The Corporation

Post Reply New Topic

So? Running locals out of business? Why are these people in business? To serve the consumers. Wal-mart is doing better at that job and is therefore justified. Sweatshops as I already put an article down on, are a lot better for the poor than other alternatives and thus are better. The right to association is a right, however, that applies for the corporation as well. People may associate with their fellow workers but employees should also be relatively free to hire and fire. I have a problem? I think you are simply the naive one if you think that by disagreeing with you a person MUST have a psychological problem. Corporations do fine. When have we really not had corporations that you can remember? Even if you live in a small town you still buy a lot of things from corporations. The corporations, as I said, allow for capital to be put together and used which is necessary for bigger projects with larger economies of scale. They make things efficient. Corporations have also been giving money to public universities and thus help fund scholarships and building facilities. Now one may argue that government run universities need to work on their rules but that is a matter of these universities.

There is obviously something wrong with you if you actually believe that crap. Walmart has no right to run in and undercut people. Those people are trying to make a living. Walmart is only there to keep the fat ass pigs fed. You seriously have to open your eyes. Corporations damage the environment, they manipulate politics. Seriously there is something wrong with you. You convinced me. We should let the economy fall to individual ventures and not big blame absorbers.

Everyone is trying to make a living but the purpose of production is to provide for consumers, and keeping that in mind it is therefore just to undercut people. You would make another complaint if corporations refused to undercut each other, that they were trying to bleed the common man dry. The fact of the matter is that we create our institutes of production for consumption. Ok, they damage the environment. I recognize that, I don't like that as it is an externality and I think it needs to be dealt with. I don't like politics anyway, no matter who is involved politics suck. Although democracy is one of the better systems, the people in it are imperfect. No, there really isn't anything wrong with me though. You just disagree with the things I say and disagreement is no proof of anything, if I took your stance on those who disagree with me, well, I could be a lot harsher in clamping down with my opinion.

No, corporations are good and reduce prices plus increase efficiency. Poor people jump at the chance for a job in LEDCs. Without the corporation, you would not have games consoles so cheap at all. Small businesses? That would mean low production and less organization.

Corporations must not be allowed to interfere with politics, however. There should be representatives for corporations and businesses, plus boards of economic advisors.

I think that good regulations could do a much better job than unions. A regulatory would then enforce and review regulations, plus act as a neutral arbiter between consumers, employees, businesses, and the government. Regulations could only be changed by parliament/government, and be enshrined in law. Unions just hold businesses hostage to strike threats.

Pay politicians and officials well, and the risk of corruption is significantly reduced.

I think corps are evil. But they are a nessecary evil. Actually I do support small coporations being allowed to operate. But there should be no mega ones.

"Attacking corporations isn’t the answer. They can’t force you to do anything. They can’t tell you how to live. They can supply you with goods and services at reasonable prices. That’s something. Most things in life promise more and deliver less than corporations. Politics and religion, for two."

How do we determine in a corporation is too large though? It cannot be purely based upon market share as that ignores natural monopoly. It cannot be based purely on size as that ignores economies of scale. What should the basis be for "too large", as after all, the real aim is not a hatred of corporations but a promotion of the public welfare and too small corporations can be harmful as well.

A corporation which has great political power and influence, in the same way Newscorp has. That could be countered by a government-run television agency bound to report only the FACTS by law. With the exception of news discussions and speculations of course... but no weasel spin in reporting news.

Mega-Corporations are good so long as they aren't huge monopolies which have massive precedence and political power. If an ultra-corporation has a HUGE amount of the market share, then that's when it's time to worry.... i.e a company with influence across many industries and market domination so much that it infringes on justice, democracy, and freedom.

I think that government run television agencies already exist. The real question ends up whether or not we keep ideology out of that as well. In all honesty, I think that as the internet gets bigger, the necessity of any such idea will get less and less.

Well, I am not arguing against a thought out view on corporations. I am arguing against the simple view that big equals bad. Now, you are right, some industries should not have monopolies but it is not true for all industries so ultimately any laws to stop monopolies will have to be well thought-out and tailorable to the specific industry with the highest regard given to efficiency.

Yes, in certain industries monopolies are ok. Still, corporations should not wield too much political power. Having representatives is beneficial by all means. With one or two representatives for a corporation in... say, an official government economic convention, would be very useful indeed. Not something with actual legal power except the ability to give a representation of businesses and recommendations. Only the economic leaders of an industry though. Perhaps the 5 leading businesses in each industry classification, one representative per "top 5" business per category. Companies with multiple categories and such could have multiple representatives. As it wouldn't actually hold much power apart from influence of opinion and speculation, the exacts don't matter so much, but are still important.

I would say that Microsoft's monopoly is an example of a beneficial monopoly. Computers have software which is integrated and universal standard the majority of the time. If Microsoft and Apple had to cooperate, then that would probably result in products which are lower standard and possibly incompatible when Microsoft is doing just fine dominating the operating system software market. I may be wrong, but it seems that Microsoft's monopoly is good.

Well, frankly the institute of political power has some problems that cause me to fear it so you can understand why I have some reluctance to state how we should perfectly reform the political system. Perhaps the lesson is that perfection doesn't exist? There needs to be a way to make sure that special interests, the interests of the people and the will of the people are all dealt with. The issue with the economic leaders though is that they would push for things that will keep down the economic laggers and prevent them from ever rising.
I think I have heard some others make the same argument in the past but I have not critically analyzed microsoft.

Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

I think taking a logical neutral stance on issues would be best, with some exceptions. Too preventable anger, harm, and grief is to be resented. You want to ensure happiness of citizens for optimum security, performance, civil cooperation, and the like. Being an advocate of human advancement, logic, intelligence, and general wellbeing, not to mention future planning, I think that positive, well-educated, non recreational drug-taking, cooperative, logical yet considerate citizens are the best type.

Not when designers are trying to build a bridge. Obviously if structures have a purpose, then failure to create a system to deal with that purpose well is a problem.

Well, definitely taking a logical stance is. Security, performance, stability and the like are desirable. I have some distrust of future planning beyond the foresight to see future problems. Well, those citizens have some good qualities, the real question ends up being whether or not government can really secure a population like that. Positivity is desirable but I don't see how government could do much for it without drugging up the water. Well-educated can be somewhat desirable, the real issue is one of the optimal education for every individual. Obviously I wouldn't want to harm all people for the goals of a few people, and I will remember that education is its own reward in many ways. Non-recreational drug taking is nice but as can be seen with the prohibition, and with marijuana problems, such as those found in the US, such a population is hard to get even if the force of law is on one's side thus meaning that efficiency might dictate relaxing such laws. Cooperation is nice and we try to encourage it in most things, those who do not cooperate run into problems. Logic enforces itself and consideration for the various variables does as well as the illogical people who consider nothing in their plans often lose a lot.

corporations are not logic based, they are greedf based. They encourage people to gorge themselves at the expense of others. To enrich themselves as others die in the streets. Socialism however is about helping humanity/society as a whole and not being a greedy pig bastard.

Corporations are no more illogical than any other operation. They want profits? So what? Profits coordinate the economy, you can't get profit unless you sell something worth buying, otherwise people will buy from those who do sell stuff that is worth buying.

Corporations only encourage people to buy their products just as charity groups encourage people to give them money. There is no encouragement to gorge at the expense of others, externalities can cause these problems but they don't require corporations to exploit it. There are not a huge amount of people dying in the streets, if anything we have gotten better with that and our living standards have increased over the last century. As I may have stated before somewhere else, only about 6-7% of the population in 1900 would be above the modern poverty level in the US.

Socialism is really about direct public control over the economy, both capitalism and socialism have been put in place with the idea that people will benefit from them, the difference is that capitalism has been proven to be viable for tis task while socialism has not shown viability. What if I argue that by allowing people to legally be greedy, we can harness this to our own ends? You cannot ban greed and the attempt to do so would require an unearthly amount of control over media, education, child-raising, and etc, and as such, wouldn't it be wiser to use greed to our ends if possible? If we set up a system where people by being greedy, can promote the welfare of others then wouldn't that be a good system? I argue that capitalism is that system to a great extent.

Greed is good for progress but only in the right way. Corruption in governments and public services must not be tolerated, and neither should gross mismanagement and irresponsibility.

Irresponsibility, and gross mismanagement being decisions or lack of decisions which lead to great harm to the economy, avoidable accidents, irresponsible or slanderous/libellious methods of advertising which lead to undue harm- for instance, a company advertising a weight loss drug and portraying overweight people as stupid, and stigmatizing them would be socially and mentally harmful crap. Official claims by companies should be founded on fair data and facts. Nothing wrong with letting companies make claims about themselves as regards to advertising, sponsorship, slogans, and branding of their own products, however.]

Calling someone who does not buy a certain product as stupid is ok in my view, so long as it is not targeted at a particular group in such a way that would cause social or mental harm. For instance, targeting teenagers and saying that every teenager who does not get say... a new iPod, as unduly sad and pathetic, and recommending that some action be taken against that person, would have potential for harm. Such issues need to be reviewed carefully. Advertising can influence people and imprint propaganda into their minds, and needs to be regulated. Not too tightly, but watched carefully for counter-progress connotations and misinformation. A load of propaganda which denounces something such as global warming as false or impresses opinions upon young people should be banned outright. Visiting websites and reading adverts, commentaries in media, or anything else of the sort is ok.

I am strongly against political/social brainwashing and media which only reports opinions without the fair representation of facts and statistics to back it up. Impressionable people can be misled into making harmful and ill-informed decisions without being aware that they have been brainwashed and indoctrinated. Informed people would look up the facts and general picture and not a biased representation. However... a good alternative would be to rate, with just 1-2 words or symbols, which opinion/theory certain media is biased towards so that people are aware of what they are reading. That could have negative impacts to a certain extent, and close people's minds when they see a word they hate in the rating.

Facts must not be twisted by any group when it comes to political matters, statistical records, and education.(education must be totally unbiased)
Perhaps a few classes in school just so people know when they're having an opinion forced upon them, and fact-finding would better prepare people for the real world. I was pretty vulnerable to being decieved myself when I was younger, as I didn't know what to look for, and took alot of opinion as fact. I wasn't aware that they could be so deceptive. Perhaps it is an Aspie thing.

Ok, that's enough ranting for now.