Repeal Zoning Laws + The EPA

We have to keep them from forming alliances with each other, against us.

Your question is a false choice.

What alliance. Government is out to destroy the free market which is bad for corporations. Corporations thrive on capitalism not socialism. Government supports unions which are the enemy of corporations. All corporations need from government is subsidies and bailouts. Nothing else the government does is good for corporations. The government prevents monopolies. The government passes all kinds of regulations that cost corporations money like envioremental regulations, zoning laws, safty regulations, worker rights. Minimum wage costs corporations money. The government puts tarrifs on goods produced by american corporations over seas. They are not allies.
 
What alliance. Government is out to destroy the free market which is bad for corporations. Corporations thrive on capitalism not socialism. Government supports unions which are the enemy of corporations. All corporations need from government is subsidies and bailouts. Nothing else the government does is good for corporations. The government prevents monopolies. The government passes all kinds of regulations that cost corporations money like envioremental regulations, zoning laws, safty regulations, worker rights. Minimum wage costs corporations money. The government puts tarrifs on goods produced by american corporations over seas. They are not allies.

No. The government is big on all kinds of laws which favor their large corporate buddies, Zoning laws being one of them. Hello.

Large corporations love all kinds of laws which keep new businesses from forming. Large corporations like government protected monopolies the bestest of all.

Save your libertarian/neocon delusions for some idiot.

They are allies.
 
No. The government is big on all kinds of laws which favor their large corporate buddies, Zoning laws being one of them. Hello.

Large corporations love all kinds of laws which keep new businesses from forming. Large corporations like government protected monopolies the bestest of all.

Save your libertarian/neocon delusions for some idiot.

They are allies.

Since new companies are good for the economy what can Americans do to destroy this so called government corporate alliance? When did America embrace fascism? Wasn't german industrial production higher in 1950 then it had ever been under Hitler. All Benito Mussolini ever did was make the trains run on time. How did fascists take over America?
 
Since new companies are good for the economy what can Americans do to destroy this so called government corporate alliance? When did America embrace fascism? Wasn't german industrial production higher in 1950 then it had ever been under Hitler. All Benito Mussolini ever did was make the trains run on time. How did fascists take over America?

They can vote for non-fascists who reject corporate control of our government.

New companies are good for the consumer, not existing large corporations. And those entrenched corporations are perfectly willng to keep out the new guy.

We've been fascist for a while now

Corporations don't care about overall production. They care their own profits.
 
They can vote for non-fascists who reject corporate control of our government.

New companies are good for the consumer, not existing large corporations. And those entrenched corporations are perfectly willng to keep out the new guy.

We've been fascist for a while now

Corporations don't care about overall production. They care their own profits.

Is Barack Obama a fascist?
 
How would repealing the EPA be bad for corporations?

It's good for the regular joe, because we can grow stuff on our own property without being shutdown for kicking up dust or "poor land management". Anything which allows people to be more self reliant is automatically bad for corporations who wish to claim control of the world and then sell it back to us.
 
It's good for the regular joe, because we can grow stuff on our own property without being shutdown for kicking up dust or "poor land management". Anything which allows people to be more self reliant is automatically bad for corporations who wish to claim control of the world and then sell it back to us.

Why is it bad for corporations? Isn't it in the interests of corporations for the average american to actually have money? The corporations are sending all the jobs over seas why would they want to take away peoples ability to be self reliant. It can't really be in the interest of corpoarations to destroy the american people.
 
Why is it bad for corporations? Isn't it in the interests of corporations for the average american to actually have money? The corporations are sending all the jobs over seas why would they want to take away peoples ability to be self reliant. It can't really be in the interest of corpoarations to destroy the american people.

I already answered this. When people can grow food on their own land, they don't have to buy it from corporations.

Being a poor reader is not a compelling argument, just so you know.
 
I already answered this. When people can grow food on their own land, they don't have to buy it from corporations.

Being a poor reader is not a compelling argument, just so you know.

There are a lot of corporations that don't sell food. How is it in the interest of every corporation. Microsoft, Boeing, Nike, Ford, U.S Steel Corporation, Disney, Chevron, Google don't sell food. The vast majority of corporations arn't not involved in agriculture, resteraunts, grociery stores.
 
There are a lot of corporations that don't sell food. How is it in the interest of every corporation. Microsoft, Boeing, Nike, Ford, U.S Steel Corporation, Disney, Chevron, Google don't sell food. The vast majority of corporations arn't not involved in agriculture, resteraunts, grociery stores.

Manufacturing corporations also want zoning laws and epa stuff to keep us from doing manufacturing on our own property, as well as growing food.
 
Manufacturing corporations also want zoning laws and epa stuff to keep us from doing manufacturing on our own property, as well as growing food.

What kind of manufacturing can the average american do on there own property? I gues Americans could take up Black Smithing as a hobby.
 
What kind of manufacturing can the average american do on there own property? I gues Americans could take up Black Smithing as a hobby.

All kinds. I see you're out of arguments now that you're just nagging me about lists of types of manufacturing. Get a life.

Large corporations are opposed to cottage industry. They prefer that their products be the only ones available, and they will pay politicians to make it happen, and they do pay politicians to make sure it happens.

The logic is sound, despite your nonsensical gyrations.
 
All kinds. I see you're out of arguments now that you're just nagging me about lists of types of manufacturing. Get a life.

Large corporations are opposed to cottage industry. They prefer that their products be the only ones available, and they will pay politicians to make it happen, and they do pay politicians to make sure it happens.

The logic is sound, despite your nonsensical gyrations.

Are there any politicians that can't be bought?
 
If the EPA were to get involved in preventive forest fire methods such as going into forests and removing any trees/plants that could be potential fire hazards would you support that?
 
Oil companies, Construction companies, and manufacturing companies have no power compared to the bankers. International Bankers have far more power and control over the politicians. International Bankers also control third world countries. Most corporations make profits off of the third world but they have little control over them.
 
Oil companies, Construction companies, and manufacturing companies have no power compared to the bankers. International Bankers have far more power and control over the politicians. International Bankers also control third world countries. Most corporations make profits off of the third world but they have little control over them.

The multinationals are the agents of the bankers, true. Corporations bribe third world leaders to reduce options for their citizenry so they must be wage slaves. The bankers create the money for them to do so.


check out this excerpt from a great essay on how ugly the shit actually is.

Each nation's economy is individually analyzed, then, says Stiglitz, the Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.

Step One is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, 'Briberization.' Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.

And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest 'briberization' of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. "The US Treasury view was this was great as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We don't care if it's a corrupt election. We want the money to go to Yeltzin" via kick-backs for his campaign.

Stiglitz is no conspiracy nutter ranting about Black Helicopters. The man was inside the game, a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet as Chairman of the President's council of economic advisors.

Most ill-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia's industrial assets, with the effect that the corruption scheme cut national output nearly in half causing depression and starvation.

After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is 'Capital Market Liberalization.' In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.

"The result was predictable," said Stiglitz of the Hot Money tidal waves in Asia and Latin America. Higher interest rates demolished property values, savaged industrial production and drained national treasuries.

At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, "The IMF riot."

The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You'd almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.

And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States, BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings, "confidential," "restricted," "not to be disclosed." Let's get back to one: the "Interim Country Assistance Strategy" for Ecuador, in it the Bank several times states - with cold accuracy - that they expected their plans to spark, "social unrest," to use their bureaucratic term for a nation in flames.

That's not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador's currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line. The World Bank "Assistance" plan simply calls for facing down civil strife and suffering with, "political resolve" - and still higher prices.

The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it's bright side - for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.

Stiglitz notes that the IMF and World Bank are not heartless adherents to market economics. At the same time the IMF stopped Indonesia 'subsidizing' food purchases, "when the banks need a bail-out, intervention (in the market) is welcome." The IMF scrounged up tens of billions of dollars to save Indonesia's financiers and, by extension, the US and European banks from which they had borrowed.

A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers in this system but one clear winner: the Western banks and US Treasury, making the big bucks off this crazy new international capital churn. Stiglitz told me about his unhappy meeting, early in his World Bank tenure, with Ethopia's new president in the nation's first democratic election. The World Bank and IMF had ordered Ethiopia to divert aid money to its reserve account at the US Treasury, which pays a pitiful 4% return, while the nation borrowed US dollars at 12% to feed its population. The new president begged Stiglitz to let him use the aid money to rebuild the nation. But no, the loot went straight off to the US Treasury's vault in Washington.

Now we arrive at Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their "poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank, Stiglitz the insider likens free trade WTO-style to the Opium Wars. "That too was about opening markets," he said. As in the 19th century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading our own markets against Third World agriculture.

In the Opium Wars, the West used military blockades to force open markets for their unbalanced trade. Today, the World Bank can order a financial blockade just as effective - and sometimes just as deadly.

Stiglitz is particularly emotional over the WTO's intellectual property rights treaty (it goes by the acronym TRIPS, more on that in the next chapters). It is here, says the economist, that the new global order has "condemned people to death" by imposing impossible tariffs and tributes to pay to pharmaceutical companies for branded medicines. "They don't care," said the professor of the corporations and bank loans he worked with, "if people live or die."

By the way, don't be confused by the mix in this discussion of the IMF, World Bank and WTO. They are interchangeable masks of a single governance system. They have locked themselves together by what are unpleasantly called, "triggers." Taking a World Bank loan for a school 'triggers' a requirement to accept every 'conditionality' - they average 111 per nation - laid down by both the World Bank and IMF. In fact, said Stiglitz the IMF requires nations to accept trade policies more punitive than the official WTO rules.

Stiglitz greatest concern is that World Bank plans, devised in secrecy and driven by an absolutist ideology, are never open for discourse or dissent. Despite the West's push for elections throughout the developing world, the so-called Poverty Reduction Programs "undermine democracy."

And they don't work. Black Africa's productivity under the guiding hand of IMF structural "assistance" has gone to hell in a handbag. Did any nation avoid this fate? Yes, said Stiglitz, identifying Botswana. Their trick? "They told the IMF to go packing."

So then I turned on Stiglitz. OK, Mr Smart-Guy Professor, how would you help developing nations? Stiglitz proposed radical land reform, an attack at the heart of "landlordism," on the usurious rents charged by the propertied oligarchies worldwide, typically 50% of a tenant's crops. So I had to ask the professor: as you were top economist at the World Bank, why didn't the Bank follow your advice?

"If you challenge [land ownership], that would be a change in the power of the elites. That's not high on their agenda." Apparently not.

Ultimately, what drove him to put his job on the line was the failure of the banks and US Treasury to change course when confronted with the crises - failures and suffering perpetrated by their four-step monetarist mambo. Every time their free market solutions failed, the IMF simply demanded more free market policies.

"It's a little like the Middle Ages," the insider told me, "When the patient died they would say, "well, he stopped the bloodletting too soon, he still had a little blood in him."

I took away from my talks with the professor that the solution to world poverty and crisis is simple: remove the bloodsuckers.

***
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
 
Back
Top