There are two primary premises in the information Pink sent:
- Obama was a disaster because his Cabinet had little engagement with Wall Street
- Those who engage business people in the White House make better Presidents
There was a secondary idea that the corporations are ours:
AND THESE PEOPLE TRIED TO TELL OUR CORPORATIONS HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESSES?
- Gaylord Layton
Gaylord confused himself within a single question in which the beginning says the corporations are ours and at the end it says they're not.
Zen Yogi: I don't own any corporations, Silas
Neither do I, Yogi.
Zen Yogi: maybe he means we own the corporations through our 401K programs, at least for those who actually have 401K programs
Having shares in a corporation doesn't mean anything since you don't own something you don't control.
There's a general theme that Obama was an unmitigated disaster and he was but not for that reason. After he said he would bring the troops home but then wound up using more drone bombs than George Bush, any credibility he initially had evaporated and never returned. That had nothing to do with his relationship with business, however.
The premise he was a disaster is Obama enacted some but not enough controls on Wall Street after something which really was an unmitigated disaster: the corporate fail in the mortgage crisis which created the 2008 disaster in the first place. Bush had about average representation with Wall Street CEOs or adjuncts on his Cabinet but that did nothing to prevent the disaster so there's not much evidence of a logical case for engagement with them.
Note: to this day, none of the corporate criminality involved in the 2008 mortgage crisis has been prosecuted by Obama or Trump.
Conversely, Trump has been an unmitigated disaster from his first word as well and you won't see a better example of Presidential heroism than expelling the 800,000 DACA children. Trump's only engagement is with business and that revealed a corporate heartlessness and savagery which will be shaming Americans for far into the future.
The dominating premise for any reverence of corporate engagement is the corporate perspective is more practical, more efficient, and is better for America.
Well, that's easy to validate, isn't it. (NBC: North Korea Crisis: Trump Threatens to Stop U.S. Trade With China. Could He?)
Trump will punish NK by cutting off Chinese-made iPhones to America. This level of corporate genius may well be unmatched.
Sorry, Pink, but I can't support this one. The evidence just isn't there.
- Obama was a disaster because his Cabinet had little engagement with Wall Street
- Those who engage business people in the White House make better Presidents
There was a secondary idea that the corporations are ours:
AND THESE PEOPLE TRIED TO TELL OUR CORPORATIONS HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESSES?
- Gaylord Layton
Gaylord confused himself within a single question in which the beginning says the corporations are ours and at the end it says they're not.
Zen Yogi: I don't own any corporations, Silas
Neither do I, Yogi.
Zen Yogi: maybe he means we own the corporations through our 401K programs, at least for those who actually have 401K programs
Having shares in a corporation doesn't mean anything since you don't own something you don't control.
There's a general theme that Obama was an unmitigated disaster and he was but not for that reason. After he said he would bring the troops home but then wound up using more drone bombs than George Bush, any credibility he initially had evaporated and never returned. That had nothing to do with his relationship with business, however.
The premise he was a disaster is Obama enacted some but not enough controls on Wall Street after something which really was an unmitigated disaster: the corporate fail in the mortgage crisis which created the 2008 disaster in the first place. Bush had about average representation with Wall Street CEOs or adjuncts on his Cabinet but that did nothing to prevent the disaster so there's not much evidence of a logical case for engagement with them.
Note: to this day, none of the corporate criminality involved in the 2008 mortgage crisis has been prosecuted by Obama or Trump.
Conversely, Trump has been an unmitigated disaster from his first word as well and you won't see a better example of Presidential heroism than expelling the 800,000 DACA children. Trump's only engagement is with business and that revealed a corporate heartlessness and savagery which will be shaming Americans for far into the future.
The dominating premise for any reverence of corporate engagement is the corporate perspective is more practical, more efficient, and is better for America.
Well, that's easy to validate, isn't it. (NBC: North Korea Crisis: Trump Threatens to Stop U.S. Trade With China. Could He?)
Trump will punish NK by cutting off Chinese-made iPhones to America. This level of corporate genius may well be unmatched.
Sorry, Pink, but I can't support this one. The evidence just isn't there.
No comments:
Post a Comment