How does this relate to driverless cars?Walker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:05 am Q: What’s so different now?
A: It’s looking like the difference is a high level of corruption driving public policy, whereas in Henry Ford’s heyday, autos multiplied because of genuine need, namely, NYC was sinking under a great load of horse hockey.
*
What’s going on with the cars sounds like a variation of smash and grab, as explained below, namely, use influence to create a situation, then engage crony capitalism to profit.
“So to give you one brief example, [the] University of Phoenix, it’s a for-profit school — a lot of people have heard of it — the Obama administration declares that the company is not serving students well, and they say, ‘We are going to suspend GI dollars from the Pentagon for soldiers to study at the University of Phoenix,'” explained Schweizer.
“Well, you can imagine, this for-profit university, its stock price goes from like a hundred dollars a share down to three dollars a share overnight. So what happens? Marty Nesbitt, Barack Obama’s best friend, says, ‘Hey! We’ll step in and buy it. We’ll step in and buy the company.’ They do. They basically buy it for three cents on the dollar, and then, lo and behold, imagine what happens next. The Obama administration decides that, ‘No, we are going to allow GI dollars flow to the University of Phoenix,’ thereby boosting the valuation of the company again.”
Schweizer described Obama’s “smash and grab” strategy as repeatedly used across Obama’s presidential tenure, with beneficiaries such as Tom Steyer and George Soros. He further noted that such ill-gotten funds partly find their way into the Obama Foundation via Nesbitt’s financing.
Source: http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/03/ ... h-buddies/
- The need for change to the horseless carriage was natural.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:29 pm
How does this relate to driverless cars?
PhilX
Wow, quoting Breitbart. And Drumpf never lies through his teeth.Walker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:05 am Q: What’s so different now?
A: It’s looking like the difference is a high level of corruption driving public policy, whereas in Henry Ford’s heyday, autos multiplied because of genuine need, namely, NYC was sinking under a great load of horse hockey.
*
What’s going on with the cars sounds like a variation of smash and grab, as explained below, namely, use influence to create a situation, then engage crony capitalism to profit.
“So to give you one brief example, [the] University of Phoenix, it’s a for-profit school — a lot of people have heard of it — the Obama administration declares that the company is not serving students well, and they say, ‘We are going to suspend GI dollars from the Pentagon for soldiers to study at the University of Phoenix,'” explained Schweizer.
“Well, you can imagine, this for-profit university, its stock price goes from like a hundred dollars a share down to three dollars a share overnight. So what happens? Marty Nesbitt, Barack Obama’s best friend, says, ‘Hey! We’ll step in and buy it. We’ll step in and buy the company.’ They do. They basically buy it for three cents on the dollar, and then, lo and behold, imagine what happens next. The Obama administration decides that, ‘No, we are going to allow GI dollars flow to the University of Phoenix,’ thereby boosting the valuation of the company again.”
Schweizer described Obama’s “smash and grab” strategy as repeatedly used across Obama’s presidential tenure, with beneficiaries such as Tom Steyer and George Soros. He further noted that such ill-gotten funds partly find their way into the Obama Foundation via Nesbitt’s financing.
Source: http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/03/ ... h-buddies/
Re: Supply and DemandScience Fan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:22 pm Walker: When you claim that companies that provide goods and services are not interested in the public needs, but in creating artificial needs, I have to scratch my head. You are aware that a business only makes a profit by satisfying its customers? And what are you claiming is an artificial need versus an actual one? Do people need books? Not really. I suppose we could do without them, so does that mean private book publishing companies are merely satisfying an artificial need that should remain unsatisfied?
If we're talking about the same accident, the police are now saying she was at fault.
I'm not surprised.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:21 pmIf we're talking about the same accident, the police are now saying she was at fault.
PhilX