Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economicy p

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economicy p

Post by Picard » Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:35 pm

Liberalisation of market and usage of neoliberal economicy postulates created only chaos and lawlessness
http://www.hrvatski-fokus.hr/index.php? ... a&Itemid=3

Written by Zdenko Kremer, translated to Engish by Picard578

By reading an article by Vuk Perisic, titled "Night guard or profligate" that was published 22. 11. 2011. on Pescanic portal, someone could think (as author of this text did at first) that it is a solid, critical review of some aspects of debt crisis which is shaking EU right now, in which those who caused this financial cataclism are being impeached. However, it is only an impression that reader can get before nearing to the end of this slightly atypical publicistical writing of almost thirteen cards. And when he reaches end of it, unavoidable conclusion is that entire thing was left unfinished, that it is set extremely one-sided, and that, as such, is just one more propaganda pamphlet, casually decorated by rethorical figures, which are better at hiding than pointing towards key questions and answers related to problems article is about.

Mr. Perisic, as hardore liberal (liberter), as we saw it earlier, uses his articles as a way to propagate his ideology, while cleverly ignoring parts of discussed subject that are contrary to these theses, while trying to discredit opponents of his views one way or another. In this text, for instance, Perisic attacked lack of conscience and prodigality of state institutions controlling finances. Which is completelly correct. However, after disclosing them eloquently and somewhat arguably, as well as mentioning sanctions that could (maybe) be used to put them back under control, Perisic ends his article casually, suggesting that entire problem is solely in organization of state, as it is today.

Not only does he suggest, but explicitly amnests all other participants in this criminal orgy on expense of tax payers. Bankers are here, according to Perisic, completely innocent, even more, they are too victims of state's vampires, who will suffer in the end, beacouse state's debt is uncollectible ("Unfortunately, they cannot take neither Crete nor Rhodes from Greece.", but it has to be made possible). These kind, honest guys have only, due to some mysterious reasons, tried to appease enormous apetites of state apparatus and, while doing that, they just took a liberty to "do things" with bonds, that is, with credit financing of state deficits.
 
Ideology of (neo)liberalism

It is an interesting opinion which causes scepticism even to completely ignorant. Those with bit more knowledge about it scepticism is caused by knowledge that in his article there is no mention of work and power of global financial oligarchy; there is no mention of neoliberalistic ideology whole that system is based on either. Believable author who decided to write a competent, analitical text about european debt crisis and world economical depression in general simply cannot avoid these themes due to pure nature of things he is writing about, and Perisic's pretension at seriousness and analiticality in his text are apparent from its pure size.

But, far larger scepticism is caused by some quite concrete ideas which Perisic writes, ideas related to sovereignity of states in situation of huge economical problems and high foreign debt. We will cite two paragraphs of Perisic's text which are most ddirectly related to these problems: "Irresponsible indebtment is attack on international order and civilizational, legal and moral values which can be equilized with armed agression, same as empoorment of citizens can be equilized with crime against civilians. Constitutional and international right must find mechanisms to stop and saction such acts but in way to unconditionally protect economical interests and political rights of citizens. It is only about people, and nothing else isn't and mustn't be more important, certainly not a state, nation, national interets and similar things without moral cover." And: "If state's properties and states sovereignity are price that has to be paid so as to save citizens from suffering someone's expenses – and state's expenses are never it's own althought state elites are convincig crowd that state is "theirs" – that cost is small and actually very affordable. Homeland which doesn't know and doesn't want to do jobs as it should deserves to be sold, primarly in interests of its own citizens.
 
MMF as an instrument of financial oligarchy

At first look, t's unclear what I wan't to say here. On what drum goes our homeland, whose drum, and how it is drummed on it? Pity it isn't described in more detail here. Maybe the problem is in the fact that it wouldn't really be good if public were to know about it, since it's same thing that may await our homeland in the future. Does he mean only activity of IMF as instrument of finantial oligarchy, which would, in critical situations, take things even firmer into its hands, and make justice even more agressively, as well as dictate most important parameters of economical and finantial politics of country which found itself in trouble? Or should exponents of global capital completely take over control of country, its resources and its populace?
 
In first, and especially in second case, it is clear that it is nothing but replacement of democratical social system, in which country is ruled by democratically elected representatives, with totalitarian one, in which country is ruled by "invisible bosses", which we don't know who they are, what they are, where they are, to whom they are responsible, or even wether they exist (in our reality)? Someone may even admit it's exactly this, whereas he will excuse this suspension of democracy with alleged efficiency of that model of ruling (which is something new, unseen), as only way for troubled country to solve its troubles and prevent complete social chaos. But, question is: first, how efficient that model would really be, and second, is it temporary solution or something that should stay for longer time, or maybe forever (I should add here, that United States are definetly controlled by corporations since eighties. All it has brought was trouble, and now US economy is falling apart. So much about efficiency of that system.). How long will, for example, forced control in Greece last (it is already set up, as "technical government"). Until Greece pays off its debt? How long it will take them to return those one or two hundred billion of euros if they are getting indebted all the time? And isn't social chaos there growing all the time?

It is interesting that Perisic avoids to ask that key question – who allowed Greek government to become indebted over any measure? Weren't that those poor bankers? And what they wanted to achieve throught that? To help one government which was trying its most to give populace nice life and good fun (for example, Olympic Games in Athens had cost Greek state, according to avaliable data, around 20 billion USD)? Were it really as it is in some media explicitly, and in Perisic's article implicitly, suggested, it would mean that entire banking caste consists of utter idiots of Duke Miskin type, who are trying to make world better than it is, but they, so fatally, fail.
 
Creation of ideal human community

But, when we are already with Dostojevski, it would be nice to mention another one of his characters, that crazy Sigalov from book "Demons". That guy, as it is known, was obsessed with creating ideal human community, and his conclusion was that he and his ideological partners will, starting from demand for absolute freedom, create a system of absolute slavery. This Dostojevski's prophecy was, until now, connected to russian Bolshevism, that is, so-called "real-socialism" in ex-USSR, but it is more and more likely that it will also be usable in relation to system of neoliberal capitalism which was being set up in western countries for last two decades (process started in USA in 1980s, with Milton Firedman and co. - note by translator). (Doesn't neoliberal ideology also set this demand – demand for "absolute freedom" of single person?)
 
