Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Biden Revives Republican Party

Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by chemgator, Jan 14, 2021.

  1. SeabudGator

    SeabudGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,038
    1,118
    528
    Apr 23, 2014
    Great book that I recommended on here after the Floyd killing. I used to think people who didn't believe in the existence of systemic racism were largely just ignorant of the experience. With all the data and people providing repeated experiences, the only explanation now is willful ignorance.
     
  2. SeabudGator

    SeabudGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,038
    1,118
    528
    Apr 23, 2014
    I thought you might refer to Sowell. A black guy, admittedly bright, who rails against a "living constitution." Presumably thus believing that we should stick with the constitution as the framers intended - meaning he would have no right to vote and count as 3/5 of a person just so southern states could use him in a census (and its people could kill him as property). Yeah, not persuasive.

    Or who just a few days ago posted this on twitter: "What "multiculturalism" boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture—and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture." What reductive, dismissive nonsense.

    Sowell basically preaches the "invisible hand" of the market which has been largely dismissed as the right wing's version of communism as a method of economic governance. The invisible hand ignores many important factors including the wealthy buying political influence and the utter absurdity of "enlightened self interest." The self interest part is easy, the enlightened not so much. Argue that Zuckerberg has enlightened self interest... I'll wait. Capitalism is the greatest economic system in the world. It is NOT a model for government anymore than communism is. The government cannot abdicate its responsibility to the general welfare of the people. The two must be balanced and right now they are not as evidenced by the absurd wealth inequality I previously posted about and crony capitalism we suffer with.
     
  3. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    4,782
    776
    428
    Dec 6, 2015
    A fundamental philosophical difference between you and me is the view of income inequality as an inherent problem.

    I don't view income inequality as a problem in general, I view low quality of life as a problem. Many Communist countries have low income inequality but poor quality of life. The United States has more income inequality than a lot of these countries, but a much higher quality of life, even for the average poor person.

    I don't view this vast wealth disparity as evidence of unfairness, it's just sort of one of the inevitable outcomes of predominant free market capitalism. Once wealth is obtained, managing that wealth to build more wealth if you know what you're doing is far easier than building that wealth in the first place. And that's okay. Warren Buffett didn't steal anybody's money to get to where he is, today. Neither did Bill Gates, neither did Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, the list goes on. They just found a way to secure more voluntary transactions than about 99% of people on planet Earth. That's how they got their money.

    Instead of people demanding their money because they're struggling, I think people should try to be like them. Folks like Bezos and Zuckerberg and Musk should be role models for people who are young, not the punchline of some philosophy based on envy that they need to equally distribute a greater portion of their money among the masses, just because they have so much more than everybody else.
     
  4. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    4,782
    776
    428
    Dec 6, 2015
    Then there was the 13th and 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, and all sorts of progress made since our founding within the framework of the Constitution.

    I seriously don't understand arguments like the one you just made.

    If you don't think we should stick to the Constitution as the framers intended, why not start from scratch with an entirely new form of government? Why does anything in the Constitution matter if apparently the 3/5ths compromise renders everything else in there fruit of the poisonous tree?

    Again, see my previous post regarding our fundamental philosophical differences in how we view income inequality.

    EDIT: Another interesting philosophical difference between you and me is how we view the role of government in our lives. If I had to guess, you want government to play a hand in and attempt to solve more of the world's problems than me. I generally think government, despite often-times well-intentioned, does more harm than good. I think government should try to stay out of other people's business and just stick to their core fundamental duties, preserving the rights of the people they govern. I know, I know, "income inequality," "wealth gaps," "capitalism run amok."

    At the end of the day, I'd rather be at the mercy of corporations who make their living on making me happy, than at the mercy of the government who makes their living on putting guns to people's heads if they don't do as they say.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2021
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  5. PD

    PD GC Columnist VIP Member

    39,817
    6,411
    2,458
    Apr 3, 2007
    Yeah, none of that is accurate. I’m not here to argue common knowledge with brick walls.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. demosthenes

    demosthenes Premium Member

    9,349
    1,262
    1,733
    Apr 3, 2007
    You honestly think government does more harm than good? Hopefully this is hyperbole as history is replete with examples and data to support the benefits government provides, especially one like ours.

