Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Mainstreet Media
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="curiousbrain" data-source="post: 801361" data-attributes="member: 31608"><p>As a general rule, I don't have anything against reading, or footnotes. The reason I didn't read all the linked in articles was because (and this is just a personal observation based on past experiences which may or may not hold true) I find it difficult to argue with the aggregate thought on a particular topic on the internet. That is to say, why should anyone bother saying anything or performing original thought, when there is a veritable infinite pile of links to people (whose credentials vary widely) that can reinforce any possible point of view?</p><p></p><p>I could post a thousand links that "prove" why I am right on an arbitrary topic, but in all actuality, all those links don't make me more right or more wrong.</p><p></p><p>Another reason why I don't read all the links - because then I end up writing a doctoral thesis responding to the huge article that was linked, instead of continuing the discussion with the original poster.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To the topic of agriculture in this country, it would be hard to make any case that that is a good example of a "proper" economic climate. However, I would make the case that ADM, as a corporation, is playing within the rules of the game, as it were; that is not to say that the way in which they exploit the rules is "right" or "wrong", but as a soulless entity whose legal obligation is to generate wealth, they sure do a good job of it.</p><p></p><p>If the methods they employ to generate that wealth runs afoul of federal, international, or other legal rules, then they absolutely deserve to be held responsible and accountable for their actions - the question of whether they have been held accountable in ways that are commensurate with their crimes is debatable ad infinitum, I think. Luckily (or unluckily, depending on your perspective, I suppose), there is a legal system whose job it is to decide things like that.</p><p></p><p>As for Microsoft and the link about Copyright and IP protection, I disagree with the link and, personally, happen to support the concept of IP. The case can be made that I am not seeing the big picture, or any other number of things, but as a person who occasionally participates in both open-source and closed-source software and engineering projects, there are advantages and disadvantages to both sides.</p><p></p><p>Also, that link was filed under 'Opinion', and used phrases such as the following: Show me this empirical evidence. I'm not questioning the authors' credentials, and it is an opinion piece so there is a certain understanding that there is an implicit bias in there, but then it hardly helps as a third party reference for proving a point, either.</p><p></p><p>Patenting the double-click is a bit specious, in my opinion, but if it is acceptable under the current judicial interpretation, then as much as I may think it smells funny, they should be allowed to do it. Hypothesizing that I am an inventor for a moment, what is the motivation for me as a scientist of some sort to innovate when I cannot guarantee monetary value for my invention? I love moral values and all that as much as the next person, but when I engage in work I do it for the money - maybe I'm the odd man out on that one, though.</p><p></p><p>To the previous paragraph, I exclude high-energy particle physics due to the resources required - I don't think any breakthroughs in high-energy particle physics are going to come from a kid in a garage, is what I mean to say; I hope that is not too distasteful.</p><p></p><p>As a larger point, I would make the initial argument that corporations are not national entities; they do business in a specific country because they make a complicated assessment and decide it would make them money - if they want to consider other intangible assets like consumer goodwill via human rights, or environmental friendliness, that is fine, too; but they certainly are not obligated to do so. As such, once they establish their presence, of course they are going to try and maximize their profit via political and judicial wrangling - it occurs to me that this is just a natural evolution of a corporate presence. How the institutions respond to their wrangling is then the issue, and a legitimate one, but the fact that corporations lobby and pursue more money via "better" treatment from regulators and government just seems to be a given, to me.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To the true welfare queens and the link: Yes, ADM is bad because it gives money to politicians in legal and illegal ways, among other things.</p><p></p><p>As a matter of opinion, if the giant players (like Home Depot or Walmart) disappeared entirely, in ten years you would have new corporations take their place. Equivalently, if one were to level the entire playing field and remove any benefits that any corporation is the recipient of, in ten years there would probably be new rules specific to a new set of corporations. Is that because government enjoys an uneven playing field and desires the lowest possible level of service for consumers, or is that an emergent phenomenon of capital-driven economies and politicians who need money for reelection campaigns?</p><p></p><p>That being said, it does seem that eminent domain is an unreasonable tool for any corporation to use to facilitate expansion. However, a good point about the duality of consumer desire was raised in the CNN Money link you provided:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The other link paints a direr picture for the specific area, which seems outrageous. However, I did a little investigation and I am led to believe (of which I could be wrong, of course, as I admit the investigation was far from thorough) that all the business owners wanted to sell, except for one who owned a single acre of land - which the Urban Renewal Authority said it did not want to condemn and give to Wal-Mart, however that that was an option, albeit a last one. Additionally, the development may not even have involved Wal-Mart, that they were just one of the companies looking to build on the area; also, that Alameda Square had been designated a "blighted, urban-renewal" district since 1991. Point being, it seems that it is not as cut-and-dry as the local municipality just kicking perfectly good businesses out regardless of their own desires.</p><p></p><p>To be continued.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="curiousbrain, post: 801361, member: 31608"] As a general rule, I don't have anything against reading, or footnotes. The reason I didn't read all the linked in articles was because (and this is just a personal observation based on past experiences which may or may not hold true) I find it difficult to argue with the aggregate thought on a particular topic on the internet. That is to say, why should anyone bother saying anything or performing original thought, when there is a veritable infinite pile of links to people (whose credentials vary widely) that can reinforce any possible point of view? I could post a thousand links that "prove" why I am right on an arbitrary topic, but in all actuality, all those links don't make me more right or more wrong. Another reason why I don't read all the links - because then I end up writing a doctoral thesis responding to the huge article that was linked, instead of continuing the discussion with the original poster. To the topic of agriculture in this country, it would be hard to make any case that that is a good example of a "proper" economic climate. However, I would make the case that ADM, as a corporation, is playing within the rules of the game, as it were; that is not to say that the way in which they exploit the rules is "right" or "wrong", but as a soulless entity whose legal obligation is to generate wealth, they sure do a good job of it. If the methods they employ to generate that wealth runs afoul of federal, international, or other legal rules, then they absolutely deserve to be held responsible and accountable for their actions - the question of whether they have been held accountable in ways that are commensurate with their crimes is debatable ad infinitum, I think. Luckily (or unluckily, depending on your perspective, I suppose), there is a legal system whose job it is to decide things like that. As for Microsoft and the link about Copyright and IP protection, I disagree with the link and, personally, happen to support the concept of IP. The case can be made that I am not seeing the big picture, or any other number of things, but as a person who occasionally participates in both open-source and closed-source software and engineering projects, there are advantages and disadvantages to both sides. Also, that link was filed under 'Opinion', and used phrases such as the following: Show me this empirical evidence. I'm not questioning the authors' credentials, and it is an opinion piece so there is a certain understanding that there is an implicit bias in there, but then it hardly helps as a third party reference for proving a point, either. Patenting the double-click is a bit specious, in my opinion, but if it is acceptable under the current judicial interpretation, then as much as I may think it smells funny, they should be allowed to do it. Hypothesizing that I am an inventor for a moment, what is the motivation for me as a scientist of some sort to innovate when I cannot guarantee monetary value for my invention? I love moral values and all that as much as the next person, but when I engage in work I do it for the money - maybe I'm the odd man out on that one, though. To the previous paragraph, I exclude high-energy particle physics due to the resources required - I don't think any breakthroughs in high-energy particle physics are going to come from a kid in a garage, is what I mean to say; I hope that is not too distasteful. As a larger point, I would make the initial argument that corporations are not national entities; they do business in a specific country because they make a complicated assessment and decide it would make them money - if they want to consider other intangible assets like consumer goodwill via human rights, or environmental friendliness, that is fine, too; but they certainly are not obligated to do so. As such, once they establish their presence, of course they are going to try and maximize their profit via political and judicial wrangling - it occurs to me that this is just a natural evolution of a corporate presence. How the institutions respond to their wrangling is then the issue, and a legitimate one, but the fact that corporations lobby and pursue more money via "better" treatment from regulators and government just seems to be a given, to me. To the true welfare queens and the link: Yes, ADM is bad because it gives money to politicians in legal and illegal ways, among other things. As a matter of opinion, if the giant players (like Home Depot or Walmart) disappeared entirely, in ten years you would have new corporations take their place. Equivalently, if one were to level the entire playing field and remove any benefits that any corporation is the recipient of, in ten years there would probably be new rules specific to a new set of corporations. Is that because government enjoys an uneven playing field and desires the lowest possible level of service for consumers, or is that an emergent phenomenon of capital-driven economies and politicians who need money for reelection campaigns? That being said, it does seem that eminent domain is an unreasonable tool for any corporation to use to facilitate expansion. However, a good point about the duality of consumer desire was raised in the CNN Money link you provided: The other link paints a direr picture for the specific area, which seems outrageous. However, I did a little investigation and I am led to believe (of which I could be wrong, of course, as I admit the investigation was far from thorough) that all the business owners wanted to sell, except for one who owned a single acre of land - which the Urban Renewal Authority said it did not want to condemn and give to Wal-Mart, however that that was an option, albeit a last one. Additionally, the development may not even have involved Wal-Mart, that they were just one of the companies looking to build on the area; also, that Alameda Square had been designated a "blighted, urban-renewal" district since 1991. Point being, it seems that it is not as cut-and-dry as the local municipality just kicking perfectly good businesses out regardless of their own desires. To be continued. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Mainstreet Media
Top