Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wealth Distribution in the USA

1…1819212324

Comments

  • #602
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    So a drug like tobacco would be a line drawn and companies stopped from producing and promoting it? It would cover all those basis.
    Libertarianism's detractors typically (and deliberately) represent it as a form of "anything goes" lawlessness
    A set of laws lays down what "goes". Anything outside of that is game ball. Like I said it depends where one draws a line on law/regulation, especially when it comes to the market, which seems to be the main focus of Libertarian thought, applying market dynamics across most if not all aspects of society.
    From any entity with a vested interest in people leading long, healthy, productive lives: health insurers, life insurers, banks, employers, and so on.
    Insurance allows for this and makes damn good money from it to boot. Insurance companies are better than doctors for working out when you're going to die and load people accordingly. Employers "win" if you die young if they insure you, as do banks. So outside of glorious mismanagement, the house always wins whether you smoke 80 a day or subsist on mungbeans and meditation. There is little vested interest in longevity, not before middle age anyway.
    Note that the free market has produced safer alternatives to tobacco, such as e-cigarettes, whose growing popularity tobacco lobbyists are currently working to curb by having their cronies in government impose sales restrictions and price controls. But let's not talk about how governments protect Big Tobacco even when doing so demonstrably runs against the interests of consumers and the general public!
    It's just as much the "official" medically approved nicotine replacement industry that's freaking out there. You see a lot more public denouncement of e-fags from that quarter. BTW I'd not laud the "free market" for their introduction. Not unless you want to suggest all good ideas come from the free market.
    Surely it's the case that insurers benefit when they don't have to shell out for expensive cancer treatment? The healthier you are, and the less medical treatment you require, the better your insurer's bottom line -- so they have a vested interest in keeping you healthy, just as your auto insurer has a vested interest in rewarding you for safe driving.
    No they haven't, or certainly not to that degree. They basically don't care so long as the bottom line isn't affected(of course). If the risks change and go up the premiums change and go up. If everyone was huffing ciggies while driving drunk at 100 mph the premiums would go up to match, with no loss to the insurance industry. Take medical treatment. That expensive cancer treatment will be paid from their funds, the doctors will be paid, the makers of the therapies etc. A long queue of ladles will sup from the pot and it's a very big pot to sup from as the house has stacked the decks(naturally).
    Certainly, people may feel that they're missing out on social or professional opportunities if they don't sign up to social networking sites, but that's part of the tradeoff. At least they have the choice.
    Funny. For a Libertarian you seem to have an unusual notion of choice. If I put a gun to your head and say gimme your cash, of course you have the choice to say no, but would that be advisable? If social networking sites and search engines go the whole hog as they have stated they'd like to, then it will the proverbial gun to the head. "Yea you can say feck off Google, but forget about having an online presence, or social/professional proof". That's not a choice. Well maybe it is if your name is Hobson.
    If you're going to complain about private companies gathering and storing your personal information (with your consent) without mentioning government agencies' pervasive spying on the entirety of your internet traffic (without your consent), it isn't a separate argument.
    Ok then lets combine them and look at what differences there are and how they might affect the average someone going about their lives. First off the government agencies when found out tend to get more egg on their faces. A democratic leader or party that is found to be doing this is less likely to be trusted and relected, hence they wanna keep this stuff secret, or even stop it. Secondly, though it's a right dickish move and bloody emotive, the NSA listening to your average persons web traffic has pretty much zero impact on their daily lives. They still do what they were doing, go to the same pubs, read the same books, vote for the same party, go on the same holidays etc. However Google et al listening in to your web traffic has a direct impact on the average persons daily life as more and more they push the choices(and are being paid to push) they feel are right for Citizen No 100087632.

    Consent is a funny one. Private companies can set it up so opting out is either very hard to do, overly complex, buried in the settings, or if you do opt out the service becomes less "useful". They also work on the path of least resistance principle, that people won't really care so long as the buttons are pretty and their market share is so big that they can't be avoided. Plus the old boiling a frog is easier if you stick em in cold water and slowly bring up the heat, so it doesn't realise it's being cooked until it's too late.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #603
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Want to talk about the Rothschilds instead?

    No one gets that rich from being kind.