    As for trusting corporations more than the government, do you think Ford made its design decisions on the Pinto based on making “you” happy or on profit? Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Pharma Bro’s companies or were they more interested in preying on captive audiences? The numerous companies caught concealing dumping toxic chemicals resulting in cancers and birth defects? VW blatantly lying about pollution? Enron? Etc. etc. etc.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. intimigator1

    intimigator1 GC Hall of Fame

    5,633
    747
    393
    Apr 8, 2007
    Male' Maldives
    I think the Republicans aren't very bright and maybe it is because of the Trump brain drain. You see, if they really ever want to become relevant, of which I suggest what ideas do they go on, that they should learn to become moderate. Never thought of Republicans being Gaetz like so why do they play into that. The more fools they allow to speak then the more fools that Democrats see and the more they all focus on not letting the guard down. Trump truly has created a fear of Republicans and their spirit of being silent and this is going to be the downfall.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  8. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    7,581
    868
    1,358
    Apr 16, 2007
    He apparently doesn’t realize most of the problems in OUR government, are actually caused by corporate lobbying. This is blatantly obvious when it comes to food, health, and environmental regs. Never-mind the paid saboteurs that currently inhabit the Republican Party, no need to lobby if you literally CONTROL govt, which is basically what happened in the last two R admins. Trump, for all his “drain the swamp” nonsense, bent over to the will of corporate lobbyists even more than W. It was like a fevered dream state for polluters and crooks.

    Trust the corporations. LMAO.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  9. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    4,782
    776
    428
    Dec 6, 2015
    As well as the horrors that it brings. All of the worst global terrors that comes to mind in the last 200 years at least come at the abuse of government. Every single one.

    How do corporations profit, dude? :rolleyes: Am I forced to buy a Ford over every other car regardless of what price they put on it? Or, do they have to make sure they produce high quality cars, cars that I like, at a competitive price just to stay in business? :rolleyes:

    You brought up some examples where government perhaps should make an exception, but that's not the rule. Again, government should generally get out of the way of business and small business for an economy to prosper, and they should get out of the way of people only making exceptions when necessary to preserve the rights of people. That is how you have a country that values freedom.
     
  10. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    4,782
    776
    428
    Dec 6, 2015
    You're also acting like environmental-consciousness is not a huge priority in the corporate world in 2021. :rolleyes:

    A culture and a people who holds corporations accountable for foul play, which often-times they can through the Torts system in the cases mentioned by @demosthenes ... Government and regulations are sometimes necessary to bridge that gap when corporations are going crazy with things that are just making the country a lot worse, such as dumping toxic chemicals, creating a bunch of drug addicts, polluting water supply, etc. But again, government should be far from plan A... it's more of a last resort, not a first response... and that's the difference between you guys and me.
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  11. SeabudGator

    SeabudGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,038
    1,118
    528
    Apr 23, 2014
    Somewhere between literal, slavish adherence to ancient codas and rewriting the constitution daily (as you absurdly suggest) lies the real world. If you have studied law you understand res judicata and the deference given to prior adjudications of a competent court (or the constitution). You also understand that if this were the end of it, Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" would still be the law of the land.

    Reductio ad absurdem is totally inappropriate when the absurdity has been foreclosed as in this case with actual constraints.

    Yeah, trust big corporations, right? I mean we all know they would never:

    - Fire somebody who was mentally, physically ill (or had a family member who was ill),
    - Risk employee health/safety for increased profits,
    - Hide money offshore (especially now legally with the IP loopholes) and cook the books to dupe shareholders, avoid taxes, and juice quarterly profits to benefit shorter term shareholders (management) at the expense of employees and the business long term.
    - Poison kids/the environment to make more money (read "Strangers in their own land" about 'cancer alley' in Louisiana).
    - Utilize company resources for private benefit (Cannot tell you the number of times I have seen CEOs use the company jet to go to Europe or the Masters and personally pay the cost of a first class airline ticket while the shareholders eat the huge cost of the flight. And no, these were NOT business trips).

    And of course if an employee is laid off then the employer always helps them with food, housing, and retraining so they can find another job. Saw a vet with PTSD from Iraq who was let go and is now homeless and of course the company helped him..... NOT.

    The saving grace, of course, is that we all get to chose corporate boards in regularly scheduled elections! All of us stockholders are well aware of the position of board members at companies whose stock we hold, and vote on their admission/retention, unlike governmental bodies where we have no say in the election of representatives.

    Companies today in America generally have one objective: maximize profit. They used to consider employees as resources they cared for. Now they are largely fungible goods.

    About 50 years ago labor was much more powerful, likely too powerful. They brought about corporations being responsible for employees: health care, pensions, commitment to no layoffs, etc. That has completely shifted and the average person has suffered. While you are right that government programs are often inefficient, companies have abandoned the average American and government has tried to pick up the slack. Either corporations or the government needs to do this and companies are not, without government requiring it. Hence the $15/hour minimum wage and other requirements (though I would be perfectly happy if many of these requirements were not required of small businesses (say, less than $20M of revenue/year to pick a number).

    By the way, I have been incredibly mad at government regulations in my business. The fact that they are stupidly implemented does not mean the government has no role, it means we need to fix their role (including giving optionality to employers to solve these issues). If you really think companies will take care of you, you have not been on many company boards.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  12. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    4,782
    776
    428
    Dec 6, 2015
    My understanding is a court decision overturned a court decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education to Plessy v. Ferguson. Plessy v. Ferguson was a poor interpretation of Constitutional law in the 14th Amendment.

