CHOICE IS FREEDOM AND LIBERTY----supposedly being REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE liberals took freedom from some to give choice to others. LIBERTARIANS/laissez faire doing anything you want -----always ends with extreme power---taking CHOICE away from 99.9% of people. That is what MOVING FORWARD is doing now.
CHOICE hit our national FAKE NEWS and cultural arts as a FAD these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ----who were advancing NO CHOICE BUT WORLD/IMF------this way or the highway.
TAKE YOUR BUSINESS SOMEWHERE ELSE---THAT IS YOUR CHOICE-----
'What does 'My way or the highway' mean? - UsingEnglish.com
My way or the highway What does 'My way or the highway' mean? This idiom is used to say that if people don't do what you say, they will have to leave or quit the project, etc'.
TOTALITARIANISM takes that TAKE YOUR BUSINESS SOMEWHERE ELSE--THAT'S YOUR CHOICE------OFF THE TABLE.
Everything becomes -------MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY
This is ME being illegally surveilled 24/7 video PORN-----with everyone from black market cartels to HOSTING SERVER BARBER SURGEONS telling me how to do the most basic of daily tasks.
Executive Order 13813, “Promoting Healthcare
Choice and Competition Across the United States,”
CHINESE SOCIAL CREDIT SCORE includes those choices in daily routine----especially surrounding health care. The AFFORDABLE CARE ACT-----installs Chinese social credit score----
So, my living space has HOSTING SERVER BARBER SURGEONS working hard to install telemedicine as SMART HOUSES-----telling me----MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY-----and I have NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG ILLEGAL VIDEO PORN telling me-----MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY.
My Way or the Highway! – #MTtalk Roundupby Yolande ConradieOctober 1, 2019
“Authority — when abused through micromanagement, intimidation, or verbal or nonverbal threats — makes people shut down and productivity ceases.”
John Stoker, U.S. businessman and communication expert.How often have you heard a good idea get shot down by a response along the lines of, “There’s only one right way, and that’s my way”? And did it carry the hidden threat that if you didn’t like it, then “there’s the door”?
In our latest #MTtalk, we explored how to handle people who adopt a “my way or the highway” approach to management.
About This Week’s Chat
Many years ago, I worked for a “my way or the highway” boss. He ran a civil engineering consultancy, and his wife was the office manager.
I was the youngest person in the office by a good number of years. When I started there, I couldn’t believe how outdated some of their systems were.
One day, even though I was still new, I asked him whether we could change the electronic filing system. He was the only person who understood his system, and it was a nightmare for the rest of us to find files and folders.
I suspected that he might not like such a suggestion, but I wasn’t prepared for his extreme reaction. His face turned red and he bellowed that he’d never heard such “nonsense” in his life. His system was perfectly logical, according to him.
Behind him, his wife appeared in the doorway with wide eyes. “But, Mr Peters…” I started. He turned an even deeper purplish-red and stomped away down the corridor.
A Deer in the Headlights
I must have had the classic “deer caught in the headlights” look. Mrs Peters apologized for his behavior, and told me that she’d tried to change the system for years – but he would have none of it. You either did things his way, or you were welcome to leave, and that included his wife!
While I worked there, I became increasingly nervous about every single thing I did. I couldn’t use my initiative, and it felt as if I wasn’t allowed to use my brain.
After work, I was as stressed as I was at the office. My fear of Mr Peters had become a scary “ghoul” that loomed behind me all the time.
Unlike the unfortunate Mrs Peters, I wasn’t married to the immovable boss, so I left just three months later. When I walked out on my last day, it felt like I had escaped from captivity.
Management by Fear and Intimidation
A manager with a “my way or the highway” approach usually resorts to using fear and/or intimidation to get their own way.
It almost beggars belief that this management style (if you can call it that) still exists in a world where we’ve made so much progress on so many fronts. Unfortunately, it’s still all too common. Worse, it even works sometimes!
People who work for a manager like this might be compliant on the surface and obey the rules. But they’re not likely to give everything they can at work. They won’t be fully engaged, and they won’t offer creative solutions to problems. Why put yourself at risk of a tongue-lashing if it’s easier to do what you’re told and fly under the radar?
Consequences of My Way or the Highway
It’s hard to determine what a “Mr Peters” can cost a company. The loss of creative thinking and innovation can’t be quantified. You don’t know what ideas people might conceive, and how they might have contributed to the company’s bottom line.
Productivity is also under fire: people will only do what they have to, and nothing more.
Customer service suffers because employees sometimes treat customers the way their boss treats them. Also, why would you stay in an oppressive environment? You wouldn’t, which means that good employees will leave, because talent is always in demand.
Exceptions to the Rule
There are exceptions when there’s only one right way to do something. For example, health and safety rules are rarely negotiable, and should be adhered to as much as possible.
Sometimes, when there’s a crisis or emergency, there might really be only one right way to do something, and that’s the way that will benefit most people in a situation. A rebel who wants to follow his own mind might endanger everybody’s well-being.
The symbols of CHOICE vs COMPETITION------are oxymoron----there will not be open freedom of choice if the goal is HYPER-COMPETITION. WINNERS AND LOSERS----with TOTALITARIANISM leaves everyone as LOSER. Competition is the mechanism of killing open societies-----opportunity and access for all-----which is CHOICE.
'Since the late 1970s, however, deregulation and a retreat from anti-trust enforcement has permitted growing monopolization–and declining choice–in not just retailing, but almost every sector of the economy, from airlines to hospitals, banks to communication companies'.
Here in the US we are being moved from freedom/liberty/choice----to MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY. The competition today involving global banking 5% freemason/Greek players killing the CHOICE of everyone else-------where those PLAYERS thrown under the bus make CHOICE for anyone DISAPPEAR.
The title below for this health care reform----is PROPAGANDA-----they corrupt the term CHOICE by connecting it with a STANFORD TOTAL PRISON MODEL of societal structure.
There will be NO CHOICE in health care courtesy of global health systems predatory and profiteering. If you want health care-----YOU WILL DO IT MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY.
Executive Order 13813, “Promoting Healthcare
Choice and Competition Across the United States,” directs the administration, to the extent consistent with law, to facilitate “the development and operation of a healthcaresystem that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people”by increasing consumer choice and promoting competition in healthcaremarkets and by removing and revising government regulation.
While AFFORDABLE CARE ACT sells that FAKE NEWS of competition in MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL MONOPOLIES across all industries-----WHICH KILL CHOICE--------below we watched this happen these few decades ----as it will in HEALTH CARE.
THERE WILL BE NO CHOICE IN GLOBAL PRIVATE MEDICAL MONOPOLIES.
We speak often of consolidated global FOOD and CONTROL of access ----NO FOOD CHOICE IN FOOD MONOPOLIES.
Consumer Choice & Monopoly
The American consumer enjoys more choices than ever before, or so it seems. A trip to the grocery store reveals aisle after aisle of varied products marketed under countless brand names to countless specifications. Big e-commerce sites like Amazon feature a still greater plethora of choices.
Yet all is not what appears to be. Take eyeglasses, for example. One can shop for them at Lenscrafters, Pearl Vision, or Target, and pick brands as varied as Oakley, Ray Ban and Gucci. But one company owns all these outlets and brands plus more, and this ownership controls most of the eyewear market. As of this writing that company, Luxxotica, is seeking to combine with lens-maker Essilor to gain even more dominance of everything optical.
Then there is Proctor and Gamble. Trying to decide which is the best paper towel, Bounty or Charmin? P&G owns them both. Best Shampoo? P&G owns Aussie, Head and Shoulders, Vidal Sassoon, and Herbal Essences. Best diaper? Whether you chose Pampers or Luvs, P&G wins. Best product to get your clothes clean? Tide, Gain, Downy, and Fairy all compete for your business, except they don’t really because they are all owned by P&G. Other brands you might think of as independent–from Old Spice to Gillette, from Tampax to Crest are actually anything but, as P&G controls them all.
The soft drinks aisle is even more monopolized. Pepsi and Coca-Cola control 69.5 percent of the soft-drink market between them. Their next largest rival, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, controls another large portion, so that the three collectively account for 86 percent of the entire industry. These firms, like so many others, acquire competitors to ensure they will control emerging markets as well as old standbys. Coca-Cola acquired Zico beverages, a producer of coconut water, in 2013, and in 2016 it purchased a soy-based drink brand–AdeS. In 2016, Dr. Pepper Snapple bought Bai Brands, a maker of a coffee fruit drink, while Pepsi bought KeVita, a Kombucha-brewer.
It’s a similar story with food products. Brands that seem to be independent and competing with each other often aren’t. As of 2014, Kraft owned Oscar-Meyer, Planters, Maxwell House, Jell–O, and Philadelphia Cream Cheese, while Heinz owned Weight Watchers frozen meals, Ore-Ida potatoes, and other brands alongside its massive condiment business. But in 2015, the two merged, so that now one company owns all of these brands and others.
Often even brands that are owned by different companies are produced by the same supplier so they don’t really offer the consumer any choice at all except in labels. Pet-owners witnessed this firsthand in 2007 when a recall of pet food from one factory expanded to cover dozens of brands–from Walmart’s store brand to higher-end products like Purina and Iams.
Just as the choice between different consumer products is often an illusion, so too is the choice between different retailers. The grocery stores Stop & Shop, Giant, Food Lion, Martin’s, and Peapod are all owned by one company–Ahold Delhaize.
Similarly, whether you shop and Albertson’s or Safeway you are doing business with the same company. An astounding 385 grocery mergers took place between 1996 and 1999. By 2012 just four companies claimed more than half of all grocery spending nationwide, and in many small towns across America Walmart was the only grocer left. Today, after a further round of mega mergers culminating in Amazon’s takeover of Whole Foods, the industry is even more concentrated and in danger of becoming monopolized by Amazon even in large metro areas.
In drug stores, the concentration is even greater. CVS, Walgreens, and Rite Aid collectively control 99 percent of the industry, and the latter two have sought to merge. Similarly, when you shop at Bloomingdales, you are really shopping at Macy’s, which itself long ago absorbed many of its other competitors, from Filene’s and Marshal Fields. Walmart meanwhile, not only monopolizes the grocery business in many locations, but also every other product category, from hardware, electronics, and garden supplies, to clothes, urgent care and car repairs.
When giant retailers like Amazon or Walmart put rivals out of business, this leads to a loss of consumer choice simply because there are fewer and fewer retail outlets. But monopoly also leads ultimately to there being fewer and fewer truly unique products for sale as well.
One reason is what’s called the “category captain system.” A dominant retailer like Kroger, for example, will take the biggest suppliers in a product category, such as, say, Frito-Lay in snacks, and make it the “captain” of its snack aisle, with responsibility for determining where competing snack products appear on the shelves of that section. What this means in practice is that Kroger gets a price concession (or legal kickback) from Frito-Lay’, while Frito-Lay gets to strangle its competitors by giving them inferior product placement, say at foot level rather than eye-level.
This system allows dominant producers to become even more powerful over their remaining competitors. Consumers, from whom this entire system is hidden, find their choices manipulated and limited by the arrangement, as growing market concentration reduces competition for the consumer’s dollar.
Another way consumer’s choice is limited by concentration comes when giant retailers strip profits and power away from their suppliers. This leverage is known as “monopsony power” and big retailers use it to bend suppliers to their will. Walmart, for instance, has told companies as powerful as Coca-Cola, Levi’s, and Disney what to put in their products. As Charles Fishman detailed in this book The Wal-Mart Effect, the company uses its purchasing power to pressure all its suppliers to cut wages and outsource production, which often means that suppliers must compromise product quality, variety, and innovation.
Another example of how monopsony power limits consumer choices comes from Amazon, which has forced book publishers to lower prices and thereby surrender more and more of their profits. This in turn has led to publishers taking far fewer risks on new writers and ambitious book projects, and to the collapse of the business model that previously sustained the production of books for a wide-variety of niche audiences.
To defend themselves against Amazon, publishers have merged frantically with each other, making an already highly concentrated publishing industry even more concentrated. The same dynamic is occurring throughout the consumer economy. Procter & Gamble acquired its longtime rival Gillette in 2005, in part to gain power in negotiations with Walmart. Colgate-Palmolive, facing the same pressures, followed suit–acquiring Tom’s of Maine in 2006 and Sanex in 2011.
