Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its funny when I see people arguing about skin color, nationality, the way someone speaks, etc... In 2014, we are fighting each other over the wrong things. Muslims or Christians or whites or blacks aren't the enemies we should be seeking out, its corporations and the people that support/sympathize with them.
Imagine a world where we wouldn't be slaves to conglomerates. Free your mind.
inb4 communism, I am not support any type of communism at all, I am supporting a revolution to the next step in the economic cycle because "capitalism" is no longer efficient.
Wrong. Conglomerates are dependent on someone else.
That someone else is international financial elite, aka credit holders. They control ALL the money, even the largest corporations depend on.
You get financial elite - you get the REAL masters of this world, based on thing called money.
Never forget what ol man Rothschild said - Allow me to issue country's money, and care I not, who issues its laws.
It is a way for raising capital that reduces the risk of failure. Corporations are a form of business where the risk of failure is limited to the value of the stock the individual owns. the alternative is a self ownership (restricts the capital available) or a partnership. the problem with these organizations is the risk of failure is extended beyond to value of their shares to their entire personal fortunes. This explains the popularity of the corporate form to investors.
Our current economic problems are NOT caused by Corporations. They are caused by the managers of these corporations colluding with each other to reduce risk by preventing other corporations from competing in the market. Collusive cartels can agree to restrict entry and prevent members from cutting prices to increase their market shares. They realize competition cuts both control and profit. Frequently these managers use corporate money to influence politicians using everything from "seed money", "campaign contributions to a PAC", "promises of a corporate job after the pol leaves office" to direct bribes. The politician(s) then do their master's bidding instead of their citizen's needs.
The problem is not corporate business forms but their propensity to control markets and suborn politicians by colluding with each other. The market and the rest of us are the losers.
The solution is to strongly enforce the Anti-Trust laws with corporate dissolution, heavy fines and managerial imprisonment. Our representatives have to declare their independence of their corporate masters. That is the Revolution we need but, under the current circumstances, will never get until the system completely collapses.
Politically we do not need another Bill Clinton. We need another Theodore Roosevelt.
I can agree with the diagnosis, but not the remedy.
As both Greg and I understand, the problem is the linkage of the corporate form of organization with the power of the state (and by "the state", I mean all embodiments of concentrated, if not absolute power).
Government is nothing more than a monopoly on the use of force -- via the military, law enforcement, the corrections system, and the recognized authority of the court systems -- civil as well as criminal. When government engages in other activities -- anything from collecting refuse to operating an airport -- it does so because the powers in control of the state, usually via the parliamentary process, have decided that the function in question is not suited to private-sector operation (although It may permit private competition in some fields.
The corporate form of organization evolved in recognition that many enterprises were beyond either the financial or managerial capability of individuals[ in the process, standardized products evolved (and the public apparently approved) as did standardized rules and procedures, and delegation of authority.
From the point of view of the individual participant, the corporate world is a near-absolute oligarchy. The power structure revolves around complete submission and obedience once decisions are reached and policies are formulated. The fastest way to guarantee that an individual won't advance is to say "No!"
And the organization of any enterprise -- public as well as private -- is a pyramid. When Jeff Bezos and a small circle of friends founded Amazon.com, the problem quickly defined itself, Everybody loved to see the orders piling up. but nobody wanted to face the daily grind of sorting, packing and shipping. It's the same in any enterprise, and the larger the enterprise, and the greater the insulation from the levers of power, the greater the resentment. Thus arises the ugly fact of "class warfare".
And finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that the increasing diversity within the work force. People with a common trait or interest can band together, but they are only able to advocate and defend thier interests as part of a trade-off. Smaller groups get fewer options, and the smallest minority -- the individual -- gets the fewest options of all.
And it also needs to be emphasized that in the emerging post-industrial economy, service, too often at the personal level commands a higher proportion of our disposable income than ever before. And a substantial and growing segment of "the public" expects, if not demands it. In the process, we are forfeiting on of our strongest assets -- the virtue of self-reliance. Not all of us are equipped to spend a large part of our working days indulging foibles, but the price of refusing to do so is increasing, and more and more "lone nuts" seem likely to fall through the cracks.
My personal preference lies with empowering the responsible individual; to allow the competent employee to define in advance the abuses of corporate and/or supervisory authority to which he/she will not submit, and quite possibly, to reduce the level of empowerment and security in the event of criminal or irresponsible behavior.
The game seems certain to get crazier. but the one player I fear most is Big Brother/Sister, whether dressed in a uniform or a three-piece suit.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 05-18-2014 at 02:36 PM..
I can agree with the diagnosis, but not the remedy.
As both Greg and I understand, the problem is the linkage of the corporate form of organization with the power of the state (and by "the state", I mean all embodiments of concentrated, if not absolute power).
Government is nothing more than a monopoly on the use of force -- via the military, law enforcement, the corrections system, and the recognized authority of the court systems -- civil as well as criminal. When government engages in other activities -- anything from collecting refuse to operating an airport -- it does so because the powers in control of the state, usually via the parliamentary process, have decided that the function in question is not suited to private-sector operation (although It may permit private competition in some fields.
The corporate form of organization evolved in recognition that many enterprises were beyond either the financial or managerial capability of individuals[ in the process, standardized products evolved (and the public apparently approved) as did standardized rules and procedures, and delegation of authority.
From the point of view of the individual participant, the corporate world is a near-absolute oligarchy. The power structure revolves around complete submission and obedience once decisions are reached and policies are formulated. The fastest way to guarantee that an individual won't advance is to say "No!"
And the organization of any enterprise -- public as well as private -- is a pyramid. When Jeff Bezos and a small circle of friends founded Amazon.com, the problem quickly defined itself, Everybody loved to see the orders piling up. but nobody wanted to face the daily grind of sorting, packing and shipping. It's the same in any enterprise, and the larger the enterprise, and the greater the insulation from the levers of power, the greater the resentment. Thus arises the ugly fact of "class warfare".
And finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that the increasing diversity within the work force. People with a common trait or interest can band together, but they are only able to advocate and defend thier interests as part of a trade-off. Smaller groups get fewer options, and the smallest minority -- the individual -- gets the fewest options of all.
And it also needs to be emphasized that in the emerging post-industrial economy, service, too often at the personal level commands a higher proportion of our disposable income than ever before. And a substantial and growing segment of "the public" expects, if not demands it. In the process, we are forfeiting on of our strongest assets -- the virtue of self-reliance. Not all of us are equipped to spend a large part of our working days indulging foibles, but the price of refusing to do so is increasing, and more and more "lone nuts" seem likely to fall through the cracks.
My personal preference lies with empowering the responsible individual; to allow the competent employee to define in advance the abuses of corporate and/or supervisory authority to which he/she will not submit, and quite possibly, to reduce the level of empowerment and security in the event of criminal or irresponsible behavior.
The game seems certain to get crazier. but the one player I fear most is Big Brother/Sister, whether dressed in a uniform or a three-piece suit.
The individual worker has never had any power other than his own volition (quitting) to act in his self interest. Unions have done more to advance the well being of workers than any other institution, private or state. But look at the current state of unions and you'll see the failure of it's members to exercise any control (lack of democracy) as being the modern form of most labor collectives.
Power doesn't operate in a political OR social vacuum wherein the worker would be able to exert his influence, the realization of this truth isn't something that workers can easily grasp, most think they can become "organized" or worse yet, feel that they, as individuals, can just simply act in their own self interest and business will see the wisdom in allowing that interest to become part of the overall goal equal to the making of profits. The OP has equated the corporate construct to power, but, power operates in many social AND political constructs in order to remain in a dominate position relative to that of the worker.
The fact that corporate power is simply a "type" of power means that we will need to address ALL types of power when attempting to bring real democracy to our society, and in doing so we'll be getting to the heart of what most people would like to see, a balance of interests, accomplished by a balance of power.
I am a capitalist. And I am not being hypocritical when I say I agree with the statement on this thread.
Corporations = government.
At the same time it's all on libertarian FB blogs the progressive neverending roundabout argument: "Corporations run the government therefore we need bigger government to rule the" - and these words go around in a circle. This is so true, which is one reason why I know "progressivism" is a mental disease.
Government is a tool, nothing more and nothing less, the question before us is who wields the tool, corporations or the people. I would argue that by making the government the locus of the problem obscures who controls the tool. So to borrow from the NRA, "governments don't oppress people, people do" (especially now that corporations are people according to the Supreme Court).
As for progressives... I don't know of any progressives who argue for "bigger" government, whatever bigger government actually means, just a government that effectively balances the rights and power of the vast majority of citizens verses the power that grants inordinate rights to corporations.
My personal preference lies with empowering the responsible individual; to allow the competent employee to define in advance the abuses of corporate and/or supervisory authority to which he/she will not submit, and quite possibly, to reduce the level of empowerment and security in the event of criminal or irresponsible behavior.
The game seems certain to get crazier. but the one player I fear most is Big Brother/Sister, whether dressed in a uniform or a three-piece suit.
Well heavens to betsy, can we be in agreement (with some caveats) on an issue?
While after a fast read have to say that I generally, with reservation, what you've outlined in your post, I hasten to point out that empowering any number of individuals cannot be a counter balance to the power that goes along with money and the access that money provides.
Its funny when I see people arguing about skin color, nationality, the way someone speaks, etc... In 2014, we are fighting each other over the wrong things. Muslims or Christians or whites or blacks aren't the enemies we should be seeking out, its corporations and the people that support/sympathize with them.
Imagine a world where we wouldn't be slaves to conglomerates. Free your mind.
inb4 communism, I am not support any type of communism at all, I am supporting a revolution to the next step in the economic cycle because "capitalism" is no longer efficient.
Moderator cut: against forum guidelines It's not the corporations. It's not the people. It's not those evil rich people Moderator cut: off topic
The Government is the problem. PERIOD. This isn't hard. NOTHING happens until the government politician is standing there with his hand out. NOTHING happens.
If the government pol doesn't take the $ under the table, nothing happens.
Pork barrel spending? GOVERNMENT issue.
Gerrymandering? GOVERNMENT
Political action committees weren't formed because of the "evil rich" They were formed because of the Government.
Are they hand in hand to a degree? Absolutely. However, if you stop the flow of money to the politicians, many these issues you leftists act like you hate, go away.
Do the research. How many politicians came into politics wealthy? Answer? Some.
How many are MUCH better off now financially, than when they started? Answer? ALL OF THEM
Put your misguided anger in the correct spot people. Stop idolizing the government and realize that THEY are the problem. Not our citizens
Last edited by Oldhag1; 05-19-2014 at 03:54 PM..
Reason: Please read forum guideline in the stickies at the top of the forum thread page. Posts need to be civil.
My experience is exactly the opposite. Government regulation is more necessary today than ever before.
1. Never before in the history of the planet have so few people owned so much. Not only that, but the corporations are being allowed to become so big that they become "too big to fail" because one bad decision can affect not only the U.S. Economy, but the world economy as well.
Not only that, but we have reached a technological age where one person can destroy an entire region of the planet. The toxic chemicals created today combined with the amount they can create to service a worldwide economy can destroy millions of square miles for hundreds of years. And they can do it with impunity. A first or second time marijuana user often is sentenced for a longer term in prison than the CEOs and Corporate boards that decide to cut costs. If an accident happens such as an oil spill from a ship or worse from a pump like in the gulf because of this, they declare bankruptcy and start work again with another shell company. There are hudreds of examples of this.
2. The Corporations have destroyed the middle class. Unregulated greed, corporate influence in politics, unregulated news and the few people that own it all contribute to it. Look at the average CEO or board member salary vs. the average worker, look at how much the top 1% owns vs. the bottom 99%. Look at who owns the media outlets and control information. Look at the laws that someone making a million in investments can pay less than school teacher.
3. Lastly, just look at healthcare. Insurance companies compete not on who does better but who has to pay out the least. There are so many factors in this but the bottom line is if you haven't been terminally sick, you may not have seen it. They will stop treatments that I require to live because of an audit of my care that can take months. That means months with no medicine when they know my condition is permanent requiring expensive regular treatments. If they can deny me this once or twice a year they save tens of thousands. And this is a company (my wife's) that we paid into for 25 years without really a claim.
I have many friends that we debate this. It is a very complex dynamic, but most economists agree that we can't allow what happened in 2008 to happen again, and it happened because of the removal of regulation. When they crash, we pay the price, they get a golden parachute.
Moderator cut: off topic
1. The American people are more prosperous OVERALL from top to bottom than ANY COUNTRY EVER in the history of this planet.
Our poor are mostly not "poor". Travel the world and you will see that what you call poor are among the wealthiest in the world.
2. No. No. NO. The GOVERNMENT is the one destroying the middle class. This 1% argument is a joke.
It's laughable how people somehow have been convinced that in order for someone else to succeed, you have to take it away from someone else. CRAZY.
3. Moderator cut: against forum guidelines Don't confuse health insurance with health CARE. It should have been called ObamaInsurance. Not Obamacare.
The insurance industry has some issues but most of those problems are caused by the GOVERNMENT. Portable coverage? Health care tied to employment?
We needed to address the health CARE industry. Not the health INSURANCE industry. People don't know the true cost of a procedure when they walk in the hospital. What other industry is that allowed? Look into the bureaucratic red tape that that industry has to jump through and you wonder why costs are so high? Hint, it's not the insurance industry's fault.
Moderator cut: off topic
Last edited by Oldhag1; 05-19-2014 at 03:52 PM..
Reason: Please read Great Debates guidelines in the stickies at the top of the forum thread page
It's not the corporations. It's not the people. It's not those evil rich people.
Quote:
However, if you stop the flow of money to the politicians, many these issues you leftists act like you hate, go away.
Simple question. After the Government® attempted to circumvent money in the political system, who brought the suit Citizen United v Federal Election Committee? Government? Was it the Government® that brought McCutheon et.al v Federal Election Committee before the Supreme Court? For some reason I think not.
Which is the puzzlement that I have about folks who still focus on government, the tool, instead of who has the tool firmly in hand.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 05-19-2014 at 03:55 PM..
Reason: Edited quote
Why people would look at or think that corporations are their enemy is beyond me. If it were up to me, I would dramatically cut government regulations so as to reduce business overhead and business restrictions, both of which are a burden on business incentive and business competitiveness.
The private sector is America's production engine, The public sector is pure overhead; i.,e, it's but support for the private sector. The public sector never made America great, and it never will.
Moreover, because the public sector has become so bloated and overpaid -- government workers receive twice in pay and benefits what private sector workers earn -- I seriously doubt that America will ever again attain significant GDP growth; i.e., until we default on our massive debt and America will be in a position to reconstruct a competitive national business model.
My experience has taught me that people who truly study throughout their school days to prepare themselves for a career -- and continually study once their career starts --can and will usually do quite well in the private sector. An old idiom goes: "as we sow, so shall we reap." Far more often than not, I have found that to be incredibly true.
We cannot do away with regulations- cutting back on regulations is exactly what led to the 2008 economic meltdown- without strict regulations and enforcement of those regulations, companies will do everything possible to weasel their way into more profits, even if it puts them or their customers at huge risk- again like what happened in 2008. In the perfect world companies would play fair, they would have only the best intentions and well being of everyone in mind with everything they do- but in the real world that is not the case, so we need regulations to babysit companies to make sure they do play within a set of boundaries to keep them from royally messing up or screwing over the entire population.
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
James Madison, Federalist #51
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
