REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The death of small businesses

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2484
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, March 20, 2009 5:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Interesting concept. You might call it "equal representation"

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, March 20, 2009 5:13 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Interesting concept. You might call it "equal representation"



Heh... yeah. Well, that's why I find it kind of odd that this isn't a bigger issue. I clearly violates that concept, which is supposed to be one of our key values as a nation.

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  

Friday, March 20, 2009 7:22 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)


But, with corporations as with people, apparently some are more equal than others...

Mike

A baby seal walks into a club...



The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

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

Friday, March 20, 2009 7:29 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 SergeantX:

I've never understood why we allow local governments to grant special favors to corporations like this.

I can understand why local governments feel pressured to do it - if they don't, the next one will.



And that was one of the key points of the book - Wal Mart plays towns and cities against each other, puts them in bidding wars to get ridiculous concessions that would never in a million years be granted to a local business. And any place that doesn't play along doesn't get a store.

I've nothing against Wal Mart being in business or making a profit; what I want them to do, though, is play by the same set of rules that the rest of us are forced to play by. You can't call it a "free" market if there's no concept of a level playing field. (And this isn't aimed at you, Sarge; I'm agreeing with you and illustrating the point)

Quote:


The problem is when you get a company the size of Walmart... which dwarfs most small cities, many counties and even some states in terms of sheer economic power..."bargaining" is very unbalanced: David and Goliath (only in this scenario Goliath wins). So how do you get an entity "big enough" to go toe-to-toe with Walmart? I don't know....



Which is why it may take the federal government to come in and reign them in. Hey, they did it to Ma Bell and Microsoft, right?

Mike

A baby seal walks into a club...



The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

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

Friday, March 20, 2009 7:46 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I've nothing against Wal Mart being in business or making a profit; what I want them to do, though, is play by the same set of rules that the rest of us are forced to play by. You can't call it a "free" market if there's no concept of a level playing field. (And this isn't aimed at you, Sarge; I'm agreeing with you and illustrating the point)
...
Which is why it may take the federal government to come in and reign them in. Hey, they did it to Ma Bell and Microsoft, right?



Reign in whom? Wal-Mart, or the governments whoring it up for their benefit? That's the thing, Wal-Mart (and all the other companies playing the same game) can be faulted for unscrupulously exploiting a weakness in the system, but it does little good to reign them in if we don't fix the system.

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  

Friday, March 20, 2009 7:56 AM

RUE

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


"Which is why it may take the federal government to come in and reign them in."

The problem - there is no law against monopolies. Microsoft got nailed for illegal monopolistic practices - bundling, dumping and the like. (I'm not sure what got Ma Bell broken up.)

There is some feeling that there should be a law like that - that the reason for the size of the AIG debacle was the size of AIG.

But when it comes to reining in 'big business' for being big, the tools just aren't there.


As for local entities (states, counties, cities) providing special breaks to some businesses and not others - it probably would be a good idea to pass a national law making that illegal. (I'm sure there would be kickbacks to get it done anyway, but at least there would be a legal consequence.) Until then, they're just negotiating contracts, like any other entity.
The Constitution would not be the way to go - current legal thought is that the Constitutiton protects you from the federal government - not from businesses, private parties, or other levels of government like states, counties, cities etc.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, March 20, 2009 8:09 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
The Constitution would not be the way to go - current legal thought is that the Constitutiton protects you from the federal government - not from businesses, private parties, or other levels of government like states, counties, cities etc.



State and local governments are bound by the fourteenth amendment to honor equal protection. In theory, we don't even need an explicit amendment, but this IS a constitutional concern. All we really need to do is pursue the issue on those grounds.



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  

Friday, March 20, 2009 8:17 AM

RUE

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


Not so. I wish I could remember the name of the case ... if you bump this up to keep it up top I'll look it up when I have the time ...

about 2 years ago the SCOTUS ruled that state employees could NOT go to the federal court system for discrimination under the 14th - they had to go to the state court system - effectively removing SCOTUS from jurisdiction for enforcing the 14th for state, county, municipal or other entities beside the federal government.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, March 20, 2009 8:26 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Not so. I wish I could remember the name of the case ... if you bump this up to keep it up top I'll look it up when I have the time ...

about 2 years ago the SCOTUS ruled that state employees could NOT go to the federal court system for discrimination under the 14th - they had to go to the state court system - effectively removing SCOTUS from jurisdiction for enforcing the 14th.



Well, you'd have to go through the state first, but the state is in turn bound by the federal. In any case, the point is that the local governments aren't following the rules. That needs to change. It's a little like a corrupt politician taking bribes. You can go after the people doing the bribing, but until you get to the politician, its likely to continue.


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  

Friday, March 20, 2009 8:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

but the state is in turn bound by the federal.
Not sure this is always the case. SCOTUS seems to draw a wobbly line. For example, while the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from establishing a religion, I'm not sure the states are similarly bound. They happen to have similar clauses in their respective constitutions, but....


*taps foot*

Where is Hero when you need him???

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, March 20, 2009 8:38 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Hey, they did it to Ma Bell and Microsoft, right?


If by that you mean "make a big show of reigning in Microsoft, but in the end do fuck all" then yes.

I was reading in the paper today about this dwarf that got pickpocketed. How could anyone stoop so low?

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

Friday, March 20, 2009 8:44 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

but the state is in turn bound by the federal.
Not sure this is always the case. SCOTUS seems to draw a wobbly line. For example, while the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from establishing a religion, I'm not sure the states are similarly bound. They happen to have similar clauses in their respective constitutions, but....



I'm going to study up a bit on how the "equal protection" clause is usually interpreted. We might need a new amendment after all. But I do think it needs to be at the national level. There's just no incentive for state and local governments to "go first", otherwise they'd be sacrificing their own well-being on principle.

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  

Friday, March 20, 2009 9:03 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm going to study up a bit on how the "equal protection" clause is usually interpreted. We might need a new amendment after all. But I do think it needs to be at the national level. There's just no incentive for state and local governments to "go first", otherwise they'd be sacrificing their own well-being on principle.


I'm pretty sure the US Constitution applies only to the Federal Government. I'm certain some individual states did actually have official Churches.

I was reading in the paper today about this dwarf that got pickpocketed. How could anyone stoop so low?

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

Friday, March 20, 2009 9:14 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

According to Wikipedia:
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.



FWIW...

This was written and generally used for issues of racial discrimination. I'm not sure if it applies to things like tax policy, though I sure think it should. Anyway, I have inquiries registered on the topic. More soon.

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  

Friday, March 20, 2009 9:17 AM

RUE

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


"Well, you'd have to go through the state first ..."

No, they meant you could NOT bring the case before the SCOTUS. It's part of the whole 'the Constitution only applies to the federal government' agenda of the right. You know, like how the framers meant it to be before the activist judges of the 60's got involved. I meant 1960's - not 1860's of course.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, March 20, 2009 12:16 PM

SERGEANTX


So, I just talked with my girlfriends sister, who's a tax attorney, and she didn't give me much hope. To sum up, nixing preferential taxing with the equal protection clause would cut into the whole concept of using the tax code to manipulate society, which our leaders are particularly fond of. So it's highly unlikely we could prevent the governmental whoring with that stipulation.

That leaves pursuing the issue as a constitutional amendment, but it would still run up against the same problem. It would threaten the power that such tactics grant government - something they'll not give up lightly.

Government wins. Wal-Mart wins. We lose.


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  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:50 - 3410 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL