Maxine Waters grills Geithner about Goldman Sachs connections
Posted by admin
martynic02 asked:
Ms Waters questions Geithner about concerns the American people have about the Godman Sachs connections throughout.
Bamboo Coffee Table
December 13th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
@MikeKrysta1 what is maxine doing about california being bankrupt with 12% unemployment
December 14th, 2009 at 1:15 am
The League of California Cities honored U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters today during the closing general session of its 110th Annual Conference today in Long Beach. The congresswoman was recognized for her outstanding contribution to California cities and, in particular, her work on the Housing and Economic Recovery Act
December 14th, 2009 at 6:53 am
No, I am not a lobbyist. I am a software engineer who studied economics for many years.
The oil giants included not only the particular corporations here, but Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the gulf states, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico and Canada. Pretty hard to get a corporate price fixing conspiracy among bitter enemies.
Notice the failure over the years of OPEC. Those guys hate and distrust each other, and break their own agreements immediately upon signing them.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
-They have the 3rd largest oil reserve in the world.
-It wouldn’t surprise anyone if the oil giants were in good with each other
-It has been over 10 years and they refuse to license the technology.
-Patents are exempt from anti-trust
Roger, you sound like a oil lobbyist. Are you?
December 17th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
They don’t own that much in oil reserves. In order to make such a conspiracy work, they would have to have the cooperation of many nations who are hostile toward them anyway.
And they would not have to make cars, only license the technology. Easy money.
How do you arrive at the conclusion they would make more competing in the oil business than having a technology that might put the other oil companies out of business?
Sorry, but your analysis comes off as silly, so counter-logical it is.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Chevron makes more money (they are the third biggest gas and oil in the world according to their website) by not allowing the technology. If the electric car was realized with the NiHm battery it would have a trickle down effect on the other components in the car that are also made of petroleum. Plus they don’t make cars. That would be a huge investment right off the bat starting a new car company. Easier to just sit on the patent, sue people who have used it fight it in court in 2014.
December 21st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
“Bury” was a figure of speech– same concept.
Think about the logic here– they spend a fortune, or forgo a fortune– to obtain and preserve a monopoly on a valuable technology, but do not develop it. They do this only to keep people buying oil, a commodity on which they do not have a monopoly and are forced to compete to sell.
The lack of logic boggles the mind.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:19 am
cars.
I wouldn’t be able to afford buying the patent-can’t compete with the money big oil has.
And I did not imply that they buried it-they simply will not allow anyone to use it. in fact they sued someone for recently trying to do so.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
A post got lost, sorry. I mentioned various conspiracy theories about big companies, involving buying and hiding technology. Carburetors allowing 100 MPG, back in the 60s. What ever happened to them? They never existed.
This patent is just that– a patent. Recorded, publicly visible. Why would Texaco bury it? It cannot, since it is a patent.
Maybe it just isn’t ready for prime time. No matter, when the patent expires in 4 years, you can get rich building magic cars, right?
Save the world.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
The thing is, companies are in it for the money. If some technology is going to destroy your industry, you best be first in line.
Old business saying: When your industry is being cannibalized, you had best be the cannibal.
This is no exception. Texaco would stand to make a fortune by replacing oil with some other fuel. They do not hold a monopoly.
Besides, the patent is open, you can study it and develop from it, legally. In 4 years, what will happen?
December 25th, 2009 at 6:06 am
It has been 10 years and they have not done anything with the technology other than keeping it out of others hands. It’s like hey I have this cure for cancer but since I own a drug that has made me billions of dollars why would I want the cure to get out-there is no money in the cure.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I am not familiar with the case, but if they bought a patent, the have the sole right to develop that patent and turn it into a product.
What makes you think they are not doing just that? And why wouldn’t they?
December 26th, 2009 at 12:17 am
Hey Roger you’re a smart guy I wanted to get your honest opinion on this if you don’t mind:
With Texaco buying the electric NiHm battery in 2000 and refusing to allow others to use the technology to obstruct the competition of alternative fuel, wouldn’t this be in violation of anti-trust law?
