Corporations and politics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2016, 06:58 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 06:54 PM)BnW Wrote:  Uh, no. The government NEVER forced any business to do business in any jurisdiction EVER. What they have done is say "if you want to do business in a given state or locality, then you must do .... [fill in the blank].

Once again, you're wrong. It's not your fault, though. You're a DUMBASS.

After your third attempt, you still haven't succeeded in crawling out of your foolishness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Quote:....It refers to the practice of marking a red line on a map to delineate the area where banks would not invest.... Anyone who suspects that their neighborhood has been redlined is able to file a housing discrimination complaint. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 further required banks to apply the same lending criteria in all communities.[20] Although open redlining was made illegal in the 70s through community reinvestment legislation, the practice may have continued in less overt ways...

Maybe the fourth time will be the charm. Care to try again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 07:02 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 06:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 06:54 PM)BnW Wrote:  Uh, no. The government NEVER forced any business to do business in any jurisdiction EVER. What they have done is say "if you want to do business in a given state or locality, then you must do .... [fill in the blank].

Once again, you're wrong. It's not your fault, though. You're a DUMBASS.

After your third attempt, you still haven't succeeded in crawling out of your foolishness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Quote:.... Anyone who suspects that their neighborhood has been redlined is able to file a housing discrimination complaint. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 further required banks to apply the same lending criteria in all communities.[20] Although open redlining was made illegal in the 70s through community reinvestment legislation, the practice may have continued in less overt ways...

Maybe the fourth time will be the charm. Care to try again?

That does not dispute what he said. Banks were free not to lend at all, but if they wished to have that business they needed to follow those guidelines. But then you are dumb as dog shit.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
24-06-2016, 07:03 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
And, exactly how do you think this supports your position?

Btw, Rev is exactly right. Banks are free not to do business at all. They are not free to do it in a discriminatory manner. It's not the same thing and doesn't remotely support your point.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
24-06-2016, 07:09 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 07:02 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 06:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  After your third attempt, you still haven't succeeded in crawling out of your foolishness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining


Maybe the fourth time will be the charm. Care to try again?

That does not dispute what he said. Banks were free not to lend at all, but if they wished to have that business they needed to follow those guidelines. But then you are dumb as dog shit.

Paypal would be free to wind up there business if they decided they really did not want to do business in North Carolina. If Paypal wants to do business in the United States, they cannot discriminate against North Carolina for the politics that go on there.

Now I am not advocating any of this. I think Paypal and Disney should be free to use their resources for political gain. I'm just saying that if it is possible to make a business invest in a particular neighborhood, it would also be possible to make them invest in a particular state.

But really, what I want to know is how people who are against big business funding campaigns, can be perfectly fine with big businesses boycotting states for political gain? I would accept as a reasonable answer that you're not okay with it, but that you just don't see how it could be effectively regulated. There is nothing wrong with that answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 07:13 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 07:03 PM)BnW Wrote:  And, exactly how do you think this supports your position?

Btw, Rev is exactly right. Banks are free not to do business at all. They are not free to do it in a discriminatory manner. It's not the same thing and doesn't remotely support your point.

Nothing is preventing Disney and Paypal from winding up their business, selling off all the assets and returning the money to their investors. However if they want to business, they can't refuse to invest in North Carolina on the basis they don't agree with the politics of that state. The Federal Government could make this happen if they just passed the right laws.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 07:14 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 07:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Paypal would be free to wind up there business if they decided they really did not want to do business in North Carolina. If Paypal wants to do business in the United States, they cannot discriminate against North Carolina for the politics that go on there.

You're wrong. They can. And, they are under no obligation to move a call center there. None. Not opening one for political reasons is not "discrimination". Divergent political opinions and politicians are not a protected class.

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Again.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
24-06-2016, 07:16 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 07:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 07:03 PM)BnW Wrote:  And, exactly how do you think this supports your position?

Btw, Rev is exactly right. Banks are free not to do business at all. They are not free to do it in a discriminatory manner. It's not the same thing and doesn't remotely support your point.

Nothing is preventing Disney and Paypal from winding up their business, selling off all the assets and returning the money to their investors. However if they want to business, they can't refuse to invest in North Carolina on the basis they don't agree with the politics of that state. The Federal Government could make this happen if they just passed the right laws.

The "right" laws.

Seriously: DUMBASS.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 07:18 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
Kind of reminds me of a small town that stood up for itself and decided that Walmart could not set up shop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 07:36 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
It has probably been mentionned earlier, but here is the quick explanation. States, town or country can decide the rules surrounding how business should operate when they are active on their jurisdiction. They can decide the environmental rules, what's the minimum they must pay their employees, etc. Of course they can force business to prevent them from discriminating or refusing services against a portion of the population if they judge necessary or appropriate. But, they cannot force a business to operate in their area, it would be against the rules of a free market. The only way business can protest against your rules are by not operating in your area and lobbying against them (if they are allowed to do so). You could very well pass a law that prevent business (and unions or any other institution) to finance politician which is the case in Quebec for exemple where only electors can donate to political party and are limited to a $100 per year per candidate.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2016, 08:01 PM
RE: Corporations and politics
(24-06-2016 07:36 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It has probably been mentionned earlier, but here is the quick explanation. States, town or country can decide the rules surrounding how business should operate when they are active on their jurisdiction. They can decide the environmental rules, what's the minimum they must pay their employees, etc. Of course they can force business to prevent them from discriminating or refusing services against a portion of the population if they judge necessary or appropriate. But, they cannot force a business to operate in their area, it would be against the rules of a free market. The only way business can protest against your rules are by not operating in your area and lobbying against them (if they are allowed to do so). You could very well pass a law that prevent business (and unions or any other institution) to finance politician which is the case in Quebec for exemple where only electors can donate to political party and are limited to a $100 per year per candidate.

So what is wrong with passing a law that says if company X states they are boycotting a state because of politics, they are subject to being fined. Why couldn't that be done? It would seem to me that anyone who is favor of curtailing big business from using their resources to influence politics, would be in favor of such a law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: