Libertarian capitlaists corporate sponsorship

[IcarusAngel]

fnwlej28YZo

Why would car companies, who benefit so profusely from the state in Japan, the US, and in Europe I imagine as well, from highly restrictive trade agreements to the public's sponsorship of roads, fund these think tanks?

To get people uninterested in trying to force car companies in being efficient?

Notice how since deregulation has occurred, Toyota, GM, etc. have been appealing to the bottom line and designing "run away" cars with poor brakes etc., killing people in the name of profits. good thing I went with mazda.

Libertarians cannot actually run businesses without making them "non-profit" and setting up "foundations" that receive state-sponsored corporate funded and tax brakes:


Q. Why do you think that the “Libertarians” are so timid?

Well, these examples are actually more silly than they are threatening – I mean, what a bunch of fucking sissies, eh? But the fact of the matter is that no one has ever done more to discredit an ideology by espousing it than the “Libertarians.” They foghorn away about the necessity of the profit motive, but every “Libertarian” propaganda outfit is a non-profit corporation or foundation. Every one. Being themselves so incompetent that they cannot run an enterprise at a profit, they beseech the government to adopt policies forcing everybody but them to live by trade.

And since their products (books, magazines, treatises, etc.) are so worthless that they cannot support themselves by selling them, they ask the government to grant them “tax-free” status, and then ask corporations to give them “donations.” That is why they are so squeamish about accepting ads – they are afraid some corporate suckfish might be offended by actual “free minds and free markets” and shut off their handouts. And when corporations give the “Libertarians” money, the corporations are allowed to deduct these handouts as a “business expense.” Corporate donors are their real “customers” and they are scared to print anything the corporations might not like.


http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/whatisgoingonhere.html

[Havet]

Toyota, GM, etc. have been [...] designing "run away" cars with poor brakes etc., killing people in the name of profits. good thing I went with mazda.


http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/08/27/toyota-recalls-vehicles-because-of-brake-problems/

Where did someone die?

[IcarusAngel]

Let's see:

Toyota has recalled: 300,000 prisues 2010 due to problems with their brakes.

Runaway cars have killed people and some accidents are now being reviewed due to it being discovered that the problems may have been because of the car, not because of the driver.

Congress has said Toyota misled the public about its brakes and other malfunctions.

I think that's proof enough they've had problems with their "brakes."

[Havet]

Let's see:

Toyota has recalled: 300,000 prisues 2010 due to problems with their brakes.

Runaway cars have killed people and some accidents are now being reviewed due to it being discovered that the problems may have been because of the car, not because of the driver.

Congress has said Toyota misled the public about its brakes and other malfunctions.

I think that's proof enough they've had problems with their "brakes."

You haven't shown me any proof. I thought you were smart enough to realize that I never believe people - especially you - "just because they say so".

[GPDP]

Even if IA doesn't have proof of someone dying, does it matter? I want my car's brakes to fucking function.

[IcarusAngel]

Hayenmill changed his post. He originally said Toyota never had a problem with its "brakes."



Toyota’s reputation has been tarnished by a series of quality problems that prompted the car maker to recall an unprecedented number of cars to fix a defect that causes random acceleration.
In November 2009, after a succession of “runaway car” incidents that resulted in fatalities, Toyota initiated a recall of 3.8 million vehicles.

Toyota has even apologized for killing people due to their bad design:

"

Toyoda apologized several more times -- to a Tennessee woman who testified on Tuesday about a 2006 runaway car incident and to the Flint family of a 77-year-old grandmother killed when her 2005 Toyota Camry crashed in 2008. He "extended deepest condolences from the bottom of my heart."
But the company didn't take responsibility for the accidents. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., said that under the U.S. legal system Toyota would have to pay for injuries and deaths that were caused by Toyota defects. [/quote]

There have been other deaths that are due to the run away cars that have been on the news.

Toyota initially lied about the problem, and blamed floor mats:

http://www.newser.com/story/73222/runaway-car-owners-dont-believe-toyotas-explanation.html

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/02/toyota_finally_admits_problem.php

Some say it was an electric malfunction:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-02-23-Electromagnetic23_CV_N.htm


Hayenmill wants people to believe that this "recall" doesn't exist and that congress isn't investigating the matter.


