Needless to say, they do see the world totally differently. Here are some of the latest headlines...
Massive Corporations Pay No Taxes
Millionaires did not need tax cut
Companies doing ok, Where are the jobs?
Our media are failing us - not telling Union side
As you can tell, the Liberals seem to be as Conspiracy minded as the Conservatives, so this should make for a great deal of fun. And hopefully a few of them will comment on G2A to add some spice to our dialogue.
So what do you think? Are these Corporations:
- EVIL entities bent on world domination...
- EVIL oppressors that are out to take advantage of their employees...
- GREEDY monsters working to avoid their social responsibilities and taxes...
- Organizations of individuals just like you and me that are trying to stay in business...
- Organizations that work to provide excellent products and services to their customers...
- Organizations that work to balance the needs of their Customers, Shareholders, Employees and other Stakeholders. Knowing that all 4 are critical to their success and on going operation.
The reality is that within all organizations there are good and bad people. And often they think they are doing something good when it is actually bad. This includes Corporations, Unions, Government, Charities, etc. So blindly labelling and vilifying these Org's as _____ is somewhat pointless and incorrect.
Thoughts?
Related Links and Reminders:
G2A Magic of They
G2A Snopes Relativity
G2A Beliefs and Environment
G2A Barstool Economics
G2A Crisis of Credit
G2A Recession Bad?
G2A American Dream
G2A Conflict and Collusion
G2A Conflict and Collusion Break the Cycle
G2A Conflict with Heart
G2A Gratitude and Happiness
G2A Principles
27 comments:
My initial impression was that you might be a rare blogger who is actually interested in understanding (and even occasionally agreeing with) a different point of view. But from what I’ve seen so far you respond to good points by mocking or ignoring them and mostly just want to prove yourself right (don’t we all). But I still think your blog has potential (though apparently not much traffic.) and I plan to drop by and comment. I do have some anti-corporate views. I think SOME CEO’s are obscenely greedy, unethical or even criminal. What do you think of the Wall Street banksters? From Matt Taibbi at the Rolling Stone:
“The financial-crisis era, is one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216
That said, MN has many corporations doing much good in the community, so it is a mixed bag. It is also crystal clear to me that you, too, have blinders on that keep you from seeing that things have gotten out of balance in the USA in terms of widely growing income inequality and an economy that leaves way to many people struggling to varying degrees.
The good news about doing this purely as a hobby is that the number of hits is not as important as the quality and depth of discussion. Therefore I moderate aggressively if someone swears or attacks another commenter. We try hard to focus on the topic.
"Good Points" are truly based on the reader and writer's perception. I apologize if I discounted some good points, thinking that they were typical rhetoric. And yes I am an equal opportunity critic, if you doubt this talk to my far right participant J... My goal is not to agree, but to help people think about different paradigms.
Since I like to ask questions. If you feel more people should have gone to jail, in your opinion why didn't they? My opinion is that what they did was greedy and in poor judgement, but not illegal...
Just imagine how the people of MN would be struggling if Medtronics, Best Buy, Cargill, Target, 3M, Wells Fargo and the dozens of other large corporations were not here providing the jobs that feed our economy and charities.
Remember that each of their jobs provides the revenue to support many other service jobs. (ie Doctors, Waiters, Mechanics, Lawn Maintenance, Grocery Stores, etc) What would our citizens do without these successful Organizations?
We must keep them vibrant and healthy, or we will be much worse off in the future. Protect those geese that lay golden eggs.
Also, if you really want to raise wages for the base jobs. I think the Liberal contingent needs to get behind deporting all Illegal immigrants. Now are you willing to support this to help the poor American citizens increase their wages? Are they willing to do these difficult and often unpleasant jobs?
Or is this too cold hearted... Some hard choices need to be made and acted on.
And I have printed off the RS article and will read it at lunch... The whole thing.RS Link
"Far right" am I? I think you could talk to a lot of my more conservative acquaintances and get quite a different opinion. Nonetheless, I call 'em like I see 'em, and some viewpoints are so far left that I can't see them at all. The notion of "evil" corporations is one such.
I sometimes ask, when the subject arises, how far up in the corporate hierarchy I must rise before I change from an ordinary, middle-class worker to a greedy, rapacious capitalist bent on world destruction. After all, I wouldn't want that to befall me! And of course the simple fact is that it doesn't matter. Corporate CEOs are the same guys they were when they joined the marketing department 30 years ago, just more driven and more harried than ever. You couldn't give me the job for all the tea (or neodymium) in China. You want rapacious corporatism, look at government!
J. Ewing
J, OK, you are correct... There maybe are one or two seats to your right in the theater... You are in good company, my Mother is one of them...
Nokomis,
According to the article it looks like some of our politicians, bureaucrats and law enforcement personnel are in essence corrupt. It seems people should focus on this rather than bad employees and managers of these companies... A small percentage of any organization will push the legal bounds, that's why we have law enforcers. So is Obama to blame for this continuing on his watch? If so, how can we get him to change?
By the way, I do agree that more of the Managers should go to prison if the facts are correct... And the Government officials that are corrupt should go to jail for even longer terms, since they violated the public's trust...
Now as for who caused the economic meltdown? Checkout the Crisis of Credit link in the post. The banks, government, etc all had a role in it. There is no doubt. However I believe the typical citizen probably contributed the most...
I have bought 2 homes and both times the Banker told me, "You know you could afford a much larger home..." To which I said "Thanks, but NO Thanks". Unfortunately most people must have said "Give me the most home I can qualify for, and make sure I can do it with little or no money down payment."
Then they were unable to save for a rainy day because they were paying 35% of their income to cover the house and car payments... So when the rain started falling they were washed away... And with them went the government and private organizations that enabled and encouraged their poor choices.
Now, if the home owners had not over leveraged and defaulted... There would have been little or no crisis. How is that for a different paradigm?
I think my first impressions were right, that this may be just the kind of blog I have been looking for, though my contributions may bore you as I generally don't go to deep into the weeds, like checking out a crisis of credit link. I really only skimmed the article I linked and decided that, yep, at least some of those bankers are crooks. Now
that you, my somewhat ideological opposite, have read it more carefully and agree, I feel more certain of this basic impression.
As to why didn't they go to jail?
It's easy for me to agree that many politicans are corrupt, but I think the investigators may deserved to be fired rather than jailed. How can failure to prosecute a crime warrent more time than the crime itself? The reason no one went to jail is the justice system favors the rich and powerful at all levels.
I also don't buy that mortage signers are most to blame for the meltdown. Sure many people took on too big of mortgage (I had the good sense not to be one of them) but many people were offered a bad deal, which I believe is called a sub prime mortgage, one more thing I (a college educated person) really don't understand. I was lucky to be offered and sign 30 pages of a nonbad contract, of which I had very little understanding of what I was signing. Reading my usual left leaning sources I have been persuaded that racism could be a factor, in what mortgages people were offered, as black neighborhoods have been particularly hard hit by foreclosures.
Moving on, I think your solution for raising wages by deporting illegal immigrants is completely unrealistic. Aren't there currently more than 10 million undocumented workers here?
Since my knowldege of economics is limited to a couple of college classes long ago, I get my policy ideas for reducing unemployment and raising wages from trusted experts, which for me are economists like P. Krugman, R. Reisch, and D. Baker. Baker has many interesting suggestions in this article:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=tax_tricks_time_to_go_on_offense
The ones that stuck in my memory are we need to first lower unemployment by things like better monetary and trade policies and other things of which I have minimal understanding such as intellectual property rights. With lower unemployment perhaps a resurgence in union membership will rewin workers a bigger piece of the pie.
Lastly, the self proclaimed good point I made for which I was hoping for a response was in reply to your question about fair taxes. I get a bit peeved about the myth that lower income people pay no taxes.
