Apple shareholder meeting dominated by politics - Page 3

Are you sure about that? And do you really mean corruption or rather 'speculated corruption'? You need to do your homework on BOTH sides, here's something that will scratch the surface:
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

I don't think that the bush admin was that great, but seriously, when things go sour during 1 or 2 terms, do you really think the problems root ONLY occur within those terms, or did you want to learn a term called foreshadowing, reference the clinton era and investigate what he did with the sub prime loans for housing. There are some obvious faults to the bush admin, but to even blame the ticking timebombs, prior to his terms, that went off... you're going to blame him?

Believe me, I don't need the educating. How about McCain and the Keating 5 Savings and Loan Scandal, or Phil Graham, or the deregulation set by Bush, or perhaps Haliburton's no bid war contracts, or the billions in profits for Exxon/Mobil - especially in 2005 - when Americans were paying extreme amounts at the pump. I could go on, but the Bush administration is far from innocent in all of this. Sadly, a lot of it has to do with hedge fundies trading on future speculation of oil, gaining millions in commission and putting millions more in the pockets of oil and gas executives. Not to mention the inflated pricing of the housing market, and the subsequent loans and mortgages given to people as they couldn't afford the inflated prices (and should never have taken or given loans/mortgages they could not afford) - the fact is, no one is innocent but do not be so quick to point fingers, especially at an administration that is just beginning.

Clinton Era foreshadowed this. I won't blame them completely, but I'm saying the reds warned the blues about this when clinton was lifting regulations back then,, and the warnings echoed in 2001-2006. Now, the video displayed wasn't going to resolve anything as to both sides could've done more to regulate, but to blame (this is where you come in) the administration for it's faults in the 8 yrs solely on this is preposterous

Not 100%. This goes back way before Clinton, some would argue as far back as Carter. If the "reds" knew then why did Bush not do anything other than worsen the same deregulation? To blame anyone on anything is preposterous, I agree 100%. I am just tired of people trashing the new administration without giving it a chance. it's frustrating, and it sets up failure, and only panders to bipartisanship.

Can't we all reach common ground? Let's just say this mess is from 16 years of Baby Boomers in control (Clinton and Bush) and call it a day.

A-men

Agreed.

Sounds good to me!

Now, when's that updated Mac mini coming out?

Jimzip

Fiscal Conservatism != Social Conservatism
Republicanism (recently) != Conservatism

Please be careful will how you throw around these terms. As a moderate Libertarian, I am oft lambasted for my fiscal conservatism, being lumped in with Republicans and, therefore, Bush. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I am the polar opposite of Bush. Hell, even "True-Blue" Republicans hated Bush for his fiscal Liberalism. So be sure to choose your labels carefully.

Meanwhile, let's also make sure to watch the current administration as critically as we did the previous. If people hated Bush so much, they should probably be taking a closer look at Obama. Let's not forget that Bush had a stimulus package, a Real Estate recovery package and approve TARP. Obama has thus far signed a stimulus package, a Real Estate recovery package and they're now talking about TARP2. To remain consistent, if you disagreed with Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, you should also disagree with the Obama's recent spending.

We should also take better effort to watch what is happening, not just listen to what Obama is saying. While he and his ilk are fond of criticizing "the fiscal irresponsibility of the past administration" their solution is to spend twice as much in identical or less-productive ways................ huh? And could someone explain to me the politicians who blame the recent economic climate on the "greedy" banks for their "predatory lending practices" (many of which were regulated upon them, by the way) then turn around and say that the solution is to force the banks to lend more.... uhh..... HELLO!? Forcing the banks to lend IS. WHAT. CAUSED. THE. PROBLEM.

(As you can tell, I don't trust any politician, Democrat or Republican. I think we all have to start doing a better job holding our government responsible for their actions, not just letting it slide because they're slimy politigoons who will just end up doing whatever they want anyway. We control them, not the other way around.)

Of course, some government is obviously necessary, I'm not debating that. Let's just make sure we THINK about logical solutions here. Let's examine cause and effect.

If you want to learn more about Libertarianism, please check out my sig. It cuts the BS out of the Dems and Reps... something I think a lot of people are sick of. It's a good middle ground for the Republicans who reject the social constraints of the Rep. party and the Democrats who are sick of the reckless spending of the Dems.

-Clive

Ok, I know I said I'd stop, but I just want to applaud you on your comment. Very well stated, and I myself am just the same, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Thanks

The Republicans and Democrats in power have generally tended towards reckless spending over the past several decades. It's usually just a matter of what they want to spend it on. The other side always complains about the spending, but really, they secretly want to take the same money and direct it elsewhere. The complaining is basically a game played on the part of the opposition officials, they don't complain when the tables turn and their pet ideology or project is well-funded.

I don't see alternative parties being a viable option unless the US switches to proportional representation rather than geographical representation. Geographical representation tends to stabilize to a very entrenching equilibrium of two parties and it takes something very big knock one of them out. That something big has only happened once that I am aware, and that was a dissolution due to internal strife, not because of external actions.

Long, long ago - in a galaxy far away - this thread began with comments about Apple's annual meeting. What a bloviated waste of keystrokes and time.

What isn't? We are all just biological space heaters in the grand scheme of things. We are mobile factories that aid in the decomposition of organic matter, with heat byproducts.

The thread is regarding the political discourse with Apple shareholders, thus the political discourse on AppleInsider. Politics is like a virus, easy to catch but hard to shale \

I'm a conservative & I'd appreciate it if you'd quit painting me with such a broad brush. Urlick is a nutcase & has nothing to do with me. The fact that you think he is a classic representation of conservative shows me you know nothing about us, he is a minority in the conservative movement.

All I want is the government to get it's greedy hands out of our money. They want to help the poor, how about coming up with more incentives & assistance for organizations that help the poor instead of building their own institutions & then letting a bunch of bureaucrats shave their share off the top.

Did I mention Sweden? Socialism has many steps to its goal. But then why look abroad ...

Cap & Trade will shift so many jobs and companies overseas that we will be fortunate if APPL remains a US based corp ...and it will not be moving to Europe.

As for cheap furniture - if it's wood, then you will have a great stockpile to keep your self warm in the winter after all the coal-fired plants are shut in the next year or so.

Don't worry, be happy.

eh, not worth the comment. we've moved on from this...

Thank you. I just don't have the patience anymore to try to reason with those who don't have even an elementary understanding of politics and history. It's become very apparent through the 2008 campaign that a certain ignorant and uneducated subsection of America equates any capitalist democracy that supports a basic level of human welfare and social services
as representative of "socialism" or "communism". This of course mostly coming from the conservatives on the "Religious Right" -- that bastion of Jesus-inspired compassion, empathy, and self-less altruism.

I guess I'm too young to really understand the psyche of a middle-aged (under-educated) conservative, but I'm sure it has to do with living through the cold war. It's unfortunate that these people seem to see the immeasurably complex subject of political philosophy and governing in black and white. Apparently, the idea that "socialist" ideals of liberty, equal rights, equal opportunity, etc can not only be embraced but actually be compatible within the context of a modern capitalist democracy has been lost on them.

First of all, carbon reduction programs will be proposed and initiated on a global level, not solely the United States. We have in fact been the sole holdout among developed countries in doing ANYTHING to slow climate change. Cap and trade programs will force the hand of large polluting companies and industries (like coal, oil, certain manufacturing) to move to new technology and generate revenue to reinvest in American renewable energy projects.

Secondly, I love how many people seem to be worried solely about economic growth when we are talking about possible global CATASTROPHE. I want my (eventual) children and grandchldren to live in a better world than I do, not one brimming with global conflict over food, energy, and land shortages with a ravaged environment and wilting ecosystem.

I agree, but I think the "developed" word is the crux of the problem, these treaties treated developed countries much more stringently than developing ones. Even if the developed world went carbon neutral, that doesn't matter unless China and India, among others, also take similar measures. CO2 production is exacerbated by increasing industrialization, and these populations outnumber developed world several times over.

I completely agree, particularly in regards to large countries like China, India, etc..

The problem with Fiscal Liberalism is the efficiency of money going to use that benefits the greatest possible number of the masses.

When done properly, it's more prudent to have a Fiscally Liberal government to keep money flowing and have it targeting infrastructure needs as they evolve.

Unfortunately, we have two schools of moronic thought labeling Fiscal Liberalism and Fiscal Conservatism as being a binary only option in life.

As a Classical Liberal [Libertarian] I'm appalled we don't have central canals to connect the coasts, manage water tables against hurricanes, droughts and tornado hopping. Instead, we fork over $100 Billion into insurance payouts [back before 2001] and it's growing with each year, and no solution to stem the ignorance.

The rails are the same--we should lead and move the bulk of our workforce via lightrails in major metropolitan regions, move > 80% of the bulk cargo via train and use mid-size trucking for the "last mile."

We are as inefficient with money as one could possibly fathom, whether we label ourselves Fiscal Liberal or Fiscal Conservatives.

This banter between Social Programs and Military Programs spirals us into ideology and division.

Hopefully, Barack spits on both sides and leads how rebuilding the foundation will make it most advantageous for entrepreneurship to flourish. No company wants to lay the fiber, build the rails and carve the canals.

They want to manage and extend services from those foundations--two areas the government doesn't want to do.

I've actually never heard about this idea before, but please do explain further. Very intriguing.

Probably when the polar icecaps melt completely. No sniff of even an iMac update. And it's March 1st. Sigh.

(Trying to make an Al Gore joke, who is on Apple's board of directors, but can't think of one. Haven't slept since Friday. )

Its unfortunate the conversation appears to have died, but thanks for the intelligent post!

Loved your post.

I would like to add that the main problem with the economy is a simple problem. Mainly, when it comes down to the basiscs, it's all about "Production."

It's the lack of production that kills an economy. Nothing else. Communism by definition kills production, so does Capitalism since it's based on the principle of making money by using other people's money and not by producing.

Get the production up and the economy will improve.

Use "bail out's" (moving money around = no production) and the economy suffers even more.

What we need to do is to start producing. Without production we can't sustain our society. It doesn't much matter what we produce as long as we produce.

Example: http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/news/fea...ugal081020.wmv

The amount of production that the US is importing is mind-blowing.

That would be only a certain "kind" of capitalism? The worst kind, perhaps? Forgive me for being to simplistic, but the basic principle of capitalism is quite sound. It's the runaway insane shuffling-money-around capitalism so horribly perpetrated in the US, UK and other financial centres that really makes capitalism look bad. <again, too tired to make any useful comment, actually... and I've probably missed whatever the heck else is going on in this thread.>

LOLZ @ Shelton Ehrlich's conservative crybaby antics. Apple has always been a liberal leaning company so go grab your toys and go play elsewhere if you don't like it.

Democratic socialism FTMFW!!

The economy works by balancing supply and demand, production and consumption. Japan was the great "Producer," looked to dominate the whole Pacific and Asia and look what happened to it - it fell off the map for a while.

Also communism by definition does NOT kill production - have you checked out the gnp of that place called China lately? It kills some individual economic expression and limits the benefits of the economically successful. It is the centralized govt control that is terrible and that occurs under dictators, not communists.

Our current economy is not just the result of Clinton and Bush policies, it is the natural result of Reaganomics (neo-liberal economics) in which the supply side is juiced rather than the demand side. That works for a while, but then at some point demand at the margins falls and the rich don't buy enough to keep things going. Supply-side economics doesn't work if no one is buying what the producers are supplying. Demand drives the free market, not the producers.

Once you hold an equilibrium where the consumers have the jobs to also be producers, then things go well, but de-regulated Reaganomics will always produce banks that are too big to fail and corporations that are too big to fail and dependency upon fuel that is too easy to buy and financial instruments that are too abstract to be linked to practical market forces, especially with a citizenry that needs education and health care that increases by 10x the rate of salary growth.

Reaganomics was always unsustainable.