“Crony Capitalism” Is In Fact Fascist-Socialism

“Crony Capitalism” Is In Fact Fascist-Socialism

Ulrich Jurgens
Businessman, expert on governments and politicians.
“Crony Capitalism” Is In Fact Fascist-Socialism

[MD] This is an article I tripped over in Quora. As I scanned it, it seemed to be an example of how a false premise can get a pontificator out of control. Let’s see how this article stands up against what we know money to be.
As usual I will intersperse my comments so the context will not be lost. My comments will take on this general unformatted font.

To begin I’ll define the terms:
Capitalism: The root of this word it “capital”. The antonym is “labor”. Capital is a substitute for labor. I can make a shovel (create capital) as a substitute for labor (digging with my hands). I can then make the choice to substitute some capital for some amount of labor. I can dig with the shovel. The result is an improvement of both labor and capital…I can produce a hole faster this way. It’s a synergism.

Crony: Crony to me means “privilege”. A common definition is “a close friend or companion.” As it relates to capitalism, I prefer the “privilege”. A banker, in our economy has a 10x leverage privilege over the rest of us. He is a crony capitalist. He’s not employing capital…he’s employing privilege. I’m not privilege after I create my shovel. However, I do have a “fair” advantage. A mortgage banker once said to me: “All I want is a fair advantage.” What he really wanted was a “legal privilege”.

Fascism: Fascism is private ownership of the means of production with government control over this ownership.

Socialism: “To each according to his need; from each according to his ability”. In practice this is a “planned/controlled society”. How the planners are chosen is not very important.

Money: Follow the link above “what we know money to be” for this one.

Now, on to the article.

When Milton Friedman said that the companies’ goal must be exclusively to generate profit (as long as they playing by the rules (meaning, they aren’t scammers)), illiterate people instantly accused him for being greedy, not caring about the nature, the planet, the poor people, etc., aka the usual propaganda.

[MD] Friedman, like all economists, are easily proved wrong. However, like all economists, they will never agree on what constitutes a proof. So here we must resort to “demonstration” and “illustration”. Let the reader decide. I submit that a companies goal is to gain leverage over a problem. It can do this in a number of ways: It can convert labor into capital. It can borrow capital and/or labor and control its production. It can form a collective by giving away or granting a share in the enterprise. And it can do any combination of the above. But it’s about trading. And if you make these tradeoff and don’t come out ahead (i.e. make a profit) as a result, you will fail in whatever proposition you are trying to accomplish. Like money, profit is not a bad thing. But unlike money, profit is essential to survival. You “must” increase your value through trade or you won’t survive.

His statement was the answer to the question whether or not a company should take responsibilities for the community, the society it is in, like “supporting poor people”, “giving charities” or organizing specific events out of the profit territory (because remember kids, profit is EVIL in our new, all-equal commie hellhole).

[MD] What someone does with their excess value has nothing to do with this subject. But when some entity takes control of a portion of your value, what is done with it “is” of importance. For example, government takes 3/4ths of what we earn. With it, it has been able to make 3/4ths of us dependent on government. How? By claiming to be benevolent. If you choose government as the solution to any problem, you are still looking for a solution.

To understand the issue, we must examine what is the economical definition of profit, because many peoples’ understanding is that profit is simply “gaining money”.

[MD] This is the first mention of that magic word “money”. I’ll predict that Ulrich is clueless about money. Let’s see.

But this is only one side of the coin.

[MD] Interesting choice of words (coin). It is, after all, just money in a durable form. I doubt Ulrich will tell us where coins come from. Hint: They trade labor for capital and then have value imposed upon them. Ideally, as regards money, coining consumes no labor or capital.

Suppose you’re a scammer, like Jordan Belfort (I mention him many times simply because he’s famous), only, you’re doing it on a much greater scale, like George Soros.

Now what do you do?

Jordon Belfort: Jordan Ross Belfort is an American author, motivational speaker, former stockbroker, and convicted felon. In 1999, he pled guilty to fraud and related crimes in connection with stock-market manipulation and running a boiler room as part of a penny-stock scam. Belfort spent 22 months in prison as part of an agreement under which he gave testimony agains…

George Soros: George Soros, Hon FBA is a Hungarian-born American billionaire investor and philanthropist. As of May 2020, he had a net worth of $8.3 billion, having donated more than $32 billion to the Open Society Foundations

I submit that both of these gentlemen accumulated their so-called wealth through trading. I submit that that wealth came predominately through trading for “leverage”. A person running a restaurant trades for leverage with his first hire.

You technically rob people by the means of lying. You gaining money without giving anything in exchange.

[MD] By definition, a trade is a perfect exchange. Both parties benefit by exactly the same amount or the trade doesn’t take place.

It is essentially a money transfer and nothing else.

[MD] It “is” something else. Money need not be involved at all. We who know what money is see “money transfer” as simply “simple barter exchange”. It is value for value. And we know “creation of money” is different. That is making a promise spanning time and space. See how easy it is to discriminate meaning when you know true meaning?

The important thing is that no value has been created through the process, except that your victims now became a little bit more wiser, preventing further scams in their own lives.

[MD] Is Ulrich disproving his own postulate?

Now take it to the extremes: you are the ultimate scammer of the world, there is no limit on how much people you can scam, so you transfer money from millions upon millions of people to your own bank account.

[MD] Taking it to even greater extreme, you get people to “die for their country”. We know money acquired in this fashion (i.e. trade rather than creation of counterfeiting) is just simple barter. Some people are better traders than others. But all trades are perfect…value perceived for value perceived.

Suppose you scammed an entire country, and you wiped off everybody’s bank account, but let’s suppose you live in the same country. People are bankrupted, the economy has been destroyed, nobody produces anything, essentially the whole country is just a big BLM / Antifa protest now.

So you have a big pile of money, only, you cannot buy anything with it, so at the end, you successfully scammed yourself.

[MD] An interest characteristic of money: If you have all of it, you have none of it…your money is worthless.

This is because money consists of two things: the body of it, and the goods and services you can buy with it, in other words: its buying power.

[MD] Here is direct and open evidence that Ulrich is clueless about what money is. If we had a “real money process” and the money was denominated in HULs (Hours of Unskilled Labor), this would be easier for Ulrich to understand…and it would be unnecessary for him to write about it.

Having said that, what profit can you have when you destroyed the buying power of the money you scammed out of the people? Can having a huge pile of colorful papers be considered as “profit”?

I don’t think so.

[MD] Think again Ulrich: In a “real money process”, money never loses (or gains in) its value…INFLATION of the money itself is zero.

So what is profit?

Profit is having the “complete” money, meaning, its body and also its buying power (which emerges from our social law, which many so called “economist” and self-proclaimed “economist” busily ignoring).

[MD] Profit means being able to take the result of a trade and trade it for more value (value as perceived by you…the value to your trading partner is immaterial).

This means you can’t have real profit by scamming the people, only when you provide values in exchange for values. You help me, I help you, because two working guy can achieve more than twice as much as one. This is how the economy works in a nutshell.

[MD] What Ulrich refers to here is “synergism”. An economy is viewed as more efficient the more it involves synergism…that is until it collapses by no longer being an economy. A good way to look at issues is by examining the limits: no synergism…no economic efficiency but a stable economy; maximum synergism…no economy at all.

Now of course the ultimate scammers of this planet are the politicians, and this alone is the reason why they constantly have to print money: because the buying power of money is just constantly has been damaged by them over and over. The economical fallout due to this covid-scam is a fine example of this.

Tell this to anybody who thinks that politicians are useful, and the economy is “more complicated than that”.

[MD] Alternatively, “know what money is”. Institute a “real money process” and this condition cannot exist.

It isn’t. They just pretend that it’s complicated to scare you away from learning it, and if you try, you going to face the government’s “Keynesian”, shaman-economics, which is really more complicated than anything, simply because it’s a scam.

[MD] Keynes was clueless about money… as were Mises, Friedman, von Hayek, Samuelson, and all other economists. What would you expect?

Again, you don’t generate profit while you destroy the buying power of your own money. You just collect colorful papers. This isn’t profit. So the only way to go forward is to generate value through the process, to produce something for which the people pay for you voluntarily. This way, you collect the body of money (colorful papers), and you also collect the buying power of it.

[MD] The only “involuntary” trade is a trade with government. No such trade has been described here.

The reason why so many people have hard time to understand the money concept is because they ignore the idea of buying power. It is because they can only touch the buying power when they exchange money for goods and services, but not before, thus their mind is in the “can’t see, doesn’t exist” mode.

[MD] Anyone who has followed “MoneyDelusions” at all knows that the “use of money” is simple barter exchange; that the “creation and destruction of money” is always done by traders (like you and me buying a house or car on time…or objects with a credit card). The idea that someone can hold “all the money” is not possible with a real money process. Any trader can create new money at any time. And money supply is in perpetual perfect balance with demand for money.

But it is more than obvious that buying power exists, otherwise nothing what the humans make could exist around you.

Now what is crony capitalism?

[MD] We know what crony is … a friend. And we know what capitalism…substituting capital for labor. So crony capitalism is choosing capital over labor among friends. I see nothing wrong here. Let’s see what Ulrich sees.

They say crony capitalism is when the CEO bribes politicians to fuel himself by tax money (which appears to be free money to him), simply because this is one way to gain more profit. But as we said, this is money transfer, so it hurts money, therefore it isn’t profit (or at least, not on the long term).

[MD] “All” tax money goes to the money changers in the form of INTEREST payments. Governments (instituted by money changers for their own protection) are sustained by counterfeiting (i.e. INFLATION). With a real money process, this isn’t possible.

Has value been generated through the money exchange? No? Then it’s robbery, not capitalism.

[MD] Counterfeiting is essentially robbery. In a real money process, when detected, counterfeiting (purposeful DEFAULT) is met immediately by INTEREST collections of like amount. It is immediately exposed and the perp is ostracized.

Is the whole thing voluntarily? No? Then the same holds true.

You don’t really generate profit when you accept tax money. You cannot hurt money for profit, because it is like saying you have to wreck your car to make it better. It is insane.

[MD] In a real money process, government “must” be sustained only by fees and taxes. Fees are direct payment for services received (with government usually with no competition and no alternative). Taxes are trades demanded by government for the general good. I can think of very few general goods. But I do view recording (and protection of such records) of property ownership to be a general good. Interestingly, while county clerks and courthouses have this duty, it is really effected through private title companies. The old method of “abstracting” became unworkable long ago. Traders created an alternative to which the government could not compete. The same is true of “a real money process”. Government cannot compete real money processes.

Therefore those companies whose goal exclusively is to generate profit are the only companies who helping to the economy. Those who offering free stuff by the means of charity are damaging themselves, thus their profit making ability, therefore at the end, the economy. Why would you give money to charities when you can make more money with that money which going to help everybody on a level when you inject it into the economy?

[MD] Companies have a perpetual profit motive. It’s like running downhill. Once you start, it takes “work” to stop. But virtually all companies trip and fall eventually. It usually happens when they get so top heavy they can no longer stand.

I mean what can be a bigger charity than producing buying power?

The answer is: nothing.

[MD] Does Ulrich’s meaning change if we say “trading” power instead of “buying” power? I submit that your sole purpose for living is to “be of value”…i.e. to have something to trade and be able to trade. Without that, “you cannot live!”

By making new goods and services (or making the same in new places where they don’t existed before), you upgrade the money, because that money now can buy more things, thanks to you. This is what we refer to when we say “you making money”. In reality, you make the buying power of money.

[MD] This is very sloppy use of the word money. “Making money” comes from the misunderstand of what money is. To “make” is to “create” and to “unmake” is to “destroy”. Money is never everlasting. It is perpetually being created and destroyed. If you “make the buying power of money”, what do you do when you destroy money (i.e. deliver on your promise that created the money in the first place). Know what money is and the above paragraph is silly.

And guess what? How many people have money in their pockets? Well, almost all of them. And you just upgraded their money with them having nothing to do with it. They didn’t help you, yet, you helped them, since they can now use another goods and services, thanks to you.

[MD] Is this the tail wagging the dog? With a real money process INFLATION is perpetually zero. You can trade it now for a certain size hole in the ground. Or you can hold it and trade at any later time for a hole in the ground of exactly the same size. What others do with their money matters not at all.

Charity – compared to this – is an amateur approach.

[MD] There is no such thing as “altruism”. Thus, there is no such thing as charity. All traders are making perfect trades (in their own eyes) at all times.

So there is no such thing as “crony capitalism”. That is socialism, because it’s a mandatory money transfer without creating value.

But it’s still not the whole truth.

Have you ever wondered why already successful people need government (tax payer) founding? I mean, why would already billionaire companies need free money, like Google, Twitter and Facebook? They are on the top already. And it is not as if they can’t make more money on their own.

[MD] There are conflicting issues here. “Government founding” is done by money changers for their own protection and advantage (e.g. 10x leverage). With a real money process there is no reason to found government. With a real money process “all money is free…any responsible trader can create it any time he sees clear to completing a trade over time and space”. In actuality, in a real money process, the larger the entity, the more difficulty they would have “creating” money. Further, the more difficulty they would have becoming large. A level playing field for money creation would contain them through natural competition.

Now let’s get back to the profit making business-approach for a moment.

If you create a social platform like Twitter for profit, your goal is to have there as much people as possible. You want them to have conversation with each other, and it absolutely doesn’t matter what kind of conversation is that. You just want people to talk on your platform about anything. This will attract companies who can advertise through your platform, thus you going to gain profit.

[MD] It’s a well known axiom: If a product is free, “you” are the product.

The more the people, the more the profit.

So what is the point of censoring or banning them in your platform? You make them to stop having conversations, thus you loosing money.

Having said that, Twitter’s goal is not purely to make profit, and we explained why it is a bad thing.

Banning somebody is an important feature on a platform. But it has to be executed by individuals, not by the company. If you don’t like what somebody says, you can ban him or her from your account, so YOU don’t see him or her anymore. But what if others are still want to see it? Nothing. It is their business.

[MD] Thought experiment: A competitor to all the entities you deplore exists. The reason you deplore them is not found in the competitor. Who are you going to trade with? Let the traders make the rules. And remember, laws won’t fix what troubles you. Laws merely dilute principles…and that’s not a good thing.

Suppose there is a group on Twitter which is openly advocating ritual sacrifice.

If you ban them, you just simply not going to see what they’re doing, but they going to do it anyway.

On the other hand, if you let them to do whatever they want to do in your platform, you expose them to the whole world, so the world has a chance to take them down.

[MD] Ulrich finally gets something right. Congratulations!

This is why censorship is meaningless.

Are they Nazis? Good. See, there are a bunch of Nazis, and you can check who’s with them, and therefore you can avoid them and / or attack them. But silencing them only makes them hidden from the public view, which is a bad thing, since you don’t want Nazis to lurk around you without you knowing it.

[MD] The Nazis were revered…until they were ganged up on. History was rewritten and they are now reviled.

So it is not just bad in terms of profit, but also bad in regards to the society we live in.

[MD] A company as a societal object is a figment of your imagination…planted their by someone gaining in that initiative.

Do you really think that such an intelligent person like the CEO of the Twitter who made such a giant company, can’t figure this on his own already? It is not me who has to explain this to him. He already knows it.

So why he’s doing it?

[MD] It’s very simple. He’s making a trade which he sees as benefiting himself. However, his trading partners don’t see the benefit in his censoring them. So what will they do? They’ll trade with the competition.

Now back to the track: why an already billionaire company would need free (tax) money? It is because they are that greedy, right? It is “easy” money.

[MD] A company is made up of many individuals being leveraged by a smaller collection of individuals being leveraged by yet a smaller collection of individuals. Everyone in the company is making trades in their own best interest. The higher you move up the food chain, the greater the leverage. Wealth is about gaining “leverage”, not money.

Well, no. As we said, this way they damaging the economy, thus their own money. And they are pretty awesome in making money, so they don’t need anything for free. It is entirely the unskilled slackers who constantly need free money, not the millionaire and billionaire entrepreneurs.

[MD] With a real money process, all responsible traders (those who don’t DEFAULT) can create money freely. That makes them all equally powerful in that regard…and thus not powerful at all.

So what really happens is that it is the government who blackmails the company when they reach a certain amount of power (influence).

[MD] Remember, government is “of the money changers, by them, and for them.”

Think about it: government takes money from the people by force, giving nothing in exchange but the illusion if civility.

[MD] The people are like sheep. They have no illusions. And the Ulrichs of the world aren’t much help. They are clueless…but loud.

On the other hand, companies producing stuff for which the people pay voluntarily, because that good or service is just awesome.

So companies and the government are two completely opposite things. In fact, they are each others enemies. The more buying power you have, the less you need “free stuff” from the government, so the government becoming more and more “obsolete”. And this is exactly why the government are trying to stop the company.

[MD] As an exercise to the reader: Knowing what you know about “money” and a “real money process”, dissect the above paragraph.

It does it by offering the company an ultimatum: you either work for us, or we drive you out of business.

And they can do it, because they are the lawmakers.

[MD] And a move to the “rule of principles” rather than the “rule of law” dilutes that advantage by 40,000 each year. That’s how many laws are created to define the only real principle needed…that being the golden rule.

Companies don’t need governments, but governments need companies to stop being free because they need you to need them.

So it is like saying that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were all controlled by the super rich people in the shadows, whereas in reality, THEY were the people who controlled and / or destroyed the companies.

[MD] This is easily proven empirically to be wrong. It just takes time and examination of the “real” history to see where power originates and hides.

And what about kings and queens? What about the emperors? Were they all subject of capitalist manipulation? Where they in the hands of the “oil interests”?

[MD] Read about Genghis Kahn for the answer. He just went from day to day and dealt with his issues. He built an organization from scratch.

In reality, nobody has more money than the government. They have that much tax income that they can spend $50 million in every seven seconds, not to mention their infinite ability to print money (no, the FED is not a different institution than the government, they just pretending to be).

[MD] And so the enterprising will find ways to be a part of government. And they will find ways to be at a higher and higher level of government. And they will actively fight those who suggest alternatives to government. With 3/4 your earnings taken by government and 3/4ths of us dependent on government, we are past the tipping point. Let those ratios grow to 100% and government self destructs.

Do you really think you can bribe key politicians with your ridiculous billions in these circumstances?

[MD] As everyone knows, everyone has their price.

Oh come on now..

[MD] The version I get was “taxes are the price we pay to be civilized”. I am over civilized.

So essentially governments are gaining control over the company by blackmailing them, thus they don’t have to be afraid of them anymore.

[MD] It’s interesting. The further and further you go the less you know who “them” is. Those who many regard as “them” weren’t even born when I recognized this problem. How did they become “them”?

The biggest mistake these entrepreneurs making is that they let this to happen. Except in the Atlas Shrugged novel, they hardly do anything against politicians. This is because they are businessmen, and not some kind of freedom fighters. They don’t have the intention, nor the guts to do it. They just enjoying their money, and surrender to the forces of government when the time is coming.

[MD] Everyone is a trader. Everyone always acts in their own self interest.

The other big problem they face is that the public aren’t on their side. Criminals like AOC, Sanders and all the communists are doing everything to make you believe that rich people are greedy robbers, Christianity helps you to understand that they going to the hell anyway, and the Greenpeace explain to you that they destroying the planet completely, whereas nobody can be more greedy than who asks for money which isn’t theirs, poor people are already in the hell of poverty on Earth, and nothing can be more polluting than the cheap Chinese garbage the world’s poor people buy which ends up in the trash days after.

[MD] Remember, all religions are just forms of government. And remember, all things lead toward globalization (and maybe later solar systemization). The antidote is always “iterative secession”. A real money process is the only process I know that has a natural negative feedback mechanism. That’s what keeps things from blowing themselves up.

Who would stand up for them in these circumstances? That’s why Ragnar Danneskjold in Ayn Rand’s novel described himself as the friend of the friendless.

Sad, very sad, but true.

[MD] Just another trader acting in his own self interest. It’s interesting that Ayn Rand had so little control over her own behavior.

I often wonder if the world ends before the people realize that capitalism is the one and only way to live, and rich people are their biggest friends, instead of their biggest enemies as the scammers claim. Because believe it or not, our entire future as human species are depending on this simple realization.

[MD] People can’t tell you what capitalism is, let alone that is is the “one and only way to live”. Think about it. Capitalism is choice of a trade between a machine and labor. That’s a very wide spectrum of trades. Socialism is making the same trade. There is no difference.

If the government control the companies by force, this is called fascist-socialism. This is exactly what Hitler did in his time, using the very same methods as the politicians nowadays.

[MD] Brilliant. Ulrich understands the meaning of fascism. But socialism is different from fascism. In a commune, socialism is a choice. Taken globally that choice disappears.

Thomas E. Woods: Hitler’s Economics:

[MD] I have had written debates with Woods. They’re very short. He runs away.

It is so sad that even bright-minded people like Yaron Brook who openly advocates Ayn Rand’s ideas are fail to notice this. He says Twitter has a right to do anything on his platform, because it owns it.

[MD] Which begs the definition of a “right”. I submit that a right is a “defended claim”. Make no claim, you have no right. Make a claim and fail to defend it, you have no right. That’s why I think things like “god given rights” and “human rights” are on very shaky grounds. I don’t recognize either of them. And the Constitution gave up total defense of it’s Bill of Rights with its “commerce clause”. Some defense!

Well, if they are fueled by tax money, then Twitter isn’t really owns itself. It is more likely YOU who have a share of the company, like it or not.

[MD] … reinforcing the reality: If a product is free, YOU are the product.

Again, a capitalist doesn’t want to censor his own platform. And what Twitter does is that it let anybody to talk about killing police, being a pedophile, being racist against white people, looting and killing, if they’re Antifa or BLM members. So their censorship is highly selective.

[MD] Earth to Ulrich: “All” censorship is highly selective.

[MD] I keep wondering what gives white people this huge advantage. Africa was once populated exclusively by black and dark brown people (we are all people of color) with nappy black hair and full lips. Alternatively, Scandinavia was populated primarily by fair complected people with blue eyes and straight blond hair. On average, Africa has more abundant resources and bountiful environment than Scandinavia. Conjecture leads me to believe strength (and superiority) comes from adversity. Empirically, it is obvious to me that we are not all created equal. I am white and given a choice would choose to be. Is that not the case for these so-called people of color? And shouldn’t we be allowed to choose to live together…or chose to live separately and trade together…or choose not to trade with each other at all? Shouldn’t the golden rule apply universally?

This creature has more than 100k followers and probably never going to be suspended ever, despite the craziness he or she advocates.

[MD] Is not the number of followers a measure of value? I have just a couple of followers. My source of value is different than this “creature”s.

[MD] Start your own Twitter and make your own rules. Personally, I don’t even understand Twitter. I therefore don’t use it.

Check this article for similar things.

The other insanity is when they say the owner has the right to require its customers to wear masks.

Sure, except if he says you can enter without masks, his shop going to be closed tomorrow, probably forever, by the very same fascist-socialist methods.

[MD] As I’ve noted before, a “right” is a defended claim. I claim masks don’t work and I don’t wear one. If someone disputes that I say the mask is for my protection (and thus my choice). I tell them they are safer if they wear two. A mask is to a virus as chicken wire is to a mosquito. I choose not to be openly stupid. But if I need to buy food, in most places I “must” wear a mask. But in these same places I may call my order in and they pick it…I have an alternative to wearing a mask. You might be interested to know: when I started my life, this is how “all” grocery stores worked. There were no “super markets”. Things change. Work with these changes. Embrace them or resist them as you choose. In some places religion is a choice…in others are requirement. Nowhere is it non-existent…ridiculous as the concept is. If I had my way all religion (and government) would be banned. I will never have my way as I will never embrace banning of anything.

Football and politics never mix well. Shirts emblazoned with ‘Black Lives Matter’ legitimise the movement’s extreme aimsEnglish football is right to tackle racism. But by endorsing the controversial manifesto of BLM, it’s upset some fans and breached FIFA’s own guidelines on politicizing the sport.https://www.rt.com/op-ed/492340-football-politics-blm-mix/

[MD] Matter to whom?

I’m sure that the budged not going to like this.

[MD] Frankly, discrimination is a key component to my being able to survive. If I can’t distinguish between a poisonous snake and a non-poisonous on, I stay away from all snakes. And when I can’t do that I kill them.

Think about how many people consider BLM as an aggressive Marxist, anti-Trump, anti-capitalist organization. Apart from corrupt politicians (all of them) and rotten rulers, conservatives are the wealthiest people of the planet. And they are those who not going to buy Lo’real products anymore. As a “for profit” capitalist, do you think this is the proper way to raise your gains?

[MD] It’s all about leverage. Most people are influenced by someone standing on a stump yelling through a megaphone. A few of us (including the yeller) are not.

Isn’t so interesting that these companies doing nothing when taxes are rising, for instance?

[MD]As I’ve said, 3/4ths of your earnings goes to government…and that ratio is rising exponentially. Any taxes companies pay is in the price of the goods and services they sell. They don’t care as long as they can trade their stuff for your stuff. If they can’t do that they try a different angle (e.g. bribe a politician). With a real money process this all becomes more difficult. Governments are ostracized by traders and thus can’t exist.

Someone should tell them that Trump supporters also use tires. And probably the more expensive ones.

[MD] Remember. Companies are just traders with lots of leverage. They maximize their leverage by maximizing their markets. In this instance, someone coming up with anti-gravity puts them out of business.

Oh wait, looks like somebody already told them:Here’s How Goodyear Responded To Backlash Over Anti-Conservative Bias  Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is trying to pull itself out of the hole it finds itself in after implementing company policies that are decidedly anti-conservative. On Monday, an employee…https://redstate.com/jeffc/2020/08/19/heres-how-goodyear-responded-to-backlash-over-anti-conservative-bias-n251696

[MD] Large companies have lobbyists and PR departments because they work. Without them they are not competitive and likely will be driven out of business or eaten up by other, more compliant companies. But Chick Filet still has their religious rule closing them on Sundays. And they are thriving. There are alternatives. There are choices.

But there are many, many more:The Full List – Here Are The 269 Companies Who Are Supporting BLM & Antifa Riots – Conservative USAntifa is an umbrella term to describe radical left-leaning militant groups that typically confront neo-Nazism and white supremacists at demonstrations.https://conservativeus.com/the-full-list-here-are-the-269-companies-who-are-supporting-blm-antifa-riots/

So what do you think why companies doing things which causes them losses?

[MD] Because they also cause them gains…and the gains they expect to be greater. Try opening a hot dog stand and sell your “Nazi Franks” product today. Try it in 1937. Big difference. No distinction in the product.

Simply because they forced to do it!

Do you think productive companies support looting, killing, and Marxist ideas which eventually leads to the collapse of the economy, thus their businesses, as it happened always, without exception through the history of communism?

[MD]For the most part, what you see as an economy, these companies see as an obstacle. When people don’t have choices, marketing costs can be cut dramatically.

Someone builds a huge company, then risking it entirely by supporting people who are completely out of their mind, and who are the puppets of some shady powerful people behind the scenes?

[MD]The people who build these companies typically don’t have any control over them at this point. Some like Sam Walton gave positive direction…his surviving family, not so much. Some like Jack Dorsey march to a different drummer. So be it. Some like JD Rockefeller openly broke the golden rule and benefitted. You might be surprised to know his personal contribution to that wealth spanned only about 10 years. His brother ran the company.

Well, yes, because the company ALSO the puppet of the same shady people. It is either you do it, or we collapsing your business. And if you do it, your business going to collapse on the long run anyway.

[MD] To this day NYC operates under heavy mob influence. The mob couldn’t survive in a small town like Plantersville, TX. If you don’t like the mob, move to a small town.

But as Keynes said, on the long run we are all dead, so who cares?

[MD] I do. I’m not religions. This is all I get. I’m not into wasting it because of Keynes’ stupidity. Ignorance is a choice. Stupidity is a defect.

These companies are fueled by tax money (your money) as long as possible, then they going to collapse with the economy, and this is exactly what fascist-socialism is.

[MD] By now you should recognize that assertion as openly false and stupid. Companies are fueled by trading. Stop trading and begin consuming the fruits of earlier trades…until they consume themselves out of existence.

Yet, some people still think that communism and fascism are two opposite things.

[MD] Because they are. Fascism has private (i.e. no government) property. Communism, as it has been described to me, does not. I include that caveat for those who say “Communism is the right process. It just fails because they’re not doing it right.”

So at the end of the day, companies are really should care about profit, and profit only, otherwise they should be considered as corrupt, evil institutions in the hands of corrupt, evil people.

[MD] Companies should care about their own survival. Many companies sell at a loss and try to make it up with volume…that is many “no longer in business” companies.

Funny how the people think the exact opposite, right?

[MD]Some of us are actually able to think.

Well Ulrich, I think I’ve gotten through it. It’s not worth review and checking for typo’s. I’m open to your rebuttal if you see this. You are likely to be the only one to have read this far.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.