TRUE OR FALSE

[warmonger1981]

TGD I dont have an Apple and dont drink Coke. I reallt try to shop at ma pa stores. Yes I do pay more but after you go enough times Im able to build a personal relationship with these people. Im not just a number or just another customer. If I neen a haircut and I cant afford to get one, I can get one on front, if it was a major chain it wouldn't happen. Now do you believe most people who own iphones know what type of environment these people are working in and if they did do you believe they would demand better working conditions from Apple? Big difference between knowing what goes on beyond the TV. A thing called reality that most people cant realize or acknowledge. Yes a corporation has no problem selling orange Fanta in a county filled with Nazis knowing full well what is going on. Profits over human rights.

[Symmetry]

A thing called reality that most people cant realize or acknowledge. Yes a corporation has no problem selling orange Fanta in a county filled with Nazis knowing full well what is going on.

I don't understand how these two sentences fit together. Was one of them meant to be sarcastic? Or both, maybe?

[warmonger1981]

Well there is "reality" what really goes on in this world and "TV reality" where the real world is distorted. Most American really cant tell where one begins and the other ends. Now if you know of orange Fanta, that is the drink Coka Cola was selling in Nazi Germany after Coke couldn't sell their Cola products due to the war. Sarcasm with a dab of truth.

[AndyDufresne]

More truth dabbing.


--Andy

[Symmetry]

Well there is "reality" what really goes on in this world and "TV reality" where the real world is distorted. Most American really cant tell where one begins and the other ends. Now if you know of orange Fanta, that is the drink Coka Cola was selling in Nazi Germany after Coke couldn't sell their Cola products due to the war. Sarcasm with a dab of truth.

Interesting, thanks for that.

[warmonger1981]

BTW Andy love your personal stash of weaponry. Now the NSA knows what you have they should be able to confront you with superior fire power. Never show what your packin.

[Symmetry]

[mrswdk]

Selling Fanta in Nazi Germany doesn't really throw up much of a moral dilemma. Selling poison gas to the Nazis - yes. Selling Fanta to German kids - no.

[Symmetry]

Selling Fanta in Nazi Germany doesn't really throw up much of a moral dilemma. Selling poison gas to the Nazis - yes. Selling Fanta to German kids - no.

I think his issue might have been more that Coca Cola was financially aiding a fascist government that the US was at war with, but you'll need him to confirm.

[_sabotage_]

Scarcity provides control. Corporation, government and finance work to provide scarcity. Media and education work to promote scarcity.

Thorium and hemp are widely available. For the last 40 years one has been ignored and the other criminalized worldwide. If a pool was generated to develop and implement thorium, plans on the plant could be given to communities world-wide. For example, we funded a the ORNL project for ten years on thorium 50 years ago and now the research is being provided to the Chinese. That was taxpayer money. But thorium is too safe, too easy and too available to give to the taxpayers. So it is not discussed.

Hemp can grow from pole to pole, provide food from the oil, which is a super food, and provide for the building of houses, for a secondary energy source or use of cellulose. Were we to make it widely available and use our best researchers on it, then the whole world would soon have access to all of its benefits. We would be raising up the population, reduce emissions by 90% and basically eliminate government.

Building food forests and permaculture designs into our communities would mean an abundance of food. We could then work towards developing technology to satisfy our other needs with an overall benefit to everyone.

Scarcity is a tool of the monetary control system and Monsanto is just a way to bring scarcity to the market. When they have completely poisoned our waters, land, air, bodies and minds, where are you going to get your food then? The bees are dying from the poison. They are making the myth of scarcity a reality. They are making their control absolute.

[warmonger1981]

Making a profit in a county killing millions of people is wrong. Would it be OK to sell perfume in a county that murders millions of children? So I suppose the Nazi guards are just doing there job and are NOT guilty of any crimes, moral or otherwise? I know there is no morality in profits.

Yes doing business with corrupt organizations in corrupt counties is wrong. Now is the corporation guilty of any crime or do corporations get a pass? Why is it OK for corporations to not be held accountable and the government is if both are using each other for their own interest? Whats the difference if either is nothing more than a piece of paper claiming it is a county or corporation.

[BigBallinStalin]

Corporations and smart people know how the brain and instinct work to manipulate the dumb zombies.

ConquerClub is an LLC, thus is a corporation.

Thank you pretend-economist BBS, but being an LLC does not make one "thus" a corporation.

This is correct. That being said, in the context of what warmonger is talking about, I'm not sure the legal entity classification matters that much. I'm not sure what BBS is arguing about since warmonger's view is only a step or two down the path of BBS's view (what with the rent-seeking).

Ohh, oops.

I'm tired of stupid moral rhetoric. That's pretty much it.

If anyone opposes rent-seeking and seeks to boycott any of its participants, then they should also oppose anyone in any lobbying group, e.g. American Association of Retired Persons, TransAfrica Forum (who takes credit for helping to end apartheid in S. Africa), and on and on and on.

Unfortunately, rent-seeking has become necessary since so many policies need to be politicized and since there's so much worth taking and so much worth knowing* (which isn't surprising since the levers of control rest within federal government).
*for example, if one is a large company and does not rent-seek, then they'll lack access to the right information and be vulnerable to their competitors' politicians who seek to harm them.

[BigBallinStalin]

Greed= excessive or repacious desire- especially for wealth or possessions

Now that being said. I am the owner of a small flooring s-type corporation. FYI

I pay fair wages. Now does Apple or Coca Cola pay fair wages for the slave labor they demand in foreign countries? Just curious on your personal view on large corporations infiltrating small 3rd world countries and ruining the environment for profit. Can you sipher the difference between numbers and humanity? Which one is more important....humans or profit without a conscience?

Whenever someone uses the word greed with a negative connotation, I'll translate, "X is greedy," as, "I don't like X because it's icky." This way is more accurate. 'Excessive'... how arbitrary does it get? If anyone has an excessive desire for life, then they're greedy for life, but we don't say this because we want to abuse people and activities with the word, 'greed'. It seems that it's mostly used by the envious or people who don't know what they're talking about but feel as if some great injustice is being committed. Let's investigate.

Which large corporations are sneaking into which developing countries?

If any corporation does environmental damage in another country, is not that country's government responsible for ensuring that the people affected are compensated? Why aren't you pissed at those governments?

To what extent is the environment being ruined by foreign corporations operating in developing countries? Do you get equally pissed when local businesses do the same in those developing countries? (I doubt it).

Humans aren't intrinsically valuable, but I know a few who I value more than all others. "Profit without a conscience".. what does that mean exactly?

[mrswdk]

Making a profit in a county killing millions of people is wrong. Would it be OK to sell perfume in a county that murders millions of children? So I suppose the Nazi guards are just doing there job and are NOT guilty of any crimes, moral or otherwise? I know there is no morality in profits.

Yes doing business with corrupt organizations in corrupt counties is wrong. Now is the corporation guilty of any crime or do corporations get a pass? Why is it OK for corporations to not be held accountable and the government is if both are using each other for their own interest? Whats the difference if either is nothing more than a piece of paper claiming it is a county or corporation.

Was there collaboration between the makers of Fanta and the Nazis? Did the makers of Fanta do anything to support the Nazis?

I don't think you can really compare selling a soft drink to being part of the Nazi security apparatus.

[warmonger1981]

BBS still didn't see any answer to the phrase. How can a corporation be regulated by a government practically run by corporations and lobbyists. Conflict of interest to the public and welfare of the security of a nation?

mrswdk
Was there collaboration between the makers of Fanta and the Nazis? Did the makers of Fanta do anything to support the Nazis?

When you do business in any country you must pay taxes thus supporting the leadership willingly or not. Now did Fanta or Coke know what was going on with the Nazis? I presume yes.
Yes doing business with corrupt organizations in corrupt counties is wrong. Now is the corporation guilty of any crime or do corporations get a pass? Why is it OK for corporations to not be held accountable and the government is if both are using each other for their own interest? Whats the difference if either is nothing more than a piece of paper claiming it is a county or corporation.


BBS "Profit without a conscience".. what does that mean exactly?
Profitting off of people knowing what your doing is hurting people. Like a Pimp on a Hooker or the child sex industry. Is there no moral grounds for making money or profits?

BBS wrote : Do you get equally pissed when local businesses do the same in those developing countries? (I doubt it).

Im offended at that. You know nothing about me personally other than your analysis of my posts. To me wrong is wrong. Numbers and the TRUTH tell no lies.

BBS wrote : If any corporation does environmental damage in another country, is not that country's government responsible for ensuring that the people affected are compensated? Why aren't you pissed at those governments?

I am pissed. Look at my wall. And all governments are bought and paid for.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS still didn't see any answer to the phrase. How can a corporation be regulated by a government practically run by corporations and lobbyists. Conflict of interest to the public and welfare of the security of a nation?

Your form of questioning is incorrect. This response to sabotage is relevant:


I agree that Monsanto has successfully captured enough political influence in order to establish an economic environment more conducive for its goods (namely, bio fuels, 10% minimum ethanol in gas pumps--thanks to EPA's "intensive" studies), but control does not flow one-way as if Business X --> Government --> Economy. Nor does saying, "they who control us are at fault," really helps.

In reality, the voting population is largely to blame for demanding such politicians. Government and certain businesses are tied in an endogenous relationship, where politicians need funding and can offer great returns--thanks to the federal government's vast control over the economy. Businesses will happily oblige, and those that don't will miss these opportunities. Regulators and bureaucracies also are entrenched within this 'give-and-take' relationship, and many bureaucracies depend on their business partners for maintaining their existence (e.g. the defense/war industry). Throughout this process, politicians give their constituents enough so that they don't have enough reason to switch to other politicians. In other words, control flows both ways while the voting population keeps the game running.

So, I don't see how "the Man" arguments really help us disentangle from this problem. It should mostly be about focusing on the voting population who inadvertently reinforce and create our current outcomes. Of course, it's not popular to do this because you'll insult their God, Democracy (or really, the Welfare/National Security State), but it's still an educational issue that fails to advance when we dip into conspiracy and 'us v. them' thinking.

This criticism of your method holds especially true when you ignore pertinent questions such as:
"To avoid further vagueness, what's your definition of 'control'?
How do you determine when some organization has control over something?"

Anything you don't like can become 'them' or 'those who control us'. The stuff in the OP and y'all's kind of thinking doesn't really explain the current outcomes accurately, but it's definitely arbitrary and emotionally satisfying.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS "Profit without a conscience".. what does that mean exactly?
Profitting off of people knowing what your doing is hurting people. Like a Pimp on a Hooker or the child sex industry. Is there no moral grounds for making money or profits?

Define 'hurt'. Anything can cause harm--e.g. "No, I won't trade my car for your $200." Meh, I'm hurt.

Profit derived through coercion is not acceptable. I'll agree with that--except when I'm skeptical on that issue when it comes to national defense and probably roads, which are the arguably justifiable zones.

Voluntary exchange between consenting adults is a must, so profiting from child sex is wrong--but it's not the profiting that's the issue. It's compelling kids to engage in despicable activities.

Pimps can become coercive, but profit's not to be blamed here. Instead, that's the consequence of public policy of driving that market underground.


Profit itself is an amoral activity, but more importantly the means for acquiring that profit is what matters in terms of morality. That's why "profit without a conscience" doesn't make sense.

BBS wrote : Do you get equally pissed when local businesses do the same in those developing countries? (I doubt it).

Im offended at that. You know nothing about me personally other than your analysis of my posts. To me wrong is wrong. Numbers and the TRUTH tell no lies.

BBS wrote : If any corporation does environmental damage in another country, is not that country's government responsible for ensuring that the people affected are compensated? Why aren't you pissed at those governments?

I am pissed. Look at my wall. And all governments are bought and paid for.

Okay, you say you get angry, but the targets for your frustration have always been (a) large corporations of unspecified size, (b) MNEs, (c) corporations, (d) not 'mom-and-pops' stores which arguably cause harm as well, (e) the US government that is allegedly controlled by unspecified corporations (which isn't true; there's balance of power sharing among corporations, unions, voting blocs, etc. which are within the larger category of special interest groups. Lesser organized voters have some influence but not as much). Anyway, I hardly, if at all, see any criticism from you leveled at what my questions were driving at.

[_sabotage_]

Control: the ability to prevent access to a product that is necessary for life.

Monsanto is poisoning our land, water and air. They have control over 85% of our food and are currently working on the rest.

The poisoning isn't an accident or an unintended consequence. They are intentionally attempting to eliminate our ability to feed ourselves without them. They are creating scarcity in a previously abundant market in order to dictate who lives and dies.

"They", Monsanto, work for "them", the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds "control" the largest environmental bank in the world and "control" the tax credit system. While telling us that they are acting in our own benefit, they are securing the funds for their own ends: absolute "control".

The head of the energy department at Dal denied every having heard of thorium during a pitch that he was making for "them", the Rothschilds, to use "our", the taxpayers money, to finance "their", the Rothschilds, new dam, so that "they" the Rothschilds could sell "us", the inhabitants of Nova Scotia, power at a 30% increase.

Collusion between university, medicine, media, energy, bankers, the military and politics is rampant and with a single purpose: convincing "us" "we" need "them."

[BigBallinStalin]

The Rothschilds control the tax credit system because they have the ability to prevent access to credit, which is a product necessary for life?

So, the Rothschilds control the Federal Reserve and all lenders of credit? Did they create neoclassical economics while they were at it?


And then Monsanto has the ability to prevent access to 85% of the food? Then, why are they so busy selling their products away, thus relinquishing their control? (Obviously, the goal is not to prevent access, but if you're talking about intellectual property law, then I agree that they've got a monopoly on a variety of products, but still those products are sold and Monsanto receives the royalties. That still isn't control--as in they can prevent people from eating...)





Okay, we're looking at roughly $750bn in agriculture.

And Monsanto's market value is about $40bn.

Now, these aren't the perfect measurements, but it provides a good enough approximation for making comparisons. So, how can Monsanto with a market share of $40bn control 85% of agriculture--valued at $750bn? If you don't like 'agriculture', then food is roughly $150bn. 40/150 < 85% of 150...


If you wish to switch from 'food' to 'seeds', then you have to explain how Monsanto controls 85% of seeds while it only accounts for 23% of global proprietary seed market... (this is based on the following crappy link which hates Monsanto, and I'm not sure how great EMT/ECT is).

http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/10558-t ... wns-nature
Note: the ETC group reports that 2007 Monsanto seed sales were roughly $4.4bn, and the top 10 account for about 66% of the global market (which dampens the control claims).
Also, I don't think those numbers accurately reflect seed production, and the ETC does not explain their methodology for gathering such numbers. For all we know, they made them up.

Regardless, if we assume that report to be true, it fails to confirm the Monsanto-seed control hypothesis.

[_sabotage_]

You mean are they directing economics and history at Harvard? Yes.

Did they help establish UNESCO? Yes.

Did they create the University of Chicago? Yes.

Or is that too neo? Adam Smith called for small scale competition, so you can't be referring to that.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's review:

1. Your current claims about Monsanto are bullshit.

2. Your current claims about the Rothschilds' controlling credit are rubbish.

3. Your claims about the Rothschilds inventing neoclassical economics are nonsense. You're getting different traditions and developments of economics from within those two universities and also from others beyond the Rothschildian Leviathan's Sphere of Academic Influence. "The Rothschildians control the Federal Reserve because Milton Friedman and University of Chicago. BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!'

You don't make any sense.

[_sabotage_]

Praised by Barack Obama as a model for the world, Australia’s highly unpopular carbon tax, set to take effect from July 1st, is set to be policed by laws which forbid business owners from criticizing it for causing price rises – with thought criminals who do so under threat of being hit with huge fines of over $1 million dollars.

“SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact,” reports the Daily Telegraph.

According to ACCC deputy chairman Dr Michael Schaper, the warning applies, “to comments made by staff over the phone, on the shop floor or in meetings. It also covers advertising, product labels, websites, invoices, contracts and contract negotiations.”

This draconian measure will be enforced by teams of “carbon cops” who roam the streets conducting snap inspections of businesses to ensure they are not making any reference to the tax.

The characterization of dissent against the carbon tax as a criminal offense exemplifies how the measure passed last year goes way beyond merely forcing Australia’s top 500 companies to pay an extra $23.78 per each tonne of CO2 emitted. The system will be rolled into a carbon trading system by 2015.

Not only will Australians be whacked with price rises on everything from energy to food, small business owners will also be intimidated into silence when they are forced to pay out more for key supplies. Energy prices across the country have already been skyrocketing over the course of the last year.

After the carbon tax bill passed Australia’s federal parliament last year, the government set about “trying to erase any dissent against the jobs-destroying legislation,” wrote Miranda Devine.

“It’s all very Orwellian: the tax whose name cannot be spoken. We are already paying for the climate-change hysteria that has gripped Australia for a decade.”

“But no matter how Orwellian the tactics, no matter how many carbon cops are sent into hairdressing salons to interrogate barbers on the precise nature of their price rises, the truth remains: Australia has gone out on a limb, imposing a carbon tax that will send businesses to the wall, cause undue hardship to families, and tether Australians more tightly to government handouts.”

“And soon, we will send billions of dollars overseas to buy useless pieces of paper called carbon credits. Investment bankers, lawyers and carbon traders will get rich, as will all the usual spivs and scam artists ready to stick a bucket under the government spigot raining taxpayer cash.”

Although Barack Obama has largely been forced to abandon a carbon tax for Americans, instead targeting coal-fired power plants via EPA mandates, last year he praised the Australian system as being “good for the world.”

As we have documented, the entire carbon tax scam is a monumental fraud which does nothing to help the environment even if you believe in climate change hysteria, in that its primary purpose is to line the pockets of ‘carbon billionaires’ like Al Gore and Maurice Strong.

Obama’s support for Australia’s carbon tax is unsurprising given the fact that he was “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange” via millions of dollars in donations from the Joyce Foundation, with whom Obama served as a director.

Carbon trading schemes are directly connected to people in third world nations like Honduras and Uganda being brutally evicted from their land and in some cases slaughtered in cold blood. Western companies make billions from seizing land and using it to grow trees in return for lucrative carbon credits which are then sold to companies under carbon tax schemes like the one passed in Australia.

Being run by Rothschild Autralia

[AndyDufresne]

. BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!'

You don't make any sense.

Here is a pictorial representation of BBS fighting off a stark-raving-mad Sabotage or Warmonger.




--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

. BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!'

You don't make any sense.

Here is a pictorial representation of BBS fighting off a stark-raving-mad Sabotage or Warmonger.




--Andy

Agreed, but this captures my disappoint:

[Anarkistsdream]

Failure is failure... No matter how you view it...