REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Screw 'em if they hate us

POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Monday, June 30, 2008 23:13
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 13188
PAGE 4 of 6

Monday, June 23, 2008 5:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Nothing.



So who makes the FMRI? Who makes the parts for the FMRI? Who makes the machines that make the parts for the FMRI? Who does this at a cost low enough that it's economical enough for some people and organizations to buy an FMRI? Where in the entire world, including countries with non-capitalist economic systems, is an FMRI made without corporate involvement?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 6:41 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
...what we have now (laizzes faire monopolism)



Hmmm... What do you mean by "laizzes faire monopolism"?

My understanding is that the term "laissez faire" implies a lack of government involvement, and I can't see how that's the case now. If by "monopolism" you're referring to the privileged positions of power that established corporations enjoy, then I have to agree - that fact dominates our economy. But they manage that as a result of government involvement, not through a lack of it. And they hold sway by controlling legislation and using it to ensure their dominance. The situation is the direct opposite of the concept of "laizzes faire".

"Corporate/government partnership" seems to me a more accurate description our current twisted version of capitalism.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 6:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Mmm... 'kay. Laizzes faire monopolism means letting the monopolies do whatever the h*ll they want. But if I called it what it REALLY is most people would be turned off immediately. I'm trying to walk in that direction: that corporations exist because of our laws... not because they're some sort of "natural feature"... and that changing our laws is the sanest thing to do.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 6:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

So who makes the FMRI? Who makes the parts for the FMRI? Who makes the machines that make the parts for the FMRI?
PEOPLE DO. The only thing corporations "make" is a profit.

When I talk with my daughter, I'm VERY careful NOT to say "Toyota makes..." or "GE makes..." As far as I'm concerned that's like telling her that the Easter bunny exists. And it's part of your essential confusion. Corporations are not necessary. For anything.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 7:10 AM

KHYRON


So how large is a corporation allowed to be before it's too large (in your opinion)?

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 7:18 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
6ix: There is a critical flaw in your concept of "island America". While we have a abundant resources compared to EU and China, we're missing key elements.

Modern technology depends on a lot of little things all coming together at the same time. You can't make stainless steel w/o chromium, for example. So everything could be going along swimmingly, and then suddenly you find yourself short of something that you hadn't thought of.. tantalum for capacitors, as an example.

We rely 100% for imports of bauxite (aluminum ore), 95% on bismuth, 78% cobalt, 100% manganese, 91% platinum, 95% tin, and 100% thallium.
www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/natresor.pdf
p13.

So while I agree that we have many resources, we can't isolate ourselves completely.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.



DINGDINGDINGDINGDING - Signy for the win! I've been quietly sitting back, for once, and just waiting for this to be mentioned. What happens when there is stuff we DON'T have here in the U.S., stuff that is crucial or vital for the stuff we want to make and NEED to make? We're now completely cut off from the world, remember -we can't just go an buy it on the open market, because we've rejected the rest of the world. What happens if we try to buy it, and they refuse to sell it to us, or meet our terms? Do we invade their country and just take what we want? Then we're no longer isolationist, but imperialists, and we start back on the road to where we are now.

Like it or not, AMERICA CAN NOT SIMPLY WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD. We can pick our spots and limit our meddling, but we're going to be in somebody's business one way or another.



Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 7:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


It's not the size that bother me as much as the business form. Corporations seems to have an exceedingly favorable perch: The get all of the "rights" of individuals (freedom of speech, privacy, patents etc.) but none of the downsides. When was the last time you saw a corporation "executed" for knowingly killing someone (even thousands of people) with a defective product?

They get favorable tax rates (THEY get to take "expenses" off their income, WE don't!). If you steal from a person it may be a misdemeanor, but if you steal from a corporation it's an automatic felony. I can come up with dozens of examples that would make your head blow off.

In addition, and I know this is sacrosanct, but I've thought this out in detail... business REALLY gets into trouble when its publicly traded. Suddenly, the "worth" of a business gets yanked around by speculation. The CEO, owner, or board is unable to look further ahead than the next quarterly report. I've seen small businesses with great products get hammered in the stock market because the market wouldn't allow them to pursue market share at the expense of profitability... which was (for them) the only path to success.

