Oh, and if you know where I can by a decent razor that isn't made by a consumer product conglomerate, let me know so I can go get some! I love the way you proved your point by listing corporations that are almost ALL part of oligopolies that limit choice, competition, and innovation! Bravo!
I saw this on a number of peoples Facebook's this morning. My favorite part of this is how conducting business with corporations is supposed to guarantee some kind of fealty towards them.
Just like when governments around the world buy our arms, and then use them against us when they don't like what we are doing.
Newsflash: Life is complicated, but seeing this image as a gesture that people you disagree with are stupid is certainly appreciated.
Almost forgot -- let me help you out on one implicit corporation the picture forgot:
"All fed by ConAgra!" (I see a lot of plump, corn-fed folks!)
Extrapolating from the sentiment of the scathing sarcasm on display in this pithy little pic, and since you posted it, I guess you are saying that in order to criticize corporations, we should all just stop eating, eh? Or is it darker than that, as in, "You know, these guys control everything, and there's nothing you can do about it, so shaddap?"
Or C, you just thought the picture was funny and didn't actually, you know, think about it?
Or D, something else entirely? I'll be around, get back to me when you can!
I like it, Lord Bob. Good grief, I found a ton of things in there I never even thought about, and I try to actively engage my brain to remember such things and keep that sort of perspective. Me fail! :\
Also: these protesters, and no other sane person on the mainstream left, wants an absolute end to these corporations, to innovation, entrepreneurship, or the products they sell us. We just want a more level playing field.
You hear conservatives raving against any sort of socialism. You do not hear liberals raving against the free market in its entirety. Fox Poos just likes to pretend that's what they hear.
that are almost ALL part of oligopolies that limit choice, competition, and innovation!
Please instruct me on how Sony limits choice. Or Samsung? Or Eddie Bauer?
O yea, I forget Eddie Bauer corners the market on all outerwear preventing other companies such as Old Navy and The Gap from producting their own products. Yes, I certainly missed that.
Yes, Sony stops innovation.
But I forget all corporations are just evil, innnovation stopping, competition stopping oligopolies.
Define what you and Mr. Moore mean by even playing field?
Is Apple on an even playing field? Or Sony? Or The Gap?
In business corportation that are successful will grow. And if their product is best will corner the market. Like Apple did with its iPhone.
Until another product comes that is better, possibly like the Android.
Do you and Mr. Moore believe that Apple would have made the iPhone if they did not think they could sell millions of units and try to corner the market for smartphones?
Ranger, go read up on oligopolies, and then tell me where I should buy my razors from. Or better yet, tell me why I owe a corporation something just because I buy something from them. You yourself have said that an exchange of money is the end of the road (e.g. when an employer pays an employee, the employee should be fine with that, the employer owes zero else to the employee). Why would a transaction with a corporation be any less cut and dried? Just because I buy something from someone does not mean I can never speak out about anything related to that.
Once you cover the above, I'll be happy to address your questions.
And I assure you that Sony, especially, does just about everything in their power to limit innovation (as much as they can get away with, anyway) including extending copyright laws, locking people into technology, and hiding behind DRM and the DMCA. You are clearly, woefully under-informed on this front. You might want to read up on some of what's actually going on instead of worshiping at the corporate altar. You can start here: www.eff.org
And since you're back to having some reading/writing comprehension issues (apparently), I'll switch to something more mathematical in regards to Mr. Moore:
So good thing I never said the above statement (and I am not sure I see anyone who did?) Wait, or are you just telling subtle little lies about others again? You devil! You almost slipped that by me!
Define what you and Mr. Moore mean by even playing field? Is Apple on an even playing field? Or Sony? Or The Gap?
You are aware that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are not protesting Apple and Sony, right? They're protesting Wall Street, which is why the movement is called Occupy Wall Street.
Once you confirm your acknowledgement of this fact, and revise your question accordingly, I will answer it.
Also, since Occupy Wall Street has nothing to do with Apple or Sony or Samsung or the other companies mentioned in your image, we can safely dismiss it as irrelevant and dishonest.
I love the way you proved your point by listing corporations that are almost ALL part of oligopolies that limit choice, competition, and innovation! Bravo!
Ok, you are correct. Almost all <> all.
Yes Starbucks is an oligopoly that limits your coffee choice. Yes, there are only a few places you can get clothing, an certain oligopoly (Sarcasm alert!!!)
An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists).
But by a broad definition of the term, perhaps any market can be thought of an such.
Did this thread really have to turn so negative and hostile so quickly?
It's certainly a fault of mine, but if someone can't make their point without insults and belittling, I'd rather just not read it and remain ignorant. It's something I should work on about myself, trying to inform someone ignorant of something without being rude.
No amount of being right excuses the hostility. How much intelligence does it take to realize that condescending tones do not efficiently inform anyone?
As much as the current state of government and companies bother me, a part of me would rather be yolked to corporate domination than led by anyone who can't speak without such attitude.
You're right, Bob. The best way to deal with a mistake is to make more mistakes. Everytime a Republican says something stupid, the Democrats need to respond with more stupid. If someone cuts you off in traffic, by all means, accelerate and cut them off in turn!
You can't ask change of others while saying, "After you!"
Occupy Wall Street is more than protesting Wall Street.
Have you read their "demands"?
Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy
Seems to be right out of the liberal playbook. Especially demand 13, card check.
I fail to see how that fits in with bankers messing the system.
And we all know that the recent financial crisis was not due to only Wall Street. It had to do with both sides of the aisle promoting home ownership by people that had no right owning a home.
Where is all the rage at DC, both Repbulicans and Democrats?
(Almost all of a very very, tiny list to start with)
<>
(All corporations everywhere)
Not even close.
This is how you spread untruth. It is very, very gross, and it is the reason these discussions turn negative (though I am with LB on the fact that this one started that way. It was flamebait as soon as it was posted).
Sounds to me like the protestors are simply taking a page from radical right-wingers, listing extreme talking points in order to then come back to the center. How is that odd and how is that surprising? I don't many protestors who go and picket who just say, "We might want a few small things but it's really not a big deal!" *smile*
And I'll go ahead and say I think some of the 99% folks are flat out whiners who have made obviously bad decisions and should now live with the consequences. But that doesn't make the whole idea crazy any more than Michael Moore = (all liberals).
Demand four: No, but expand programs to send gifted, underprivileged students to college/university.
Demand five: Yes.
Demand six: Yes.
Demand seven: No on decommissioning nuclear plants (I'm pro nuclear energy). Yes to conservation efforts, but not $1 trillion worth (or anywhere NEAR that much).
Demand eight: I need to see the amendment to make a decision on this.
Demand nine: No.
Demand ten: Yes.
Demand eleven: No. And heck no.
Demand twelve: What?! No.
Demand thirteen: Yes.
Sorry, but a LOT of this has nothing to do with the mainstream liberal viewpoint. Some is just insane.
And then there's this:
OccupyWallSt.org is the unofficial de facto online resource for the ongoing protests happening on Wall Street. We are an affinity group committed to doing technical support work for resistance movements. We are not affiliated with Adbusters, anonymous or any other organization.
This does not represent the view of all protestors.
Wow this picture just reminds me of an email I got at work one day going through the story of how a man wakes up, goes through his morning routine using all the products made outside the US, then continues to go on and blame Obama for the lack of jobs in the market. To that I say... Huh?
To put it plainly, the entire point of both that email and this picture is completely flawed from the get go.
My god this thread deserves the most epic facepalm.
Ranger, none of those people gave an unequivocal YES TO EVERYTHING. They are saying they like public dissent and discourse, which is what any patriot should love about it.
Show me where Obama agreed 100% and signed off on the "demands"? That's right, he didn't. In fact, he discussed how important it is that we have a strong financial sector.
As for Feingold, he makes no bones about his organization that wants more controls and such on corporations. I keep forgetting, though, that if anyone says one bad word about corporations, or one supportive word to anything anti-corp, that person automatically "hates all corporations", one of your favorite, extreme untruths you spread about people who disagree with you.
i read the article and all i saw was that he said it shows america's frustration. where are you seeing some thing else exactly?
One can take that approach. Or the approach I took. Which is when the Tea Party rallies came, Obama was one of the first to condemn them. Now he "understands" their frustration. Like he could not "understand" the frustration of those wanting less spending and more responsible government.
From the previously posted link to the list of demands:
Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.
Why are we debating some random forumgoer's post anyway? There are dumb people all over the internet.
As far as the initial image goes, I'm in total agreement. If they really wanted to organize against corporations, they should have gone entirely nude, and walked there instead of driving. My only stipulation is that the crowd may consist of nothing but 18-30 year old, attractive women. Also, it needs to last long enough for me to get to new york.
Also, Sony killed HD DVD so they stopped something.
Well, that was mostly under the tent of competition. I'm not saying Sony needs to rollover when it comes to establishing standards, etc. And while some could consider trojanning in with the PS3 and also being a huge media corporation as dirty pool, it's still pool. *smile*
And something being overlooked here a bit (and in the pic) is that OWS is also about wanting to hold banks and financial institutions accountable for various meltdowns and questionable business practices.
I don't see any arrows on the list saying all of these people have massive bank accounts at BoA or brokerage accounts with Merrill Lynch, because I am betting a lot of folks there don't. Anti-corp is just one aspect of it.
And something being overlooked here a bit (and in the pic) is that OWS is also about wanting to hold banks and financial institutions accountable for various meltdowns and questionable business practices.
I agree they should be help responsible. I am sickened that they got their bailout and continue to do almost the same practices.
However, those that allowed these practices, and in most cases encouraged them (Congress) are and likely never will be held accountable.
However, those that allowed these practices, and in most cases encouraged them (Congress) are and likely never will be held accountable.
Most of that was in the form of de-regulation, going all the way back across several administrations, no?
Certain financial-hedging techniques (like shorting mortgages right after you dump them on someone else) weren't advocated by government, were they? The way I see it, many of those circular methodologies were exactly like insider trading, but there was enough disconnect between layers (read: the circle was very large) such that it is hard to pin things down to a single bank/company, much less an individual (or group thereof).
Sony is pretty unsuccessful (thankfully) at most of it's attempts to lock people into technology.
LOL, Betamax or HD-DVD anyone?
Sony had nothing to do with HD-DVD if that's what you are implying. Sony pushed Blu-ray and they won due to the amount of money they put behind it and the amount they invested into the PS3 to push it.
I reckon, given that these protests are currentoy going on worldwide that the people involved are from a far broader political spectrum than you would think. Certainly in the UK our protests have contained people from the far left, the centre and some of the right. People dont like the amount of involvement the banks have had in creating the current climate. They dont like the fact that the banks have been aided financially and they dont like cuts that affect most peoples day to day earnings while the banks are still awarding themselves huge bonuses.
Id say that viewpoint has nothing to do with ideology.
Again, that was more competitive, actually, and Sony was the lower on Betamax (so not sure why it is being listed with HD-DVD (not theirs, they won that with Blu-Ray).
But yeah, the consumer certainly loses in those wars! In that way, oligopolies do the industry a disservice. In my opinion, a bunch of very small competitors are more likely to agree on a standard (to raise the whole sea) as opposed to just a few big players where one may be more vertically inclined (read: Sony movies and music) to try to take over the standard. Very glad they failed with things like memory sticks, and they still struggle (relatively) more in areas where they can't directly leverage their vertical integration (VAIO laptops, for example).
From the previously posted link to the list of demands:
How did I miss that? That makes my point so much clearer.
If they really wanted to organize against corporations, they should have gone entirely nude, and walked there instead of driving. My only stipulation is that the crowd may consist of nothing but 18-30 year old, attractive women.
They've done that. Blame the retarded PG rule for me not posting links.
I am sickened that they got their bailout and continue to do almost the same practices. However, those that allowed these practices, and in most cases encouraged them (Congress) are and likely never will be held accountable.
And why is that? It's because instead of coming together on the one very obvious thing the far left and the tea party have in common, and fixing that one thing together, we end up with more division and partisanship among our own ranks.
See Ranger? Instead of coming on and attacking the protesters, instead gather up your tea party buddies, come on down, and let's band together on the ONE THING we all agree on, and could fix together, if only we cut out all the nonsense. Politics on CB is a perfect microcosm for the political bickering that goes on not in Washington, but among the divided populace.
Seems I hijacked another thread for the brief moment....
Bluray was a thought out and well calculated investment by Sony that made them big bucks. In going so far out of their way to consolidate most to their product and having the biggest hand in that war. I in turn blame them for muscling one tech out of the market for control of consumer dollars. As a PS3 supporter with bluray movies I'm not bias, but I do acknowledge Sony was like a German WW1 empire in this format war. http://www.pcworld.com/article/142584/hd_dvd_vs_bluray_disc_a_history.html http://www.mediacollege.com/video/format/compare/bluray-hddvd.html
At the bottom of the last link...
It is worth noting that, like the VHS/Betamax war, this war was not really decided on the technical merits of each format. It is certainly arguable that the best format won but it is widely believed that other factors such as marketing and company politics were more important.
Sony had nothing to do with HD-DVD if that's what you are implying. Sony pushed Blu-ray and they won due to the amount of money they put behind it and the amount they invested into the PS3 to push it.
I was typing in response to oligopoly. Typically if one product is better than others, such as we have had with the iPhone for years, it takes a place at the head of the class.
To read some of the posts in this thread and others makes it seem that there is a nefarious plot by corporations to limit choice and maximize profits. I have seen no concrete evidence of this. In my experience the best product typically wins.
They are required by law to get the bang for that buck and they do so often in nefarious ways. Dare I say Enron? Friends of Manny? Or who ever that tanned guy in that Micheal Moore movie was. /me secretly hoped your head exploded* Got a better one which I don't care to hunt and link. The frequency spectrum auction years back where communication corps cabaled to get lower prices. There are more, and likely better, but why bother if you'll ignore any wrong doings I might prescribe since you don't care to notice them after a toxic loan meltdown. >.>
Of course they are trying to maximize profits (you say that yourself all the time). Who here has called the simple act of trying to make profits a "nefarious plot"? I certainly haven't.
As far as stifling innovation and putting up barriers to entry, did you check out EFF yet? In lieu of that, can you explain the reasoning behind DRM, the DMCA, RIAA/MPAA suits, and extending copyright so much further than its initial range? Let's focus on that last one: how does extending copyright spark innovation? How does being able to hold onto old ideas make a corporation interested in developing new ones, especially in an oligopoly (the RIAA and MPAA definitely meet that definition, and have shown their joint power in the past in things like payola lawsuits and price-fixing allegations...REAL nefarious plots).
I don't think there are nefarious plots across the board, but are you saying that means we can't call an egg rotten when we find one?
Knowing one has the potential to make profit over an extended period makes one more apt to research and develop.
You know I'm talking about copyright, yeah? Not patents.
Drug companies spend huge dollars in R&D because they know they have to keep thinking of something new to recoup their costs. Innovation.
That's not the case for Mickey Mouse's 120-year tenure.
Did you read up on any of this? I'm not talking about companies who already invest billions in R&D because the time-span on their new products is much shorter. I'm talking about 120-year copyright.
I have no idea why you are talking about copyright and patents now, but after just reading Rangers response to patents and copyrights, obviously this is my response, you are out of your element dude.
Copyrights and patents were not meant to enrich someones pockets for all time. In fact, Ranger, I wrote a small article about DRM and copyrights. Hopefully the above video doesn't put you off from reading it.
Verifex's article about copyrights. Beyond the aspects of DRM. Copyrights are a set of exclusive rights granted by the state for a original work for a limited period of time. After which that time the work enters into the public domain, hopefully to enrich and encourage new public works.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003Eaz">Down with those evil corporations!!!!</a>
