A good thing to see... [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

FiveB247

04-16-2003, 09:59 AM

You know, those are some valid points, but those arguments by the protesters IMMEDIATELY get tuned out by me as soon as they start the "Capitalism is evil!" bullshit.

I wouldn't say capitalism is evil....but the current 'free market' system we currently provide for others to base themselves after is far from capitalism and not at all a free market. The democracy and economic factors which helped the US grow strong and thrive aren't the same that they now project and readily indoctrinate 3rd World nations in order to grow and build upon. They use the same terms and phrases...but the means and notions behind them are very, very different.

If you read Adam Smith, he's the basis of our economic principles and methods. But commonly left out of his summations and thoughts were his hatred and distinct warning towards shifting economic monopolies and how it would effect the overall realm of an economy. Ie.. Corporations, conglomerates, etc.. all take the local, social based ideas out of context when applied to Adam Smith's economic ideas. Out of that notion alone, you have how ideas like globalization, privatization and multi-national corporation all surpass and leave out the local/ community beliefs of Adam Smith.

Bigden

04-16-2003, 10:28 AM

Sounds like you guys are still sore about Worldcon and Enrob. I think a few bad eggs doesn't make a system flawed just fallable.

FiveB247

04-16-2003, 10:46 AM

Sounds like you guys are still sore about Worldcon and Enrob. I think a few bad eggs doesn't make a system flawed just fallable.

I could care less of those two corporations. I feel bad for those who lost their jobs and life savings, etc...

Those are just drops of water in a bucket of corporate greed, injustice and manipulation. It's supported and barely taxed by the US government too...how convenient.

Bestinshow

04-16-2003, 11:15 AM

Those are just drops of water in a bucket of corporate greed, injustice and manipulation. It's supported and barely taxed by the US government too...how convenient

You crazy radicals! Lets just redistribute all the wealth and diviy it up equally. The only problem is nobody is going to have a job after you close down all the big corporations. By the
way, many businesses today are limited liability companies or limited liability partnerships. All the income from these entities flows through to individual members and is taxed on an individual basis. Also, C corporations that do pay tax on a corporate level have their dividends taxed again on an individual level. This is known as double taxation. I don`t know where you libs get the misnomer that tax is not paid by corporations. Unless you mean literally because they sure are taxed to individuals. I hear China has a nice government with little corporate income.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

TheMojoPin

04-16-2003, 11:30 AM

You crazy radicals! Lets just redistribute all the wealth and diviy it up equally. The only problem is nobody is going to have a job after you close down all the big corporations. By the
way, many businesses today are limited liability companies or limited liability partnerships. All the income from these entities flows through to individual members and is taxed on an individual basis. Also, C corporations that do pay tax on a corporate level have their dividends taxed again on an individual level. This is known as double taxation. I don`t know where you libs get the misnomer that tax is not paid by corporations. Unless you mean literally because they sure are taxed to individuals. I hear China has a nice government with little corporate income.

Wow. Talk about "dumbing down"...

It goes far beyond simply "noy paying their taxes." The common abuses engaged by many of the big corporations damage our economy, our way of life, and our government itself. Anyone with any sense realizes that scrapping the system is absurd, but on the same token, anyone who thinks "everything is just peachy-keen" is practically begging to be kicked in the balls. But please, go ahead and pretend that the "libs" just made it all up if it makes you feel better...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

DarkHippie

04-16-2003, 11:45 AM

the thing is, its hard to find a slogan that fits on a sign, yet gives the complete argument of what a protestor is trying to say. Could you fit what fiveB or mojo said on a sign?

they make poor media sound bites too, that's why i think that protestors should never speak to the press, because they will take what you say and edit it down to any 3 seconds they choose

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
<a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

This message was edited by DarkHippie on 4-16-03 @ 3:48 PM

FiveB247

04-16-2003, 12:01 PM

Bestinshow...I never said corporations don't get taxed....I said they were barely taxed. Corporate greed and manipulation has run rampant in the US. Taxes on corporations are a joke. They are given the same rights as a person filling taxes (Not standard business's). Corporate taxes nowadays are less then what they were in the 1950's in the US. They gone down in the last 50-60 yrs all due to 'free trade' agreements and the furtherment of corporate and government agreements and agendas. If the US taxed corporations even at the same rates by 1950's standards, 2/3rds of the entire national debt would be erased! The rise of household taxes has risen significantly while corporate taxes have been significantly lowered.

And don't give me any of that leveling off of money BS. There's a big difference between letting business's achieve and grow compaired to allowing them to grow while suppressing the opposition. The US has more interest in corporate agendas and goals, far more then any of it's citizens. Look at something as simple as NAFTA, the US lost hundreds of factories and thousands upon thousands of jobs. NAFTA is beneficial to corporations who set up factories in lessor nations. Cheap labor, loose environmental constraints and governments backing such actions all are guises towards corporate profit. Only the rich investors, corporations and the government profit from such actions and policies. And who do you think pays for the loss in US jobs and economic constraints? You and I, the US taxpayer.

Lobbyists all with corporate and business agendas interfere with the democracy (people at the interest) we all via for and expect. Do you or I have direct access to politicians like lobbyists do? Obviously their wheelings and dealings act strongly in the political spectrum. Don't kid yourself to think otherwise. Nowadays government and corporations work in the same realm under the same guidelines...and the people's interest is on the backburner. The only time when it's brought otherwise, is when it's thrust there by 'threats' and when we the people force them to the forefront. But those two are rare.

HBox

04-16-2003, 12:29 PM

The rise of household taxes has risen significantly while corporate taxes have been significantly lowered.

We have a flag on the play. Too many uses of the word "rise." 15 yards, replay the down.

IrishAlkey

04-16-2003, 12:36 PM

Could you fit what mojo said on a sign?

"Less Sex! More Debating!"

<center>http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/alkey2.gif</center><marquee>2%</marquee>

Bestinshow

04-16-2003, 02:42 PM

It goes far beyond simply "noy paying their taxes." The common abuses engaged by many of the big corporations damage our economy, our way of life, and our government itself. Anyone with any sense realizes that scrapping the system is absurd, but on the same token, anyone who thinks "everything is just peachy-keen" is practically begging to be kicked in the balls. But please, go ahead and pretend that the "libs" just made it all up if it makes you feel better...

Give me a break. Who said any thing was peachy keen. That is nothing but left wing rhetorick. You are going to blame all the problems in the economy on a few corrupt companiies?Big corporations damage our economy, way of life and government? I think you just defined liberal. How do you plan on stimulating the economy? Tax the shit out of the corporations until they fold? The damn unions suck all the life blood out of them in the first place and you want to tax them more on top of it? There are corrupt people in every walk of life, but to label big business, the lifeblood of capitalistic society a detriment?
Wow. Talk about "dumbing down"...

Sorry, I have to borrow your quote. It belongs more here.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

Bestinshow

04-16-2003, 02:53 PM

I said they were barely taxed.

I`d like to see you back that up.

Taxes on corporations are a joke. They are given the same rights as a person filling taxes (Not standard business's).
What are you talking about? Do you know anything about tax law?
Corporate taxes nowadays are less then what they were in the 1950's in the US. They gone down in the last 50-60 yrs all due to 'free trade' agreements and the furtherment of corporate and government agreements and agendas.

Free trade agreements have nothing to do with income tax.They have gone down due to corporate agenda? How can corporations change tax laws and rates? Furtherment of government agreements and agendas? How is that even possible? The only effect it has is a stimulated economy results in more income tax. That furthers agenda. By the way, Reagan effectively eliminated most tax shelters with passive tax laws of the `86 reform act. So your `50s argument is bogus. This is complete
leftist trash. Not everything is a corporate conspiracy.
There's a big difference between letting business's achieve and grow compaired to allowing them to grow while suppressing the opposition.

The government steps in when there is
antitrust violation. But that is tricky business. Who can decide when the government should regulate free enterprise. It is a corporations right to pursue its best bottom line. This in turn goes to stockholders and employees. Not everybody that benefits are rich.
Only the rich investors, corporations and the government profit from such actions and policies. And who do you think pays for the loss in US jobs and economic constraints? You and I, the US taxpayer.

Last I checked, there are a lot of working class people invested in the stock market too. I though it was an American right to achieve financial success. Your tax constraints will
eliminate more jobs. and that cheap labor you talk of goes under the governments guise.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

HBox

04-16-2003, 03:37 PM

How can corporations change tax laws and rates?

That is one of the most naive things I've ever heard in my life.

FiveB247

04-16-2003, 05:17 PM

Here are some facts for you...

1) Since 1950 for every dollar paid in taxes by families and individuals, corporations have paid this much.

1950-54 76 cents; 1955-59 53 cents; 1960-64 44 cents; 1965-69 41 cents; 1970-74 31 cents; 1975-79 31 cents; 1980-84 20 cents; 1985-92 21 cents.
(Source: Bureau of the Census, Gov. Finances)

The rise in household taxes while constant cuts for Corporations have tilted the billions for Corporations while leaving the bills on the US taxpayers.

2) Job Loss/ Gain in US Multinational Corp's (between 1983-1992)
US jobs -783,000
Foreign Jobs +345,000
(Source: NY Labor Institute, 1995)

3) US wealth distribution is very unequal
-Real estate ownership: Top 10% of households owns 81.8%, while bottom 90% holds 18.2%.
-Stock Ownership: Top 10% of households has 81.2%, while he bottom 90% owns 18.8%.
-Bond Ownership: Top 10% of households has 88%, while bottom 90% has 12%.
(Source: Federal Reserve Bank, 1996)

4) In the first 32 months of NAFTA's inception, the US lost 625,000 jobs, 484,000 of those in the first two yrs of NAFTA and 145,000 jobs in the first eight months of NAFTA. (Source: Economic Policy Institute)

This hardly has little effect on taxes, the economy and the average US citizen.

The government steps in when there is
antitrust violation. But that is tricky business. Who can decide when the government should regulate free enterprise. It is a corporations right to pursue its best bottom line. This in turn goes to stockholders and employees. Not everybody that benefits are rich.

The government steps in for antitrust violations? Did you grow up under FDR? More and more, conglomerates are sucking up businesses and smaller competitors across the board.

The entire US media is dominated by 6 major corporations. That includes newspapers, magazines, radio, television, books, and movies. The smaller corporations all have their own names, logos, etc...but it's all owned by the big Six. (GE, Viacom, Disney, Bertelsmann, Time Warner and Murdoch's News Group. Do you think you're out of the realm of finding out facts and unbiased news with 6 major corporations dominating the media? The US officials go along with who comes to the table during campaigning and funding. On Lobbyists alone, more than $1.4 billion a year is spent in Washington, DC. Now take that all into account and look at all the changes in the past 20 or so years to the media and communication industries. Every law has been passed in the favor of large Corporations. (ownership, regulations, etc.) It's all in the same realm; corporations interfering and hindering democracy. Corporate agendas and guises are all pursued via the US government. Some laws maybe present, but never enforced.

Welcome to Corporate America.

https://secure.adbusters.org/orders/postcards/16-flag.gif

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 4-16-03 @ 9:22 PM

TheMojoPin

04-16-2003, 05:31 PM

You are going to blame all the problems in the economy on a few corrupt companiies?Big corporations damage our economy, way of life and government? I think you just defined liberal.

Neither did I blame all of the economy's problems, nor did I make a blanket condemnation of ALL of our corporations. I even specifically said that wanting the system scrapped is absurd. My issue is with many of these companies not paying their taxes, or less than the amount they should, period. I have no desire for these companies to be "over-taxed", just to ensure that they're paying what they're supposed to be paying by the letter of the law. And taxes is a tiny, tiny part of the globalization issue...personally, I'm more worried about the rampant labor misuse...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

Death Metal Moe

04-16-2003, 06:34 PM

Who cares.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>

<marquee behavior=alternate scrolldelay=30>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</marquee>


666%

FiveB247

04-17-2003, 05:51 AM

Who Cares? When corporate interests and agendas are thrust first before those of the people and citizens in which the democracy stands, it is not a democracy.

The goal of any Corporation is to try and remove the public from making decisions over their own fate, to limit the public arena, to control opinion, to make sure the fundamental decisions that determine how the world is going to be run - which includes production, commerce, distribution, thought, social policy, foreign policy, everything - are not in the hands of the public, but rather in the hands of highly concentrated private power. In effect, tyranny unaccountable to the public.

All in the name of Profit. This is how multi-national corporations and conglomerates operate and wish to rule. And since their influence and control is growing, it is significant. It objectifies and trounces over the democratic processes we hold dear.

TheMojoPin

04-17-2003, 06:36 AM

Eh. I really just wish I had a nice pie right now.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FiveB247

04-17-2003, 06:41 AM

Huh? pie? What the hell are you talking about Mojo?

TheMojoPin

04-17-2003, 06:50 AM

I mean I just really wish I had a nice pie to eat right now. Who doesn't like pie?!?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

Captain Stubing

04-17-2003, 07:12 AM

I'm with Mojo....pie and some Starbucks coffee. Yum yum!!!!

Fezaesthesia - Prognosis poor...

FiveB247

04-17-2003, 07:25 AM

I ate this huge egg and cheese on a roll sandwich for breakfast with a nice cup of hot chocolate. Yummy. Nice and toasty. I'm ready for bed again..hehe

Bestinshow

04-17-2003, 07:32 AM

personally, I'm more worried about the rampant labor misuse

With that I agree 100%

1950-54 76 cents: 1955-59 53 cents: 1960-64 44 cents: 1965-69 41 cents: 1970-74 31 cents: 1975-79 31 cents: 1980-84 20 cents: 1985-92 21 cents.
(Source: Bureau of the Census, Gov. Finances)

This is what happens when you attempt to discuss a subject that you don`t understand. First of all, a corporation, is an artificial entity, created to shelter investors from liability. It is not a person. It hopefully generates a profit that it in turn distributes to its employees and shareholders in the form of dividends and salaries. This is what drives the economy. By the way, these investors generally consist of the average Joe on the street who invests in the stock market. This income, as I stressed before, is than taxed on the individual level. All income earned by a corporation is taxed either as salary or dividends besides at the corporate level. It is infact subject to double taxation. The following is from the 2003 US master Tax guide."Of the types of business organization, C corporations are subject to the toughest tax bite. Their earnings are taxed twice. First, a corporate income tax is imposed on its net earnings and then, after the earnings are distributed to shareholders as dividends, each shareholder must pay taxes separately on his or her share of the dividends." By the way, sole proprietorships pay no taxes on a business level. They are merely reported on Sched. C of the owners 1040. Because they are not subject to a certified audit by the SEC, they are most susceptible to tax fraud. In addition, because of the disproportinate amount of tax corporations were forced to pay, the government created limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships to give a tax break to small and medium size companies. These are treated as flow through entities and all income is passed on to the partners and members through form K-1 and is taxed on an individual basis much like a sole proprietorship.
There are now a significant amount of these LLP`s and LLC`s which are not considered corporations so yes, there is less corporate income tax because there are less corporations.
Job Loss/ Gain in US Multinational Corp's (between 1983-1992)
US jobs -783,000
Foreign Jobs +345,000
1) Does it mention if the number of multinational corp themselves have decreased. I would bet they have. But that does not include the majority of the big bad corporate world you speak of. These numbers are insignificant in relation to the national work force. And by the way, increased taxation would result in more lost jobs.
Real estate ownership: Top 10% of households owns 81.8%, while bottom 90% holds 18.2%.

And what is your solution to this? Should real estate ownership be regulated by the government. Would you like it redistributed?
Sounds an awful lot like Marxism to me.

-Stock Ownership: Top 10% of households has 81.2%, while he bottom 90% owns 18.8%.
-Bond Ownership: Top 10% of households has 88%, while bottom 90% has 12%.

Do you want to redistribute the wealth. How much of this, by the way is from old money, smart investing, the real estate market before the boom. That is the American way. People are allowed to be financially successful. Except for a small amount of blood suckers, most of these people earned this legally and ethically. But I guess we should take it away and redistribute it. Who is going to decide what people are allowed to keep? You know there are a couple pf countries out there that still have this form of government you crave. Unfortunately, they are rampant with poverty and corruption, believe it or not ,none by big business.
In the first 32 months of NAFTA's inception, the US lost 625,000 jobs, 484,000 of those in the first two yrs of NAFTA and 145,000 jobs in the first eight months of NAFTA. (Source: Economic Policy Institute)

Once again an insignificant percentage of the working force.

Before you blame all the

lippy

04-17-2003, 07:54 AM

I've stopped posting because FiveB247 and the MojoPin say everything I was going to say myself. Thanks a lot, guys. No pie for either of you if it were up to me.

