The single most important vote you have

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
As American citizens, we have more power than many others over our government and therefore our society.

But what are those powers? They're largely squandered, but they're largely the vote, contacting elected officials, and... how we spend our money.

That last is not enough understood enough as a core political act. A boycott seems to many like some radical political act, when instead every purchase we make has political impact.

Do y9ou bank with one of the 'too big to fail' banks and fund their dominance over our political system, ensuring their ability to get bailed out with tax dollars, or do you bank locally and support competitiveness in the industry? Do you buy food that supports big corporate food production, the overuse of chemicals, abusive business practices that hurt smaller farmers, or do you buy organic, buy smaller producers? Do you support the richest family in America, the Walton family, or do you support your neighbors' small businesses?

If you buy Campbell's soup, you are funding the Campbell children's political battle to eliminate the esate tax - and make the rich (them) richer.

If you buy Domino's pizza, you are supporting a right-wing group who funds or owns a number of right-wing affiliated businesses, including at times ones funding political leaders.

If you buy Comcast, you are supporting their political acts like hiring people to use up all the seats at a regulatory meeitng for public input, and their 'net neutrality' poliies.

Business does a lot of things that affect society, and you have little say. You can get the government to regulate it, but that's pretty limited, and the businesses - who have gone from a few hundred lobbyists when Reagan took office to 35,000 today - tend to have a lot more say. But you have an additional influence - where you spend your money, that most people pay no attention to. Spending, with communication to the businesses why, is one of only two real political acts you have IMO - and you only vote every couple years, with very little specific issue impact, normally just picking between two candidates with all their policies take it or leave it.

IMO, especially to counter the increasing domination of our system by business, we can use more 'citizen activism' on spending - whether just people including the politics in their spending choices, or more organized movements to pressure for change. There is nothing wrong with people including the political effects of their spending in choosing, and instead it's important they do so, if they don't want to hand over the power to the 'special interests'.

There are businesses who offer alternatives - for example, there's a phone company called 'Working Assets' (or 'Credo' that offers services with 'social responsibility'; they include a free call a day to the White House, they donate some proceeds to charities the customers vote on, they include 'action alerts' you can help on.

Big business won't tell you how your own money funds battles against your interests by your spending with the wrong companies. It's up to citizens to pay attention, be 'vigilant'.

Whatever your views, consider the political effects of your voting with dollars every day. Spend a little more when the benefits - personal, moral, societal - justiy it.

The dollar you spend without political consideration is funneled into political lobbying by those you give it to. You get a say - before you spend.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
I thought the answer was going to be school board

Seriously...

Well, that's interesting, but I stand by my opinion.:) I am grouping all political votes - including school board - together as one type of vote, with spending another.

I have to say, I rarely vote for school board, based on ignorance of the candidates, and leave it to the parents affected.
 

Draftee

Member
Feb 13, 2009
68
0
0
But shouldn't we buy stuff from businesses who pay workers poorly, rape and pillage the land and its resources so we can save a few dollars to buy more stuff? I thought that was how capitalism works, capitalise on the misfortune of others.
 

OFFascist

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
985
0
0
I agree completely.

Economic warfare is important.

I try to buy as few products from China, or businesses in states like California and the like.

I stopped doing business with Time Warner because they instituted a cap on internet in one market in Texas. While I dont use time warner for my internet, I fear if they decided to roll out caps nationwide that will ensure other companies will follow suit, so I wanted to hurt them financially. I switched my cable to Grande Communications which is a Texas based company so I figure I will help keep our local economy strong by keeping more money in the state.

I dont buy GM or Chysler vehicles (a friend of mine asked for my advice on a car purchase and so she bought a new Mustang), I look forward to buying a Toyota Tacoma built in San Antonio.

Also if you go to see a movie in theaters wait till after two weeks so the theater will get to keep a bit more of the ticket sale proceeds instead of sending them to the movie producers and whatnot.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Draftee
But shouldn't we buy stuff from businesses who pay workers poorly, rape and pillage the land and its resources so we can save a few dollars to buy more stuff? I thought that was how capitalism works, capitalise on the misfortune of others.

Actually, that's not 'part of capitalism' (though I assume you were being facetious), any more than cheating is 'part' of marriage. it may exist, but it's not required.

There's a perveerted understanding of capitalism based on the bad problems that often happen, and things that should be part of the system are often overlooked.

Those things include the consumer weighing the political and moral issues in spending.

