are corporations people, in your opinion?Originally Posted by The Rani
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 220
are corporations people, in your opinion?
by the way, this burns my bacon, so let's get it straight.
the site in benghazi was a consulate, not an embassy. romney got it wrong last nite (shocker, i know) -- but a prince ought to know the difference.
Which contradicts his stated praise of economic activity (like energy production) that the super-rich organize and manage.
The economy 'sucks'... well, not as much as it did four years ago... but this time it does not depend upon a speculative boom or wars for profit. Republicans in Congress dedicated to having President Obama for only one term have done everything possible to ensure that the only possible government activity is to sell this country out to special interests and turn back about every liberal reform of America since at least the Great Depression except perhaps for the anti-discrimination measures.
I don't give a damn about Ferris Bueller. You could do better with Candide, though. After I read that I could never be a conservative.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 10-17-2012 at 09:26 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
I would take the Greens more seriously if they focused on building up a base of support in local governments rather than acting as spoilers in national races they have no hope of winning.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Well, not good enough for you; OK. Seems I've heard this kind of thing from you before. But I think Romney's charge of covering up that it was a terrorist attack and not a demonstration, is silly and pointless. Why would they do that?
And your attitude is a serious problem in this country. It doesn't matter if you ignore me; it doesn't change the problem. We can't have a decent government if we think that it doesn't matter for whom we vote, or that politicians can't improve the country. Government works; cynicism does not work.
Yep, that's what the people are doing too much. Sleeping. It's long past time for people to wake up and throw the idiots out of office. Again, when will YOU wake up, Prince?Rani, when Eric starts pontificating ad nauseum, just do what I do and....
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ ...................
Prince
PS:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
same-o same-o, so same-o!
Last edited by Eric the Green; 10-17-2012 at 10:22 PM.
No one claims Unions are people. Romney and other business apologists claim that corporations are people.
Corporations are made up of people, but a corporation is not a person. The people need more rights against the corporations who are abusing the people.
Nah, the cats are cuter.Oh, was that little cutie a Sheltie?
Prince
PS:
[Note: Good idea in saving the pic; Knowing Eric, you're gonna need it! Ha!]
Are people directly involved with/in corporations?
Are you going to bail on Nancy P. anytime soon? Hahahaha. You should wake up and throw that idiot out of office.Yep, that's what the people are doing too much. Sleeping. It's long past time for people to wake up and throw the idiots out of office. Again, when will YOU wake up, Prince?
same-o same-o, so same-o!
No, I'm awake; that's why I like Nancy. I was just thinking about that today. She needs obviously to be put back in office as Speaker. She got a lot done for us in 2009, although the other politicians in the Senate did not. What is frustrating is that Americans only put in office a progressive government that can actually accomplish something for one year out of every 16. It is really a question of what kind of a country we are. One year out of 16 is stagnant and decaying. I like where I live near the northern CA coast. Other than that, I'm not feeling too good about our country these days. Americans need to wake up and move on, not stay stuck in reverse gear. Why do you prefer that kind of country, Mr. Classic Xer Exile Kia 67?
Let's really clear this up.
Just know, the barrier to clearing this up has little to do with intellectual capacity, it's about emotional capacity. Most people, and entire economic schools, are wedded to monetary myths and basically their brains' shutdown when confronted with reality.
First thing you have to do is put aside the myth of "fractional reserve lending" by banks, i.e. bank lending is constraint by how much bank reserves they have and what proportion of those reserves they are allowed to lend out. BANK LENDING IS NOT CONSTRAINED BY THEIR RESERVES. The only thing that constrains bank lending is finding a WILLING and CREDIBLE borrower, period. I've been over this over and over again on this forum. At this point, you either get this or your hopeless.
If bank lending is not constrained by reserves, why would one ever believe that the FED stuffing the banks with reserves is going to increase their lending? And without the lending, how in the world does the added bank reserves get into the economy???
What the QEs do is exchange one govt security (bank reserves, which are keystrokes to the banks accounts on the FED's spreadsheet) for a different govt security (govt bonds with QE 1 and 2 and agency (Fannie/Freddie) mortgage-backed securities with QE3). The govt interest paid on bank reserves is 0.25% today; on the govt bonds taken under QE 1 and 2, the banks were getting 0.2 to 0.75% because the duration of the bonds were 6 months up to 5 years. The banks, under QE 1 and 2, got less interest payments than what they had before. That would be deflationary except that the differential in interest rates wasn't that much, but much more importantly, bank lending, again, isn't constrained by their reserves so why would it matter if they were adding a tiny bit less to their reserves with the lower interest rates paid by the govt???
Now QE3 MIGHT be different because it is about the FED swapping bank reserves to get the banks' longer-term MBS which do have higher interest rates - those that are older might be paying interest of 4-5%; newer MBS more likely 3-4%.That may force the banks into slightly more risky lending. However, do you really believe that "slightly more risky lending" includes lending to speculate in gold, oil, commodities, stocks??? Maybe 5 or 8 years ago, but do you really think that's the case today???
I've got to go, but I'll be back to finish this up. Hopefully, you can see that QEs directly injecting dollars into the economy, let alone causing inflation, is utter bullshit. On the other hand, stocks are up, gold is up, oil is up, etc., etc. Ponder that, now knowing that QE 1 and 2 didn't put any money into the economy and it is only slightly more likely that QE will (you know it just got started, right?), and see if you can get past the horseshit brainwashing of the last 30 some years to figure it out.
In the words of the Terminator - "I'll be back."
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
Well, on this questionnaire, for me, Barack Obama with 91% beat out Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson by a few points, while Romney was in last place behind Virgil Goode, with Gary Johnson scoring low but in the middle. I guess it depends on the questions and scoring! It seems that my support of Obamacare put Obama ahead of the other two left candidates, in their estimation.
http://votesmart.org/voteeasy/
This one is better; lots of questions:
http://2012election.procon.org/view....ourceID=004491
I had to write down my answers. On this one you can skip questions (leave them "neutral" or "don't know"), and there is no indicator for how important they are to you.
Stein agreed with me 36/38 95% (again the only two questions I disagreed with her on were about Obamacare; I'm sure she would only agree to a single-payer law, which I prefer also)
Obama 41/49 84%
Johnson 26/44 59%
Goode 13/45 29%
Romney 5/46 11%
So on this one too Obama gets a B, not an F; he got an A on the one above.
Romney, despite his supposed moderation, is almost as bad for me as GW Bush was on all these tests, assuming they can really pin him down as they claim. The Republican candidate is again more right-wing than the right-wing 3rd party candidate, from my point of view.
Here's another nice one. Fun!
http://www.isidewith.com/
http://www.isidewith.com/results/164594783
Last edited by Eric the Green; 10-18-2012 at 01:28 AM.
I don't see that kind of country. I see the kind of country that is for the most part independent and forward geared.
I automatically associate Unions/corporations with people.
"Rugged individualism" is not forward, but going backward two or three centuries.
It has a lot to do with the international traders, who set the price based on their speculation of what supply and demand might be in the future ("futures"); and if they bid the price up high enough, then they can "buy low and sell high" and thus make a profit by selling at the right moment. Reformulated gas is more expensive in CA.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 10-18-2012 at 12:37 AM.
You should. I was being so fact-based. But you have a point mentioning Big Oil. They certainly do extremely well under this trading system. It works well for them, because the price is always so much higher than it needs to be based on real costs. And they get subsidies too from your Republican friends! Another fact is that oil is getting more and more expensive as it gets harder and harder to find and drill for, despite some temporary windfalls like in North Dakota. So costs do come into the equation.Oh brother! Here we go again! *facepalm*!
Prince
PS: You know what? Sure Eric, that's it. You've got it. It's the "Speculators"! Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Oh, but wait. What about the Big Oil companies? I've got it! It's the "Speculators" AND "Big Oil"!
I feel so much more educated know.
I don't know why you insist on answering facts with snark. Why answer me at all then? I don't get that one. Are you really that dense? Or smug? Or trivial? Somehow I think there is a cooler cat lurking under this behavior. If you post snark, expect a reply. If you don't want discussion, don't post.
It is really destructive for any voter to go on supporting Big Oil and Coal and their Republican representatives and enablers, when the alternatives are available and create more jobs than are lost in the oh-so polluting and climate-destroying coal mines and oil fields. I don't know how anything could be more clear. Do you?
Boy, 10/11% agreement with me. On three tests. With one of their most "moderate" candidates. You really can't sugarcoat it. They are really off the deep end, if you ask me. I know I know, you didn't ask me. I know already.
Yes certainly, although I'm not an expert. It's a matter of how you define your terms I guess.
You're the one not engaging.You're not even having a discussion with me, Eric. You could just as well could be going "blah, blah, blah" to the universe.
Yes
PS: Cute, aren't they?
You definately have a leftwing mentality. Were you born with it?
Actually this sort of thing is dreadfully common among Generation X and it wasn't always from strangers. The majority of Xers of about our vintage had truly fucked up childhoods due to one cause or another. Come to think of it there is only one of my peers that had what most people would consider a good childhood.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
- Ludwig von Mises
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
- Lazarus Long
LMAO, Obama's body language is priceless!
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
The irony is funny:
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