Really, if we look a bit better at what was and is happening in connection to debt crisis in some countries of European Union, it becomes clear that world's finantial oligarchy did not give money into hands of corrupt and inefficient governments beacouse it was naive, and thought it will get it back with large interest rates, but beacouse, obviously, it also had some other interests and plans. Besides, money in sums I am writing about here stops being money in usual sense, that is, it loses it's meaning as a tool used to exchange goods and keep dynamics of economy, but becomes tool of political power and domination, or, better said, weapon, whose power was used since ancient times to set up interactions between social groups, nations and states.

Couldn't we today, after creaton of these "technical governments" in Greece and Italy, ask – Is this well-planned action of occupying countries which, due to their weaknesses (economical problems, corruption, lagging behind in civilizational development), can be conquered in relatively quick and simple way? Of course, it isn't classical military occupation, but one specifical kind of it, where, slowly and quietly, so that people of country in question don't even realize it, certain material resources are being taken over. But it must be said that, in far wider proportions, there is another kind of occupation going on in modern Europe, which is simply preparing terrain for already meantioned one, just like that one, maybe, is preparring terrain for physical occupation of state – it is occupation is "spiritual sphere", in which spiritual resources are being taken over – public opinion, knowledge and counscience of a society, and, of course, its "intelligence" (which, mostly, can be bought for little money), and in which attempt at destruction of identity, tradition, historical memory, as well as freedom and free thought of single person and social groups is made.
 
Monetary war between dollar and euro
 
Perisic will, of course, like many others, discalrd such thoughts as a "conspiracy theory" or as "nacistical mantra about jewo-masonical plutocracy" which controls the world. We can't say for sure wether it's truth or not, but who now can untie that knot of interactions, opposed interests, conflicts, threats, compromises, in which life of modern world is happening (lat's just mention monatery war between US dollar and euro, taxing war between US and China, conflicts over markets and influence in Middle Asian countries, arabic world, Latin America, fights over remaining resources of our planet, among many others) and give final, truthful judgement about what is happening on european and global economical and political scene. And regarding conspiracy theories, it is true that they sound unbelieavable, but truth is also that those unbelieavable things on this world are happening exactly beacouse people don't believe that something so unbelieavable could be happening around them.
 
Besides, unbelievable are also news about "adjusted" reports of Greek Government to European monetary institutions. Couldn't all that data be checked? Also are unbelievable sums which, according to avaliable data, Greek government spent on weapons in last few years, as is the already-mentioned one about expenses of Olympic games in Athens. Usually are unbeleavable dimensions of “finantial engineering” which is happening in modern world and generally the possibility of functioning of system in which finantial capital is more important than realistical one, and speculations or simply the ability to stamp US dollar stamps are most reliable sources of richness and power, that is, global domination.
 
But, let's return to Perisic's text for a moment. As we have seen, in thinking and mechanisms which are to “stop and sanction wasteful practices of state elites as well as unconditionally protect economical interests and political rights of citizens”, Perisic is mentioning everything written not too far above, beacouse condition for creating such mechainsms is obviously seen in major changes to political setup of Europe and world, which would pave way for possibility that states get not only monetary, that is economical, but also political sovereignity taken away from them, in so-called “attempt to protect freedom of their citizens”; that is, in usage of doctrine of limited sovereignity which could, “by new”, be implemented without direct military intervention, by simple integration into either unitary European or world super-state with common institutions (european or world government, and so on).

Of course, according to him it is no conspiracy, but rather necessity created by various circumstances and accidents. But let us ask ourselves – is the fact that Perisic so nonchalantly misses one far simpler, more natural and far more rational solution to this problem (of money-wasting state elites and debt crisis) also coincidence? And that solution is to put limits on power of global financial oligarchy (it's another thing how to really do it). It is understandable that something like that this author cannot, that is, must not say. Another thing he also cannot say is the fact that true power in modern world is not in hands of state institutions (if it were, his arguments would be perfectly okay), but rather that it is owned by certain centers of power on global scene which work “from backseat” (which has already bacome rather obvious).
 
Someone may say that this power is quite “spread out” over wide spectrum of persons of different “profiles” from different parts of the world, but here the most important thing is that that power is controlled by nobody, least of all the people which, according to democratic principles, should be able to do it. Besides, who puts presidents of USA in power? It is hard to agree with thesis that they are set by american people (it may “choose” them in some way).
 
Too expensive capitalistic “news”
 
It is interesting to see, however, from one side nonchalancy with which Perisic ignores the movements opposed to modern neoliberal capitalism and try to offer alternatives, such as “Occupy Wall Street” movement, and from the other, his fanatical belief in efficiency of measures of market liberalization and limiting of state's influence in economical sphere. However, it must be said that there are many examples that show this fath to be unfounded – for example, liberalization of drinkable water market led to mass rebellion and removal of regime in Bolivia, liberalization of electrical energy market in Hungary led to electrical power price being monstruously increased, and liberalization of telecomunicational market here in Croatia led to absurd situation that we pay more for those services than, for example, electrical power or gas.
 
Therefore, it is quite clear that, regarding position of majority of people, here and in rest of the world, in regards to liberalization of market and involvement of state in economical life, it is wrong to say anything about “marxistic phobia against capital, market and private ownership”, but about elementary life experience and common sense (here, people were always set to help each other, and we had common household ownership of many things all the way until middle 19-th century, and even later in some cases, in contrast to many Western, mainly protestant countries, where importance of individuality and individual ownership of things is generally overstated – note by translator). Noone forbids anyone else from believing Perisic's flosculs coined in who knows which laboratory for psychological and promotional work, but luckily, there are very few people who still believe in these stories.
 
Market liberalization and usage of postulates of neoliberal economy (that is, ideology) in economic life of any country in the world, except maybe ones that dominate and dictate world happenings, instead of starting economical prosperity, created only chaos and lawlessness, promoting so-called “transitional” and many other kinds of economical crime, and pushed majority of populace below poverty limit.
 
Truth is that there is responsibility of state institutions in all this, but they are just facing consequences of huge contradictions and absurds created by neoliberal doctrine in those last few decades since it took over world domination – ones of these are monetary system that floats between material world and esoterical one; imaginary economy without any real basis, which launched itself in sky of projections, expectations and imaginations of this world's moguls, many false, fictional values, along with one entire completely warped system of values in which pearls, astragals and mirrors are worth a lot, and human life isn't worth anything, in which lies are treated as truth and truth as lies, in which kindness and morality are being punished (no good deed goes unpunished), and crime is being rewarded, in which vices are very desireable, and virtues are to be ashamed of. Which other result can we expect from one warped ideology in which greed, egoism, cold heartedness and similar vices are being presented as basis of human progress?
 
It is completely clear that this doctrine, that is its theory and practice, are not succesfull in securing normal life for majority of people on this planet, but is rather promoting global regress. If, in some periods, its “positive results” were noticeable, any statements about success of this model are being successfully disroven by economical crises like one we are currently suffering.
 
Pure fact that human civilization is running in circles instead of moving along the track of development and prosperity, fact that all possible problems are not being solved but only piled up, fact that scientifical and technological achievements are not used to better the life of at least majority of people on Earth, but rather one small percentage of them, fact that development of automatization and robotics did not release people from heavy physical labor, or at least humanized conditions and ambient in which work is being done, and allowed for larger pay, but rather forces workers in even greater poverty, as well as many other facts about failures of our civilizational development, show that ideology of liberalism is complete failure, that it causes heavy damage to human society and that it should be discarded as soon and as completely as possible (while in Western countries, work conditions did improve in relation to 19-th century, most large corporations are moving production facilities from US and Europe to China, India and Indonesian archipelago, where work conditions are comparable to those from 19-th century Europe, despite at least some automatization in certain factories – note by translator).
 
This ideology has caused huge inequalities among people, nations and cultures, which can easily lead towards social explosion and catastrophy for human society as a whole. It is also mostly to blame for ecological problems, beacouse all these problems were created by human greed and egoism, but not as some “ancient” human sin, but as a result of liberalistical outlook and thought, which cares only about profit, and not about betterment of all living beings on this planet (and human species is only species that can and has responsibility for life on planet as a whole (simply due to magnitude of its impact on ecological system of planet – every day, several species go extinct as a direct consequence of human activity – note by translator)), or care about future for coming generations.
 
Necessary return to original Catholic values
(author, who is Croatian, is speaking about Croatia specifically here – in this entire text – but everything said can be used for other countries, except some specific things, like religion. - note by translator)
 
Consequences of ecological crisis which is continually deepening are already huge. But, worst part is that this ideology is destroying people, by promoting vices and laughing at virtues (promotors of this ideology are especially attacking so-called “moralizing”, while forgetting that only alternative to moral life is – suicide (either individual or collective; or both, as can be seen by ever-increasing suicide rate in Western world and countries that have adopted modern Western values – note by translator)), degrades our humanity, transforming us into subhuman creatures, “chirihauas” as Hamvas would have said it. It is good to read Hamvas' texts, which we can often compare to mirrors in which we can see our true reflection, as opposed to mirrors that are being produced right now and which give completely warped image about ourselves and our reality.
 
Let us say in the end that fight against liberalism over here has quite rich tradition, but that fight and that tradition are both long forgotten. Croatian Catholic movement which has during 19-th in 20-th century, under guidance of its founder, Krk's bishop Antun Mahnic, began a very fruitful work on showing that demonic ideology for what it really is, on promotion of Christian outlook and value system, but also on some concrete economical projects (founding of consumers' associations and public savings banks), experienced heavy attacks during and immediately after World War One, and was forcefully shut down after World War Two (understandably). However, it is hard to understand that during these last twenty years nothing has been done, not only to revive the project on this or that way, but also to revive memory, conscience about its existence and work, memory of its successes and failures, of people who were its founders. There are, however, blessed Ivan Merz and Alojzije Stepinac, but only, it seems, for us to remember them once a year and say word or two, which usually has no connection to our past, and even less to our present or future.
 
It is obviously high time for Catholic intelectuals to engage themselves on one such project. We need new Mahnic, new Catholic movement, new Catholic action, new enthusiasm for ideals of truth and justice, new enthusiasm for Christ. If that flame doesn't start to burn again, then we're in trouble. Those who are trying to live in truth in this case obviously won't be able to find some wordly reasons for their enthusiasm. Beacouse, in the “Brave New World” which is already being built for two decades right before our eyes, human can be thrilled only by lies.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by sonofccn » Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:53 pm

Signaling a small, tiny point in this very long...document.
(I should add here, that United States are definetly controlled by corporations since eighties.
The US is not controlled by corporations, implying they are the dominate one in the relationship. Unfettered Capitalism died around the turn of the 20th for better or ill. Now yes men of wealth and influence still court favor from goverment but they are the subserviant of the pairing which is an important distition frequently overlooked. Further this is not because of laissez-faire free market, for in such world beyond calling in the military to handle some unruly natives threatening your widget factory the goverment would have little influance or ability to grow corrupt, but spun from regulation meant to combat the fear of controlling corporations. To be sure it was good intentioned, through I may disagree with it, but by putting goverment's foot into the realm of buisness it created power which in turn lead to corruption. And merely adding more power without even realizing this will not solve a blessed thing but instead enslave all in their quest for freedom.

As well suffice it to say I don't believe people in glass houses should throw stones, our Economy may be on death's door but Greece's is having sod shoveled over it.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by Picard » Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:43 pm

Corporations provide everything. And while corporations may not completely control US government, as evidenced by cancellation of F22, why US launched invasion of Iraq? Why Afghanistan? Why such over-bloated defense budget? Why so many unexplainable holes in it (they're not unexplainable if you accept fact that corporations get "black" payments)? Why US Government allowed Lockheed Martin to screw-up F22 and then sell it unfinished product?

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by sonofccn » Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:27 pm

Picard wrote:Corporations provide everything.
Corporations build things yes. Slaves worked the plantation back in the old south as well but they didn't call the shots.
And while corporations may not completely control US government, as evidenced by cancellation of F22, why US launched invasion of Iraq? Why Afghanistan?
For various political and militarily reasons which are beyond the scope of this thread. However what can be said is we are not exactly rolling in oil from Iraq and last I checked it was the Chinese buying up Afghanistan rare earth metals not US corps.
Why such over-bloated defense budget?
Goverment would be one reason as well we do have a fairly large commitment. All of Earth. So our budget is naturally larger than other nations.
Why so many unexplainable holes in it
Wouldn't know, likely the basic cronyism and graft that occurs when the goverment indulges in anything.
Why US Government allowed Lockheed Martin to screw-up F22 and then sell it unfinished product?
For the last time you have provided no evidence the F-22 was deliberatly messed up by Lockheed Martin. You can call the weapon overpriced, overcomplicated for its intended role but that is the direction the Military went with. Trying to do more with less believing paying 10x for one fighter instead of X would save money down the road because each one would do the workload of 20 fighters. Again that is the product the customer wanted and that is the product Lockheed Martin gave them.

And I see you largely stepped around my point that the corruption isn't spawned by a lack of regulations, the US even during the eighties was not a anarchistic-capitalism paradise, but the very human impulse to escape said regulations and turn them into daggers into your rival's back.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by Picard » Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:07 pm

Corporations build things yes. Slaves worked the plantation back in the old south as well but they didn't call the shots.
I never said that workers are those that call shots. Entire point is that they aren't.
For various political and militarily reasons which are beyond the scope of this thread. However what can be said is we are not exactly rolling in oil from Iraq and last I checked it was the Chinese buying up Afghanistan rare earth metals not US corps.
Afghanistan is important to US as a military base to secure Iraq and Middle-Eastern oil.
Goverment would be one reason as well we do have a fairly large commitment. All of Earth. So our budget is naturally larger than other nations.
And that commitment is beacouse corporations want money, and government has to expend old weapons to buy new ones from weapons manufacturers.
Wouldn't know, likely the basic cronyism and graft that occurs when the goverment indulges in anything.
Or secret additional payments to corporations.
For the last time you have provided no evidence the F-22 was deliberatly messed up by Lockheed Martin. You can call the weapon overpriced, overcomplicated for its intended role but that is the direction the Military went with. Trying to do more with less believing paying 10x for one fighter instead of X would save money down the road because each one would do the workload of 20 fighters. Again that is the product the customer wanted and that is the product Lockheed Martin gave them.
Development has lasted 20 years. LM sold F22 unfinished, so as to cover up for real cost.

Development of F15, then most complicated plane built, lasted 5 years.

Do you know REAL Air Force parameters they gave to Lockheed Martin? At very least, Lockheed Martin is EXTREMELY guilty of one thing basically every single corporation is guilty of now - lying about actual capabilities of their product.
And I see you largely stepped around my point that the corruption isn't spawned by a lack of regulations, the US even during the eighties was not a anarchistic-capitalism paradise, but the very human impulse to escape said regulations and turn them into daggers into your rival's back.
People go with that, if it isn't in law, it's allowed. Corporations specifically hire lawyers to help find them holes in the law.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/09/ ... n-and-now/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... s/congress

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by sonofccn » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:59 am

Picard wrote:I never said that workers are those that call shots. Entire point is that they aren't.
I didn't say anything about workers. You brought up that companies provided things, as if that was a bad thing, implying they hold the power. Which I corrected by pointing out an arrangment where the crucial work was performed by a group who most assuredly were not calling the shots. Now if you have anything to add as to why you feel corporations are really in charge and can thumb their nose at goverment with impunity you are welcome to provide it.
Afghanistan is important to US as a military base to secure Iraq and Middle-Eastern oil.
Except we're not getting any of that mid-east oil. If we wanted oil there were a thousand easier ways to get it then sending in armed forces. Remember the Oil for food scandal? Sadam wasn't above selling oil to get him gold palaces. So no dice.
And that commitment is beacouse corporations want money, and government has to expend old weapons to buy new ones from weapons manufacturers.
No that commitment is because we are this world's police force, we are the first responders to just about every crisis on the globe and we write blank checks to defend various countries from aggressive nieghbors. It is not because of corporations that we are in S. Korea or Tiawan or in NATO.
Or secret additional payments to corporations.
That would fall under graft and corruption. Through thinking it over that still is quite queer that you'd suggest that. Companies typically bribe Pols to pick up a contract which are always juicy because the Goverment is loose with money. Why would the Pols pay money to Corporations? That really is quite odd.
Development has lasted 20 years. LM sold F22 unfinished, so as to cover up for real cost.
Once again that is your opinon. Give me transcripts of LM leaders stating they are delibertly doing so or quit using your opinion as facts to prove your case.
Development of F15, then most complicated plane built, lasted 5 years.
Obviously if it was built faster it can't be as complicated as the F-22. In addition the F-22 switched from being a pure air superiority fighter to being a multi-mission platform in keeping with the military's post cold war policy as well as a push to make it a jack of all trades super fighter. So no the F-15 taking five years and the F-22 taking 20 is not proof of foul play by LM.
Do you know REAL Air Force parameters they gave to Lockheed Martin?
Are you suggesting the stated parameters are not real?
At very least, Lockheed Martin is EXTREMELY guilty of one thing basically every single corporation is guilty of now - lying about actual capabilities of their product.
Every salesman is allowed to talk up their product and as far as I know they have not lied about their product it does exactly what they said it did. Perhaps not as we imagined it should, rainfall fiddling with its stealth system or such, but it does do its job of flying high, fast and killing things without the other side spotting it or stopping it.

Which is not to say it doesn't have its bugs or if it is worth the per unit cost. Nor am I huge fan of the bird but its faults are its faults and can not be used to indict LM or corporations in general.
People go with that, if it isn't in law, it's allowed.
I am not following you. We are not arguing should you regulate buisness. We are arguing you accepting that buisness have been regulated, that this crony capitalism you say you decry is because the Goverment laid itself down into the world of buisness. That is has nothing to do with anarchy-Capitalistic prinicpals because they are not in play, haven't been for more than a century.

But to answer what you said if something is not against the law it isn't illegal. If it is right or moral can only be determined by the subject's moral code. Which in the end really decides everything, laws merely codify the population morality they can't usurp them.
Corporations specifically hire lawyers to help find them holes in the law.
As well they should. Some guy comes breathing down my neck trying to tell me how to do my job or live my life I'm going to try and find a loop hole. So I wish the best of luck to them in their endever.

Granted such actions when taken to graft and bribery can lead to an inefficent company surviving because its levied the regulations against its competitors but thats only more reason to lift them.
I don't see what the Heritage foundation has to do with anything nor do I deny politics were played with the F-22. That what the goverment does I'm afraid, which is why I like to remove it from as much as my life as I can manage.

Now to be blunt please provide direct evidence that either corporations are in control, and I want real solid evidence, or that companies are somehow unregulated laissez-faire entities which was the whole of my point.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by Picard » Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:34 am

I don't see what the Heritage foundation has to do with anything nor do I deny politics were played with the F-22. That what the goverment does I'm afraid, which is why I like to remove it from as much as my life as I can manage.
You want me to provide evidence for Lockheed Marting selling Air Force an unfinished product, and then you don't read evidence I provided. In one of these articles, a Lockheed Martin employee directly states that they knew F22 was going to be crap, but they chose NOT to tell Air Force that it is asking impossible thing. I mean, what? Do generals have to know how planes are built? It's Lockheed Martin's job!

Going to respond to rest later.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by sonofccn » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:14 pm

Picard wrote:In one of these articles, a Lockheed Martin employee directly states that they knew F22 was going to be crap, but they chose NOT to tell Air Force that it is asking impossible thing
You mean Olsen? The disgruntled exemployee? Hardly a bedrock of impartiality and even he says the Company was forced due to fear of losing the contract, there goes your idea LM controls the US Gov, that is not selling the Military an unfinished product to cover the real costs. That is doing everything in your power to meet the expectations and schedual of their client.

Hardly endearing of LM of course and you won't get an argument from me how the Pentagon handles its weapon procurment could do with house cleaning but it is not proof LM deliberatly made a shoddy product just to make more money as you have repeatedly claimed.
Picard wrote:I mean, what? Do generals have to know how planes are built? It's Lockheed Martin's job!
They set the specifications for the planes Picard. They decide what plane it is they want and the companies try and build it. Again the F-22 is the plane the Goverment ordered, if it is too costly, too resource intensive, too high maintnance that isn't LM's fault. As for the skin sheath problem that is a sign of a company trying to keep its goverment contract not a reckless all powerful Megacorp just throwing garbage out or an unfinished product. It is unfortant but humans are flawed creatures and such things will occur. Assuming Olsen was speaking the truth of course.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by Picard » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:45 pm

Moreover, a new whistleblower scandal is presenting evidence that the F-22's stealth skin has failed to meet its stealth requirements because it has been badly fabricated and dishonestly tested.
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm ... /index.cfm

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/09/ ... n-and-now/
sonofccn wrote:They set the specifications for the planes Picard
I know. But it's corporation's job to tell them IF and WHY their requests are unrealistical. As for rest, read quote I provided above. Badly fabricated and dishonestly tested does not really look like "honest corporation trying to remain in business". And majority of representatives in Congress - both in Senate AND House of Representatives - are still trying to push more F22's to being bought despite knowing all this. Why? Only logical conclusion I can arrive at is that they were bought by corporations (that is, Lockheed Martin and Boeing - two major participants in F22 program).

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by sonofccn » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:28 pm

Picard wrote:http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm ... /index.cfm
Appears to say only what you quote without any further illumination, details or source and from the limited data they provided likely is refering to Olsen. A fired employee who raised claims of wrong doing on his old employer. I do not see exactly what I was supposed to gain from the piece.
Scrolling down the page does began talking about the F-22 but it merely appears to be a critique of the fighter which as I've already stated has no bearing on my argument.
I know. But it's corporation's job to tell them IF and WHY their requests are unrealistical.
No their job is to make Generals' flight of flancy reality. About producing the product the client asks for. Sometimes things don't pan out but thats life. It isn't evidence of some evil cabal.
As for rest, read quote I provided above. Badly fabricated and dishonestly tested does not really look like "honest corporation trying to remain in business".
I have already said I do not condone the alleged actions Olsen lodged, yes if during development you find your original expectations were in error and you can't fulfill mission parameters you should explain such to the client. I do not support fraud however so far as you've presented evidence its one guy with a grudge against his old workplace saying one thing and the company saying another. I see no reason to take his words over LM.

As well it argues against your primary argument that corporations are in control since Olsen stated it was fear of pressure from the Airforce and their "unrealistic" goals that prompted the lying. If you have the clout to start wars and get your fighter picked up like that well you don't sweat the Airforce being displeased with your results.
And majority of representatives in Congress - both in Senate AND House of Representatives - are still trying to push more F22's to being bought despite knowing all this. Why?
Invested political clout, ego, good shills working for the bird, having production plants in your state with the jobs they bring, as well as a few likely do think it is the weapon to invest in. Or politics as usual in plainer English.
Why? Only logical conclusion I can arrive at is that they were bought by corporations (that is, Lockheed Martin and Boeing - two major participants in F22 program).
It is certainly possible money greased hands and I certainly don't condone bribery of Pols, ruining the underpinning of Capitalism, but it doesn't prove LM delibertly set out to make a crummy fighter, that they delibertly made one unfinished to cover real cost or affect my ultimate argument in any event. LM wouldn't be the one with power but the one soliciting it to their favor.

To restate my position I do not deny corruption exists in companies, or between companies and Goverment. My bone, as it were, to pick is with individuals who essentially claim that if a corrupt company benifites from said corruption, say bribing a Pol to give them a contract, they act as if that is free market run amok and scream for more regulation, more goverment control. They refuse to take acceptence that this world of angles instead of angels, of weasely brokers of power is spawned from the world they wanted.

You want Goverment to step in and break the monopolies and Megacorps? Honorable goal. To make sure workers have some basic human dignity/rights or that those of who have impaired abilities are respected? Again great. But such power has its dark side, a festering underbelly where unscrupulous men go and make back alley deals. Twisting and mutating the very laws and regulations individuals like you set up and saving the worst excuses of "capitalists", dredges who couldn't cut it in an open market, while "honest" ones go under. That is my argument for would be populist demigoges to cease with their knee jerk "Corporations are evil!" and realize blind increasing of state power serves no one but those few they purportedly claim to oppose.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by Picard » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:44 pm

Except we're not getting any of that mid-east oil. If we wanted oil there were a thousand easier ways to get it then sending in armed forces. Remember the Oil for food scandal? Sadam wasn't above selling oil to get him gold palaces. So no dice.
Except US was perfectly fine with leaving Saddam until he refused to sell US corporations oil at price they, and, by extent, US Government, wanted him to sell it.
No that commitment is because we are this world's police force, we are the first responders to just about every crisis on the globe and we write blank checks to defend various countries from aggressive nieghbors.
You forget that you are also one of main creators of these crises. Your defense industry wants wars to sell state wannabe-superweapons-turned-shit at very inflated price, and so your oil industry, Government and secret services create brushfires for you to "put out" (read: increase even more and spend some ammo and weapons so military can buy more from arms industry complex).
That would fall under graft and corruption. Through thinking it over that still is quite queer that you'd suggest that. Companies typically bribe Pols to pick up a contract which are always juicy because the Goverment is loose with money. Why would the Pols pay money to Corporations? That really is quite odd.
To pay for their election campaigns? Whereas politician would be in trouble if he tried to finance election campaign directly from state budget, he can pay money to corporations, and then they cover costs of his/her election campaign as well as help in falsifying votes to get/keep their man (him) in power, while keeping some money for themselves. And then he makes sure they get contracts they want.
Once again that is your opinon. Give me transcripts of LM leaders stating they are delibertly doing so or quit using your opinion as facts to prove your case.
And why you thing they would ever say that? Why you think they will ever keep such transcripts that would obviously have huge, unwanted consequences to Lockheed Martin (and any other defense firm) if found? Do you know what "indirect evidence" means? Or meaning of phrase "logical conclusion"?

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/pub ... ustry.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E ... al_complex
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/ag ... omplex.htm
http://www.iraqwar.org/micomplex.htm
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244 ... ears-later

Maybe you'll at least trust Dwight Eisenhower.
Obviously if it was built faster it can't be as complicated as the F-22. In addition the F-22 switched from being a pure air superiority fighter to being a multi-mission platform in keeping with the military's post cold war policy as well as a push to make it a jack of all trades super fighter. So no the F-15 taking five years and the F-22 taking 20 is not proof of foul play by LM.
F22 never switched, it is still specialized in air superiority, althought they put in few features - I had heard it is supposed to act as mini-AWACS, maybe you are thinking that? Fighter-bomber variant, FB-22, was contemplated, but never hit production - or even drawing stage.

What you wrote is correct for F35, but NOT for F22.
Are you suggesting the stated parameters are not real?
Yes. There probably is difference between what they gave, and what Lockheed Martin put in. Army probably wanted "fighter to dominate all others". They got "fighter that dominates US defense budget while being crap for actual war".
Perhaps not as we imagined it should, rainfall fiddling with its stealth system or such, but it does do its job of flying high, fast and killing things without the other side spotting it or stopping it.
Against planes that went two decades without upgrade to electronics, and with everything being set up in its favor. Throw it in real fight, and we'll see what happens.
Which is not to say it doesn't have its bugs or if it is worth the per unit cost. Nor am I huge fan of the bird but its faults are its faults and can not be used to indict LM or corporations in general.
Once you look deeper... it can. It's not only such project, but is far most famous. F22's state can be used to show true state of US weapons industry as whole. As for other projects... F35 is quickly shaping to be just such, if not worse, disaster. DDG1000 has only three ships ordered, and we have yet to see how it will come out - but it certainly won't be anywhere near "invisible to radar". M1 Abrams is good tank, if you forget logistics, but was designed in 1970s, as were F15, F16 and A10 (which are overall good planes, even when you take logistics into account), so it doesn't exactly count. Stryker is unmitigated disaster. Comanche was abandoned.
That is has nothing to do with anarchy-Capitalistic prinicpals because they are not in play, haven't been for more than a century.
Milton Friedman basically said "let corporations run themselves, let market run itself, state should just pay for corporations' services and bail them out". So... no.
As well they should. Some guy comes breathing down my neck trying to tell me how to do my job or live my life I'm going to try and find a loop hole. So I wish the best of luck to them in their endever.

Granted such actions when taken to graft and bribery can lead to an inefficent company surviving because its levied the regulations against its competitors but thats only more reason to lift them.
So, should we go Wild West? No rules, no regulations, if you have competition, just kill it? If you were alone on the world, system you just discribed could work. But not in real life.
No their job is to make Generals' flight of flancy reality. About producing the product the client asks for. Sometimes things don't pan out but thats life. It isn't evidence of some evil cabal.
Especially when you draw out R&D.
I have already said I do not condone the alleged actions Olsen lodged, yes if during development you find your original expectations were in error and you can't fulfill mission parameters you should explain such to the client. I do not support fraud however so far as you've presented evidence its one guy with a grudge against his old workplace saying one thing and the company saying another. I see no reason to take his words over LM.

