Irony Defined - Steve Jobs/Apple/Occupy

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Eric-PTEK, Oct 10, 2011.

  1. Eric-PTEK macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #1
  2. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #2
    The article is quite confusing, but I kind of get it.

    What I don't get is the title of the thread nor the irony/hypocrisy thing.:confused:
     
  3. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #4
    .
     
  4. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #5
  5. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #6
    While they may sound well informed, their sense of direction is really off. They should be in Washington D.C. if they're so pissed.
     
  6. Eric-PTEK thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #7
    Apple consumers tend to be liberal. No doubting that fact. We hear the cry of corporations, oil companies, etc but yet never hear a single peep about Apple themselves.

    Steve Jobs was, above and beyond everything else, a capitalist. Apple and the way he ran Apple goes against everything most liberal/leftists believe in. That is irony.

    You blame people for donating to political causes or 'buying off' politicians. Is the root problem not the fact that they accepted the money, not the fact that people did it?

    These people worked within the system allowed to them. If the cries are true then the problem is the politicians who accepted the money, not the people who paid it.

    But to bring the fight to the people who ultimately caused the problem would be hypocritical since it is the same people they support.
     
  7. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #8
    What? Where did you come up with that drivel from? Some Faux News anti-American talking head?

    These two statements clearly point out the sophomoric reasoning of the article's author.

    1. Anyone who puts wealthy in quotes is like Bill Clinton asking someone to define "is".

    2. The government's role is to provide a level playing field.

    Darpa and other universities that receive tons of state and federal money are the ultimate source for the majority of our inventiveness. The two years that Jobs spent at Reed (6 months enrolled 18 months auditing) had a major impact on his life. Stanford would later supply him with many brilliant employees.

    The explosion in information exchange and mobile telephony would never have occurred if ATT had been allowed to remain a monopoly. One only needs to look at South Korea along with many European countries to see that by preventing a few countries from controlling mobile internet and broadband, they've seen an absolute explosion in creativity and inventiveness.

    Big business has decided once again that it's cheaper to pay off politicians than it is to innovate. By not checking innate corporate tendencies to become monopolies, the US is doomed to become a second rate country.
     
  8. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #9
    No, both sides of the "buy off" are part of the root problem. They're "co-conspirators" if a label is needed.
     
  9. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    You assume that liberals can not be for or wanting capitalism. That is the failure here.

    Nobody stated that liberals or those with those views are not for free-market enterprise. What they are against is the tax shelters applied to those, and thinking that keeping lower taxes (read: Bush-era tax cuts) for those income earners will produce innovation. they haven't yet with the exception of Apple. Most of those income earners have produced scandal after scandal (MCI/Worldcom, Tyco, Enron, Arthur Andersen, Lehmann Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, etc.) They had higher taxes during the .com era under Clinton, and look how much innovation came from that, Apple included! And by your definition, those who bought Apple products then were highly liberal!

    So no.. no irony or hypocrisy.. just simple logic FAIL.

    BL.
     
  10. Eric-PTEK thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #11
    Traditional liberalism has been overtaken by leftists.

    Those who promote a liberal social policy but a conservative fiscal party are not longer represented by the majority of liberal politicians.

    Here is some good reading on Wall Street and politics

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/...n-the-most-wall-street-bucks-in-a-generation/

    BTW there were plenty of liberals who decried the massive profits Exxon and others make, at 10-15 percent net margins and massive re-investment in their business.

    But say nothing about Apple and their 50 percent net margins and near the same gross income while outsourcing 100 percent of their manufacturing, they are not even Apple employee's.
     
  11. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #12
    nor by the majority of conservative politicians either
     
  12. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #13
    Those who promote conservatism are no longer represented by real conservatives, but instead by fearmongering neocons and 'tea partiers', who know absolutely nothing about the ideas they are supposed to support.

    Trust me, you are not going to win this argument, when a lot of recent history goes against you, let alone the outcry from it.

    BL.
     
  13. Eric-PTEK thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #14
    Not sure which angle your going at.

    If your comment is that conservative politicians these days are not conservative I agree totally.

    Social assistance beyond the feeble/old/truly unable should come from society, not government.
     
  14. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #15
    Comparing Apple to oil companies is way to difficult. Oil companies are by their very nature very political, since the importance oil has in our society.

    And also, Apple Customers = liberal is way off. Apple customers don't have anything to complain about, neither do non-Apple customers. Mostly because Apple doesn't makes something which everyone needs, or which has a very important role in daily life.

    Oil companies do make something of extreme importance to daily life. And so, people tend to complain more about this companies when they make a mistake. Putting it simply, if oil companies decide to abuse their power, everyone suffers because you have no alternative. In Apple's case, they would just go downhill in business.


    There no innocent and guilty here. Both are guilty, maybe one more than the other, but not only one.
     
  15. Eric-PTEK thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #16
    If oil companies operated in a true free market then they would be in the same position as Apple. Someone else would take their place, however that cannot be done because the government regulates it too much.

    People complain and blame oil companies about the high cost of gasoline but say very little about the .58 cents on average they pay in gasoline taxes.

    Jennifer Granholm the previous govenor of Michigan lambasted oil companies for their profits OVER AND OVER, yet she forgets to mention a good portion of her stock and retirement portfolio is in, you guessed it, oil companies.

    Your last comment is very valid...so why are they only protesting the producers? It is the constant villification of success that is the problem.
     
  16. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #17
    I suspect that most of those "occupiers" would agree that this same principle should apply to corporations too
     
  17. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #18
    Reading the article, it implies that Wall Street was responsible for helping companies like Apple move forward and innovate. While that may have been partly true in the past (private equity plays a bigger role), since 2008 lending to small firms by Wall Street has just about disappeared. The only risk they seem to take these days is to buy 30yr Treasuries using money borrowed from the public purse. I'm not sure how the anti-consumerists have come to dominate "Occupy Wall Street" as it seemed to start from a general resentment to bailouts and the lack of progress (or even contrition) on the bankers part, something which I support.
     
  18. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #19
    The thing is that oil is very important, so the government can't let oil companies do whatever they want, because it could have devastating effects on the whole population if they make something stupid.

    In the other hand, the government couldn't care less if the iPhone 5 has this or that. Because it wouldn't affect anyone.

    In a perfect world, what you say would be true. But sadly, we live in a quite imperfect one.

    ----
     
  19. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #20
    Publicly traded oil companies have very little influence on anything to do with oil, whether supply or price. They operate on the fringe with relatively small margins. This has nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with geography. Most of the oil in the world is produced by national (govt-owned) companies which are producing at costs of a few $ to a few tens of $ per barrel.
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #21
    What's the point of having a car if you don't have roads to drive on?
     
  21. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #22
    You say that as if taxes are a bad thing. I never understood this, conservatives always talk about lowering taxes and all that nonsense, but they never explain where the hell the government is supposed to get money from. Taxes on corporations and wealthy people need to be raised. No question about it.
     
  22. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #23
    That's not irony. That's a purposeful misunderstanding of "liberals" on your behalf stemming from a peculiar ideological constructed stereotype. In short it's largely what's wrong with political opinion in the US (and unfortunately being adopted elsewhere) wrapped up into a single paragraph.

    But nice work using Jobs' just cold corpse to push the culture wars.
     
  23. jnpy!$4g3cwk, Oct 10, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2011

    jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #24
    Spoken like a true Religious Libertarian, but, not obvious from a study of, say, Pragmatism. In other words -- that is your religious belief, but, the US Constitution says otherwise. And, as voters, there is no reason why we can't all decide to fund Social Security through Social Security Taxes. We could also decide not to do that. It appears to me that the country works better with Social Security than without it. From Utilitarian grounds, that goes a long way with me, even if St. Rand does not approve.
     
  24. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #25
    Then why doesn't it?
     

Share This Page