05 Apr 2011, 8:14 pm
Bethie wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Corporatism...it's the Government intervening in the economy in favour of big businesses .
"Corporatocracy" is not "corporatism"...and neither one means that....at all.
Quote:
Corporatocracy, in social theories that focus on conflicts and opposing interests within society, denotes a system of government that serves the interest of, and may be run by, corporations and involves ties between government and business.
And that exactly fits what I defined as corporatism. When the Government has tight connections with business, the Government then has the power to make legislations in their favour. They can eliminate competition, stifle competition, screw the customers over, etc... etc...
Capitalism is ideally meant to prevent the Government and businesses (As well as businesses to businesses) from being tightly connected. This is done by minimizing Government intervention in the economy and anti-trust laws.
@ Vigilans: Yes we do have a mixed economy in Canada, but I lean a lot more towards capitalism than socialism.
05 Apr 2011, 8:21 pm
Quote:
@ Vigilans: Yes we do have a mixed economy in Canada, but I lean a lot more towards capitalism than socialism.
As you have stated before (actually I really like this saying from you, I hope you don't mind if I borrow sometimes
) : A safety net is okay, but should not be a hammock
Bethie
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster
05 Apr 2011, 8:28 pm
AceOfSpades wrote:
Bethie wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Corporatism...it's the Government intervening in the economy in favour of big businesses .
"Corporatocracy" is not "corporatism"...and neither one means that....at all.
Quote:
Corporatocracy, in social theories that focus on conflicts and opposing interests within society, denotes a system of government that serves the interest of, and may be run by, corporations and involves ties between government and business.
And that exactly fits what I defined as corporatism. When the Government has tight connections with business, the Government then has the power to make legislations in their favour. They can eliminate competition, stifle competition, screw the customers over, etc... etc...No. No it isn't. You're wildly equivocating all kinds of state-economic interaction.
Last edited by Bethie on 05 Apr 2011, 8:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
05 Apr 2011, 8:29 pm
Vigilans wrote:
Quote:
@ Vigilans: Yes we do have a mixed economy in Canada, but I lean a lot more towards capitalism than socialism.
As you have stated before (actually I really like this saying from you, I hope you don't mind if I borrow sometimes
) : A safety net is okay, but should not be a hammock@Bethie: What am I wildly equivocating? I already make an exception in which Government intervention with business is acceptable, which is enforcing anti-trust laws. And I don't even know what to say about the definitions anymore, cuz the one I gave and the one I bolded from the quote from wiki are basically the same.
05 Apr 2011, 8:42 pm
Bethie wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Corporatism...it's the Government intervening in the economy in favour of big businesses .
"Corporatocracy" is not "corporatism"...and neither one means that....at all.
UK Universities use to have elected political representatives in the House of Commons.
If corporations have the vote & MPs in Parliament, I'll start to panic.
05 Apr 2011, 9:01 pm
cdfox7 wrote:
Bethie wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Corporatism...it's the Government intervening in the economy in favour of big businesses .
"Corporatocracy" is not "corporatism"...and neither one means that....at all.
UK Universities use to have elected political representatives in the House of Commons.
If corporations have the vote & MPs in Parliament, I'll start to panic.
Corporations have something much better than the vote... the ability to lobby and pressure elected officials. No matter which way the flow of votes go, the flow of capital ultimately trumps it. Furthermore, given that corporate officials contribute extensively to election campaigns, they really do influence public policy for private gain.
05 Apr 2011, 9:16 pm
Master_Pedant wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
Bethie wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Corporatism...it's the Government intervening in the economy in favour of big businesses .
"Corporatocracy" is not "corporatism"...and neither one means that....at all.
UK Universities use to have elected political representatives in the House of Commons.
If corporations have the vote & MPs in Parliament, I'll start to panic.
Corporations have something much better than the vote... the ability to lobby and pressure elected officials. No matter which way the flow of votes go, the flow of capital ultimately trumps it. Furthermore, given that corporate officials contribute extensively to election campaigns, they really do influence public policy for private gain.
Very true, my last comment was pointing to the corporation's legal personality.
These legal persons might demand equity on par of the civil & human right that we natural persons have.
05 Apr 2011, 9:28 pm
cdfox7 wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
Bethie wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Corporatism...it's the Government intervening in the economy in favour of big businesses .
"Corporatocracy" is not "corporatism"...and neither one means that....at all.
UK Universities use to have elected political representatives in the House of Commons.
If corporations have the vote & MPs in Parliament, I'll start to panic.
Corporations have something much better than the vote... the ability to lobby and pressure elected officials. No matter which way the flow of votes go, the flow of capital ultimately trumps it. Furthermore, given that corporate officials contribute extensively to election campaigns, they really do influence public policy for private gain.
Very true, my last comment was pointing to the corporation's legal personality.
These legal persons might demand equity on par of the civil & human right that we natural persons have.
we must kill all legal persons
05 Apr 2011, 9:35 pm
JakobVirgil wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
Bethie wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Corporatism...it's the Government intervening in the economy in favour of big businesses .
"Corporatocracy" is not "corporatism"...and neither one means that....at all.
UK Universities use to have elected political representatives in the House of Commons.
If corporations have the vote & MPs in Parliament, I'll start to panic.
Corporations have something much better than the vote... the ability to lobby and pressure elected officials. No matter which way the flow of votes go, the flow of capital ultimately trumps it. Furthermore, given that corporate officials contribute extensively to election campaigns, they really do influence public policy for private gain.
Very true, my last comment was pointing to the corporation's legal personality.
These legal persons might demand equity on par of the civil & human right that we natural persons have.
we must kill all legal personslol Death via insolvency
12 Apr 2011, 11:28 pm
13 Apr 2011, 9:54 am
JakobVirgil wrote:
we must kill all legal personsBetter to kill artificial persons.
ruveyn
13 Apr 2011, 10:32 am
Took it again. I'm closer to the centre now which makes sense since I lean more towards economic regulation:
robertyknwt
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 60
Location: Tarzana CA USA
27 Apr 2011, 6:44 pm
27 Apr 2011, 8:36 pm
ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
we must kill all legal personsBetter to kill artificial persons.
ruveyn
there you go if you don't have a pulse you are not a person.
03 May 2011, 6:43 pm
03 May 2011, 9:24 pm