As well it argues against your primary argument that corporations are in control since Olsen stated it was fear of pressure from the Airforce and their "unrealistic" goals that prompted the lying. If you have the clout to start wars and get your fighter picked up like that well you don't sweat the Airforce being displeased with your results.
You mean, losing the contract. But if corporations aren't in control, why Senate voted for continuing F22 and F35 programs despite both being obviously a shit? Obama and Gates saved US from F22, for now. We'll see how F35 turns out.
but it doesn't prove LM delibertly set out to make a crummy fighter,
"Money eater" in other words.
that they delibertly made one unfinished to cover real cost
They did. Even now, LM promotes cost of 120-150 million USD per bird, whereas true flyaway cost is 250 million USD per bird. Unit procurement cost is 411 million USD per plane. Add to that 61 000 USD per hour operating cost as well as 678 million USD lifecycle cost... it is "golden chicken" for Lockheed Martin. For USA and USAF, its disaster.
My bone, as it were, to pick is with individuals who essentially claim that if a corrupt company benifites from said corruption, say bribing a Pol to give them a contract, they act as if that is free market run amok and scream for more regulation, more goverment control. They refuse to take acceptence that this world of angles instead of angels, of weasely brokers of power is spawned from the world they wanted.

You want Goverment to step in and break the monopolies and Megacorps? Honorable goal. To make sure workers have some basic human dignity/rights or that those of who have impaired abilities are respected? Again great. But such power has its dark side, a festering underbelly where unscrupulous men go and make back alley deals. Twisting and mutating the very laws and regulations individuals like you set up and saving the worst excuses of "capitalists", dredges who couldn't cut it in an open market, while "honest" ones go under. That is my argument for would be populist demigoges to cease with their knee jerk "Corporations are evil!" and realize blind increasing of state power serves no one but those few they purportedly claim to oppose.
"Back alley deals" are standard MO in corporate world, as is reinterpreting or outright ignoring laws. Open market needs Governmental regulation exactly in order to stop such deals. Increasing state power would serve everyone if it weren't for corporations controlling the state. Now, if you take a look at SOPA; it was pushed exclusively by large corporations, not by government. Government, people and several large corporations (Google, for one) opposed it. But first corporations will try again. However, this was not weapons industry, so Government may have actually listened to people.

I understand that I may be paranoid, but I do have good reasons for it. Referendum on Croatia joining EU passed. You know how? Government issued voting papers that were numbered. In the end, only 30% of voters actually voted. Of those that voted, little more than half were for EU. And you know what happened until now? Vast majority of firms in state ownership were deliberately destroyed, and then privatized. Majority of these were sold to foreign corporatists and bankers. They took all money, and then left firms to crumble and people to become unemployed.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by sonofccn » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:15 pm

@ Picard

Regarding Iraq here lists what the US imported in thousands of monthly thousand barrels. Between June and November of last year Iraq flucuated from about 12 to 17 thousand. Mexico swung from 36 to 37 thousand, Venezuela 22 to 32 thousand, Canada 75 to 84 thousand. Hell even all the Persian Gulf states combined only exported to the US 59 to 60 thousand.

There are many valid critiques in how we went into Iraq and why but stealing oil simply doesn't make sense, we'd could get more simply going down into Mexico which would be closer to home,wouldn't be a Christian nation invading a Muslim one and all the broo-haw-haw that entails and unless I'm mistaken would involve an even worse military force than the one we smashed in Iraq.

Regarding the US military comitment-Your argument is circular. Corporations control the US because it has a bloated defense budget and it has a bloated defense budget because Corporations control it.
To pay for their election campaigns?
Still seems odd. The more normal sort of graft usually entails a company giving a Pol a million dollars to help his election and in return swings a contract worth ten million back to the company. Actually paying a Corp money just so he could laundry it in such a maner seems overly complex and overly risky of leaving a trail between.
And why you thing they would ever say that? Why you think they will ever keep such transcripts that would obviously have huge, unwanted consequences to Lockheed Martin (and any other defense firm) if found? Do you know what "indirect evidence" means? Or meaning of phrase "logical conclusion"?
Because that would be clear cut evidence. What you have so far provided is far more dependent on ones world view, I not sharing yours fail to find it compelling. So far your evidence is the F-22 doesn't live up to its hype and it took too long. I see that as failing the project perhaps incompetence on their part not an evil cabal which rules from the shadows.
F22 never switched, it is still specialized in air superiority
And the F-22 as it is today is supposed to be able to run air to ground strikes missions. Here as an Australian he presumbly isn't blinded by any uber American patriotism regarding our "wonder weapon" nor considering he savages the F-35 is he likely on the take from LM.
Carlo Kopp wrote:By the mid 1990s the F-22A was firmly reoriented as a multirole fighter, intended to not only demolish opposing fighter assets and supporting AWACS, but also hunt mobile and semimobile S-300 batteries, supporting command centres and other critical surface targets.
Fighter-bomber variant, FB-22, was contemplated, but never hit production - or even drawing stage.
Which would swing the pendulum further from fighter to bomber but is seperate from the F-22 which entered service. I actually like the idea, a stealthy fighter-bomber not meant to duel with enemy strike craft and a specilized air superiority fighter but then I disagree with the current military thinking on multi-role fighting vehicles.
Yes. There probably is difference between what they gave, and what Lockheed Martin put in.
And that is something I would require evidence for.
Against planes that went two decades without upgrade to electronics, and with everything being set up in its favor. Throw it in real fight, and we'll see what happens.
Well thats were the rubber meets the road but so what? My point is LM gave the military the plane it asked for that it doesn't work as intended is regretable but is not proof LM is in control or some evil cabal.
Once you look deeper... it can. It's not only such project, but is far most famous. F22's state can be used to show true state of US weapons industry as whole. As for other projects... F35 is quickly shaping to be just such, if not worse, disaster. DDG1000 has only three ships ordered, and we have yet to see how it will come out - but it certainly won't be anywhere near "invisible to radar". M1 Abrams is good tank, if you forget logistics, but was designed in 1970s, as were F15, F16 and A10 (which are overall good planes, even when you take logistics into account), so it doesn't exactly count. Stryker is unmitigated disaster. Comanche was abandoned.
You won't get an argument from me that we need to "clean house" on weapons appropriation as well as get our head up out of our arse however but I see the problem with Goverment rather than arms industry. It sets policy, it accepts bribes it could walk away from, it allows political games to be played with weapons of war.
Milton Friedman basically said "let corporations run themselves, let market run itself, state should just pay for corporations' services and bail them out". So... no.
1. I'm going to ask for a specific quote where Friedman said he was for bailing out failed corporations. A specific quote indeed.

