Democracies and Mutual Respect

You guys are foolish if you think that companies these days just wait around and see what the market is going to do. They do not. Many companies manipulate the markets in order to make the highest profit possible. They use the cheapest possible labor, just a step above slave labor, to make the cheapest possible products, and thus the highest possible return. They pay millions of dollars in bribes to the Govt, to reduce restrictions on their business, to dodge environmental restrictions, to screw competitors out of business, to avoid paying taxes altogehter.

Small companies are forced out of the market by big ones, either by economic forces or by buyouts or by legal action. That was Plainolme's point. That the corporation, with its rock-bottom prices and complete lack of caring for human decency (in the name of profits), lack of responsibility to society (they don't pay taxes), and lack of responsiblities to the environment, makes it difficult if not impossible for companies which choose not to do this to compete. Eventually all that is left is competing corporations.

The 'free market' that you describe just doesn't match the real world anymore. It is a fantasy.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, join plainoldme in the fantasy world. This gets better all the time. Where do you learn this nonsense? Let me guess, probably college, where the academic elites hide out from reality.

Yes, profits, thats the evil scourge of society. Why don't you go live in Cuba where you could possibly be happy.

Don't be a jerk. Just because you believe that we live in a shiny, happy society where companies play by the rules doesn't make it true.



This is almost as idiotic as your praise of the swift boaters. I'll deal with that foolishness here in a few hours when I have more time.

Cycloptichorn

I don't believe society is perfect, but I don't think that is possible, and I don't want to see anyone think it is. Government is certainly not the answer. Companies are not keeping you from being happy. Good grief. Do you need a shrink?

Who said anything about society being perfect? You were the one going on about the 'free market' as if such a false construct exists. When I point out examples of how it is not as free as people claim, you attack me personally.

Why don't you instead show me how I am wrong, and show that companies do not break the rules to get an unfair advantage over other companies. Show how corporations have a long and rich history of following the rules and being good to America and the Environment. I dare ya.

Cycloptichorn

If a corporation did not produce the oil and sell you the gasoline to use in your car, who do you propose to do it, Mr. Corporation hater?

Why, I wouldn't do anything about it at all - I sold my car close to two years ago. I ride a bicycle to get around.

But, let's say I had a car; I could produce my own ethanol and run the car off of that. I could have an electric car, and not need gasoline at all. I could grow my own biodiesel (there's actually a co-op of growers here in Austin I could buy into). All of these would be more environmentally friendly, and cheaper, than gasoline.

Nice try, though. Let's see if you can come back with a halfway coherent argument.

Cycloptichorn

Coherent argument? Would you know one if you saw it Cyclops?

So who do you suggest produce the fuel for all the trucks and heavy equipment to deliver your goods that you purchase at the store, build the buildings you inhabit and visit, build the roads you ride your bicycle on and the trucks use to bring products to you? Who do you propose build the ships and trucks that deliver all of the goods to you, and what fuel do you propose use for those ships? Lets add trains as well. I am only scratching the surface here. How about who prints the books you read,etc. etc. etc. etc. Who built the computer and the internet connections you are using right now?

If you really want to claim you do not depend upon this industrialized society of which corporations are an integral part of, you are in a serious state of denial. If you are serious about it, Iwould suggest you have 2 options: A. move to a communist country where the government does everything, but even there they probably use and abuse foreign corporations to do some of their work, so you are left with option B. - get rid of all of your personal property and effects including clothing, and move to a cave somewhere and live, make your own clothing, bows and arrows to kill game, raise your own food, and don't go to town forever after. Do not go to town for even medical care because most of the instruments, equipment, and medicine that might prolong your life or cure an ailment are manufactured by corporations.

My god, you may or may not be a fool, but you sure make foolish arguments.

When did I say we should do away with companies?

When did I say we should do away with corporations?

Why do you assume that if there is a problem, the solution is to do the exact opposite of the problem?

Point out to me where I said we should get rid of every company/corporation in America.

Point out to me where I said I wasn't a part of our industrialized economy.

---

You called me a 'corporation-hater.' You use the same tone as those who call me a 'bush-hater.' Both of those terms show amazing ignorance. I don't hate either one of them; I just hate the things that they do. Do I believe the solution is to get rid of corporations? No. Do I believe the solution is to get rid of Bush? No (he is a symptom of problems with our government, not the cause of the problems).

I do know what a coherent argument is, thank you very much. And you haven't made one. Show how corporations have not done the things that I allege - manipulate the system to the detriment of society, the environment, and America in general, all in the name of the Allmighty profit.

You would rather if I was some sort of socialist, so that you could employ your favorite arguments against me. But this doesn't match the reality of my life, it doesn't match what I've said. It's a construct that you have made up.

If you aren't a goddamn fool, then stop acting like one - you're confusing people about your nature.

Cycloptichorn

Who's making foolish arguments? You are claiming along with plainoldme there is no competition in the market, that corporations don't care about anything, anybody, they destroy the environment, employ people at slave labor prices, bribe the government, bla, bla, bla, sheesh, I for one get tired of people that have been brainwashed by elitist professors and teachers that preach the evils of multi-national corporations. If you don't like their products, don't buy them plain and simple, and quit complainin. And if the corporations are breaking the laws, then where are all the regulators and the thousands of laws, go complain to your government.

Am I a college graduate? Yes, I am.

Did I ever have a single professor say a single thing about corporations in America? No, I did not. The Conservative myth that all of us College grads are brainwashed by our professors is pure bullsh*t. All it shows is that you don't know anything about what it is like to be in college these days, but rely upon stereotypes to make your arguments for you.

I would complain to my government, but it is unfortunately my government that has loosened regulations and removed restrictions upon corporations - all in the name of money and re-election. Under Bush, the SEC and EPA have been gutted. Funds for them have been reduced. Their staff has been reduced. What is one to think, but that the administration supports Business far more than the government supports the environment or the concept of the 'free market?'



No f*ckin' way. I'm not gonna shut my mouth. It isn't my complaining that is the problem, it is your attitude that nothing is wrong is the problem.

Do you really want me to start listing instances of corporations doing exactly the things you suggested - bribing government, destroying the environment, employing labor at basically slave prices, sacrificing everything in the name of profit? You know I can do it. I can do it for days, and days, and days, and never run out of examples.

Where are your counter-examples? Can you post any, showing that Corporations don't do these things? That they have improved, cleaned up their acts, followed regulations, helped the country at the expense of profit? Done most anything at the expense of profit? I highly doubt it.

Instead, you will make fun of me, tell me to shut up, whatever you need to do to avoid admitting that the concept of the 'free market' doesn't exist in the slightest outside of a textbook. Corporations have bought their way deep into our society, in bad ways, even if you don't want to admit it.

Cycloptichorn

It is corporate welfare and corruption. They try to belittle their misconduct as consumer complaints when it is not complaint but criminality.

The internet was a government job under DARPA. Tim Bernard Lee, a scientist, developed the web and the electronic computer was invented by Professor Atanasoff. No corporations involved.

This debate has centered on the latest claim by plainoldme that there was no competition in the market anymore. I pointed out how wrong that was, then you started piling on with the same argument. What am I to conclude that you had to be brainwashed somewhere, Cyclops? My apologies if it wasn't in college, so it must be somewhere else, or did you come up with this completely on your own? It has been 35 years plus since I was in college, but I hear all the time about professors that preach the evils of multi-national corporations, and even high school teachers, such as the one at Overland High School in Denver, are doing it, so it is easy to make the assumption that you might have been influenced by college of late. My apologies.

I used to work for a corporation for a number of years. Break it down, and what you have is an organization run by alot of people and owned by many people. They were some of the best people I've known that worked in the company, and the shareholders are people living on your block, and I am a shareholder via retirement fund. The commercial activities of a corporation are governed by many things, including many regulations by government. Corporations make an honest living by producing legitimate goods and services at competitive prices. If you don't like them, DON'T BUY THEM! And don't work for them for slave prices. Nobody forces you to do it. If you can go on for days and days about corporations, I could go on for months about the government! It isn't a perfect world.

Last but not least, it isn't the institution thats causing the problem. If there is a problem, it is the people that run them. If you don't like people, reform them all. And get over it.

And actually this argument was about whether the market has competition these days. Anybody that says it does not is basically ignorant. If you don't believe there is competition, go ask Ford Motor or GM.

Plainoldme never claimed that there was no competition anymore. I'd like you to highlight exactly where she said that. In fact, what she did do was point out that the Corporation is responsible for driving many smaller, more individual businesses out of business. And this is true.



Once again, our argument has never been that there is not competition, just that the Corporation has many negative effects (as well as positive ones). And that they don't play fair. And that they have lots of money to play unfair with.

Why do you assume that I have been 'brainwashed' by anything? Yaknow, I only have one eye that works, but it works damn well. I can see for myself the effects of big business upon small business, the effects upon individuality (which was a prime component of Plainoldme's post) and the effects upon our environment and America. Most of them are bad. Oh, sure, you can get crap at cheap prices, noone is disputing that. But is all that junk worth the price that we eventually have to pay for it? I don't think so.



So did I; Dell computers, inc.



Sure. This is the simplistic way to look at it, but it does highlight part of the problem with the corporation.

Let's say that I start corporation X. We make propane and propane accessories, and have fine, hardworking people at every step of the way. We prosper, we grow bigger, and we decide to go public with our stock.

Now, instead of a small group of owners, we have a huge group of owners, who change all the time. Most of them have never seen our factories, never met Jim in accounting, they don't know that Darryl in Shipping is the hardest-working guy with one arm in Texas. All they know is that they gave money to our company in order to get a return on their investment. The highest possible return. Most stockholders these days aren't members of the companies they invest in. All they care about is making money off of their investments.

This is partially because you have money and fund managers who will tell you that it is stupid to put your money in a company that doesn't provide you as good returns as elsewhere. They will say (and I've heard this, not only from advisors of myself and my parents, but TV stock advisors on channels such as CNBC and CNN) that there is no room for sentimentality in the investment market, not if you actually want to make money. This is a serious problem for my propane company.

Why? Because whereas before, our company had a group of owners who believed in a common goal - quality propane and propane accessories - we now have a group of owners who believe in a different common goal: making money. That's it. And it inevitably starts to affect the business.

Do you know what 'due dilligence' laws are? They are laws which were passed to protect investors from CEO's and other Corporate leaders who are willing to do the 'right thing' at the expense of profits. You see, the goal of the CEO (according to investors) is to ensure that the highest possible returns are achieved each quarter or year for the investors. When they invested in the company, they did so with that understanding - that the people running the company would try as hard as they could to make money for the investors. But when they don't bring in the highest possible returns, investors get mad. They can invoke Due Dilligence, which allows these rich investors to sue those running the company if they feel they made decisions which lead to a loss in returns.

We used to, for example, triple-weld the propane tanks. Now we double-weld them, because it's cheaper, and saves the company money, which translates into investors making money, which attracts more investors, which grows the company.

We used to, for example, match employee retirement at 5%. Now we don't match it at all, because it saves the company money, which translates into investors making money, which attracts more investors, which grows the company. (this is a real-world example from my father's business, Fairbanks-Morse, btw)

We used to, for example, buy our glands and socket welds from a reputable company here in America. Now we buy them from overseas, because it saves the company money, which translates into investors making money, which attracts more investors, which grows the company.

We used to, for example, take greater care with our emissions and pollutants, to avoid fouling the stream next to the plant. Now, we just let it flow; it saves money, and we know from the bribes that we've paid that we won't be investigated. This saves money, which translates into investors making money, which attracts more investors, which grows the company.

And on, and on, and on.

If your company starts to care about the environment, or it's workers too much, you could be sued right out of your job by your stockholders. If the CEO wants to pay people more than slave wages to sew shirts together, he could lose his job for not providing the highest possible return. Morality is not an issue at all. And that's the problem. A corporation is a huge entity, who enjoys most of the rights of an individual, and has no moral compass whatsoever. All that matters is to make money.

Sure, some are better and some are worse. Not every corporation follows bad practices. But the ones that do, make the highest profits. The ones that do, are the ones that are recommended to invest in by professionals who care more about profits than anything else. So there is a reinforcing effect upon not caring about the environment, or the people who work for you, or America's health.

