Conquer Club

Now, I will admit that ideally the government can be used to prevent certain corporations from committing unjust harm; however, as the US government progresses--especially since the late 1890s, I find that the government becomes marginally less able to fulfill its rightful duty to the people.

Furthermore, it's not the quite the "government" which regulates commerce, it's the government's monopoly on regulatory agencies, on the legal system, and on law enforcement which are suppose to prevent the problem "with corporations." And, over the course of the years, I'm finding that this monopoly creates more costs than benefits, becomes willingly subverted by a few corporations, and fails to innovate in order to better serve its consumers, i.e. taxpayers.

Efforts to reform the systemic problems of political capitalism conflict with the self-interests of most chief bureaucrats and nearly all politicians, and a large majority of the misled yet well-intended voters unintentionally undermine the effectiveness of reform by supporting the very enablers of political capitalism, i.e. those bureaucrats and politicians.

Alternatives to circumvent this problem are found in efforts which shift regulatory agencies, legal systems, and law enforcement into relatively freer markets.

the real fundamental problem is that everyone's a selfish bastard.

emperor, king, general, CEO... it doesn't matter what name you give your rulers. the world is 3% people who want power and 97% people who are too lazy to cut themselves a bigger slice of the pie.

if your president and his CEOs whup your ass just as badly as your english king and his lords did you are just going to hold tight and suck it up, because you are one of the 97% who would rather have somebody else do all the work, even if it means accepting a slightly shittier standard of life.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Now, I will admit that ideally the government can be used to prevent certain corporations from committing unjust harm; however, as the US government progresses--especially since the late 1890s, I find that the government becomes marginally less able to fulfill its rightful duty to the people.

Furthermore, it's not the quite the "government" which regulates commerce, it's the government's monopoly on regulatory agencies, on the legal system, and on law enforcement which are suppose to prevent the problem "with corporations." And, over the course of the years, I'm finding that this monopoly creates more costs than benefits, becomes willingly subverted by a few corporations, and fails to innovate in order to better serve its consumers, i.e. taxpayers.

Efforts to reform the systemic problems of political capitalism conflict with the self-interests of most chief bureaucrats and nearly all politicians, and a large majority of the misled yet well-intended voters unintentionally undermine the effectiveness of reform by supporting the very enablers of political capitalism, i.e. those bureaucrats and politicians.

Alternatives to circumvent this problem are found in efforts which shift regulatory agencies, legal systems, and law enforcement into relatively freer markets.

as the US government progresses--especially since the late 1890s, I find that the government becomes marginally less able to fulfill its rightful duty to the people.

Government didn't really care for the masses until Teddy Roosevelt became President [1901–1909].

john9blue wrote:the real fundamental problem is that everyone's a selfish bastard.

Yes, if only you consider Corporations as people as defined by the Supreme court.

allahuakbar wrote:emperor, king, general, CEO... it doesn't matter what name you give your rulers. the world is 3% people who want power and 97% people who are too lazy to cut themselves a bigger slice of the pie.

Yeah, people who have little food, poor education and lack decent healthcare are just lazy when they cannot win jousting tournaments or defend their property against lawsuits/siezure through condemnation.

allahuakbar wrote:emperor, king, general, CEO... it doesn't matter what name you give your rulers. the world is 3% people who want power and 97% people who are too lazy to cut themselves a bigger slice of the pie.

if your president and his CEOs whup your ass just as badly as your english king and his lords did you are just going to hold tight and suck it up, because you are one of the 97% who would rather have somebody else do all the work, even if it means accepting a slightly shittier standard of life.

Don't be such a simpleton. Most people are too busy trying to raise their families and keeping a roof over their heads. Only someone who was born with a silver spoon who considers this as being "too lazy" or maybe believes the stupid philosophy that we ALL can be rich at the same time.

I bet most of those 3% people you mentioned were lucky they were born in affluent families that could provide them with all the funds to succeed. Sort of like Romney's son who not only received TEN MILLION DOLLARS from daddy to start his own firm, with the added boner, ooops I mean bonus of having Daddy's friends invest untold millions to help out junior.

The American societal problems is that they are treating the rich bastards as royalty. Even the rich now believe that only THEY can develop an economic policy to help themselves, ooops, ummm, errr I mean America.

What we need is another Teddy Roosevelt to walk softly and carry a big stick to beat down the oppression of large corporations.

GBU56 wrote:
What we need is another Teddy Roosevelt to walk softly and carry a big stick to beat down the oppression of large corporations.
]

We did have that blip in the 60's and 70's... but what a lot of people forget is that the protesters were largely the kids of the tycoons, who were allowed to temporarily "throw their tantrums". When it got to be a tad too much, "daddy" stepped in and gave the kiddies a wack on the rear.

Of course, a few things were accomplished. The "powers that be" recognized it was more hassle than it was worth, was harmful to their bottom lines, to exclude certain groups based on race (and to a lesser extent, gender). They also saw that kids tended to wind up less of a problem if they were raised with full stomaches. Even adults tend to work a bit better when they are fed.

*sigh*. i said 'power', not 'wealth'. you pair of infidels. so obsessed with money.

a man who rises up with a mortar and the clothes on his back to overthrow his oppressor has more power in his little finger than the fat bastard driving to work in his $40,000 car and sucking the cock of his corporate master has in his entire body.

-allahuakbar
الله أكبر

I hope the mods don't kick you for your multiple accounts made within 4 hours of each other, you seem like an interetesting addition to this forum.

But what BBS is saying is that corporations are forever evolving because they compete, and they evolve to make more money, including tactics to control the government regulations. And that the government regulation doesn't evolve, because it doesn't compete.

But what barrack says is also true, this corporation/government marriage is only this century's way of the powerful to control the "lazy". Truth is, that drive to power is in all of us, only it's stronger in others, given genetics and circumstances, and those with power won't let go off it.

Think of you as powerful for a minute, with me money, the privileges, the women, the possibilities.. would you give up your power only because some lazy fat ass is screaming at news on the tv?

It's just the dance of life, live water down a stream, going down as it has always gone down.

GreecePwns wrote:I hope the mods don't kick you for your multiple accounts made within 4 hours of each other, you seem like an interetesting addition to this forum.

Doesn't seem too bright though.

Helluva intro Aloha/ummaya

GreecePwns wrote:I hope the mods don't kick you for your multiple accounts made within 4 hours of each other, you seem like an interetesting addition to this forum.

He's not new.

john9blue wrote:the real fundamental problem is that everyone's a selfish bastard.

I hope you're not being serious because that simply isn't true. People are self-interested, which encompasses varying degrees of selfishness and altruism toward others in varying amounts.

That's all that can be accurately said about humans in regard to selfishness v. altruistism.

GBU56 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Now, I will admit that ideally the government can be used to prevent certain corporations from committing unjust harm; however, as the US government progresses--especially since the late 1890s, I find that the government becomes marginally less able to fulfill its rightful duty to the people.

Furthermore, it's not the quite the "government" which regulates commerce, it's the government's monopoly on regulatory agencies, on the legal system, and on law enforcement which are suppose to prevent the problem "with corporations." And, over the course of the years, I'm finding that this monopoly creates more costs than benefits, becomes willingly subverted by a few corporations, and fails to innovate in order to better serve its consumers, i.e. taxpayers.

Efforts to reform the systemic problems of political capitalism conflict with the self-interests of most chief bureaucrats and nearly all politicians, and a large majority of the misled yet well-intended voters unintentionally undermine the effectiveness of reform by supporting the very enablers of political capitalism, i.e. those bureaucrats and politicians.

Alternatives to circumvent this problem are found in efforts which shift regulatory agencies, legal systems, and law enforcement into relatively freer markets.

as the US government progresses--especially since the late 1890s, I find that the government becomes marginally less able to fulfill its rightful duty to the people.

Government didn't really care for the masses until Teddy Roosevelt became President [1901–1909].

I'm talking about the main beginning point where we see a few economic interest groups calling for the creation of regulation over commerce, thus benefiting the select few at the costs of the competition and ultimately the consumers. It's the jump start of "political capitalism." See Gabriel Kolko's The Triumph of Conservatism, if you're interested.

nietzsche wrote:But what BBS is saying is that corporations are forever evolving because they compete, and they evolve to make more money, including tactics to control the government regulations. And that the government regulation doesn't evolve, because it doesn't compete.

But what barrack says is also true, this corporation/government marriage is only this century's way of the powerful to control the "lazy". Truth is, that drive to power is in all of us, only it's stronger in others, given genetics and circumstances, and those with power won't let go off it.

Think of you as powerful for a minute, with me money, the privileges, the women, the possibilities.. would you give up your power only because some lazy fat ass is screaming at news on the tv?

It's just the dance of life, live water down a stream, going down as it has always gone down.

But it really isn't. The rise of political capitalism takes huge leaps since the 1890s. Before that, we had corporations, businesses, and whatever, but for several reasons the government was involved not nearly as economically as it is. What encouraged the government to become more involved (to the benefit of a select few interest groups) was the incentives provided by such interest groups, perhaps a change in laws which allowed this, but most importantly, the ratchet effect:

"Never let a good crisis go to waste," and many American politicians took this to heart. The rise of political capitalism is intertwined around states of crisis and political intervention. With a crisis, the appeal to the state becomes strongest. See the Gallup polls on President Bush and favorable views toward the state before and after 9-11. The crisis occurs, nearly everyone screams for state intervention, and the special interest groups and the government get the go-ahead. After the crisis, the bureaucracies and policies are hardly ever retrenched. They remain, or reappear in new names, at the taxpayers' expense.

This story isn't one of all history, or the "dance of life." This has not been "going down as it has always gone down." It predominantly begins in the 1890s--and even more so in WW1, the Great Depression, and WW2--for the US.

john9blue wrote:the real fundamental problem is that everyone's a selfish bastard.

Id agree with this; except i'd write it as:

It only takes one selfish bastard to ruin it for everyone; and there's always at least one.

edit @ BBS: When I say selfish bastard, im emphasising bastard, rather than selfish, as you say, self interest is the fundamental driver behind free market stuffs, thus it is beyond contempt.

Lootifer wrote:

john9blue wrote:the real fundamental problem is that everyone's a selfish bastard.

Id agree with this; except i'd write it as:

It only takes one selfish bastard to ruin it for everyone; and there's always at least one.

Another caveat:

Selfishness itself is not the most important problem here. The problem is one of willingness (re: selfishness) but more importantly capability.

The drunk guy at the bar can be as selfish as he wants, but no amount of hollering will enable others to use him as conduit to achieve their goals of forcing tax payers to provide benefits to crony capitalists.

However, a selfish politician who has the capability (i.e. power granted by the government) to address the "concerns" of special interests groups, then and only then do we have a problem.

In other words, there'll always be a few selfish people within any group, but if they're not capable of achieving their selfish goals, then their selfishness doesn't matter.

See edit.

Lootifer wrote:

john9blue wrote:the real fundamental problem is that everyone's a selfish bastard.

Id agree with this; except i'd write it as:

It only takes one selfish bastard to ruin it for everyone; and there's always at least one.

edit @ BBS: When I say selfish bastard, im emphasising bastard, rather than selfish, as you say, self interest is the fundamental driver behind free market stuffs, thus it is beyond contempt.

Hm, I'm not sure what you mean...

because self-interest is also a fundamental driver behind political decision-making, and in general political capitalism. With a move toward freer markets, the capability for the state to intervene in the market diminishes, thus the self-interest of politicians and crony capitalists no longer matters when their capability is diminished.

The State has an ontological imperative to expand to the point of of controlling all levels of community, markets and society. So called looting done by the evil capitalists and corporations would not even be possible without The State enforcing rules of parasitic predation. The end result is always the same with financialized. centralized economies. A massively expanding kleptocracy.

I was isolating it as good self interest; rather than shitty political self interest (self interest in politicans should be illegal )

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:But what BBS is saying is that corporations are forever evolving because they compete, and they evolve to make more money, including tactics to control the government regulations. And that the government regulation doesn't evolve, because it doesn't compete.

But what barrack says is also true, this corporation/government marriage is only this century's way of the powerful to control the "lazy". Truth is, that drive to power is in all of us, only it's stronger in others, given genetics and circumstances, and those with power won't let go off it.

Think of you as powerful for a minute, with me money, the privileges, the women, the possibilities.. would you give up your power only because some lazy fat ass is screaming at news on the tv?

It's just the dance of life, like water down a stream, going down as it has always gone down.

But it really isn't. The rise of political capitalism takes huge leaps since the 1890s. Before that, we had corporations, businesses, and whatever, but for several reasons the government was involved not nearly as economically as it is. What encouraged the government to become more involved (to the benefit of a select few interest groups) was the incentives provided by such interest groups, perhaps a change in laws which allowed this, but most importantly, the ratchet effect:

"Never let a good crisis go to waste," and many American politicians took this to heart. The rise of political capitalism is intertwined around states of crisis and political intervention. With a crisis, the appeal to the state becomes strongest. See the Gallup polls on President Bush and favorable views toward the state before and after 9-11. The crisis occurs, nearly everyone screams for state intervention, and the special interest groups and the government get the go-ahead. After the crisis, the bureaucracies and policies are hardly ever retrenched. They remain, or reappear in new names, at the taxpayers' expense.

This story isn't one of all history, or the "dance of life." This has not been "going down as it has always gone down." It predominantly begins in the 1890s--and even more so in WW1, the Great Depression, and WW2--for the US.

My underlined comment was more about barrack's post.

And I apparently understood your post incorrectly, you were being more specific and I have no knowledge of what you are talking about so I retract my comment.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:the real fundamental problem is that everyone's a selfish bastard.

I hope you're not being serious because that simply isn't true. People are self-interested, which encompasses varying degrees of selfishness and altruism toward others in varying amounts.

That's all that can be accurately said about humans in regard to selfishness v. altruistism.

you're using weird definitions... what IYO is the difference between "selfishness" and "self-interest"?

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:the real fundamental problem is that everyone's a selfish bastard.

I hope you're not being serious because that simply isn't true. People are self-interested, which encompasses varying degrees of selfishness and altruism toward others in varying amounts.

That's all that can be accurately said about humans in regard to selfishness v. altruistism.

you're using weird definitions... what IYO is the difference between "selfishness" and "self-interest"?

Self-interest encompasses both selfishness and altruism.

It's within my interests to care about my close friends and family, and less so for some guy in Xinghua. Am I selfish? Am I altruistic? No, it's neither. That's just me being self-interested.

Selfishness alone is interest only in one's self, but it also excludes one's interest in doing things for others (i.e. altruism). Humans do both of these things to varying degrees for varying people, so economists use the word "self-interest." It's more accurate and doesn't make unfounded criticisms about all humans.