<IMG SRC ="http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/lippy.gif">

FiveB247

04-17-2003, 07:58 AM

Libby..I'll take that as sorta a compliment. Although I'm not a big fan of pie...so no love loss on my part. :)

lippy

04-17-2003, 08:00 AM

Alright, I'll take away your ability to make logical arguments. I'll get you somehow. From now on, you will no longer be able to find fault with the status quo. Ha Ha welcome to complacency!

<IMG SRC ="http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/lippy.gif">

FiveB247

04-17-2003, 08:09 AM

Nooooooooooooooo...............

hehe

Bestinshow

04-17-2003, 08:44 AM

The goal of any Corporation is to try and remove the public from making decisions over their own fate, to limit the public arena, to control opinion, to make sure the fundamental decisions that determine how the world is going to be run - which includes production, commerce, distribution, thought, social policy, foreign policy, everything - are not in the hands of the public, but rather in the hands of highly concentrated private power. In effect, tyranny unaccountable to the public.

Do you really believe corporations should be run by the public? By the way, that is called communism.

All in the name of Profit. This is how multi-national corporations and conglomerates operate and wish to rule. And since their influence and control is growing, it is significant. It objectifies and trounces over the democratic processes we hold dear.

Yes, their goal is profit. That is the whole point unless you are in Russia or China. Trounces over the democratic process? No more than what you impose. Hate to tell you but the government is influenced by many other conditions besides big business. But as the heart and sole of our economic system, it will, by nature, also effect legislature. By the way, antitrust laws were used to try to break up microsoft and it resulted in the crash of Nasdaq. By the way, microsoft is the company that profitized the computer industry in the first place and in turn created millions of jobs. They discovered that it was not practical to break up Microsoft because windows, even though it is a monopoly, standardized the industry and it would do more harm than good to break it up. On rare occasion, it is more efficient to let one organization run an industry. Similar to allowing utilities to be a monopoly.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

HBox

04-17-2003, 09:13 AM

Do you think they have the main influence on federal legislation?

Yes. Have you ever heard of the DMCA?

FiveB247

04-17-2003, 11:14 AM

I don't talk of Communism or Socialism. I hold government accountable for allowing these conglomerates and corporations to run rampant on society (both home and foreign). Mergers, tax loopholes, changes in government policies all are portions of how they corporate rule inpeeds on the democracy we all strive for and expect. Communism controls all aspects of a societyl; Socialism controls/ runs the major or important segments of the economy. Democracy safe guards and watches the open free market. Corporations clearly hinder the democracy from taking place. Whether it be lobbying, donations to parties, government contracts, voter influence as well as clear, unbiased information for the public (which corporations don't allow for); they all serve as a barrier between democracy and the people's interest.

After the initial monopoly busting of FDR, government held fairly strong and tough towards corporate control and rule. Mergers and sweeping buyouts (amongst other business dirty actions) all were rigioursly watched and controlled so that the free market and competition stayed that way. Nowadays, such actions are welcomed by government to their ease of control in dealing with fewer parties and worries. But with that, came influence into policy and agenda.

You also mention Nasdaq? Why do you think such monopolies and corporations aren't properly broken down into their rightly just business's? Due to the fact that their influence and hold is so great, it would completely wreck the economy! Corporations and conglomerates all are so deeply embeded in our government and policy it's scary. Our politicians (even if just), never stand a chance while the money thirsty corporations dictating future agendas and interests with leaving the people's interest behind and trailing.

Bestinshow

04-17-2003, 11:53 AM

Five, you are scary. You talk of public control over corporate america. I hate to tell you but that is communism. The main element of communism is that business is run by the people, hence the government, not individual control. I noticed your listing of corporations. What exactly are there transgressions? What has Chase done? Travelers/Citigroup? MTV? I am sure every business is capable of a scrape with morality here and there but what exactly has this group done that is detrimental to our country? You list them like they are the cause of all things gone wrong. I see vague statements and liberal propaganda. What is your solution?
Break them down? Who decides that a company is too successful and must be broken down? By what criteria? Government control of our businesses? Thats democratic? Or do you just want them eliminated? Lets just run all business as mom and pop operations with high overhead, low volume and no R&D budget. But then how will we compete with international trade, not to mention that technology will stagnate. I know, you will eliminate foreign trade. You seem to have a problem with that too. fuck the fact that our
industry will be inferior. Funny how you think that that is true competition. Be sucessful but only to a point. Or tax the shit out of them. after all, that wont affect the employees or the stockholders. They should pay a disproportinate share of taxes because they are financially sucessful.That will stimulate the economy. The money thirsty corporations dictate future agendas? What is your problem?
Don`t you think you are being a bit paranoid?
Where does this hatred come from? Corporate America does have influence on legislature but shouldn`t it? Doesn`t it make up a significant
portion of our economy? I don`t see you complaining about the bullshit special interest groups and the lobbying they do. I guess they don`t effect agenda. Broken down into a rightfully just business? Who decides this exactly? Did you ever think that in a situation such as Microsoft, this is done for efficiency. And are you going to tell me they were left alone? I wish I had 1% of the legal bills of that lawsuit. Now they have to share code and help other software companies compete. You are going to tell me the peoples interest were left behind with this. That lawsuit was all about the people`s interest and the courts made the right decision.
What tax loopholes are you talking about? I would love to see you list them. What government policies were changed for corporations? List them. I am very curious.
Corporate Rule? This is liberal paranoia and propaganda. You think corporate America is running the government? My biggest fear is that the liberals will.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

HBox

04-17-2003, 04:45 PM

http://www.msnbc.com/news/901793.asp?0cv=CA01

Yeah. Corporations are great. They do so much for the common man......

FiveB247

04-17-2003, 05:15 PM

I don't talk of public control over Corporate America....it's quite the opposite really. Corporate America's control over the public. Communism has nothing to do with any of this; I'm not sure where you got that one from really. Business's and corporations have every right to run their operations accordingly (within the law). But when corporations and conglomerates have a hold and serious influence on multiple factors in society, whether it be, policies, competition, production, information, censorship, etc....It hinders democracy and the governments ability to deliver laws and policies for the citizens interests. Nowadays everything is in the interests of corporations and business's with the citizens paying the bills and losing out. All the ideas and notions I'm talking about are not liberal, leftist or some other faction. It's what is going on in our society, economy and government.

Look around this site...you'll see a lot more then you bargained for.. http://www.corpwatch.org/

A great book which shows both corporate agenda and how it hinders democracy is "The Media Monopoly" by Ben H. Bagdikian, 6th edition. I highly recommend it to everyone. It will give you a new perspective on how corporations (in this case media) interfere with the publics interest and prohibits democracy.

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 4-17-03 @ 9:58 PM

Bestinshow

04-18-2003, 07:46 AM

Five, read your posts, you have mentioned that the public should have more control over
corporations. That is the essence of communism. Maybe you misworded it. I believe you that that isn`t what you meant. We are talking semantics here. I agree with some of your points but you use too heavy of a hammer. Yes corporations have heavy influence but so do other groups such as religious and other special interest groups. Everything that is a significant part of environment is obviously going to have good and bad effects. You just seem to be addressing the bad things. It is alot more complicated than that. Corporations also make large charitable contributions, have research and development which effect health,medicine,
safety and quality of life and create millions of jobs. Many of these things would not be possible without these hugh corporations you despise.
As far as censorship, now you are being paranoid. You can`t fart without it making it on the news or in print. The press loves scandals even if they are fake.
Production and competition should obviously be affected by the business world but if you know anything about economics, they are affected by many other factors also.
I don`t know how you say this hinders democracy and the governments ability to deliver law. This is democracy, that is why there is always change from all different factors. Didn`t we get the tuna companies to stop killing dolphins(I hope that is accurate)
and cut down on animal testing. We have ways of changing things. As far as the laws,
the courts are filled with corporate cases. Again, you want things simple. Life doesn`t work that way. The corporate world is subject to the legal system as are we. Why, individuals don`t try to beat the system?
Obviously in an environment this large
you will find greed, dishonesty and sometimes just stupid business decisions. You find these same things in all aspects of life. You can`t paint the whole corporate world with the same brush. Its not black and white. You just have to address the issues individually. Nothing in this world is perfect. Life is complicated.
By the way Five, I suspect beyond that crazy
radical facade of yours there is a moderate dying to breakout. Don`t fight it, go with it.
Let it flow. :) :) :) :)

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

Bestinshow

04-18-2003, 08:32 AM

Yeah. Corporations are great. They do so much for the common man......