These mergers and acquisitions among suppliers mean that consumers have fewer real choices in the products they buy, particularly over the long-term. Not only does the number of suppliers shrink, but as dominant firms become more and more entrenched, they become less innovative and less inclined to take risks on new or niche products,
This pattern of diminishing choice and rising concentration reflects a profound change from decades past. Throughout much of the twentieth century, Americans used anti-monopoly policies to preserve competition and guarantee decentralized markets in sectors as varied as retail, farming, eyeglasses, and airlines. The Robinson-Patman Act, for instance, allowed consumers to enjoy the benefits of shopping with a large and innovative retailer like Sears, while constraining Sears’ ability to undercut other retailers with predatory pricing. Similarly, federal regulation and anti-trust policies allowed for grocery stores to evolve into more efficient, convenient supermarkets, but did not allow chains like the A&P to grow so large that they squashed competition and denied consumers choices about where they purchased their food.
Since the late 1970s, however, deregulation and a retreat from anti-trust enforcement has permitted growing monopolization–and declining choice–in not just retailing, but almost every sector of the economy, from airlines to hospitals, banks to communication companies.
Meanwhile, industries which didn’t exist thirty years ago, like broadband internet, feature much less choice than they would if they weren’t dominated by a few monopolistic firms. Monopolies often present themselves as champions of consumer choice, but that is rarely true.
AMERICA is the symbol of freedom/liberty/rights and it is as well a SYMBOL of equality opportunity free market accessibility. MOVING FORWARD CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ----ended that and built global corporate monopoly cronyism-----the opposite of FREE MARKET AND CHOICE.
We want make a SMALL example---this is not important it simply shows how basic decisions are being vacated and often with NO APPLICABLE reason.
CROSSING IN CROSS WALKS IS A GOOD THING---MOST PEOPLE ABIDE BY THIS. SOMETIMES CUTTING ACROSS RATHER THAN WALKING TO BLOCK'S END----IS EASIER/FASTER.
'The issue has become such a problem that some towns, such as Fort Lee, New Jersey, have banned texting while walking. If caught texting while jaywalking in that town, violators face an $85 fine'.
We discuss this issue as an example of CHOICE. Personal responsibility to keep oneself safe----involves making good decisions. Why have pedestrian accidents grown?
PEOPLE USING TECHNOLOGY WHILE WALKING. INCREASING BAD DRIVERS.
SPEED CAMERAS line our roads often known for ERROR----CROSSWALK CAMERAS ticketing for jaywalking-----will do the same.
Why not make fines geared towards WALKING AND TEXTING?
'Jaywalkers beware: Police to ticket in 3 Michigan cities next week
Frank Witsil, Detroit Free Press Published 1:56 p.m. ET March 7, 2019 | Updated 10:01 a.m. ET March 8, 2019
Police in Detroit, Kalamazoo and Warren will be on the lookout next week for jaywalkers and bad drivers.
In Detroit, a jaywalking ticket — otherwise known as "pedestrian interference with traffic" -- could cost you $105; in Warren, $140'.
NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG take exception to my feeling OK with an occasional JAY WALK. They say we TRAIN OUR PEOPLE to always use the cross walk----I am a bad example.
OUR PEOPLE BECOME----MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY.
Making examples of people who are exercising ordinary FREEDOMS in this push to CHINESE SOCIAL CREDIT SCORE-----is ELIMINATING CHOICE.
Baltimore City does not yet have a JAY WALKING law----no fines----it uses education which is good.
NOSY NEIGHBORS then use PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE to tell a person in wheel car to cross without crosswalks------placing that person in DANGER ---just to say------THAT WOMAN THINKS IT IS OK TO JAY WALK----
The VIDEO posted earlier has a man waking up and thinking his day and how to make the day work best for him-----HE IS MAKING HIS CHOICES.
Point: Ticketing jaywalkers won’t solve the problem
- Nick Castner | Art by Ian Tredway
- Oct. 23, 2015
Walking to class is always rushed. Rolling out of bed at the calculated last minute, I begin my personal jam session as I hurry to my first class of the day. I constantly debate the quickest path while timing my walk perfectly to the music. Losing out on even more time waiting for a light is one of the reasons I’m distraught at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Police Department’s new policy of ticketing jaywalkers.
When I first heard that UNLPD was going to enforce pedestrian safety laws, I was in disbelief at the $58 fine. There are countless ways for a college student to spend $58. The last item chosen would be a fine, let alone when that expense is for walking to class in an unmarked area. The fines will be given in an attempt to protect pedestrians following a complaint about the 14th and Vine crosswalk, but they’ll do little at accomplishing that goal.