In this case I agree though I've no issues with nationalization if the gov't buys out rather then seizes the company.
In this case I agree though I've no issues with nationalization if the gov't buys out rather then seizes the company.
You think you have a point but the existence of hostile takeovers makes it moot.
Realistically, the Federal government would in the majority of cases only be looking to nationalize firms which pose a high risk or cost to society. This is in the vast majority of cases not going to be your mom-and-pop down the road. In those smaller cases, it will often be about the land or resources and you already have eminent domain.
But your Mom and Pop invariably and in a number of ways severely affected by any government buying or nationalizing industries....."up the road" from them, government then able to again pick your winners and losers. Have you considered it might not be the role of government to be "looking to nationalize" any industry?
for example, the EPA announced early during the Obama Admin that carbon was a dangerous element and needed regulation, could we nationalize carbon baed industriesafter this ruling?
Progressives with an agenda always give themselves away. Oops, myp.
Ignoring your seemingly absolute tendency to bring everything back to a level of discourse akin to what one might find in a 4th grade classroom (e.g. partisan/ideological bickering) and the fact that I said I don't think nationalization is good in most cases, the point of such nationalization is often to protect the very mom and pop if the reason for nationalization is in fact driven by a systemic risk issue. Should that be the model under which a government decides to operate, then your EPA-carbon example is not relevant.
p.s. the EPA did not "decide" that carbon was dangerous- it is atmospheric [CO2] after it hits a certain level and the risk that that brings that is the concern- something that many scientific models have supported. And you can't nationalize all CO2 producing bodies considering all of us produce CO2.
She didn't have to "rule" anything- the facts on greenhouse gases are already out there. The models too. It is above a certain threshold that the worries begin.
And who's talking about whole industries anyway? I was only talking about individual companies.
Besides, complaining about the gov't buying a business yet being cool with a rich person or a company looking to expand it's reach doing the exact same thing is utterly illogical and smacks of being anti-gov't for the sake of being anti-gov't.
Besides, complaining about the gov't buying a business yet being cool with a rich person or a company looking to expand it's reach doing the exact same thing is utterly illogical and smacks of being anti-gov't for the sake of being anti-gov't.
You're speaking to government buying business. I was speaking to the government nationalizing business. And what the conversation smacks of is your obvious bias against private business for the sake of your beloved big government progressiveness. Nice try turning the conversation around, the attempt however, wasn't that good.
Agendas are getting in the way of good conversation, David, you're a bit transparent. thanks.
WASHINGTON – After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.
[
“These long-overdue findings cement 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Business leaders, security experts, government officials, concerned citizens and the United States Supreme Court have called for enduring, pragmatic solutions to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that is causing climate change. This continues our work towards clean energy reform that will cut GHGs and reduce the dependence on foreign oil that threatens our national security and our economy.”
She in fact ruled GHG's were a threat to public health, myp. Again......I really didn't expect you to know this had occurred. I was just using it as an example, it's a tangent argument you're making now, this example was being used discussing the topic of governments nationalizing industries and the agendas of many members in here being exposed and rolled out like cookie dough by yours truly. Moving on.
Maybe you need to take a second look at other people's posts before jumping the gun to hit reply and henceforth act like an uncivilized, anti-intellectual dogmatic. What I said is she did not have to rule anything (note that that is different than saying she did not rule anything) given the data. It is akin to a NASA official ruling that gravity leads to a ball returning to the Earth when you throw it up 40 feet.
And that aside, let's note that the tangent was started by you when you ignored the bulk of my post here and opted to just respond to the postnote, likely because you did not have a decent response to the primary topic at hand: http://politicalfray.com/current-events/3853-venezuela-s-hugo-chavez-dies-58-a-3.html#post42280
"Maybe you"........."was started when you"........."likely because of you"....
Content requested, your arguments focus on processes I use to make my clear and excellent points. Obsession with me doesn't lead to healthy conversation, it merely exposes your trolling and leaves my opinions unchallenged. Content request, like my 11th one. Thanks.
Clearly I am not talking about you, but merely using the pronoun to reference things you have said or done. Ironically, you too use the pronoun and there is nothing wrong with that. YOU are also the one who started making it personal again by again bringing me into the picture (saying I did not understand blah blah and trying to call me a progressive [with a negative connotation although frankly I could care less for the monikers]) and I merely responded in a similar manner (although perhaps I shouldn't be stooping to your level although I do try to stay more civil than you). Bad attempt at evading something you have no response for because it goes against your ideological dogmatism, I guess.
Also, by making this response you just again ignored the subject matter content of the post you responded to. Still no response to: http://politicalfray.com/current-events/3853-venezuela-s-hugo-chavez-dies-58-a-3.html#post42280 ?
Last edited:
If you are all about the content then again, do you have a response to this or do you agree concerning nationalization: http://politicalfray.com/current-events/3853-venezuela-s-hugo-chavez-dies-58-a-3.html#post42280
How is the gov't buying a business and a gov't nationalizing a business not the same topic? It's all semantics. You need to learn not to put words in people's mouths or at least stop complaining when they spit those words out and call you on it.
Chavez was nationalizing whole industries David, that's the topic of dicsussion. If you cannot keep up, I'll be glad to lend you assistance.
Chavez was a dictator, David and nationalised hundreds of companies including cement makers, retail stores and steel mills.
Chavez seized control of banks accusing them of "causing financial problems and violating banking rules." 30% of the banking industry and climbing under government control, everyone knows his policies regarding the oil industry.
More content, less trolling request......like my 166th one, thanks.
Similar threads