Great link Hbox. Nothing as pure and honest as the unions. They have everybody`s best interest at heart. And of course, no corruption
or political influence there. Were you born an hour and a half ago? Geez.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

Adamx

04-18-2003, 09:13 AM

I love how they can just start spewing this crap. Man get a life, stop worring about this bull. I'm sitting in one of the most respected Labs in the world right now. If it were not for this corporate lab. You wouldn't be typing at your computer right now. You would still be replacing vacum tubes in your tv. Forget about the web, it was our wire that started the internet. I love how they just spew whats good for their own cause. Corporate this, corporate that. Keep spinning your wheels cause you aren't changing anything. Just wasting your time on a worthless cause. I bet my weeks pay that most of the corporate haters are also against me having a hamburger for lunch to. Save the animals too! Man it must suck to go through life with all this crap in your head.

afterganger

04-18-2003, 09:47 AM

And all this is why I'm for the Fair Tax Movement. Time to get rid of all the loopholes and increase the accountability of individuals, corporations and politicians who choose where your tax money goes.
Get rid of the IRS and replace it with a corporate watchdog type dept

Bestinshow

04-18-2003, 10:14 AM

Save the animals too!

Hey, I`m all for corporate America but don`t Fuck with the animals. That is where I draw the line.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

HBox

04-18-2003, 10:18 AM

Great link Hbox. Nothing as pure and honest as the unions. They have everybody`s best interest at heart. And of course, no corruption
or political influence there. Were you born an hour and a half ago? Geez.

Yeah. Damn them unions. They only agreed to take paycuts when American Airlines was about to go bankrupt. And then they have the balls to compalin that the exectuives that ran the company into the ground in the first place are not only getting raises, but are protecting their pensions from their own incompentency. Those damn corrupt unions.

Bestinshow

04-18-2003, 11:28 AM

Yeah. Damn them unions. They only agreed to take paycuts when American Airlines was about to go bankrupt. And then they have the balls to compalin that the exectuives that ran the company into the ground in the first place are not only getting raises, but are protecting their pensions from their own incompentency. Those damn corrupt unions.

How big of the fucking union to take a pay cut after they were told they were closing up shop unless they did. I did an audit where a garment company in Queens couldn`t afford to pay the union in Queens and had to fire everybody and open a new shop in Pennsylvania where they weren`t crooks. You obviously don`t know shit about unions. You piss on corporations and you talk about unions like they are the salt of the earth. Unions Fuck everybody, employers and employees. Do you live under a rock?

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

FiveB247

04-18-2003, 11:38 AM

There are many corporations which do good and donate money, etc...but the majority of influential ones are far from that. Labs for medical, technology, etc...they're all great and make a serious impact..but on the same hand...you have agreements like GATT which prohibit the use of knowledge to help other nations not able to pay the fee. Do you have any idea of how many people suffer in the world from cured or curable diseases and don't get the proper medicine due to 'patent laws' by US corporations? Patents are good for some things....medical care and medicine is not one of them.

I never claimed all Corporations were bad, nor did I claim citizens should run them. I merely stated that conglomerates and corporations (the large, over bearing multi-national corps), should be more regulated by government laws and not allowed to have as much influence in policies, agendas and the overall free reign monopolies and subsidiaries in which they hover.

Most people don't realize the wide range of ownership, control and influence these corporations hold. No one realizes they purchase most their food from cigarette conglomerates, nor do they realize when they watch NBC, their profits are shared by a military supplest like GE. When you go to the movies, do you know you are going to theatre's that are also owned by the movie making companies (which also own all the means of buying and renting the movies), which also owned most of the US media corporations? (That's not monopoly?)

It's all an illusion of choice...and it does interfere with policies, laws, agendas, interests of government as well as access to government officials. It's all a spider web in which one hand washes the other. Many of the board members and upper level management have ties, ownership and daily connections with opposing corporations as well corporations in other industries. And many of the factories, distributors and such are all overseas which makes foreign policy important to their stakes and profit. It's always funny to hear someone say 'buy American products'. Such things rarely exist anymore.

Corporations (the larger ones) are built for the take all of profit, they lay off thousands of employees at a time so that their stock can go up half a point in which the upper tier management make millions. The US economy isn't set for the average working person; stocks, bonds, unemployment rates, taxing policies as well as the shifts (depressions, recessions and peaks) are all geared for the rich to get rich and the poor to get poorer. The American Dream of status mobility is rare and becoming more obsolete with time. Corporations, business's, the economy and government can all hold strong during recessions (even stocks dropping off), but the average working man will get laid off and get f'ed. Mass ownership in stocks by the rich can wait out a recession and even benefit by sucking up lowered priced stocks, but the regular citizen is far from such dealings. That is the great American way, Get rich on others behalf and suffering. We do it through corporations, economy, foreign policy, free trade agreements and institutions like the IMF, World Bank, G-8, GATT and NAFTA. It all helps keep the poor and hopeless in line to gain profits and control for the rich and powerful. The democracy and free markets we hold and talk so highly off, are far from it. The names are the same, but completely different in how they are being applied.

Bestinshow

04-18-2003, 12:03 PM

Damn Double posts
<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-18-03 @ 4:33 PM

Bestinshow

04-18-2003, 12:03 PM

Damn triple posts
<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-18-03 @ 4:34 PM

Bestinshow

04-18-2003, 12:03 PM

Damn quadruple posts

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-18-03 @ 4:35 PM

Bestinshow

04-18-2003, 12:03 PM

There are many corporations which do good and donate money, etc...but the majority of influential ones are far from that.

This is an assumption by you. As usual you fail to back up these assumptions with any facts.
I beg to differ. I find most corporations make donations on a regular basis which is text book because it also builds good will. I think you get these things from the air.

Labs for medical, technology, etc...they're all great and make a serious impact..but on the same hand...you have agreements like GATT which prohibit the use of knowledge to help other nations not able to pay the fee. Do you have any idea of how many people suffer in the world from cured or curable diseases and don't get the proper medicine due to 'patent laws' by US corporations? Patents are good for some things....medical care and medicine is not one of them.

I don`t claim to be an expert on this subject and know little about this agreement. But first of all, once again this is a small part of corporate America. Now you are going into a whole different issue of the effect internationally. I would think it would be the responsibility of governments to share medical knowledge. An American corporation has its responsibility to the people it serves, shareholders, employees and customers. It is in business to make a profit. It is not responsible to other nations. It is the responsibility of the respective governments when it comes to sharing technology. Not business. In a democracy, they are separate.

merely stated that conglomerates and corporations (the large, over bearing multi-national corps), should be more regulated by government laws and not allowed to have as much influence in policies, agendas and the overall free reign monopolies and subsidiaries in which they hover.

There you go again with government regulation. And that is what you call democracy. And what are these policies that are getting so trampled. What are these agendas you keep refering to. Once again you are being vague, giving the feeling of so much propaganda. Give me some examples so I know what you are talking about. And none of those conglomirates you mentioned are free reign monopolies. And subsidiaries in which they hover?????????What does that mean?

Most people don't realize the wide range of ownership, control and influence these corporations hold. No one realizes they purchase most their food from cigarette conglomerates, nor do they realize when they watch NBC, their profits are shared by a military supplest like GE. When you go to the movies, do you know you are going to theatre's that are also owned by the movie making companies (which also own all the means of buying and renting the movies), which also owned most of the US media corporations? (That's not monopoly?)

No thats not a monopoly.That is a conglomerate, which by the way is perfectly legal and democratic. Who cares the size of the company you buy your cigarettes from? And who are you to decide a company is too large? If you are so paranoid about the products a company sells, get a copy of the financial statements and you can easily find out all of their subsidiaries. And you tell Sony there is no government intervention. They just got shot down trying to sell Direct TV to Dish.
That by the way would have been a monopoly.
Corporations (the larger ones) are built for the take all of profit, they lay off thousands of employees at a time so that their stock can go up half a point in which the upper tier management make millions.

Yes, they are built for profit. That is the whole point of business. They lay off thousands so their stock can go up? Are you smoking crack?
Where did you get this? Layoffs are an indication of low profits that result in stock going down. Do you make this up or did you read it somewhere? The upper tier management makes millions? I am curious, how many people in the whole US make in the millions? Did you get this info from anywhere or is it another assumption.I can see the t

Shecky

04-18-2003, 12:26 PM

blah blah blah blah

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/anttrisano/myhomepage/index.html">

PRAY FOR THE BRAVE ONES!!!!