  • #604
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Wibbs wrote: »
    So a drug like tobacco would be a line drawn and companies stopped from producing and promoting it? It would cover all those basis. A set of laws lays down what "goes". Anything outside of that is game ball. Like I said it depends where one draws a line on law/regulation, especially when it comes to the market, which seems to be the main focus of Libertarian thought, applying market dynamics across most if not all aspects of society.

    Insurance allows for this and makes damn good money from it to boot. Insurance companies are better than doctors for working out when you're going to die and load people accordingly. Employers "win" if you die young if they insure you, as do banks. So outside of glorious mismanagement, the house always wins whether you smoke 80 a day or subsist on mungbeans and meditation. There is little vested interest in longevity, not before middle age anyway.

    It's just as much the "official" medically approved nicotine replacement industry that's freaking out there. You see a lot more public denouncement of e-fags from that quarter. BTW I'd not laud the "free market" for their introduction. Not unless you want to suggest all good ideas come from the free market.

    No they haven't, or certainly not to that degree. They basically don't care so long as the bottom line isn't affected(of course). If the risks change and go up the premiums change and go up. If everyone was huffing ciggies while driving drunk at 100 mph the premiums would go up to match, with no loss to the insurance industry. Take medical treatment. That expensive cancer treatment will be paid from their funds, the doctors will be paid, the makers of the therapies etc. A long queue of ladles will sup from the pot and it's a very big pot to sup from as the house has stacked the decks(naturally).

    Funny. For a Libertarian you seem to have an unusual notion of choice. If I put a gun to your head and say gimme your cash, of course you have the choice to say no, but would that be advisable? If social networking sites and search engines go the whole hog as they have stated they'd like to, then it will the proverbial gun to the head. "Yea you can say feck off Google, but forget about having an online presence, or social/professional proof". That's not a choice. Well maybe it is if your name is Hobson.

    Ok then lets combine them and look at what differences there are and how they might affect the average someone going about their lives. First off the government agencies when found out tend to get more egg on their faces. A democratic leader or party that is found to be doing this is less likely to be trusted and relected, hence they wanna keep this stuff secret, or even stop it. Secondly, though it's a right dickish move and bloody emotive, the NSA listening to your average persons web traffic has pretty much zero impact on their daily lives. They still do what they were doing, go to the same pubs, read the same books, vote for the same party, go on the same holidays etc. However Google et al listening in to your web traffic has a direct impact on the average persons daily life as more and more they push the choices(and are being paid to push) they feel are right for Citizen No 100087632.

    Consent is a funny one. Private companies can set it up so opting out is either very hard to do, overly complex, buried in the settings, or if you do opt out the service becomes less "useful". They also work on the path of least resistance principle, that people won't really care so long as the buttons are pretty and their market share is so big that they can't be avoided. Plus the old boiling a frog is easier if you stick em in cold water and slowly bring up the heat, so it doesn't realise it's being cooked until it's too late.

    There's a fuzzy wuzziness about the whole not causing harm to others clause. Not everyone can agree on what "harm" means,or indeed how far "others" extends towards. IMO it's a bit of a political cop out not to get down to the nitty gritty. The devil is in the detail.


    Speaking of insurance, I wonder if it is going to go up in states where pot is legal. They'll use any excuse.


  • #605
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Wibbs wrote: »
    it was independent research, often funded by government.


    Em, you were you around in this thread when we were talking about HFCS and the food 'pyramid'?


  • #606
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Wibbs wrote: »
    However Google et al listening in to your web traffic has a direct impact on the average persons daily life as more and more they push the choices(and are being paid to push) they feel are right for Citizen No 100087632.
    .

    I think you are missing the point here. One can opt out of Google and Facebook at any time. They can simply not use either service and close down their accounts. To compare that to the NSA spying where we didn't even know we were being spied on in the first place and have NO choice in the matter it seems.


  • Advertisement
  • #607
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #608
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Choice would be destroyed in the free market. There is no good reason for large companies to let small companies compete with them and they will have the means to stop them. They can just pump money to the local branch until the small business with no serious back up funds goes out of business. I would also imagine quite a lot of richer countries would be in a lot of trouble as their farming industries disappear to nations abroad who can then hold them to ransom to keep supplying them with food.