2. This misses my point that whatever Milton Friedman believed it was never implemented to an extent to cause a complet shift, we still had regulations in the 80's after all. It was not as I've already stated a anarchistic-capitalistic time period. So whatever the faults of companies and Goverments it isn't the fault of laissez-faire. It is simply time for those who believe in Goverment-Company partnerships to realize there is an inherent danger from that mixture and work to correct the actual problems not go shooting after old shadows from the 19th century.
So, should we go Wild West? No rules, no regulations, if you have competition, just kill it?
In the realm of buisness? Yes I believe the fewer restrictions generally the better, but in regard to individuals no some laws are needed to maintain order which is paramount so that the free exchange of goods and services may be undertaken. So no if you have competition you can't just kill'em but you should be able to win or lose to them in the market place without goverment stepping in to decide the winner.
You mean, losing the contract. But if corporations aren't in control, why Senate voted for continuing F22 and F35 programs despite both being obviously a shit?
Because the have an interest in it? Because it has its defenders and it isn't "obviously shit"? Your creating a false litmus test, namely because you see such programs as failures and the Senate and the House continue to support it must be because the Corps secretly control them all.
Obama and Gates saved US from F22
Not really. The time, money and expense has already been invested into the F-22 failing to go further with it merely reveals the hard place the Airforce set up to help ensure the project was kept funded. We really don't have anything to fall back too beyond the F-35 which is just about worse in every concievable way.
"Money eater" in other words.
No. They were contracted to perform a job and they did that job. Now the results are less then promising and yes I don't think it was a good product and it should go into consideration the next time contracts come up but they are not "money eaters" because you have not proved one iota beyond the unsubstantiated testimony of one guy they didn't try their best to build a good fighter.
They did. Even now, LM promotes cost of 120-150 million USD per bird, whereas true flyaway cost is 250 million USD per bird.
So that's just standard type of budgeting tricks the Goverment employs every day, that isn't purposuly building an unfinished fighter for the express purpose of selling it to the Military to then turn around and sell upgrades to it to cover "real cost". You accused LM of selling a product cheap to make money by finishing the bird after the Military already had it and was stuck with it. That is not bragging it costs 120-150 while accountants hide another hundred million by slieght of hand.
"Back alley deals" are standard MO in corporate world, as is reinterpreting or outright ignoring laws. Open market needs Governmental regulation exactly in order to stop such deals.
Actually in an unfettered free market such deals lose their potency, there is no higher power you can slime up next to no force you can direct to prop up your bloated and ineffiecent company at the expense of a fitter, better one. Goverment regulations were enacted to prevent exploitation, that is company's using advantage of various natural situations to their benifite with say workers who were willing but arguably didn't have a great deal of options. Now me I tend more towards people deserve what they get, that we can't hold their hands, but I do understand the basic human concern to try and help people.
Increasing state power would serve everyone if it weren't for corporations controlling the state.
And the more power you give them the more corporations have to make deals in order to survive the more the two blur togather into one corrupt mass.
Now, if you take a look at SOPA; it was pushed exclusively by large corporations, not by government.
A few in goverment gave their approval and I see that as a mark to shrink goverment rather than give it more power. It shouldn't be trying to regulate the fricking web for piracy.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by Picard » Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:19 pm

I'll answer rest later, but one of min points in getting F35 was that it is "multirole".

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Liberalization of market and usage of neoliberal economi

Post by Picard » Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:39 pm

There are many valid critiques in how we went into Iraq and why but stealing oil simply doesn't make sense, we'd could get more simply going down into Mexico which would be closer to home,wouldn't be a Christian nation invading a Muslim one and all the broo-haw-haw that entails and unless I'm mistaken would involve an even worse military force than the one we smashed in Iraq.
AFAIK, Mexico probably is willing to export oil to US. US removed Saddam after he tried to stop exports of oil to US, and Iraq has more oil and is closer to other states that are important to US strategically, like Saudi Arabia.
Regarding the US military comitment-Your argument is circular. Corporations control the US because it has a bloated defense budget and it has a bloated defense budget because Corporations control it.
I never said first part, except as in, "if you are going to search for cause search for its consequences".
Still seems odd. The more normal sort of graft usually entails a company giving a Pol a million dollars to help his election and in return swings a contract worth ten million back to the company. Actually paying a Corp money just so he could laundry it in such a maner seems overly complex and overly risky of leaving a trail between.
True. But contracts can be between corporation and Government.
Because that would be clear cut evidence. What you have so far provided is far more dependent on ones world view, I not sharing yours fail to find it compelling. So far your evidence is the F-22 doesn't live up to its hype and it took too long. I see that as failing the project perhaps incompetence on their part not an evil cabal which rules from the shadows.
I don't know if I put this, but:
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm ... =index.cfm

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm ... =index.cfm

http://www.cdi.org/program/issue/docume ... ssueID=168

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm ... ersion.cfm

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm ... /index.cfm

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12 ... -13-flaws/

Post Reply