Thread: The Factory of Selective Moral Outrage, by Victor Davis Hanson

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Its not cronies and capitalism. Its crony capitalism, or what in the past was known as corporatism and earlier as mercantilism. Corporatism has been the preferred economic system of Progressives and fascists and European style socialists. It has been rejected by modern American conservatives and libertarians.

tashi deleks,

M

Thanks for agreeing with me. The ideologies of fascism socialism, communism, progressivism, and capitalism are all able to be infected with corruption. No difference.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

What happens when there is corruption in a free market capitalist economy? Where’s Bernie Madoff? Where’s Joseph Nacchio of Qwest? What happened to Ken Lay, Andrew Fastow, and Jeff Skilling of Enron? What happened to Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco? What happened to Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom? But what about if its not corruption, but simply poor business practices or inefficiency? The company goes bankrupt. What happens when there is corruption in a pseudo-governmental-capitalist entity, like Fannie and Freddie? Taxpayers pay. What happens if its simply poor management or inefficiency in a government agency or a pseudo-governmental-capitalist entity? Taxpayers pay. What happens when a union frets and worries that the costs they have forced on a company have finally jeopardized the continued existence of that company -- with the right political connections they get the government to buy that company, at the detriment of the bondholders, and receive a payoff in shares of the company (GM and Chrysler)? And taxpayers pay.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/under-obama-crony-capitalism-again-rules-day

I agree with the writer completely, Obama is all for crony capitalism, while he is against real free market Capitalism and he is bad for business, like all of the Progressives before him. Remember Ken Lay from Enron? Well, his position gave him access to George W. Bush. When the shit really started to hit the fan he made that call with the hope Bush would help him and bailout his company. Bush said, “No,” and the rest was history. From what I have seen of Obama, I doubt he would have said no.


tashi deleks,

M

Thanks for agreeing with me. The ideologies of fascism socialism, communism, progressivism, and capitalism are all able to be infected with corruption. No difference. Again.

I was no the one trying to separate "isms".

My quote below:

A basic definition of a word, does not eliminate reality.

So you list corruption and wealthy access to government, which merely agrees with my viewpoint. I posted the link showing Obama cronyism, and you question his character ... again agreeing with me.

Capitalism is corrupt.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Corruption is unacceptable. Period. If corruption happens in a free market capitalist economic system people go to jail. In a crony capitalist or corporatist economic system no one goes to jail, as we have seen with Freddie and Fannie.


tashi deleks,

M

my post:

Corruption is not acceptable because someone else does or did do it.

Simple enough ... agreed.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Please show me the person or persons who have that power in a free market capitalist economic system? Oh, wait that’s easy -- the government. In a free market capitalist system, no individual or group of businesspersons has that power. The markets determine wages and the workers get paid the productive value for the work they do, which in an open free market capitalist economy is in a constant state of change. Only a government has the power to set either minimum or maximum wage rates which are always determined by political concerns and in complete disregard to the actual conditions of the market.

tashi deleks,

M

Control of the FED interest rate ... a private bank, can drive down wages.

Exporting jobs drives down wages. Oh I did mention that plan started in 1965 ... didn't I.
This why you must deny cronyism, but wait you don't deny it? Or you do deny it.

No individual or group of businesspersons has that power.

Lobbyists ... access to government, WTO membership, low tariffs ... where do the policies come from? Senators, congressmen, Presidents. Created markets through policy.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Are you really that obtuse to not grasped the point of the comment? You listed his points, those you accepted. You are starting from a specific thesis and you are “crafting a description of fascism (and what is happening in America) that only highlights those points that support that thesis.” Rather than reviewing the data and allowing that to guide you to your conclusion, you begin with your conclusion and then gather the data that confirms it.


tashi deleks,

M

Mahasattva, Now there is no need to be insulting. I'm so disappointed in you.

I had no need of anyone's viewpoints to determine the nature of government.

I merely need consensus of government. War, job exports, low taxes for the wealthy, and underfunding of government to force more concessions. The fact that I reference someone who has given Fascism more attention then myself, is just to understand ideas. We have a one party system for issues that matter. Concentration of wealth.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

.