    Simply put there is no evidence that the free market will result in favourable conditions for people. It is a nice theory but gets horribly skewed by people behaving irrationally, or when some players have many times more capital then other players, think of the advantage chip advantage brings in poker except in this case not everyone started on an equal footing.

    I am also curious as to who would enforce Glassboard keeping your data private? It is unlikely you would find out yourself and with no regulation...


  • #609
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    jank wrote: »
    I think you are missing the point here. One can opt out of Google and Facebook at any time. They can simply not use either service and close down their accounts. To compare that to the NSA spying where we didn't even know we were being spied on in the first place and have NO choice in the matter it seems.

    Was there not issues about trying to close and delete a facebook account?

    I can see where Wibbs is coming from on this one, it seems to be harder and harder to set up a normal account by email address any more, everything seems to be sign in by FB, Google or LinkedIn, never mind the bloody sharing widgets that slow down browsing. I've them blocked, but the vast majority of people don't know how to do that.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #610
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Choice can be destroyed in the free market when a conglomerate corners a market.

    Such has happened with eyewear in the US. When you need glasses you need glasses, or you walk around blind and also cant drive anywhere. Not exactly a gun to the head, but close enough.

    A certain Italy based company cornered the market and has bought out a lot of chains so it appears as if there is competition but there really is none. They also own the insurance company that pays for eyewear, and recently destroyed Oakley and then bought it out when it refused to display its products on its shelves, thus accumulating something pretty close to a monopoly.They also managed to turn eyewear into a luxury item, such as Ray Ban which you used to be able to buy in a drugstore.

    So muggins here who hates being taken for an idiot and loves a good haggle found an eyewear store that will not stock any of this particular companies products. However, it is still not such a good deal for me, even though the store also benefits from their competitor because their competitor is setting the prices. So this huge conglomorate charging $300 for frames everywhere, means this other shop can charge $200 and look cheap, when in fact they are both scam artists.

    So the free market would suggest there is a huge opportunity here to make a lot of money off of eyewear, one because people really do HAVE to have them, and because the market is currently cornered. I hope someone does it and does it soon.


  • #611
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I just wanted to quote this to show how 'Libertarians' are analogous to hardcore theists in that 'god' gets all the credit for the good things and 'the devil' gets blamed for the bad stuff. What you have above is the attributing of virtue to the free market (God) and the attributing of evil to government (the Devil).

    What is wilfully ignored is that there is no free market. The fabled free market (FFM) does not exist now and never has done. As for blaming the damn gubberment for all the evils, well, the government, unlike the FFM actually exists so its actions (inasmuch as it is an entity separate from men) should be examined on their merits rather than selective demonisation (see what I did there?).

    Libertarians should probably avoid tobacco arguments when on the pulpit. See, smoking cessation is largely as a result of perhaps the most successful government driven public health campaigns ever attempted.


  • Advertisement
  • #612
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Want to talk about the Rothschilds instead?

    No one gets that rich from being kind.
    Okey, PB isn't interested in discussing it, but I have to ask here (since you comment on it): Is this justifying the Koch's actions though?

    From my link, the various activities the Koch's supported, of engaging in:
    • "fraud, bribery, [and] outright theft" (illegal, breach of property rights)
    • "Directly stealing oil" (illegal, breach of property rights)
    • "Directly promoting stealing as part of business" (illegal, breach of property rights)
    • being one of the "top 10 air polluters" in the US (externalizing harm onto society)
    • "promoting FUD about climate change" (anti-science propaganda)
    • (in US elections) "Coercing employees into voting a particular way with threats" (coercion, illegal)
    • "Blocking any/all climate change political reforms" (with all of this barely scratching the surface).
    One thing I distrust about a lot of Libertarians, is that they actually support this kind of stuff tacitly (are willing to excuse and look past it), but never state that when promoting their 'message' - and this stuff goes contrary to their message.
    Isn't that dishonest? (leaving out critical parts of what Libertarianism really stands for)


    To make clear what this is as well: This is the Koch's and their industry being able to put themselves partially above the law, and having power/privileges that the rest of society doesn't have as a result.

    This underscores that Koch-funded Libertarianism (i.e. almost the entire US mainstream Libertarianism) isn't about what their message says it is, it is about allowing a small group of people (those who are in control of large business empires), to be able to put themselves in a position of power over the rest of society, and to be beyond the law in many cases.


  • #613
    April O Neill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,305 ✭✭✭April O Neill


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Actually, e-cigarettes are controversial because how safe they actually are has still not been ascertained.

    No point replacing one harmful thing with another!


  • #614
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Ok then lets combine them and look at what differences there are and how they might affect the average someone going about their lives. First off the government agencies when found out tend to get more egg on their faces. A democratic leader or party that is found to be doing this is less likely to be trusted and relected, hence they wanna keep this stuff secret, or even stop it. Secondly, though it's a right dickish move and bloody emotive, the NSA listening to your average persons web traffic has pretty much zero impact on their daily lives. They still do what they were doing, go to the same pubs, read the same books, vote for the same party, go on the same holidays etc. However Google et al listening in to your web traffic has a direct impact on the average persons daily life as more and more they push the choices(and are being paid to push) they feel are right for Citizen No 100087632.
    Good post, and I agree with just about all of it, though just one small nitpick on the NSA here :)

    This is where I'd agree with Libertarians quite fully: The danger of the NSA isn't the present, it is what they mean for the future (like the boiling frog analogy), and that future (depending upon the governments we have in power - which are in my view, particularly the US, getting more and more authoritarian and beyond the reach of democracy) - it wouldn't surprise me at all if that future started to look a lot more Stasi-like, with governments able to monitor peoples communications and persecute political opponents with impunity.

    However, I don't think the danger would be any less great if this were being done privately instead - if anything it would be much more so, and much harder to regain control over.


  • #615
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    There's a fuzzy wuzziness about the whole not causing harm to others clause. Not everyone can agree on what "harm" means,or indeed how far "others" extends towards. IMO it's a bit of a political cop out not to get down to the nitty gritty. The devil is in the detail.
    Exactly, yes. The 'message' promoted, relies upon keeping terms like harm, choice, freedom, liberty etc. extremely broad and undefined, so that they can be shaped to fit the argument (and used as cop-outs, as you say, as the broad nature of the words lets you selectively change definition, to wriggle out from most criticism).

    It allows these terms and what they are applied to, to become a matter of 'opinion', and not a well-defined matter of discussing 'fact'. It's a pattern that becomes very apparent in these debates.


  • #616
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #617
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #618
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #619
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #620
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Good take on it CR. There is more than a touch of that alright.

    I have no problems in pointing out the faults in bad government, of which there are many, however I also acknowledge the good aspects of government. I also have no problems acknowledging the good aspects of free market forces, but I also see the faults in having it as the main system.
    Libertarians should probably avoid tobacco arguments when on the pulpit. See, smoking cessation is largely as a result of perhaps the most successful government driven public health campaigns ever attempted.
    Apparently it would have happened in the free market too. Though some Libertarian thought has it that all substances should be available and it's down to personal responsibility, so as long as it's making cash for someone play ball.
    Permabear wrote: »
    And all too often, the "means" that large companies use to keep smaller competitors out of the market includes government itself. Large companies can afford to pay lobbyists millions to advance their interests. Small startups cannot.
    And how would things be different in your Libertarian free market? Remove government and regulation and the one with the biggest money pot will win, pretty much every single time. They can do it by outcompeting them with their larger resources, or an even easier route would be to simply make the smaller competitors a financial offer they can't refuse(and in a free market system you'd not refuse) and buy them out. Then they could bring the new product into their fold, or if it's too much of a threat simply bury it. In a free market system, without government regulation, monopolies would be the most likely endpoint. Cue the usual rebuttal of "government is a monopoly".

    The "free" bit in the Free Market Libertarian ideal has the suggestion of a level playing field, where everyone and every company with true grit and hard labour and the protestant work ethic could forge their own way, whereas it's far more likely in such a system that the financially strong would overpower the financially weak and choice for society would diminish. The other things is that if you're under a bad government you can vote them out in a democracy, however you can't vote out multinationals nearly so easily. "Oh well you can simply choose not to use their products, it's the same thing". Only it's not, not if there exists a monopoly. It would be akin to a democracy where you could vote, but only for members of the one and only party.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #621
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    This is the Philip Morris that close Koch associates like Richard Fink have worked with to promote tobacco lobbying, such as with (now restructured/renamed) think tanks like Citizens for a Sound Economy, that was largely Koch funded.

    Some interesting snippets on Fink's page, which shed light on Libertarianism's way of 'marketing' their views:
    Since the 1980s, Fink has advocated a theory of "Ideological Entrepreneurship", or "Political Marketing", for selling free-market ideology to the public. Using Friedrich Hayek's models of the production process, he shows that to influence policy, you must first develop the intellectual "raw materials"; then develop these into policy "products"; and finally "market" and "distribute" them to "consumers". On this basis, Fink argues that conservative grantmakers should invest in three areas: university programs, think tanks, and implementation groups. Specifically through this line of argument, Fink has been credited with a major influence over the grant-making strategies of conservative foundations since the 1990s.
    The wording there represents perfectly, the type of debate you get with Libertarians, that it is more about one-way 'marketing' of their views, without regard to whether they are actually viable in reality, and we are all supposed to be idle 'consumers' of these views.

    A tip-toeing way of saying, that they promote rampant propaganda, which they try to instill into universities, think-tanks, and policymaking groups.


  • Advertisement
  • #622
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Or is it just possible PB that outside of ideology, they're distrusted and Buffet isn't, simply because they've a lot of previous for being pricks? Buffet is an enormously wealthy man and outside of eye swiveling lefties is generally well liked by the average bod on the street. Bill Gates is more liked and will likely be judged better by history than someone like Steve Jobs. Why, because he's done and is doing an enormous service to society with his various charitable and scientific projects. Both very rich men, but one is liked more than the other.

    Shorter answer, I wouldn't begrudge the Kochs(TBH I'd barely heard of them), but I would see them as dicks. If they were dirt poor I'd still see them as dicks.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #623
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,773 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Yep. It's all made up. Great bunch of lads. never done a thing wrong.

    Am I the only person who thinks there are bad rich people and good rich people and that simply being rich doesn't make you a saint or a bastard?


  • #624
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #625
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #626
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,408 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    April O Neill wrote: »
    Actually, e-cigarettes are controversial because how safe they actually are has still not been ascertained.

    No point replacing one harmful thing with another!

    The big problem with e-cigs is you look like a tw*t while "vaping" one, at least cigs made people look cool while killing themselves, e-cigs just don't have the cool factor that real cigarettes have, so it's a case that they might be killing themselves to not look cool, which is very un-cool, and not in a trying to be un-cool hipster way.


  • #627
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Going to mess around with a different way of highlighting posts and breaking down arguments, instead of multiquoting (which is a bit more messy); just to see how it turns out.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Red - Whataboutery, verging on "other people do it too" - not going quite so far in this case - and accusations of generic 'left' hypocrisy (casting views on me I don't hold - I'll happily criticizes anyone on the left, where genuine fault is shown).
    Orange - Casting views on me that I don't hold, to try and make a weak link to hypocrisy.
    Green - Generic 'the left' nonsense, and more begrudgery accusations, i.e. casting views on people that they don't hold.
    Blue - Comes across as "Anyone who criticizes the Kochs, or points out their illegal/unethical actions, is part of 'the establishment' and hates them irrationally. They are noble unapologetic Libertarians who can do no wrong".


    So anyway, seeing as you are saying the Koch brothers are free from guilt for the things I mentioned, here is more detailed information about what I mentioned.

    A whistleblower showing Koch supported industry using bribes:
    ...
    In less than a week, she discovered that the company had paid bribes to win contracts.

    “I uncovered the practices within a few days,” Egorova- Farines says. “They were not hidden at all.”

    By September of that year, the researchers had found evidence of improper payments to secure contracts in six countries dating back to 2002, authorized by the business director of the company’s Koch-Glitsch affiliate in France.

    “Those activities constitute violations of criminal law,” Koch Industries wrote in a Dec. 8, 2008, letter giving details of its findings. The letter was made public in a civil court ruling in France in September 2010; the document has never before been reported by the media.

    Egorova-Farines wasn’t rewarded for bringing the illicit payments to the company’s attention. Her superiors removed her from the inquiry in August 2008 and fired her in June 2009, calling her incompetent, even after Koch’s investigators substantiated her findings. She sued Koch-Glitsch in France for wrongful termination.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html

    Same article:
    A Bloomberg Markets investigation has found that Koch Industries -- in addition to being involved in improper payments to win business in Africa, India and the Middle East -- has sold millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, a country the U.S. identifies as a sponsor of global terrorism.

    The ‘Koch Method’

    Internal company documents show that the company made those sales through foreign subsidiaries, thwarting a U.S. trade ban. Koch Industries units have also rigged prices with competitors, lied to regulators and repeatedly run afoul of environmental regulations, resulting in five criminal convictions since 1999 in the U.S. and Canada.

    From 1999 through 2003, Koch Industries was assessed more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments. In December 1999, a civil jury found that Koch Industries had taken oil it didn’t pay for from federal land by mismeasuring the amount of crude it was extracting. Koch paid a $25 million settlement to the U.S.

    Phil Dubose, a Koch employee who testified against the company said he and his colleagues were shown by their managers how to steal and cheat -- using techniques they called the Koch Method.

    Refused to Falsify

    In 1999, a Texas jury imposed a $296 million verdict on a Koch pipeline unit -- the largest compensatory damages judgment in a wrongful death case against a corporation in U.S. history. The jury found that the company’s negligence had led to a butane pipeline rupture that fueled an explosion that killed two teenagers.

    (overall from the article) Bribery, fraud, stealing, encouragement of stealing/cheating by management, punishing whistleblowers who bring illegal acts to light, negligence directly leading to the death of two teenagers.
    Sally Barnes-Soliz, who’s now an investigator for the State Department of Labor and Industries in Washington, says that when she worked for Koch, her bosses and a company lawyer at the Koch refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, asked her to falsify data for a report to the state on uncontrolled emissions of benzene, a known cause of cancer. Barnes-Soliz, who testified to a federal grand jury, says she refused to alter the numbers.

    “They didn’t know what to do with me,” she says. “They were really kind of baffled that I had ethics.”

    Koch’s refinery unit pleaded guilty in 2001 to a federal felony charge of lying to regulators and paid $20 million in fines and penalties.
    Fraud through misreporting data, polluting the environment with a cancerous chemical.
    I particularly like the highlighted bit (even though less important than the rest), showing what kind of corporate culture they have.

    In any case, that is a huge article, listing a hell of a lot of stuff about the Koch's, so I'm going to leave it at the above (which is more than enough to substantiate what I've said) - recommended reading for anyone wanting to learn about the Koch's though.


    Note that there have been actual convictions and fines for much of this, which shows pretty conclusively that this stuff has happened.


  • #628
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    For a start you're working on the fallacy that I "love" the current system.
    Apple acquired 15 other companies in fiscal year 2013 — that's about one company every 3-4 weeks. These include WiFi Slam, Locationary, Hotstop.com, Matcha, AlgoTrim, and Cue. These companies' products will either be integrated into the Apple fold, or buried, as you say. There's nothing in the current system to stop such acquistions from happening.
    There are anti monopoly/trust agencies. They would simply not exist at all in your free market. Are they doing enough? I would say in many cases no, but at least they exist and surely a better way of curtailing monopolies is to improve rather than remove them. Simple yes/no question, would anti monopoly/trust agencies exist in your Libertarian world?
    You can rail against free-market capitalism all you want — but you're only implicitly supporting crony capitalism, which produces worse outcomes for everyone except the cronies themselves.
    Again I ain't the one railing here. And again how would a Libertarian world be any different. Oh and crony capitalism is a problem, especially in the US of A where it's damn near a sport. Even Ireland's cronyism is in the tuppeny happeny place compared to Capitol Hill. But the world ain't just America and how it does things.
    As an example, assume that hardworking immigrant street vendors move into a business district previously served only by expensive restaurants. They begin supplying delicious, low-cost lunchtime meals for office workers. The workers love the inexpensive food, the convenience, and the variety.

    The vendors are doing a booming trade. Everybody is happy—except for local restaurateurs, who are serving only a handful of lunchtime customers and losing money. So, they pool their resources to form a Restaurateurs' Association and start lobbying their local government for greater protections for their industry. The streets are overrun by vendors peddling cheap food, they say. If the government doesn't do something, long-established restaurants will have to close, they complain. Employees will be laid off, local tax revenue will fall, store-front properties will lie vacant, the city's attractiveness will be diminished, fewer tourists will visit, the public will be unhappy, and ultimately local lawmakers may not win re-election.