So I'm not a know-nothing when it comes to business, economics, and markets. But it's the stock market that drives companies to do unethical things... either because chief officers are looking to fatten their stock options before they bail (like Enron) or because they feel the hot breath of a takeover down their neck (like Yahoo). Also, the stock market encourages consolidation, which leads to the formation of monopolies.

I guess the answer to your question is... there are a lot of laws that could be changed.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 7:37 AM

CHRISISALL


How do I make myself a corporation?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 7:47 AM

KHYRON


I don't completely agree with all aspects of what you've posted on this topic (although not in the mood to debate it, I'm far from being an expert anyway), but I do agree with your last post.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 9:55 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
How do I make myself a corporation?




Not sure, but you will need cubicles....lots of 'em......and at least one copier....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 10:17 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
It's not the size that bother me as much as the business form. Corporations seems to have an exceedingly favorable perch: The get all of the "rights" of individuals (freedom of speech, privacy, patents etc.) but none of the downsides. When was the last time you saw a corporation "executed" for knowingly killing someone (even thousands of people) with a defective product?

They get favorable tax rates (THEY get to take "expenses" off their income, WE don't!). If you steal from a person it may be a misdemeanor, but if you steal from a corporation it's an automatic felony. I can come up with dozens of examples that would make your head blow off.

In addition, and I know this is sacrosanct, but I've thought this out in detail... business REALLY gets into trouble when its publicly traded. Suddenly, the "worth" of a business gets yanked around by speculation. The CEO, owner, or board is unable to look further ahead than the next quarterly report. I've seen small businesses with great products get hammered in the stock market because the market wouldn't allow them to pursue market share at the expense of profitability... which was (for them) the only path to success.

So I'm not a know-nothing when it comes to business, economics, and markets. But it's the stock market that drives companies to do unethical things... either because chief officers are looking to fatten their stock options before they bail (like Enron) or because they feel the hot breath of a takeover down their neck (like Yahoo). Also, the stock market encourages consolidation, which leads to the formation of monopolies.



Hmmm... I find myself in complete agreement with a Signy post. Better see a doctor.

One thing about corps, that gets even less attention than their various legal privileges, is the way coporations have become an extended arm of western colonialism. It's a symbiotic relationship. We go to war to protect corporate interests, and they reciprocate by undermining the cultural foundations of other nations.

This is the main grievance of Islamic Fundamentalists that Americans can't understand, or merely don't want to. We use the ostensibly benign hand of trade as a wedge to impose our values on them. If they object, our military keeps them in line. How could they not be pissed off about this?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 10:27 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
How do I make myself a corporation?




Not sure, but you will need cubicles....lots of 'em......and at least one copier....

LOL, good one K.

isall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 11:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
PEOPLE DO



So a whole bunch of people just get together randomly and build, first, the infrastructure needed to support building an FMRI, and then build the FMRI itself. This with no direction, no capital, no idea if anyone will want an FMRI, etc.

In other words, what replaces the corporation in your ideal world?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 12:26 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Not sure, but you will need cubicles....lots of 'em......and at least one copier....
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 12:36 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
How do I make myself a corporation?




Not sure, but you will need cubicles....lots of 'em......and at least one copier....



And an HR department to tell you how wrong everything you're doing is...






Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 12:45 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


One thing about corps, that gets even less attention than their various legal privileges, is the way coporations have become an extended arm of western colonialism. It's a symbiotic relationship. We go to war to protect corporate interests, and they reciprocate by undermining the cultural foundations of other nations.

This is the main grievance of Islamic Fundamentalists that Americans can't understand, or merely don't want to. We use the ostensibly benign hand of trade as a wedge to impose our values on them. If they object, our military keeps them in line. How could they not be pissed off about this?



My stars... Someone else finally noticed! I've referred to this phenomenon as "the globalization of America through the Americanization of the globe". It's not our "freedom" that they hate; it's that we tell them what to buy, and why, and when. "You want this new thong - Paris Hilton wears one in her latest sex tape! Get yours NOW!" And we act perplexed when people aren't interested, or are outright inflamed by some of the pure crap that we exalt as "great" and the "celebrities" we seem to worship.

I'm certainly not saying I agree with terrorists... but I can see where they might have a beef with us. If it were your kids idolizing Britney, Paris, Lindsay, the Kardashians, Snoop Dogg, Pacman Jones, et al, wouldn't YOU want to blow those people up? Again, I'm not saying it's right, but that I can understand the impulse...



Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 12:46 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
How do I make myself a corporation?




Not sure, but you will need cubicles....lots of 'em......and at least one copier....



That's the line of the day right there... :)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 1:16 PM

RALLEM


Actually it is pretty wise making your family a corporation, and to do this you'll want to contact your State's Attorney General and I believe they or a department in their office helps you make your family into a corporation. The advantage to this is that you can own 1% of your family stock and make that the controlling 1% so you make all the decisions and if for some reason you get sued you can only be sued for 1% of your corporation's worth. To do this though you'll have to make everything you own the property of the corporation so that you don't own anything other than the 1% of the corporation. (This is how Ted Kennedy got away from having to pay lots of money for Chappaquiddick) You'll have to run your family's business like a real business holding at least two business meetings a year and take moments of the meetings, but you'll also get some big tax breaks. I suggest if this sounds intriguing to you to contact your State's Attorney and get the real scoop from them because I think every State does this differently.



http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 23, 2008 5:26 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:
I suggest if this sounds intriguing to you to contact your State's Attorney and get the real scoop...



What if this sounds disgusting to me?

(No offense to you though, rallem. I appreciate the spirit of helpful suggestions.)

The fact that our legal structure promotes such idiocy is flat out insane. This kind of bureaucratic gaming is my biggest beef with the tax code. Politicians can't resist the urge to use taxes as a tool for social engineering, rather that just a way to collect revenue. The result is that we end up with arcane rules and regulations that exist as little more than friction on society.

I'm all about beating the system, at least when the system is as nonsensical and arbitrary as ours is - so I have no beef with the people taking advantage of such loopholes. It's the asswipes on capitol hill who produce such convoluted crap ... arrghh!!!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:08 AM

CHRISISALL


What Sarge saidtm

isall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:21 AM

KHYRON


Good stuff, Kaneman.

Hey SignyM, on the topic of large corporations not being held accountable for their actions, this should make you smile:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370521,00.html

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:28 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
So a whole bunch of people just get together randomly and build ...



First they invent and discover: the hammer-rock, language, the bowl, fire, clothes, agriculture, domestication of animals, and so on.

Then they build - huts, walls, water channels, wells. Eventually great cities and civilizations.

All without a corporation in sight.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:10 PM

CITIZEN


I think that's a little naive Rue. It's easy to create a Hut, certainly in comparison to something modern like an FMRI. Modern technology is too complex for anything other than long term organised institutions to implement, and corporations can fit that need. The problem arises when people forget what corporation are. They're groups of people with the collective power to potentially rail road individuals. It's completely unreasonable for a corporation to have the same protections under law as individuals, because it's already powerful enough to not need protecting.

It also makes no sense how some want to regulate government, a large group of people with the means to supercede the individual, that in a democracy has a vested interest to lookout for the needs of the people, while removing regulation of corporations, large groups of people with the means to supercede the individual, that have a vested interest in screwing everyone else over for the needs of their share holders. Where is the logic in curbing the power of government, but giving free reign to corporations?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:25 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
First they invent and discover: the hammer-rock, language, the bowl, fire, clothes, agriculture, domestication of animals, and so on.

Then they build - huts, walls, water channels, wells. Eventually great cities and civilizations.

All without a corporation in sight.


Instead of corporations, things were driven by the ruling aristocracy. Something far worse than corporations in most instances.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:31 PM

WHODIED


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Instead of corporations, things were driven by the ruling aristocracy. Something far worse than corporations in most instances.



Tell that to the OILgarchy

--WhoDied


_______________________

Mr. Winters has never been accused and shall never be convicted of any crime – ever.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hey Citizen

In some ways I agree. You can't have a modern civilization of individual isolated hut-builders, a point I've made many times on this board.

But capitalism is neither necessary nor sufficient for modern society. For example, you'd have a hard time relating the theory of relativity to capitalism. In fact, much of the research and discovery, and the organizing of society - monetary systems, infrastructure, laws and rules - that make everything possible - take place in a different realm from capitalism altogether.

What capitalism does fairly well is bring capital together. But that can be done through other means.

Anyway, back to work ...


