HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HughBeaumont » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »

HughBeaumont

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Aug 13, 2004, 03:12 PM
Number of posts: 21,062

Journal Archives

Marc Andreesen, from 2004, about Free Trade and Job Offshoring . . .

http://www.nfap.net/researchactivities/globalsourcing/itemsInterest/AndreesenDobbsCNN_030404.pdf#search=\\'Andreesen,%20offshoring\\'

DOBBS: There are very few issues right now that are more difficult for corporate America to deal with than the issue of outsourcing. You support it. You support it vigorously. Why?

ANDREESEN: Yes. I think it's purely good for the American company and it's good for American workers. It's part of the natural process of creating new jobs. I think job destruction and job creation go hand in hand. In the last 10 years, this economy has destroyed 325 million jobs and created 342 million new jobs. And, in general, those news jobs are better jobs than the ones that were destroyed.

snip

DOBBS: Marc, we can sit here and not really edify anyone including ourselves by trading statistics. The fact is it is 2004, the fact is in the most event report on trade we show for the first time negative numbers in the area in which you live, that is technology which is supposed to be bringing us all of these wonderful jobs that so far are not materializing.

ANDREESEN: Look, technology took a big hit in the last four years due to recession. When I was involved in creating the first Internet browser in 1993, I can tell how many Internet jobs there were, there were 200. I can tell you how many there are now, there's two million now. We created new jobs in the next 10 years. I'll tell you what, we're going to create a huge number of new jobs in the next 10 years.

DOBBS: I expect you to do so. What I don't expect you to understand is that there is no one listening to us that should take -- has any reason to take as you an article of faith that by moving jobs overseas simply to acquire cheap labor that in any way adds to innovation to this country.

ANDREESEN: Absolutely it does. It compounds innovation, allows American companies to invest both overseas and the U.S. It allows American companies to hire more people in the U.S. It allows American companies to sell their products and services into a larger global market. I tell you another thing, it encourages peace and stability worldwide. The best thing that can happen to us from a national security standpoint we determine to develop the middle classes in India and China. And in fact the really best thing we could do is to start offshoring to the Middle East. If you want to systematicly go after global security and peace, figure out how to bring everybody into this world of increasing returns from economic, increasing returns from trade...

DOBBS: Marc, you surely not suggesting that we create a middle class anywhere in the world at the expense of our own?

ANDREESEN: Of course not. It's not at the expense of our own.

DOBBS: That's precisely the effect of what is happening.

ANDREESEN: No it's not.

DOBBS: No, sir, it is.

ANDREESEN: Trade has been win-win for 200 years.

DOBBS: Win-win. Marc, you are too smart for this. You are absolutely too smart for this. When you hear win-win, what do you think of, a software salesman, right?


Yeah . . . those 10 years are almost up . . . . where was that influx of jobs? How's that "not zero-sum" issue working out for the workers?

Lying liars will keep on lying, even when they're being interviewed by fellow right-wingers.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:30 PM (2 replies)

Why does no one consider the "All Democrats are Communists" people as lunatic fringe?

Seriously . . . this frame of mind is practically mainstreamed.

What if I were to say "ALL Republicans are hateful, extremely bigoted Fascist reactionaries who worship corporations"?? I'd be rightfully admonished by people even on my side and called much worse by those targeted for such a broadbrush.

So why is it perfectly all right, no one batting an eyelash or raising one fuss, when "All Democrats are Communists!" or some variation of it comes spewing out of a TeaHadist's mouth?

Don't believe me? Ask any garden variety Republican, RIGHT NOW, if they think this is true. Think you'll get an answer like "well, no, I don't belive that they're all (insert red bait insult)s, that's crazy."???

We pretty much give them their own segments on news shows (Victoria Jackson, Bernie Marcus on CNBC, etc), Faux or otherwise.

A Communist likely wouldn't BE a member of any mainstreamed American political party.

When the red-baiters should be in the same league as birthers, their bullshit is seen as normal instead. And that is something I have a huge fucking problem with.

SIIIIIIGGGGGHHHH . . . Ann, read and read well . . .