December 26th, 2009 at 10:17 am
The polls show that Republican fear tactics work well. The problem is that it is hard for people who want to do good to get their message across when lobbyists pour all this money into media and politicians.
The polls reflect that fear is still the main mechanism in human psyche. If it were not for fear based rhetoric the polls would shift significantly to the pro-health reform.
A scared society is more easy to control and it has worked well in the past and now for Repukes.
December 26th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
I am quite aware of our creeping socialism. But, because our markets are not entirely free is no justification for even less freedom.
Personally, I think freedom is a good thing. And competition is healthy.
I think we agree, both parties tend toward protecting big business. But, “conservative” is not the same is “Republican”.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:26 am
News Flash: When Rosevelt put in place the New Deal we became quasi-socialist.
We have not been a freemarket since. The “free market” = The Great Depression.
People in America are manipulated by their government and big corporations in an effort to control the masses.
Democrat and Republican are just about a balancing of individual and business interests.
Until people can afford the lobbyists that businesses can they will continue to get the short end of the stick.
December 31st, 2009 at 8:04 am
That’s right Maxine, jump dead in their stuff. That’s why we love you.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Buddhism is all about personal responsibility, not handing your life over to government. It baffles me how so many who call themselves Buddhist are socialists. Astoundingly naive.
My point is, you seem to assert an absolutist position on morality– ie, Republicans have none. And absolutist positions are absurd.
Regarding “capitalism”, if you mean Wall Street, then who did they support in the last election? Why, Obama, of course.
On the other hand, if you mean small business…
January 1st, 2010 at 9:06 pm
The Founding Fathers were “True Believers” according to Hoffers logic.
1. The Republicans want to repeal the states choices in regards to Marijuana outnumber the Democrats. There are few sprinkles of Reps (Ron Paul) who are out of the norm.
2. It boggles my mind that someone who calls themselves a Buddhist can be on the right. But then again Tiger Woods claims to be Buddist so there you go.
And the history of capitialism doesn’t reveal millions dead? You should work for Fixed News
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Spoken like a True Believer. Ever read Eric Hoffer’s book? It’s about you.
1. One of the most outspoken advocates of decriminalizing pot was Wm. F. Buckley, Jr, founder of modern conservatism.
2. Not all conservatives are Christian. I happen to be Buddhist.
“…don’t have much morality” speaks volumes. This, when the history of socialism reveals so many millions dead. From Stalin to Hitler, Pol Pot to Chavez– your vision of “morality” is beyond dubious.
January 6th, 2010 at 1:01 am
@DarkLordCallMeDickC, that very thing makes Maxine Waters an idiot.
January 8th, 2010 at 2:52 am
Spelling fix “illegal”
The Left are a bunch of cowards and hypocrits. That pretty much sums them up. They both sing from the same song sheet. The difference between Dems and Reps is the same as Coke and Pepsi-slightly different taste but still a cola.
January 10th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
The Right only wants people to think it wants to legislate morality. The fact is they don’t have much morality and this is why they put up the facade of being Christians-to appear this is what they are doing. The Right uses the anti-Government rhetoric because those on top don’t want Government interferring with certain practices that exploit the masses for the huge profits of the few. For example marijuana is illegalized because of the pharmaceutical industry, not because of morality.
January 11th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Hmm… sure. Let’s all be nicer. Great idea.
Just do me a favour. Don’t try to put that into law. I’d rather have the freedom to learn to discern greed from legitimate necessity, than to have some government official try and cram *his* values down my throat.
Isn’t it ironic, the Left thinks the Right wants to legislate morality, and the Right thinks precisely the same of the Left?
January 13th, 2010 at 5:34 am
There are people in this world who really do care about others and want to help them.
I believe there are win-win situations. It is greed and misunderstanding that make it appear there are winners and losers.
People need a common glue. Money is not it. Religion tries to accomplish this and succeeds in some small pockets of society. But without evil there is no good.