But what Exxon says will always be biased towards Exxon profits, and against the environmental health! And against worker rights.
My example was an oil price projection. An oil price projection doesn’t have anything to do with any of those issues.
I will say here that you are fast becoming a poster child for irresponsible liberalism, which is quite different than “responsible liberalism”, which is fact based. Obviously, in any economic projection, you take the biases of the organization into the account, if they logically could affect the projection in a substantive way. That is not the case here; you inserted your own biases without a thought as to if they were relevant or not.
In the case of an analysis or projection which could be substantively biased, then you of course match that with other projections. For example, you might match up a projection of environmental impact of fracking operations made by Marathon Oil with one made by the Sierra Club; both organizations will reflect their biases in their projections; the truth is someplace in between.
And the same is true, btw, of the government. They are not unbiased, either. If the government is promoting a particular policy, you can rest assured that analyses published by them will hew to that line. And never assume the government is looking out for your best interests. Either party.
Wilbur Ross: as far as I know, he buys companies, piles the purchase debts on them, gets rid of most worker (and worker rights), and sells them at a huge profit.
Then you know nothing of Wilbur Ross. He operates in precisely the opposite of that “corporate raider” M.O. you’ve described. If you are reading a source which told you that Ross operates as you have described, then they are deliberately lying to you and you shouldn’t refer to them anymore.
Peter Navarro: the established economists (professors, Nobel laureates etc.) say he is a total outsider that nobody takes serious.
The same was said about Galileo. :-). However, Navarro’s views on the effects of global trade are the same as those embraced by Bernie Sanders. His views on currency manipulation have been also voiced by Charles Schumer. So, it’s a bit of weak tea to complain about Navarro, when so many liberals wanted to elect a different President that also agreed with him. Sanders wouldn’t have agreed with Navarro’s solutions, but he was certainly sympatico with his problem assessments.
His Industry Councils. I am sorry, but this gives me a good laugh. He invites the swamp back in…
Well, now we’re getting down to what your actual confusion is grounded in; you think that major industrialists are “the swamp”. They were never the swamp.
The people who best know how the economy works are those that engage with it daily. To them, supply and demand is not an abstract concept; nor does it involve (like Wall Street) the manipulation of financial instruments to produce wealth. It is daily reality. You build something or provide something, you get paid for it based on the value it provides. Simple.
And once you grasp that, you realize how nonsensical it is to suggest that they want to impoverish anyone. You can’t sell widgets to people who have no money. They are all acutely aware that American goes forward together, not divided.
What you illogical liberals fail to understand is that corporations are not the enemy; they are the vehicle by which the rest of us live our lives. Our objectives are joined at the hip. Yes, it is indeed possible to get out of balance, sometimes badly (leading to the 20th century labor movements) and the profit-worker relationship will always be terse; however, their objectives (prosperity for their company) are aligned with our objectives (prosperity for our families).
Put another way: there is no scenario you can imagine where the people prosper and the corporations do not. None. Nada. Never. Not possible.
Regarding Sessions: the written questions BELONG to the hearings, they are the same thing. You say he may lie if its a written question?
(Amused, watches you backtrack and move the goalposts)
- YOU said that he was asked in hearings. The written questions are not the hearings, although they become part of the official record. Good that you’ve gotten that straight.
- Yes, the written questions are considered to be under oath. Leahy asked him if he had spoken to Russians about elections. Sessions said that he hadn’t. Thus, not a lie. One can argue that Sessions should have raised his other meetings as germane to the general scope of the question, but taking the question literally, he answered truthfully based on what we know at this time.
And Sessions was an official of Trumps team, and talking with the Russians at election events, so everything was about the election. (Do you think they talked about the weather?).
You may feel free to write whatever fictionalized account of the encounter you like; perhaps it can be sold to Hollywood. However, many senators we now have learned met with the Russians during the campaign and within the last two years; Two prominent Democrats who first denied that they had (Pelosi, McCaskill) had to recant when evidence to the contrary appeared. So, evidently, we have a lot to talk about with them. :-)
(Why didn’t Sessions say “Yes, I met with Russians, but we did not talk about the election.” A respectable honest person would have said that. But he did not. He just seems to be a well trained liar?).
Again, you may write anything into your movie script that you like. The rest of us work off of fact, not conjecture, and we don’t attempt amateur psychoanalysis based on what we think somebody should have done or said.