THIS is "out of context":

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me – because they want to give something back. They know they didn't – look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges;
if you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.


That's what your dumbass party "built" their entire convention around . .. a deceptively-edited sound bite and what they want to hear . . . just like EVERYTHING else they selectively aurally edit.

THIS is "1000 fucking percent IN Context . .. in other words, what Mitt REALLY thinks about us":

There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

“And I mean the President starts off with 49, 49…he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.

“So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every 4 years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

“What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or another depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”


See, Ann? This isn't so hard!

You could probably break all of these down in a Dog Whistle Glossary . . ..

Their word = What they really mean by it.

"Entitlements" = "Why should I have to pay for Sheniqua and her nine crack babies???/?"
"Values" = "What We Learnt Bein' White n Heterosexual . . . you know, NORMAL!"
"Freedom" = "I can be as big of an uncaring asshole as I want cuz I'm a WHITE MURKIN!"
"Conservative" = "The Way Things OUGHTA Be, Commie."
"Some Say . . . " = "Normal America thinks . . . "
"Democrat Party" = "Buncha pansy, sissy Ni**er-lovin COMMIES!"
"Austerity" = "Whatever it means, I won't be hurt by it. The Welfare recipients will!"
"Job Creators" = "True Hard Working Americans who I hope to BE PART OF someday!"
"We Built It" = "We Built It"
"Welfare Queen" = "(Insert racial, ethnic or gender slur here)s"
"Statist/Marxist/Socialist/Socialism" = "All Democrats"
"Playing the Race Card" = "Why don't we have a WHIIIIIITE ENTERTAINMENT CHANNEL???"
"Right To Work" = "Whatever it means, I won't be hurt by it!"
"Liberty" = "FREEDOM!! Well, except for the gays, women and (insert racial slur here)"
"Founding Fathers" = "Founding Christians"
"ACLU" = "FUCKING CORNHOLING DEMUCRAPS!!!!1!!!"
"Nanny State" = "Murka should just be a free for all!! Hey Shitter, watch me jump this fence with my jet ski . . ."
"Fiscal Conservative" = "More War, Less welfare!"
"Class Warfare" = "LEAVE THE RICH ALOOOOOOOOOONE!!"
"Real America" = "Not the (Insert racial, ethnic or gender slur here)s"
"We're going to take this country back" = "I'm going to take me a gun and kill all the (Insert racial, ethnic or gender slur here)s I seeeeee . . . "
"Feminazi" = "Git in the kitchen whur you belong, stupid!"
"Religious Freedom" = "Why CAN'T that Chick Filet guy tell it like it is about the homos without all these libs runnin' their yaps?"
"Small Government" = "Reagan, the Greatest Preznit Next to Bush!"
Posted by HughBeaumont | Sat Sep 8, 2012, 11:00 AM (1 replies)

Found an interesting comment about Romney on a blog that might have some truth to it . . .

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/29/mitt-romney-tells-533-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/#disqus_thread

This particular entry is in response to an article about how many lies Mitt Romney has told in a period of 30 days (533 lies). It might not be too far off in explaining why a guy who's worth a quarter of a billion dollars wants to be President (thanks to Ross).


Romney is running for president for the same reason as the reason for most of the things the 0.1% do. He wants to be president to keep one of them from being president.

At a certain point of sociopathy, it's not about what you can get for yourself, but about what you can keep the proles from having.

That's what's keeping the alliance from collapsing from in-fighting. I mean, if it was just about accumulating wealth for yourself, why keep trying to screw the poor? If you want to double your wealth, you won't do it by taking the last 2% of the global wealth from the poor -- you'll get it by bankrupting your rivals and taking *their* money. Poaching ONE Koch brother will fatten your bank account more than raiding the pensions of a million wage-slaves.

But they don't because it's not about increasing their wealth -- they've got so much already that any sense of "more" is purely academic. But you know what they *can* quantify? What they deny to others.

If I'm healthy, additional "health" isn't going to make me healthier, but denying healthcare to others *will* have a visible effect.

If I've got a billion dollars, another hundred thousand means very little to me. But if I can take a hundred thousand dolars and in doing so, reduce a family to desperation, that's something I can look at, and say "Behold my accomplishment!"