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:58 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
What capitalism does fairly well is bring capital together. But that can be done through other means.



And those means are?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 4:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Does it matter ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:17 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Does it matter?



It matters a great deal.

The other, complimentary, thing that capitalism does well is the distribution of goods and services. This is the lesson that Soviet economic planners learned very painfully. It turns out that central planning of an economy is prohibitively difficult. Anticipating the needs and desires of a nation's population is the essential function of any economic system and it's extremely difficult to do effectively. It requires nearly omniscient awareness of the needs of every household in the nation. It's by far more effective to delegate such decisions to a distributed network of entities dedicated to making such forecasts. And the best way to encourage accuracy in such forecasts is to reward accuracy in accordance with it's effectiveness. That's the core function of capitalism.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:37 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


There are an infinite numbers of ways and rationales to do those things - as many as the human mind can come up with and every shade and multiple combination of them. None is more or less natural law than the other. So it comes down to what you want to end up with.

You see the multiple types of toilet paper in the store and think it's heaven. What you don't acknowledge is how it's paid for - in terms of poverty in the US and abroad: people too poor to have a place to live, too poor to educate their children, too poor to eat.

When I think about the old USSR what I think is that everyone may have had small apartments but there were no homeless, everyone may have been educated in the same system but they all went to school, everyone may have had a small choice in luxury foods but there were no starving.

OTOH you can always support a system with every kind of toilet paper on the shelves.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

capitalism does well is the distribution of goods and services
No it does not.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 7:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

It also makes no sense how some want to regulate government, a large group of people with the means to supercede the individual, that in a democracy has a vested interest to lookout for the needs of the people, while removing regulation of corporations, large groups of people with the means to supercede the individual, that have a vested interest in screwing everyone else over for the needs of their share holders. Where is the logic in curbing the power of government, but giving free reign to corporations?
That's about the clearest I've heard this conundrum expressed. That's what I've been trying to ask Frem, Sarge, Geezer and 6ix. Maybe your wording will make it clearer.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:05 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The other, complimentary, thing that capitalism does well is the distribution of goods and services. This is the lesson that Soviet economic planners learned very painfully. It turns out that central planning of an economy is prohibitively difficult. Anticipating the needs and desires of a nation's population is the essential function of any economic system and it's extremely difficult to do effectively. It requires nearly omniscient awareness of the needs of every household in the nation. It's by far more effective to delegate such decisions to a distributed network of entities dedicated to making such forecasts. And the best way to encourage accuracy in such forecasts is to reward accuracy in accordance with it's effectiveness. That's the core function of capitalism.

Capitalism isn't the only system that functions well there, in fact nations had functioning economies thousands of years before Capitalism was invented. Capitalism where corporations are given free reign doesn't work well in this regard either, in my opinion, since the best profits will be made by making whatever the hell you want, and convincing the populace that that is what they want, through advertising and other subconscious means.

I have a big screen TV, thus I am fulfilled.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:21 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Capitalism where corporations are given free reign doesn't work well in this regard either, in my opinion, since the best profits will be made by making whatever the hell you want, and convincing the populace that that is what they want, through advertising and other subconscious means.



Ayup. Although 'free' reign isn't the problem. It's that we give them the reigns outright.

I'm not sure how many corporations would survive without the special legal exceptions and status that we grant them, or what form such companies would take if they did. But this is the part of modern capitalism that's made it anything but a 'free' market. In my opinion capitalism doesn't require such artifice and when it does include such perks is more properly labeled 'corporatism'.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:51 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

It also makes no sense how some want to regulate government, a large group of people with the means to supercede the individual, that in a democracy has a vested interest to lookout for the needs of the people, while removing regulation of corporations, large groups of people with the means to supercede the individual, that have a vested interest in screwing everyone else over for the needs of their share holders. Where is the logic in curbing the power of government, but giving free reign to corporations?
That's about the clearest I've heard this conundrum expressed. That's what I've been trying to ask Frem, Sarge, Geezer and 6ix. Maybe your wording will make it clearer.



Signy, I think I've been abundantly clear. I don't think modern corporate law should exist. If such a thing as a 'publicly' held corporation exists at all it should follow the same rules and be subject to the same liabilities as privately owned companies. That means it's owners - every one of it's shareholders - are responsible for the actions of that company. If they don't want that risk, better not buy stock. It also means the corps pay the same taxes and follow all of the same laws as their private kin.

