Red, white and goo: Has America gone soft?

Post Reply New Topic

My point is, there isn't just a single thing called Regulation And Taxation (TM) which is the enemy of small businesses and corporations. The sort of regulations which prevent a person from starting up a small business are not the same sort of regulations which prevent a huge corporation from using its power to buy the government and not have any competition in its field. The countries which are often called "socialist" by right-wing fanatics are precisely the countries where it is easiest to start up a small business.



A large percentage of the world's major corporations have been directly helped or bailed out by government policies in the last fifty years. These corporations would not survive in a free enterprise system. They are parasites.



It's not so much the taste. It's more the ubiquitous advertising. "Choice" isn't really choice when you live in a bubble where there is a common understanding that everyone eats a certain kind of food, lives a certain kind of lifestyle, etc. Humans are social creatures, and are driven by peer pressure.

The point you supposedly had is not stated in earlier claims. I think it's mostly quibbling, honestly.

If you're referring to European nations, the issue is that the nations called "socialist" are done so on grounds of their taxation levels and government allocations, not on their regulatory polices. A number of them do quite well by the Heritage Foundation's metrics. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking The US is by no means in the #1 position, and is surpassed by other nations, and surpassed by the "socialist" nations in certain areas. Sweden and Finland do better in the business freedom metric, and metrics involving open markets.

I am not really getting your point, how it relates to the discussion, or how you're actually relating to my point.


I am unsure how you're actually evaluating this. The recent major bailouts impacted the financial industry, and the automotive industry, and not all firms in that industry. I am not sure how you are evaluating the counter-factual, as 1) we don't need those specific corporations to survive to show the corporate form to be efficient, 2) being helped does not mean that this form would fail otherwise 3) "a large percentage" does not mean "a majority" or "all", and unless it's the latter two, it wouldn't matter.

As for "They are parasites", that doesn't follow from your analysis. If we took such a claim seriously, then you would also have to affirm that anybody who accepts welfare is themselves a parasite. The problem is that receiving past welfare does not mean current parasitism, and by analogy, there is little reason to say that a corporation that accepted welfare in the past is by definition a parasite. I mean, either you're turning an insane claim on the right against it, or you're acting a bit delusionally yourself.


The ubiquitous advertising?? I am unsure what you are even driving at. The relationship between human beings and marketing isn't one of being commanded, but rather is more like a dialogue, in that the entire system is based upon a feedback loop between customers and marketers. Marketers try to look for what customers demand, try to persuade customers that they can best fulfill this demand, customers then either purchase or not, and marketers then ask and receive information from potential customers on what to to sell and how to sell it.

In any case, peer pressure and a common understanding doesn't mean a denial of choice or anything close to that. In this society there is a much higher ability to take actions towards different kinds of lifestyles and sub-communities that do so. I mean, I have vegetarian and vegan friends as I'm sure a number of people do, and that kind of action isn't really strongly promoted by marketing and the majority pushes the other direction. I mean, peer pressure as a denial of choice doesn't work as much if there are multiple sub-communities with open ability of entry and exit.

That's a pretty ubiquitous human trait. At least the ignoring reality part.


I'd call that costs of changing to a new system. There is nothing sacred about human systems, and I know mine sometimes fail on the job as well. At some point, we should expect complete transformation of our military to a purely robotic system, I'd suspect.


Propaganda is not anything new. Propaganda existed from the very start of the nation, and candidates have gotten elected on campaigns totally based upon lies/delusions. (See William Henry Harrison vs Martin van Buren and the "Log Cabin and Apple Cider" campaigning for Harrison as a common man of the people)

I am referring to this attitude:



There is an assumption here that "free enterprise = capitalism = corporations = small businesses = not regulation = not taxation". This is not how things actually work. If you are a transnational corporation, then you like certain kinds of government regulation, the kind which might prevent a competitor from entering the market. If you are a small business, then you like certain kinds of regulation, the kind which might prevent a monopolist from keeping you out of the market.



Out of the top 100 transnational corporations, how many do you think have been directly helped by the states in which they are based, against the will of the free market? The answer is: all 100. How many do you think have been entirely bailed out by states when times were tough? The answer is: 20 of them. This is not the free market. It is an alliance of state and corporation. It is feudalism.



Marketing is not morally neutral. If cigarette advertisers are just "giving the people what they want", then the Nazis were "just following orders". People don't have the time to critically analyse every aspect of the lifestyle they are fed by their society. Most people will never transcend their environment, and those that do will only transcend it in certain ways and not others. This isn't because people are stupid. It's because people are busy.

There's still a human system behind the robotic ones we use, and instead of being on site, they're in a dark room somewhere.

Both the Iraq and the Afghani insurgencies have used virtually no robotic systems, and they have waged an effective war on both fronts.

You're comparing a conventional military force with high tech operations to guerrilla fighters.

But we only get money from those countries when they use our technology. I am still upset that they have gotten rid of so many factorys in america an that has hurt the economy of North Carolina.

America is a greedy lumbering beast whose days at the top of the food chain are numbered. With access to abundant raw materials, Russia will upset quite a few celebrators of cold war defeat. When the world's governments encouraged economic growth at any cost by paying people in monopoly money, the communists won. China buys the majority of its resources. It pays very little due to bulk supply arrangements. It now has all this play money to offer struggling EU nations. In the end they will have greater numbers and better equipment to wage war with. Russia need only threaten to turn off the gas to Europe and Ze Germans will ensure that the EU plays nicely. It is all very clear really, and I feel sorry for those that don't see America as the obese diseased empire choking on its own bile...clinging on to delusions of grandeur won't save America...even if every citizen worked tirelessly it won't save America...domestic demand for critical commodities outstrips sustainable domestic supply...lifestyle expectations are well beyond what can be sustained on the nation's GDP...health system on life support...education system in summer school...primary industry corporatized removing potential for grass roots economic growth...all while Americans gorge themselves to obesity and drive cars that collectively drain a disproportionate amount of the world's natural oil reserves...

Soft? One leg in the grave more like it.

I agree with everything but most of the obesse states in America are the North and East states your not going to find that many obesse or car obessed people in North Carolina Americas favorite southern state.

Yeah, and that's because you said this:

What do Ayn Rand people think about regulations, taxation, and all of that? All of the capitalism worshipers HATE THAT STUFF. The fact that it still exists means that their religion isn't getting any clear-cut victory, which is a PROBLEM for any view that says "capitalism worship" is the central problem.


My assumption or whose assumption? I think you've generated a straw enemy in your head, and so all of these "assumptions" are simply the ones you'd think any opponent of yours must hold to.

I know there are differences in regulation. The bulk of regulation though tends to be consumer-oriented, and often those increase the cost of entry thus disfavoring small businesses.


Ok, so transnational corporations are subsidized. Pointing that out doesn't mean that these corporations would fail if they were not subsidized, and it does not mean that the corporate form would fail otherwise. Also, you do realize that if 20 of them were bailed out, then 80 of them were NOT bailed out, which actually undermines your analysis.

I am not a purist, Declension. If the government gave every major corporation a penny, I am not going to cry out "THIS IS NOT A FREE MARKET". I am going to instead look at this as a matter of gradations. So, the real question is whether the subsidies have a dramatic impact on the overall market structure and workings of the economy in a manner that prevents competition from existing, and destroys the notion of a market pricing. I'm pretty confident it doesn't. If it does, you'll have a LOT OF PEOPLE to inform, because the general ongoing assumption is that markets still exist.


I never said anything about moral neutrality. I never said anything about "just giving the people what they want". I never said people critically analyze every aspect of their lives. Frankly, "customer demand" is pretty nebulous, as if you notice a lot of marketing, it isn't customer demand for products, it's customer demand for social status.

Frankly, none of this proves anything. I mean, the same point could be said about religion, politics, or ANY OTHER social structure in society, or even any potential society. So... what's your point? It isn't as if we deny people choice in other areas of their life because they are too busy to make a good choice, or even question their right to choose, and the rights of other parties to attempt to persuade. Commercials are just persuasion efforts, they generally fail to ever arrive at the level of brainwashing.

Let's face it the United States Government cares more about the money it makes then it does about running the country.

ha ha. i have the theme song for it
it fits perfectly
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8fm3Z7jgWM&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLM-bAfMp0ZqE93t5i020tlw[/youtube]