Mitt Romney wants to be president so that no one else can have it. Especially someone who might do some good with it.



Just another toy to collect . . . . to say he has it?

It cannot be said enough:



NEVER. And that includes corporate empty-suit wanksters who follow the Bush economic platform on steroids.

"Stop blaming my brother" . . . Jeb, you stupid bastard,

a) thanks to Obama's congress being either Third Way Worthless to Republican Regressive, NOTHING'S CHANGED since "your brother" and

b) "Your brother" shat things up so bad, it's going to take at least 15 years of America having to make the absolute right move on every economic and electoral decision there is from here on out to correct it. "Your brother" left us with a debt BY CHOICE thanks to his tax cuts for the rich BY CHOICE and his wars OF CHOICE and corporate welfare BY CHOICE. He didn't have to do any of this, he just DID.

You're NEVER going to be president, Jeb. NEVER.

Huntsman is looking pretty . . . Orange on CNBC.

I mean, dude. Been spending too much time at the Jersey Shore or Miami or something? DAMN.

"Obama has doubled the National Debt" - Kat$hit (R - SlowHio)

How are these bastards allowed to outright lie like this without any counter from our complicit press? Did at least anyone from MSNBC call them on this lie?

21st Century Corporate America (and Romney's Presidency) Summed Up in One Onion Article:

My Great-Grandfather Started This Business With One Simple Mission That We Abandoned Decades Ago

http://www.theonion.com/articles/my-greatgrandfather-started-this-business-with-one,28423/

You see, Dietrich was adamant that Mueller Dry Goods be not just a company, but a symbol for what a company could become if it conducted itself honorably and wasn't constantly beholden to the bottom line. These ideas, along with the ridiculous crap he said about not treating your employees like commodities, were abandoned in the early 1980s and, to tell you the truth, we don't miss them.

snip

One could say this company was built on tradition—a set of values systematically phased out the second my great-grandfather died. Insisting on customer satisfaction and transparent, responsible business practices were the simple, homespun principles that Dietrich passed on to my grandfather, who in turn passed them on to my father, who told me that the family's "touchy-feely" style of business management was counterintuitive and that if we didn't start cooking the books soon, goodbye to corporate jets and massive year-end bonuses.

snip

Integrity, citizenship, and a commitment to future generations are just some of the basic human virtues that Dietrich stood for and that we discarded years ago in favor of maximizing profit while remaining within a hairsbreadth of the letter of the law. And that's when we're not dictating new legislation to the congressmen we've installed.

My great-grandfather was truly involved in every aspect of the business. He spent time on the factory floor talking to his employees, which I consider to be a total waste of time. First off, I don't know any of our employees' names, and even if I did, I'm certainly not flying out to China just to talk to them. Dietrich believed in his company's products and worked hard to ensure the highest level of craftsmanship. Personally, I don't even know what we make anymore. I actually have no idea what a dry good is; we mostly buy debt and acquire smaller companies to raid the employees' pension funds. Dietrich only used quality materials, even if that meant the cost of production remained high. Ha!


I'd put icons, but I can't really laugh when I'm seething with anger at how . . . tragically unsatirical this Onion piece is. It's also pretty reflective of how Dubya Mitt and Boy Galt would work hand in hand with their Corporate American fellows to economically terrorize this nation until it resembled a big Detroit, Lorain or Youngstown.

Ken Langone on CNBC . . . .my GOD, where are these people HATCHED from?

"If Romney and Ryan Win, the market will have a honeymoon for 3-6 months"

"Romney/Ryan in the White House will get this economy going quick."

"The more people find out about the Romney/Ryan ticket, the more they'll get excited."

"Obama has no background to understand how business works."

GET EXCITED FUCKERS!!! ROMNEY/RYAN!!! GET EXCITED!! SMELL THE POVERTY!! KEN LANGONE HAS SPOKEN!!!

Hey Kenny, when you and that other rotted fossil Bernie Marcus were steamrolling Mom and Pop stores in the 80s and 90s with Home Depot, is that the kind of example of how business "works"?

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »