- Jan 23, 2014
- Reaction score
- Central Ohio
It’s bad enough that mega corporations, such as Microsoft as you’ve mentioned, are acting like monopolies.“Multinational political rights” justifies why many well-read Americans are against the goals of a One World Order. It will be interesting to read the transcript from the World Economic Forum next month regarding their global assessment.
It’s bad enough that mega corporations, such as Microsoft as you’ve mentioned, are acting like monopolies. Mega corps are being called out for their actions and rightfully so. Microsoft is abusing its power and court records contain the case details. Once a mega-corp inhales all other competitors, there are obvious reasons to review our laws with a fine toothed comb and decide what laws address the digital age and what constitutes fair doctrine for our country. One major problem with our anti-trust laws on the books is that they were written about 100 years ago, and that was of course way before these types of digital companies were in existence. It’s time for an upgrade!
To support the idea that these mega corps need equal political say would be a fair assessment and outcome, if that’s truly what you mean, but that’s not what you’ve implied. Btw- I can list examples if you’d like of Microsoft’s abuses of power.
You asked -when is the cut off for political rights, as far as a person who’s worked hard, becomes CEO of mega corp, and why should they not have political rights? Equal yes, as in equal to one voter. Just going off the cuff here, I’d say Microsoft‘s political clout is likely about 100 million times compared to the average citizen’s, does that sound about right? Surely you aren’t going to stick with that 1-1 equal status in political power nonsense? Okay, remove the word nonsense as honestly you are well-versed here and I will be reading more about this topic later to catch up.
I am typing to you on a Mac OS. I don't have even one single example of Microsoft software on this computer. Not one.
Something is either a monopoly, or it is not. Microsoft is not a monopoly. End of story.
By the way, I have another computer running Linux. Again, not one single example of MS software on that computer either.
Not a monopoly.
Americans are against the goals of a One World Order.
Out of genuine curiosity, what are some of the bad goals of the One World Order? And who specifically is pushing those goals?
Mega corps are being called out for their actions and rightfully so.
I don't have a problem with being called out. Obviously I support freedom of speech. What I have a problem with, is giving government every growing amounts of unlimited power, in the name of stopping those companies.
Because what happens is, that power ultimately will be used against the people calling for government to be given that power.
For example, when you call for regulations, that ultimately end up being used to stop small business. No matter how much you think a regulation is going to stop say... Monsanto, it's not. It never is. What happens is, Monsanto has the money to meet that regulations. It's the smaller competitors that don't, and end up selling out to Monsanto.
Regulations end up benefiting the big companies, and taking freedom away from the public. Never hurts the big companies. Never.
Once a mega-corp inhales all other competitors
Name one example of a Mega-corp that inhales all other competitors, where government regulation was not the cause.
I’d say Microsoft‘s political clout is likely about 100 million times compared to the average citizen’s, does that sound about right?
Then why was Amazon kicked out of New York, by a bar tending bimbo in her 20s?
Again, I will grant you that obviously companies have more influence, than individual citizens. And as I said before, I have no problem calling them out.
But when you try and regulating or legislate against that power, I would say to you that this is counter productive.
Why? Because the problem is the public, and the politicians, not the companies. When a corrupt public, vote for corrupt politicians, no amount of laws and regulations will stop corruption.
No amount. There are literally millions of examples. But the most obvious for me, is again the Clinton's and Al Gore in the 1990s. Dozens of finance laws were broken. Blatantly broken. We had the tapes of Al Gore shaking down people for money straight from his political office.
Another example would be Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in 2004. The congressional investigation found clear undeniable evidence that Fannie and Freddie both violated tons of accounting rules, and hundreds of people in Congress defending Fannie and Freddie, and attacked the Federal Regulators who pointed out the violations, rather than Fannie and Freddie who broke the rules.
And of course the Republicans were proven right, when Fannie and Freddie ended up being the largest bailouts of the entire sub-prime crash.
Why did that happen? Because when they broke the laws, people defended them. And the irony is, the public blamed Bush, rather than the Democrats who defended Fannie and Freddie. Maxine Waters is still in office.
And you think more rules, more laws, is going to help that how? When you support people who openly violate the laws, how is more laws going to fix anything? Explain, I'd love to know.
And here you are trying to justify the removal of freedoms, and repeal of constitutional rights, is going to fix this?