Did British Petroleum (BP) lobby British Secretary Jack Straw for the release of the only terrorist convicted in the 1988 Pan-Am bombing that killed 270 people, mostly Americans? in an attempt to ensure a $900 million oil exploration deal? What about it, Hoot, Flirties, is $900 million more important than justice? In the global corporate world, it is. But not in fair scales capitalism.
thecavemaster Wrote:Did British Petroleum (BP) lobby British Secretary Jack Straw for the release of the only terrorist convicted in the 1988 Pan-Am bombing that killed 270 people, mostly Americans? in an attempt to ensure a $900 million oil exploration deal? What about it, Hoot, Flirties, is $900 million more important than justice? In the global corporate world, it is. But not in fair scales capitalism.
Government corruption is a totally separate issue from capitalism. The Pan Am bomber should have been put to death but the socialists in the UK did away with the death penalty, just as they are trying to do in this nation.
It is ironic that you picked a case where a politician interfered with the free market by mixing politics with business. Is that not what you constantly advocate with your "fair scales capitalism" nonsense. This is just another example of where governments need to restrict their incompetence to the to the government realm as much as possible and let real capitalists run private sector businesses.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Government corruption is a totally separate issue from capitalism. The Pan Am bomber should have been put to death but the socialists in the UK did away with the death penalty, just as they are trying to do in this nation.
It is ironic that you picked a case where a politician interfered with the free market by mixing politics with business. Is that not what you constantly advocate with your "fair scales capitalism" nonsense. This is just another example of where governments need to restrict their incompetence to the to the government realm as much as possible and let real capitalists run private sector businesses.
No, no, Simple Simon, corporate executives IN BED WITH politicians is NOT fair scales capitalism, though, given your rather weak arguments, I'd say you wish it was. Fair scales capitalism: a farmer in Berea grows a large and diverse crop of fruits and vegetable and flowers. He comes to a market and sells them at the price it took to produce them, plus a fair profit margin. Consumers come and buy. The government, other than having some regulations about spraying the crop with DDT, remains out of it, taxing a portion of the income, if the farmer turns it in (ha ha). A quality product, produced close to home, offered at a fair price... everybody wins. Now tell me that describes global, cut-throat capitalism and I'll forever stop taking you seriously.
thecavemaster Wrote:No, no, Simple Simon, corporate executives IN BED WITH politicians is NOT fair scales capitalism, though, given your rather weak arguments, I'd say you wish it was. Fair scales capitalism: a farmer in Berea grows a large and diverse crop of fruits and vegetable and flowers. He comes to a market and sells them at the price it took to produce them, plus a fair profit margin. Consumers come and buy. The government, other than having some regulations about spraying the crop with DDT, remains out of it, taxing a portion of the income, if the farmer turns it in (ha ha). A quality product, produced close to home, offered at a fair price... everybody wins. Now tell me that describes global, cut-throat capitalism and I'll forever stop taking you seriously.
First, tell me what the consequences of having you not taking me seriously forever, assuming that you have ever taken me seriously? Would it entail you ignoring my posts, or is there no upside for me?
Secondly, you will need to define "global, cut-throat capitalism." You also need to explain who or what determines what a "fair profit margin" is in your simple minded example described above. What happens if the farmer's potential customers believe that the farmer's asking price is too high? Is he allowed to cut his labor costs or are his workers represented by the SEIU or some other well-connected union in your scenario? Is the farmer allowed to import his seeds from a cheaper source to keep his costs and prices low? What part of the "fair scales" price do taxes represent?
Please answer these very reasonable questions so that I will better be able to avoid not being taken seriously when I provide my answer.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:First, tell me what the consequences of having you not taking me seriously forever, assuming that you have ever taken me seriously? Would it entail you ignoring my posts, or is there no upside for me?
Secondly, you will need to define "global, cut-throat capitalism." You also need to explain who or what determines what a "fair profit margin" is in your simple minded example described above. What happens if the farmer's potential customers believe that the farmer's asking price is too high? Is he allowed to cut his labor costs or are his workers represented by the SEIU or some other well-connected union in your scenario? Is the farmer allowed to import his seeds from a cheaper source to keep his costs and prices low? What part of the "fair scales" price do taxes represent?
Please answer these very reasonable questions so that I will better be able to avoid not being taken seriously when I provide my answer.
Global, cut-throat capitalism: an economic system whereby bigger is always better, irregardless of what financiers call "unseen" costs... which means costs that people pay, the environment pays....where the only "ethic" is the bottom line, profits matter more than anything, "got to keep them shareholders" happy.... The farmer's market model is simple, and, you are right, does not fathom the complexities of worldwide commerce; however, Walmart's model of undercutting and pressuring have not made the world a better place, in my opinion. Taxation, to me, provides services that play a part in the overall health and feel of a community, state, nation. I believe our tax policy needs revision; however, I favor progressive taxation, and believe a strong, flexible federal government is necessary...though when overreaches occur, or out of balance policies, the public rises up to correct it. Fair Scales Capitalism is a model which holds corporations to a higher standard than they now adhere to.
If "Global Cut-Throat Capitalism" was at work to free the Lockerbie bomber, then why did 0bama's regime back the release? Also, why did the regime feign outrage after the dirty deed was done when 0bama said that all
Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of the release? Was 0bama surprised? Was this a case of the far left hand not knowing what the left hand was doing or was 0bama just lying again?
As to the bolded passage below, where is that transparency that candidate Barack 0bama promised?
[INDENT]
Quote:White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.
The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.
Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.
The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.
[/INDENT]
I don't believe that BP had direct involvement in letting this guy go...I mean ****, people still have conscious. I know this really has nothing to do with the argument between Hoot and Caveman, but, I just don't believe it.
The U.S. Goverment advised Scottish ministers that they preferred to release the Lockerbie bomber than send him to a Libya prison.
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.
The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.
Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.
The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wor...5896741041
If the man was within months of dying (which he apparently wasn't), why not arrange for his family to be brought to England, stay near the prison, and be allowed frequent visits? His sentence ("the rest of your natural life") should have been honored, justly so. Our Judaeo-Christian tradition teaches us that no human being is beyond the graces of compassion, but it was unjust to release him, and if President Obama failed in this regard, I hope that he is held accountable.