. They’re run for owners. The state, which they run, also functions this way. Neither are inevitable.

If by "potentially democratic" you mean we get to vote for another mammal to control how we live and to steal the fruits of our labor, I want nothing to do with it. — NOS4A2

We can vote in our neighbors for board of selectmen. We can vote for people who are decent— potentially. On the national level, where both major parties are owned by the corporate sector, there’s little choice.

Compare to the function of a corporation. Where’s the democracy there? They too steal the “fruits of our labor,” and give 90% back to their shareholders. Oddly you don’t seem to care much about this. You’d rather first go after the institution with even a modicum of democracy.

Great logic.

The privatization of exploitation is the only thing libertarians care about. They don't want anyone to get in the way of their exploitation.

That these laws often favor the wealthy or are not applied equally is not due to the wealth of the beneficiaries, but to State malfeasance, incompetence, and greed of state officials. — NOS4A2

So the wealthy individuals who make up the government, who pass laws that favor their class or their donors, are to blame. True. It’s also the greed and malfeasance of those who bribe said officials.

I guess the axiom is: “state bad.” Forget nuance, history… or reality.

If I’m so naive on the topic it should be easy for you to name a wealthy person who has committed murder and violence “just as much as the State has”; or name one wealthy person in Russia or China who has arrested someone and confiscated his wealth. I can give countless examples of States engaging in such behavior. — NOS4A2

Yes…States are bad seeds. I once saw a State rob a convenient store downtown. Can’t say I ever saw a wealthy guy do that.

Germany killed lots of people. Germany has always been a real asshole. The United States too — a huge dickhead.

A fun game for this thread: take a shot every time NOS says “fruits of one’s labor.”

If I’m so naive on the topic it should be easy for you to name a wealthy person who has committed murder and violence “just as much as the State has” — NOS4A2

I would list the names of every common laborer maimed or killed without recompense in a factory or slaughterhouse accident from the incipience of the Industrial Revolution to the present day, but a list that long might crash the site.


"Industrial Revolution working conditions were extremely dangerous for many reasons... particularly for reasons of economics: owners were under no regulations and did not have a financial reason to protect their workers."

https://www.historyonthenet.com/industrial-revolution-working-conditions

I think of Walmart's peasant insurance.

Let me see if I can anticipate: it’s the State’s fault.

Never mind that the “state” is an abstract entity and doesn’t “do” anything at all. It doesn’t think or feel or act any more than “county” or “city” does. Thus, very easy to blame for the looting of America and exploitation of workers by capitalists.

They want everyone blaming the state, while simultaneously controlling the state.

Never mind that the “state” is an abstract entity and doesn’t “do” anything at all. It doesn’t think or feel or act any more than “county” or “city” does. — Xtrix

Yeah, good point. He may be over-abstractifying and, in a manner of speaking, depeopling the state. That the folks who run the United States are age-old bedfellows of big business should be common knowledge by now. Pro-big-business, but anti-state: ignorance is the only way to get there.

The wealthy absolutely adore people like you [@NOS4A2]. "Useful idiots" indeed. — Xtrix

:smirk: :up:

:clap: :100:

I’ve never understood the criticism of laissez-faire.
— NOS4A2

But then you've never understood justice. — Banno

:fire:

The privatization of exploitation is the only thing libertarians care about. — Streetlight

Libertarian capitalists. :eyes:

Pro-big-business, but anti-state: ignorance is the only way to get there. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well NOS is just a simpleminded person. Barely coherent. If you want someone much more serious and infinitely more influential, look to Friedman. Still completely wrong, but gives a better sense of what’s used for cover.

We can make inferences from your comments. Notions of justice and equity do not loom large therein. The criticism of laissez-faire that you claim never to have understood centres on the continuation of inequity. Anything goes means everything stays, or more likely, gets worse.

There is no mechanism or force in the principle of laissez-faire that prohibits justice, though, nor does it entail “anything goes”. I just happen to be writing about inequities and injustices you remain silent about. Since your understanding of justice is so keen I must infer you avoid them for unscrupulous or bad faith reasons.

Says the rapist apologist.

If corporations are so powerful then you ought to start one, at least to fight back. You can start one by filing articles of incorporation with your state. It’s often pretty cheap, like $100. No doubt you’ll immediately achieve some sort of power. You’d control the state; you’d have the monopoly on violence; you can liberate workers; and you’d be able to use all that power for good!

You’d compare a list of workplace accidents to genocide, war, and empire.

"If slavery is so evil you should enslave your own population to fight back against slavery".

Indeed, the redistribution in the following was such an injustice, an impingement of the rights of the poor fellow to the left...