Markk wrote:How is putting all those restrictions, jailing folks, giving 48% of all major corporations to the workers, not dismantling the status quo of corporations or even large privately owned companies?
I’ll type more slowly this time:
Stating a generalized goal as a candidate does not translate into reality post- election (see:
Trump, Donald; w/regard to mproving trade deficits, reducing our debt or practicing fiscal responsibility, classifying China as a currency manipulator, replacing Obamacare with “something better”, achieving consistent GDP growth of 3% or better, etc.). See my two previous posts (and answer my question about breaking up “too big to fail” banks).
But let’s discuss:
1. How does removing corrupt corporate players, if they indeed needed to be jailed, destroy a company? And why would you see that as a bad thing?
2. Why do you seem to think that anti-trust actions have never existed previous to this election? What happened when ATT was broken up? Did America fall behind on telephone technology and investors lose their chance to be part of the telecom industry afterwards?
3. How would Sanders - if he’s your example - ‘destroy’ a company through some of his inclusiveness proposals?
Don’t you work within an industry that operates on razor-thin margins? Haven’t you ever seen companies that undergo reorganization through bankruptcy, even? You act as if anything that Sanders has said somehow restricts a company from being profitable when far worse situations don’t have that effect on many companies, or already occur more often.
Seriously, use McDermott International as an example - a company almost 100 years old that is currently restructuring through Chapter 11 bankruptcy to deal with almost 10 billion dollars in debt. Even with that, they’re not going anywhere anytime soon.
