| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LOLatChristians
Forum Leader
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 545
Local time: 8:11 PM
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:58 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Eyedunno wrote: | | But what I'm saying is that thinking of these companies as "these guys" is part of the problem. The owners of these companies (the shareholders) are for the most part not concerned with the specifics of the companies' management, because they don't have to be. The shareholders aren't going to be the ones going to jail if something underhanded is going on; all they need to know is whether or not a profit is being made. Compare that with true private ownership, where the owners (the capitalists, if you will) are intimately entwined with their property, for better or for worse. |
Pardon my ignorance, but I don't really see what you're getting at. To me, it seems as if you're not blaming anyone at all for the corruption, such as the Bush administration-Halliburton issue.
I also don't see the significance of referring to them as "these guys." I actually could have cut that out because I explained who "these guys" are immediately afterward, but I don't see how that reflects some kind of detrimental attitude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Eyedunno
The Great JuJu at the Bottom of the Sea
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 3799
Local time: 11:11 AM
Location: Cin City, OH!
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LOLatChristians wrote: | | Pardon my ignorance, but I don't really see what you're getting at. To me, it seems as if you're not blaming anyone at all for the corruption, such as the Bush administration-Halliburton issue. |
Well, no, I'm not blaming anyone. But if you ask the government, I am blaming someone, because a corporation has limited personhood under a weird interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As such, what a corporation does is not legally the responsibility of its owners (though executives and so on might be prosecuted). This is not true of a completely privately-held company. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redraiderdude187
The Madcap Laugher
Joined: 19 Jan 2007
Posts: 1152
Local time: 8:11 PM
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LOLatChristians wrote: | | Eyedunno wrote: | | Capitalism has nothing to do with political maneuvering or corporatism, which are both products of government. |
In the sense of the economy itself, but I was thinking more about the effects of capitalism (see my socialist hypothetical). Because these companies are so rich and powerful (as a result of the free market), and the politicians are crooked, corruption occurred.
It's not 100% due to capitalism, but I do think it plays a rather large role that I believe some of you may be ignoring.
I do agree that corruption is bound to happen in any system, but it's never exactly the same corruption. I think the corruption-for-oil example is one of the bigger examples of corruption that has cost the country billions of dollars, nearly a million total lives (hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, heading to 4,000 Americans, among others), going on 8 years of regression after overall progression in the Clinton administration (not that I support that administration), etc. That corruption is a result of capitalism.
I've said on here before that I am a proponent of democratic socialism, but I'm not trying to push that agenda. I realize both have their advantages, and both have their drawbacks. This is simply one of the drawbacks I see with capitalism. And yes, the people that are corrupt play a large role (larger than the economy) in it. |
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Halliburton has made most of their money FROM government contracts. So they haven't made their money legitmately from the free market.
_________________
Above the hive, beyond the lynch mob, where two and two always make four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumpymunk
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Local time: 8:11 PM
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In the sense of the economy itself, but I was thinking more about the effects of capitalism (see my socialist hypothetical). Because these companies are so rich and powerful (as a result of the free market), and the politicians are crooked, corruption occurred. |
When a government sanction monopoly makes money, and uses that money to gain influence in the free market, you cannot equate that influence being the product of the "free market." It's the product of a hugely imbalanced government sanctioned monopoly.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LOLatChristians
Forum Leader
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 545
Local time: 8:11 PM
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lumpymunk wrote: | | Quote: | | In the sense of the economy itself, but I was thinking more about the effects of capitalism (see my socialist hypothetical). Because these companies are so rich and powerful (as a result of the free market), and the politicians are crooked, corruption occurred. |
When a government sanction monopoly makes money, and uses that money to gain influence in the free market, you cannot equate that influence being the product of the "free market." It's the product of a hugely imbalanced government sanctioned monopoly. |
The fact that the company exists is due to the free market. The company would not exist under a government-controlled economy (i.e. socialism). I believe, logically following, we can conclude that the free market plays some role in it. It is smaller than I initially thought, though.
You make a good point, but I think you are going a bit too far in absolving the free market from any responsibility.
To redraiderdude, you are correct. From Halliburton Watch:
| Quote: | The company submitting the most efficient and lowest-cost bid usually wins the contract. But under a "no-bid" contract, there is no bidding. Instead, the government awards the contract to one preferred company without determining if other companies can complete the work for a lower cost to the government.
The Army awarded Halliburton a no-bid contract in March 2003 to rebuild Iraq's oil industry infrastructure. |
| Quote: | Halliburton earns money from the government primarily through its "cost-plus" contracts. Under a cost-plus contract, a government contractor like Halliburton purchases all the necessary items to complete a job order and is subsequently reimbursed all those costs from the government -- and then paid a percentage of those costs (the plus) as a fee. A typical contractor earns a base fee of 1 percent of the estimated contract cost and an "incentive fee" of up to 9 percent of the cost estimate based on the contractor's performance in a number of areas, including cost control. The upshot: The contractor will never spend $1 million to do a job when it can spend $10 million and thereby earn a higher fee. So, contractors actually earn more money by wasting taxpayer money. The cost-plus method of accounting is the primary system today for determining how much government contractors are owed by the taxpayer. Congress and whistle blowers have criticized Halliburton and the Army Corp of Engineers for inflating costs via cost-plus contracts.
