Democracies and Mutual Respect

Quote:

If you mean to say that the free market has been influenced by government or by other factors, government tax policy being one factor, then say so, but the fact is the free market does exist, and it is primarily influenced by competition, in price, quality, and service, and by competition of choices made by consumers.

Sure, but it also works the other way - the Corporations influence government to tilt the playing field in their direction, constantly, to the detriment of everyone in America. It isn't a 'free market' where consumers have the choice to buy whatever they want, because larger companies actively work to keep smaller companies down in a variety of ways, many of them immoral if not illegal.

Plainoldme's point was that pricing and practices of and by Big Business shut small stores down. Macys' has volume buying that allows them to purchase clothes from slave-ish labor overseas, so that they are extremely cheap for the American consumer. This makes it much less likely that people will make the clothes themselves; sewing is difficult to learn, and the quality fabric becomes more and more expensive as more and more textile and small fabric businesses are put out of business by Macy's volume buying and prices. This works because the owners of Macy's don't give a damn about paying people a fair wage, and individual shops do; those who are moral cannot compete with those who are not in a market where price is the determining factor for many consumers.

It isn't simply a matter of consumers 'voting with their wallet' and that's it. That's a fantasy, as I'm sure you well know. It is a matter of businesses and corporations actively working to put each other, and smaller, competitors out of business so that they have all the business. This is hardly moral, though it does make large profits.

Just look at the Wal-Mart effect. They buy the cheapest possible crap, pay their employees low wages (especially women, big time), import everything from China, and sell it at the lowest possible prices. It under-cuts other businesses, and they know it. They depend on it. Eventually, there is nothing left in an area but Walmart, and then there is no incentive whatsoever for them to provide service, or even keep prices lowered; they no longer have strong competition. In many cases they lobby and recieve tax breaks, so that they don't have to compete fairly with smaller businesses who don't have the resources to lobby for such tax breaks.

There is no morality to their practices whatsoever; just an abiding and deep drive to provide the maximum possible return, no matter what the cost to our society.

Quote:

Home sewing is now dominated by quilting and machine embroidery, not making clothes.

Part of this is because those who employ slave-ish labor overseas can undercut prices severely, driving smaller companies and textile manufacturers out of business; part of this is because women are not taught traditional sewing skills like they used to be, which removes the market to a degree; and part of it is because companies make a much higher profit off of manufactured goods than raw goods, and would much prefer to sell manufactured goods to consumers. Therefore, the emphasis on bolts of cloth and raw textiles has decreased.

This isn't a problem, you might say; but the day will come when noone can make their own clothes at all, and we will all be reliant on Big Business to clothe ourselves. And that's exactly what they want. And it isn't right.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You sure throw around the terms, "immoral" and "illegal" easily and willy nilly. Volume buying is a fact of life, cyclops. I know a little about business myself, and mass production is a fact of life, as demonstrated by Henry Ford, who by doing so was able to make the automobile, the Model T and Model A, an affordable item for virtually every American. We should all thank mass production for the quality of life that we have. Volume buying allows a producer to gear up their production, bank on being able to pay for their equipment and employees over a period of time, and many other factors play into it, but the end result is being able to sell the product in volume or quantity at a much cheaper price than if they sell one at a time. To call this immoral is just plain ignorant. If a company like Walmart is able to volume buy and reduce the price at which they purchase the products, then the consumer is ultimately served and more people are able to own more luxuries and amenities. This has happened. You should thank Walmart and other retailers that volume buy.

For specialty items, there is still much opportunity for small and home businesses. After all, I think we've seen such businesses prosper.

Its a free country. If you have a better mousetrap, you can still do it. I have personally seen companies attempt to eliminate their competition by buying them out, and guess what, alot of times new competition pops up somewhere else. Slave labor in other countries is controversial, but the fact is those people are doing the work voluntarily and to them it is not considered slave labor, it is in fact better work and pay than they are accustomed to. People in China are now enjoying a higher standard of living because of manufacturing products for export.

