Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: There Is No Free Market

Posted 8 months ago on Feb. 4, 2014, 6:34 a.m. EST by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Economists have lied. They have, they have lied. Repeatedly, and often. There are no FREE MARKETS - they do not exist. Free markets do not exist and never have, no matter what economists do insist.

To prove that economists do lie, repeatedly and often, consider the term:

Externality

And the short version:

http://economics.about.com - Definition: An externality is an effect of a purchase or use decision by one set of parties on others who did not have a choice and whose interests were not taken into account.

What a crock of shit.

And why is this such a crock of shit? Permit me to be brief:

If I fire an arrow over the house, and it lodges in a repelican breast, is this effect, whether negative OR positive, is it external to my having fired the arrow?

The term externality is simply a linguistic charade, a sleight of hand - or rather, in this case, a slight of tongue - a contemptuous abuse of the public intellect. By simply restating the case along with the presentation of various charts and graphs illustrating the function between selfishness and market forces they confound and confuse a very simple legal principle.

That of Negligence.

The implication of their behavior is that if you are of modest means, income, and, most importantly, of property, then any damage or loss sustained by you as a result of economic activity, or externality, is somehow mitigated by the selfishness that produced that economic activity, because the loss sustained falls somehow, outside of that activity. And when that activity produces what can only be called a business model dependent on a manufacturing process that poisons the air we breath and the water we drink, and that model becomes sufficiently pervasive and monolithic, we all collectively shrug our shoulders, say little or nothing, rendered into a state of catatonic and conditioned helplessness . . .

Witness . . .

London's Great Smog

.

Economists lie, they lie often, they lie because they must. Monied interests demand it of them.

There is no Free Market. It is not now, nor ever was, nor ever will be, and this is a fact they know well.

Consider:

What is a medium of trade

A medium of exchange is an intermediary used in trade to avoid the inconveniences of a pure barter system.

What is money?

a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.

and finally, consider that money as a medium of trade not only has production costs, it is subject to commodification, necessitized, and hence, subjected to the laws of supply and demand.

In the face of inflation we are forced to borrow while our wages stagnate, against a future which is uncertain and at cost determined by those who possess the medium of trade in sufficient quantity as to control its supply - as if the whole world works in the company mine, lives in the company town, and is cheated at the company store . . . every day.

We are, it seems, no more human. We are become something else, and that much more mundane. We have been commodified. We are a product. We are consumers. Consumers whose necessity has been manufactured, whose own lives are bought and sold on the open market, where we have become the property of another.

Our Liberty, it seems, has become an integral component and entirely dependent upon our ability to consume - to consume where all that is sold is a lie, and the stomach remains empty no matter how much one consumes.

.



.

On Philosophy -


On the Surveillance Industrial Complex -


Other -

72 Comments

72 Comments


Read the Rules

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by LocalConcepts (6) 8 months ago

Decentralize and get as much control back in the hands of your own local market. It might make sense considering the amount of political and market consolidation in this current structure.

They have a harder time controlling things when its local, when its grass roots, its more real. Its people working with people without the help of outside influencers who are only there to increase their own power.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 months ago

money is needed to exchange goods and services

money is subject to supply and demand

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 months ago

Here's 25 examples of what the "slaved" market accomplishes.

None are pretty pictures.

http://www.alternet.org/25-horrifying-images-free-market-work

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 months ago

That's without showing the ultimate accomplishment.

Global warming.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 months ago

Yum!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 months ago

I am superman and I have all energy

[-] -1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

what do you think of this - President Barack Obama began his answer with a strong statement: "I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world's ever known."

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

I have time to read if you have time to write - just wondering - trying to get some clarity here. I agree with your post and think that a more informed population on this subject would be a big step on the way to a better world. all of our (ok, almost all) of our politicians have to pledge allegiance to the god of the "free market" and it is a cruel joke.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26689) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 months ago

We can do better

Whenever He says that - He should look directly into a mirror and address Himself - consciously address himself.

As for One Thing - The All of the above energy stance of his (?) = INSANITY

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

what part of what I asked or said was nonsense? and how could answering the question give me ammunition. for sure you know nothing about my intentions so how about somewhat normal conversation. lastly how can it be true "that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world's ever known" and as you posted that " Free markets do not exist and never have." now that seems to me to be what our great state department planners called "a logical illogicality." we don't need to continue if you are afraid I might get ammunition.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

taken out of context - is that the best you can do? and "free enterprise system" is less misleading than " free market" since the average american makes a clear distinction between the two - sure. and yes the u.s. is the richest nation on earth - which is why it is a shame that so many are in poverty and don't have heath ins etc. we are also "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" no? anyway I understand now about ammunition.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 months ago

You know what is hysterical? Zen has said, multiple times on the forum, there are many instances of they are both the same. But, you're a piece of shit and spend your time trying to find ways of fucking with him and even more time trying to justify it. He will even blatantly disagree with a stance Obama has taken.

