Corporations and Corporatism

[Kyran]

I recently got my hands on some amazing intellectual material and wanted to share it with you all. This article explains our current economic system; one that is a union of capitalism and socialism.

Source by Robert Locke:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=3054

In summary, Big Government has a bedfellow named Big Business. The government uses it's largess to inhibit small business growth and to create it's ability to work major deals with corporations. In turn, the private sector makes it possible for easy enforcement of regulations and taxes.

For example, the Howard Stern incident is Big Business preserving it's friendship with government; infringing on one person's rights instead of contesting the FCC decision in a court of law. Clear Channel is playing ball, so they may be up for a good deal soon.

Let's discuss this issue and try to find a solution.

[Scribbler1]

I agree to a point. I don't think government deliberately inhibits small businesses, but I do think that the larger a company grows, the more the government "overlooks" violations (labor law violations, poor environmental practices, anti-trust activities, etc.) which the smaller outfits must abide by to the letter.

[Compugasm]

Agree. Especially about the Fannie Mae loans. Also, his "New York" example is the same thing in California. There is even a sign on the Arizona border with the Govenator saying "Come back" to all the business that have left. A solution? ask Libertarians. No magic pill, but if there was any party or set of ideals to counter corporatism, there is nothing else available.

[castille]

Well if you consider that when a big company collapses, thousands of people lose their jobs, and a good deal of the economy literally disappears overnight, it makes sense the government would try to prevent this...

Corruption however is on an individual level. There is no corrupt government, only a corrupt people.

[Kyran]

To be honest, gentlemen, I didn't have the foggiest notion that the republicans really gave taxpayer money to private interests until Dubya handed Boeing $20 billion of our labor. See, when I say "No welfare" I mean exactly that.

Since corporatism is socialism for the bourgeious, the solution must be capitalist. People need economic independence in order to stop the cycle. The example I provided occurs does because nobody cares to have control over their taxmoney; otherwise they would vote libertarians into office.

Options:
1. Convert the majority of Americans to capitalists and vote
2. Revolt

Why try to fix the government with the government anyway? Now, unless somebody else has a bright idea then everyone better start listening up, because I do.

I'm not going to publicize it, but I invite you all to make a decision right here and right now: capitalism, socialism, or corporatism. If you want don't want capitalism, meaning you despise the idea of having say-so over your taxdollars, then you deserve to be ruled by corporations. I'm sorry, but socialism for the rich or poor is still socialism to me. And I'm not having it.

If you're willing to volunteer your help, we can change the system within the duration of a presidency. Drop me a message and I'll respond with instructions. My plan is quite simple and effective. Once you've carried it out successfully and provided proof, I'll explain how it works over a steak dinner on me.

[Technosoul]

How about a pizza instead of a steak dinner? (gotta help out them folks high schoolers). By the way I checked most of the pizza huts and most of the folks employed were adults and they had few if any teenagers driving around to deliver those pies.

But that is not important anyway.

You make an important point. How can we use the government to fix what is wrong with the government?

Also, how can we expect cooperations or big industry to be self-regulating or to fix the problems they might effect (upon environment, working conditions, etc.)

Also, how can we expect socialism to fix some of the problems relative to that system?

Now grass roots movements could be effective because we hold much of the buying power and voting power. But even the "we the people" or the "power to the people" movements have problems that need fixing, such as the problem of not being able to gain majority involvement.

So we now have a system (idealistically) where one group fixes the ohter group and visa versa. Which needs fixing also because of all the game playing and conflicts of power it encourages.

Money, why fix my own flat tire if I can afford to pay someone else to do my dirty work.

In the past they had what was called a handy man, he could fix all our problems for us. But nowadays we got specialization in effect, a certified plumber is not a certified electrison. A doctor cannot put on his other hat and become your auto repairman. A layman has no idea what a lawyer is talking about nor could he undertand the terms used when one plumber is talking to another plumber. They all have their own personalized words that no one else is using.

We think a President should be the Handy Man who can fix everything, but those days are long gone. A President needs a staff of hundreds of specialized people to appear knowagable.

I doubt if lumping many specialized groups like the firemen, the policemen, the CIA and FBI agents, and our boarder patrol people into one big blob called the Homeland Security Department is going to do the trick expecially if you got one pea-brain as the top dog supervisor of all those individual activites.

We have big cooperations lumped together with big governemnt lumped together with with welfare programs such as our school system and how did that fix things so that we have a lean machine? And yet if we seperate them all or remove some of them will that fix it?

Do we use tape to fix our flat tire? Do we use redtape to fix our culture?

It seems totally mindblowing.

But a least we are still up and running and in spite of the rattles the old car is getting us along the road. So guess it is as bad as all that.

So government is like a pizza, you can make it simple, cheese only please, or you can complex it up with a lot of toppings.

Place you order please.

technosoul.

corporatism is bad for workers and consumers, because corporations are interested in making money for their top executives/stockholders before making a good product or paying their workers adequate wages. they milk the company in every way they can, taking from workers' benefits, using crappier quality materials and production methods, and the result is a worse economy lesser products that compete poorly on the world market.

they don't see it as their responsibility to care for their workers or help them earn living wages, although they provide thousands of jobs.

[PatrickHenry]

It all comes down to
[SIZE=2]ETHICS[/SIZE]

Here's a question. You probably don't know the answer.
Which corporations have an ethical structure that includes anything but the bottom line?

There is an investment strategy known as "socially responsible investing", right?
http://www.socialinvest.org/

http://www.socialinvest.org/areas/research...Report_2003.pdf

Socially and environmentally responsible investing in the United States has proven remarkably robust during 2001 and 2002 despite sluggish market conditions that have resulted in a downturn in assets in the wider investment universe. Most notably, socially screened portfolios counted by this Report grew seven percent, while the broader universe of professionally managed portfolios fell four percent. Highlights of the 2003 Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends in the United States include: TOTAL SRI ASSETS. A total of $2.16 trillion in assets was identified in professionally managed portfolios using one or more of the three core socially responsible investing strategies – screening, shareholder advocacy, and community investing. SHARE OF TOTAL UNIVERSE. More than one out of every nine dollars under professional management in the United States today is involved in socially responsible investing. The $2.16 trillion managed by major investing institutions — including pension funds, mutual fund families, foundations, religious organizations, and community development financial institutions — has remained stable, accounting for 11.3 percent of the total $19.2 trillion in investment assets under professional management in the United States, nearly equal to 2001. IMPRESSIVE GROWTH — TODAY AND OVER TIME. From 1995 to 2003, since the inception of the Forum’s publication of biennial Trends Reports, assets involved in social investing, through screening of retail and institutional funds, shareholder advocacy, and community investing, have grown 40 percent faster than all professionally managed investment assets in the U.S. Investment portfolios involved in SRI grew by more than 240 percent from 1995 to 2003, compared with the 174 percent growth of the overall universe of assets under professional management over the same time period. SCREENED PORTFOLIOS. Total assets under management in portfolios counted by this Report employing one or more social screens rose seven percent between 2001 and 2003, while the broader universe of all professionally managed portfolios fell four percent during the same time period. A total of $2.14 trillion in socially screened portfolios was identified, up from the $2.01 trillion reported in 2001. Of the $2.14 trillion in socially screened portfolios, $1.99 trillion are found in separate accounts (portfolios privately managed for individuals and institutions) and $151 billion reside in mutual funds. MUTUAL FUNDS. Assets in socially screened mutual funds identified by this Report grew by 11 percent, to $151 billion, up from $136 billion in 2001.

Is it worth doing to promote investing in companies with some ethics beyond the usual hardscrabble?
http://www.socialfunds.com/

Maybe weapons contractors and tobaccco and liquor are too profitable, and the investing public too lacking in ethics to care...[SIZE=2]BUT [/SIZE] if there was a public move towards ethics in investing, wouldn't that rising market force changes in the corporate ethic?

[Comrade]

Well, yeah, if people started liking ethics in the corporate world, investors would see those companies that do as more valuable. Unfortunately for this idea, investors are interested in making the most money.
(same goes for consumers, with price)

Some shrimp companies sell there shrimp with whatever sign that says they didn't kill dolphins when shrimping. Some people like that and would rather buy it than something else.

Me, I only like buffalo popcorn shrimp, and I don't like dolphins, so it doesn't matter to me.

[Technosoul]

well Comrade is taking pride about how great it is that he is part of the problem that reasonable people want to fix.

An interesting phychological trick.

Why debate if you can hate.

Interesting defense for non-responsabilty.

Oh hum.

Technosoul.

[Comrade]

What?
You just wrote a post about how I'm The Problem™ and then accused me of hate.

I'm not sure what you read into my post, but I have no idea what your response is about.

[Technosoul]

Hi comrade

The remarks you are concerned about came about in reponse to that part of your other message where you said that you could care less if a tuna can is marked "Dolphin Safe" or not, because you eat shrimp. You said you don't like Dolphins.

And so because the environmentalists (me) worked hard via grass roots movements to have the fishing industry stop using nets that kill Dolphins needlessly we clearly saw that as a "problem". Because we got a lot of people to stop eating tuna until they agreed to stop using those kinds of nets. So the industry had to change their ways to get back their buyers. Now we have cans that say "Dolphin safe" so the buyer can know which companies are NOT (no longer) part of the problem.

People who continue to eat fishing products where the cans are not marked as Dolphin safe are thusly as much a part of the problem as are the fishermen who do like Dolphins and give a hoot about what they are doing.

However I guess I could withdraw that remark because I am not sure if shrimp live in Dolphin waters or in the Golf of Mexico, etc.

However it is that attitude of not caring that allows a problem to continue unchecked, and my impression was that could care less if the cans are marked Dolphin safe or not.

It was my impression that do not like Dolphins because you hate envrionmentalists who you perhaps believe are all liberals, democrats, or hippies. As the Dolphin might symbolize a liberal because of their human-like compassion.

All that I read "between the lines" of your message (not from the actual words), which is a kind of liberal version of the thought police.

However you can set the record stright and say that you love Dolphins and do not want fishermen to use those unsafe kinds of nets when fishing for tuna or some other food product. And you can say that you do not hate environmentalists for how we attempt to control industy (as symoblized in those Dolphin Safe emblems on those cans).

If you do that then it is clear I missunderstood the intent of your remarks.

Your turn.
Technosoul.

[Liberty Landing]

And so because the environmentalists (me) worked hard via grass roots movements to have the fishing industry stop using nets that kill Dolphins needlessly we clearly saw that as a "problem". Because we got a lot of people to stop eating tuna until they agreed to stop using those kinds of nets. So the industry had to change their ways to get back their buyers. Now we have cans that say "Dolphin safe" so the buyer can know which companies are NOT (no longer) part of the problem.

Get a grip.

He's saying it doesn't matter what you did (I very seriously doubt you, personally, did anything, but that's beside the point) because he doesn't eat tuna and doesn't care about dolphins. Some people don't. Whatever. They're just fish.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Liberty Landing, Get a grip. He's saying it doesn't matter what you did (I very seriously doubt you, personally, did anything, but that's beside the point) because he doesn't eat tuna and doesn't care about dolphins. Some people don't. Whatever. They're just fish.

Okay I will add you to my list as being part of the problem. By the way a Dolphin is not a fish. Like a whale they breathe in air from above the surface of the water (fish have gills). How can you debate about the environment if you do not even know that fact?

So if a Dolphin gets trapped in a fishing net will will drown to death because it cannot breathe under water like a fish can. That problem is eliminated simply if fishermen use the proper nets when seeking fish.

But a Dolphin is not just like any other fish because it is perhaps one of the most intelligent animals on earth, next to humans it is perhaps the most intelligent "animal" we know about. Any animal that has evolved a high level of consciousness like humans should have "rights" if we are going to respect the idea that consciousness is important as a type of measurement that would demand compassion and thusly legal protection.

Historically we know that Dolphins have often come to the rescue of humans who were drowning while swimming too far off shore, and they have allowed the human who was in danger to piggy back them back to the shore where they could get to safe ground. We as humans should likewise return the favor by helping them out in their hour of need. Also fishermen have long depended upon using Dolphins as a way to know where to find a school of fish. And so it is logically in their best interest not to kill their guides.

Right is flat right.

We should not allow our human consciousess to stoop to a level of compassion below that of a Dolphin, otherwise our stupidity will make us part of the problems that can manifest from that lacking.

Technosoul.