|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Sep 24, 2009 8:29 am |
|
re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Reforming the banking system? |
James Booth
| |
.
"I am failing to grasp your point."
True - could be my fault.
"What is the problem with making a profit?"
None that I am aware of, as long as it is reasonable.
If "insurance industry" (industry?) executives are upgrading to the latest yachts while many of the rest of us are losing our personal transportation to repo men, or leaving our homes for lack of any way to pay mortgage, is such "profit" reasonable ?
I am open to arguments on that "account."
"How is it at the expense of the "rest of us"?"
An example might be:
If an oil company goes into an African country today and uses early Twentieth Century technology to "hold down costs" thus unnecessarily poisoning the local water supply, it could be said that corporation is acting in "the best interests of its shareholders" but I think it extremely unlikely to support an argument that company is acting in the best interests of humanity.
Such examples are not hard to find, and do not measure up to "zero sum game" but clearly define a loss - not to the company (short term), but to us; in other words, at the current rate of "consumption" (last I heard equal to 1.2 planets the size of Earth) there will come a day when corporations remain but there is no one left to purchase what they offer, and where, pray tell, is the *profit* in that (long term loss to company)?
What I find curious in this line is the notion, at least apparent to me, which seems based in the essence of "Gospel of St. Hannity" which poses every "issue" as strictly polar - that is, "either this or that" - completely foreign to anything natural which always shows "shades of gray" or the slippage of colours in a rainbow, etc.
Such thinking is precisely what has Americans divided against themselves, unable to do anything effective about their own futures, with the possible exception of procreation, and even that seems at risk.
Opinions are not ever divided cleanly into "camps" but are always displayed as a sort of "mish-mash" as one individual is viewed next to another, carrying the flotsam and jetsam of his own experience and interpretations - no matter what the "talking heads" would have us believe, and they do not talk (more often yell and scream lately) just because they believe what they say.
They talk because they are wannabe "social engineers" who desperately want you and me to believe what they say, and the more we do believe, the better they are paid, and the more dire our predicament.
Levin, et al., may use a "meltdown-of-the-day" routine to convince us the world as we have known it is coming to an end, but is it, or does such bellowing better line his / their pockets
... he said, listening to the man slide from "critical issue" into on-air commercial as though both were on the same level of importance, indistinguishable one from the other.
He likely thinks no one notices, 'cause he is so cute ...
"... worry about big government before worrying about corporations"
No, I refuse to waste my time worrying.
I favour abolishing government entirely
- have for quite a while and do not see changing my mind any time soon.
JB
Private Reply to James Booth (new win) |
|
| |
|