And finally (for real) this closer look at the broad divide of views and underlying assumptions on nearly everything is fascinating.
1. In my view, enforcement personnel failing to do their job is worse than criminals acting like criminals. Therefore my recommended jail sentence.
2. Nobody forced the mortgaged folks to take the loan. They accepted the obligation of their own free will. There are plenty of apartments and lower cost homes.
3. The posts I read say there are ~17 million undocumented immigrants, that's a lot of jobs that could go to American citizens. If the citizens would be willing to do them. (note: I was a farm boy... Dad had a hard time finding kids willing to do the tasks I used to do.)
4. I'll read the link later, but it sounds somewhat like trade protectionism. This will likely add jobs and raise wages, but at a huge cost to our society. First, we will have to pay more for the same goods and we may lose access to new technologies. Second, other countries will respond by raising their trade defenses.
This will cripple our part of the economy that exports and operates in other countries. (ie 50+% of my company's sales are over seas and they employee ~100,000 people)
Imagine what we would have paid for goods if the low cost countries were not making them. It would be much better if Americans that can afford to just Buy American more often. Then Global Protectionism won't be triggered, costs will stay low for those that can't afford to and we will keep the jobs here. The control is in our own wallets.
It is complicated to say the least.
5. I apologize if I implied that the poor do not pay taxes. I fully realize that they pay sales, property, social security, fees, etc. On the other hand, some of these are offset by income tax / redistribution credits and various social programs including food stamps, child support, free lunches, reduce fees, property tax rebates, etc. So sum it up and some pay and some end the year in the positive, and everything in between.
6. Thank you
Not sure I can play on the level of erudition evidenced in the last couple of comments, but let me just make a couple of points.
It IS possible to "deport" most of the illegal aliens here, simply by turning over the 10 million or so names and workplaces of KNOWN illegal aliens, and giving them 60 days to vacate their jobs. Then, require all new hires to go through the federal e-Verify system to see if they are legal. Most of these aliens will go home with no work. It's more complicated than that, but that's the nub of it.
All the problems of trade imbalance, the "unfair" tax distribution and "fair share" arguments, plus the ridiculous $300 billion or so we spend just filing our taxes each year, can be solved by going to the FAIR tax. There are other advantages too numerous to list, INCLUDING complete reform of the Social Security system, just as a "side effect."
J. Ewing
Aaaaaaah. What is happening to me? I just googled "cost of deporting illegal immigrants" like this is a reasonable idea (it's about $80 Biillion, btw.) The one and only thing I admired about G.W. was his support for immigration reform, including a path to citizenship.
"Path to Citizenship" seems like a great idea until you look at the fairness of it... Do you really want to reward those that budged in line in front of those that filled in the paperwork and are waiting for legal entrance... Seems inherently wrong to me.
J's got some good ideas on this topic.
A couple of states have already required businesses to run new workers through e-Verify or lose their business license. The result was thousands and thousands of illegals SELF-deporting for lack of work opportunity. Total cost to the taxpayer: zero.
That doesn't do anything for those already here, of course, but all you have to do is use the Social Security system and Vea, Muchacho! we can "fire" all of those folks and let them self-deport as well. Again, I would be more compassionate (and sensible) than that, but it's complicated to explain.
J.
I think I can help with a little history...
SG's Why Not More Money
G2A Ignore
Compassion is complicated, I find myself more ambivalent about mass deportations lately, though I do feel bad for the kids. And also the process could be improved, at least as shown in the movie "The Visitor" (which I reccommend)
I've wondered why more hasn't been done by now to reduce the hiring (and the flow) of illegal immigrants with some sort of verification system and decided it's probably due to business likes the cheap labor.
Liberals say Conservatives and Companies like cheap labor... Conservatives say Liberals and compassionates are too soft.
I say enforce the law, get them out of here and let the wages go up some on the low end jobs, therefore giving the legal immigrants and poor citizens a better opportunity and somewhat higher incomes.
Then if we can not find enough people willing to do those jobs for that somewhat higher wage. Raise the legal immigration cap for awhile.
However, if the Left and Right are supporting the retention of illegal immigrants... This may take awhile.
Nokomis,
In Spiderman 3, the Sandman was committing crimes to get money for his child's health care bills. Did you feel compassionate for him and support his breaking the law? Or did you want him to be caught and punished for breaking the law?
I do feel empathy for the plight of undocumented immigrants that live in the USA, and for those that struggle to get here hoping for a better life. However there is little point in having a legal immigration system if we choose to not enforce it.
By the way, I am an ESTJ... Lots of Thinking and very little Feeling. I am sure that surprises you...
I am working on being more sensitive, but I think it will be awhile...
By the way, for a long time I, too, held great compassion for the illegal aliens, particularly after working with and helping some of them. Any thought of deporting them back to a place that "starvation and misery" had forced them to leave was unthinkable. But then a couple of states passed laws requiring use of e-Verify (the federal system) and most of these folks self-deported, before it even passed! Things "back home" cannot be that bad, so we need to look at what the rule of law requires, and that is no employment for illegal aliens, period. Without that incentive to cross the border, the border is effectively sealed to "legitimate" line-jumpers.
THEN we can talk about "guest workers" and some such. Not before.
J. Ewing
about illegal immigrants perhaps this is how the issue should be resolved:
G2A,
about spiderman - not a fan, but stealing in order to get health care for your child seems justified to me.
as for being a thinking person, you are surprisingly persuasive at times. There's no need to let striving to be more sensitive interfere with interesting arguements.
A post from nokomis that seemingly did not stick...
About illegal immigrants perhaps this is how the issue should be resolved: Yahoo News - The help
G2A,
About spiderman - not a fan, but stealing in order to get health care for your child seems justified to me.
As for being a thinking person, you are surprisingly persuasive at times. There's no need to let striving to be more sensitive interfere with interesting arguments.
The comments about "the help" were probably even better than the article.
Not a Spiderman fan... C'mon everyone loves Spidey...
So if stealing for your kid is ok, where is your unacceptable threshold? What laws should we not enforce "because the person had a good reason"? Who should decide? Talking about slippery slopes...
The reality is that the undocumented immigrants are taking jobs that a legal citizen could do...(may not want to, but could) And they are probably lowering the pay rate for these low end jobs...
Is it ok for them to stay here to help their children if it causes a citizen's family to go hungry? Again, who should decide?
I'd serve some time to save my kid. I'd say we should also enforce the laws that Bill McGuire may have broken to have his $1.6 Billion payday
About illegal immigrants, setting aside what is right for a moment do you really think it is feasible to deport 11 Billion people and and is it worth $80 Billion. I do remember the term "opportunity cost" and think this kind of money could go quite far towards other needs (social or infrastructure) in this time of huge deficits and budget cutting.
Let's just say 10 million for easy math.
I agree that self deportation should be more cost effective. Remove the legal jobs and folks will probably leave... Or take up a life of crime... Either way the jobs have to go, or more will refill the pool no matter how fast we bail.
Let's say $2,000 per head to take them into custody, process and deport. This would give us a cost of $20 billion. Now for the reminder: we are already paying for the police, immigration folks, administrative law judges, etc. So it as actually a question of resource availability, because the cost of a van trip or airline ticket should be significantly lower.
Now compare this to the cost of jobs lost or benefits gained. Assume each makes only $10,000/yr, this means they are earming $100 billion per yr that could be earned by poor legal citizens. (if they'd do job)
On the other hand, let's say that these jobs will need to be paid $20,000 per yr to get legal citizens to do them. Then the businesses and us consumers will need to pay an additional $100 billion per year for these services, unless we allow more legal immigrants in.
So do we want cheap labor or fair pay?
John,
A few last thoughts on your comments about the costs/benefits of deporting all undocumented workers.
I think your cost estimates are way off. To this judge you lose the debate on what to do with illegal immigrants to Center for American Progress
While you were persuasive enough to cause me to consider the radical (deport them all) approach to illegal immigration, in the end I'm back to reliance on the analysis of a trusted progressive think tank to inform my opinion.
Your best argument, btw, was freeing up jobs for some of the 14 million unemployed citizens.
Another one from Nokomis that didn't stick.
Maybe it it the way you are doing links... Use HTML Link Syntax method for best results.
John,
A few last thoughts on your comments about the costs/benefits of deporting all undocumented workers.
I think your cost estimates are way off. To this judge you lose the debate on what to do with illegal immigrants to Center for American Progress
While you were persuasive enough to cause me to consider the radical (deport them all) approach to illegal immigration, in the end I'm back to reliance on the analysis of a trusted progressive think tank to inform my opinion.
American Progress: Cost of Mass Deportations
Your best argument, btw, was freeing up jobs for some of the 14 million unemployed citizens.
I'll read their info, however please note that your "trusted" think tank seems to sit on the LEFT side of the theater according to their own material. If you doubt this, please look for yourself. No where do they discuss challenging Liberal policy or views... Only Conservative...
"To be progressive is to be active. Spread ideas to your networks. Challenge conservative misinformation with the facts."
"critique the policy that stems from conservative values"
American Progress About Us
This means there is an inherent bias due to who they are and who they hire. Remember that FACTS tend to vary significantly with the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS of the person uncovering and reporting them.
Being me... I ask my project Sponsors upfront if they want their plan implemented, or if they want the team/data to drive the decision? (ie pushing towards team/data...) The Thick ones just want it done "their way" ASAP. The Smart ones let the cross functional team and data guide the way. Sometimes the Smart Sponsor then has to recant their initial position, but they have the best interest of the company in mind, so they are okay with this.
Since I am in essence and internal Consultant, I work to please either my Thick or Smart Sponsors. (ie unhappy Sponsors lowers my job security) So I am well versed in using data to drive biased or correct information and conclusions. With this in mind, always ask what is the bias of the study, report, article, etc. Because there may be someone like me back there picking only the data/"Facts" that supports that Thick Sponsor's point of view and agenda....
With this in mind, what do you think American Progress does with data that may actually support the Conservative policy?? And which way do you think their assumptions lean??
By they way, this is one of the reasons. I started participating on MNPublius. I am more interested in the rationale of those that believe differently than me. I already know my viewpoint... See links below...
G2A Snopes and Relativity
G2A Beliefs and Environment
G2A Learning
Any discussion about the cost of "deport 'em all" is simply a smokescreen for people that don't want to deport anybody. I've already told you how 90% or more of them can be "persuaded" to self-deport, costing us nothing except enforcing the law in a few cases, so they know we're serious. In all practical ways, we solve this problem for free.
Now, the cost of hiring replacement workers is liable to cause business costs and prices to increase, but on the other hand the costs of unemployment and welfare go way down, maybe even a breakeven situation. Even if it isn't it is always better to have people working than not. Of course, if you wanted a less disruptive and more compassionate solution, we would create a "special entry quota" for people who showed up at the border and, by some mysterious means of which we will not inquire, have a job waiting for them and want to register as a guest worker. Lots of ways to do that wrong, of course.
J. Ewing
John,
My source is described as progressive and is trusted by me because I am pretty far to the left on the ideological spectrum. Perhaps my attempts to be open minded have misled you. Your blog has become one of my favorites because I come here to challenge my assumptions. Also, as I mentioned before, I don't dig too deeply into the details on the issues. If the CAP numbers are slightly exagerated to support the case they are making re undocumented workers I don't really care. There broad arguments seem solid to me, even if some of there specific numbers are challenged.
Thanks for the correction regarding the definition of trustworthy... I had assumed you meant factual with minimal bias. (ie bi-partisan or something) My mistake.
By the way, I'll still read it if I remember when I get time.
Post a Comment