Why do you hate corporations?
-
isadoreobviously the large majority in the post bellum era lacked the skills, knowledge, relationships and resources to do anything but go into factories or starve.
-
Con_AlmaLarge majority? I say all lacked the skills, knowledge and relationships....and yet some still chose to take a different path and put their security in their own hands.
Those that didn't chose poorly. -
gutMost successful people did not get to where they are by giving away their money. Many are actually fair in terms of their prices & wages paid. Problem is, "fair" is almost always perceived as "unfair" to people who are poor at estimating cost or value or simply feeling entitled to getting a handout or free ride.
-
isadorepeople? what do we get when we allow unregulated corporations treat workers and consumers. we saw how they treated workers in the post bellum era when there was little or no regulation on how these artificial soulless entities treated real people. they often sold dangerous, even deadly products to the consumer. they exploited their workers 16 hour days for men, women and children with minimal pay, in dangerous conditions, with no compensation for the injured or killed. yeh real fair.
-
isadore
some had access to the knowledge, skills and relationships necessary to take a different route, the large majority did not.Con_Alma;1230471 wrote:Large majority? I say all lacked the skills, knowledge and relationships....and yet some still chose to take a different path and put their security in their own hands.
Those that didn't chose poorly. -
gut
Again, you pretend like something that happened a hundred years ago is common business practice today. Business have evolved with the times just like everything else. There are still abusers today, just as with anything and there will always be, but in fact it's PEOPLE making those decisions. A "corporation" doesn't do anything on its own, it is always people behind those decisions. Corporations don't commit fraud, people do - at all levels (from CEO's down to the mortgage writer peon and ignorant home buyer, union workers scamming the system, etc...)isadore;1230492 wrote:people? what do we get when we allow unregulated corporations treat workers and consumers. we saw how they treated workers in the post bellum era when there was little or no regulation on how these artificial soulless entities treated real people. they often sold dangerous, even deadly products to the consumer. they exploited their workers 16 hour days for men, women and children with minimal pay, in dangerous conditions, with no compensation for the injured or killed. yeh real fair.
But as I've said before, most good businesspeople now recognize that lost-time injuries are costly, and that grossly overworked people are inefficient. Most errors are the result of inaccurate or improper analysis/evaluations. Only a small number of people without fear of fraud or reprecussions would knowingly cut corners with an expectation of likely failure costing millions (and more). But in most cases the intentions are benign - we don't impose a 10-yr waiting/approval on procedures or methods when the true reliability becomes more certain. There's a trade-off of balancing the risks and costs - excessive regulation has a net negative economic impact. A responsible approach recognizes the ability of the system to absorb these failures in light of the fact that 100% elimination is cost prohibitive. Two examples would be the mortgage business where the system couldn't absorb the failures so you have to do a lot of re-writing. But then you can look at building codes which typically apply to new or remodeled/rennovated structures rather than forcing people to constantly pay to update their homes to meet current standards. By your criteria, something that is an issue for 1 in 10,000 should be forced on everyone to update to standards -
Con_Alma
It is not those "some" that I refer to. Countless people who had no money, skills nor relationships chose to put their own security in their own control. Those that didn't choose to do so chose poorly.isadore;1230494 wrote:some had access to the knowledge, skills and relationships necessary to take a different route, the large majority did not. -
isadore
Corporations exist because of government, not vice versa. They are created by a charter given to them by government that gives them certain advantages. They become economic entities with the right to make contracts, issue stock, borrow. The corporation is responsible for these actions, not individuals. Government also grants the advantage to the corporations and stockholders of limited liability so no matter what horrendous thing this corporations do, the stockholders responsibilities are limited. Gosh government even gave these artificial, soulless entities the right to participate in the political process.gut;1230515 wrote:Again, you pretend like something that happened a hundred years ago is common business practice today. Business have evolved with the times just like everything else. There are still abusers today, just as with anything and there will always be, but in fact it's PEOPLE making those decisions. A "corporation" doesn't do anything on its own, it is always people behind those decisions. Corporations don't commit fraud, people do - at all levels (from CEO's down to the mortgage writer peon and ignorant home buyer, union workers scamming the system, etc...)
But as I've said before, most good businesspeople now recognize that lost-time injuries are costly, and that grossly overworked people are inefficient. Most errors are the result of inaccurate or improper analysis/evaluations. Only a small number of people without fear of fraud or reprecussions would knowingly cut corners with an expectation of likely failure costing millions (and more). But in most cases the intentions are benign - we don't impose a 10-yr waiting/approval on procedures or methods when the true reliability becomes more certain. There's a trade-off of balancing the risks and costs - excessive regulation has a net negative economic impact. A responsible approach recognizes the ability of the system to absorb these failures in light of the fact that 100% elimination is cost prohibitive. Two examples would be the mortgage business where the system couldn't absorb the failures so you have to do a lot of re-writing. But then you can look at building codes which typically apply to new or remodeled/rennovated structures rather than forcing people to constantly pay to update their homes to meet current standards. By your criteria, something that is an issue for 1 in 10,000 should be forced on everyone to update to standards
And then government let them loose on society, and they exploited men, women and children workers, they produced dangerous, even deadly products. That is what they did when they were allowed to act as they wished.
Then the people acting though their government put limits on these soulless entities on how they could treat workers, consumers and the corrupted political process. WE HAD SEEN HOW THEY ACTED WITHOUT REGULATION And after all besides the abuses, why shouldn’t the government be able to regulate entities it brought into existence and endowed with so many advantages. Now those regulations are softening and the abuse is increasing. -
Con_Alma
It's still not "fair" today and nothing you or the government will do will make it fair. You choose risk when you put your dependency in a corporation. You choose it.isadore;1230492 wrote:people? what do we get when we allow unregulated corporations treat workers and consumers. we saw how they treated workers in the post bellum era when there was little or no regulation on how these artificial soulless entities treated real people. they often sold dangerous, even deadly products to the consumer. they exploited their workers 16 hour days for men, women and children with minimal pay, in dangerous conditions, with no compensation for the injured or killed. yeh real fair. -
Con_Alma
Why they exist is irrelevant to the fact that an individual chooses to engage with them.isadore;1230526 wrote:Corporations exist because of government, not vice versa. They are created by a charter given to them by government that gives them certain advantages. They become economic entities with the right to make contracts, issue stock, borrow. The corporation is responsible for these actions, not individuals. Government also grants the advantage to the corporations and stockholders of limited liability so no matter what horrendous thing this corporations do, the stockholders responsibilities are limited. Gosh government even gave these artificial, soulless entities the right to participate in the political process.
And then government let them loose on society, and they exploited men, women and children workers, they produced dangerous, even deadly products. That is what they did when they were allowed to act as they wished.
Then the people acting though their government put limits on these soulless entities on how they could treat workers, consumers and the corrupted political process. WE HAD SEEN HOW THEY ACTED WITHOUT REGULATION And after all besides the abuses, why shouldn’t the government be able to regulate entities it brought into existence and endowed with so many advantages. Now those regulations are softening and the abuse is increasing. -
isadore
in the post bellum era it is more descriptive to describe those who had no choice but factory or starvation with the term "countless."Con_Alma;1230524 wrote:It is not those "some" that I refer to. Countless people who had no money, skills nor relationships chose to put their own security in their own control. Those that didn't choose to do so chose poorly. -
Con_Alma
I am not seeking to be more descriptive. I am seeking to make it know that all people had choices. Some didn't like those choices. People choose their outcomes.isadore;1230530 wrote:in the post bellum era it is more descriptive to describe those who had no choice but factory or starvation with the term "countless." -
isadore
no choice without government interventionCon_Alma;1230529 wrote:Why they exist is irrelevant to the fact that an individual chooses to engage with them. -
Con_Alma
We disagree. People had the choice but didn't want to take such a route. They chose poorly.isadore;1230533 wrote:no choice without government intervention -
isadore
they did not have the choice because of lack of knowledge, support and resources.Con_Alma;1230531 wrote:I am not seeking to be more descriptive. I am seeking to make it know that all people had choices. Some didn't like those choices. People choose their outcomes. -
Con_Alma
Not true. Not having those things didn't eliminate the choice.isadore;1230535 wrote:they did not have the choice because of lack of knowledge, support and resources. -
isadore
we disagree, in the post bellum period millions of people had no choiceCon_Alma;1230534 wrote:We disagree. People had the choice but didn't want to take such a route. They chose poorly. -
isadore
it did for millions of them.Con_Alma;1230536 wrote:Not true. Not having those things didn't eliminate the choice. -
Con_Alma
The did they simply didn't want to act on that choice.isadore;1230537 wrote:we disagree, in the post bellum period millions of people had no choice -
Con_Alma
The choice was still present and available....and still is today.isadore;1230538 wrote:it did for millions of them. -
isadore
people acting through the agency of government can make it fair even when dealing with soulless entities.Con_Alma;1230527 wrote:It's still not "fair" today and nothing you or the government will do will make it fair. You choose risk when you put your dependency in a corporation. You choose it. -
isadore
yes when that choice was starvation.Con_Alma;1230539 wrote:The did they simply didn't want to act on that choice. -
Con_Alma
They can but won't. ...not in you lifetime nor mine. People knowing it's not fair have to choose if that's they want to engage or not.isadore;1230542 wrote:people acting through the agency of government can make it fair even when dealing with soulless entities. -
isadore
this is not post bellum America.Con_Alma;1230540 wrote:The choice was still present and available....and still is today. -
Con_Alma
They had the option to obtain food. they simply didn't want to take that option. They chose poorly.isadore;1230544 wrote:yes when that choice was starvation.