    That is a human problem, not really a Constitutional problem.

    With respect to all of the evils in corporations you mentioned. I agree government has a role. There are exceptions where government needs to step in. I’m not an anarchist.

    but I err on the side of small government when it comes to business which is important in establishing the framework in which we have these conversations. You see where I’m coming from. I see where you’re coming from.

    The horrors of history through government vastly outweigh the horrors of corporations. You agree?
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  13. SeabudGator

    SeabudGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,038
    1,118
    528
    Apr 23, 2014
    Not at all. If you are thinking of wars, most are fought for two reasons: religion or assets (land, resources, etc). While governments wage the wars, they are pushed by corporate interests (ever wonder why we are constantly bogged down in the middle east while wars rage in Africa and we don't give a damn? Oil/Israel).

    More importantly, large corporations and government are really no different - they are made of people who make decisions and have power. Some have a conscious and perform with the interest of various stakeholders in mind, but some do not. The difference is that the US government is designed to limit the reach of government thru balance of powers and elections, though term limits would surely help. As to corporate "leadership", I leave you with this:
    "Corporations typically look for the board members who will make decisions favorable to the company....They do not look for dobermans; they look for cocker spaniels,” Buffett said. “Then they make sure their tails are wagging.”

    I sat in a meeting in East Asia with a US electronics brand beating on the manufacturer to lower prices or else WalMart would take their products off the shelf (Walmart represented 25% of all US retail at the time). The manufacturer showed a picture of nets above the first floor of the factories/worker dormitories they had to install to stop workers from jumping to commit suicide due to meeting walmart low price demands. Walmart knows this but waves the American flag and pushes jobs from America to places with no labor/environmental laws. Trust them? Then you do not know them.

    Small businesses are different and should be treated differently. On that we agree.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  14. demosthenes

    demosthenes Premium Member

    9,349
    1,262
    1,733
    Apr 3, 2007
    Another key difference is that a corporation’s overriding purpose/goal is to earn a profit unlike government (see USPS vs UPS/FedEx). One is intended to serve, even if not the most efficient means while the other bases almost every decision on the bottom line.

    Now, government is misused all the time, much of which originates with corporations or those that own/control them. It doesn’t mean we should just abandon government but work to ensure it operates with minimal corporate influence and is working to serve the people.
     
  15. Agator88

    Agator88 GC Legend

    634
    221
    298
    Oct 7, 2014
    I'm not disagreeing that 7.25 is way too low, but raising minimums to $15 an hour, will just cause decision makers to terminate positions and put more people out of work. If it were a 4-5 year plan to get there that would make more sense, but to double minimum wage will cause some panic moves by business owners. Im not an economist, but this just seems like the federal government trying to get more tax dollars and increase the budget.
     
  16. chemgator

    chemgator GC Hall of Fame

    9,433
    659
    448
    Apr 3, 2007
    California demonstrates how to shed jobs while raising pay:

    2 California supermarkets closing after city orders pay hike

    Two supermarkets in Long Beach closed when the city decided to increase pay for essential workers by $4/hr. The supermarkets were struggling to begin with, and the city's action put all of the employees into the ranks of the unemployed. I'm not sure what the logic was for raising the pay--were the essential workers staying at home to avoid the virus and needed more motivation to come in to work? Or did the city just decide to show their appreciation for them by spending other people's money?

     
  17. njg8tor2

    njg8tor2 All American

    499
    76
    133
    Aug 30, 2020
    The 3/5's a person clause was actually a good one, or at least better than if it didn't exist. It prevented Southern States from fully benefitting from their slave populations.
     
  18. njg8tor2

    njg8tor2 All American

    499
    76
    133
    Aug 30, 2020
    The problem is that the Consitution as the Framers intended doesn't actually exist. That is just rhetoric both left and right like to use when it suits them. The Framers's wishes can't be distilled down to a sprecific intrepretation. And there isn't a objective, scientific way to interpret a text. This is why contracts usually use boiler plate language. Because there is already an accepted way to interpret those provisions that are unlikely to change.
     
  19. njg8tor2

    njg8tor2 All American

    499
    76
    133
    Aug 30, 2020
    Constitutional problems are human problems though. The Court in Brown used social science studies to support their ruling; picking and choosing which studies they found compelling. Judges aren't social scientists, and most conclusions in social science are highly disputable. The decision was ends based rather than process based.
     
  20. SeabudGator

    SeabudGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,038
    1,118
    528
    Apr 23, 2014
    I would have preferred that the southern states got NO benefit from their slave population. Slaves were not treated as humans, but property, so giving slaving states the benefit was hypocritical cowardice by the north. Of course, none of the "benefits" from counting 3/5 slaves accrued to slaves themselves. No, the south has, and still does, politically benefit far too much from our founders defense of less populated, agrarian areas.