Remember in the 50s and 60s engineers themselves testified that the car companies were using dangerous designs that were killing people, until the government had to get involved and straighten things out (we've been over this several times).

Really, this is as much a problem with government as it is with car companies. The government and the people KNOW that car companies cannot be trusted, they need to be monitored as closely as the aeronautical industry, which means constant inspections and safety tests by the Govt.

[IcarusAngel]

Motorists began removing the floor mats yet problems persisted (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/runaway-toyotas-problem-persists-recall/story?id=9618735). Tragically four people died in Southlake, Texas late last year when a runaway Toyota sped through a fence and landed upside down in a pond. The car’s floor mats were found in the trunk of the car, where owners had been advised to put them as part of the recall.

Disgusting. More recent deaths have been all over the news.

[IcarusAngel]

http://trueslant.com/mattstroud/2010/02/25/toyota-brake-troubles-could-exonerate-man-convicted-in-2006-car-crash/

[John_Jordan]

The government and the people KNOW that car companies cannot be trusted, they need to be monitored as closely as the aeronautical industry, which means constant inspections and safety tests by the Govt.



After I own my own automobile then, do I have to take it in for "constant" inspections and safety tests, or do these inspections happen prior to my purchase?

[IcarusAngel]

After I own my own automobile then, do I have to take it in for "constant" inspections and safety tests, or do these inspections happen prior to my purchase?

Do you own a car? It is required by law that you take it in for constant inspections and safety tests every year in the United States.

However, when a car company implements a bad design that is an electrical problem or a problem with brakes, it can be hard to detect, which is why the government should be involved in the designing process and inspection process.

I'd rather have the public and government involved in the design of cars, and safety for whistleblowers, than the "freedom" of car companies to design bad cars and kill people. I guess I'm old fashioned that way.

I recommend people read Nader's Crashing the Party. Nader, who brought safety standards to the forefront of the car industry, notes that when there was heavy government involvement and whistleblower protection, etc., the death rates per 100,000 went way down. Since standards have been relaxed in the 90s and under Bush, we have seen these new problems with the car companies.

[John_Jordan]

Do you own a car? It is required by law that you take it in for constant inspections and safety tests every year in the United States.

Sure, but if that's all you're talking about, then you're not talking about anything new.


However, when a car company implements a bad design that is an electrical problem or a problem with brakes, it can be hard to detect, which is why the government should be involved in the designing process and inspection process.

I'd rather have the public and government involved in the design of cars, and safety for whistleblowers, than the "freedom" of car companies to design bad cars and kill people. I guess I'm old fashioned that way.

I guess so, because that seems like a terrible idea to me, based on terrible assumptions.

[IcarusAngel]

I would keep the individual car owner's responsibility the same as it is.

The public doesn't design cars - they aren't even allowed to review the material in an open source fashion - they don't "control the resources" so to speak - so it isn't their fault if the cars are badly designed.

I wouldn't burden the public any more, except that they should encourage safety standards.

I would burden the car companies to design safe cars. Certainly I wouldn't favor allowing the car companies to implement their own safety standards, on the assumption that if they kill a bunch of people they lose "business." Obviously the car companies will "combine" and start screwing the public in that way.

Of course, mistakes CAN happen, which is why congress is investigating.

[John_Jordan]

I would keep the individual car owner's responsibility the same as it is.

The public doesn't design cars - they aren't even allowed to review the material in an open source fashion - they don't "control the resources" so to speak - so it isn't their fault if the cars are badly designed.

I wouldn't burden the public any more, except that they should encourage safety standards.

I would burden the car companies to design safe cars. Certainly I wouldn't favor allowing the car companies to implement their own safety standards, on the assumption that if they kill a bunch of people they lose "business." Obviously the car companies will "combine" and start screwing the public in that way.

Of course, mistakes CAN happen, which is why congress is investigating.

What do you mean by the car companies combining?

It sounds fine when you say you want to "burden the car companies to design safe cars" but to do that through the government sounds counter-productive to me.

[Wolf Larson]

Let's see:

Toyota has recalled: 300,000 prisues 2010 due to problems with their brakes.

Runaway cars have killed people and some accidents are now being reviewed due to it being discovered that the problems may have been because of the car, not because of the driver.

Congress has said Toyota misled the public about its brakes and other malfunctions.

I think that's proof enough they've had problems with their "brakes."

David Koch [the libertarian capitalist behind the Tea Parties]has been taken to court for wrongful death.

[Havet]

Ok, so I acknowledge there are problems and deaths resulting from bad car design. Now you say the problem is freedom:



I'd rather have the public and government involved in the design of cars, and safety for whistleblowers, than the "freedom" of car companies to design bad cars and kill people. I guess I'm old fashioned that way.

It is indeed the fault of the company, but the reason the error reached consumers is not because of "industry freedom".

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=291&page=10

And let's not forget intellectual property, which restricts safety advancements in the industry, and corporate privilege, which let's many businesses get away with bad practices, impervious to public justice. And let's not forget all the costs that are externalized through the State instead of being internalized by the company itself, as it should.

[RGacky3]

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=291&page=10 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=291&page=10)


Wait, what does that article prove? It does'nt proove that Toyota not fixing their brake problems, covering it up and blaming it on the consumers is'nt due to lack of reuglation.


And let's not forget intellectual property, which restricts safety advancements in the industry, and corporate privilege, which let's many businesses get away with bad practices, impervious to public justice. And let's not forget all the costs that are externalized through the State instead of being internalized by the company itself, as it should.

Yeah, and you would have NO public justice as far as Bad practices, in other words, no regulation. Also what does externalized costs have to do with them having bad brakes, and not fixing it and covering it up? Also what does intellectual property have to do with it?

You have to link that stuff to the issue, otherwise your juts talking about of your ass.

[Skooma Addict]

Notice how since deregulation has occurred, Toyota, GM, etc. have been appealing to the bottom line and designing "run away" cars with poor brakes etc., killing people in the name of profits. good thing I went with mazda.


1. Have your stock plummet by more than 8% in a single day.
2. Recall hundreds of thousands of cars
3. Destroy your image and consumer trust that you spent decades building
4.??????
5. Profit.


Q. Why do you think that the “Libertarians” are so timid?

Well, these examples are actually more silly than they are threatening – I mean, what a bunch of fucking sissies, eh? But the fact of the matter is that no one has ever done more to discredit an ideology by espousing it than the “Libertarians.” They foghorn away about the necessity of the profit motive, but every “Libertarian” propaganda outfit is a non-profit corporation or foundation. Every one. Being themselves so incompetent that they cannot run an enterprise at a profit, they beseech the government to adopt policies forcing everybody but them to live by trade.

And since their products (books, magazines, treatises, etc.) are so worthless that they cannot support themselves by selling them, they ask the government to grant them “tax-free” status, and then ask corporations to give them “donations.” That is why they are so squeamish about accepting ads – they are afraid some corporate suckfish might be offended by actual “free minds and free markets” and shut off their handouts. And when corporations give the “Libertarians” money, the corporations are allowed to deduct these handouts as a “business expense.” Corporate donors are their real “customers” and they are scared to print anything the corporations might not like.

What a scholarly piece of writing (more so than other leftist writings, I will give you that). But anyways, Think tanks are generally non-profit. I also personally know a libertarian who runs a for-profit business.

[RGacky3]

1. Have your stock plummet by more than 8% in a single day.
2. Recall hundreds of thousands of cars
3. Destroy your image and consumer trust that you spent decades building
4.??????
5. Profit.


THey got away with it for over 10 years, the complaits started 2000, they are JUST getting caught now, so yeah, profits.

[Skooma Addict]

THey got away with it for over 10 years, the complaits started 2000, they are JUST getting caught now, so yeah, profits.

I thought it was their newer vehicles which are encountering the majority of these problems? I did a quick search for a recall list and this is what I found.


2005-2010 Avalon (http://www.toyota.com/recall/floormat-pedal.html)
2007-2010 Camry (http://www.toyota.com/recall/combo.html)
2009-2010 Corolla (http://www.toyota.com/recall/combo.html)
2008-2010 Highlander (http://www.toyota.com/recall/combo.html)
2009-2010 Matrix (http://www.toyota.com/recall/floormat-pedal.html)
2004-2009 Prius (http://www.toyota.com/recall/floormat.html)
2010 Prius (http://www.toyota.com/recall/abs.html)
2009-2010 RAV4 (http://www.toyota.com/recall/combo.html)
2008-2010 Sequoia (http://www.toyota.com/recall/pedal.html)
2005-2010 Tacoma (http://www.toyota.com/recall/floormat.html)
2007-2010 Tundra (http://www.toyota.com/recall/floormat-pedal.html)
2009-2010 VENZA (http://www.toyota.com/recall/floormat.html)
Anyways, at the moment at least, I just don't see how Toyota could have profited from this. Not only that, but they have destroyed their image, which is often times much wose than just losing money.

