- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 15,458
- Reaction score
- 768
But obama was so charming and well spoken!
Careful. The Left would view that as racist talk.
But obama was so charming and well spoken!
Careful. The Left would view that as racist talk.
I don't know why this is hard. It's not a new or controversial statement, and I've explained it multiple times. No need to single out individual businesses, as they're almost all hurt by it.
I noted that you have no basis for your belief that businesses are driving our foreign-policy agenda. Saying that some businesses benefit from conflicts isn't a response to that. It's not playing dumb to note a gaping hole in your chain of reasoning.
There isn't much to say to this other than that it reflects a rather severe misunderstanding of how the media business works as well as a naive view of human nature. "Hey John, this is your producer. I just got a call from a shareholder saying that you should be pro-war." "Oh, OK, I'll make some changes to my last story." "Cool. I know this goes without saying, but I have to tell everyone this: make sure you never tell anyone about this talk." "Of course."
You should do that search. GE has Power, Renewable Energy, Oil & Gas, Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The impact of bombing in Syria or something on their total business is barely measurable. And it's a public company.
I think if you actually made an attempt to think through your conspiracy theory, you'd see how utterly insane it is.
So is your view that politicians uniformly have some kind of strict code of honor that is only directed toward those who financially helped them in their last election? "I know this is unpopular and will hurt my career, and I know it's morally wrong, but I'm honor-bound to be pro-war because it could slightly boost the revenue of the business of someone who donated to a Super PAC to help me when my last election. It's the politician's code."
What does this even mean?
Er, no one serious supports a complete reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, but Clinton was advocating for tighter financial regs and higher capital-gains taxes. That clearly goes against your goofy theory, doesn't it?
They aren't good examples of your point.
Odd interpretation. Candidates who are more likely to win tend to do better at fundraising. There's little evidence that campaign spending has much of an impact on outcomes, particularly in big races.
Again, this is a very simplistic view of foreign policy. You think McCain just liked war because he thought it was fun? It's reasonable to criticize his approach to FP, including on the grounds that it led to more conflict, but you sound like a teen-ager when you say that he "never met a war he didn't like."
They feel it indirectly, and they're very much aware of it.
You're confused if you see a contradiction. It's true that military conflict is generally bad for business, but it's also true that if the conflict isn't with a major trading partner, it's going to be hard to identify particular businesses that are disproportionately affected.
I think it's bad. Didn't say it wasn't bad. It isn't a major driver of incarceration rates, though.
It's certainly clear what you're claiming. It's just not supported by the evidence, and if you think through the logic, it doesn't make sense.
So ... your theory is that the banking industry wanted a bunch of failures and a huge hit to their businesses because 10 years later, some of the survivors have recovered from the hit?
We outspend the next 15 countries in military spending, and no, we're not spending all that money in R&D, nor would we need anywhere near that for R&D. The military's recent budget increase - just the increase - is more than Russia's military budget for an entire year.Because the Russians and the Chinese are constantly upgrading their tech and have even surpassed us in recent memory (hypersonic cruise missles for example, drone swarms, etc).
So unless you want the Chinese and/or Russians taking over the world then you have to keep up.
Okay, so money plays no influence on interests, got it. Intellectual honesty at its finest. And no, that's not the only influence on foreign policy, but yes, it plays a role.
And yes, I know that about Hillary. But she's still taking money from people in the same industry that she wants to regulate. If you don't see the potential for problems there, as I'm sure you don't, I don't know what to tell you.
I never said that about McCain, you're reaching. It was simply a commentary on how awful his stance of foreign policy he was, and how much of a monster. I don't know what sounds teenage about that (and yeah Mr. Intellectual, teenager is not hyphenated). He was a hawk.
You keep saying war hurts business but refuse to give a single example - not one.
Hell, I even partially did your job for you gave you an example of how it's bad for the country. You then call the wars I'm referring to "small scale conflicts" (that's what I'm inferring given the context and you didn't correct me, and it's also quite clear what wars/"small scale conflicts"/whatevers I'm referring to) and say they don't effect businesses much.
No, you're reading too far into it. I just think it was a funny example given the convo and also relevant given that that industry is still playing the same games it was when it wrecked the economy, but this time some of the banks are actually more prosperous than before, and not a single person was thrown in jail. That's all. Extrapolate what you will.
When Obama was in I was told this was a good thing.
Because the Russians and the Chinese are constantly upgrading their tech and have even surpassed us in recent memory (hypersonic cruise missles for example, drone swarms, etc).
So unless you want the Chinese and/or Russians taking over the world then you have to keep up.
Interesting definition of "intellectual honesty," you have. Not only is it not possible that you're wrong; it's not even possible that anyone else truly *thinks* you're wrong
If there were any legitimate argument, I believe you would make it. Instead you're just kind of vaguely insinuating something and saying that it's somehow beyond anyone who doesn't already lean your way. Is your view that she should say, "if you work in finance, I refuse to accept campaign donations from you, and I will illegally instruct Super PACs to likewise refuse your contributions."?
You didn't say, "McCain for example never met a war he didn't like"? Also, the NY Times stylebook changed in 1999 to remove the hyphen from "teenage", and the AP changed it after that, I believe. The New Yorker still uses the hyphen. It's a matter of choice, basically. I prefer the hyphen. YMMV.
Yeah, it hurts pretty much all businesses. Asking for an example just shows you don't understand the argument, doesn't it?
No, you made this mistake earlier, and I already corrected you.
So the point stands. Your view is exactly as silly as thinking that we had a recession because discount stores were lobbying for one.
Higher short-term deficits are recommended while we're recovering from a recession with interest rates as low as they can go. No benefit to long-term debt (and Obama did more to reduce long-term debt than any president in the past century) or to high deficits with a strong economy. And despite that, the GOP was promoting a debt hysteria (not saying it was a good thing) during Obama's presidency. Suddenly, on Jan. 20 2017, they not only got over the hysteria, they actively moved to drastically increase long-term debt and raise deficits, and the only response from their followers is "but Obama." Shows that they were full of shit the whole time, IMO.
Jack, even if you think war is bad for business overall, whatever if any role money plays in politics, it is a fact that there are large corporations that profit from war. It's also a fact that some donate money to politicians. It's also a fact that there's politicians that have left positions with those companies, became politicians, then passed legislation that benefited their former employers. If you really think all this money changing hands has no influence, then okay.
Serious reply though, why the fuck do we need 700+ billion in military spending during peace time?
Ah, interesting take. My question to Jack wasn't simply a challenge, I was also genuinely curious and your post has more substance than any of his responses.This should be a non-controversial statement. The big military contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrupp Grumman all make substantial profits from developing and selling military tech, equipment, and weapons to the U.S. government. In general though, I agree with JVS that war is bad for business. That's why the prevailing ideology of world elites involves making large-scale wars impossible through the strengthening of the UN and other NGO's. It's all about making the world safe for the proliferation of business.
Serious reply though, why the fuck do we need 700+ billion in military spending during peace time?
Jack, even if you think war is bad for business overall, whatever if any role money plays in politics, it is a fact that there are large corporations that profit from war. It's also a fact that some donate money to politicians.
Why would I be asking for an example if I knew of how it effected business overall?
Also, so we're on the same page, what do you mean by war? Vietnam, WWII? You then mentioned "low level conflicts", and said it doesn't hurt business when we're not engaged in those with countries that aren't/weren't major trading partners. It seems to me the present conflicts we're involved in would fall under that category.
Ah, interesting take. My question to Jack wasn't simply a challenge, I was also genuinely curious and your post has more substance than any of his responses.
One thing I'm curious about: Are the wars (mainly referring to the bombing occupation of multiple countries) the US is involved in now small scale enough that they're not hurting business stateside? Is it more large scale warfare that you're referring to, ala Vietnam, WWII, Korea, etc? That's what I'm trying to grasp. At my present level of knowledge I don't understand how that's hurting business here, aside from the fact that all that military spending would be better used elsewhere.
While I don't buy his or hers entirely. He can't do anything without support from Congress and vice versa. I though have yet to hear of a Republican in Congress express concern over the tax cuts promoted by Trump. It is sickening that tax cuts are used as proxy bribes to get votes. Bush 1 basically lost to Clinton because he promised "read my lips. no new taxes" and then went ahead and did it.
When Clinton balanced the budget, as much credit as I want to give him for that, it was a bipartisan effort. Maybe, the last time the GOP pushed on balancing the budget and it wasn't a political bullshit.
1)Silly, and no.Sure. As I said, discount stores benefit from recessions. Discount stores also make political contributions. Your comment is exactly as silly as saying that politicians deliberately cause recessions because of discount store donations.
Because you don't understand the point that it affects business negatively overall.
Lots of things can be meant by "war." When I used "low-level conflicts" it was to distinguish from things like WWII (which was certainly very good for business because of the huge ramp in gov't spending at a time when that was desperately needed but politically impossible).
"Nuh-uh." -Jack V SavageIn the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight D. Eisenhower