The Koch Brothers

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
52,146
Reaction score
8,340
Location
127.0.0.1
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/10/2011102683719370179.html

Charles and David Koch are each worth about $25bn, which makes them the fourth richest Americans. When you combine their fortunes, they are the third wealthiest people in the world. Radical libertarians who use their money to oppose government and virtually all regulation as interference with the free market, the Kochs are in a class of their own as players on the American political stage. Their web of influence in the US stretches from state capitals to the halls of congress in Washington DC.

The Koch brothers fueled the conservative Tea Party movement that vigorously opposes Barack Obama, the US president. They fund efforts to derail action on global warming, and support politicians who object to raising taxes on corporations or the wealthy to help fix America’s fiscal problems. According to New Yorker writer Jane Mayer, who wrote a groundbreaking exposé of the Kochs in 2010, they have built a top to bottom operation to shape public policy that has been "incredibly effective. They are so rich that their pockets are almost bottomless, and they can keep pouring money into this whole process".

Koch industries, the second largest privately-held company in the US, is an oil refining, chemical, paper products and financial services company with revenues of a $100bn a year. Virtually every American household has some Koch product - from paper towels and lumber, to Stainmaster carpet and Lycra in sports clothes, to gasoline for cars. The Koch’s political philosophy of rolling back environmental and financial regulations is also beneficial to their business interests.

25 min report at the link and rest of the article:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/10/2011102683719370179.html
 
rolling back environmental and financial regulations is good for the environment and the financial market, I don't get why the tone of the article of so negative (unless they are confusing corporatism, and capitalism, which is a common mistake).

The Kochs seems to be quite evil though, they are obviously paying lobbyist to force through regulations that favour them, if you remove government from the equation then they won't really have anywhere to run to.
 
Last edited:
rolling back environmental and financial regulations is good for the environment and the financial market, I don't get why the tone of the article of so negative (unless they are confusing corporatism, and capitalism, which is a common mistake).

Watch the video.
 
Watch the video.

I am busy with it, but these guys aren't libertarians, the media is confusing libertarians with neo-conservatism here. This explains though why the tea party has ignored Ron Paul (the main think thank that started it).

edit: there is a lot of the things which the video paints as negative that is an obvious bias. i.e. opposing union laws and healthcare.
 
Last edited:
rolling back environmental and financial regulations is good for the environment and the financial market, I don't get why the tone of the article of so negative (unless they are confusing corporatism, and capitalism, which is a common mistake).

The Kochs seems to be quite evil though, they are obviously paying lobbyist to force through regulations that favour them, if you remove government from the equation then they won't really have anywhere to run to.

I fail to see how deregulation is good for the environment and financial markets. Wasn't deregulation partly responsible for the financial crisis.
 
I fail to see how deregulation is good for the environment and financial markets. Wasn't deregulation partly responsible for the financial crisis.

nope, that was due to a flawed monitory policy, the financial crisis and housing market was the most regulated of all markets.

Regulations have unintended consequences, all of them do, but politicians and policy makers ignore them. Regulating the environment will slow production down and ultimately take its toll on innovation of new products. The best way to protect the environment would be through strict private property laws instead of a pie in the sky green credit thing. If you take the most industrious nations on earth you will see that they have been using cleaner and more effective fuels since the 1950's or so, in fact once a country exists its industrial phase then pollution and harm to the environment usually becomes less and less.
 
Some regulation is good, some is bad, but without doubt the financial markets have proven over and over that they need to be very tightly policed.
 
Yup, the unregulated trillion dollar trading of derivatives played a massive part in the crisis.

@Nico: What do you think of this BBC podcast on Goldman Sachs? http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p007czjs/Assignment_Goldmine_Sachs/

I saw that awhile ago, it kinda explains what I've been saying for a long time on this forums, that it is inevitable for corporations to have lobbyist write regulations that favour them. In fact these regulations often look so complicated (which is the case in the US), that the ordinary citizens might think that they do good, but the unintended consequence will be that you screw one group (usually the average citizen) over in favour of another (the lobbying corporations).

It just confirms what we all knew, Goldman Sachs is one of the most fascist and powerful organization in the western world.
 
Last edited:
Some regulation is good, some is bad, but without doubt the financial markets have proven over and over that they need to be very tightly policed.

if you regulate it to tightly you kill it, if you regulate it to lightly you favour x over y, as I pointed out already, the financial and housing markets were the most regulated of all the markets in the US, ironically the republicans wanted to regulate them (big surprise), yet they caused the recession.

However you shouldn't put all the blame on Goldman Sachs and the Koch brothers, the issue is the system. I'm of the opinion that if you have a system which is reliant on a few individuals to do their jobs properly and that requires them to be incorruptible, then you have a very bad system. (This is where Ghoti and I have differ mostly on these forums, I believes more transparency and accountability will solve it, where I don't think that is the answer).
 
Last edited:
Let me know when you listened to that podcast. Puts a lot into perspective.

I agree, the Fed handled the bailouts badly!
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X