It's all about justifying your existence.

[-] -1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

first of all I think you should go back and rework the grammar on your comment - none of it really makes sense but that second sentence is unintelligible. I assume you are using the word hysterical to mean funny - your response is actually hysterical as in HYSTERICAL! fucking with poor zendog - come on the man uses zen as a moniker - do you know what zen is. and trying to get him to realize that your president is a hard core capitalist is fucking with him? come on girl - grow up - this is ows - maybe you need to check out some definitions. first look up zen or maybe take time off from the site and read alan watts "the way of zen" - it will do you good - really. then do some reading on the founding principles of ows - read graeber's book - "debt the first 5000 years" - it will take you a while and you will have to read it twice but it will be good for you really. your real problem (along with your unzen buddy) is that you see everything that disagrees with your tiny uninformed world view as an attack. this was not an attack on anyone but a discussion to try to come to some understanding. and finally we can disagree here at ows without name calling like this - "you're a piece of shit." can't we?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

nice response - well thought out and civil - thanks. yes I do have a bias (just to be clear it is in favor of ows and the bottom 80% of the population) and yes you are correct that the president has never owned his own company - as I have - many of them as a matter of fact. I was not specific in my language. he has never really done much of anything except hold public office - just like that other sad sack democrat slick willie Clinton! ............................. the president believes in capitalism and the free market as a philosophy - he is not a socialist or radical in any way. he is a mainstream right of center politician who has to suck up to those in power in order to achieve power for himself. my complaint with the president and the dems is that they preside over the imperial system worldwide (and happily so) and also do all they can to preserve the capitalist system here at home. they maintain the status quo and have no interest in making any real change in the direction of the country. we don't need to go on here - I think you "get my meaning and catch my drift" (all praise to the firesign theatre)................................................... I will leave you with one last thought - you do realize that the department of homeland security is under the direction of Obama right? you do realize that he was very happy to see ows go way right? you do realize that he collaborated with (that little shit) Bloomberg and other mayors around the country to destroy ows - illegally - right? ...from a longer article (edited in the interest of brevity - sorry gf).......... "While the nearly 400 pages of documents DHS released to Truthout Wednesday do not contain any smoking-guns showing that DHS worked with local law enforcement and local government officials "in any wholesale manner," as noted by one DHS official, on the coordinated crackdown of Occupy encampments throughout the country last October, the materials provide deep insight into the agency's interest in OWS and also highlight fears that DHS's actions may have been unconstitutional

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

a bit less civil but that is to be expected. go ahead and find quote from your president praising ows but as Churchill said -"Words are easy and many, while great deeds are difficult and rare." - are you telling me the president is not in control of his administration? ......................................... i am a capitalist but do not believe in the philosophy - not the way it functions here anyway. i agreed with your original post - there is no free market! your assertions are not backed up by any evidence so they are meaningless................................... it is pretty easy to show that your president is center right but i will not do it now. also you have never asked me what i think or do so to assert that i do not care about the bottom %80 is also just plain wrong. typical of your tactics and they are not very helpful - do you realize that you would not get away with this type of shit in zuccotti park during the time of "occupy!" no, i doubt it - when the people occupied the park you were in a dark room reading zen literature - no?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 months ago

the capital was already only accessible by a minority

banks don't do construction

my 1998 works great

where jobs really in jeopardy ?

[-] -1 points by gsw (2697) 8 months ago

" Obama has given in to the fossil fuel industry...he's laid the foundation for fossil fuel next 40 to 50 years" Bill McKibben

http://billmoyers.com/episode/bill-mckibben-to-obama-say-no-to-big-oil/

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 months ago

Ralph Nader called Obama a "war criminal who has been more aggressive than George W. Bush."

Can't say obama is worse than bush but policy of war has not change

[-] -1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

Haaretz headlined "The return of Richard Nixon," saying:

He "was a conservative national security hawk." Obama promised progressive change. He exceeded the worst of his predecessor. He's done so unapologetically.

"Both were terrified by leaks and recruited the government into the struggle against them. With Nixon, they eavesdropped on conversations of key journalists and officials who were suspected of being their sources."