Halliburton's most lucrative contract is with the U.S. Army. It is officially known as "LOGCAP" (or Logistics Civil Augmentation Program). LOGCAP is a "cost plus" contract performed by Halliburton's KBR subsidiary. This is the contract that requires KBR to feed, house and transport troops around Iraq and the middle east.
The LOGCAP contract is the most lucrative contract being performed in Iraq today. Under the cost-plus provisions of LOGCAP, the U.S. government pays KBR 1 percent of every purchase KBR makes with the possibility of an additional 2 percent as an incentive bonus that is paid if the company is operating efficiently and honestly. When KBR buys food for the troops, it is paid 1 percent of the cost of that food. When KBR constructs a new military housing facility, it is paid 1 percent of the construction costs. When KBR houses its staff at hotels or purchases trucks and equipment to carryout its duties, it is paid 1 percent of those costs.
LOGCAP and other cost-plus contracts require the company to purchase items only from a vendor offering the lowest price if the amount of the purchase order exceeds $2,500. Thus, purchase orders exceeding $2,500 require KBR to search for competing vendors in order to find the lowest price available. But KBR often takes a purchase order exceeding $2,500 and breaks it down into its parts so that the order becomes more than one purchase order, each valued below $2,500. This allows the company to avoid searching for the lowest-priced vendor, which results in higher costs to the U.S. taxpayer. About 70 to 80 percent of KBR's purchase orders are below $2,500 - mainly because large-value purchases are broken down so they don't exceed $2,500.
A former employee of Halliburton said the company's motto is "Don't worry about price. It's cost-plus." Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said "The higher Halliburton's costs are, the larger its profits will be." Of the firms for which Halliburton purchased items, Waxman said "Many of the preferred firms were unreliable or charged 'outrageous' prices. [Halliburton] Supervisors did not encourage buyers to identify alternative vendors and, in some cases, wanted to use a higher price vendor on the preferred list rather than a new, cheaper vendor." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7245
Local time: 5:11 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:08 am Post subject: Re: Lenin: Imperialism is an advanced stage of Capitalism |
|
|
| Tormentor wrote: | Is this not true?
This is the definition of imperialism: Imperialism is the forceful extension of a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and/or political dominance over other nations.
*cough cough* Iraq.
Look, here comes iran down the pike...
What next? |
Afghanistan... which was invaded by the Soviet Union... which was it's self, parlty comprised of other states that fell under Soviet control during world war two, though those enslaved states had no say in how the energy forced from them was spent.
Lenin can kiss my fucken ass.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 3:11 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LOLatChristians wrote: | | You make a good point, but I think you are going a bit too far in absolving the free market from any responsibility. |
No he's not.
In a free market a company would exist, but not that company.
The only way for that company to exist if there is government intervention, which means the market is not free, therefore the free market cannot be blamed.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tormentor
Royal Citizen
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 474
Local time: 8:11 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: Re: Lenin: Imperialism is an advanced stage of Capitalism |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | Tormentor wrote: | Is this not true?
This is the definition of imperialism: Imperialism is the forceful extension of a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and/or political dominance over other nations.
*cough cough* Iraq.
Look, here comes iran down the pike...
What next? |
Afghanistan... which was invaded by the Soviet Union... which was it's self, parlty comprised of other states that fell under Soviet control during world war two, though those enslaved states had no say in how the energy forced from them was spent.
Lenin can kiss my fucken ass. |
Lenin didn't invade afghanistan. That was a dictatorship under the facade of communism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 7:11 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah yes--dictatorship under the facade of communism. And the crusders weren't christians, either.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12842
Local time: 5:11 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lumpymunk wrote: | ...except it's not because of capitalism.
...and it's no longer capitalism when it transforms into Imperialism (usually via. communism/fascism).
Except that Iraq is not a consequences of an "advanced form of capitalism."
scapegoating again.... |
*nods*
This is exactly like when Christians try to say that the USSR was the result of atheism.
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7245
Local time: 5:11 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tormentor wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: | | Tormentor wrote: | Is this not true?
This is the definition of imperialism: Imperialism is the forceful extension of a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and/or political dominance over other nations.
*cough cough* Iraq.
Look, here comes iran down the pike...
What next? |
Afghanistan... which was invaded by the Soviet Union... which was it's self, parlty comprised of other states that fell under Soviet control during world war two, though those enslaved states had no say in how the energy forced from them was spent.
Lenin can kiss my fucken ass. |
Lenin didn't invade afghanistan. |
I know. he was dead at the time. Bush didn't invade Iraq either. He just talked a bunch of other people into doing it for him, then traveled there for a photo shoot with a styrofoam turkey. A funny coincidence, Bush isn't a capitalist either. If he was he would have given notice on the NAFTA and dissolved US trade legislation, instead of dissolving his own people's civil liberties.
| Quote: | | That was a dictatorship under the facade of communism. |
Communism is necessarily a dictatorship -- so... your right, in a sense. It was a facade.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