When I stated the above, this is what I was replying to, I have made bold the relevant circular self affirming self-justifying reasoning:

The hypocrisy is all yours.



Mike gives no reply to this here, since it did not occur in the post he is replying to, as you see its from a past post. Placing the above comment in context, this is how this portion of our discussion unfolded, from the beginning:


As the reader can see Mike makes no comments about the substance of these two comments, that “fascism did not protect corporations, it controlled them,” and that historically there have been two kinds of business leaders -- political entrepreneurs and market entrepreneurs or true capitalists. Political entrepreneurs thrive under fascists, socialists, and, Progressives. The only times America has seen monopolies and cartels have been during the early protectionists Republicans with their road, canal, and rail building schemes and their economically ignorant protectionist policies, and then later under the Progressive administrations, most notably Hoover, Wilson, and FDR. Monopolies and cartels are only possible when government protects them. Neither survives or thrives for long in a free market capitalist economy.


tashi deleks,

M

Oh what have we here selective outrage, the topic of the article.


Your Quote:

I (Mahasattva) wrote: Baseless anti-capitalist talking point. The power of corporations are at the mercy of the government. Even more, fascism did not protect corporations, it controlled them. While ownership remained in private hands, those hands could do nothing without fascist approval. For example, the Nazis determined what corporations could do, how much of a given service or good they were allowed to produce, where and from whom they were allowed to acquire the raw materials they needed, and where and to whom they were allowed to sell their service or good.

My reply:

This is a definite yes, corporations own congressmen and presidents. They are of mutual interests. In our society business leaders tell government what policy will be.

Your Reply:

Sorry but that’s simply delusional anti-capitalist conspiracy talk. Mahasattva That would be your reply! There are two kinds of business leaders -- political entrepreneurs, who like their forefathers are corporatists and mercantilists, who seek to gain wealth and power through their political connections, and market entrepreneurs or true capitalists who seek to gain wealth and power by providing services and goods to consumers without government interference. The majority of corporations (large, mid-size, and small) the vast majority of companies are run by market entrepreneurs and true capitalists. This is the same rhetoric that was used by fascists and is still used by leftists and Progressives today to regulate, constrain, or take control of businesses and the market. Fascism was not controlled by corporations, corporations were controlled by the Fascists.

My reply: Post #13

The problem with corporate political connections is the empowerment of corporate legislation. Capitalism is corrupt ... period. What is neglected is that those who might have a more libertarian view of trade, is that they receive the same benefits created by corruption, they they did not initiate.

Fascism as I perceive it is not inclusive of the nation as a whole. That is where I separate myself from the two brothers that support corruption (dems and pubs). Those who are not able to see the obvious, may continue to do so. They are welcome to delude themselves, or maybe they know but benefit from a fascist system. Self interest of course is a great persuader.

Your Post# 16 Lead in:

Sorry Michael and everyone else, but here is another obnoxious multi-part post long in links and quotes. The regulars know, I do not suffer from a soul of wit, my readers do suffer. Unlike liberal-Progressivism, which can thrive on emotional sloganeering, conservative philosophy must be explained and presented in a rational manner. That takes a little more time. I may have broken a record with this one. Reply to Part 2

Nice way to start a post:
Lead in insult : emotional sloganeering, conservatism of course is the only rational view.

But wait there's more

Sorry, that is just plan and simple, bullshit. Mahasattva that was your reply. Capitalism is not an ism like the ideologies of fascism or socialism or communism or progressivism, each of which is anti-capitalist. Capitalism is simply an economic system where people have the freedom to engage in the exchange of goods and services without some third party restricting their freedom to do so.

We are still on post 16: Your quote:

Snide and ignorant comments will be ignored. Ridicule is not a debating technique,

In response to:I love legal corruption. It benefits so many, like about 6 million out of 300,000,000. Go team!

See you are ignorantly insulting and try to mislead by making excuses for your insults. Save your self righteous nonsense and debate. If you continue to lie I will pull up past comments and show your lies.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Sorry, but no. If it wasn’t for unions and the increased costs (for example forcing wages above their productive value in the market place) and the union rules that undermine productivity and innovation, corporations would be less likely to move jobs overseas or to a “right to work” state. Look at the industries that have basically moved out of the country (textiles) or are in decline (automotive) -- both heavily unionized. Look at the industries which are on the rise -- high tech computers, software development, biogenetics -- each is high skilled knowledge driven endeavors and nearly absent of any unionization.


tashi deleks,

M

Unions didn't help themselves as I already stated.

Unions cannot compete against slave labor.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

A piece of the pie? When a corporation increases profit levels it is growing the size of the pie. It is because of good executive leadership that makes an increase in profit levels possible. Look at the dips in share price for Apple Inc. whenever Steve Jobs stepped down from his CEO position for health reasons. Under Jobs’ leadership Apple has expanded and innovated and gained huge profits.


tashi deleks,

M

Who increased profit levels? What part of goods and services did the executive create?

The fact that an executive helps a corporation become profitable, does not mean they are worth the wage they are receiving.

How complicated can it be? Duh, Open up a plant in China!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

CEO’s are paid what they are worth on the open market and even in the case of some of those huge salaries (actually most CEOs get the lion share of their income in stock options and bonuses) it amounts to 1% or 2% of the value of a share of stock in the company. When a good CEO can mean the difference of billions of dollars in profits, there compensation is more than reasonable. Now the rational of a union member’s pay is not necessarily so reasonable -- often the company is forced to pay more than the productive value of a given worker, which always means that the company will hire less people even when there is a need.


tashi deleks,

M

Once again, how hard can this be? Hey I want you to open a plant in China.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

:

A person may sit for a few hours in jail for having pot, but they don’t do “time” unless they had a whole lot of pot or were engaged in trafficking. Granted, I do agree that some drug reform is in order, particularly in regards to pot, but unless we want to see a great increase in the use of drugs, legalization would be inadvisable.



As your link states, six times using the same sentence, that’s the Addiction rate in the US is now estimated at between 3 and 5%. But what was it 25 or 30 years ago?

War on Drugs a success - Chicago Sun-Times
War on Drugs a success
By Peter Bensinger June 10, 2011 6:22PM

Jesse Jackson’s recent column “on a failed war on drugs” demands a rebuttal based on science and the facts. Rev. Jackson, to his credit, has preached against using drugs, but his conclusion that the drug control effort has been wasted is dead wrong.
In fact, in 1978, 25 million Americans used an illegal drug once a month, when our population was 280 million. In 2009, there were 21 million illegal drug users, a decrease of 20 percent. Since when is a 20 percent decrease a failure?
Ninety-two percent of Americans do not use illegal drugs. Drugs are not as available as they were 40 years ago, and fewer people are dying of heroin overdose deaths.
I know because from 1976 to 1981, I was administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. In 1976, we had more than 500,000 heroin addicts and over 2,000 heroin overdose deaths. This has decreased significantly; currently there are 200,000 heroin users, less than half the number of 35 years ago and half the heroin overdose deaths.




These numbers need to be put into context. These are very different cultures then America’s. Also as has been pointed out by many social scientists the Hip-Hop African-American ghetto culture does not encourage the kind of civil behavior that ensures staying out of jail. In fact, for some, jail time is considered a badge of honor rather than a sign of shame.

Continuing with the article above: Our prisons are overcrowded; not because casual users of marijuana are in prison. Less than 1 percent of all inmates in state prisons are there because of the use or possession of marijuana. They are in prison because of other charges, some involving drugs but for sale or trafficking. They are also there because we do not have enough drug courts, which have recidivism rates of 16 percent compared to 45 percent for offenders not in those programs. They are in prison because we have a probation system that is ineffective and because we tolerate a high crime rate and have more gun dealers than gas stations.
Drugs are addictive, cause impairment with work, learning, co-ordination, short-term memory, and long-term health. Legalize cocaine and crack, which cause rapid heart rate, arrhythmia and three overdose deaths a day? Legalize marijuana, which contain 468 different chemicals and 60 percent more cancer-causing agents than a cigarette and is particularly harmful for brain development in adolescents? Drugged driver fatalities are three times higher in states with medical marijuana.

Many legalization activists point to the years of Prohibition (pushed and overwhelmingly voted for in America by Progressives) as evidence for the need and wisdom of legalizing all drugs. They point out how even though there was an initial drop in the consumption of alcohol once the law was passed, it began to rise again once organized crime got itself organized. There is also the fact, since the business of alcohol was illegal, competition in the industry resolved conflicts through violence rather than through the courts. But it should be noted that when Prohibition ended it wasn’t until the 60s that alcohol consumption rates rose to the pre-Prohibition levels.

I would also point out the very big difference between alcohol and hard drugs -- alcohol has been a part of human culture since humans began baking bread. Unlike some Shaman cultures (North and South), there is no Western tradition of using a drug as a sacrament, like peyote. Doing drugs for recreation and escape is the polar opposite approach of the Shaman traditions and this may be a significant aspect of why the West has had such difficulties with both illicit and licit drug use. Even the manner Native Americans traditionally used tobacco is very different from the way the rest of the world uses tobacco.


tashi deleks,

M

Since when is a 20 percent decrease a failure?

Yes I thought with your 20% "improvement.

Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. As of year end 2009 the rate was 743 people incarcerated in prisons and jails per 100,000 population.[2][3][4] At year end 2007 the United States had less than 5% of the world's population and 23.4% of the world's prison and jail population.

By comparison the incarceration rate in England and Wales[clarification needed] in February 2011 was 154 people imprisoned per 100,000 residents[26]; the rate for Norway in May 2010 was 71 inmates per 100,000[27]; Netherlands in April 2010 was 94 per 100,000[28]; Australia in June 2010 was 133 per 100,000[29]; and New Zealand in October 2010 was 203 per 100,000.[30]

Corrupt Judges Profit $2.6 Million for Imprisoning Children
Corrupt Judges Profit $2.6 Million for Imprisoning Children
by sinde on February 26, 2009

Believe it or not, two judges in the Pennsylvania justice system have been taking kickbacks… profiting… from putting kids in jail.

Billions upon billions of dollars to cut drug use. That's no improvement ... they are in jail and can't get to drugs.

5% population, 23.4 % jailed, whats wrong there. Could it be we live in a police state?

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Weiner sent pictures of his privates to people on the web and engaged in sexting and when it became public lied to reporters and claimed that his web accounts had been hacked. Vetter had gone to a prostitute 4 or 5 times a long time before it had ever became public, by several years, had confessed to his wife and worked to heal their relationship. When it did become known publicly, Vetter admitted his fall with his wife standing beside him. There is absolutely no comparison between what Vetter did and what Weiner did. Also neither of these events have anything to do and have no connection to the Supreme Court’s decision that allows corporations to contribute to political causes or politicians -- just as every other special interest has been allowed to do.


tashi deleks,

M

Your Quote below:

Those who are proved to be corrupt should lose office or their job. Republicans tend to resign at the first hint of corruption or impropriety, while Democrats circle the wagons and protect the offender.”

Did the Republican resign?

Did the Democrat resign?

Which one broke the law?

So if I donate 10 million to your campaign and I have a bid for a military contract, might I expect support for my bid?

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

The Supreme Court’s decision does not allow corporations to bribe government officials for government contracts.


tashi deleks,

M

Nor did it allow for lower courts to be bribed. Bribery has never been a part of the American landscape.

Of course corporations are not allowed to bribe Federal employees.

Corrupt Judges Profit $2.6 Million for Imprisoning Children
Corrupt Judges Profit $2.6 Million for Imprisoning Children
by sinde on February 26, 2009

Believe it or not, two judges in the Pennsylvania justice system have been taking kickbacks… profiting… from putting kids in jail.

According to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now:

As many as 5,000 children in Pennsylvania have been found guilty, and up to 2,000 of them jailed, by two corrupt judges who received kickbacks from the builders and owners of private prison facilities that benefited. The two judges pleaded guilty in a stunning case of greed and corruption that is still unfolding. Judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan received $2.6 million in kickbacks while imprisoning children who often had no access to a lawyer. The case offers an extraordinary glimpse into the shameful private prison industry that is flourishing in the United States.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Well, at least, you are honest about your hypocrisy. But its still hypocrisy.

tashi deleks,

M

Yes it is hypocritical and I will have to apoligise, for wanting all citizens to have a voice in government