Re: unfettered capitalism -- Left-Wing Discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Sun 2003-10-26 04:53:54
Author: Redeye
Subject: Re: unfettered capitalism
In reply to: sweetheart 's message, "unfettered capitalism" on Sat 2003-10-25 11:49:11

1. The constitution gives states the right to choose the manner in which the electors are (s)elected, subject to very vague and buggy limitations only if the method of popular vote is used. Katherine Harris exploited a loophole in the 15th Amendment, a loophle that went against its spirit but was in complete accordance with its letter. What the Supreme Court did was also completely legal, given the fact that the Supreme Court decides what is legal and what isn't.

2. What's "nationalism of finance"? Your explanation seems to convey the exact opposite claim, namely that it was a mindset that enabled Californian companies to outsell the European companies. This is not nationalism, this is plain capitalism, and plain capitalism transcends national boundaries, at least as far as entrepreneurs are concerned.

4. Sorry to tell you, but that part was completely incomprehensible. The one thing that was comprehensible was what you said about credit scam, which is irrelevant unless the system is geared toward letting people do those things. Would you say that welfare needs to be gutted just because of the one woman who lived in Chicago 25 years ago and collected welfare under more than 20 identities? By the same token, an anedote about credit scam is irrelevant, unless used as an representative example of a broader argument about a structural problem with the system (Reagan's welfare-queen argument used a grossly unrepresentative anecdote).

5. I don't understand... What exactly are the adverse effects of Reuters and Bloomberg's duopoly? Or, more precisely, what are the adverse effects that will be cured if there is more competition in the media (note: this will still be an oligopoly due to the high amount of resources required to run a media corporation).

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]