Later On,
SHECKY

Recyclerz

04-18-2003, 12:35 PM

So.... many.....words (koff, koff)

Could you fit what fiveB or mojo said on a sign?

Eat the Rich!!

(not the Jersey kind)

C'mon kids, let's work off Dark Hippie's observation and punch it up a bit.

Up with wit! Down with solipsistic BS!

Where is Yerdaddy when you need him.

[b]Free Yerdaddy![b]

DarkHippie

04-18-2003, 01:12 PM

this thread has shocked and awed me. Let's see if I can fit it on a sign:

FiveB and Mojo: Corporations need to take more responcibility for actions

bestinshow: corporate responcibility=communism (?)

bestinshow, I'm sure that's not what you mean (is it?), but that's what it sounds like you're saying the way you're arguing this topic.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
<a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

HBox

04-18-2003, 01:23 PM

How big of the fucking union to take a pay cut after they were told they were closing up shop unless they did. I did an audit where a garment company in Queens couldn`t afford to pay the union in Queens and had to fire everybody and open a new shop in Pennsylvania where they weren`t crooks. You obviously don`t know shit about unions. You piss on corporations and you talk about unions like they are the salt of the earth. Unions Fuck everybody, employers and employees. Do you live under a rock?

I'm not trying to defend every two-bit union. And I wasn't talking about whatever union you are talking about. I'm talking about American Airlines. And, yes, it is big of the union to take a pay cut when executives are still taking bonuses that are twice their salary. What sacrifices are the executives taking? They are the ones who in prosperous times take the fame and get the biggest monetary rewards. Shouldn't they then take the blame in bad times? Shouldn't THEY carry the biggest burden? Shouldn't they AT THE VERY LEAST not carry on as if they are making money?

This kind of shit happens all the time. This article just happened to pop up on the day we were posting about this. Corporations are not people. They are organizations where the only objective is profit. Everything else is secondary.

Tall_James

04-18-2003, 01:33 PM

I could care less. I long for the day when corporations run the world and Jonathan E. is leading Houston to another Rollerball championship.

<img src=http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=jamespatton>

HBox

04-18-2003, 01:55 PM

JON-A-TON! JON-A-TON! JON-A-TON!

A.J.

04-18-2003, 01:58 PM

I could care less. I long for the day when corporations run the world and Jonathan E. is leading Houston to another Rollerball championship.

Outstanding!

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

Bestinshow

04-18-2003, 02:18 PM

bestinshow: corporate responcibility=communism (?)

bestinshow, I'm sure that's not what you mean (is it?), but that's what it sounds like you're saying the way you're arguing this topic.

No, I am saying public control of corporations=communism

Corporations should be responsible. but so should everybody else.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

FiveB247

04-18-2003, 04:01 PM

This is an assumption by you. As usual you fail to back up these assumptions with any facts. I beg to differ. I find most corporations make donations on a regular basis which is text book because it also builds good will. I think you get these things from the air.

Do I need to express all of the environmental, social, political and economic factors in which mega-corporations influence and impair democracy? Donating money doesn't suffice as general do-gooders. (Terror organizations
receive donators money too).

The larger a corporation is, the larger its impact on society. Especially if these huge conglomerates stretch across many industries. They use brother and sister companies off of each other to gain and access more control and 'unity'. Look at the Fortune 500's, just guessing, I'd probably say all of them have some serious ties to government programs (defense, military, energy, communication products, etc.). Do you think policies, laws and such aren't geared in their influence? Enron was working closely with the government right until the point when the scandal and such broke. Now after the fact, all the details come back how the entire California power shortage was a scam to boost profits.

Corporate crimes are a slap on the wrist and all the laws are loosely written to make it tough to get convictions. Over the entire Enron scandal, how many people were actually caught? How many will be convicted? It's all in the same realm of our governments corporate agenda. Many times they turn the other cheek to such corporate mergers, other times they change laws or even ignore them.

Things like GATT which prohibit 'patents' and 'intellectual patents' for all applications and products cover medical, technological as well as other important industries from holding out to lesser nations all over the world. It is all backed and executed by the US government, the companies simply comply cause it's in their favor.

You also speak how business are not responsible to other nations? Is that why most sweat shops are overseas? Is that why tariffs are lowered (or worked around) by the US government to promote the sales and business activity in the US? Free trade zones, low wage factories, environmental conditions, working conditions, etc...all are factors in which the US allows our multinational corporations to operate. Labor unions are trounced and victimized in 3rd world countries. But people in the US don't care enough to even wonder how such items were produced, at what means and by whom? As long as were not the ones suffering...right?

The big difference between the ideas that you are stating and the ones I am, is that you are leaving out the facts regarding how the US government accounts, helps and justifies its corporate initiatives. It stems from the top down. The US makes it part of its business through aid, development, trade agreements amongst other affairs we all actively pursue. And your mentions of government regulation...many laws have been rectified in order for corporations to thrive. Many antitrust laws are ignored or worked around in order to pursue goals.

Yes, they are built for profit. That is the whole point of business. They lay off thousands so their stock can go up? Are you smoking crack? Where did you get this? Layoffs are an indication of low profits that result in stock going down. Do you make this up or did you read it somewhere? The upper tier management makes millions? I am curious, how many people in the whole US make in the millions?

Corporations typically lay off large numbers (thousands) of employees at a time right before a quarter nears the end. It's usually in reaction to them not making their quota or projected profit margin. They lay off employees and the stock goes up. It's very typical and if you follow the news, you'd see it happen regularly.

Take a look at the salaries of CEO's, upper management, etc of any corporation. IBM for example was shown giving their exec's $1 million dollar bonuses while they laid off thou

FiveB247

04-18-2003, 10:30 PM

Ceo's...new ways of corruption... http://www.fortune.com/fortune/ceo/articles/0,15114,443047,00.html

Spider web of Conglomerates...try and decifer that one... http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,443065,00.html

Don't think corporations have influence in policies or have American interests at heart?

[quote]Lockheed Wins Huge Sale to Poland With Complex Deal
By JOHN TAGLIABUE
NY Times 4/18/03

ARIS, April 18 - Wrapping up the largest arms purchase by a former Soviet-bloc country since the cold war ended, Poland signed contracts today to pay $3.5 billion for 48 F-16 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin.

The deal is also notable for including what appears to be the largest so-called offset arrangement yet seen in the international arms trade. In return for ordering the fighters, Poland prevailed on Lockheed to organize a $6.3 billion package of investments in the country by itself and other American companies.

Some are directly related to the jet order, like a commitment by the Pratt & Whitney unit of United Technologies to build the engines in Polish factories. Others are farther afield, like a commitment by General Motors to expand a car plant in Poland and another by Motorola to install an emergency telecommunications system for the Polish government.

"It's the deal of the century," said Christopher R. Hill, the American ambassador to Poland, echoing Polish officials. "Really what Lockheed did," he said by telephone from Warsaw, "is to develop a Team U.S.A. concept."

The deal, which took months to negotiate in detail after Poland and Lockheed reached a preliminary agreement on the jet order in December, is a central element in Poland's plans to modernize its armed forces to meet the standards of NATO, which the country joined in 1999. The F-16's will replace aging Russian-built MIG-29 fighters.

But the deal has provoked bitter criticism from two quarters: Poland's European allies, whose manufacturers lost out on the deal, and American labor unions, which object to offset deals on the ground that they shift jobs out of the United States.

Poland has worked hard since the collapse of communism to reorient itself toward Western Europe. In Athens on Wednesday, the country achieved a long-sought goal, signing treaties to join the European Union along with nine other new members.

But other European governments, most notably France, have criticized Poland for choosing an American supplier over two European bidders. Dassault Aviation of France offered Mirage 2000 jets; Saab of Sweden and BAE Systems of Britain jointly offered the Gripen fighter.

The falling-out with the French became especially bitter after Warsaw and Paris found themselves on opposite sides of the argument over war in Iraq.

Poland's defense minister, Jerzy Szmajdzinski, said the jet order and offset agreement would "bring an economic and technological stimulus for Poland and strengthen our links with the United States."

After communism fell in 1989, Poland revamped its economy more quickly and more pitilessly than its neighbors; its "shock therapy" approach was wrenching at the time, but for years afterward Poland had the strongest and most sustained economic growth among the former Communist states.

It has attracted a huge flow of direct foreign investment - over $65 billion from 1989 to 2002, much more than its peers. France was the leading source, supplying $13 billion; the United States was second, with $8.7 billion.

But in recent months, Poland has been faltering, held back by the slowing world economy and, especially, the sluggishness of Western Europe, its main export market. Growth slowed to about 1 percent in 2001 and 2002, and prospects for this year are not much brighter.

In all, the contracts signed today cover three distinct agreements. One is the sale of the 48 jet fighters; another is the offset package of investments in Poland over the next 10 years. The third is low-interest financing for the jet order by a United States government agency,

Butters

04-19-2003, 09:10 AM

You know no one is going to read this because it is to long and we judge it by the last sentence so make it about chinchillas

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/aggie2323/tom5C27ssig.jpg ">
If it ain't Aggie it ain't good

Bestinshow

04-21-2003, 06:33 AM

I'm not trying to defend every two-bit union. And I wasn't talking about whatever union you are talking about. I'm talking about American Airlines. And, yes, it is big of the union to take a pay cut when executives are still taking bonuses that are twice their salary.

Do you understand that if they didn`t agree to that cut, they were closing down? A choice between no jobs and a cut is a no brainer, even for a union. And you think only two bit unions are corrupt? What about the teamsters? What about the poultry workers union that monopolized the contracts in NY for years? You never heard of the influence that organized crime has had with many unions?
And you are going to tell me that is rare. It is very convenient of you to condemn corporations and lavish these noble unions with such praise.
<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-21-03 @ 10:41 AM

Bestinshow

04-21-2003, 06:42 AM

I am sure that Marx would be very proud of you and you would run an ideal societry for him.
Do I need to express all of the environmental, social, political and economic factors in which mega-corporations influence and impair democracy?
You make these blanket vague statements. What are you talking about? Environmental issues? There are always going to be environmental issues. There are always special interest groups that address these issues. They don`t have free reign. There are violations. There are law suits. There are investigations. If you know about them do you think no one else does? You make it sound like they go unchequed. So for this you want the government to control corporations. That would be democracy. Social, political and ECONOMIC factors. They shouldn`t have influence? I guess just your ultra left wing super radical uba lobying special interest groups should have the monopoly on this.
You guys should sit around, discuss what corporations are allowed to own, where they can trade, who they can trade with, what they have to give to what governments, who they can employ, for how much because this is democracy. This way you can protect us from the big bad corporations that are ruining our government and way of life and you can prevent them from having any social, political and god forbid economic affect on anything because that is something that should belong to the government and whoever is controling it because, as you say, that would be democracy. And than of course, there would be no pollution, and corruption, and labor abuse and greed. Because those groups are all run by morally perfect people with impecable judgement and corporations now are run by Satan. Thank god you are here to rescue us. You keep saying you don`t want government control but you keep saying you do want government control. Make up your mind.

The larger a corporation is, the larger its impact on society. Especially if these huge conglomerates stretch across many industries. They use brother and sister companies off of each other to gain and access more control and 'unity'. Look at the Fortune 500's, just guessing, I'd probably say all of them have some serious ties to government programs (defense, military, energy, communication products, etc.).

Yes, a large corporation has a large impact on society. A large group of anything has a large impact on society. There is nothing illegal and undemocratic about that. Actually, that is the point of a large corporation. Yes, the public sector sells to the military. That stimulates the economy. Where do you want the government to buy from? Other countries? Or do you want the government to do its own manufacturing? I guess that is part of your democratic America.

Do you think policies, laws and such aren't geared in their influence? Enron was working closely with the government right until the point when the scandal and such broke. Now after the fact, all the details come back how the entire California power shortage was a scam to boost profits.

Yes, it was a scam. Not the norm, a scam. And I`m sure it wont be the last scam. So for this we should turn over control to the government. Than of course, there would be no scams. Policies, laws and such are influenced by the business world. By they are also influenced by everything else in the environment. But I guess they shouldn`t have any influence. I guess you decide who should and shouldn`t have influence. Only individuals, working through the government and government alone should control all. So , the government should control everything, because that would be democracy.
Corporate crimes are a slap on the wrist and all the laws are loosely written to make it tough to get convictions. Over the entire Enron scandal, how many people were actually caught? How many will be convicted? It's all in the same realm of our governments corporate agenda.
Do you read this in your progaganda or is this your own assumption? These executives were all ruined and put on trial. If I rem

HBox

04-21-2003, 07:48 AM

And you are going to tell me that is rare. It is very convenient of you to condemn corporations and lavish these noble unions with such praise.

Yes, I am going to lavish the union with praise. Because they, unlike the executives, DID take pay cuts. They didn't set aside huge bonuses for themselves in the face of bankruptcy. They didn't move their pensions outside the company to a trust so they have no stake in whether the company survives. You act like taking a pay cut should be expected. Why the hell should normal workers pay for the mismanagement of executives? Its not like these unions are getting huge raises in times or prosperity.

Bestinshow

04-21-2003, 08:19 AM

Yes, I am going to lavish the union with praise. Because they, unlike the executives, DID take pay cuts. They didn't set aside huge bonuses for themselves in the face of bankruptcy. They didn't move their pensions outside the company to a trust so they have no stake in whether the company survives. You act like taking a pay cut should be expected. Why the hell should normal workers pay for the mismanagement of executives? Its not like these unions are getting huge raises in times or prosperity.
Because one union did what it had to do to keep its members jobs, you turn a blind eye
to all other transgressions that unions do. And you can make a blanket statement how great they are and at the same time that corporations suck. It must be great to be able to pick and choose what you ignore and what you except. I love double standards.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

FiveB247

04-21-2003, 08:26 AM

Hey...don't combine the two issues...they are very separate and unrelated.

Unions do serve a solid purpose in the business world. Without them employers would and do, pit employee vs. employee, hold no disregard for unnecessary cutbacks or layoffs amongst many other issues they deem suitable for profits sake.

Yes, some unions help employees become lazy and benched into a job. But that's a far cry from the many that help employees the right to unionize and negotiate salaries, working conditions, hours, etc...

Without unions, Most industries would be subjected to ownership's demands for wage slaves and similar ungodly conditions.

The US government in the past 20-30yrs has stronghold and belittled unions to a point of absurdity. President after president have stepped in and prohibited or diminished the ability for a union to properly organize, strike and negotiate deals.

It's actually also been studied that industries and business's with unions have been more successful in output and growth compared to those which are not unionized or do not contain unions.

HBox

04-21-2003, 04:25 PM

Because one union did what it had to do to keep its members jobs, you turn a blind eye
to all other transgressions that unions do. And you can make a blanket statement how great they are and at the same time that corporations suck. It must be great to be able to pick and choose what you ignore and what you except. I love double standards.

Please tell me where I said all unions are great. Please tell me. Maybe I'm insane and have no idea what I'm saying. I was simply poiting out what scumbags American Airlines are and what the union did to keep the company afloat. I never said all unions were great. And I never said all corporations are horrible. But after hearing about Enron, Adelphia, Global Crossings, numerous others and now AA, I'll give the unions the benefit of the doubt.

El Mudo

04-21-2003, 09:01 PM

Eat the Rich!!

http://www.chrisjericho.com/images/Fozzy/Fozzy.jpg

....Garry Owen....

This message was edited by El Mudo on 4-22-03 @ 1:06 AM

Bestinshow

04-22-2003, 07:34 AM

But after hearing about Enron, Adelphia, Global Crossings, numerous others and now AA, I'll give the unions the benefit of the doubt.

That my point. You are willing to overlook transgressions for unions but not corporations.
There are probably more illegal doings in unions than corporations but you will give them the benefit of the doubt. And you don`t think union bosses steal? Please.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

FiveB247

04-22-2003, 07:38 AM

I am sure that Marx would be very proud of you and you would run an ideal societry for him.

What's with all the Marx and Communist references? I don't talk of government control on business, I talk of safeguards that prevent business from impeding on the citizens right to democracy. They are not the same by any means, but you seem to combine the two notions.

Your mention of 'interest groups is funny'. Do interest or action groups have such access to politicians? Do they wet the pockets of politicians in order to achieve their agenda? In my personal opinion, ALL lobbying should be ended (whether corporate or special interest groups). It is a new found way to step in between politicians and them accomplishing their job for the public's interest. It isn't even Constitutional. It's an intermediary which side tracks interests, goals and achievements of politicians and the political forum. Politicians go along with who is paying for their attention. Thus Lobbying works; but that doesn't mean it is correct and to be done.

You don't seem to grasp the policies which allow for our Corporations to move factories overseas in order to benefit at the cost of others. We lower tariffs, have 'free trade' agreements as well as give money to corporations in order for them to set up shop elsewhere. The tax payers pay for all of these items. Loss of jobs and high taxes is what we receive back; when corporations get low wages, loose constraints which allow of environmental damage, poor working conditions and similar items. You are also missing the fact that there is a huge difference between having safeguards which protect citizens compared to the complete control in which you think I'm speaking off (which I'm not). When democracy and the interests of its people are compromised at the cost of business interests and agendas, it does matter and should be dealt with. Not ignored and left alone. The US government goes along with corporate agendas, interests and pushes public interests aside to do so.

Corporate representatives are on advisory boards in Congressional meetings in which the make and carry out laws and policies. Who's interest do you think they have? This nation is founded upon the notion of 'for the people, by the people', Not, by the people, for the business's and rich. Until you realize the policies and agendas our nation is and has been practicing for decades, favors business's, corporations, government entitlements, etc....You are being fooled by your government into thinking their interest is in you.

Corporate crimes are a joke in this country. Laws are set and left so that the rich white collar crimes are slap on the wrists. Only the extreme cases of crime have mild to serious penalties. Most even have loopholes which allow for such crooks to keep most of their money and holdings. But compared to drug laws, you can get caught with pot and be in prison with killers and rapists for years upon years? Where do you find logic or interest there? Laws, policies and such all are in business and corporations favor and are so for good reason.

The US was founded by rich whites who didn't want to pay their taxes. Many things in the nation have changed since then...but not that. The rich still are making and carrying out policy in their and corporate interests in mind. Don't kid yourself to think otherwise.

And I never once said we have to have 3rd World nations in mind when we create policy here. But on the same hand, isn't it the great US which funds, aids and "develops" the lesser nations of the world at their own initiative? So obviously, such thoughts and ideas are in mind in the government. You seem to leave out the fact how there's a big difference between simply doing business with a nation, helping them develop; compared to hindering a society and creating massive social, economic and environmental problems. The US tax payers are paying the bills anyways for aid, development, etc...so what's wrong with giving these corporations laws to follow. If anything, it

HBox

04-22-2003, 09:23 AM

That my point. You are willing to overlook transgressions for unions but not corporations.
There are probably more illegal doings in unions than corporations but you will give them the benefit of the doubt. And you don`t think union bosses steal? Please.

Why don't you start reading what I write and not imagining what my argument is. Did I ever say that I am overlooking what some unions do? I am more willing to trust a union than a corporation. That's it. Corporations do stuff that is "legal" that screw over their employees. It's legal, but not right. Not to mention their illegal dealings. Maybe if you post some proof of your accusations against unions, you can move me, but since you seem to like arguing with a figment of your imagination rather than me I think I'm done here.

afterganger

04-22-2003, 10:10 AM

Something on msn. not picking sides, but these pensions are really becoming an out of control situation. Though I have no idea how it can be fixed.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/p44954.asp

FiveB247

04-22-2003, 11:19 AM

This stuff is very common..more so then most want to admit. But it goes unchecked and is "legal". So much for having 'safeguards'..let's just let corporations run rampant....it apparently works right? But for whom?

Ps...Michael Brush is one scary looking dude. Combo of the revolting blob and a pedifile.

Bestinshow

04-22-2003, 01:18 PM

Why don't you start reading what I write and not imagining what my argument is. Did I ever say that I am overlooking what some unions do? I am more willing to trust a union than a corporation. That's it. Corporations do stuff that is "legal" that screw over their employees. It's legal, but not right. Not to mention their illegal dealings. Maybe if you post some proof of your accusations against unions, you can move me, but since you seem to like arguing with a figment of your imagination rather than me I think I'm done here.
What the Fuck are you talking about. I understand you perfectly. you admit unions do things but you want proof. And you still trust them more than corporations, even though they do. Maybe its you that you don`t understand. And you really need proof of Mob ties and unions? Go ask Jimmy Hoffa.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

Bestinshow

04-22-2003, 02:04 PM

What's with all the Marx and Communist references? I don't talk of government control on business, I talk of safeguards that prevent business from impeding on the citizens right to democracy. They are not the same by any means, but you seem to combine the two notions

This is communism. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
This is Communism (according to Marx), A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. Neither one of these is anything close to what I've said or believe. Please stop confusing the two.

Are you kidding. You want government control over: Salary structure, layoffs, profit motive, importing, exporting, control over markets, sharing of technology, acquisitions, capital limitations,and many more. These are from your posts. you call them safeguards but you are fooling yourself. You always talk of the distribution of capital, that it is unfair.(Collective ownership of property). The right of corporations to set salaries, bonuses and workforce ie: layoffs (organization of labor for the common advantage of all members)You complain that business influences the economy, you want the government to "safeguard it"(See your Marx def.) And you always complain about executives being rich and some workers being poor(all goods are equally shared by the people). Sorry, I have read enough of your posts and this is what you are saying.

Your mention of 'interest groups is funny'. Do interest or action groups have such access to politicians? Do they wet the pockets of politicians in order to achieve their agenda?

Are you kidding? They also use political blackmail which is legal but unethical.

In my personal opinion, ALL lobbying should be ended (whether corporate or special interest groups). It is a new found way to step in between politicians and them accomplishing their job for the public's interest. It isn't even Constitutional. It's an intermediary which side tracks interests, goals and achievements of politicians and the political forum. Politicians go along with who is paying for their attention. Thus Lobbying works: but that doesn't mean it is correct and to be done.

I agree 100%. We finally agree on something.

You don't seem to grasp the policies which allow for our Corporations to move factories overseas in order to benefit at the cost of others. We lower tariffs, have 'free trade' agreements as well as give money to corporations in order for them to set up shop elsewhere. The tax payers pay for all of these items. Loss of jobs and high taxes is what we receive back: when corporations get low wages, loose constraints which allow of environmental damage, poor working conditions and similar items.
A bit hyper, ay? You seem confused. Tariffs have nothing to do with our business overseas. They control import of products from foreign companies. Besides, corporations were always allowed to expand overseas. What is undemocratic about that? That doesn`t mean they should abuse the environment or the work force. But corporate America, in general doesn`t. Trangressions should be punished.
And back to this tax thing again. When have taxes ever been raised for something corporations did? How does a company doing business overseas raise income taxes? That doesn`t make any sense. Free trade agreements, once again have no effect on tax and they are supposed to stimulate trade which is to help the economy. They are supposed to flow both ways. Is stimulating the economy one of those "agendas" you love talking about.

[quote]When democracy and the interests of its people are compromised at the cost of business interests and agendas, it does matter and should be dealt with. Not ignored and left alone. The US government goes along wi

travis151

04-22-2003, 02:09 PM

Don't even get me started on Unions and Big Business. Both are f'ing in only for the money. It was great when Unions first started. They saved the working and created the working class. But Unions harass and extort money. I know I'm in a Union I know how they get Jobs and scare away compatition. I have witnessed Unions try to send a Black employee to another company just to see if they would hire him!!!! And the Union admitted it in a meeting between the two companies!!!! Its fucked up and I'm sick and tired of the politics in Unions. I also see how companies screw over their employees and rake in tons of money. It does go both ways we do need Unions to keep Big Business in check but we must clear out the curruption. It true MONEY changes everything.

Red Sox=More Better

high fly

04-22-2003, 04:44 PM

Unions also were a big reason we didn't go commie.

" and they ask me why I drink"

FiveB247

04-23-2003, 07:06 AM

Are you kidding. You want government control over: Salary structure, layoffs, profit motive, importing, exporting, control over markets, sharing of technology, acquisitions, capital limitations, and many more. These are from your posts. you call them safeguards but you are fooling yourself. You always talk of the distribution of capital, that it is unfair.(Collective ownership of property). The right of corporations to set salaries, bonuses and workforce ie: layoffs (organization of labor for the common advantage of all members)You complain that business influences the economy, you want the government to "safeguard it"(See your Marx def.) And you always complain about executives being rich and some workers being poor(all goods are equally shared by the people). Sorry, I have read enough of your posts and this is what you are saying.