Obama exceeds the worst of Nixon's lawlessness. He's got technological tools Nixon lacked. He uses them and much more. He does so recklessly with abandon.

Nixon left Washington ingloriously. Obama's free to wage war on humanity. He monitors everyone. He does so to choose targets. He's listening to you now.

He reads your emails. He checks web sites you visit. He knows your medical and financial history. He knows what company you keep. He watches every move you make. He knows what you do, where and when.

He sees you when you're sleeping. He knows when you're awake. He knows everything you do he disapproves of. He's making a list you don't want your name on.

He's intolerant of less than total subservience. He rules by what He sayS goes. Obey or else reflects policy.

Haaretz said " 'Tricky Dick,' who left this world on the verge of the Internet age, could only fantasize about the technological power (Obama) enjoys."

Nixon spied the old fashioned way. He did it selectively. Obama does it globally. He does it with technological ease. Virtually everyone is monitored all the time every day.

[-] -1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

Ralph Nader called Obama a "war criminal who has been more aggressive than George W. Bush."

Noam Chomsky told Russia Today he wants Obama "taken before the ICC for the war on terror."

He highlighted Magna Carta rights. He called Nuremberg Principles, Judgement and the Charter "part of the foundation of modern international law." Jeremy Scahill's new book "Dirty Wars" calls planet earth a battlefield. Covert and raging hot wars persist. America claims a unilateral right to commit mass slaughter, destruction, torture, and unspeakable atrocities.

Might justifies rights. Nations are destroyed to liberate them. Terrorism is what they do, not us. Code language conceals dark motives.

Reasons why imperial wars are waged are suppressed. Wealth, power, and privilege alone matter. Sacrificing human lives and freedoms are small prices to pay. Humanity's at risk but who cares.

Scahill reported from global hot spots. He and another journalist "were shot at together on rooftops in Modadishu," he said, "slept on dingy floors in rural Afghanistan, and traveled together in the netherlands of Southern Yemen."

America claims a unilateral right to bludgeon humanity into submission. Murder, Inc. reflects US policy. Obama escalated Bush war crimes to higher levels.

America's addicted to war. Obama's committed to wage it. Noncombatants are fair game. Official policy targets them.

Innocent men, women, children, the elderly and infirm are slaughtered. Winning alone matters. Unchallenged global dominance is policy.

America's war on terror reflects waging it on humanity. Wherever US forces intervene, death, destruction, instability, displacement, impoverishment, and unspeakable human misery follow.

Obama's values aren't like yours or mine. He wants fundamental laws subverted for greater aims. He wants state-sponsored murder legalized. He wants new rules giving him clear authority.

He's comfortable about killing. He has no qualms about doing so. He wants unchallenged diktat power. He wants it for targeted assassinations and war. He's heading America for waging it globally.

[-] -1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

"I would rather have a white president fundamentally dedicated to eradicating poverty and enhancing the plight of working people than a black president tied to Wall Street and drones." ..................In a May London Guardian interview, Cornel West said:

"We elected a black president and that means we are less racist now than we used to be. That's beautiful."

"But when you look at the prison industrial complex and the new Jim Crow: levels of massive unemployment and the decrepit unemployment system, indecent housing: white supremacy is still operating in the US, even with a brilliant black face in a high place called the White House."

Obama's "tied to Wall Street. And at this point he is a war criminal. You can't meet every Tuesday with a killer list and continually have drones drop bombs."

"You can do that once or twice and say: 'I shouldn't have done that, I've got to stop.' But when you do it month in, month out, year in, year out - that's a pattern of behavior."

"I think there is a chance of a snowball in hell that he will ever be tried, but I think he should be tried and I said the same about George Bush."

"These are war crimes. We suffer in this age from an indifference toward criminality and a callousness to catastrophe when it comes to poor and working people."

[-] -1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

sorry for the order of these comments - I am tired and in a hurry but you get the idea - "The most famous recent case of executive assassination was Osama bin Laden, murdered after he was apprehended by 79 Navy seals, defenseless, accompanied only by his wife, his body reportedly dumped at sea without autopsy. Whatever one thinks of him, he was a suspect and nothing more than that. Even the FBI agreed.

Celebration in this case was overwhelming, but there were a few questions raised about the bland rejection of the principle of presumption of innocence, particularly when trial was hardly impossible. These were met with harsh condemnations. The most interesting was by a respected left-liberal political commentator, Matthew Yglesias, who explained that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers,” so it is “amazingly naïve” to suggest that the U.S. should obey international law or other conditions that we righteously demand of the weak.

Only tactical objections can be raised to aggression, assassination, cyberwar, or other actions that the Holy State undertakes in the service of mankind. If the traditional victims see matters somewhat differently, that merely reveals their moral and intellectual backwardness. And the occasional Western critic who fails to comprehend these fundamental truths can be dismissed as “silly,” Yglesias explains -- incidentally, referring specifically to me, and I cheerfully confess my guilt.

Executive Terrorist Lists

Perhaps the most striking assault on the foundations of traditional liberties is a little-known case brought to the Supreme Court by the Obama administration, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The Project was condemned for providing “material assistance” to the guerrilla organization PKK, which has fought for Kurdish rights in Turkey for many years and is listed as a terrorist group by the state executive. The “material assistance” was legal advice. The wording of the ruling would appear to apply quite broadly, for example, to discussions and research inquiry, even advice to the PKK to keep to nonviolent means. Again, there was a marginal fringe of criticism, but even those accepted the legitimacy of the state terrorist list -- arbitrary decisions by the executive, with no recourse.

[-] -1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

Noam Chomsky: That's a very interesting question. I personally never expected anything of Obama, and wrote about it before the 2008 primaries. I thought it was smoke and mirrors. The one thing that did surprise me is his attack on civil liberties. They go well beyond anything I would have anticipated, and they don't seem easy to explain. In many ways the worst is what you mention, Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. That's an Obama initiative and it's a very serious attack on civil liberties. He doesn't gain anything from it – he doesn't get any political mileage out of it. In fact, most people don't even know about it, but what it does is extend the concept of "material assistance to terror" to speech.

The case in question was a law group that was giving legal advice to groups on the terrorist list, which in itself has no moral or legal justification; it's an abomination. But if you look at the way it's been used, it becomes even more abhorrent ( Nelson Mandela was on it until a couple of years ago.) And the wording of the colloquy is broad enough that it could very well mean that if, say, you meet with someone in a terrorist group and advise them to turn to nonviolent means, then that's material assistance to terrorism. I've met with people who are on the list and will continue to do so, and Obama wants to criminalize that, which is a plain attack on freedom of speech. I just don't understand why he's doing it.

[-] -2 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

and then we have executive assassination - "The concept of due process has been extended under the Obama administration’s international assassination campaign in a way that renders this core element of the Charter of Liberties (and the Constitution) null and void. The Justice Department explained that the constitutional guarantee of due process, tracing to Magna Carta, is now satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch alone. The constitutional lawyer in the White House agreed. King John might have nodded with satisfaction.

The issue arose after the presidentially ordered assassination-by-drone of Anwar al-Awlaki, accused of inciting jihad in speech, writing, and unspecified actions. A headline in the New York Times captured the general elite reaction when he was murdered in a drone attack, along with the usual collateral damage. It read: “The West celebrates a cleric’s death.” Some eyebrows were lifted, however, because he was an American citizen, which raised questions about due process -- considered irrelevant when non-citizens are murdered at the whim of the chief executive. And irrelevant for citizens, too, under Obama administration due-process legal innovations.

Presumption of innocence has also been given a new and useful interpretation. As the New York Times reported, “Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” So post-assassination determination of innocence maintains the sacred principle of presumption of innocence.

It would be ungracious to recall the Geneva Conventions, the foundation of modern humanitarian law: they bar “the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 months ago

propagating zen literature

oh dear political double speak again

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

yes terrorism is dangerous which is why I think Obama should stop promoting it the way bush did. and yes everyone knows you are a self proclaimed asshole - and proud of it. so when you are not making my point with your idiotic comments you are stating the obvious! so I have to go now - I have to deal with a 4 yr old - it will be much more intelligent conversation.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

so let's see here -Chomsky "highlighted Magna Carta rights. He called Nuremberg Principles, Judgement and the Charter "part of the foundation of modern international law." - and then cites "his attack on civil liberties and you call it an obscure legal issue. you then condone the president as judge, jury and executioner - sounds very right wing to me. the rest is nonsense - typical of those who have no argument - attack the person not the substance of what is said. and no attack on cornel - he probably feels left out.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