I didn't need anyone to tell me these things. I've seen them with my own eye, done research, been to plants, studied. I do not believe our current situation is sustainable, and it is part of my life's mission to reform the way we do business and investing here in America.



You're right, it isn't a perfect world. There are many evils of government that must be addressed as well. But in the same way that I would be wrong to sit here and tell you to shut up about big government, you are wrong to tell me to shut up about big business.

Unfortunately, these two topics are hugely connected, as one of primary ways for a company to make money is to invest in Government. Regulatory industries are owned by the industries they regulate; the incidence of regulators leaving gov't jobs for cushy jobs in the industries that they regulate is so prevalent, that there isn't even seen anything wrong with it anymore!

Corporate interests have bought their way into our government, not only in the Regulatory industry, but in the Congress and WH as well. Do you know how much money it costs to get elected these days? Millions of dollars. Hell, even at the state level it takes millions of dollars to get elected. Part of this reason is because the Corporations own the methods of idea transmission to the public that are the most popular - radio and televison. It used to be that both mediums had mandated time for each candidate, but that is a thing of the past - cut into profits. These same corporations have a vested interest in supporting the candidate that will loosen the restrictions upon their business to the maximum degree, and you don't think they do exactly that? Of course they do!

By the time you spend your first day in office these days, you are already in someone's pocket. I'm sure this has always been the case, but the economies of scale have blown things all out of proportion. And these people expect results once you are in office. This is what leads to the weaking of regulations, the weaking of restrictions, the weakining of taxes on Corporations, the removal of barriers to monopolies (Ma Bell is practically reformed again), and the passing of laws which actively harm Americans and Consumers to the profit of the Corporation, who is actually invested in by a small percentage of the population - witness the recent credit card bill passed by the Congress. It didn't help a single American at all, just Credit Card companies. How did this happen? Because the Corporation is willing, and has the money, to change the rules in the middle of the game. It is unfair and downright despicable.



I intend to. This begins with education, continues with the marshalling of forces, and ends with forcible change upon those who pray at the altar of profits. It will be a long and difficult struggle, and I have dedicated my life to it.



As I said before, no f*ckin' way.



Actually, this argument was never about that. You have mis-represented what Plainoldme and I have said from the start. You have claimed that I made arguments which I did not make. You have ridiculed me and called me brainwashed because I have opinions which you don't like. So who is the one who is 'basically ignorant?'

Ford and GM compete, sure; with other Corporations. And they both have had their fair share of dirty tricks and tactics to force others out of business.

Cycloptichorn

Can you read, Cyclops? After all, you graduated from college.
I won't bother with the rest of your lengthy post now. We need to get the basis of the argument right before we can even go any further.

Of course I can read. Don't be dense. Plainoldme said the same thing that I have said - that there is no 'free market.' It is a misleading term that has nothing to do with reality.

You stated that she, and I, both said that there was 'no competition.' This is not the same thing at all, and you know it.

If you can't do better than this, don't bother responding, okay? Sheesh

Cycloptichorn

Come on.....cyclops, competition is part of the meaning of free market. I don't even see any need to continue such a stupid debate if you are going to parse meanings like that. Competition is a very large part of what makes and defines a free market.

Go back to college and take economics.

Sure, competition is a part of the free market. The concept of the 'free market' revolves around competition deciding which companies thrive, and which do not.

The words 'free market' are misleading, is the point that Plainoldme and I have been putting forth. It is an artificial construct which does not match the real world.

Forget your quibbling about words; you know that I understand what you are talking about. How about actually responding to the meat of my post?

Cycloptichorn

If you mean to say that the free market has been influenced by government or by other factors, government tax policy being one factor, then say so, but the fact is the free market does exist, and it is primarily influenced by competition, in price, quality, and service, and by competition of choices made by consumers.

What started this was plainoldme complained that she couldn't buy the clothing or material she desired and complained there were no choices because there was no free market and that corporations simply sold what they felt like selling. I said no, corporations would provide the material she wanted if enough people wanted it, but the fact is most home sewing consumers do not make their own clothing so the demand does not justify a wide array of materials that she happens to want, which I have no clue what it could be. Home sewing is now dominated by quilting and machine embroidery, not making clothes.