I never once have said government control of any of those items. There's a difference between control of and a safeguard. Obviously free speech has limitations and guards confining and keeping it within limits (both bad and good), but we all have free speech don't we? So obviously it's not government controlled....it's safeguarded by laws. Many of these items I have pointed out in order to show how corporations, government policies and such favor the rich, business, and corporate initiative. You seem to believe that automatically means I demand full government control over. In the spectrum of control and law... I believe it should be in the middle so that citizens aren't lost in the process for economic rule (which is the case nowadays).

Tariffs have nothing to do with our business overseas. They control import of products from foreign companies. Besides, corporations were always allowed to expand overseas. What is undemocratic about that? That doesn't mean they should abuse the environment or the work force. But corporate America, in general doesn`t.

Tariffs are used as means to raise production and consumption in a nation so that people buy and use a home nations product. It's a protectionist devise. Tariffs are removed for many trans-national corporations and nations thus give foreign products an edge in profit and sales. The US loses factories, jobs, income, etc from such workings....which all have large impact on our economy. NAFTA alone has helped thousands of US factories close and move to other nations due to cheap labor and loose regulations. NAFTA (one of many "free trade" agreements) has not had a positive effect on our economy, society or such...nor has it done such things in the nations we trade with. It specializes in bringing wealth to the wealthy and further separates the poor and rich classes. Does any of that sound anything like the NAFTA the US promised would help create thousands of US jobs? People make fun of Ross Perot...but it was one of the items that he forewarned us about.

Free trade agreements, once again have no effect on tax and they are supposed to stimulate trade which is to help the economy. They are supposed to flow both ways. Is stimulating the economy one of those "agendas" you love talking about.

It does have an effect trade for the US, negatively. Free trade agreements are scrupulous and all have broad written agendas. Things like GATT, 'intellectual patents', public interests, tariff levels, fast track legislation (which is Unconstitutional) are all used and thwarted past unwitting citizens. The government tells us free trade agreements are positive and beneficial to us, our economy and those we trade with. It is nothing close to any of them. Statistics have been noted and studies have been done proving all of this.

The government goes along with corporations making a profit? What freakin agendas? They are supposed to make money. Pushes public interest aside? Compomising Democracy?

Here's a simple example. For anyone who believes Operation Iraqi freedom was done to free, help and develop the people of Iraq; if we are to believe that..wouldn't it hold to

Bestinshow

04-23-2003, 07:52 AM

Tariffs are used as means to raise production and consumption in a nation so that people buy and use a home nations product.
Yes, and tell me again what is wrong with that? Remember Profit=good deficit=bad
profit=stimulated economy=good. One of the governments responsibilities, although for some strange reason you think this is bad, is to insure that US business does well. There main responsibility is to us first, not third world countries first. They come second, sorry.
It's a protectionist devise.

What does that even mean? Tarriffs protect US business. US business=good. We are US business. See how that works. We want them to make profit. Profit is only bad in some types of Socialist governments which I wont mention because you don`t like it.

Tariffs are removed for many trans-national corporations and nations thus give foreign products an edge in profit and sales.

I don`t get it. You don`t like whether we raise or lower tariffs. Okay........??????

It does have an effect trade for the US, negatively. Free trade agreements are scrupulous and all have broad written agendas. Things like GATT, 'intellectual patents', public interests, tariff levels, fast track legislation (which is Unconstitutional) are all used and thwarted past unwitting citizens

I believe the word you want is unscrupulous. You confused me for a second. I thought you were moving to the middle. The government did have "scrupples" when they enacted the free trade agreements. The jury is out if they work but the motive was to stimulate trade for the economy. Of course you think they did this strictly for the big bad corporations who are run by , and benefit Satan.Thwartted past unwitting citizens? Do you have classified information noone else has? You know about them.

Than you go on again how the government and big business is in collusion to destroy the world. The government can`t rule what occurs in other countries and not all of corporate America is guilty of grotesque human rights violations. Although you for some reason think most of them are because of course Satan is ruling them. I mean a big corporation couldn`t possibly be ethical if it makes a profit. They most all do it if Nike does it. And in an answer to a previous post, yes, I have no problem boycotting products from certain giant companies. I don`t know where you shop but I have enough of a selection on the shelf to choose.

Enough of this left wing rhetoric. Please next post do Groucho marx instead of Karl Marx. that would be fun.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

El Mudo

04-23-2003, 11:17 AM

Please next post do Groucho marx instead of Karl Marx. that would be fun.

http://www.groucho-marx.com/tattoogm.jpg

http://www.maui.net/~makule/pix/7thcav.gif

This message was edited by El Mudo on 4-23-03 @ 3:22 PM

FiveB247

04-23-2003, 11:36 AM

One of the governments responsibilities, although for some strange reason you think this is bad, is to insure that US business does well. There main responsibility is to us first, not third world countries first. They come second, sorry.

You are correct...we do come first. But removal of tariffs, free trade agreements, and low tariffs, factories leaving the US, etc....they don't help our economy either. So what's wrong with holding corporations accountable for their actions? Do you find that holding our government responsible for what our business do and how they act overseas communist? (You do realize the government monitors and makes laws which apply to business practices elsewhere). Or do think that only applies to industries which are of "national interest".

Tariffs protect US business. US business=good. We are US business. See how that works. We want them to make profit. Profit is only bad in some types of Socialist governments which I wont mention because you don't like it.

Tariffs do protect US business. Business is good which helps the economy. So please explain to me why in the world we have free trade agreements which remove tariffs. You just completely contradicted yourself.

don't get it. You don't like whether we raise or lower tariffs.

The middle ground should be used. Something that helps our economy but also boosts trade. Not one polar extreme or the other.

The jury is out if they work but the motive was to stimulate trade for the economy.

So then why is NAFTA still enforced? We could easily have it ended and remove it. But instead, it operations and outcomes are becoming more apparent and growing.

Thwarted past unwitting citizens? Do you have classified information noone else has? You know about them.

Under NAFTA's investment Chapter 11, specifically Article 1110, NAFTA guarantee's foreign investors compensation from the NAFTA governments for any direct government expropriation (i.e., nationalization) or any other action that is "tantamount to" an "indirect expropriation." In addition, Article 1102 provides for "national treatment," which means that governments must accord to companies of other NAFTA countries no less favorable treatment than they give to their own companies. Article 1105 contains a "minimum standard of treatment" provision, which includes vague prose about fair and equitable treatment in accordance with international law.

Foreign corporations now have means to surpass government allowances and control which are deviated upon the citizens (tax money is spent on such lawsuits and industries are changed). Lawsuits and cases in Mexico, US and Canada have been won and lost in courts leaving tax payers with millions of dollars to pay for the 'ill-treatment' of foreign companies. Issues ranging from water supplies, government run business's like the postal system to various others.

And in an answer to a previous post, yes, I have no problem boycotting products from certain giant companies. I don`t know where you shop but I have enough of a selection on the shelf to choose.

You would have a problem shopping and not buying any corporate products. Most of them are owned and made by a few conglomerates. If you went into a generic supermarket and there weren't corporate products in the store...You'd virtually walk into a store empty shelves.

Any enough with all the leftist, communist name calling. You obviously aren't grasping the different between "control" and "safeguards". For example, government monitors trade and uses tariffs as one way to do so. Is that a communist control? No, it is a safeguard to protect business and the economy.

Bestinshow

04-23-2003, 01:29 PM

But removal of tariffs, free trade agreements, and low tariffs, factories leaving the US, etc....they don't help our economy either. So what's wrong with holding corporations accountable for their actions? Do you find that holding our government responsible for what our business do and how they act overseas communist? (You do realize the government monitors and makes laws which apply to business practices elsewhere). Or do think that only applies to industries which are of "national interest".
Lawsuits and cases in Mexico, US and Canada have been won and lost in courts leaving tax payers with millions of dollars to pay for the 'ill-treatment' of foreign companies. Issues ranging from water supplies, government run business's like the postal system to various others.

Sounds like we are already responsible. I never said we shouldn`t be responsible for transgressions. I said the corporate world as a whole isn`t evil as you portray it. It isn`t perfect but either is anything else and we are responsible for transgressions. For gods sake, what more do you want? You can soften the terminology all you want. Government safeguards are government control. Corporations shouldn`t be run by the public sector. We are rehashing the same thing. The amount of government control you are talking about are socialist concepts. