Why do you hate corporations?
-
Con_Alma
...nor did I state it was. The same options exist with regard to engage or not with corporations.isadore;1230546 wrote:this is not post bellum America. -
isadore
people acting through government changed how corporations behaved at least temporarily and they still can.Con_Alma;1230545 wrote: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
no they do not, it is a different world we live in.Con_Alma;1230548 wrote:...nor did I state it was. The same options exist with regard to engage or not with corporations. -
Con_Alma
They can but it won't ever become completely fair..not in you lifetime not mine. People must choose if they still wish to engage.isadore;1230549 wrote:people acting through government changed how corporations behaved at least temporarily and they still can. -
isadore
true they could stolen and murdered for it, but most did not consider that choice. It was beyond the pale for them.Con_Alma;1230547 wrote:They had the option to obtain food. they simply didn't want to take that option. They chose poorly. -
Con_Alma
The world we live in today may be different but I can still do the exact same thing they could have in the 20s and 30s.isadore;1230550 wrote:no they do not, it is a different world we live in. -
Con_Alma
What they consider or not doesn't negate the fact that choices exist. They chose poorly.isadore;1230553 wrote:true they could stolen and murdered for it, but most did not consider that choice. It was beyond the pale for them. -
isadore
and we will not become completely free, complete contented, completely happy this side of the grave. what they have using government is an agency to make it fairer.Con_Alma;1230551 wrote:They can but it won't ever become completely fair..not in you lifetime not mine. People must choose if they still wish to engage. -
gut
Corporations exist to diversify risk and cost. Without them, you kill innovation. You clearly don't get this. These "economic entities" you refer to have no power or ability to do anything - people are behind everything. The corporation didn't outsource your job, some mid-level manager in operations did.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.
Say what you want about rights and privileges granted by govt, the bottom line is a corporation is inherently benign, neither benevolent nor malevolent. Corporate actions, driven by its workers and shareholders, are what you have issue with. And the reality is the largest shareholders are typically big pension and mutual funds that have mom & pop as investors. -
Con_Alma
Fairer is does not necessarily mean fair. It will not be fair...ever. People must choose whether to engage or not. Some will choose poorly.isadore;1230556 wrote:and we will not become completely free, complete contented, completely happy this side of the grave. what they have using government is an agency to make it fairer. -
isadore
for them stealing, murdering and cannibalism were not choices but outside their realm of thought. And refusing to do any of these would not be poor choices, would not be poor choices. nor would starvation, their only other choice factory work.Con_Alma;1230555 wrote:What they consider or not doesn't negate the fact that choices exist. They chose poorly. -
gut
This is true. There are no laws forcing you to work for or buy goods/services from corporations. Well, maybe except for Obamakare.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
Their only choice was not facory work. They chose that route. It was a poor one.isadore;1230560 wrote:for them stealing, murdering and cannibalism were not choices but outside their realm of thought. And refusing to do any of these would not be poor choices, would not be poor choices. nor would starvation, their only other choice factory work. -
Con_Alma
Exactly.gut;1230561 wrote:This is true. There are no laws forcing you to work for or buy goods/services from corporations. Well, maybe except for Obamakare. -
isadore
fairer is better. people have the option to choose. and some will choose poorly. and some people in this world today have only have one choice beside starvation. and some have no choice but starvation.Con_Alma;1230559 wrote:Fairer is does not necessarily mean fair. It will not be fair...ever. People must choose whether to engage or not. Some will choose poorly. -
Con_Alma
"Better" changes not the point. It won't be fair ever... so people must chose if they want to engage with "fairer". SOme will choose poorly.isadore;1230566 wrote:fairer is better. people have the option to choose. and some will choose poorly. and some people in this world today have only have one choice beside starvation. and some have no choice but starvation. -
gut
Shame on those eeeviil corporations for giving people an alternative to starvation!isadore;1230566 wrote:fairer is better. people have the option to choose. and some will choose poorly. and some people in this world today have only have one choice beside starvation. and some have no choice but starvation. -
isadore
because of corporate lobbying and monopolistic practices, corporations have come to overwhelmingly dominate the product and factor markets. we need government to act against these artificial soulless entities.gut;1230561 wrote:This is true. There are no laws forcing you to work for or buy goods/services from corporations. Well, maybe except for Obamakare. -
Con_Alma
O.K. Let them act....meanwhile people must choose whether they are willing to engage with "fairer". Some will choose poorly.isadore;1230570 wrote:because of corporate lobbying and monopolistic practices, corporations have come to overwhelmingly dominate the product and factor markets. we need government to act against these artificial soulless entities. -
isadore
soulless corporation care nothing about who starves and who doesn't, let people starve in the Sudan, they care not. They soulless only want cogs for production to be used and thrown away when not needed.gut;1230568 wrote:Shame on those eeeviil corporations for giving people an alternative to starvation! -
gut
But you're wrong, they're not soulless. The workers and shareholders are the soul of these companies. Your beef is with those PEOPLE (and that's a WHOLE LOT of people), not the inanimate object that is a corporation.isadore;1230570 wrote:we need government to act against these artificial soulless entities.
Again, a lot of this goes back to a sense of entitlement, rather than lack of "fairness" over people whining not about what they are willing to pay (i.e. price dictated by supply and demand) but what they WANT to pay (which is always a number far less, often approaching zero). -
gut
Ahhh, liberal naivete. You give away your product/service, either to buyers or workers, and soon there's nothing left to give away. And, again, these corporations are funded by investors - including mom & pop - who demand a return on their investment. Investment funds with a mandate to invest in green or "benevolent" companies are mostly fringe products and typically underperform. So while plenty of people pound the table for what you are claiming, when it comes time to put their money where their mouth is they tend to do the opposite.isadore;1230574 wrote:soulless corporation care nothing about who starves and who doesn't, let people starve in the Sudan, they care not. They soulless only want cogs for production to be used and thrown away when not needed. -
Con_Alma
People need to choose carefully if they engage then. It's not a corporations responsibility to feed people. SOme people will chose poorly.isadore;1230574 wrote:soulless corporation care nothing about who starves and who doesn't, let people starve in the Sudan, they care not. They soulless only want cogs for production to be used and thrown away when not needed. -
isadore
You do realize the most significant of human innovations were not produced by corporations. You do not need corporations to produce innovation. You clearly don't get this. And gosh corporations borrow, charly in middle management is not financiallly responsible for paying off the loan, nor in he responsible financially responsible for paying a worker's small wages, or paying for the raw material delivered. The corporation is financially responsible for all those things. And when someone dies from the product produced by this corporation, its not charly who is responsible. nor is it ma and pop investor. it is the corporation that is responsible, because it is an economic entity. Benign, give me a break. They have no soul and unless closely regulated can cause untold harm.gut;1230557 wrote:Corporations exist to diversify risk and cost. Without them, you kill innovation. You clearly don't get this. These "economic entities" you refer to have no power or ability to do anything - people are behind everything. The corporation didn't outsource your job, some mid-level manager in operations did.
Say what you want about rights and privileges granted by govt, the bottom line is a corporation is inherently benign, neither benevolent nor malevolent. Corporate actions, driven by its workers and shareholders, are what you have issue with. And the reality is the largest shareholders are typically big pension and mutual funds that have mom & pop as investors. -
isadore
they are soulless entities that have no obligation to be a positive force for humanity.Con_Alma;1230578 wrote:People need to choose carefully if they engage then. It's not a corporations responsibility to feed people. SOme people will chose poorly.