More from Barney Frank

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3117580
You start from the basic premise that capitalism is evil.
I do not start from that premise. Capitalism is a system - a tool - if you will. It is inherently amoral. What I conclude from having studied history is that those who exploit a system, regardless of which one, are evil.
Thats cool, you should just Identify yourself as a rat commie bass turd %h

In truth, I don't like commies either. It's a good idea that got perverted by the power hungry, just like Capitalism did.
Seriously wouldn't a company be entitled to a profit for putting their resources at risk? At the time most of the oil fields were developed there wasn't any other game in towm but Chevron, Mobil, Shell etc. that had the ability to do that.
Of course, but that world is an institutionally created fiction. That isn't how it works in real life. Colonialism is alive and well. Dispelling its existence is the job of the propogandists - NYT, FOX, ABC, Reuters, WSJ, AP, etc.
Isn't it always those who oppose US who are branded as Communists, and those who oppose the Russians and Chinese branded as Freedom Fighters? There's really that large a moral difference between us, them and those whose territory we seek to prevent the other from getting? It's a game of Risk. And we're the pieces.
We made a serious mistake w/ that policy back in 1980's Afghanistan, didn't we? But that's how the politics of Machiavelli always play out. Orwell described it better, but Huxley was closer to the truth.
The bottom line is that Ideology is a ruse. The game is about Hegemony.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3117580
Seriously wouldn't a company be entitled to a profit for putting their resources at risk? At the time most of the oil fields were developed there wasn't any other game in towm but Chevron, Mobil, Shell etc. that had the ability to do that.
Oil companies are what caused the overthrow of a democraticly elected government in IRAN - They gave us what we have there today. Protecting Profit...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1 http:///forum/post/3116376
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. PETERS, Ms. KILROY, Mr.
WATT, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. CARSON
of Indiana, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. ELLISON, and Mr. HINOJOSA) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial
Services
H. R. 3269
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide shareholders
with an advisory vote on executive compensation and to prevent perverse
incentives in the compensation practices of financial institutions.
Sounds good - the owners (shareholders) have input, or how dare they pass such a measure...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...11hr3269IH.pdf
Votes for and against
Ayes: 237 (Democrat: 235; Republican: 2)
Nays: 185 (Democrat: 16; Republican: 169)
Abstained: 11 (Democrat: 4; Republican: 7)
Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 1/2 (50%)
Percentage of 'aye' votes: 54%
Result: Passed
Shareholders already have a vote on the board. If they don't like the return on investment they can vote the board out and the new one will make changes. 99.9% of shareholders are a clueless as Frank when it comes to what it costs to attract a competent officer to a corporation.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3117608
I do not start from that premise. Capitalism is a system - a tool - if you will. It is inherently amoral. What I conclude from having studied history is that those who exploit a system, regardless of which one, are evil.

In truth, I don't like commies either. It's a good idea that got perverted by the power hungry, just like Capitalism did.
Of course, but that world is an institutionally created fiction. That isn't how it works in real life. Colonialism is alive and well. Dispelling its existence is the job of the propogandists - NYT, FOX, ABC, Reuters, WSJ, AP, etc.
Isn't it always those who oppose US who are branded as Communists, and those who oppose the Russians and Chinese branded as Freedom Fighters? There's really that large a moral difference between us, them and those whose territory we seek to prevent the other from getting? It's a game of Risk. And we're the pieces.
We made a serious mistake w/ that policy back in 1980's Afghanistan, didn't we? But that's how the politics of Machiavelli always play out. Orwell described it better, but Huxley was closer to the truth.
The bottom line is that Ideology is a ruse. The game is about Hegemony.
Helping the Afghanis kick the Russians out was a good move. The screw up was leaving a power vacuum in place. Same deal in Iraq after GW I. Papa Bush should have told the Saudis bite me and took Hussien out then.
The difference between Socialism/Marxism/Communism and Capitalism is the former ignores basic human traits while capitalism seeks to exploit them. At least in the capitalist system those with the drive, you can call it greed if you wish, have the incentive to try to get ahead. The lazy have the same opportunity although they may not take it. In a socialist system sloth is rewarded equally to those will work hard so where is the incentive to work hard?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3117612
Oil companies are what caused the overthrow of a democraticly elected government in IRAN - They gave us what we have there today. Protecting Profit...
You mean the BRITISH oil company? The Evil US corps aren't the ones the developed the Iranian fields.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3117946
Shareholders already have a vote on the board. If they don't like the return on investment they can vote the board out and the new one will make changes. 99.9% of shareholders are a clueless as Frank when it comes to what it costs to attract a competent officer to a corporation.
This is a before the act requirement, not a after the fact learned in the year end Annual Statement. So the Banks, investment firms, Automakers and AIG needed to pay more for CEOs since what they got for their money obviously wasn't enough to get good ones.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/post/3117955
You mean the BRITISH oil company? The Evil US corps aren't the ones the developed the Iranian fields.
No, I mean oil companies in general. As well as Chemical companies, too
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/339703/anniversary-of-iranian-hostage-situation

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3118046
This is a before the act requirement, not a after the fact learned in the year end Annual Statement. So the Banks, investment firms, Automakers and AIG needed to pay more for CEOs since what they got for their money obviously wasn't enough to get good ones.

What does a shareholder know about the workings of the company? I am speaking as a pretty well informed shareholder in most of the stocks I own and I don't have a clue what level of pay the officers should get. If I don't like the return on investment I am free to sell any of my stocks or to vote against the current board of directors. Having shareholders vote on salaries is 1) Injecting people as uninformed as Frank in the decision making process and 2) Not going to make a pennies worth of difference before the fact because people aren't going to mess with it until a problem comes to light anyway. What it will do is allow the media to flex their muscles if they choose to drive public opinion against the management of a corporation.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1 http:///forum/post/3118047
No, I mean oil companies in general. As well as Chemical companies, too
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/339703/anniversary-of-iranian-hostage-situation
At the time we got involved the Shah had already been in power. Can't lay that on the evil corporations, especially when the administration at the time was ran by the man who warned of the evils of the military industrial complex.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3118101
At the time we got involved the Shah had already been in power..

--
"In 1951 Dr. Mossadegh came to office, committed to re-establishing democracy and constitutional monarchy, and to nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry, which was controlled by the British. "
"In 1951, under the leadership of the nationalist movement of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, the Iranian parliament unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry. This shut out the immensely profitable Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was a pillar of Britain's economy and political clout in the region. A month after that vote, Mossadegh was named Prime Minister of Iran."
"Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and grandson of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mossadegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah. This plan was known as Operation Ajax. The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans."
"On 19 August 1953, pro-Shah partisans -organized with $100,000 in CIA funds-finally appeared and marched out of south Tehran into the city center, where others joined in. Gangs with clubs, knives, and rocks controlled the streets, overturning Tudeh trucks and beating up anti-Shah activists. As Roosevelt was congratulating Zahedi in the basement of his hiding place, the new Prime Minister’s mobs burst in and carried him upstairs on their shoulders. That evening, Ambassador Henderson suggested to Ardashir that Mossadegh not be harmed. Roosevelt gave Zahedi US$900,000 left from Operation Ajax funds."
WE will support a democracy, if we can control them. Otherwise, a puppet dictator will suffice, too...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3118109

--
"In 1951 Dr. Mossadegh came to office, committed to re-establishing democracy and constitutional monarchy, and to nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry, which was controlled by the British. "
"In 1951, under the leadership of the nationalist movement of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, the Iranian parliament unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry. This shut out the immensely profitable Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was a pillar of Britain's economy and political clout in the region. A month after that vote, Mossadegh was named Prime Minister of Iran."
"Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and grandson of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mossadegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah. This plan was known as Operation Ajax. The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans."
"On 19 August 1953, pro-Shah partisans -organized with $100,000 in CIA funds-finally appeared and marched out of south Tehran into the city center, where others joined in. Gangs with clubs, knives, and rocks controlled the streets, overturning Tudeh trucks and beating up anti-Shah activists. As Roosevelt was congratulating Zahedi in the basement of his hiding place, the new Prime Minister’s mobs burst in and carried him upstairs on their shoulders. That evening, Ambassador Henderson suggested to Ardashir that Mossadegh not be harmed. Roosevelt gave Zahedi US$900,000 left from Operation Ajax funds."
WE will support a democracy, if we can control them. Otherwise, a puppet dictator will suffice, too...
Our government was worried about the ramifications of a radical Muslim taking control of the country, gee what were we thinking

The Shah had come to power during or just after WWII. I am not sure if he was even our leader of choice. I just know it wasn't the greedy US oil company's doing because they didn't have a stake in the iranian oil fields.

 

[uneverno]

[QUOTE=zman1;3118109WE will support a democracy, if we can control them. Otherwise, a puppet dictator will suffice, too...
And wherein lies our right to CONTROL a sovereign nation?
Because it's in our best interest? By whose determination?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3118446
And wherein lies our right to CONTROL a sovereign nation?
Because it's in our best interest? By whose determination?
It is in our national interest to promote stable regimes but the level of support or even opposition we provide for foreign governments is where the legitimate debate is. Funneling cash to campaigns is fine, arming a coup, not so much

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3118237
The Shah had come to power during or just after WWII. I am not sure if he was even our leader of choice. I just know it wasn't the greedy US oil company's doing because they didn't have a stake in the iranian oil fields.
Correct. He was installed by the British, who controlled the region at the time, shortly after WWII. The evil can still be laid on corporate interests, however.
Our later concern was not the oil. What we were interested in maintaining was the shipping lanes out of the gulf from Iraq, Saudi and Kuwait.
Same as our interest in Afghanistan. Again, nothing to do w/ indigenous oil. Has everything to do with the most convenient (to us, not geographically) pipeline route from the Caspian oil fields. Hence our attempts to establish bases in Turkmenistan...

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3118449
It is in our national interest to promote stable regimes but the level of support or even opposition we provide for foreign governments is where the legitimate debate is. Funneling cash to campaigns is fine, arming a coup, not so much %%
mmm, I'm inclined to say funneling cash to foreign campaigns is an illegitimate use of my tax dollars. It is especially galling that we then declare their government undemocratic (or even better "Socialist") if our chosen candidate loses, such as when we were caught transferring funds to the Chaves opposition representatives in Argentina. (Yes, I know Chaves is Venezuelan. The cash transfer took place in Argentina, and they called us on it.)
Let's talk arming a coup:
Lenin/Trotsky's white revolution, Allende's Chile, the Banana "republics", VietNam (several times), Cuba (failed), most recently the "freedom fighters" in Georgia (again, failed, but we did succeed in pissing off the Russians), etc.
How do we proclaim the "liberation" of Iraq on one hand and support the Saudi dictatorship on the other?
How do we declare the rulership of PolPot genocidal and at the same time turn a blind eye to the extermination of the Misquito Indians or the East Timorese?
Why did we let North Korea survive? We had that one won.
There are corpses behind our "National Interests." Many of them innocent of any crime save speaking their minds. There is child labor building our shoes and making our clothes. There is slave labor (by proxy) extracting the minerals we need to build our cars.
At what point did I sign on for that?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3118458
Correct. He was installed by the British, who controlled the region at the time, shortly after WWII. The evil can still be laid on corporate interests, however.
Our later concern was not the oil. What we were interested in maintaining was the shipping lanes out of the gulf from Iraq, Saudi and Kuwait.
Same as our interest in Afghanistan. Again, nothing to do w/ indigenous oil. Has everything to do with the most convenient (to us, not geographically) pipeline route from the Caspian oil fields. Hence our attempts to establish bases in Turkmenistan...
Why do you think Russia invaded? Problem is the Afghanis are too ignorant to understand they don't need opium, they need a pipeline.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3118475
mmm, I'm inclined to say funneling cash to foreign campaigns is an illegitimate use of my tax dollars. It is especially galling that we then declare their government undemocratic (or even better "Socialist") if our chosen candidate loses, such as when we were caught transferring funds to the Chaves opposition representatives in Argentina. (Yes, I know Chaves is Venezuelan. The cash transfer took place in Argentina, and they called us on it.)
Let's talk arming a coup:
Lenin/Trotsky's white revolution, Allende's Chile, the Banana "republics", VietNam (several times), Cuba (failed), most recently the "freedom fighters" in Georgia (again, failed, but we did succeed in pissing off the Russians), etc.
How do we proclaim the "liberation" of Iraq on one hand and support the Saudi dictatorship on the other?
How do we declare the rulership of PolPot genocidal and at the same time turn a blind eye to the extermination of the Misquito Indians or the East Timorese?
Why did we let North Korea survive? We had that one won.
There are corpses behind our "National Interests." Many of them innocent of any crime save speaking their minds. There is child labor building our shoes and making our clothes. There is slave labor (by proxy) extracting the minerals we need to build our cars.
At what point did I sign on for that?
When an unstable regime is affecting an area of strategic importance it becomes in out national interest. Other countries have the same policy. Why do you think the non oil and diamond producing areas of africa are ignored? Not that we get credit but the US does as much or more for Africa than any other country.

 

[mantisman51]

uneverno, is America the greatest and most stable republic? Even libs have to say yes.

So, we know a thing or two about what forms of government work and don't work. If Iran, Venezuela and the Palestinians choose to elect unstable lunatics, we should respect that? So, uneducated, third world citizens with no education of world history or view outside their slum/farm should dictate world policy through dictators and we should stand back and let it happen "cause it's democratic"? You are reading how incredibly naive your historical and political view is, right? Cuba was overthrown by the communists, not voted in-then all the people who were pro-democracy were slaughtered or imprisoned, I hardly think they would be on anyones "the people wanted it" list. So to "use my tax dollars" to overthrow dangerous despots, however they came into power, is a GREAT use of my tax dollars.
p.s. We have North Korea still because bleeding heart liberals said we "have no national security risks" and forced us to fight to a draw and sign a peace deal. Reminds me of a few other more modern cases of liberal peaceniks decrying American intervention.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3118894
uneverno, is America the greatest and most stable republic? Even libs have to say yes.

So, we know a thing or two about what forms of government work and don't work. If Iran, Venezuela and the Palestinians choose to elect unstable lunatics, we should respect that? So, uneducated, third world citizens with no education of world history or view outside their slum/farm should dictate world policy through dictators and we should stand back and let it happen "cause it's democratic"? You are reading how incredibly naive your historical and political view is, right? Cuba was overthrown by the communists, not voted in-then all the people who were pro-democracy were slaughtered or imprisoned, I hardly think they would be on anyones "the people wanted it" list. So to "use my tax dollars" to overthrow dangerous despots, however they came into power, is a GREAT use of my tax dollars.
p.s. We have North Korea still because bleeding heart liberals said we "have no national security risks" and forced us to fight to a draw and sign a peace deal. Reminds me of a few other more modern cases of liberal peaceniks decrying American intervention.
Yeah but by the same token had the conservative administrations been willing to stand their ground and go toe to toe with the peacenicks North Korea and Vietnam would have turned out different so who was really to blame?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3118894
uneverno, is America the greatest and most stable republic? Even libs have to say yes.So, we know a thing or two about what forms of government work and don't work.
Is that a trick question? Of the 225-30ish nations on earth, we are one of a small handful, if not the only Republic, so I guess the answer is yes.
What we know about what forms of gov't do and don't work is another question altogether. As a country, we've only been around 235 years or so - by historical reconning one of the shortest lived major players thus far. Talk to me after another 750 years. I daresay Rome, Egypt - even Greece - knew a bit more about longevity than we do.
If Iran, Venezuela and the Palestinians choose to elect unstable lunatics, we should respect that?
They are sovereign nations. If we don't want to respect their view, perhaps we should annex them.
So, uneducated, third world citizens with no education of world history or view outside their slum/farm should dictate world policy through dictators and we should stand back and let it happen "cause it's democratic"?
Your Amero-centric view of WORLD history is a little disturbing. For one thing, most of the leaders of those countries are US or European educated. 2ndly, why their populations live in slums is largely a result of Colonialism. It is not in the least Democratic.
You are reading how incredibly naive your historical and political view is, right? Cuba was overthrown by the communists, not voted in-then all the people who were pro-democracy were slaughtered or imprisoned, I hardly think they would be on anyones "the people wanted it" list. So to "use my tax dollars" to overthrow dangerous despots, however they came into power, is a GREAT use of my tax dollars.

You do know that in its post-Columbian history Cuba has only had 2 or 3 democratic elections (during the 1930's-40's), and those were overthrown, right? It was the US sponsored dictator, Fulgencio Batista, who was overthrown by Castro...
If overthrowing dangerous despots is the goal - start w/ China - before it's too late. Picking on Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan really doesn't accomplish much in the greater scheme of things.
Do not forget Vizzini's Law though: "Never start a land war in Asia."
The Princess Bride
br />
p.s. We have North Korea still because bleeding heart liberals said we "have no national security risks" and forced us to fight to a draw and sign a peace deal. Reminds me of a few other more modern cases of liberal peaceniks decrying American intervention.
Which bleeding heart liberals would those be - Truman(D) - the only man on earth to have authorized the use of an atomic weapon in wartime? Or the signatories of the Potsdam Conference which (in contravention to the (then) recently signed Cairo Conference and, without Korean representation) divided Korea to begin with?
Yah, I'm naive, and I know nothing of history, apparently.
Next up: "The Dark Ages" or "Why Europe Looks Like it Does Today"
Unless you'd prefer: "A Modern History of the Middle East - Drawing Lines in the Sand"