The thing is, democracy is no better than its citizens, and when the citizens themselves are corrupted into compacency by slick marketing to not care about those issues, in a mutually satisfying arrangemement that's profitable for the businesses and comfortable for the consumer ('ignorance is bliess'), things don't work too well. Sweat shops overseas become invisible, for example. Pollution is invisible. When big business owns the media that might make those things visible - well, you can imagine what happens to the 'news'.

Suddenly, basic facts of important issues are relegated to 'crazy liberal' magazines and books, safely hidden away from the majority of voters.

The one clear growth product in this is cynicism as voters feel nothing can be done to fix what's broken, and give up their power as citizens.

Over a century ago when 'big business' threatened the livelihood of the agragrian society, thousands of farmers would drive their wagons to grass-roots meetings to fight it, hundreds of thousands subscribed to magazines informing them of the economic issues going on, and they developed a political movement. Today, with our far higher technology and information availability, people are not doing much.
 

Draftee

Member
Feb 13, 2009
68
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Draftee
But shouldn't we buy stuff from businesses who pay workers poorly, rape and pillage the land and its resources so we can save a few dollars to buy more stuff? I thought that was how capitalism works, capitalise on the misfortune of others.

Actually, that's not 'part of capitalism' (though I assume you were being facetious), any more than cheating is 'part' of marriage. it may exist, but it's not required.

There's a perveerted understanding of capitalism based on the bad problems that often happen, and things that should be part of the system are often overlooked.

Those things include the consumer weighing the political and moral issues in spending.

The thing is, democracy is no better than its citizens, and when the citizens themselves are corrupted into compacency by slick marketing to not care about those issues, in a mutually satisfying arrangemement that's profitable for the businesses and comfortable for the consumer ('ignorance is bliess'), things don't work too well. Sweat shops overseas become invisible, for example. Pollution is invisible. When big business owns the media that might make those things visible - well, you can imagine what happens to the 'news'.

Suddenly, basic facts of important issues are relegated to 'crazy liberal' magazines and books, safely hidden away from the majority of voters.

The one clear growth product in this is cynicism as voters feel nothing can be done to fix what's broken, and give up their power as citizens.

Over a century ago when 'big business' threatened the livelihood of the agragrian society, thousands of farmers would drive their wagons to grass-roots meetings to fight it, hundreds of thousands subscribed to magazines informing them of the economic issues going on, and they developed a political movement. Today, with our far higher technology and information availability, people are not doing much.

It's because capitalism doesn't take into account these social factors that we have such problems. Big business has a big voice in being able to quash ideas about what would be good for our society, all in the name of profit.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Paul Krugman has some of the shiftiest, airiest economic logic I've ever encountered. Nobody I know in the school of economics takes him seriously.
By extension, I have trouble taking anyone seriously who takes him seriously.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Paul Krugman has some of the shiftiest, airiest economic logic I've ever encountered. Nobody I know in the school of economics takes him seriously.
By extension, I have trouble taking anyone seriously who takes him seriously.

Well, normally I'd say that you say the Nobel committee for awarding the prize in economics are idiots in that case, but with today's news, you might agree.

There are plenty of idiots and amoral people in economics who are forces for evil in some cases - Milton Friedman's 'school' of economics is widely popular.

You must get along well with your contacts in the field. Luckily, many are or were better than that, like the ones in my sig, or Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith, Keynes...
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
Originally posted by: OFFascist

I dont buy GM or Chysler vehicles (a friend of mine asked for my advice on a car purchase and so she bought a new Mustang), I look forward to buying a Toyota Tacoma built in San Antonio.

That sounds good but you have to look at the breakdown of where the money goes. The net profit goes back to HQ regardless of where the car is built. So, you're still sending your money to Japan.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Paul Krugman has some of the shiftiest, airiest economic logic I've ever encountered. Nobody I know in the school of economics takes him seriously.
By extension, I have trouble taking anyone seriously who takes him seriously.

Well, normally I'd say that you say the Nobel committee for awarding the prize in economics are idiots in that case, but with today's news, you might agree.

There are plenty of idiots and amoral people in economics who are forces for evil in some cases - Milton Friedman's 'school' of economics is widely popular.

You must get along well with your contacts in the field. Luckily, many are or were better than that, like the ones in my sig, or Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith, Keynes...

Oh yes, Milton Friedman was a force for evil, with his beliefs that people should have freedom, and that free people make good decisions. Have you ever honestly listened to him, or read any of his books? I can understand a difference of opinion of the benefits of his policies, but EVIL??? How in the world is a belief that no man should be considered less intelligent and less capable than any other man evil? You do realize that is what his advocated policies were based on. He believed that if everyone was free to make his own decisions, they would all make good decisions, and no one would be able to take advantage of another person because they would never make a decision that was not good for them. I will grant that it is naive, and that the world is not perfect like that, but how you can take something that is so optimistic about his fellow human beings and consider it evil just amazes me. And his "followers," yeah they screwed up a lot of countries, but they didn't go in there to rape and pillage the land, they thought they were going to build some form of capitalist utopia, and reality slapped it down, still misguided but not evil.

There have been a lot of evil men who rose to power who promised that they were going to "stop the exploitation of the rich," or bring true equality to the people. I think those men were a little bit more evil. Those men sent people to true death camps, and knowingly killed millions. I don't know when you went off the deep end but you used to have some form of head on your shoulders, but recently I am seeing less and less of that.

Maybe you know something I don't, can you give me 5 examples of evil men in economics that follow Milton Friedman's school?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
As American citizens, we have more power than many others over our government and therefore our society.

But what are those powers? They're largely squandered, but they're largely the vote, contacting elected officials, and... how we spend our money.

That last is not enough understood enough as a core political act. A boycott seems to many like some radical political act, when instead every purchase we make has political impact.

Do y9ou bank with one of the 'too big to fail' banks and fund their dominance over our political system, ensuring their ability to get bailed out with tax dollars, or do you bank locally and support competitiveness in the industry? Do you buy food that supports big corporate food production, the overuse of chemicals, abusive business practices that hurt smaller farmers, or do you buy organic, buy smaller producers? Do you support the richest family in America, the Walton family, or do you support your neighbors' small businesses?

If you buy Campbell's soup, you are funding the Campbell children's political battle to eliminate the esate tax - and make the rich (them) richer.

If you buy Domino's pizza, you are supporting a right-wing group who funds or owns a number of right-wing affiliated businesses, including at times ones funding political leaders.

If you buy Comcast, you are supporting their political acts like hiring people to use up all the seats at a regulatory meeitng for public input, and their 'net neutrality' poliies.

Business does a lot of things that affect society, and you have little say. You can get the government to regulate it, but that's pretty limited, and the businesses - who have gone from a few hundred lobbyists when Reagan took office to 35,000 today - tend to have a lot more say. But you have an additional influence - where you spend your money, that most people pay no attention to. Spending, with communication to the businesses why, is one of only two real political acts you have IMO - and you only vote every couple years, with very little specific issue impact, normally just picking between two candidates with all their policies take it or leave it.

IMO, especially to counter the increasing domination of our system by business, we can use more 'citizen activism' on spending - whether just people including the politics in their spending choices, or more organized movements to pressure for change. There is nothing wrong with people including the political effects of their spending in choosing, and instead it's important they do so, if they don't want to hand over the power to the 'special interests'.

There are businesses who offer alternatives - for example, there's a phone company called 'Working Assets' (or 'Credo' that offers services with 'social responsibility'; they include a free call a day to the White House, they donate some proceeds to charities the customers vote on, they include 'action alerts' you can help on.

Big business won't tell you how your own money funds battles against your interests by your spending with the wrong companies. It's up to citizens to pay attention, be 'vigilant'.

Whatever your views, consider the political effects of your voting with dollars every day. Spend a little more when the benefits - personal, moral, societal - justiy it.

The dollar you spend without political consideration is funneled into political lobbying by those you give it to. You get a say - before you spend.

You must have way more time on your hands than the average person to be able to dwell on such things. Many folks out there are having trouble putting food on the table, and here you're lecturing them about not buying Campbell's Soup or how they should hold out for locally produced organic produce.
 

OFFascist

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
985
0
0
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Originally posted by: OFFascist

I dont buy GM or Chysler vehicles (a friend of mine asked for my advice on a car purchase and so she bought a new Mustang), I look forward to buying a Toyota Tacoma built in San Antonio.

That sounds good but you have to look at the breakdown of where the money goes. The net profit goes back to HQ regardless of where the car is built. So, you're still sending your money to Japan.

Yeah but I've got no problem with the Japanese. I might not agree with some of their laws but they arent here electing people who will change ours laws in ways I disagree with, unlike many members of the UAW.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: glenn1
Many folks out there are having trouble putting food on the table, and here you're lecturing them about not buying Campbell's Soup or how they should hold out for locally produced organic produce.

Yes. Democracy takes effort. You make the point very well that the public is not using its power, while the special interests are very dedicated to using theirs.

You are arguing for the equivalent of 'don't vote, just complain'. If people spend - or vote -without any consideration of these issues, the price is high.

We've seen this before - especially just over a century ago, for example - the same need for the people to fight for their interests against big business-owned politicians.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Draftee
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Draftee
But shouldn't we buy stuff from businesses who pay workers poorly, rape and pillage the land and its resources so we can save a few dollars to buy more stuff? I thought that was how capitalism works, capitalise on the misfortune of others.

Actually, that's not 'part of capitalism' (though I assume you were being facetious), any more than cheating is 'part' of marriage. it may exist, but it's not required.

There's a perveerted understanding of capitalism based on the bad problems that often happen, and things that should be part of the system are often overlooked.

Those things include the consumer weighing the political and moral issues in spending.

The thing is, democracy is no better than its citizens, and when the citizens themselves are corrupted into compacency by slick marketing to not care about those issues, in a mutually satisfying arrangemement that's profitable for the businesses and comfortable for the consumer ('ignorance is bliess'), things don't work too well. Sweat shops overseas become invisible, for example. Pollution is invisible. When big business owns the media that might make those things visible - well, you can imagine what happens to the 'news'.

Suddenly, basic facts of important issues are relegated to 'crazy liberal' magazines and books, safely hidden away from the majority of voters.

The one clear growth product in this is cynicism as voters feel nothing can be done to fix what's broken, and give up their power as citizens.

Over a century ago when 'big business' threatened the livelihood of the agragrian society, thousands of farmers would drive their wagons to grass-roots meetings to fight it, hundreds of thousands subscribed to magazines informing them of the economic issues going on, and they developed a political movement. Today, with our far higher technology and information availability, people are not doing much.

It's because capitalism doesn't take into account these social factors that we have such problems. Big business has a big voice in being able to quash ideas about what would be good for our society, all in the name of profit.

This isn't a Milton Friedman thread and too much detail on him would derail it, but I've often recommended Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' for a sampling of an alternative history of Friedman with some very important information. You have really been served a big glass of kool-aid with your summary of his being about 'freedom'. His *actual* policies greatly impoverished the masse and directly led to the need for state thuggery against the people to keep down the rebellions that resulted.

I could pick any five of his many disciples to answer yuour question, but it's pointless - he had hundreds of economists at least to pick from, for example, his school took over the field of economics in Chile leading up to Pinochet, which is why Friedman was directly involvd in advising Pinochet and virtually had the nation as a laboratory for his theories, something few economists get - with disastrous results for the people.

Two other notable followers of his were Reagan and Thatcher - who also had largely disastrous results (though not leading to anything like the state thuggery in other nations).

But their policies set in motion the decline of the middle class while the rich got far, far richer that are still harming both nations to this day.

Tonight, I heard a statistic that the wealthiest 1% of Americans owned 8% of the wealth in 1980; today, it's 23%. That's a secret revolution by the rich taking over the country.

You don't see that statistic mentioned on any 'network' 'news' shows - much less shouted daily as a call for revolt as it should be.

Friedman was 'for' freedom the way the USSR was 'for' prosperity for all - it said so right in their documents, it was what they liked to talk about, but it didn't work out that way.

Like any serious demagogue, he had a good pitch, which masked the real effects of his policies. No one who does great harm stands up and preaches the harm directly.

Friednam was like a well-meaning but closed-minded doctor who INSISTS that a treatment killiing his patients just needs to be used more widely - but his patients were nations.

He was a talented person - also common among serious demagogues and making him all the more dangerous. People who say idiotic things tend not to get to do much damage.

Much evil rides piggyback on a good cause - his touting of 'freedom' was effective propaganda for getting support for harmful economics.

It's not that he didn't have some valid points on things - good propaganda and good demagoguery has truth in it.
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
Originally posted by: daishi5
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Paul Krugman has some of the shiftiest, airiest economic logic I've ever encountered. Nobody I know in the school of economics takes him seriously.
By extension, I have trouble taking anyone seriously who takes him seriously.

Well, normally I'd say that you say the Nobel committee for awarding the prize in economics are idiots in that case, but with today's news, you might agree.

There are plenty of idiots and amoral people in economics who are forces for evil in some cases - Milton Friedman's 'school' of economics is widely popular.

You must get along well with your contacts in the field. Luckily, many are or were better than that, like the ones in my sig, or Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith, Keynes...

Oh yes, Milton Friedman was a force for evil, with his beliefs that people should have freedom, and that free people make good decisions. Have you ever honestly listened to him, or read any of his books? I can understand a difference of opinion of the benefits of his policies, but EVIL??? How in the world is a belief that no man should be considered less intelligent and less capable than any other man evil? You do realize that is what his advocated policies were based on. He believed that if everyone was free to make his own decisions, they would all make good decisions, and no one would be able to take advantage of another person because they would never make a decision that was not good for them. I will grant that it is naive, and that the world is not perfect like that, but how you can take something that is so optimistic about his fellow human beings and consider it evil just amazes me. And his "followers," yeah they screwed up a lot of countries, but they didn't go in there to rape and pillage the land, they thought they were going to build some form of capitalist utopia, and reality slapped it down, still misguided but not evil.

There have been a lot of evil men who rose to power who promised that they were going to "stop the exploitation of the rich," or bring true equality to the people. I think those men were a little bit more evil. Those men sent people to true death camps, and knowingly killed millions. I don't know when you went off the deep end but you used to have some form of head on your shoulders, but recently I am seeing less and less of that.

Maybe you know something I don't, can you give me 5 examples of evil men in economics that follow Milton Friedman's school?

So, why do you have a speed limit on the road?
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Draftee
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Draftee
But shouldn't we buy stuff from businesses who pay workers poorly, rape and pillage the land and its resources so we can save a few dollars to buy more stuff? I thought that was how capitalism works, capitalise on the misfortune of others.

Actually, that's not 'part of capitalism' (though I assume you were being facetious), any more than cheating is 'part' of marriage. it may exist, but it's not required.

There's a perveerted understanding of capitalism based on the bad problems that often happen, and things that should be part of the system are often overlooked.

Those things include the consumer weighing the political and moral issues in spending.

The thing is, democracy is no better than its citizens, and when the citizens themselves are corrupted into compacency by slick marketing to not care about those issues, in a mutually satisfying arrangemement that's profitable for the businesses and comfortable for the consumer ('ignorance is bliess'), things don't work too well. Sweat shops overseas become invisible, for example. Pollution is invisible. When big business owns the media that might make those things visible - well, you can imagine what happens to the 'news'.

Suddenly, basic facts of important issues are relegated to 'crazy liberal' magazines and books, safely hidden away from the majority of voters.

The one clear growth product in this is cynicism as voters feel nothing can be done to fix what's broken, and give up their power as citizens.

Over a century ago when 'big business' threatened the livelihood of the agragrian society, thousands of farmers would drive their wagons to grass-roots meetings to fight it, hundreds of thousands subscribed to magazines informing them of the economic issues going on, and they developed a political movement. Today, with our far higher technology and information availability, people are not doing much.

It's because capitalism doesn't take into account these social factors that we have such problems. Big business has a big voice in being able to quash ideas about what would be good for our society, all in the name of profit.

This isn't a Milton Friedman thread and too much detail on him would derail it, but I've often recommended Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' for a sampling of an alternative history of Friedman with some very important information. You have really been served a big glass of kool-aid with your summary of his being about 'freedom'. His *actual* policies greatly impoverished the masse and directly led to the need for state thuggery against the people to keep down the rebellions that resulted.

I could pick any five of his many disciples to answer yuour question, but it's pointless - he had hundreds of economists at least to pick from, for example, his school took over the field of economics in Chile leading up to Pinochet, which is why Friedman was directly involvd in advising Pinochet and virtually had the nation as a laboratory for his theories, something few economists get - with disastrous results for the people.

Two other notable followers of his were Reagan and Thatcher - who also had largely disastrous results (though not leading to anything like the state thuggery in other nations).

But their policies set in motion the decline of the middle class while the rich got far, far richer that are still harming both nations to this day.

Tonight, I heard a statistic that the wealthiest 1% of Americans owned 8% of the wealth in 1980; today, it's 23%. That's a secret revolution by the rich taking over the country.

You don't see that statistic mentioned on any 'network' 'news' shows - much less shouted daily as a call for revolt as it should be.

Friedman was 'for' freedom the way the USSR was 'for' prosperity for all - it said so right in their documents, it was what they liked to talk about, but it didn't work out that way.

Like any serious demagogue, he had a good pitch, which masked the real effects of his policies. No one who does great harm stands up and preaches the harm directly.

Friednam was like a well-meaning but closed-minded doctor who INSISTS that a treatment killiing his patients just needs to be used more widely - but his patients were nations.

He was a talented person - also common among serious demagogues and making him all the more dangerous. People who say idiotic things tend not to get to do much damage.

Much evil rides piggyback on a good cause - his touting of 'freedom' was effective propaganda for getting support for harmful economics.

It's not that he didn't have some valid points on things - good propaganda and good demagoguery has truth in it.

The man's a Zionist, and probably will retire in Bombay, India.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
I think most boycotts tend to be somewhat ineffective , but lets see how I do on the Craiglist:)




Originally posted by: Craig234
As American citizens, we have more power than many others over our government and therefore our society.

But what are those powers? They're largely squandered, but they're largely the vote, contacting elected officials, and... how we spend our money.

That last is not enough understood enough as a core political act. A boycott seems to many like some radical political act, when instead every purchase we make has political impact.

Do y9ou bank with one of the 'too big to fail' banks and fund their dominance over our political system, ensuring their ability to get bailed out with tax dollars, or do you bank locally and support competitiveness in the industry?
<Locally
Do you buy food that supports big corporate food production, the overuse of chemicals, abusive business practices that hurt smaller farmers, or do you buy organic, buy smaller producers?
<Organic food is too expensive, but I am not above visiting the farmers market.
Do you support the richest family in America, the Walton family, or do you support your neighbors' small businesses?
<both

If you buy Campbell's soup, you are funding the Campbell children's political battle to eliminate the esate tax - and make the rich (them) richer.
Too much salt and msg in Campbells, I buy Progresso does that make me progressive?
If you buy Domino's pizza, you are supporting a right-wing group who funds or owns a number of right-wing affiliated businesses, including at times ones funding political leaders.
<Thats not a very good argument to dissuade me however my son has a non franchise pizza buisness, and I supported him for years. Good Pizza too!
If you buy Comcast, you are supporting their political acts like hiring people to use up all the seats at a regulatory meeitng for public input, and their 'net neutrality' poliies.
I can't get comcast my only choice is sattelite.
Business does a lot of things that affect society, and you have little say. You can get the government to regulate it, but that's pretty limited, and the businesses - who have gone from a few hundred lobbyists when Reagan took office to 35,000 today - tend to have a lot more say. But you have an additional influence - where you spend your money, that most people pay no attention to. Spending, with communication to the businesses why, is one of only two real political acts you have IMO - and you only vote every couple years, with very little specific issue impact, normally just picking between two candidates with all their policies take it or leave it.

IMO, especially to counter the increasing domination of our system by business, we can use more 'citizen activism' on spending - whether just people including the politics in their spending choices, or more organized movements to pressure for change. There is nothing wrong with people including the political effects of their spending in choosing, and instead it's important they do so, if they don't want to hand over the power to the 'special interests'.

There are businesses who offer alternatives - for example, there's a phone company called 'Working Assets' (or 'Credo' that offers services with 'social responsibility'; they include a free call a day to the White House, they donate some proceeds to charities the customers vote on, they include 'action alerts' you can help on.

Big business won't tell you how your own money funds battles against your interests by your spending with the wrong companies. It's up to citizens to pay attention, be 'vigilant'.

Whatever your views, consider the political effects of your voting with dollars every day. Spend a little more when the benefits - personal, moral, societal - justiy it.

The dollar you spend without political consideration is funneled into political lobbying by those you give it to. You get a say - before you spend.

 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: gingermeggs
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Draftee
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Draftee
But shouldn't we buy stuff from businesses who pay workers poorly, rape and pillage the land and its resources so we can save a few dollars to buy more stuff? I thought that was how capitalism works, capitalise on the misfortune of others.

Actually, that's not 'part of capitalism' (though I assume you were being facetious), any more than cheating is 'part' of marriage. it may exist, but it's not required.

There's a perveerted understanding of capitalism based on the bad problems that often happen, and things that should be part of the system are often overlooked.

Those things include the consumer weighing the political and moral issues in spending.

The thing is, democracy is no better than its citizens, and when the citizens themselves are corrupted into compacency by slick marketing to not care about those issues, in a mutually satisfying arrangemement that's profitable for the businesses and comfortable for the consumer ('ignorance is bliess'), things don't work too well. Sweat shops overseas become invisible, for example. Pollution is invisible. When big business owns the media that might make those things visible - well, you can imagine what happens to the 'news'.

Suddenly, basic facts of important issues are relegated to 'crazy liberal' magazines and books, safely hidden away from the majority of voters.

The one clear growth product in this is cynicism as voters feel nothing can be done to fix what's broken, and give up their power as citizens.

Over a century ago when 'big business' threatened the livelihood of the agragrian society, thousands of farmers would drive their wagons to grass-roots meetings to fight it, hundreds of thousands subscribed to magazines informing them of the economic issues going on, and they developed a political movement. Today, with our far higher technology and information availability, people are not doing much.

It's because capitalism doesn't take into account these social factors that we have such problems. Big business has a big voice in being able to quash ideas about what would be good for our society, all in the name of profit.

This isn't a Milton Friedman thread and too much detail on him would derail it, but I've often recommended Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' for a sampling of an alternative history of Friedman with some very important information. You have really been served a big glass of kool-aid with your summary of his being about 'freedom'. His *actual* policies greatly impoverished the masse and directly led to the need for state thuggery against the people to keep down the rebellions that resulted.

I could pick any five of his many disciples to answer yuour question, but it's pointless - he had hundreds of economists at least to pick from, for example, his school took over the field of economics in Chile leading up to Pinochet, which is why Friedman was directly involvd in advising Pinochet and virtually had the nation as a laboratory for his theories, something few economists get - with disastrous results for the people.

Two other notable followers of his were Reagan and Thatcher - who also had largely disastrous results (though not leading to anything like the state thuggery in other nations).

But their policies set in motion the decline of the middle class while the rich got far, far richer that are still harming both nations to this day.

Tonight, I heard a statistic that the wealthiest 1% of Americans owned 8% of the wealth in 1980; today, it's 23%. That's a secret revolution by the rich taking over the country.

You don't see that statistic mentioned on any 'network' 'news' shows - much less shouted daily as a call for revolt as it should be.

Friedman was 'for' freedom the way the USSR was 'for' prosperity for all - it said so right in their documents, it was what they liked to talk about, but it didn't work out that way.

Like any serious demagogue, he had a good pitch, which masked the real effects of his policies. No one who does great harm stands up and preaches the harm directly.

Friednam was like a well-meaning but closed-minded doctor who INSISTS that a treatment killiing his patients just needs to be used more widely - but his patients were nations.

He was a talented person - also common among serious demagogues and making him all the more dangerous. People who say idiotic things tend not to get to do much damage.

Much evil rides piggyback on a good cause - his touting of 'freedom' was effective propaganda for getting support for harmful economics.

It's not that he didn't have some valid points on things - good propaganda and good demagoguery has truth in it.

The man's a Zionist, and probably will retire in Bombay, India.

OMG... I have been quoted:eek: (gingermeggs)
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
If I don't want to support Campbells I don't give them my money. If I don't give government my money I go to jail. I'd like the same option for them as well as business.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
If I don't want to support Campbells I don't give them my money. If I don't give government my money I go to jail. I'd like the same option for them as well as business.

You do an excellent job of showing the depths of idiocy the right often has. Putting aside the fallacious analogy between consumerism and democracy, you really can't get the disaster that would come to society when effectively there is no government, no democracy, and the society has nothing to prevent power from concentrating in private, armed, hands, a return to the model of serfdom where everyone is either a slave producing for the elite or a soldier serving to protect them from the rest of the people.

Where is the rationality - you want to let people choose whether to pay taxes, then almost no one pays much taxes, and the ability of society to vote for any spending is gone, and the government can't do much at all, as society falls into chao. You are like a six year old in the level of commentary, like a spoiled child whining. There are all kinds of solid arguments for less spending and lower taxes, and you are not making those.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
If I don't want to support Campbells I don't give them my money. If I don't give government my money I go to jail. I'd like the same option for them as well as business.

You do an excellent job of showing the depths of idiocy the right often has. Putting aside the fallacious analogy between consumerism and democracy, you really can't get the disaster that would come to society when effectively there is no government, no democracy, and the society has nothing to prevent power from concentrating in private, armed, hands, a return to the model of serfdom where everyone is either a slave producing for the elite or a soldier serving to protect them from the rest of the people.

Where is the rationality - you want to let people choose whether to pay taxes, then almost no one pays much taxes, and the ability of society to vote for any spending is gone, and the government can't do much at all, as society falls into chao. You are like a six year old in the level of commentary, like a spoiled child whining. There are all kinds of solid arguments for less spending and lower taxes, and you are not making those.

Well, people ought to have some input where their money goes. Perhaps not all of it, but then again that would give them some control, and you certainly don't want that.

It's interesting that you resort to personal attacks on a regular basis these days. Not only that, but those whom you disagree with are demeaned as children.

