General Electric stops lending to gun shops
- Thread starter StrangeBird1911
- Start date
GE is a monster of a company and it probably won't do any good, but I did send them a message on their website complaining and telling them I would keep their name in mind when making future purchase and that since I found that Met Life was assisted by GE Financial, and my employer, ( a small business ), uses Met Life, I will decline from taking out the life insurance coverage and make a complaint to my company about using Met Life.
The hope is small, but I complain to my company, they hopefully drop Met Life and say it's because of their association with GE Financial and that company's political stance on Constitutional Amendments.
Anyway, I will do what little I can do. I don't need the life insurance anyway. My wife and I have enough for a coffin and a 3 x 5 plot under a shade tree.
The hope is small, but I complain to my company, they hopefully drop Met Life and say it's because of their association with GE Financial and that company's political stance on Constitutional Amendments.
Anyway, I will do what little I can do. I don't need the life insurance anyway. My wife and I have enough for a coffin and a 3 x 5 plot under a shade tree.
A major part of the problem is the increasing difficulty (near impossibility) to delineate between "Big Business" and "Big Govt." So many of the players have feet in both, supposedly separate realms.
With companies like J.P. Morgan, making all kinds of profit on Food Stamp cards and the like, we find ourselves having to deal with such unholy alliances.
In the case of G.E., it has such deep ties with the current administration that it is all but impossible to see any light between the two.
About all we, mere mortals can do at this point is put our money where our mouths are and continue to support those companies that, in this case, manufacture, distribute, sell and maintain firearms for the public market. This as we continue to keep a very close eye on the machinations of those in public office.
No magic pills here, to be sure.
With companies like J.P. Morgan, making all kinds of profit on Food Stamp cards and the like, we find ourselves having to deal with such unholy alliances.
In the case of G.E., it has such deep ties with the current administration that it is all but impossible to see any light between the two.
About all we, mere mortals can do at this point is put our money where our mouths are and continue to support those companies that, in this case, manufacture, distribute, sell and maintain firearms for the public market. This as we continue to keep a very close eye on the machinations of those in public office.
No magic pills here, to be sure.
As a contractor myself I see the light between the two very clearly.
On the one hand, I understand how those who do not experience actual interaction between civilian contractors and the government, can't see a difference.
But on the other hand, I know there is a big difference and it effects everything that goes on. There is a big "us vs them" thing going on and contractors refer to people who take government jobs as "going over to the dark side".
Over the last few years the advent of Security Company's like BlackWater has created the perception that contractors are just civilians getting paid to do a Soldier's job but without all the niceties and restrictions. I would say this is a very small part of the contractor world and even then this is based on the most cursory and inaccurate of assessments. No matter what the news says about them, it's just not the way they see and report it.
I can tell you one very bad result of all the bad press contractors have gotten over the last few years is that the Gov has been working hard to establish "oversight" on contractor activities. They are supposed to have oversight in regards to if the contract is being satisfied properly. But the are not supposed to have oversight to the degree that they are intimately involved in all the work and acting in a supervisory role. But the end result is that they are in fact acting as supervisors of contractors, which is not supposed to happen and is very bad. And this is happening widely enough and to such a degree that instead of being challenged it is becoming accepted instead.
On the one hand, I understand how those who do not experience actual interaction between civilian contractors and the government, can't see a difference.
But on the other hand, I know there is a big difference and it effects everything that goes on. There is a big "us vs them" thing going on and contractors refer to people who take government jobs as "going over to the dark side".
Over the last few years the advent of Security Company's like BlackWater has created the perception that contractors are just civilians getting paid to do a Soldier's job but without all the niceties and restrictions. I would say this is a very small part of the contractor world and even then this is based on the most cursory and inaccurate of assessments. No matter what the news says about them, it's just not the way they see and report it.
I can tell you one very bad result of all the bad press contractors have gotten over the last few years is that the Gov has been working hard to establish "oversight" on contractor activities. They are supposed to have oversight in regards to if the contract is being satisfied properly. But the are not supposed to have oversight to the degree that they are intimately involved in all the work and acting in a supervisory role. But the end result is that they are in fact acting as supervisors of contractors, which is not supposed to happen and is very bad. And this is happening widely enough and to such a degree that instead of being challenged it is becoming accepted instead.
All very good points, lcpiper.
My observation is more to the larger players in the game. Such as AIG, GM, GE, GS and the like. These institutions now know, they can carry on with no worry of blowing it. Uncle Sam's deep pockets will bail them out of their bad calls and poor decisions.
We even have the case of the "Banksters", basically giving the finger to those who would prosecute them for blatant violations of law. After all, go after them and they can play all sorts of mischief with the economies of those nations.