and dog (I am not going to use the zen part until you show me some zen - you do know what the philosophy is right?). this is not cherry picking -.......imagine how it will work when the next republican gets elected to the presidency - they will first declare ows a terrorist group and then we are all facing jail (or worse) for being on this site! no? did I misunderstand something here (and please don't say motherfucker motherfucker as your only response)? read this part more carefully - it is an explanation of the obscure case! ................"The case in question was a law group that was giving legal advice to groups on the terrorist list, which in itself has no moral or legal justification; it's an abomination. But if you look at the way it's been used, it becomes even more abhorrent ( Nelson Mandela was on it until a couple of years ago.) And the wording of the colloquy is broad enough that it could very well mean that if, say, you meet with someone in a terrorist group and advise them to turn to nonviolent means, then that's material assistance to terrorism. I've met with people who are on the list and will continue to do so, and Obama wants to criminalize that, which is a plain attack on freedom of speech. I just don't understand why he's doing it.......imagine how it will work when the next republican gets elected to the presidency - they will come after ows with the same law

[-] 1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

all good until your last line. as I understand it free speech means nothing if you only allow for speech you find tolerable. interesting - that is the position of every authoritarian - no? as to criminals doing very bad things - even from prison - yes they do. that is why we call them criminal. now if you think that means we should get rid of trial by jury and the rule of law I am not surprised. king George agrees with you - and so do your Nazi types - apparently so does the Obama administration.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

so the fact that few people know about it is a statement on the complicity of the media - right? and no knowledge of subject matter is needed - only a basic understanding of english is required to understand what this means - "the wording of the colloquy is broad enough that it could very well mean that if, say, you meet with someone in a terrorist group and advise them to turn to nonviolent means, then that's material assistance to terrorism" - now you have to be born yesterday not to realize how dangerous this is.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

well said - you have made my point - thanks - and thanks for the restraint.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

Chomsky's point is clear - that you cannot see it is telling

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 months ago

First of all, you are a piece of shit. You use flip as a moniker. You're the mother fucker that needs to grow up. Take your ass to the library and hit the nonfiction section. You have nothing to do with occupy. Never did.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

it is well known here that you are the final arbiter of who is occupy and who is not so I feel very hurt. and you continual use of "piece of shit" is very informative - should really bring the 99% to our (your) side! I can just imagine how it would work - get a group to hold a demo and when the cameras show up do a "mic check" and just rant "piece of shit, piece of shit." now the go to the library part is funny - you haven't said anything of substance since I can remember- no I don't consider "Israel is great" and "the president is our savior" to be substantive and neither does ows - that is their official position - look it up!

[-] -3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 months ago

It is well known here, or it will be-the moment that someone else looks through your posts and realizes that the reason that you don't link to articles is because you are taking them out of context.

I shall laugh when they do.

[-] 1 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

use google - you know how right - and back up your claim. otherwise you have no business on a site like this. seems that ows has enough problems without you and the dog contributing to the internal backbiting! what I post stands on it's own. very obvious to anyone who is not blinded by the star of potus

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 months ago

I already have backed it up. It will be fun. Spin, flip, spin.

[-] 2 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

nice try

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 months ago

It must suck for you to have to post third shift and all. The moment that others begin to read that you are twisting and taking articles and interviews out of context then you are done. I shall laugh.

[-] 3 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

back it up or shut up

[-] -3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 months ago

When you aren't flipping-you're spinning. You're about to spin out.

I've already busted you on it. I am going to laugh.

[-] 2 points by flip (7022) 8 months ago

don't you have to go to work or something - can you try to start contributing something here instead of name calling. seems like ows has enough problems without your adolescent behavior. how old are you anyway? do you really think you are a positive influence here - you are not. I know the dog thinks you are (the self admitted asshole who doesn't want anyone to like him - great addition to ows!). can you find another who agrees? I know everyone else is crazy - right? come on girl - suck it up and move in a better direction. look at this forum. how many people really come here - is it 6 or 10 - doesn't seem like many anymore. official ows website - very disappointing - and you - are you making it better by calling me an asshat? back up your claims or stop making them and get on to something better.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by OWSdefender (20) 8 months ago

sigh.... still bickering... come on!

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 months ago

OWSdefender

No Profile Information Private Messages

Information

Joined Feb. 8, 2014

And you just verified it.

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by OneManOneMind (25) 8 months ago

Capitalizing the word president is automatically puttin yourself and all other "commoners" at a lower level. Removing this false sense of royalty could be something to consider when objectively discussing what this one person said on a television show.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by chilidip (-34) 6 months ago

Most powerful nation on Earth, built on free market capitalism, but the chuckle-head Zen doggshit doesn't believe it exists.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 months ago

We are all externalities, to the super citizens, we call corporations.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 months ago

Whichever maximizes investor ROI.

It's in the charter.

[Removed]