You say many words, being a mile wide and an inch deep. I seem to threaten you, or at least you act as if I do. I'm amused, seriously. Please continue.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
If I don't want to support Campbells I don't give them my money. If I don't give government my money I go to jail. I'd like the same option for them as well as business.

You do an excellent job of showing the depths of idiocy the right often has. Putting aside the fallacious analogy between consumerism and democracy, you really can't get the disaster that would come to society when effectively there is no government, no democracy, and the society has nothing to prevent power from concentrating in private, armed, hands, a return to the model of serfdom where everyone is either a slave producing for the elite or a soldier serving to protect them from the rest of the people.

Where is the rationality - you want to let people choose whether to pay taxes, then almost no one pays much taxes, and the ability of society to vote for any spending is gone, and the government can't do much at all, as society falls into chao. You are like a six year old in the level of commentary, like a spoiled child whining. There are all kinds of solid arguments for less spending and lower taxes, and you are not making those.

Well, people ought to have some input where their money goes. Perhaps not all of it, but then again that would give them some control, and you certainly don't want that.

It's interesting that you resort to personal attacks on a regular basis these days. Not only that, but those whom you disagree with are demeaned as children.

You say many words, being a mile wide and an inch deep. I seem to threaten you, or at least you act as if I do. I'm amused, seriously. Please continue.

I don't use personal attacks gratuitously. I use them very carefully only when the situation compels saying something about the terrible level of commentary.

In other words, a very polite complimentary comment to some statements is not very honest.

For example, in a chat last night, a person claimed that the Republicans have been fighting to pass universal healthcare for decades, but have always been blocked by Democrats.

First, I simply pointed out how that was wrong,and when they persisted, showing no interest in the truth, I made a stronger statement that they were lying or ignorant.

I very much dislike when the discussion hits a work like 'idiot', but find that's the accurate response in some unfortunate cases, like your post.

I find it more repugnant to misrepresent your comments as some sort of respctable 'other opinion' as if they had merit.

Do you 'respectfully' respond to the holocaust deniers, saying that that's just their opinion, perfecly legitimate? There are 'legitimate' disagreements, and there are illegitimate ones.

Sorry, but that's the conclusion I've reluctantly reached on how to deal with the idiocy that threatens our democracy based on the idea of a rational, informed populace.

Call a spade a spade, and call idiocy idiocy. I'll try to err on the conservative side, give the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not going to say making taxes voluntary is not idiocy.

If you can't deal with that, you might not want to read my posts. But if you can, and I hope it doesn't come up, you took a step away from idiocy in this post, when you backed of of voluntary and instead said you want 'some say' in how taxes are spent. Unfortunately, you have more steps to take, and you may have only aged from 6 to 7 with that, because it fails to mention any of the obvious and core ideas in democracy about the extent to which people have the say you want them to have, through elections.

Now, elections are far from perfect. But people are partly to blame themselves for the huge degree to which monied campaigns work to mislead them. Information is available.

But the bottom line is that democracy does provide some degree of 'say' for people in how the money is spent - somewhere, some group of 50%+ of people voted for those who are deciding how the money is spent, which does have a big effect - even if the situation is still very corrupted, and it is.

But at some point you face the dysfunctional situation where too much consent is required, and you get a 'tyranny of the minority' who can block everything - at some point to have a functional system, you say some percent - perhaps 50% - are allowed to make the decision for all who have to follow it, and while that's not an anarchist's utopia, it is a lot better than a dictatorship.

You wan 'some say', and you get 'some say'. If you want more say, you really need to stop posting such simplistic things, and post something senseible and make a case why whatever you suggest is an improvement, and not simply going to lead to the dysfunction of anarchy.

By the way, your snide straw man attempt at an insult about my not wanting that for people reflects badly on you, and does not do much to disprove my criticism.

I just read the last part of your post, and you sink to new lows, it's pretty disgusting.

You think you pose any threat? The delusion is strong. If you're amused, don't read my posts and don't say anything to them, as you are wasting my time. You're pathetic, then.

Your comments are off base - but yours are an inchi wide and an inch deep. Step up your game. You don't seem to understand you are being given a finite chance to do so.

I don't go around my neighborhood picking up other families' dogs poop, and I don't waste my time correcting the poop from bad posters too many times.

If you don't want to see the word idiocy again - and I don't - the answer is to not post idiocy. But don't worry, if you continue, I will not waste my time on you.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,526
9,748
136
I would suggest that taxation and spending does not have to occur at the centralized planning level. It could be diversified and localized to give individual localities an actual authority and power over the direction of their lives, as opposed to the well established elite ruling class in Washington.