It is never easy, being the guy on the ground as Govt. types and bottom-liners try to find some means of coexistence, when it comes to contractors, to be sure.
My observation is more to the larger players in the game. Such as AIG, GM, GE, GS and the like. These institutions now know, they can carry on with no worry of blowing it. Uncle Sam's deep pockets will bail them out of their bad calls and poor decisions.
We even have the case of the "Banksters", basically giving the finger to those who would prosecute them for blatant violations of law. After all, go after them and they can play all sorts of mischief with the economies of those nations.
It is never easy, being the guy on the ground as Govt. types and bottom-liners try to find some means of coexistence, when it comes to contractors, to be sure.
Well, I would point out that there is a big difference between say a big Defense Contractor like Raytheon or General Dynamics, companies who's prime business is satisfying government requests/needs, and companies like AIG who are simply monetary power houses who have gotten so big that if they fail it's seen as a serious hurt to our economy.
That being said, in my opinion the one thing that should never happen is what happened with GM. The only reason the Government should ever take over a business is if the Government is going to nationalize a part of the private sector in it's entirety and that's not something to be done lightly.
That being said, in my opinion the one thing that should never happen is what happened with GM. The only reason the Government should ever take over a business is if the Government is going to nationalize a part of the private sector in it's entirety and that's not something to be done lightly.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
I sincerely hope you do not believe in any form of nationalizing the private sector.
Well that depends entirely on what part of the private sector we might be talking about. But I was very serious about the "not to be done lightly" part.
I am average smart, certainly not brilliant or gifted. So I don't have a crystal ball to see all the possible developments that could start out as private enterprises and later be deemed more appropriate to government management.
I'll take a leap tho to make some attempt at doing just that. This is only the wildest speculation ok.
Let's say the scientists really get the lock on genetics and there is a huge and promising future for virtually eliminating almost all disease and cancers. Of course business is booming, the drug companies are churning out the cures and it's huge but not everyone can afford these cures. In fact, 3/4ths of the US population can't afford any but the most basic cures involving infectious diseases.
The Feds try regulation, and all kinds of programs but for 30 years it basically goes no where. People are suffering and dieing and the cures are right there in our hands but the poor can't have them.
If this were the case, would you make the call to nationalize this part of the health sector and put it under the CDC or something like that?
Hmmm
That is a bit of a leap there, lcpiper.
Having seen the ability of Govt. to foul up even the most simple of tasks, I would resist any effort to put in place such power as you suggest. The chances of abuse, let alone temptation towards corruption are just too powerful.
After all, have you see what passes for political leadership, these days?
That is a bit of a leap there, lcpiper.
Having seen the ability of Govt. to foul up even the most simple of tasks, I would resist any effort to put in place such power as you suggest. The chances of abuse, let alone temptation towards corruption are just too powerful.
After all, have you see what passes for political leadership, these days?
The goverment is subsidizing all kinds of crap from energy,cell phone service,housing,education,cars....all kinds of crap. They may not take it over but they make the industry rely on its money. They also put all kinds of regulations of industry and business in general. Thats how they control without "taking it over". 
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
I can't think of anything. The nationalized postal office is in the constitution of all places and its still bankrupt.
Ok, so what if 3/4ths of the population can't afford them? They couldn't afford cars at first, and now everyone can afford them. People often forget that natural competition and market forces drives the cost of products down over time. When the prices are naturally driven down, rather than through deflation, subsidizing, or price controls, a stable market will allow the greatest amount of people to benefit. This amount of people will only expand over time. You can't waive a magic wand and make it magically available and affordable for everyone without severe consequences. See: Gov't debt.
I'll just quote Thomas Sowell.
"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, and a government bureaucracy to administer it."
Again, with respect, nothing can bung up the works of any prosperous business or best of intentions than letting Govt. near it... Let alone control it.
The problem, those in office and, more to the point, their cronies and such who actually do "the work" have no real "skin in the game". The private sector, when not being founded by tax money, has to run with some efficiency while showing a profit. This tends to weed out the truly stupid or less than stellar ideas and their supporters.
A prime example is the comparative ease in firing a bad employee in the private (non-union) sector and the near impossibility of firing someone in a Govt. job.
With promised pensions and job security, there is no real drive to produce respectable results as there is in the private sector.
The problem, those in office and, more to the point, their cronies and such who actually do "the work" have no real "skin in the game". The private sector, when not being founded by tax money, has to run with some efficiency while showing a profit. This tends to weed out the truly stupid or less than stellar ideas and their supporters.
A prime example is the comparative ease in firing a bad employee in the private (non-union) sector and the near impossibility of firing someone in a Govt. job.
With promised pensions and job security, there is no real drive to produce respectable results as there is in the private sector.