101–110 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure that's part of it, but I'm also sure most of these people/ceo's are definitely not closet Nazi's and they definitely don't want another Hitler to rise in America as that would definitely be bad for business...
In what ways has Trump done anything similar to Hitler?
Matt Levine says it best: "[..] but I have to confess that it seems odd to me to denounce Nazism out of fealty to shareholder value. You can just denounce Nazism because you're not a Nazi! This is a financial newsletter, but I have never assumed that the operations of capital are autonomous and self-executing, or that executives are robots who are programmed to maximize shareholder value to the exclusion of all other…
> I have never assumed that the operations of capital are autonomous and self-executing, or that executives are robots who are programmed to maximize shareholder value to the exclusion of all other considerations. But that is how it works, right? If you don't maximize shareholder value you can be ousted, if you don't where others do you will lose in the marketplace and cease to exist. Isn't that competitive ruthlessn…
In theory, there is nothing logically inconsistent about a CEO both advocating for a better society and protecting shareholder value. Indeed, the former can sometimes help achieve the latter. If your country becomes Venezuela, that's not going to do your stock price any favors.
In practice, it doesn't matter. For better or worse, it is basically impossible to definitely measure the effectiveness of a CEO. Board members use their best judgement and the limited data they have.
You can be ousted whether or not you maximize shareholder value, as no one knows if you did or not. CEOs work for a board and that board can fire them for, in practice, any reason they want to.
In turn those board members work for shareholders that can choose them for any reason they want.
> Isn't that competitive ruthlessness exactly what people like about our current system?
I wouldn't guess so, no. I would guess people more like the effect of said competitiveness, which is an efficient market with lower prices and more stability than the other systems that have been tried.
> Citation needed, I guess.
Basic reasoning? Corporations are tightly interwoven with society. Their customers and employees are all members of said society, for one thing. Burning society to the ground is not going to work out well for any corporation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Communists were globalist socialists and the Nazis were nationalist socialists. Hitler went after the communists because he felt they wanted to subjugate Germans under an international Jewish global finance regime (1%ers again).
And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a "Democratic" "Republic". Don't believe everything everyone says about themselves.
So..... who else do you think the Republicans are going to nominate for president in 2020?
The weird part is they arent doing it for political reasons, this is to protect the image of their corporation. But we havent been told that. There is so much obfuscation of the truth in politics, I am constantly amazed and dismayed at the same time.
I am willing to entertain the idea that the ceos of large corporations are also decent human beings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a "Democratic" "Republic". Don't believe everything everyone says about themselves.
Hmmm. I wonder what that means for the "United" States.
Just yesterday: > "For every CEO that drops out of the Manufacturing Council, I have many to take their place. Grandstanders should not have gone on. JOBS!" https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/89747827044214374... How many had already quit and this was just to stop further embarrassing himself?
> The President’s Strategic and Policy Forum was conceived as a bi-partisan group of business leaders called to serve our country by providing independent feedback and perspectives directly to the President on accelerating economic growth and job creation in the United States. This "Strategic and Policy Forum" existed for the sole purpose of promoting the individual company interests... Such as how to best offshore t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll reiterate myself because it apparently wasn't clear the first time. I agree with your stance. The appropriate thing to do would have been to explicitly call out the group whose violence escalated the highest. But to pretend this is the first of this type of incident is a lie. And to pretend that other groups that lean left have not had politically motivated violence and murder recently is also a lie. I welcome y…
And once again you ignore the elephant in the room. The neo-nazis and white supremacists irrespective of any violent acts are wrong and should be vehemently and regularly denounced as unamerican detestable organizations. BLM has a good mission and purpose. Yes there may be some individuals in the organization that have reacted in inappropriate and violent ways, but the organization as a whole is a positive thing. By…
>Yes there may be some individuals in the organization that have reacted in inappropriate and violent ways, but the organization as a whole is a positive thing.
BLM and especially Antifa are not "positive things." People who chant "Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon" are not people that civilized society should want to associate with. There are some legitimate grievances people of color have about treatment by police, but BLM is not their ally. When Micah Johnson opened fire at a BLM protest and told a hostage negotiator he wanted to kill white people, especially cops... that's not a "positive thing." There are some legitimate grievances any civilized person has against the alt-right, but Antifa who set Berkeley ablaze just because Milo Yanapolis wanted to give a peaceful speech, is not their ally and is not a "positive thing." And it doesn't matter how much of a piece of shit Milo is.
>wholly inappropriate to be the president of the United States.
This we also agree on. I didn't vote for Trump and don't support him now. But that doesn't mean I'm blind to hypocrisy. Trump's comments today were even worse here because he called out white supremacists and neo-Nazis but sort of hemmed and hawed about the alt-right. There's two minds about what the alt-right is. It's either white supremacists, or dumbasses on the internet who like frog memes. Depending on who you ask you'll get one answer or the other. When Trump was asked directly about alt-right he said he didn't know exactly what that was. What he should've done is said it depends on what you mean by alt-right. If you mean people who like memes on the internet, don't care one way or the other about them. If you mean white supremacists, they're assholes. He was most likely this way because the alt-right means a lot to Bannon who almost certainly influenced his speech. It was wrong of Trump.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Communists were globalist socialists and the Nazis were nationalist socialists. Hitler went after the communists because he felt they wanted to subjugate Germans under an international Jewish global finance regime (1%ers again).
Nazis, arguably, were nationalist socialists in something more meaningful than just the party name—before Hitler took over and redirected the party. Afterwards, they were even more clearly nationalist, but not at all socialist.
I mean, what did Hitler do exactly to redirect the party that you see as not being socialist?