    In response to this vigorous petitioning, the government institutes a barrage of new regulations. Street vendors must henceforth comply with stringent new food hygiene regulations and must henceforth obtain and display a valid street trading licence. The government makes sure that complying with food hygiene regulations is expensive, and that trading licences are limited in number as well as costly and complicated to acquire.

    What happens next? Any vendor who cannot obtain a licence must cease trading. The vendors who do gain licences must raise their prices to cover the additional cost of the licence and other regulations. Under the guise of "protecting" people from "unsafe" street food, the government has ensured that fewer vendors will serve more expensive food in a less competitive market, so that office workers will have an incentive to return to the restaurants.

    The losers here are the consumers (the office workers who can no longer so freely avail of cheap, tasty lunches) and the many vendors who have been driven out of the artificially restricted marketplace. The winners are the restaurateurs, who have successfully exploited the power of government interventionism to stave off free-market competition and preserve their cartel.

    This is how your beloved system of "government oversight" works. It screws the hard worker and the aspiring business owner in favour of maintaining cosy cartels, and reassures the public that "this is all for your own good."
    Jesus it is like a religion. Fervent and replete with half truths ,"context" and parable. Kudos.

    OK let us pray take that example. Numero uno, in your free world, would hygiene regulations exist in the area of food preparation? If not, then stupid is the word that springs. If so, would only the restaurants have to comply? That's not a level playing field. Would only "hardworking immigrant street vendors"(nice feel good check out my liberalism touch BTW) have to comply? Or in your world would food poisoning be "personal responsibility", or would some darwinism kick in whereby "don't use Luigi's cart as three people caught cholera last week" would winnow out the field?

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #629
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    The theory of what you promote, says that transitioning to a more 'true' free market system will reduce the power of these cronies, but in reality and given past precedent, the precedent indicates that transitioning to your preferred system will increase the cronies power, and that they would gain so much power, they could collectively capture government altogether, before you even make it as far as 'true' free markets.

    The theory could be great if it were possible, but it's not - that's what the history of attempts at trying it in 'pure' form show.


  • #630
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Ah man :D Really? There goes the argument.
    It's funny that you say you see them as dicks in the same sentence where you admit that you've barely heard of them.
    Tense is important. I had barely heard of them.

    Yea I'm beginning to see KyussBishop's colour chart alright and I'm definitely seeing Carlos Roca's religion comparison. Apparently "Statist"(a new one on me TBH) is akin to Infidel.

    It boils down to this, you've already said that all this kinda double dealing bad practice goes on with "big" government and business involved, yet have singularly failed to show how this would change for the better if government was removed from the equation. Indeed you avoid such debate points like the very plague whenever they pop up. What passes for the argument seems to boil down to the market is god(a nebulous one) and it's usually green eyed jealousy and begrudgery to think otherwise.


    BTW folks for shíts and giggles I just typed "libertarian street vendors" into google and pages of it come back. It is a big thing/parable for libertarians. Don't be surprised to find PB's Parable of Luigi the immigrant street vendor(c), being copypasted all over the place. :D

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Advertisement
  • #631
    Willow Large Sandstone
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Willow Large Sandstone


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Yea I'm beginning to see KyussBishop's colour chart alright and I'm definitely seeing Carlos Roca's religion comparison. Apparently "Statist"(a new one on me TBH) is akin to Infidel.

    Both sides can be guilty of that. Go into a random unrelated thread and chances are someone will be spouting off about evil libertarians. Or if something goes wrong, it's "that's how it'd work in libertarian world", regardless of whether any libertarians have actually posted on it or not :)
    We're the infidels!
    BTW folks for shíts and giggles I just typed "libertarian street vendors" into google and pages of it come back. It is a big thing/parable for libertarians.

    I think real world examples of how things would/do work, which is what libertarians are often asked for, are reasonable enough to provide. Sneering at it for "parables" is really pushing it. Heaven forbid a group of people who have the same outlook on something... agree on the same ideas.


Advertisement