I don't know. Why was the
I don't know. Why was the German NAZI party hated so much?
Give me a dispassionate answer.
Remember...........keep it dispassionate. No right-wing whining.
Honest dispassionate answer. Why are corporations hated o much?
Ok, let's take a step back and look at this dispassionately. Regardless if you lean left, right or are more centrist I'd like to have your opinions on why left leaning people hate big corporations so much. However, before you give your opinion, please read my argument as to why it doesn't really make any sense, at least in my eyes, why you would or should hate them so much.
1. Let's take a look at the real and MAIN reason a company exists. To make money. To make money, and as much as possible, for the owners of the company. Regardless if company provides a product or service or a combination of the two. Making money is the sole reason a "for profit" company exists. Does anyone deny or not agree with this?
2. All of these companies provide literally Tens of MILLIONS of jobs to the upper, middle and lower class people of The United States and abroad. Without these companies, many of the people who do the complaining would be out of work.
3. Do those who complain about these large organizations not understand that many, if not most of them are publicly owned? And ALL of us, because of our free capitalist society have an opportunity to take part in that ownership and share in that profit you all seem to hate so much in the form of a dividend? Don't hate the company for trying to make a profit, they are doing it for their stock holders. many of which might be your liberal or left leaning democratic friend or neighbor. Or your favorite liberal politician.
4. Do those who complain also not understand that if you have any kind of pension, 401k, IRA, etc.... that someone manages the funds for those retirement plans and those funds are made up partially of stocks from those large companies, Oil and gas companies? Do they not understand that it is in their best interest for those companies to make as much money as possible so that their own personal retirement accounts can grow to be as large as they can be?
Yes, yes, yes I know. There are lobbyists' who lobby and pay off the politicians (Rep, Dem & Independent. ALL guilty) so that the big corporations can get a law passed (or not) that will benefit them or give them tax breaks, etc.... but it is all for the same thing. So they can make as much money as possible as they can for their stockholders. Which, can be you if you choose.
So..... we all have the opportunity to participate. Don't have the corporations if you choose not to participate.
I do have to say, that while most of you were buying plasma tv's on credit, I bought stock in Corning Glass. They make the Glass for flat panel TV's. While you were buying iPhones, I bought stock in Apple. While you were worrying about Education, I bought stock in companies that deal in Educational technology. I like Dr. Pepper so I bought stock in Dr. Pepper/Snapple. I'm not rich but I have been buying stock over that past 8 - 10 years using a drip account where I buy a little bit each month.
Last week, all my stocks , except for a few, did really really well. I made in 2 days what most blue collar workers make in a month. How can I hate big corporations when I get that kind of return?
Comments
That was a ridiculas
That was a ridiculas reply.
I've noticed that when presented with logical arguments, backed up with facts, liberals either just don't answer at all or they comeback with totally nonsense replys like the one you just did.
opelgt wrote: Yes, yes, yes
Yes, yes, yes I know. There are lobbyists' who lobby and pay off the politicians (Rep, Dem & Independent. ALL guilty) so that the big corporations can get a law passed (or not) that will benefit them or give them tax breaks, etc....
What are the negatives that have come with this? Aren't Corporations just doing what they must to make things right for their company and our best interests as a country?
opelgt, To begin, you're
To begin, you're straw manning this a bit. It's not about hating anything, that's just an emotional reaction, to which you are trying to make the focus.
Secondly you use "complain" a lot.
And so, you're actually being disingenuous, using a seemingly logical post to actually insult people under your breath.
So, are you really interested in an intellectual conversation? And if so, you willing to drop the passive aggressive BS?
opelgt wrote: 1. Let's take a
1. Let's take a look at the real and MAIN reason a company exists. To make money. To make money, and as much as possible, for the owners of the company. Regardless if company provides a product or service or a combination of the two. Making money is the sole reason a "for profit" company exists. Does anyone deny or not agree with this?
Agreed. And this is one of the reasons the corporate structure is so destructive. Corporate charters used to exist to serve the public good, not usurp as much for oneself. The profit motive can be usul, but in its current form it is over the top.
2. All of these companies provide literally Tens of MILLIONS of jobs to the upper, middle and lower class people of The United States and abroad. Without these companies, many of the people who do the complaining would be out of work.
Untrue. Most of human history is without any large corporations. We got here without them, we can survive (in fact thrive) without them, especially in their current form. Corporations don't create jobs, they steal them, then rent them back at a discounted rate, for profit. There always has been, and always will be as many jobs available as there are people with needs and wants and natural resources to meet them. It's the very basis of any economic system.
3. Do those who complain about these large organizations not understand that many, if not most of them are publicly owned? And ALL of us, because of our free capitalist society have an opportunity to take part in that ownership and share in that profit you all seem to hate so much in the form of a dividend? Don't hate the company for trying to make a profit, they are doing it for their stock holders. many of which might be your liberal or left leaning democratic friend or neighbor. Or your favorite liberal politician.
Selective public ownership is not the same as publicly owned. The fact that these structures are designed in a way where the "owners" are removed from the actual running of the business is part of what makes this structure destructive. Stockholders don't care about the consequences of a corporation's actions, and never have to suffer them, they just want their profit.
4. Do those who complain also not understand that if you have any kind of pension, 401k, IRA, etc.... that someone manages the funds for those retirement plans and those funds are made up partially of stocks from those large companies, Oil and gas companies? Do they not understand that it is in their best interest for those companies to make as much money as possible so that their own personal retirement accounts can grow to be as large as they can be?
Another reason why setting up a structure where people are dependent on 401k accounts is so destructive. See above notes about profit motive.
Yes, yes, yes I know. There are lobbyists' who lobby and pay off the politicians (Rep, Dem & Independent. ALL guilty) so that the big corporations can get a law passed (or not) that will benefit them or give them tax breaks, etc.... but it is all for the same thing. So they can make as much money as possible as they can for their stockholders. Which, can be you if you choose.
So..... we all have the opportunity to participate. Don't have the corporations if you choose not to participate.
This is such broken logic, I'm not sure how to respond. But long story short, those who choose no, still must suffer the consequences of corporate misdeeds. So no, there really isn't a choice when you either have to choose yes, or suffer anyway.
Speaking of movies, I also
Speaking of movies, I also love the bit from Good Will Hunting (the main character, Will, is answering a question while interviewing for the NSA, a job he really doesn't want):
Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never met, never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, send in the Marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile, he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And, of course, the oil companies used the skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them, but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin', 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat, the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure fuck it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.
I'm reminded of an old
I'm reminded of an old Twilight Zone episode. A woman happens across a family that lives in terror because the 10 year old child has acquired the power to wish anything he dreams up on all the members of his family. He imagines Grampa as a frog, and Grampa turns into a frog. Nothing malicious, just the whims of a child.
Large corporations have become like that child. Too much autonomous power The rest of society is totally at the mercy of their selfish whims. Left to their own desires, they do not even think about the welfare of the country that feeds them. Like a child, they see the world through a very narrow prism.
In theory, Corporations are allowed by the Government to exist. In return for this privilege, they accept terms of responsibility determined by the Government.
In the episode, the viewer immediately sees the child as a monster. It is only at the end that it is pointed out that the child is only behaving as you would expect a child with extraordinary powers to behave.
The analogy isn't perfect, but that, in a nutshell, is why people hate Corporations.
I worked at a company that
I worked at a company that went from being small and became a publicly traded corporation. I've seen the scheme from the inside. Corporations are like out of control Frankenstein monsters. When they go public they stop making products for their customers and start making them for the stockholders. The larger they become the more impersonal they become and bad decisions are made usually against customer and public good.
And then you have the corporate aristocracy whose egos really swell as the corporation becomes successful and they become a real pain in the ass to deal with and blinded by their egos they make the bad decisions mentioned above.
And if one is paying attention most new development is done by small companies who the big ones gobble up putting some of the employees out of work due to the acquisition. If we were to say corporations were too big and break them up all kinds of jobs would be created.
No, the original laws of this country regarding corporations were just fine and should have never been tinkered with.
As I've said many times
As I've said many times before, most of our economic woes would clear away with just two simple changes to our corporate laws. First, abolish the publicly traded corporate structure, and secondly give preferential treatment to the worker-owned structure.
I don't think it's the only two things that should happen, but if I could only choose two, that's the two I'd choose. The real irony is that such a change would actually create the capitalism that most conservative think already exists (but it doesn't).
A good example of what I'm
A good example of what I'm talking about is Equal Exchange, a worker-owned multi-national corporation.
Common - do you have any
Common - do you have any recommended reading on "abolish the publicly traded corporate structure" I could check out?
louisehartmann wrote: Common
Common - do you have any recommended reading on "abolish the publicly traded corporate structure" I could check out?
I've never seen anything written that made abolishing the publicly traded company the focus. Rather, I'd direct people to works about the alternatives. the works of David Korten, as you probably already are aware, provide a wealth of information. Especially is latest few books. http://www.davidkorten.org/
Also, the US Federation of Worker Cooperatives, USFWC, lists some great resources here:
http://www.usworker.coop/resources
And to focus specifically on one the links provided by the USFWC, check this out:
Yes! I'd add a change to
Yes! I'd add a change to "purpose" of the corporation. They should exist to serve their communities(large or small) and to have net positive effects on them. Included in this equation would be hidden and externalized costs.
Quote:Yes! I'd add a change
Yes! I'd add a change to "purpose" of the corporation.
The apologists for Corporations think that the sole purpose is to make money. Business academics will tell you that the primary purpose is to satisfy demand and make a profit in the process. Those that make the first argument were the C-students.
The small farm movement took
The small farm movement took on some of the most powerful and corrupt Corporations there are and are getting great interest from the commons. It may seem like too simple a fix of many of our most serious problems to take very seriously but please think more deeply about it.
What kind of person would
What kind of person would start a dispassionate question with the premise of: 'you hate corporations'?
Quote: Regardless if you lean
Regardless if you lean left, right or are more centrist I'd like to have your opinions on why left leaning people hate big corporations so much.
One major reason is that they've coopted our government for their benefit. Wealth is power and they use their wealth to buy power. We provide corporations certain legal protections through our legal system and so we have the power and authority to control their behavior to benefit society above their "obligation to make money for their investors". And that includes keeping their influence in politics to a minimum, which requires political will that doesn't exist so long as they can buy influence through contributions and jobs to pols and their staff.
I don't understand the
I don't understand the vilification of large corporations.
Our economy needs jobs. Has anyone seen Obama hosting a meeting with business leaders, to say, "What can I do to help?" It seems to me that if the goal were to add two million jobs, the fastest solution would be to meet with the top 100 businesses in each state, and ask them, "What can I do that would encourage you to grow your workforce by 5%?" Obama needs to sit down with the governors, and make it their top priority to meet with every significant business leader in their state, and ask how they can help. You know that old line, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." It doesn't need to be the punch line to a joke. The government, under proper leadership CAN help business. Or, it can tear it down. The attitude and culture comes from the top. The Obama adminstration needs to be pro-active and send a clear message to the business community, "I need jobs, and I need you to get into hiring mode. Tell me what I have to do and I'll do it." These are organizations that breed jobs for a living. Why not help them do what they are good at? In these times, anyone who can do some hiring should be Obama's best buddy.
There is zero indication that Obama "gets it" with respect to job creation. Large companies certainly have issues, and if the economy were good, I do believe that a debate over what can be done to maintain what is good, while limiting the things large coporations do that are wrong, might be appropriate. But, team, at this point in the ballgame, any thought other than "Let's quickly put people to work" is a waste of time, and worse yet, is going to: a) Get the democrats removed from power, and b) Delay the economic recovery.
And you have exactly what to
And you have exactly what to say about the opposition to the recent bill that would have made guaranteed funds available to small business? Wouldn't that be a good place to start within any given community with the least amount of (and I might add, rightly so; the locals themselves on both sides of the equation, borrower and lender alike, would be better to judge which loans under the bill would be likely to produce returns for the lender in any case) Federal government interference? Why did the Republicans oppose something like that?
drew013... not sure if your
drew013... not sure if your question (about the small business bill) was directed at me, but...
My personal opinion is that whether you are a republican, or a democrat, if you do anything to hinder job creation, it will be seen as a negative by the public. Republican opposition to the small business bill is a negative for the republicans.
Both sides have been using this bill to piggyback other wishlist projects. The politicians need to quit using the bill as a bargaining chip, and get the thing passed.
I am not a fan of spending, and generally oppose anyone borrowing money for any purpose. But, to the extent this helps businesses, and creates jobs, I support it. Everyone needs to forget everything and focus on jobs creation. We can squabble about the little stuff later.
Caboken wrote: The
Caboken wrote: The government, under proper leadership CAN help business. Or, it can tear it down. The attitude and culture comes from the top. The Obama adminstration needs to be pro-active and send a clear message to the business community, "I need jobs, and I need you to get into hiring mode. Tell me what I have to do and I'll do it."
poly replies . Business wanted $11.4 trillion in bailouts and guarantees so they'd have liquidity. . They got it. Now they say government is so deep in debt from doing what they asked...we have to be put on austerity programs to pay for the bail of business. Drive consumer demand through the floor.
Business wanted outsourcing...they got it ....and the country is being impoverished in the process.
Pharmaceuticals wanted Medicaid "D". They wrote it...they got it. It's bankrupting Medicare.
Ask business? Big joke. Big Business tells government what to do and it does it.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".. .
Poly: Theoretically, the bail
Poly:
Theoretically, the bail outs were used to save jobs, and help 'innocent' civilians who would have been ruined by the collapse of the corporations the money was used to bail out.
I do support using tax dollars to create and save jobs, even when it means running up debts. I don't like it, and I grumble about it, but ultimately, it is all about jobs, and we need to have jobs to keep the economy healthy.
What I didn't like about the bailouts was that I don't believe the money was spent wisely, and that much was wasted. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks corruption occured and that not all the money can be accounted for. The bailouts had their heart in the right place (saving jobs) but the implementation was botched. What should have been a major positive is generally regarded by the public as a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Throwing away money in the name of helping business, is not helping business.
My question is: What mandate was given to the governors, and how was the money tracked after it was given to the governors? Were there any quantitative measures? Were there state by state goals for jobs created? I'd like to see all of the $11.4 trillion you mentioned broken out by state, and the governors ranked according to what they said they would accomplish, and what actually happened.
My guess: There were very loose goals, if any, and all of the money can't be accounted for. And, I consider that a problem.
Quote:Ok, let's take a step
Ok, let's take a step back and look at this dispassionately.
"dispassionately" , eh?
Interesting choice of wording. I'm left wondering why you did not use the word "objectively".
Anyway, I do not hate
Anyway, I do not hate corporations. Corporations are nothing more than things run by people.
Things are just things... ...nothing more. Now, what I do find incredibly interesting is the maladaptive evolutionary socio-cultural mindset of the people running corporations.
Quote:Bonnie said, "... Now,
Bonnie said, "... Now, what I do find incredibly interesting is the maladaptive evolutionary socio-cultural mindset of the people running corporations..."
Did you have someone in particular in mind? Is your thought that congress, the senate, or even the president could do a better job than most CEOs? Your perception is that government run businesses run more efficiently than private enterprise?
I ran a fairly large company, and one of my pet sayings was, "I've never met a person who couldn't run the company better than I can." As a corporate CEO you get accustomed to the fact that no matter what you do, the troops will think you are overpaid, don't do anything, and are an idiot. There are probably a few exceptions, but as a rule, it is not uncommon for the employees in a large corporation to believe that they could do a better job than senior management. And, sometimes, they are right. There are some bad CEOs out there. Generally though, it is tougher to run a company than you might think.
Ultimately, the CEO works for the company owners and needs to keep them happy. With a large public company, this means 'the shareholders.' Shareholders want predictable long term earnings growth. If a CEO can't grow marketshare and profits, they lose their job. To succeed as a CEO you need to be able to out-think and under-price the competition, while keeping costs under control, and employees motivated. Being a successful leader requires strategic skills, accounting skills, people skills, sales skills, oft-times technical skills and more. In addition you need the intestinal fortitude to 'do the right thing' even when it is unpopular.
I know a lot of CEOs, and I'm honestly not certain how many have a (your words) "...maladaptive evolutionary socio-cultural ..." personality. I'm not sure that should be the measure of success. There is a great misunderstanding of what a privately owned company is.
A privately owned (as well as a publicly owned) corporation is an asset that is owned by someone. The CEO's job is to maintain and grow the value of the asset. If you buy a share of stock, would you rather it decline in value, stay the same in value, or rise in value? A stock certificate is an ownership interest in a company. If it is going to decline in value, or stay the same, why would you want to own it? Certainly, I can't imagine wanting to own a company that has no ambition to capture marketshare and grow. The CEO is the person charged with 'making it happen.' There is a very real, quantitative measure of their success; earnings growth. This is usually linked to the stock price. If earnings are flat, or the stock price falls, then the shareholders swap out the CEO. My experience has been that shareholders never cared if I was maladaptive or cultural anything. It really didn't matter what color my suit was, or my hair color. And, I'd argue that regardless of what shareholders might say with their lips, when it really comes down to it, it's all about the money. When you buy a stock, isn't your #1 goal to make money? If I want to give money to a charity, I give money to a charity, but when I invest, I want to make money.
Anyway, the bottom line is that being a CEO looks easy from the outside, but I absolutely guarantee that 99% of the people who believe they can do a better job than most corporate CEOs, wouldn't last two quarters out in the real world.
I don't want to come off as the apologist for large corporations. Thom has argued many times for splitting up companies at a certain size. He may be right. There are times when it makes sense to leverage costs across a larger organization, but generally, small groups work more efficiently than large groups. I think that one of the keys to my success was that I always split organizations into smaller business units, each with their own "CEO", as they grew. If someone wanted to pass a law that no corporation could have over 5,000 employees, I wouldn't rule it out. I generally believe the larger something is, the less efficient it is, and this especially applies to the US government. If we are going to smash big inefficient organizations that are poorly run, Washington DC should certainly be on the list.
bonnie wrote: Anyway, I do
Anyway, I do not hate corporations. Corporations are nothing more than things run by people.
Things are just things... ...nothing more. Now, what I do find incredibly interesting is the maladaptive evolutionary socio-cultural mindset of the people running corporations.
Leave it to a woman to have the most rational compelling argument on this thread.
Great response Bonnie, and I notice there has been no intelligent retort to it as yet.
Absolutely true- its not the corporations which are the problem, its the people running them. I would say in countries which have much stricter regulations on big companies, corporations are a positive for the overall society.
Unfortunately the USA, is not one of those places.
When a corporation earns
When a corporation earns hatred and contempt, it is likely that the individuals who run the corporation do place profit at the top of their hierarchy of values; it is likely that notions such as compassion, justice, fairness, love, and community show up, if at all, at the lower end of their list of values.
When I hate a corporation, it is because its—the association of individuals—quest for profit, regardless of the risk or cost to humans, to animals, or the environment, has created terrible suffering. I’m thinking of everything from Bhopal and the BP oil disaster, http://www.businesspundit.com/the-worlds-worst-environmental-disasters-c... to Monsanto seed monopoly (etc. etc.), to health insurance company deaths by rescission, to big pharma deaths by pill, to chemical industry death and disease by pesticides and pollution...and on and on.
I’m thinking of a little pill called Premarin, for example, a pill that is still on the market, even though it has been correlated—strongly—with breast cancer and other serious, life-threatening side effects. But notice how the company lies about it: http://www.wyeth.com/hcp/premarin/premarin
http://www.healthcentral.com/druglibrary/408/premarin-warnings_precautio...
Now that’s a company I hate.
opelgt wrote: Ok, let's take
Ok, let's take a step back and look at this dispassionately. Regardless if you lean left, right or are more centrist I'd like to have your opinions on why left leaning people hate big corporations so much. However, before you give your opinion, please read my argument as to why it doesn't really make any sense, at least in my eyes, why you would or should hate them so much.
1. Let's take a look at the real and MAIN reason a company exists. To make money. To make money, and as much as possible, for the owners of the company. Regardless if company provides a product or service or a combination of the two. Making money is the sole reason a "for profit" company exists. Does anyone deny or not agree with this?
You seem to use company and corporation interchangeably- a corporation is a specific kind of company. Making money may be a corporation's major responsibility to owners but I believe that corporations' reasons for existence are to limit liability to owners (shareholders), provide a convenient means of transferring ownership, and to create a perpetual business that can outlive it's owner(s).
I'll grant that the ultimate (don't know about sole) reason that a for-profit company exists is to make money. That is the case whether it be sole proprietor or multiple person company. The reason multi-person companies exist is to take advantage of the economies of scale- that's the case for non-profit and for profit entities. Hating corporations in general is nonsensical in my opinion- hating irresponsible corporations seems a bit more reasonable.
I've worked for good
I've worked for good ones...worked for bad ones. I preferred medum-sized ones where the CEO was also the founder. I worked for my favorite for many years until forced to move because my nephew (whom I raised) couldn't live in the pollution of the city..It was move or buy a coffin.
Being owner/founder, the CEO was in it for the long-haul rather than a quick plundering and destruction of the co. for short-term personal gain. A continual building of the firm into a national entity.
Profit sharing was a pleasant surprise....neither required nor common. at the time. There were 3 personal holidays per year and paid vacation time double the norm. The morale was unusally high...and we made the firm a lot of money. The CEO had a sense of social responsibility...and valued and sought employee input into operations..
Distinctions between boss/employee were pretty vague.....and he wasn't begrudged for living in a large estate in Beverly Hills. It was seen as a symbol of our own success. We were all paid well. and shared in the success of the corporation. It wasn't run in an authoritarian manner.
When i left, my profit sharing bonus for the year..... arriving six months later... was greater than the salary on my new job. There was no requirement that I receive it...and I did
Regulations are required because some corporations function like rogue states. That one didn't.
.Probably tying bonuses to how well a hired CEO plunders and outsources isn't a good idea. It's been made very profitable for them to run amok.
Caboken, the states used the stimulus money to stay afloat. It really didn't stimulate anything. Besides, what's left to stimulate? Stimulus is designed to stimulate consumer/productive demand. The economy has been outsourced. My Bush stimulus check stimulated a computer mfr. in China...and created a Chinese job to produce it..
Retired Monk - Ideology is a disease
Quote:"If the American people
"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."
Thomas Jefferson
1. Jefferson and I "complain" about corporations because Transnational corporations behave pathologically. You act as if operating with the sole goal of profit-making was somehow a healthy thing. Clearly it is not.
2. Corporations do not provide jobs nor do they do any work. Corporations exist only to externalize risk and to make profits for shareholders...that is all they do.
3. You say that corporations are publicly owned...but does that mean the public gets to vote on their decisions? How about stockholders, do they each get a vote? Yeah, that's what I thought. But you are probably one of these right wingers that rails constantly about how tyrannical the eeeevil gubermint is...the govurnmint you have a choice to vote for or against.
4. People who want to save for retirement often have no choice at all whether they want to invest their money in corporations, that choice was taken from them by corporate lobbyists who wanted to use reitrement money to use to pump up the financial market.
5. "Last week, all my stocks , except for a few, did really really well. I made in 2 days what most blue collar workers make in a month. How can I hate big corporations when I get that kind of return?"
The people who got diabetes from drinking Dr. Pepper didn't make a profit. All the people in China who commit suicide and get poisoned by heavy metals while working for Apple's various subsidiaries didn't get a cut of that money. The damage done by your corporate slavemasters was externalized and those costs were borne by others so you could brag about how well your stocks did on this blog.
The mentality your post displays is pathological. Ted Bundy pathological. Ted Bundy was a pathological right-wing Reagan republican just like yourself. Its not a coincidence.
opelgt wrote: Ok, let's take
Ok, let's take a step back and look at this dispassionately. Regardless if you lean left, right or are more centrist I'd like to have your opinions on why left leaning people hate big corporations so much. However, before you give your opinion, please read my argument as to why it doesn't really make any sense, at least in my eyes, why you would or should hate them so much.
1. Let's take a look at the real and MAIN reason a company exists. To make money. To make money, and as much as possible, for the owners of the company. Regardless if company provides a product or service or a combination of the two. Making money is the sole reason a "for profit" company exists. Does anyone deny or not agree with this?
True--
But I think many or most of us object to the manipulation of markets to gain a monopoly control over necessary items like health care and fuel. This manipulation results in a predatory relationship between the customer and the corporation.
2. All of these companies provide literally Tens of MILLIONS of jobs to the upper, middle and lower class people of The United States and abroad. Without these companies, many of the people who do the complaining would be out of work.
True---
Corporations employ people. But every employee in every corporation is logged as a COST to the company. When a company says that they need to cut costs, the employees are no different than light bulbs and office furniture. If you are not providing a service that offsets your wage plus profit then you are disposable. Unless you are management of course.
There is no company in existence that provides jobs as it's mode of profit making.
3. Do those who complain about these large organizations not understand that many, if not most of them are publicly owned? And ALL of us, because of our free capitalist society have an opportunity to take part in that ownership and share in that profit you all seem to hate so much in the form of a dividend? Don't hate the company for trying to make a profit, they are doing it for their stock holders. many of which might be your liberal or left leaning democratic friend or neighbor. Or your favorite liberal politician.
Publicly owned?
If I buy a hundred shares of IBM that makes me a .00000000??% owner of that corporation.
We are not "owners" we are investors that hope to see a return on our investment. The majority of stock holders have no influence over the company and cannot be described as OWNERS.
4. Do those who complain also not understand that if you have any kind of pension, 401k, IRA, etc.... that someone manages the funds for those retirement plans and those funds are made up partially of stocks from those large companies, Oil and gas companies? Do they not understand that it is in their best interest for those companies to make as much money as possible so that their own personal retirement accounts can grow to be as large as they can be?
The 401 K system was only set up to provide a safe haven for pensions that would otherwise have been susceptible to raiding by the corporation.
Most managers of corporations do not participate in the 401 k. They opt for more profitable investments like bond and CD's.
The other side of 401 K's is that the individual is discouraged from self managing, even though they have a right too. The manager of the fund is making a profit from your money and wants control of it.
Yes, yes, yes I know. There are lobbyists' who lobby and pay off the politicians (Rep, Dem & Independent. ALL guilty) so that the big corporations can get a law passed (or not) that will benefit them or give them tax breaks, etc.... but it is all for the same thing. So they can make as much money as possible as they can for their stockholders. Which, can be you if you choose.
Lobbyists are seeking special treatment for their customers, the corporation, and those tax breaks do not translate to the average stock holder. They are mostly tax breaks that allow the management to manipulate the PROFITABILITY number associated with E B I D T A.
Earnings before interest depreciation taxes and appreciation. This is the equation that is used to calculate the bonus structure.
So..... we all have the opportunity to participate. Don't have the corporations if you choose not to participate.
I do have to say, that while most of you were buying plasma tv's on credit, I bought stock in Corning Glass. They make the Glass for flat panel TV's. While you were buying iPhones, I bought stock in Apple. While you were worrying about Education, I bought stock in companies that deal in Educational technology. I like Dr. Pepper so I bought stock in Dr. Pepper/Snapple. I'm not rich but I have been buying stock over that past 8 - 10 years using a drip account where I buy a little bit each month.
GOOD FOR YOU!
And any profits you see from those investments will be taxed at what? 15% or 20%.
If I work 20 hours of over time in a week My tax rate jumps to near 40% My regular rate is near 30%.
You should be paying taxes equal to mine or I should be paying equal to yours.
Income is Income regardless of the source or caloric output required to preform it.
Last week, all my stocks , except for a few, did really really well. I made in 2 days what most blue collar workers make in a month. How can I hate big corporations when I get that kind of return?
Back to the Taxes again.
Profit is profit.
Period.
From above: "Last week, all
From above:
"Last week, all my stocks , except for a few, did really really well. I made in 2 days what most blue collar workers make in a month. How can I hate big corporations when I get that kind of return?"
Poly replies: Probably if corporations weren't busily collapsing economies, driving up poverty rates and destroying the planet's capability to sustain human life, most would have no problems with them.
Probably had they not shipped the economy off to China and Thailand, most would have no problem with them. Probably if they hadn't captured government so they could plunder the nation..., most would have no problem with them.
A lot of lives were given so this nation could develop a large middle class. It seems they were given in vain. People don't know their own social history.. It's no longer taught. Even the Ludlow Massacre is no longer even a footnote in history books...and I'm certain the shareholders profited from the deaths of men, women and children...machine gunned and burned to death.. Paying the miners in company scrip rather than in U.S. currency was a bargain. So was a bulltet and a torch when they objected.
When corporations had full sway in this country, they were barberous. When other nations allow U.S. corporations full sway in their countires...they return to barbarism. A bullet in the back of a striking worker isn't uncommon.
They're getting that power back here . Big mistake.
You probably ought to read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"..or a history of the United Fruit Co....or the recent history of Bechtel in Bolivia. Barbarisms that makes the rougue state of N. Korea look angelic.
Corporate induced wars for resources and markets is a plunge into hell. Enjoy your returns...Someone paid dearly for them...others still are.. But what's a human life or two ...or even millions of lives....in exchange for a bauble from Courtier?
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".
Quote:Did you have someone in
Did you have someone in particular in mind? Is your thought that congress, the senate, or even the president could do a better job than most CEOs? Your perception is that government run businesses run more efficiently than private enterprise?
Maybe I didn't explain my self very well. I am not talking about any one person. I am talking about the way the overall corporate culture mindset has evolved.
I admit what I am about to say are generalizations. And, I could very well be wrong but it seems to me things like cooking books, (anywhere from lightly baking to full on broiling), over-blowing favorable data while omitting unfavorable data, or flat out falsifying data, using ghost writers, over-looking obvious conflict of interest situations/relationships... ...etc have not only become acceptable business practices. They've become the norm.
And that's just the pharmaceutical industry. Hehehheee
Anyway, the way I see it is - when certain perceptions and practices become the norm - they become "OK".
I'm sure it's hard for anyone who functions within any group/culture to question how those perceptions and practices started, how they evolved into their current states or what acute and chronic effects these perceptions and practices may have on those within the group/culture. But, more importantly, what acute and chronic effects these perceptions and practices may have on larger groups.
Hopefully, I've explained my self a bit better.
captbebops
Corporations are like out of control Frankenstein monsters. When they go public they stop making products for their customers and start making them for the stockholders.
Well, decisions should be made for the best interests of the shareholders. There is nothing evil about that. If the decisions are not in line with what customers want, then the corporation won't be around long.
The larger they become the more impersonal they become and bad decisions are made usually against customer and public good.
True the first part. Once again, if they make decisions against the "customer good", they'll be gone. I'm sure there is wide disagreement about what "the public good" is.
And then you have the corporate aristocracy whose egos really swell as the corporation becomes successful and they become a real pain in the ass to deal with and blinded by their egos they make the bad decisions mentioned above.
Big egos exist in every organization I've ever worked for. Public companies have no monopoly on arrogant assholes.
And if one is paying attention most new development is done by small companies who the big ones gobble up putting some of the employees out of work due to the acquisition. If we were to say corporations were too big and break them up all kinds of jobs would be created.
This could be the start of an interesting new thread. You seem to imply that the main purpose of corporations is to create jobs. That is a by product of success and profit, not the objective of it.
Are you familiar with the concept of creative destruction? Radical innovation means some workers will be displaced. There are lots of employees of Kodak and Polaroid that are no longer working in photo film manufacturing. I'm sure it was painful for them to lose their jobs as digital photography became popular. Would the world be a better place if we were still capturing images on film? As a photography enthusiast, I think not. In the last two or three years, I've spent thousands on assorted digital camera bodies, specialty lenses, bags and accessories, software and specialty printing papers - not to mention lots of travel to shoot stuff that interests me. Lots of people are employed manufacturing and distributing the stuff I've been buying, and I'm sure the net effect has been job creation here and abroad.
Bonnie, I'd suggest that when
Bonnie, I'd suggest that when a corporation indulges in sociopathic behavior...it's directed to do so by a sociopathic CEO.
AND there seems to often be a difference between the mind-set of the founder of a corporation being the CEO...and one hired to take his place when he dies or retires. Founders of a corp. tend to keep their firms untarnished to the extent that they can...Usurpers really don't give a damn. They'll take their golden parachute and move on to another.There is no personal tie to the company, the community or the nation. It's all about as much personal gain in the shortest amount of time as possible..
Many CEO's today are merely the usurpers of another man's fortune...another's lifetime's work....and bleed the firms for all they can. Transcon Trucking and Thermal Dynamics come to mind. Two very profitable giants. in their fields....now gone. Bled dry.
The CEO "union" consists of interlocking Boards of Directors...they appoint one another to the seats of Corporate power. An oligarchy not much different than the structures of feudalism..The mind-set of Lords and Ladies has always been different than the mind-set of the "commoner". They are way more class and privilige conscious than the average man....privilige being their "right".That right includes the right to govern. We call that particular right.... "special interests".
Wars of choice... killing for personal gain...is sociopathic. A bunch of wackos have risen to the seats of power...Those seats are labeled CEO rather than Duke or Baron. They should be reigned in rather than being allowed to govern through elected surrogates.. Their compensation, tied to how well they rape and plunder the planet, and how well they can drive labor costs to bare subsistence levels (sociopathic behaviors) should be changed. We used to do that with tax policy....then along came Uncle Ronnie and the Chicago School of Economics twits.
The Supreme Court decision allowing CEO's to use their corporate treasuries to finance elections was a tragic error.
Corporations do nothing. They are dead charters sitting in a safe. Their decisions are made by their CEO's. Individuals held personally accountable for hothing they do in a corporation's name. An absolute monarch should have it so good..
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
.
The whole premise of this
The whole premise of this thread is a red herring, imo. Corporations have existed in some form or other for as long as there has been commerce. So why now with the hate message?
If you'll look into the existence of your own state you'll see their charter, which gives them legal existence as a "political corporation." No different than the Massachusetts Bay Colony charter, New York, Maryland and so on - all 13 corporations (colonies) were chartered by the King/Queen of England. Those corporations were hated by the colonists and we know where all that went. The royals, not being interested in us peons, allowed injustice to flourish in order to maximize profits. Boo! Deja vu.
Today, the US government is not unlike the 16th Century British monarchy and its unholy relationship with its corporations. The problem here is cognitive dissonance in the general population and ignorance of the Constitution and how and why it chartered this country. In short - the United States government is the corporation of the people. We elect those politicians to the board, if you will, to manage the nation's activities in the best interests of the people.
The enemy is not Enron, Bechtel or Humana. It is the political establishment once chartered to manage our collective interests. So, at this point in the New American Century, the people no longer have a representative government and it is on the central gov't one should focus.
Common_Man_Jason wrote: As
As I've said many times before, most of our economic woes would clear away with just two simple changes to our corporate laws. First, abolish the publicly traded corporate structure, and secondly give preferential treatment to the worker-owned structure.
Oh God. Please don't ever run for public office.
Well John Lewis (one of the
Well John Lewis (one of the biggest department store chains in Britain) is a very successful example of employee ownership of a large corporation.
Its a model which works, because it doesn't pay its CEO 200x what its employees make. People work better when they are feel they are being treated as a more equal partner- FACT!
meljomur wrote: Its a model
Its a model which works, because it doesn't pay its CEO 200x what its employees make.
That's the secret to success? Okee Dokee.
Art wrote: Yes! I'd add a
Yes! I'd add a change to "purpose" of the corporation.
Well if that's what business academics say then that's the end of the argument. As we all know, there is no foolishness in academics.
meljomur wrote: bonnie
Anyway, I do not hate corporations. Corporations are nothing more than things run by people.
Things are just things... ...nothing more. Now, what I do find incredibly interesting is the maladaptive evolutionary socio-cultural mindset of the people running corporations.
Leave it to a woman to have the most rational compelling argument on this thread.
Great response Bonnie, and I notice there has been no intelligent retort to it as yet.
Absolutely true- its not the corporations which are the problem, its the people running them.
That is actually not true. Corporations are systems created that do what they do regardless of the people running them.
Now yes, people created that system. But it was created over time, by many people, most of whom were well intended. Then the system became so powerful that yes, it ended up corrupting people.
Have you seen the movie The Corporation? Great story in there about this CEO who was talking about how much he loved and was concerned for the environment, but meanwhile you could look out his office window and see the toxic waste his company was pouring into the river. He wasn't lying about his concern, he just didn't see anything else he could do and still keep his job.
Good point, Jason. And a
Good point, Jason. And a good reference: The Corporation
I haven't been here much lately, but I looked in this morning, and this thread caught my eye. My first response to the right wing nematode's disingenuous Luntz style frame was "Why do you still beat your wife so much?" It begs a similar level of non intellectual questions.
And as I read through it, I see few who recognize the middling status quo nature of thought involved. You've raised what I consider the main issue, and that's the nature of the institutions we label corporations, and the powerful effect thay have in distorting the lives that people live under the label "democracy."
From my study of the phenomenon, I'd say a corporate institution can best be described as a private tyranny.
Once upon a time a military action occurred. It took place sometime in the late 1700s, and it was supposedly about a so-called revolution, an act of declaring freedom from tyranny. It was driven by liberal thinking of the Enlightenment, we are told. But the so called democratic impulse under the Articles of Confederation that were a formulation of that action towards self governance were quickly transformed into a Constitution that favored the elite. And with that institutional favoring, the people of the nation have gone step by step taken down the road to mirroring the co-evolution of the private tyrannies that came to dominate the economic activities of our government, as an industrial revolution and the resources that drove it, and merged with the government, became separated from the autonomous actions of people.
If it ever was, It is no longer of the people, by the people, nor for the people. This process can be seen as having infiltrated the thinking processes at all levels of society at each moment of the day, including institutions we call the "education" systems (otherwise known in Orwellian terms as the authoritarian indoctrination system), which begin training people to conform to authoritarian social structures in kindergarten. The so called Fourth Estate is dominated by for profit corporate group think. And few escape the programming to achieve independence of thought that involves the essentials of independent questioning and and the individual actions of self determined moral autonomy that must take place apart from the vast system that confronts us each day.
Regarding your statement, Jason:
Then the system became so powerful that yes, it ended up corrupting people.
Who, working in a corporation, can stray far from the structure's endemic requirements? For those who don't quite grasp this, perhaps a reading of Zimbardo's Lucifer Effect which he developed from some shocking revelations of his innocent and now infamous Stanford Prison experiment would be helpful.
Understanding this process and discussing how it took place very well might be a more serious approach to the very poorly constructed frame at the outset of this thread. The nascent assumptions that tend to derail any serious contemplation of the problem are finally put aside and the underlying structure of the beast can begin to be examined. A rarity in a board discussion these days.
The much vaunted middle class once consisted primarily of small businesses and farmers, who directed their lives and interacted autonomously with each other to form the economic activities of a larger concept: community. The ideas of the enlightenment thinkers were based on such kinds of interactions. Adam Smith's notion of an economy has been much bastardized from that point -- and who can truly know what he would say about the economic activity of humans he would observe today were he to suddenly be transported to this time?
Today the bemoaned, rapidly disappearing middle class are of a very different order from the middle class of the late 1700s. They are the systematically trained technicians who have good paying jobs in these various institutions, all of which feed the private tyrannies. We use words like "democracy" but the institutions are socially structured as authoritarian tyrannies. People walk and talk authoritarian-speak as they conform to the ideas that form these abstract human created constructs that have their own forms and rules that people take for granted as "what is," and past concepts like democracy and freedom are simply pasted on the surface of these things like decorations. But few people think outside those terms. That involves questioning the status quo.
So I offer these thoughts, fresh from Chris Hedges this morning:
(My emphasis there. Indeed, I would be one to assert that genuine thought is bound to become subversive, because it's questioning, always questioning. Status quo does not like questioning; questions potentially derail the agenda of a system. And genuine thought may be the only thought that can qualify as intellectual thought. All the rest being little more than confirmation conformation.)
Nice post, .ren. For a time I
Nice post, .ren.
For a time I worked with Naval Intelligence in Viet Nam. Having learned to speak Vietnamese probably gave me a leg up in that job. But it also brought me in contact with CIA operations and psy-ops activities. The latter was quite revealing. Broadcasting propaganda 24-7 to the Vietnamese and any NVA listening in as well as numerous leaflet drops and all intended to defeat the enemy before a fight.
What I see in the US is a similar strategy, but with a much more sophisticated apparatchik. It is no coincidence that "We the people..." are constantly asking the wrong questions and focusing on the wrong syllable. Where international corporate conduct is concerned we have little or no influence. Our government is a corporation and it belongs to the people. At this point in history bellyaching about Enrons, Goldman Sachs' or BPs is not only a wasted effort, but a recipe that serves up failure, which leads to defeat and a sense of impotence as effectively as US Army Psychological Operations.
Our ability to influence government may have already passed, but for those who think not I'd just say stop barking at the Moon and look to candidates more like us instead of like them.
Indeed, Dusty, you've brought
Indeed, Dusty, you've brought in a key concept for modern day industrial corporatism and population management. To understand fully why any thinking, freedom loving individual might be concerned about corporations and their influence in society, one might want to consider how public relations, marketing and propaganda have merged over the Twentieth Century. If you haven't seen Adam Curtis's documentary about that, Century of the Self, it's worth the look if nothing more than for a cogent reference to a little popularized field of study about the industry of manipulation.
From Curtis' perspective in the documentary, he reveals how using the carrot of self aggrandizement and self importance, the idea manipulators in industrial civilization have figured out how to bypass most people's thinking process and appeal to our deeper passions in order to develop a population of acquiescent consumers. The result has been a culture of consumers at many levels, but essentially consumers of what has become an increasingly deadly form of human organization itself. The recent and still occurring Gulf ecosystem catastrophe is only one in a long list of Twentieth Century devastations of our planet's naturally functioning biosphere, destroying seemingly without conscience the life supporting ecology of the planet in what has become something of an advanced sociopathic fervor.
Key figures in the institutional learning of systematically employing propaganda methodology (or "public relations" otherwise known as "marketing" -- methods now "scientifically" taught in our educational systems as valid technical topics for those who want to be employed in those appropriate departments of various institutions, including the military) include Sigmund Freud's surprisingly unrecognized nephew, Eddie Bernays. I say "surprisingly" because to almost everyone I mention the name I get back blank, quizzical looks, and that includes university professors. The documentary also tellingly tosses out, in an aside reference, that Joseph Goebbels considered Bernays a mentor and a sage in this burgeoning field of social engineering, which has now, I'd say, completely gone awry.
Behaviorism, Advertising, and the Rise of the American Empire
With war clouds gathering over Europe, however, the need for social engineering became more urgent. Joseph Goebbels, it turns out, was a fan of Eddie Bernays and made use of his book, Crystallizing Public Opinion, in Bernays’ words, “as a basis for his destructive campaign against the Jews in Germany.” And Austria, he might have added. One of those Jews was his Uncle Sigmund, who was lucky enough to escape to England in the late ‘30s. Eddie’s aunts were not so fortunate.
Anyone else find it funny
Anyone else find it funny that humans are the only creature in the animal kingdom that work for a living? Perhaps humans have more in common with insects (like bees). Or may very early on in human evolution some evil character started programming humans that the purpose of life was work. I'm sure this notion will rile the workaholic conservatives who hang out here. ;)
(Someday the emoticons may actually work on this board. I note that spellchecking is on but for the html only that you see briefly as you submit the post.)
Glad you dropped in, ren.
Glad you dropped in, ren. The question is posed as a taunt, but it errs in confusing hatred of what we have under the Corporate Brand with a genuine embrace of "liberal" free enterprise and democratic governance. Electing accountable representatives is "democratic" as are a number of other social and political structures and institutions that serve "we the people" without discrimination. Public education, healthcare, libraries, roads and so forth can exist quite happily with a private free market outside the Commons.
The real issue is the reverence given to economic 'imperatives.' Where did "fiduciary responsibility" come from? Where did we get hornswaggled into thinking that money is more real than the value of goods or services and community value of the enterprise? This whole game of exterior investments where localities are played off against one another for relative profit in the short-term depends upon money being the substance of value instead of its symbol. The theology of the Supremes has made the Corporations what they are. We did not vote for this.
The Corporation was sold to us as "free enterprise" and the alternative to Communism. It may be the alternative to worker coops and socialist decision-making, but the similarities between the Kremlin and Corporate HQ are too big to ignore. They both love command and control and make decisions at Central Command that will be implemented down the system. Power flows from above like "trickle down" and any organizing at the bottom threatens the threatened middle managers.
I think CEO's need to try teaching to discover a tough job. It would be nice were they to know something other than "how to manage." I watched CEO's in training, and I found very few with any curiosity or passion for the contributions corporations could make to American society other than to make money. I think Law School was a tougher challenge by far, not to mention med school. And where were the visionaries who embraced the challenge of the environment in the pay scale? Going into business was the easy and unchallenging course for the conformists.
The most successful ones kept telling us how "powerless they were" to do anything they might have once dreamed of doing with their success. They did become captives of the institution and creatures of the corporation. Are they bad people? How about the civil servants who served the Nazis? Bad people if they just kept the office running? Let's face it, our corporations engage in genocide and people who go to work in them do not fantasize about killing. They just focus on making money.
What we accept as reality is our "God." If the world is organized around making money, then we will accept all the structures and behaviors that follow and explain away the human suffering. If we believe that corporations "create" jobs, they will have a moral authority to be instead of being the provisional structures used to organize jobs in this particular economic model. We need to think about work needing to be done apart from the organizing means to define the jobs and institutional structure to achieve the value creation. Depending upon external investors to get us what we want and need is not a recipe for self-government.
The essential point Korten makes about development theories, and this applies to how we are thinking of the American economy, is that they must be "indigenous" and "artisinal" instead of the central command and industrial scale paradigm. Working with nature and with a human scale of community in economics brings the point of power and authority back to the ground and real human community. The Real Economy is where goods and services are produced, and real banking invests in these value creation enterprises. Money does not make money apart from this investment in real value creation. The instruments of finance are supposed to smooth out the ups and downs of risk and profit to keep business healthy. Uncertainties in agriculture required credit risk instruments that were badly misused elsewhere. If the financial professionals operated with integrity, the rules would always be grounded in real value and not in speculation, etc.
We have put money first in our thinking as we have allowed "economic man" to become the image of humanity in the 21st Century. The idea that we live to work has taken over. In this mean religion of self-salvation in the achievement of economic self-sufficiency, there is no time to stop and smell the roses, unless you own the rose garden. Not the Corporate Rose Garden, of course. That is all about stores and distribution. "Owning" the garden also introduces the need for gates and caretakers to protect it.
I think this hatred of Corporate is a soul protest against economic man and the reduction of human life to this ridiculous parody. Authoritarian and dominant, fixed upon their consumptive purpose, these modern monsters of economic metaphysics suck the life out of everything they touch. What does corporate do well that serves a human purpose? The products and services are degraded by the financialism in which they live, move and have their being. The victims are not the Jews. But don't believe that these monsters have not turned us into Nazis. Is that enough reason to hate them?
And do remember, we are talking about the cancer stage, not the appropriately chartered and limited corporation. They need to serve a public purpose and do no damage. Fiduciary responsibility is an oxymoron and a recipe for serious sins against nature and reality.
captbebops wrote: Anyone else
Anyone else find it funny that humans are the only creature in the animal kingdom that work for a living? Perhaps humans have more in common with insects (like bees). Or may very early on in human evolution some evil character started programming humans that the purpose of life was work. I'm sure this notion will rile the workaholic conservatives who hang out here. ;)
(Someday the emoticons may actually work on this board. I note that spellchecking is on but for the html only that you see briefly as you submit the post.)
Good topic. I think an attempted answer could cover all that's taken place over the last 12,000 years since the transforming from hunter gathering to cities (cities and citizens come from the root civi, civili). Exactly what role agriculture played in the process remains an open question.
I am able to right click in this comment window and get a list of choices, the second from the bottom choice is spell checking, once I click on it, spell check is on in this window. I don't know if it's my browser or the board software, but I find it useful.
Greetings, DRC. All good
Greetings, DRC.
All good philosophical points about this human institutional creation.
Somehow we have to step beyond this philosophical condemnation of what we are doing and see what we can actually do. What does it take for an individual to actually choose not to participate with the institutions that make up most of human activity? That seems to be the core dilemma. I know many people who are stumped when they ask that question. It seems the nature of these institutions themselves rope us back no matter how enlightened one might be about the damage it is doing.
Common_man_Jason is an example of someone who intellectually deciphered the problem and made a choice. He acted. I'm sure he's got a good story to tell. It's an ongoing process. Stories like his should be an ongoing dialog on this board, a dialog that allows for something besides analytical complaint.
Korten is a good reference on that score as well.
I know of a few more.
To deal with this corporate problem and how people have allowed themselves to be led astray from the principles of democracy, people have to face themselves in the mirror. Every single day.
I think this hatred of Corporate is a soul protest against economic man and the reduction of human life to this ridiculous parody
I think so too. But we have to do more than hate and protest. We must act.
Hating corporations is a
Hating corporations is a rallying cry, a target, if you will.
In Salem circa 1600, it was "witches".
Same mentality.