An ode to greed. Wonderful!
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Your missing my point completely. I said in my former post, business is a different thing than big business.[/quote]
Yes I believe that’s where you began to sterotype “all big business is evil.” And: “All rich people are evil.”
Tell that to the heads of BIG BUSINESS that were just sent to jail for fraud. Um…that was by the government.
You really have to give me some spefics. You throw around these generalizations as if they mean something. I think we all get the idea: You were brought up in a house that hates rich people and large corporations. But don’t you want to expand your horizons and find out why? I mean are you not just a bit curious…
Well I agree with you. However, my question to you is still at what point does BOTEST become evil? How much money do they have to make before you stop looking at the facts and proclaim them as inherently bad because they make lots of money.
[/quote]Not too mention, by the laws that are being passed all over the place, the supplement companies get no love from the government![/quote]
And if suddenly the government thought supplements were a good thing would that make ALL supplement companys evil? Again…please think about this.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
That’s a shame, but I would guess its probably true. No company is going to make anything that is more ‘green’ until the market demands it.
$100 a barrel is how much per gallon? Between $4 and $5?
[/quote]
No it’s not “a shame.” It’s called CAPITALISM! Let’s put it another way “Necessityy is the mother of invention.” Do you like that better?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Thank God for Exxon and all the great heroic people who built and developed this, our country. Thank God for the love of money.
An ode to greed. Wonderful![/quote]
Abso-fuckin-lutely! Give me a capitalist out to make every fuckin’ dollar he can and I’ll have a better, richer, happier society than any soft, touchee-feelee society.
What’s the unemployment rate up there again? How long do you have to wait in line at the doctor’s office?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
What does it say in your beloved bible about the “love of money”? It’s the root of something…can’t remember what.
“Thank god for Exxon”? Sir…you are the textbook definition of a shithead.
[/quote]
Well, the moderator wouldn’t let me respond to you as I wished so I’ll say:
(1) I don’t agree with everything the Bible says. Do you?
(2) Exxon is a brilliantly-run, very profitable company. Your resentment of achievement speaks volumes.
(3) Unlike your post, which ended with a personal insult, I will end by saying that I resent having to support and defend this country for your benefit (and others who think as you do).
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
What does it say in your beloved bible about the “love of money”? It’s the root of something…can’t remember what.
“Thank god for Exxon”? Sir…you are the textbook definition of a shithead.
Well, the moderator wouldn’t let me respond to you as I wished so I’ll say:
(1) I don’t agree with everything the Bible says. Do you?
(2) Exxon is a brilliantly-run, very profitable company. Your resentment of achievement speaks volumes.
(3) Unlike your post, which ended with a personal insult, I will end by saying that I resent having to support and defend this country for your benefit (and others who think as you do).
[/quote]
-
I agree with virtually nothing in the bible, except with the whole “do unto others” thing. Good guideline.
-
So they’re profitable? How the fuck does that equate with ‘good’? The heroin business is very profitable. The gambling business is very profitable. I don’t resent achievement; I resent rapacious, polluting greedheads.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Your missing my point completely. I said in my former post, business is a different thing than big business.
Yes I believe that’s where you began to sterotype “all big business is evil.” And: “All rich people are evil.”
Big business has a connotation to it, such as “Big oil” or “Big steel” (way back in the day). Not “big Spike”. It doesn’t work like that. I am saying about the companies that control the way the government is run by the amount of undue influence that they have over the candidates (due to the money that is thrown around).
Tell that to the heads of BIG BUSINESS that were just sent to jail for fraud. Um…that was by the government.
You really have to give me some spefics. You throw around these generalizations as if they mean something. I think we all get the idea: You were brought up in a house that hates rich people and large corporations. But don’t you want to expand your horizons and find out why? I mean are you not just a bit curious…
Personally, I don’t really take too many supplements so your example isn’t relevant to me. But either way, there is a difference between Biotest and Exxon. If you can’t see that, that’s your problem.
Well I agree with you. However, my question to you is still at what point does BOTEST become evil? How much money do they have to make before you stop looking at the facts and proclaim them as inherently bad because they make lots of money.
Not too mention, by the laws that are being passed all over the place, the supplement companies get no love from the government!
And if suddenly the government thought supplements were a good thing would that make ALL supplement companys evil? Again…please think about this.
It isn’t too hard to find plenty of instances of corporations swaying government policy.
Here’s one about the sugar industry trying to decry reports about too much being bad for children:
http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2004_02_15/features06.html
Here is a large page about the ongoing fight against massive hog farms in north Carolina and Virginia:
http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/statter.html
Here is a quick part of that article that illustrates my point: It has also significantly helped the pork industry that there are a number of people in state government that are or have been hog farmers. Political figures in N.C. have been incredibly helpful in stopping any type of regulation.
U.S. Senator Lauch Faircloth is a Republican who is the chairman of the congressional subcommittee on the environment. He is also a wealthy hog farmer.
John M. Nichols, chairman of the state House environment committee is building a 2,400 hog farm.
House majority leader Leo Daughtry owns interest in a ham curing company.
These are two that I know off the top of my head. I can find plenty more, and I’m sure you recognize that.
When a massive industry can collaborate with government officials, bad things happen. Hell I am from New Jersey, you don’t have to tell me about government corruption. NJ politics is synonymous with crooked politicians, kickbacks, payoffs, etc.
It is a hard thing to call, I will give you that. When a company becomes prosperous, it is a good thing. But there is a line between being prosperous (like the store that I work at) and being so magnificiently large that you can control the laws that are meant to protect the greater portion of the people.
When you have men in Congress who are directly involved in these businesses, not to mention got loaded from these businesses, it is much harder to pass laws to regulate their behavior. In NC, it is taking a massive grassroots movement to stop the pollution that is occuring from hog farms.
As I recall, a Congresswoman (her name escapes me right now) went head to head with them and began making headway in curtailing their massive expansion. In the following election, the hog farms collaborated to form some fake “coalition” with a great American name (once again, I forget what it was, I think “Farmers for Truth” or something like that)and ran tons upon tons of TV adds decrying this woman and her policies, ensuring that she would not get elected again. She lost the election that year.
Once again, massive corporations collaborating to ensure that people opposing their business interests do not get elected. I really wish I remembered the specifics of this incident, but I read about it quite a while ago.
As far as the heads of big business going to jail, they are the exception, not the rule. Take a few heads, string them out to make it look nice, than resume the old ways.
I understand that you will not agree with me here. But the proof is undeniable that corporations are far too involved in politics for the benefit of themselves. I understand that this is the nature of men: take what you can. But this is why we have a government. To regulate this sort of thing. And they do not do it.
[/quote]
Strange, you argue that the few corporate heads who went to jail mean nothing. However you only give me a couple of examples of corporations trying to manipulate public opnion as “ALL” corporations being evil.
I think you need to reassess. How about this: Some corporations are evil and some are not?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
That’s a shame, but I would guess its probably true. No company is going to make anything that is more ‘green’ until the market demands it.
$100 a barrel is how much per gallon? Between $4 and $5?
No it’s not “a shame.” It’s called CAPITALISM! Let’s put it another way “Necessityy is the mother of invention.” Do you like that better?
I agree. But to echo the statements of others, we should get on the horse about this kind of thing now. That’s just my sentiment.[/quote]
I think one of the problems of liberals is that they see things in an unrealistic light.
What you are suggesting has never happened. Why would you even think that it would happen regarding this paticular problem?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What’s the unemployment rate up there again? How long do you have to wait in line at the doctor’s office?
[/quote]
Because everyone in America has health insurance?
Okay, so you are arguing that greed is “good” and you are throwing out really stupid comments such as the above as some sort of proof? You do realize that Canada is also a capitalist society, right?
Anyway, though your comments are really too ignorant to deserve an answer, I’ll give you one…
The unemployement rate is generally a point or two higher than in the US. It’s not very severe. However, we don’t stop counting people who are unemployed just because they’ve been unemployed for a little while – so it is hard to compare the measurements directly. I don’t suppose you’ve ever cared to look into it that deeply.
As for the lines at the doctors office. I don’t have one. If I call my doctor I’ll get an appointment and go see him. It kind of works just like everywhere else.
Wait, are you telling me that doctors in the US don’t have any patients?
Anyway, if you need an operation, and you don’t want to wait, you can always go buy a procedure if you have the money. Unfortunately, nobody generally has the money to go buy such a thing with their own cash, so they wait for the free one.
I don’t really see the US or Canada, or any other country, having the perfect solution for the health issue.
Anyhow moron boy, back to the topic at hand. I agree that economic incentive is useful. I agree that incentives for personal gain are useful.
I do not agree that worshipping raw greed as something itself that is good is in any way wise. Greedy people will poison the environment, gouge people during times of crisis, engage in shady treatment of employees, hire illegal immigrants and otherwise bend the rules to earn more cash.
You obviously are too ignorant to understand the difference between having a healthy desire to earn money versus a blind lusty greed, which you are worshipping above. Maybe you could outline for us what the seven deadly sins are, before you start worshipping greed so openly?
Idiot.
So, just a note on private versus public services.
How many of you living in a city have a private company that pipes water to your home? Is it a utility service provided by the city?
Does anyone remember that the telephone industry starting as a regulated service and has recently started to become somewhat deregulated?
There are situations in which general services are determined to be required for each and everyone. However, when the market isn’t able to deliver or will not provide the desired level of service the government can step in.
I am not advocating that this be done in the oil industry, but just outlining that there are times that such a thing can be appropriate - gosh, even in a free market and capitalist society.
Pry open those brains folks.
http://unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=62476
Windfall profits?
Tax Washington, not Exxon
SO, EXXON MOBIL broke corporate records last week, posting a $9 billion profit on $100 billion in revenue in the third quarter. Right on cue, Democrats demanded that Washington confiscate some of those profits. Are they predictable or what?
Actually, Democrats already were demanding a ?windfall profits tax? from oil companies. Exxon Mobil?s profit news just made them demand it more loudly in front of more microphones. While they?re trying to reach their hands into the back pockets of oil company executives and shareholders, let?s consider that $9 billion.
Nine billion dollars netted on revenue of $100 billion is a profit of 9 percent. That?s below the average profit margin for the telecommunications, software, pharmaceutical, medical equipment, accounting and computer hardware industries, to name a few. So take a deep breath before demanding that Washington pass legislation to loot oil company profits. If 9 percent is a profit margin so obscene that it demands confiscation, then a lot of small businesses in America are going to have to open their tills to Uncle Sam too. Or open them even further, that is.
Want to know who is making a bigger windfall than oil companies are making from the prices paid by the poor gasoline consumer? It?s good old Uncle Sam and his 51 little brothers.
Refining costs and profits combined make up about 15 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, according to the U.S. Energy Department. State and local taxes make up almost double that, about 27 percent. (New Hampshire?s 18 cents per gallon fuel tax accounted for 7.2 percent of last week?s average gas price of $2.49 a gallon.)
State and local gas tax collections exceed oil industry profits by a large margin, according to a Tax Foundation study released last week. Since 1977, consumers have paid $1.34 trillion in gas taxes ? more than twice the profits of all major U.S. oil companies combined during that same period. Last year, state and federal gas taxes took in $58.4 billion. Major U.S. oil company profits last year totaled $42.6 billion.
Want to make an immediate dent in gas prices? Cut gas taxes. Call it a windfall gas-tax tax. Sure, that would mean less money for road construction and maintenance. But when Washington is building bridges to nowhere, a little less revenue might force better spending decisions. And reducing the federal gas tax would instantly drop gas prices, whereas further taxing oil company profits would not. In fact, a windfall profits tax would discourage investment in new refinery capacity by depressing the potential profit from such investment. Less refinery output would cause prices to stay the same or even rise, not drop.
The windfall profits tax would accomplish nothing beneficial, while almost certainly making matters worse. It is yet another economically foolish, opportunistic ploy by Democrats to squeeze money from an industry whose popularity suddenly has plummeted.
To be fair, it is not only Democrats but Republicans as well. Our own Judd Gregg is on board with this “wonderful” idea. Let’s see, oil companies get taxed (above what they already do), and they are just going to absorb it? You think maybe they will just pass it on to the consumer? Do you think that will lower prices somehow?
[quote]deanec wrote:
But when Washington is building bridges to nowhere, a little less revenue might force better spending decisions. [/quote]
Are Private Pentagon contractors and other government agencies still spending thousands of bucks for a hammer or a toilet seat in Washington. If so, better spending decisions aren’t likely.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
deanec wrote:
But when Washington is building bridges to nowhere, a little less revenue might force better spending decisions.
Are Private Pentagon contractors and other government agencies still spending thousands of bucks for a hammer or a toilet seat in Washington. If so, better spending decisions aren’t likely.
[/quote]
Unfortunately you are almost certainly correct…
[quote]deanec wrote:
To be fair, it is not only Democrats but Republicans as well. Our own Judd Gregg is on board with this “wonderful” idea. Let’s see, oil companies get taxed (above what they already do), and they are just going to absorb it? You think maybe they will just pass it on to the consumer? Do you think that will lower prices somehow?[/quote]
That is what they think. It’s called “liberal wisdom.”
Gas and oil costs are a function of supply and demand.
As long as we drive gas guzzlers we will pay for it.
Gas prices are the cheapest cost of operating a car. For most of us the cost of insurance and maintenance is higher than the cost of gas on a yearly basis.
Depreciation is much more expensive than gas prices if you own a new luxury vehicle.
The reason people get their ‘panties in a twist’ over gas prices is because we are confronted with that cost on a daily basis.
The petro chemical industry lobbies in D.C. and they have way more access than you or I do. Money buys access in every democracy world wide and ours is not exception.
On another note…‘evil’ multinational corporations.
ADM pushed Soy on our society and no one can argue that has been bad for our health. There is nothing good about that. This is a perfect example that unregulated capitalism is very dangerous.
You can’t have a successful society with out a little of each -ism.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Gas and oil costs are a function of supply and demand.
As long as we drive gas guzzlers we will pay for it.
Gas prices are the cheapest cost of operating a car. For most of us the cost of insurance and maintenance is higher than the cost of gas on a yearly basis.
Depreciation is much more expensive than gas prices if you own a new luxury vehicle.
The reason people get their ‘panties in a twist’ over gas prices is because we are confronted with that cost on a daily basis.
The petro chemical industry lobbies in D.C. and they have way more access than you or I do. Money buys access in every democracy world wide and ours is not exception.
On another note…‘evil’ multinational corporations.
ADM pushed Soy on our society and no one can argue that has been bad for our health. There is nothing good about that. This is a perfect example that is very dangerous.
You can’t have a successful society with out a little of each -ism.[/quote]
How do you “push” something on consumer? It sounds more like an example of stupid comsumers than unregulated capitalism.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
How do you “push” something on consumer? It sounds more like an example of stupid comsumers than unregulated capitalism.[/quote]
The owners of Biotest disagree with you.
How long have you been here?
Read a book titled “The Whole Soy Story” and get back to me.
Deanec i agree with your post 11/01/05 08:42 am.
Just to add to what Deanec has posted above.
Congressman Ron Paul has written about how government regulations have contributed to the tight supply situation we are in right now.
A good read for those interested.