I don't know if I've addressed every one of your points, cyclops, but basically I think you are simply looking at things the wrong way. You are demonizing the people that have provided you the excellent standard of living that you enjoy. Even the poorest people have big screen tvs and all kinds of other amenities. Dishonesty does exist, but do not label legitimate competition and profits as bad. Profits are legitimate and proper. Be thankful for them. People that sell products deserve a profit. If you work for the government, what do you produce to deserve diddly? I would say perhaps you do but it is forced buying of your services via taxing, and how can anybody be sure you are really earning what you receive. Is that moral?

I am tired of whiners and complainers, no matter how much you think you deserve to do it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If you put those you quote into context before you excoriate them, Plainoldme, you wouldn't make quite so many errors in your assessment of what they say.

They are in context -- in fact, they were presented wholesale -- and I have made no errors. I have seen you insult liberals many times. Your laundry isn't clean and flapping on the line.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

plainoldme wrote:

But, as two female Harvard profs and I talked about last night, buying good dress fabric today is next to impossible.

Why? Because corporations decided women should not be home sewing. Puh-leeeze do not respond that feminists made that decision, because the feminists believed women should please themselves.

I've read through all of your compaints about what is available in the market, mostly blaming corporations for it. I've picked out the above statement, which illustrates your basic misunderstanding of the free market. It seems so simple that anybody should be able to see it, but apparently you do not. Corporations did not decide women should not be at home sewing. WOMEN DID. To put it another way, THE MARKET DID. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?

In the home sewing industry, it is quilting and machine embroidery that are driving the market in terms of selling sewing machines, which are now digital or computerized, and sewing accessories, notions, and material. I do not think the market could mainly rely on women making and patching garments for their families, as it once did. The companies producing material probably wish for the demand that there once was from women that sewed their own garments, but it is not up to them to determine it. It is the market.

I really hate to move about such huge blocks of type, but as a woman of the left, who will be 59 tomorrow, I can tell you that I have never felt that my voice is heard by corporate America.

One thing we on the left -- both men and women -- wanted were shared time jobs, so that we could all participate in raising our kids and keeping our houses and working at professional jobs. No one listened.

BTW, I explained in my little bit about the now defunct store Jacobsons one way in which the market did work briefly in a small area.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
You are the one lacking in understanding. If you think there is a free market, you're woefully naive. If you think consumers have any say, you're not living on the planet.

I wonder who you think is CHOOSING to buy all the stuff in the stores and on the internet and everywhere else?

NON SEQUITOR

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okie sure has a point. My definition of free market is that producers of products and services sell to whomever will buy it and buyers with the wherewithall can choose to buy whatever is for sale. In the final analysis, those who offer a product that buyers want will prosper. Those who do not will not. And the buyers will most prosper the seller that offers a product the buyers most want.

Alright. Not that my $12,000/annum makes much difference, but I am actively boycotting Sam's Club and others of that ilk. Many people with much higher incomes are doing the same.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You guys are foolish if you think that companies these days just wait around and see what the market is going to do. They do not. Many companies manipulate the markets in order to make the highest profit possible. They use the cheapest possible labor, just a step above slave labor, to make the cheapest possible products, and thus the highest possible return. They pay millions of dollars in bribes to the Govt, to reduce restrictions on their business, to dodge environmental restrictions, to screw competitors out of business, to avoid paying taxes altogehter.

Small companies are forced out of the market by big ones, either by economic forces or by buyouts or by legal action. That was Plainolme's point. That the corporation, with its rock-bottom prices and complete lack of caring for human decency (in the name of profits), lack of responsibility to society (they don't pay taxes), and lack of responsiblities to the environment, makes it difficult if not impossible for companies which choose not to do this to compete. Eventually all that is left is competing corporations.

The 'free market' that you describe just doesn't match the real world anymore. It is a fantasy.

Cycloptichorn

MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY!

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Who's making foolish arguments? You are claiming along with plainoldme there is no competition in the market, that corporations don't care about anything, anybody, they destroy the environment, employ people at slave labor prices, bribe the government, bla, bla, bla, sheesh, I for one get tired of people that have been brainwashed by elitist professors and teachers that preach the evils of multi-national corporations. If you don't like their products, don't buy them plain and simple, and quit complainin. And if the corporations are breaking the laws, then where are all the regulators and the thousands of laws, go complain to your government.

He (and I believe Cyclo is a he) is saying that corporations will not brook any competition.

I'm certain you have heard of Proctor and Gamble. There basic business plan is to double BY ACTUAL WEIGHT . . . not by price, which changes as the dollar changes . . . the amount of each product sold every ten years.

What does that translate to?

We brook no competition.

Now, I haven't purchased anything made by P&G for nearly 30 years, and they're still profitable.

Who doesn't understand economic?

And far too many of the companies I have supported over the years -- from Tom's of Maine to Burt's Bees -- are all part of big corps.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Am I a college graduate? Yes, I am.

Did I ever have a single professor say a single thing about corporations in America? No, I did not. The Conservative myth that all of us College grads are brainwashed by our professors is pure bullsh*t. All it shows is that you don't know anything about what it is like to be in college these days, but rely upon stereotypes to make your arguments for you.

I would complain to my government, but it is unfortunately my government that has loosened regulations and removed restrictions upon corporations - all in the name of money and re-election. Under Bush, the SEC and EPA have been gutted. Funds for them have been reduced. Their staff has been reduced. What is one to think, but that the administration supports Business far more than the government supports the environment or the concept of the 'free market?'

Quote:
quit complainin

No f*ckin' way. I'm not gonna shut my mouth. It isn't my complaining that is the problem, it is your attitude that nothing is wrong is the problem.

Do you really want me to start listing instances of corporations doing exactly the things you suggested - bribing government, destroying the environment, employing labor at basically slave prices, sacrificing everything in the name of profit? You know I can do it. I can do it for days, and days, and days, and never run out of examples.

Where are your counter-examples? Can you post any, showing that Corporations don't do these things? That they have improved, cleaned up their acts, followed regulations, helped the country at the expense of profit? Done most anything at the expense of profit? I highly doubt it.

Instead, you will make fun of me, tell me to shut up, whatever you need to do to avoid admitting that the concept of the 'free market' doesn't exist in the slightest outside of a textbook. Corporations have bought their way deep into our society, in bad ways, even if you don't want to admit it.

Cycloptichorn

This debate has centered on the latest claim by plainoldme that there was no competition in the market anymore. I pointed out how wrong that was, then you started piling on with the same argument. What am I to conclude that you had to be brainwashed somewhere, Cyclops? My apologies if it wasn't in college, so it must be somewhere else, or did you come up with this completely on your own? It has been 35 years plus since I was in college, but I hear all the time about professors that preach the evils of multi-national corporations, and even high school teachers, such as the one at Overland High School in Denver, are doing it, so it is easy to make the assumption that you might have been influenced by college of late. My apologies.

I used to work for a corporation for a number of years. Break it down, and what you have is an organization run by alot of people and owned by many people. They were some of the best people I've known that worked in the company, and the shareholders are people living on your block, and I am a shareholder via retirement fund. The commercial activities of a corporation are governed by many things, including many regulations by government. Corporations make an honest living by producing legitimate goods and services at competitive prices. If you don't like them, DON'T BUY THEM! And don't work for them for slave prices. Nobody forces you to do it. If you can go on for days and days about corporations, I could go on for months about the government! It isn't a perfect world.

Last but not least, it isn't the institution thats causing the problem. If there is a problem, it is the people that run them. If you don't like people, reform them all. And get over it.

And actually this argument was about whether the market has competition these days. Anybody that says it does not is basically ignorant. If you don't believe there is competition, go ask Ford Motor or GM.

I have been thinking of you, Okie, trying to decide whether you were dangerously naive or just dangerous.

You can't even quote me correctly. I said we have no choice. You have written that I said there is no competition --- only be extension -- and that I have trouble buying clothes!

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

I have been thinking of you, Okie, trying to decide whether you were dangerously naive or just dangerous.

You can't even quote me correctly. I said we have no choice. You have written that I said there is no competition --- only be extension -- and that I have trouble buying clothes!

So now I just might be dangerous? For what? Expressing my opinion and disagreeing with you? Who's dangerous here?

I think you need to admit to everything you've said. You also said there was no free market, or at least you said if I thought there was, I was living on another planet. That assertion, among others about choice, led me to conclude you thought there was no competition. Competition is what makes a free market. The fact is you've made lots of dumb statements in this debate. Do you really know what you believe?

0 Replies

You have also made plenty of dumb statements in this debate.

Quote:

I am tired of whiners and complainers, no matter how much you think you deserve to do it.

You whine and complain about the gov't; what makes you think you deserve to do it? Any more than anyone else can complain about what they see as wrong.

Quote:

That assertion, among others about choice, led me to conclude you thought there was no competition. Competition is what makes a free market.

Foolishness. This is a false conclusion based upon your prejudices.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You have also made plenty of dumb statements in this debate.

Quote:
I am tired of whiners and complainers, no matter how much you think you deserve to do it.

You whine and complain about the gov't; what makes you think you deserve to do it? Any more than anyone else can complain about what they see as wrong.

Quote:
That assertion, among others about choice, led me to conclude you thought there was no competition. Competition is what makes a free market.

Foolishness. This is a false conclusion based upon your prejudices.

Cycloptichorn

You threw some fat pitches right over the middle of the plate, cyclops. I love your questions and will be more than happy to answer them.

I can whine about the government because I vote, and because I have to pay taxes to support it. I have a right to do it, and an obligation to do it, to try to make it better. In contrast, nobody makes you buy anything from a business. Simply don't buy their products. Its their business, not yours. Start your own if you think you can do it better. I can't do that with government. I have no choice. I am forced to buy their lousy product. Plus nobody can compete with them, they won't allow it, such as schools. Private schools are allowed, but you still have to pay for theirs.

My contention that competition and choice makes a free market is foolishness? And my contention is because of prejudices? Then tell me in your words what makes a free market if it isn't choice and competition. And tell me what my prejudices are that makes me have such an opinion.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:
You are the one lacking in understanding. If you think there is a free market, you're woefully naive. If you think consumers have any say, you're not living on the planet.

cycloptichorn wrote:
Plainoldme never claimed that there was no competition anymore. I'd like you to highlight exactly where she said that. In fact, what she did do was point out that the Corporation is responsible for driving many smaller, more individual businesses out of business. And this is true.

Can you read, Cyclops? After all, you graduated from college.
I won't bother with the rest of your lengthy post now. We need to get the basis of the argument right before we can even go any further.

SIGH!!!! OKIE, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT DO YOU? FORTUNATELY, CYCLO ALREADY PICKED UP ON IT, BUT,MAYBE, IF WE SAY THINGS OVER AND OVER AND OVER, YOU WILL GET THE MESSAGE.

0 Replies

Okie wrote:

What started this was plainoldme complained that she couldn't buy the clothing or material she desired and complained there were no choices because there was no free market and that corporations simply sold what they felt like selling.

POM answers: Actually, that is not what I said at all. I said that when I was 13, my friends and I walked up and down the length of Michigan Ave in Dearborn, MI and the street was full of shops, each independently owned by people who did their own buying and displayed their merchandise as they wished. The consumer had more choice and could shop at places where she felt comfortable. Merchants were merchants and not employees and could be creative. A customer could create her own look by shopping at these small stores.

Now, these small shops are gone.

Growing up, there were several independent, locally based department stores as well as the large national chains. I think we're down to three national owners and no locally based department stores today.

0 Replies

Quote:

My contention that competition and choice makes a free market is foolishness? And my contention is because of prejudices? Then tell me in your words what makes a free market if it isn't choice and competition. And tell me what my prejudices are that makes me have such an opinion.

You are of course prejudiced against Liberal ideas and anti-business ideas.

A free market is one in which companies compete for one's business on a level playing field. Changing the rules of the game, through bribes, trickery, and economic manipulation, are not free-market activities.

It isn't choice that determines what companies survive when some have the money to bribe gov't to not investigate them. It isn't competition of service and product that determines which companies get away with paying zero taxes. It isn't the best product which determines whether or not a Corporation stays in business anymore. Therefore, the 'free market' as you imagine it does not exist. There are a whole host of factors which play into the equation which have nothing to do with choice from consumers, but have to do with manipulation by the owners of the companies.

This is what drives success these days; not a quality product, not even sales, really. But profitability. A company can produce an inferior product, that doesn't sell as well as other companies, but be more profitable, and drive those companies out of business. Maybe they do it through slave labor, maybe they ignore environmental restrictions, maybe they don't pay taxes. Eventually, they under-cut their opponents (who had higher quality products, but weren't as profitable) and we, the consumer, are left with nothing but a bunch of crap to choose from; cheap crap, but crap nonetheless.

Remember what I said earlier - a company who has a purpose to build or make something, and then takes on investors, becomes a company whose purpose is to make money, and that effects the quality of the product inevitably, even if the company is still profitable. In the end, the consumer loses, and the only winners are a small group of investors in the company.

Quote:

You threw some fat pitches right over the middle of the plate, cyclops. I love your questions and will be more than happy to answer them.

But, you haven't. You haven't actually addressed any of my argument. Every time you post, you substitute what I said, for what you want to argue against. Address the meat of my posts: that Corporations engage in unfair and destructive business practices, regularly. That they ignore environmental regulations and tax codes. That they bribe their way deep into government. That they have negative effects upon society as well as positive ones. You have yet to even swing at any one of these topics, and I don't blame you - there isn't much you can say in defense.

Quote:

In contrast, nobody makes you buy anything from a business. Simply don't buy their products. Its their business, not yours.

I can't ignore the pollution from businesses. I can't ignore what they do to the Trade Deficit, and how they don't pay taxes. It isn't enough to ignore problems, and I refuse to do so, no matter how many times you tell me to. Instead I will work to correct their problems, through education, marshalling of forces, and forcible change upon those who care more about profits than anything else.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Part of this is because those who employ slave-ish labor overseas can undercut prices severely, driving smaller companies and textile manufacturers out of business; part of this is because women are not taught traditional sewing skills like they used to be, which removes the market to a degree; and part of it is because companies make a much higher profit off of manufactured goods than raw goods, and would much prefer to sell manufactured goods to consumers. Therefore, the emphasis on bolts of cloth and raw textiles has decreased.

This isn't a problem, you might say; but the day will come when noone can make their own clothes at all, and we will all be reliant on Big Business to clothe ourselves. And that's exactly what they want. And it isn't right.

Cycloptichorn

----------------

First, I wonder, Okie, how it is that Cycloptichorn can understand exactly what I am saying and you can not.

Second, Cycloptichorn, there is another factor: Some women either through the sort of inability to understand that Okie demonstrates or because they have been influenced by big business, have stopped sewing because they feel it is anti-feminist. These women interpret feminism as being more like a man, which some men actually want.

Now, I spent last weekend on a quilt shoppe shop around, an event that is becoming popular and represents a collaboration among fabric and notions producers, sewing machine manufacturers and independently owned quilt fabric shops.

I visited all nine of the participating shops -- four in MA and five in NH. I would probably never visit at least two of the shops again because one is about 70 miles from my house and the other is at least 50 and the second one is in Salem, NH, which is nauseatingly full of giant chain stores.

However, I saw real creativity. Two shops were strictly of the "folk art," historical reproduction fabric type. One also featured punch needle supplies and the other featured paints for hobbyists and decorators (but not house paints). Two offered contemporary fabrics, one did it superbly, while the other was so-so. Four were mixed in their concentration and offered a variety of fabric styles and one went for Victorian-style prints and florals.

The nice thing for me as a consumer is that while I could find duplication of certain fabrics in almost each shop, no two shops carried exactly the same materials. I found a fabric from my own stash in another colorway and that pleased me.

Furthermore, the big chains, like Joann and Fabric Place, might offer some current prints from the giant fabric mills, but, only the print is the same. The fabric sold in the national chains if inferior. These chains provide the mills with the greige (pronounced "grey") goods that have a lower fiber count and a coarser texture to be printed with the stylish patterns. UNFORTUNATELY, THESE INFERIOR FABRICS ARE SOLD AT EXACTLY THE SAME PRICE AS THE BETTER QUALITY GOODS VENDED IN INDEPENDENT SHOPS. There is no lingering by customers in these shops and no camaraderie. There is little service and no relationships are built between customer and owner.

Another, and, I hope, the last, illustration: When my 28 y/o daughter graduated from 8th grade, I made her dress. It was a lovely tea-length dress with full sleeves and a sweetheart neckline in a pale teal print on white. She looked like a sweet and sophisticated fourteen year old.

Three other girls wore similar dresses, all made by their mothers. None of these mothers consulted with each other prior to the event. Interestingly, three of the four moms graduated from women's colleges and all attended graduate school. All of the mothers are liberal to leftist in their politics.

The rest of the girls wore micro-mini length, dangerously off the shoulder dresses. There was nothing wrong with the dresses . . . if the wearer were a 24 year old woman at a cocktail party.

Many people -- fathers and mothers -- came up to me afterwards to say how beautiful my daughter looked. Many asked where I found such a lovely and age appropriate dress. I told them I made it. The women complained that Lord and Taylor and MAcy's and Filene's and Talbots offered nothing like the dresses those four girls wore and all of the women expressed regrets that they did not think to make their daughters dresses. Parents of boys said they worried about their sons dating girls dressed in such revealing dresses.

I was asked if I would consider making dresses in the future.

Vote with their dollars? Sounds to me like these folks were robbed of their dollars!

0 Replies

Okie wrote:

u sure throw around the terms, "immoral" and "illegal" easily and willy nilly. Volume buying is a fact of life, cyclops. I know a little about business myself, and mass production is a fact of life, as demonstrated by Henry Ford, who by doing so was able to make the automobile, the Model T and Model A, an affordable item for virtually every American. We should all thank mass production for the quality of life that we have. Volume buying allows a producer to gear up their production, bank on being able to pay for their equipment and employees over a period of time, and many other factors play into it, but the end result is being able to sell the product in volume or quantity at a much cheaper price than if they sell one at a time. To call this immoral is just plain ignorant. If a company like Walmart is able to volume buy and reduce the price at which they purchase the products, then the consumer is ultimately served and more people are able to own more luxuries and amenities. This has happened. You should thank Walmart and other retailers that volume buy.

--------------

See my piece on the quilt shop thing and learn the truth of volume buying.

Then add this: I thought a skirt in the JJill catalog was pretty. Of course, the photo made it look better than it was.

I received a coupon for a 10% discount and thought I would look at it. First of all, being a thin and small woman, the store did not have my size in stock in the color I wanted. Second, what looked like tucks in the photo, were loosely made embroidery stitches. Frankly, it was crap. Third, the skirt retails for $98. The discount brought it down to $90. Now, the clerk offered to order it in the color I desired as they did not have my size. While I would still get my 10% off, I would have to pay $7.95 in shipping, almost obliterating said discount.

So, I walked out. The workmanship wasn't worth $88.20.

A week later, I was in a small shop on Mass Ave in the Boston suburb of Arlington. The woman offers a limited line of clothing made by independent designers, including herself; some accessories and artisan made jewelry.

She offered a skirt she made without embroidery or tucks, in a better fabric, in my size and in the color I wanted for $68.

Now, isn't it "moral" to pay a craftswoman her due, particularly when this LOW VOLUME, INDEPENDENT producer makes something of superior quality for less money?

The irony is that JJill was once a New England based company in the Berkshires that offered truly high quality original goods as part of the BErkshire area general store and catalog known as Aunt Abigail's Attic.

It no longer is independent and has been sold to Talbot's, also once a small New England shop.

Talbots is fuddy-duddy. Let's see how far down hill JJill can go!

Now, consider this, if all this volume buying goes on, what choice does the consumer have that isn't included in that volume? You see how your inability to reason paints you into a corner?

0 Replies

Cyclo just posted he can not ignore the pollution from big business.

Well, I am in the prep stage for a colonoscopy and had to buy a certain laxative. Both the brand name and the generic version contain phthalates -- different compounds but still carcinogens. I will take this up with the two manufacturers and the doctor.

I stopped using nail enamels because of phthalates (a plasticizing agent). Why a plasticizing agent is in a laxative is beyond me.

Isn't corporate America wonderful???!!!

0 Replies

Cyclo -- Going back to the original premise of this thread, I would like to ask, how can we respect someone who doesn't know enough to know how wrong he is? It is one thing to say Jesus doesn't want you to have an abortion, but quite another to endanger the whole planet because you do not believe in global warming and to watch the world rot away because you can not stand up to corporate greed.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

First, I wonder, Okie, how it is that Cycloptichorn can understand exactly what I am saying and you can not.

You can quit wondering now. Please be informed as of now, that I do understand exactly what you are saying, but I simply disagree with it because you are wrong. Cyclops agrees with you because he is another liberal that loves government and distrusts business, so business is always the bad guy and profits are evil.

0 Replies

Democracies and Mutual Respect

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know