[Havet]

Wait, what does that article prove? It does'nt proove that Toyota not fixing their brake problems, covering it up and blaming it on the consumers is'nt due to lack of reuglation.

It proves that there is no such thing as a free car industry.


Yeah, and you would have NO public justice as far as Bad practices, in other words, no regulation.

Public justice doesn't imply governmental regulation.


Also what does externalized costs have to do with them having bad brakes, and not fixing it and covering it up?

As you know, states subsidize businesses in a variety of ways. States paid for the roads the businesses go on, the schools that form their workers, etc. These costs are therefore externalized by each business. If businesses had to internalize these costs (paying private road fees, for example, and paying for their worker's education) they would not make enough profits to be able to afford lobbying governments to pass them special privilege.


Also what does intellectual property have to do with it?

It sort of goes with what IcarusAngel was saying. By having patents on their car designs, businesses prevent other businesses with coming up with the same design and marketing it. If this were not the case, eventually we would end up having some sort of open source car design businesses which would allow more people to try with different designs and make it faster for safer designs to emerge and dominate.

[IcarusAngel]

1. Have your stock plummet by more than 8% in a single day.
2. Recall hundreds of thousands of cars
3. Destroy your image and consumer trust that you spent decades building
4.??????
5. Profit.

More like:

1. Design bad cars cheaply since you control the majority of the resources.
2. Hope that if you get caught it will still cost less than if you had made good cars in the first place.
3. Force other car companies to maintain
4. Create a monopoly.

That's how it used to occur, but it has since changed due to government involvement.

It's built in the process of capitalism to appeal to the bottom line, since your ultimate goal is to make profits and acquire more capital, and hence, more resources. This causes companies to "combine" creating monopolies.

That is why free-markets always create monopolies when left to their own devices.


What a scholarly piece of writing (more so than other leftist writings, I will give you that). But anyways, Think tanks are generally non-profit. I also personally know a libertarian who runs a for-profit business.

Lol. This coming from a guy who can barely spell his own name.

But yes, Libertarians do nothing useful for society and cannot even maintain a profitable business selling magazines and t-shirts, which 10 year olds are able to do.

Certainly their journals are not taken seriously by the academic world, either.

[IcarusAngel]

The government always exists to protect free-market. The government creating roads and so on says absolutely nothing about whether businesses will always exist as monopolies or not. It just proves that business must design for the public's needs in a more certain way.

For example, if you eliminated the roads you might as well put the car companies in charge of the roads too, which would create a bigger monopoly. It was originally the car companies that bought up all the trolley lines and other means of public transportation and purposefully ran them into the ground.

It's really a matter of if you want the railroads to govern the people, or the people to govern the railroads.

People who advocate free-market solutions want corporations (and their government backers) to rule the people, but socialists want it the other way around.

[IcarusAngel]

I thought it was their newer vehicles which are encountering the majority of these problems? I did a quick search for a recall list and this is what I found.


EERRRRR....

I posted a link that shows that Toyota might have been cutting corners since at least 1996. That's over 10 years ago.

it's very hard to tell when a company cuts corners in something as complicated as a car. Like a scientist who skips tests in a complicated scientific process, everything may appear to be in order but there may be faults in there someway. Of course, the scientist is justified in leaving out steps (proves it in his head), the design of a car requires that you NOT cut corners.

Markets are also inefficient, even by capitalist theorists' own admission, but we'll get to that in my next post.

[Skooma Addict]

More like:

1. Design bad cars cheaply since you control the majority of the resources.
2. Hope that if you get caught it will still cost less than if you had made good cars in the first place.
3. Force other car companies to maintain
4. Create a monopoly.

How do you create the monopoly?


It's built in the process of capitalism to appeal to the bottom line, since your ultimate goal is to make profits and acquire more capital, and hence, more resources. This causes companies to "combine" creating monopolies.

Mergers? There can be mergers in a non-monopolized market.


Lol. This coming from a guy who can barely spell his own name.

But yes, Libertarians do nothing useful for society and cannot even maintain a profitable business selling magazines and t-shirts, which 10 year olds are able to do.

Certainly their journals are not taken seriously by the academic world, either.

I can barely spell my own name? You are obviously speaking from ignorance when you say that all libertarians do nothing useful for society. You make these grandiose claims that you cannot back up.

[IcarusAngel]

All businesses are monopolies in their own way. Usually industries in big areas, like computers, automobiles, agriculture, etc., are monopolized. The industries are run by one or two corporations, who own shares of one another. The also hold onto millions of patents. Each patent is a monopoly or law that tells you what you can do with a certain idea or an invention.

It would be different if we lived in a society in which every industry from agriculture to automotive technology to aeronautics were run by a series of small business, or even a series of small business operating under one large confederation or conglomerate. But generally there is a "big 3" in any industry.

In capitalism, bigness may actually be a benefit (for capitalists' profits and for maintaining capitalist order).

Capitalism has actually never existed on the small scale for a long period of time. Prior to the industrial revolution societies were pre-capitalist, they had other organizations just as large as business that were not also part of the government. These are all basic truisms.

[Skooma Addict]

All businesses are monopolies in their own way. Usually industries in big areas, like computers, automobiles, agriculture, etc., are monopolized. The industries are run by one or two corporations, who own shares of one another. The also hold onto millions of patents. Each patent is a monopoly or law that tells you what you can do with a certain idea or an invention.

It would be different if we lived in a society in which every industry from agriculture to automotive technology to aeronautics were run by a series of small business, or even a series of small business operating under one large confederation or conglomerate. But generally there is a "big 3" in any industry.

In capitalism, bigness may actually be a benefit (for capitalists' profits and for maintaining capitalist order).

Capitalism has actually never existed on the small scale for a long period of time. Prior to the industrial revolution societies were pre-capitalist, they had other organizations just as large as business that were not also part of the government. These are all basic truisms.

All businesses are monopolies?

[RGacky3]

Yeah, in a sense, they are, or ologarchies.

[IcarusAngel]

GM To recall 1.3 Million Compact Cars for power steering issue (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703807904575097134094293008.html?m od=WSJ_newsreel_business)

Toyota admits product "less than defensible":



The documents, released by aides to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) during a hearing on the Toyota safety recalls, were prepared by Chris Tinto, a Toyota vice president in the U.S., Sen. Rockefeller's staff said. The document was an internal company presentation, according to Sen. Rockefeller.

"The regulatory environment for safety continues to change rapidly and present challenges," the presentation states. "NHTSA/US Government is growing more aggressive on active safety."

The document then refers to "quality issues" that are "showing up in defect investigations," including "rear gas struts, ball joints, etc."
"Although we rigorously defend our products through good negotiation and analysis, we have a less defensible product," the document states.


Sen. Rockefeller, speaking as Toyota executives prepared to testify before his committee Tuesday afternoon, said the documents raise questions about whether Toyota prioritized profits over customer safety.

[John_Jordan]

Yeah, in a sense, they are, or ologarchies.

You say "in a sense." Tell me, what sense do you mean?

[RGacky3]

In the sense that they have enough control of the market to make major desicions about it. In Ancient Sparta, there were 2 kings, so technically you could'nt call it a Monarchy, because, there were 2, but in a sense it was, in the sense that the effect was essencially the same.

[John_Jordan]

That's not a monopoly in any sense. You can't just use words that have negative connotations and apply them to things they don't apply to.

[RGacky3]

Your right, its not a monopoly by definition, for from the consumers point of view it has essencially the same effect.

[godlessmutha]

Ignoratio elenchi. Cato does not speak for all Libertarians. Just because Cato claims to be Libertarian, does not mean that it represents the ideology as a whole.

Nor do many Libertarians say their ideology is anti-big business. And furthermore, just because these corporations support Cato does not mean Cato is wrong in what it says.

E.g. Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was a Nazi. Therefore vegetarians are Nazis. Ya got me?