Trump Strategic and Policy Forum, Which Included IBM and GM CEOs, Disbands(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Trump Strategic and Policy Forum, Which Included IBM and GM CEOs, Disbands
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/16/trump-strategic-and-policy-forum-which-included-ibm-and-gm-ceos-disbands
117 comments
> 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 ruthlessness exactly what people like about our current system?
> Corporations exist in society, and are not above society's concerns. Businesses operate through human beings, who remain human even in their roles as CEOs. One would hope.
Citation needed, I guess. For mid-small size companies this might be the case, but evidence seems to point to the opposite of this for any organization large enough to be its own thing outside of the humans and subsystems that comprise its pieces.
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 ruthlessness exactly what people like about our current system?
> Corporations exist in society, and are not above society's concerns. Businesses operate through human beings, who remain human even in their roles as CEOs. One would hope.
Citation needed, I guess. For mid-small size companies this might be the case, but evidence seems to point to the opposite of this for any organization large enough to be its own thing outside of the humans and subsystems that comprise its pieces.
But that is how it works, right? If you don't maximize shareholder value you can be ousted
Depends on what you mean by "maximize," since "shareholder value" is a matter of opinion. Some might make the case for short-term rises at all costs, while others take a longer view of "value." In between are a lot of experts and self-proclaimed experts.
Depends on what you mean by "maximize," since "shareholder value" is a matter of opinion. Some might make the case for short-term rises at all costs, while others take a longer view of "value." In between are a lot of experts and self-proclaimed experts.
> you don't maximize shareholder value you can be ousted,
If shareholders value not collaborating with Nazis, then not collaborating with Nazis generates shareholder value.
Shareholders as a group have no need to be less good than themselves individually.
If shareholders value not collaborating with Nazis, then not collaborating with Nazis generates shareholder value.
Shareholders as a group have no need to be less good than themselves individually.
> 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.
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.
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.
"Corporations are people." And it behooves them to be politically correct at all times.
Literal nazis are waking the streets in nation that leads the free world. Save us this "political correctness gone mad" BS.
As an aside, that space blockchain section is 0.30 bitcoin [0].
[0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=price+of+gold+in+bitcoi...
[0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=price+of+gold+in+bitcoi...
Matt Levine always says it best
Is there a reason for the love that some on HN have for Matt Levine? Seems like every finance related topic brings up matt levine.
> Matt Levine says it best:
Is that the really best?
> Matt Levine says it best:
Is that the really best?
He's both smart and witty. He rarely just states an opinion, but usually concerns himself with subjects where he struggles to believe something with absolute certainty, and instead readily gives the best argument for each side of an argument. He also appears to be a Mensch.
In this case, I chose him because his Goldman Sachs credentials make it impossible to dismiss him as some sort of far-left Antifa lunatic, and because he's making a good case for moral responsibility in business. A case that is widely accepted among actual business leadership, but somehow still stymies the HN crowd, where the shareholder-above-anything folklore was absolutely certain to make an appearance.
In this case, I chose him because his Goldman Sachs credentials make it impossible to dismiss him as some sort of far-left Antifa lunatic, and because he's making a good case for moral responsibility in business. A case that is widely accepted among actual business leadership, but somehow still stymies the HN crowd, where the shareholder-above-anything folklore was absolutely certain to make an appearance.
I actually just started reading his newsletter a few weeks ago. His writing is akin to the comments you see on Hackernews: insightful, appropriately opinionated, backed up by experience in industry.
He also adds a wittiness that makes reading his material a pleasure.
He also adds a wittiness that makes reading his material a pleasure.
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?
> "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?
Twelve quit before it was disbanded. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Manufacturing_Council and sort by Membership status.
Might be worth noting that three of those twelve left because they left their jobs with their respective companies, and one in protest of a different matter in Juny. It looks like eight left in the past two days in protest of Charlottesville stuff.
According to the article the entire Strategy & Policy Forum disbanded beforehand, and he tweeted that to save face.
> 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 the work-force, pay less taxes, etc.
This backhanded manipulation and dealings did not work on Trump as well as it did on the previous presidents.
So now they are disbanding (as they serve no purpose), and using this moment to attempt to discredit the person they could not manipulate.
This "Strategic and Policy Forum" existed for the sole purpose of promoting the individual company interests... Such as how to best offshore the work-force, pay less taxes, etc.
This backhanded manipulation and dealings did not work on Trump as well as it did on the previous presidents.
So now they are disbanding (as they serve no purpose), and using this moment to attempt to discredit the person they could not manipulate.
One would assume that the White House would meet with corporate leaders, who undoubtedly have interests with regards to taxes and offshore money or labor laws, to find the intersection of interests.
Not exactly a vote of confidence in the administration's priorities in renegotiating NAFTA, which started like an hour ago.
It was already clear that nothing of substance is going to come out of the NAFTA talks, both because nobody in business or agriculture wants it (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/trump-win-nafta-tal...) and because nobody is impressed by Trump anymore: just like the rest of the world, Canada and Mexico have figured out that he's all bluster and folds like a cheap tent as soon as you say "No".
It was already clear that nothing of substance...was going to come out of this entire 4 year term... I think you meant to say..
They will lower taxes mainly for upper incomes and produce huge deficits. They will have made the US health system even worse. Another achievement will be winding back a lot of environmental rules.
So I think they are on track with their real goals. Helping the American worker was never a serious goal.
So I think they are on track with their real goals. Helping the American worker was never a serious goal.
Only if we're lucky. Repealing obamacare without a replacement came within a single vote.
True, but that carried a lot of Republican support and was not just a Trump initiative.
Yeah, the congress and senate might actually accomplish something (for good or evil), but the president is just a side show to keep people distracted and drum up ad revenue for news companies (and I use the term loosely).
With the uncertainty they have spread and the refusal to work on Obamacare problems they are on track of making it fail even without repealing.
The public exchanges may not have any affordable policies or even any policies at all available at some point.
The ACA is a lot more than just the public exchanges.
The ACA is a lot more than just the public exchanges.
That's Congress not the Executive
> You can believe that broad common ownership of the means of production can still foster competition, while also thinking that that common ownership should be allocated by capitalist methods.
I don't understand how this would work - anyone more economically versed care to chime in on how you could have common ownership of the means of production that was also distributed capitalistically?
I don't understand how this would work - anyone more economically versed care to chime in on how you could have common ownership of the means of production that was also distributed capitalistically?
Pension funds do this already to a degree. Everyone pays in, the funds invest in all sorts of things, so everyone kinda owns bits of everything in a capitalist way.
Of course it's obfuscated enough that it's hard to know what you own a piece of, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Of course it's obfuscated enough that it's hard to know what you own a piece of, but it doesn't have to be that way.
That's just what a stock market is, if stocks are owned broadly by members of the public.
Where are you citing this from?
Stock grants to employees?
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.
Speaking generally, the board and shareholders would never allow a CEO to sacrifice the stock price for the CEO's morals, unless those morals aligned with the good of the company. Very naive to think otherwise.
Wasn't there a study that said CEOs tend to be overrepresented in the sociopathetic personality?
CEOs of large corporations have no problem doing business with china or israel or russia or any other questionable locations.
CEOs of large corporations have no problem doing business with china or israel or russia or any other questionable locations.
More likely than the population at large, but it’s still a minority of CEOs who are sociopaths.
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?
Here are some specific things that Trump has done that are very similar to Hitler:
1. Created a narrative via dog whistles that white folks are actual victims in this country in the hands of minorities, immigrants, BLM etc. A strong undercurrent of "us" vs. "them" narrative. As a result a significant portion of Republicans believe that white people are more discriminated in this country
2. Undermined free press with constant attacks and going so far and creating his own news network - a clear propaganda approach
3. Allowed the FCC to enable Sinclair broadcasting takeover of local news media, creating a powerful propaganda arm in the form of local news
4. Undermined democracy via nepotism and nominating unqualified family members to important positions
5. Brutally attack critics in an attempt to shut down criticism
1. Created a narrative via dog whistles that white folks are actual victims in this country in the hands of minorities, immigrants, BLM etc. A strong undercurrent of "us" vs. "them" narrative. As a result a significant portion of Republicans believe that white people are more discriminated in this country
2. Undermined free press with constant attacks and going so far and creating his own news network - a clear propaganda approach
3. Allowed the FCC to enable Sinclair broadcasting takeover of local news media, creating a powerful propaganda arm in the form of local news
4. Undermined democracy via nepotism and nominating unqualified family members to important positions
5. Brutally attack critics in an attempt to shut down criticism
Sinclair was well into its takeover before Trump took office.
Here's a great article on NYT on the Sinclair situation
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/how-a-conserv...
Here's the key quote "The moves, which include easing a cap on how many stations a broadcaster can own, have opened up lucrative opportunities for Mr. Smith, among them a $3.9 billion bid to buy Tribune Media, another large owner of stations."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/how-a-conserv...
Here's the key quote "The moves, which include easing a cap on how many stations a broadcaster can own, have opened up lucrative opportunities for Mr. Smith, among them a $3.9 billion bid to buy Tribune Media, another large owner of stations."
Oh, well. I guess it's all fine then.
Well, it's unfair to label it as "Trump being evil".
Ooh! This is fun. The "how someone is just like Hitler game." I know this game.
Here's my entry: 5 things Barack Obama did that were very similar to Adolf Hitler:
1. Assumed a populist mantra of taking back government from corrupt politicians ("change you can believe in" "not beholden to special interests")
2. Employed blitzkrieg tactics against unsuspecting and peaceful nations (Hitler: Poland; Obama: Libya)
3. Armed and funded radical revolutionaries in other nations in hopes of governmental overthrow and replacement by sympathetic new governments (Hitler: Spain; Obama: Ukraine, Syria, Iran; the Arab Spring more generally)
4. Designed a national healthcare system with a close analogue in Hitler's national socialist healthcare
5. Used inspiring rhetoric to distract from policies unpopular among the majority of the electorate (such as Obama's transgender bathroom policies, which almost 2/3 of Americans disliked)
Who should we do next? I'm thinking challenge round: either Bono, Hulk Hogan, or the Dalia Lama.
Here's my entry: 5 things Barack Obama did that were very similar to Adolf Hitler:
1. Assumed a populist mantra of taking back government from corrupt politicians ("change you can believe in" "not beholden to special interests")
2. Employed blitzkrieg tactics against unsuspecting and peaceful nations (Hitler: Poland; Obama: Libya)
3. Armed and funded radical revolutionaries in other nations in hopes of governmental overthrow and replacement by sympathetic new governments (Hitler: Spain; Obama: Ukraine, Syria, Iran; the Arab Spring more generally)
4. Designed a national healthcare system with a close analogue in Hitler's national socialist healthcare
5. Used inspiring rhetoric to distract from policies unpopular among the majority of the electorate (such as Obama's transgender bathroom policies, which almost 2/3 of Americans disliked)
Who should we do next? I'm thinking challenge round: either Bono, Hulk Hogan, or the Dalia Lama.
> Designed a national healthcare system with a close analogue in Hitler's national socialist healthcare
And this is bad... why?
As a European that has lived in 3 countries with free public health, I always find this argument baffling.
And this is bad... why?
As a European that has lived in 3 countries with free public health, I always find this argument baffling.
Seriously?
1.) That might be populist opinion but surely is not comparable to what Hitler did. Or do you seriously claim that people like Sanders, Warren use the same rhetoric as Hitler? That's ridiculous. Hitler was blaming Jews and other minorities and the Versailles treaty for the bad economic situation in Germany. Interestingly Trump is doing the same thing (Nafta, China, Mexicans etc)
2.) The overthrow of the Libyen regime was mainly pushed and pursued by us Europeans (France, England, etc). The USA was in the beginning hesitant and eventually participated. Just to make clear: This was a stupid decision and Obama also admitted this as his worst mistake. Hitler never admitted a mistake or defeat (see Leningrad). Guess what Trump also does not admit
3.) Sorry, but that's part of geopolitics (just to make it clear: It's actually the reason why half of the world is fucked up by wars) and almost every powerful nation has done this in the past and will do this in future. So not sure what you are comparing here.
4.) So then almost all of Europe must have a Nazi healthcare system? Hitler was also a fascist and thus more an ally of corporations, banks and companies than of the people. Some of his policies could have been mistaken as socialist but in reality they were part of his plan to please the population (construction of highways, pumping money into the economy for short term gain). His entire ideology was built around a super-race and elites which is quite the opposite what a "socialist" healthcare system is all about.
5.) Citation needed for the fact that 2/3 of Americans dislike transgender bathrooms. Trump's policies (taxes, healthcare) are so unpopular that he can't even pass them with a Republican Senate and House. Apart from that Hitler tapped into a huge antisemitic sentiment that was carried by a wide majority of people. If that hadn't been the case, he would have never be able to create his Nazi regime. I also think this is the main difference to today. The alt-right, KKK and Nazi clowns are a minority - a loud one - but still a minority. So I don't think that we are facing another Nazi regime. Nevertheless you can clearly see similarities between Trump and Hitler behavior. The only difference is that Trump lacks the intellectual capacity (maybe Bannon has it) in order to pull something off that Hitler had done.
1.) That might be populist opinion but surely is not comparable to what Hitler did. Or do you seriously claim that people like Sanders, Warren use the same rhetoric as Hitler? That's ridiculous. Hitler was blaming Jews and other minorities and the Versailles treaty for the bad economic situation in Germany. Interestingly Trump is doing the same thing (Nafta, China, Mexicans etc)
2.) The overthrow of the Libyen regime was mainly pushed and pursued by us Europeans (France, England, etc). The USA was in the beginning hesitant and eventually participated. Just to make clear: This was a stupid decision and Obama also admitted this as his worst mistake. Hitler never admitted a mistake or defeat (see Leningrad). Guess what Trump also does not admit
3.) Sorry, but that's part of geopolitics (just to make it clear: It's actually the reason why half of the world is fucked up by wars) and almost every powerful nation has done this in the past and will do this in future. So not sure what you are comparing here.
4.) So then almost all of Europe must have a Nazi healthcare system? Hitler was also a fascist and thus more an ally of corporations, banks and companies than of the people. Some of his policies could have been mistaken as socialist but in reality they were part of his plan to please the population (construction of highways, pumping money into the economy for short term gain). His entire ideology was built around a super-race and elites which is quite the opposite what a "socialist" healthcare system is all about.
5.) Citation needed for the fact that 2/3 of Americans dislike transgender bathrooms. Trump's policies (taxes, healthcare) are so unpopular that he can't even pass them with a Republican Senate and House. Apart from that Hitler tapped into a huge antisemitic sentiment that was carried by a wide majority of people. If that hadn't been the case, he would have never be able to create his Nazi regime. I also think this is the main difference to today. The alt-right, KKK and Nazi clowns are a minority - a loud one - but still a minority. So I don't think that we are facing another Nazi regime. Nevertheless you can clearly see similarities between Trump and Hitler behavior. The only difference is that Trump lacks the intellectual capacity (maybe Bannon has it) in order to pull something off that Hitler had done.
I don't think there is a game to know in this instance. Failing to recognize authoritian leaders and their often zealous followers has killed far to many people through history to be dismissed easily. Hopefully Trump is not either one of them, or paving the way for one, but it's certainly no game.
I'm sure Obama did things wrong, but all that has already happened, and I fail to see how it's even remotely relevant to actual current events, and it doesn't in any way refute what the parent poster wrote.
I'm sure Obama did things wrong, but all that has already happened, and I fail to see how it's even remotely relevant to actual current events, and it doesn't in any way refute what the parent poster wrote.
Well, you are really reaching there. Hitler liked Beethoven and so did Obama is not a valid comparison. I gave specific examples of undermining democracy. Building a healthcare system is not undermining democracy nor is bombing Libya. Bombing foreign countries is an American tradition like Football on Sunday
For starters, he has singled out a religious minority for persecution (Muslims instead of Jews this time), endorsed the use of violence to silence political opponents and protesters, and encouraged law enforcement to use violence against suspects.
Oh, he also failed to do anything about it when a foreign government (Turkey) used violence against protestors on American soil. Hitler never had the opportunity to do that, but he surely would have approved.
Oh, he also failed to do anything about it when a foreign government (Turkey) used violence against protestors on American soil. Hitler never had the opportunity to do that, but he surely would have approved.
By putting people in 'groups' and having those who support him also enforce this idea that we're all in separate groups and need to look out for own little group--this is how fascism grows, this is how hitler took over Germany, this is how a new Hitler figure could take over America too... It's not outside the realm of possibility sure Germans in 1900 couldn't forsee the horrors of 1940.
Here's a good video from 1947 explaining the whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23X14HS4gLk
Here's a good video from 1947 explaining the whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23X14HS4gLk
Wait - aren't you exactly describing identity politics?
Sure, as long as you define identity political groups to allow things like subjugating and terrorizing other groups, sure.
Treating violent white nationalists like just another "political identity" is disingenuous. Like saying ISIS members are "just Muslims".
We treat identity groups with violent tendencies as terrorists (but only prosecute if their skin is brown)
Treating violent white nationalists like just another "political identity" is disingenuous. Like saying ISIS members are "just Muslims".
We treat identity groups with violent tendencies as terrorists (but only prosecute if their skin is brown)
Prepare to have your mind blown: it's possible to both dislike contemporary leftist idpol and still think Nazis are indisputably much worse.
I know. I just found it amusing to read it like that. And even though using the term "both sides" has now become tricky, I think indeed left and right have done their fair share to make it come to the situation we are in, with constant hyperbole and hysteria and grandstanding in the media, rather than discussing issues (which probably still happens, one would hope, but it does not make it to the front pages any more).
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/04/thernstrom.identity.p...
Then, I guess Trump learned from the best.
Then, I guess Trump learned from the best.
Pushing a diverse melting pot isn't the same as forcing for white supremacy.
1. America is the melting pot of the world, no pushing is required. Hiring based on ability; regardless of color, religion, etc., is required.
2. Trump is pushing against white supremacy:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/trump-condemns-charlo...
"Trump calls KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists 'repugnant'"
2. Trump is pushing against white supremacy:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/trump-condemns-charlo...
"Trump calls KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists 'repugnant'"
[deleted]
There was an interesting TrumpCast episode (from June 2016) during which the host interviewed a historian of European Fascism:
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/trumpcast/2016/06/tru...
I'd be curious whether the historian would offer the same analysis today.
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/trumpcast/2016/06/tru...
I'd be curious whether the historian would offer the same analysis today.
Attacked the media and placed almost all the blame for American hardships on immigrants?
'so-called judges' is a terrifying precedent...
So-called judges once ruled that blacks were property rather than human. We have a long history of "so-called judged".
Go read about what lincoln felt about judges.
Go read about what lincoln felt about judges.
Disagreeing but obeying with a decision is quite different from denying judicial authority.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
"Supreme Court opinions decide only the individual case before the court, Lincoln argued. They do not bind members of Congress or the President in their political actions. It was thus proper for the other branches of government — and for the people — to resist wrong and harmful decisions of the Supreme Court and to seek to have them reversed and overturned. That was simply part of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances. …"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
"Supreme Court opinions decide only the individual case before the court, Lincoln argued. They do not bind members of Congress or the President in their political actions. It was thus proper for the other branches of government — and for the people — to resist wrong and harmful decisions of the Supreme Court and to seek to have them reversed and overturned. That was simply part of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances. …"
If you're suggesting that Hitler also placed all of the blame on immigrants, you must mistakenly believe that the Jewish people were immigrants to Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe. This was not the case. The Jewish victims of the Holocaust were targeted for being Jewish, not because they hadn't been born within certain borders.
Trump's attacks on both Muslims and Hispanics have not been restricted to immigrants (though in the latter case the attack on non-immigrants has been based on their presumed alignment with immigrants of the same ethnicity.) Like Hitler's attacks on, among others, Jews they are treated as alien others even when not immigrants.
Trump isn't going after immigrants, he is going after brown people and more generally non-white people. It doesn't matter to him if they were born here or came here.
[deleted]
Hitler placed almost all of the blame for German hardships on the 1% (racial stereotype: Jews). This may also be a good time to point out that Nazi stands for National Socialist.
Nazis were not socialists, that was optics. The Nazi party actually got into power in a reaction to an attack that was blamed on communists (burning of the reichstag). Whether it was actually communists, or a false flag by the Nazis to seize power is an ongoing debate without enough evidence either way. What is a matter of record is that the very first thing the Nazis did after seizing power was to round up all the communists, and communist sympathizers (or political rivals they could accuse of being communist sympathizers) and arrest them.
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.
Afterwards, they were even more clearly nationalist, but not at all socialist.
Hitler was just a hair to the right of Stalin. Sure, the nazis did some union busting but that's only because they viewed the unions as stealing loyalty from the state. However, the Nazis had the same redistributive ideology of the Communists. Only the communists focused on class while Nazis focused on race. Nazis separated church and state. Germany had universal healthcare and demanded the state be responsible for providing jobs rather than the free market. Today, we'd call this a "jobs program." Nazis were into eugenics. Guess what country just managed to rid itself of 100% of down syndrome babies via abortion? Socialist leaning Iceland.
I mean, what did Hitler do exactly to redirect the party that you see as not being socialist?
I mean, what did Hitler do exactly to redirect the party that you see as not being socialist?
> I mean, what did Hitler do exactly to redirect the party that you see as not being socialist?
Among the more obvious things, displaced the focus on levelling social and class heirarchy with imposition of the heirarchical doctrine of Führerprinzip, and abandoning any substantive pursuit of the platform plank for confiscation of all non-labor income, and maintaining a robust insistence on the importance of private property and private initiative in industry.
Among the more obvious things, displaced the focus on levelling social and class heirarchy with imposition of the heirarchical doctrine of Führerprinzip, and abandoning any substantive pursuit of the platform plank for confiscation of all non-labor income, and maintaining a robust insistence on the importance of private property and private initiative in industry.
>imposition of the heirarchical doctrine of Führerprinzip
Communists were globalist socialists, Nazis are nationalist socialist. The imposition of the Führerprinzip was pulling power away from the global political regimes supported by the communists into the German one. It's nearly irrelevant with respect to the socialist bit, it's all about the globalist vs nationalist.
>and abandoning any substantive pursuit of the platform plank for confiscation of all non-labor income
What do you think the killing of all those Jews was about? The Jews were stereotypically the wealthy bankers, the 1%ers in today's parlance. One of the first things Hitler did after taking power was run around killing all the communists. Why? Because he believed that the communists wanted to turn over power to international finance regimes (Jewish 1%ers). Obviously the murdering and the racism bits are the key factors for why we hate the Nazis. But murdering and racism aren't what determines whether something is socialist. This was definitely socialism implemented through the eye of a racist.
I'll grant you that Hitler was a hair to the right of Stalin. There was a ghost of private property ownership but the substantive powers of property ownership were held by the government, not by private owners. The government determined what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was distributed, as well as what prices could be charged and what wages would be paid. Does that sound like private property ownership or capitalism or a free market to you? It certainly doesn't sound like it to me.
Communists were globalist socialists, Nazis are nationalist socialist. The imposition of the Führerprinzip was pulling power away from the global political regimes supported by the communists into the German one. It's nearly irrelevant with respect to the socialist bit, it's all about the globalist vs nationalist.
>and abandoning any substantive pursuit of the platform plank for confiscation of all non-labor income
What do you think the killing of all those Jews was about? The Jews were stereotypically the wealthy bankers, the 1%ers in today's parlance. One of the first things Hitler did after taking power was run around killing all the communists. Why? Because he believed that the communists wanted to turn over power to international finance regimes (Jewish 1%ers). Obviously the murdering and the racism bits are the key factors for why we hate the Nazis. But murdering and racism aren't what determines whether something is socialist. This was definitely socialism implemented through the eye of a racist.
I'll grant you that Hitler was a hair to the right of Stalin. There was a ghost of private property ownership but the substantive powers of property ownership were held by the government, not by private owners. The government determined what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was distributed, as well as what prices could be charged and what wages would be paid. Does that sound like private property ownership or capitalism or a free market to you? It certainly doesn't sound like it to me.
And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a "Democratic" "Republic".
Don't believe everything everyone says about themselves.
Don't believe everything everyone says about themselves.
Hmmm. I wonder what that means for the "United" States.
Well, vaguely revisionist history aside, that was at least part of what the civil war was over. The southern states were upset that the constitution in the case of slavery could override their state powers and ban slavery. The confederate states wanted to rewrite the constitution to strip the federal government of essentially all powers except the power to wage war and the regulation of interstate commerce, essentially blocking it from having any impact on the activities wholly within a state. The Union states of course wanted to keep the constitution as it was (or even strengthen it), that is giving the federal government veto power over states and the ability to enforce human rights guaranteed by the constitution. Thus in one sense the civil war was a fight over a weak vs. strong federal government. When making that argument though it's important not to downplay the importance of slavery as a motivating factor for the confederate states. Many revisionist white supremacists try to make that argument as a way of whitewashing the confederate states actions and trying to re-frame the confederate states motivations as being non-racist, when they were anything but.
> This may also be a good time to point out that Nazi stands for National Socialist.
Not without also pointing out that not only are political party names often misleading, and also that the “National Socialist German Workers Party” name was with the party before Hitler and his gang took over the party and threw out its old platform, specifically getting rid of the socialist bits.
Not without also pointing out that not only are political party names often misleading, and also that the “National Socialist German Workers Party” name was with the party before Hitler and his gang took over the party and threw out its old platform, specifically getting rid of the socialist bits.
What socialist bits, exactly, do you believe Hitler's Nazis got rid of? Did they get rid of nationalized healthcare? Nope. Did they get rid of the idea that the government, not the free market, had the responsibility of providing you with a job? Nope. Did they get rid of political redistribution of wealth? Definitely not, they just focused more on race while the communists focused on class. Did they have the same beliefs in eugenics that has modern Socialist leaning Iceland ridding itself of 100% of its down syndrome babies via abortion? Yep. Now the Nazis did do some union busting but that's only because they thought unions would steal loyalty from the state. Did they get rid of any socialist bits?
The Weimar Republic (German Government Prior to Hitler) was a socialist country. The parties that countered the socialists were the communists, the people who supported the old monarchy, and the Nazis.
Hitler didn't bring socialism to Germany. The party introduced extreme nationalism.
Hitler didn't bring socialism to Germany. The party introduced extreme nationalism.
Thread status: Godwin'd.
His daughter is jewish and his son in law is jewish, so that must mean he hitler.
Hitler eventually married a jew... so, what's your point?
Oh you didn't get the memo... He's LITERALLY the same. The media told me so.
How could you distinguish between "images" and "moral courage" in an environment that practically demand you to do so?
You don't.
You don't.
It's definitely political posturing/virtue signaling to customers. The big gripe is that Trump didn't explicitly call out white supremacists when denouncing hate and violence. The Sheriff explicitly stated that there was violent escalation from both the white supremacists and the antifa crowd. A single member of the white racist asshole group escalated the violence to the next level and someone got killed. I'm on board with explicitly calling out the white supremacists, but I think the reaction by the media is eye-rollingly inconsistent. They didn't hold anyone's feet to the fire when BLM killed cops, or antifa has previously escalated to violence. In short, this is fair criticism of Trump, but the scale of the response is kinda ridiculous. But also, I welcome the media to the club. Maybe we'll also get Islamic terrorists called out by their group identity too.
The flak that Trump is getting is not because he did not condemn white supremacist groups, it is because he said both groups are same. One was there preaching the idea of owning other people and violence, the second was there to ask for equality.
BLM and KKK may both be violent, but they are being violent for different reasons. You can condemn the violence without equating them. It is like saying Nelson Mandela and Pablo Escobar are same because they fought government and went to prison.
BLM and KKK may both be violent, but they are being violent for different reasons. You can condemn the violence without equating them. It is like saying Nelson Mandela and Pablo Escobar are same because they fought government and went to prison.
Both groups deserve equal protection under the law and should have the right to assemble. Any violence against either one is equally problematic. The content of their shitty messages is irrelevant.
>The content of their shitty messages is irrelevant
To you, but the president endorsing a group or legitimizing the cause of another is not irrelevant.
To you, but the president endorsing a group or legitimizing the cause of another is not irrelevant.
Again, it's completely fair criticism to call Trump out for not explicitly naming white supremacists or alt-right or whatever in his initial remarks. What I take issue with is that when it's left leaning groups committing similar acts of violence no one on the left and hardly anyone in the national media explicitly calls out Antifa or BLM as having murderers or violent acts carried out amongst its ranks.
Are we going to associate everyone with their political identity or not? It's unethical to do it only when it's a political identity you disagree with.
Are we going to associate everyone with their political identity or not? It's unethical to do it only when it's a political identity you disagree with.
Both groups get equal protection under the law. That's not what's being discussed here. It's more whether they deserve equal criticism by the media and politicians, and there the message is relevant.
Why do people continue to associate Micah Xavier Johnson with Black Lives Matter? He himself stated he was not affiliated with any movements or groups. Why? Well... I know why, but can someone please point me to any documented proof that Micah Xavier Johnson was an active member of Black Lives Matter?
Sigh. "Virtue signaling" has become yet another formerly-useful concept now drained of all meaning because everyone uses it to mean "thing I don't like" (ironically, usually because they're virtue signaling).
Listen up: people, including CEOs, actually can have their own opinions on things. They can decide "hey, I don't want to support this guy who refuses to condemn neo-Nazis". That is hardly an unthinkable prospect.
Listen up: people, including CEOs, actually can have their own opinions on things. They can decide "hey, I don't want to support this guy who refuses to condemn neo-Nazis". That is hardly an unthinkable prospect.
A neo-Nazi killed someone and Trump's first response was to condemn all hate and violence. Was that some sort of secrete white supremacist code that meant hate and violence from neo-Nazis is totes cool? Is that seriously your narrative?
The problem is that his first reaction was to basically say both sides were equally wrong. In this context the two sides where A) neo-nazis and white supremacists, and B) counter protestors who were there to oppose the neo-nazis and white supremacists. This was not a BLM rally, this was an alt-right rally. There might have been some BLM members there, there might even have been some antifa there, but the majority of the crowd that was there was a reaction to the alt-right and in opposition to them, not acting as a member of some other group. By saying both sides were equally to blame he was saying that opposing neo-nazis and white supremacists was wrong. Additionally by not calling out the neo-nazis and white supremacists, and instead merely talking about violence, he's tacitly providing support for them, he's saying that it's only the violent act that was wrong, not the racists or fascists.
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 you and the media to the side of wanting to explicitly call out the groups with the bad actors. If you and the media had an equal and opposite response when BLM killed cops and called for the POTUS to explicitly call out BLM, I'd have nothing to say here.
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 not denouncing the neo-nazis and white supremacists in general, and specifically in this case where they resorted to violence, Trump is tacitly approving of them, which shows he is wholly inappropriate to be the president of the United States.
I'm not ignoring the elephant in the room. I pointed directly at the elephant and even agreed that Trump should have explicitly called them out by their group identity. Where I think we disagree is that Antifa and BLM give credibility to the alt-right and white nationalists. Every time Antifa and BLM gets violent it gives the neo-Nazi assholes an example to point at as a recruiting tool and legitimately argue that they are victims.
>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.
>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.
This is the second time in this discussion that you've referred to Black Lives Matter as an organization that kills or has directed the killing of law enforcement officers. Can you present documented proof?
Joseph Thomas Johnson-Shanks murdered a Kentucky State Trooper
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/suspect-trooper-dea...
Tyrone Harris Jr. fired shots at an unmarked police car, then died in a shootout with the police. He didn't manage to actually kill anyone though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest#Tyrone_Harris_....
Jeffrey Williams shot two police officers in relation to BLM protests and demonstrations in Ferguson. Naturally BLM disavowed him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/williams-ferguson-p...
Micah Johnson killed 5 officers and wounded several others http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437694/black-lives-mat...
There's a few others, but it's hard to find reliable sources because the mainstream media has, as I explicitly called them out for, avoided associating these acts of violence with their group identities.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/suspect-trooper-dea...
Tyrone Harris Jr. fired shots at an unmarked police car, then died in a shootout with the police. He didn't manage to actually kill anyone though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest#Tyrone_Harris_....
Jeffrey Williams shot two police officers in relation to BLM protests and demonstrations in Ferguson. Naturally BLM disavowed him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/williams-ferguson-p...
Micah Johnson killed 5 officers and wounded several others http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437694/black-lives-mat...
There's a few others, but it's hard to find reliable sources because the mainstream media has, as I explicitly called them out for, avoided associating these acts of violence with their group identities.
We're at peak activism today and corporations are the primary targets. My guess is those CEO's were flooded by "concerned customers" who were probably as fake as so many twitter/facebook bots.
My guess is those CEO's were flooded by "concerned customers" who were probably as fake as so many twitter/facebook bots.
Thanks for adding this random made-up idea to the discussion.
Thanks for adding this random made-up idea to the discussion.
gremlinsinc(1)
The sad part is that business will go on but now the lobbyists will do the advising again.
Seems like these panels were in place more for their legitimizing optics than for genuine counsel.
The lobbyists never stopped advising. In fact his administration is filled with former lobbyists that are now on the executive branch's payroll. That's one way to drain the swamp.
I'd guess the lobbyists were doing the actual advising before this anyway.
Lobbyists act on behalf of business, how is this any different?
So..... who else do you think the Republicans are going to nominate for president in 2020?
Based on recent history, Martin Shkreli has good odds. :-)
"[..] 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 considerations. Corporations exist in society, and are not above society's concerns. Businesses operate through human beings, who remain human even in their roles as CEOs. One would hope."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-16/ceos-cons...