The implications of giving such special status to corporations, and the unavoidable way that it ties these companies up with government, is the poison that makes modern capitalism what it is. I'm not sure you've ever really acknowledged it, perhaps because it doesn't line up with your narrative of what's going on, but it's the intimate relationship that corporate law forges between business and government that is the problem. Free reign would be fine, as long as they are required to follow the same rules as the rest of us. Instead, what we've given them is a government backed charter to act as independent client states without territory, and without explicit responsibilities other than to generate profits for their "citizens" (shareholders) through any means necessary.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:31 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

It also makes no sense how some want to regulate government, a large group of people with the means to supercede the individual, that in a democracy has a vested interest to lookout for the needs of the people, while removing regulation of corporations, large groups of people with the means to supercede the individual, that have a vested interest in screwing everyone else over for the needs of their share holders. Where is the logic in curbing the power of government, but giving free reign to corporations?


Pretty much what Sarge said, neither one should get a free pass, and the incestous Gov-Corp relationship needs to go, it's as bad or worse than melding Church and State.

I've said this many times, many ways, only to be ignored or told I said something else, as usual, so there's not been a lot to discuss - but fine, I'll waste a couple minutes on it despite the fact I know it's a waste to even try.

The natural check and balance on corporations WOULD have been trade unions and other employee collectives but since 1905 they have been systematically gutted, eviscerated and completely disempowered by not only the corporations but the corp-friendly gov as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

Just how many times HAVE I posted that huge list of strikes and then pointed out that the gov always, always, ALWAYS came in on the corp side, requiring the trade unions to engage and defeate not only the corporate goons, but the entire military might of the whole united states in order to accomplish their objective, something clearly both impossible, and damn dangerous if it were because at that point, why NOT simply take over ?

Add in shit like the palmer raids, the demonisation of all union allies (communists, socialists, anarchists) two "red scares" which had more to do with smashing the threat of unions and political power than any real threat, and a hundred fucking years of emasculation and demonisation, on top of corp-friendly 'unions' created and run by the corps themselves as a goddamn control rod on the reactor of dissent...
(an idea, btw, thought up by Rockefeller after a hard day of his goons machinegunning about 20 folk, half of them children, in Ludlow.)

Not all unions even try serve the purposes of the worker, in fact the AFL under that fucker Gompers, who, mind you sold even his own out for a nice cushy cabinet appointment by Wilson, not only absorbed then effectively neutralised other unions, they used to BREAK strikes of the IWW under the guise of "patriotism" and "supporting the war effort" and golly gee, doesn't THAT fucking bullshit excuse sound so familiar these days ?

And as a final coda you've got the simplistic tactic of the corps simply having their gov buddies outlaw any tactic that actually ever worked, and so you're down to what ?

Feed the fear and paranoia by actually COMMITTING what could be termed terrorist acts*, or bend over and take it - that's pretty much the choices left at this point because the very folks who would need to support and finance those reforms are the very folks who benefit from the lack thereof, you really think they're gonna execute that golden goose after a hundred years of protecting it and fattening it up ?

And no bones about it, it WILL come to violence no matter what methods are used, just take a good look at what happened to the attempted peaceful protest of the FTAA in florida for a good preview of just how nasty that would get even with NO resistance on behalf of the striking personnel, which, if it were any of ours would be a damned unlikely occurance, nobody likes being shot at, especially us.

And let's not even discuss the endless fucking surveillence, harassment and attempted agent infiltration by both gov and corp provacateurs...

Frankly, the one and overriding primary reason at this time for the recalcitrance of even the IWW is the plain and simple FACT that there's just no way to DO this without potentially, even probably, initiating our own total destruction by poking a big, frustrated, rabid beast in the nose with a stick and giving them just the kind of excuse those goddamn Straussian bastards are looking for - and even if it DID work, then you're looking down the barrel of a potential second civil war, neither of which seem viable options to me.

Now, if you have an answer to that problem which might actually work in the real world, please feel free to share it cause for damn sure WE don't have one at this time and it ain't for lack of tryin.

-Frem


*-In fact, the intentionally-vague language of most of these recent laws basically defines ANYTHING we *do* as "terrorism" and believe me folks, a lot of folks are pondering the thought that if they're gonna hang for it anyway, they might as well get.. erm.."full value" on it, yes?

I been helping keep a lid on that, but as of late I have begun to wonder why, or if I even SHOULD do such a thing, and I am running out of answers and excuses in a hurry, here.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 2:36 AM

CITIZEN


My point was only that you should regulate through law both government and Corporations, and that those regulations should be punitive toward those organisations, rather than the other thing. Grouped organisations have power over the individual, that can only be redressed through societal mechanisms, I.E. laws.

Solution? Make separation of Corporation and State as enshrined in law as that of Church and state (actually it'll probably be best to make it more enshrined...). I'd go as far as making political campaigns a solely publicly funded affair, that way it'll be illegal if a candidate takes private money, ensuring no under the table lobbying through that route. I really see no reason why people should need to make private contributions to individuals or even specific parties anyway.

I really can't fathom where this idea (I'm not accusing anyone in particular of expressing this idea, but it is one I have heard expressed) that regulations are bad comes from. Especially since it's often espoused by those who want to hamstring Government with regulation itself. Regulated business is a good thing, business does not self regulate. Corporations break the laws now, when there are laws to break, why on Earth would they suddenly stop when there are no consequences for their actions? To me it sounds like saying people will stop committing murders, if we just stopped charging people with murder. Historically, having no regulation and allowing businesses to do as they please, buyer beware, doesn't work at all. A strong example is the unregulated food industry of Victorian England. Regulations were added because the fully open and unregulated markets were full of fast-buck anything for profit merchants that thought nothing of selling children boot lacquer as Toffee, and mixing lead with flour. Regulations stopped that, not wishful thinking and market forces.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 2:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
There are an infinite numbers of ways and rationales to do those things - as many as the human mind can come up with and every shade and multiple combination of them. None is more or less natural law than the other. So it comes down to what you want to end up with.



I want to end up with an FMRI machine. Give me an example of a non-corporate, non-capitalist system that's around now that can make me an FMRI.

Quote:

When I think about the old USSR what I think is that everyone may have had small apartments but there were no homeless, everyone may have been educated in the same system but they all went to school, everyone may have had a small choice in luxury foods but there were no starving.



Yep. And all you had to do was give up your freedom to do, say, think, own, read or listen to anything the government said you couldn't - with the gulag waiting for you if you tried. Then again, if you lived in the wrong place, or were the wrong ethnic group, the government might just decide to starve you, your family, and everyone else for the greater good of the State.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:19 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Solution? Make separation of Corporation and State as enshrined in law as that of Church and state

Hunh. I've believed this for a long time but was never able to word it so simply and clearly. Thanks cit!

Really, most of the ills facing the US today, from Iraq to oil prices to medical care to housing - even to poverty and crime - can be blamed at least in part on how corporations run the government. And I don't think the Republicans must be defeated because of their conservative principles - many of those I agree with - but because the party is owned by big business, much more so than the Dems.

BTW - that's why I like Ron Paul despite some of his oddities, like how he doesn't believe in evolution. He's all for separation of corporation and state. Even if he stays on the side, he's brought these ideas up for discussion, and that's huge.

I do have some hopes for Obama, although the whole funding thing is worrisome...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Yep. And all you had to do was give up your freedom to do, say, think, own, read or listen to anything the government said you couldn't
Fortunately for them, they all realized it was 50% bullsh*t.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I want to end up with an FMRI machine. Give me an example of a non-corporate, non-capitalist system that's around now that can make me an FMRI.
China, Japan, Taiwan, the EU. (None of them are fully capitalist)


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"I want to end up with an FMRI machine. Give me an example of a non-corporate, non-capitalist system that's around now that can make me an FMRI."

What Siggy said.

"Yep. And all you had to do was give up your freedom to do, say, think, own, read or listen to anything the government said you couldn't - with the gulag waiting for you if you tried."

But your talking about a system of government, not an economic system. I only mentioned it b/c SergeantX did. If you want to see a free society with a socialistic economy look at Sweden.

And, as we've been through already, you yourself can't seem to find anything really good to say about the highly capitalist US, as a society. OTOH there are lots of good things to say about other countries that are both free politically - even freer than the US - with socialist economies


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yep, people constantly conflate economic systems with political systems. It IS possible to have a democracy and a socialist economy. (I think they're called socialist democracies, but I could be wrong! )

I want to get back to Sarge's (and to some extent Frem's) point: Corporations have sources of power above and beyond the government. It's not as if corporations would wither away if the law suddenly became silent on corporate rights. There are a lot of illegal corporations: The Yakuza, the Mafia etc. Our own robber barons had access to the Pinkertons and other private security firms and made free use of them. Today, corporations troll the internet and the media for complainers and whistleblowers, and summarily fire them, take them to court or both, exercising their considerable economic power.

If there were no laws regarding either workers or business it would prolly come to open warfare. In fact, it HAS come to open warfare in many places: that's called "revolution". In the USA, it's usually restricted to firefights, see Harlan County

But it seems to me that a path that was laid out for us by the Founding Fathers, and that is peaceful change through the process of voting. In theory, all it should take for the government .. and therefore the law and the corporations... to be brought to heel is concerted effort at the ballot box and YOUR efforts should be devoted to finding out why our democracy is not working the way it was envisioned, rather than just scrapping the whole concept of law.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:33 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Solution? Make separation of Corporation and State as enshrined in law as that of Church and state (actually it'll probably be best to make it more enshrined...).



Totally agree. But it doesn't take a lot of proactive legislation to do this. All that really needs to happen to achieve this separation is to cut them loose - remove the legal framework (special tax and liability laws, etc...) that gives them a privileged position to begin with.

Quote:

I really can't fathom where this idea (I'm not accusing anyone in particular of expressing this idea, but it is one I have heard expressed) that regulations are bad comes from.

Please, accuse me! It's very much what I mean to express. Let me 'splain.

I oppose regulation for essentially the same reasons I oppose war. Both involve resolving conflict through violence. The violence of regulation is insulated through layers of bureaucracy, but it's there.

But, like war, regulation is sometimes necessary. So I'm not I'm not saying there should be none, just that it should be considered as a solution only in situations where voluntary cooperation has proven futile.

In the libertarian narrative, the primary social injustice IS violence. And the core of anything that can justifiably be called a "crime" is the use of violence to force others to bend to your will. So, when we see problems in society we look for the violence. More often than not, it's there. And, more often than it should be, it's lurking in "regulation" - usually regulation devised by one group to enhance their power and privilege at the expense of others.

So, in the situation of corporate law, we have a set of regulations that grant certain groups - corporations - exceptional power and privilege at the expense of the rest of society. Worse still, corporations then use that power and privilege to lobby for further regulation that ensures their power and limits competition from the rest of us. That's why we're less than enthusiastic when people propose more regulation to deal with problems created by ill-conceived regulation in the first place. Why not just solve the root problem?

Quote:

Regulated business is a good thing, business does not self regulate. Corporations break the laws now, when there are laws to break, why on Earth would they suddenly stop when there are no consequences for their actions?


I'm in no way suggesting corporations, or anyone for that matter, should be allowed to break the law. They should have to follow all the same laws as the rest of us. But then that's where regulations are different. In general, they don't apply to everyone. Usually, they are specific rules to impose conformity on a specific subset of people.

Quote:

To me it sounds like saying people will stop committing murders, if we just stopped charging people with murder.


I can appreciate that point of view, and I'm not suggesting that all we need to do is quit picking on the corporations and they'll start playing nice. I'm just looking to address the root problems causing the imbalance of power in the first place. Market forces would have a much better shot at keeping the abuses you cite in check if these core imbalances were addressed.

Until those imbalances are resolved, I don't really have a problem with applying the superficial regulations as a quick-fix, but if that's all we do, we're just masking the problem by temporarily treating the symptoms. And we're doing so through a device that has the potential of making things worse - especially if the root problem is ignored.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:37 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

concerted effort at the ballot box


*insert very snide snicker here*

I did say ideas that would actually work in the real world.

Ask Victor L. Berger how well it worked when we DID freakin do it - we can elect em, sure, but if they won't seat em or recognize em, what then, eh ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Berger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

In short, you're suggesting we play a rigged game at the card sharks table with his deck, and we can't even cut the cards.
(i.e. Diebold, ES&S, etc)

Doesn't even begin to address the fact that the other side can ignore the rules or even change them the moment those rules become inconvenient to THEM.

I'd like to sort matters without violence myself, but knowing as much about human nature and history as I do, I just don't see it happening that way - although ideally, all it would take would be for even a SMALL percentage of our public school "educated"(read: indoctrinated) to set aside their complete and total moral and personal cowardice and simply refuse to "play ball" instead of acting like a kindergarten clique selling each other out as fast as possible for a pat on the head from the very folk who are exploiting them the worst.

Only way I've ever seen to get that small percentage is to CREATE it, by getting to our younger generations before we mentally screw them up to the point of calcification, and we're doin that, but that takes time and effort most folk don't wanna spend on the issue.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:38 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

I want to end up with an FMRI machine. Give me an example of a non-corporate, non-capitalist system that's around now that can make me an FMRI.
China, Japan, Taiwan, the EU. (None of them are fully capitalist)

But the FMRI machine would still be made by a large corporation. Weren't you also against large corporations? Or are you okay with large corporations outside the US?

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So Frem, let me get this straight... because democracy doesn't seem to work because of failure of "the people" to engage at the ballot box you propose something even more radical (anarchy) as a workable solution? Heck, if you can't get people to even vote their own interest, what makes you think they'll create a whole new society?

Either that, or you're proposing what I said before: The smaller the number of people effecting change, the more radical their action has to be. In other words: a minority revolution. The imposition of anarchy by a minority.

But it's not as if people haven't changed, even in the last few decades: feminism, civil rights, environmental protection, religious fundamentalism. People are capable of changing their minds en masse for better or worse.

Our essential problem is the widespread confusion of corporations with democracy, equality, invention, and a good lifestyle. It's protective coloration that corporations (using their own media) cloak themselves with in order to escape notice. Commercials are as much propaganda as the old Soviet screeds ever were, and they sell that essential confusion hundred of times a day. ("GE. We bring good things to life") (GEEZER take note)

So, the first thing that has to happen is that people need to become uncomfortable... or at least uncomfortable enough to start looking for something else. I have no problems pointing the finger of blame at the health insurances, for example, sitting like friggin' leeeches in our carotid arteries. And THEN you have to take that message to a media outlet that the corps don't control.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

But the FMRI machine would still be made by a large corporation. Weren't you also against large corporations? Or are you okay with large corporations outside the US?
That's a little like saying... it's a corporation. Except it's owned by the State. And it pays VAT. And it's wage structure is regulated- the bosses only make 40X what the workers do, not 4000X. And the Union has managerial say.

So.. it's not really a corporation.


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:28 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
That's a little like saying... it's a corporation. Except it's owned by the State. And it pays VAT. And it's wage structure is regulated- the bosses only make 40X what the workers do, not 4000X. And the Union has managerial say.

But that's not the way it's done in China, Taiwan, Japan or the EU.

So, I'm a little bit confused. Are you saying corporations are necessary, just that they should be regulated differently?

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

But that's not the way it's done in China, Taiwan, Japan or the EU.
That's exactly the way it's done. In China, most medium to large-sized businesses are owned by the government. In Taiwan it's about 50%. Wages are set by the government, as are the number of employees, employment policies etc. The EU has nationalized banks, transportation, energy, health insurance etc. In other industries (auto mfr) in Germany for example government and the unions sit at the table as equals with the owners to determine things like output, prices, wages etc. Businesses have to take responsibility for dipsosing of the packaging that they ship/ distribute the product with (which menas they use a LOT less packaging than we do!) In the EU, industries pay VAT (Value Added Tax). In ALL areas, the differential between the upper echelon and the rank and file is far less than the USA.

Business forms- the organization that a business takes- is whatever we allow it to be, by law. If you change many aspects of corporate law: Who controls what, where the money comes from and goes, who is liable, etc. ... it's not really a corporation as YOU think of one. It may be a nationalized entity, a cooperative, or something else entirely. It's not as if only one form of business is possible. I can imagine a spectrum of possibilities.

So, I'm confused: Why are YOU confused?




---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Oops! Clown Justin Trudeau accidently "Sieg Heils!" a Nazi inside Canadian parliament
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:24 - 4 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:04 - 130 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:44 - 4 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL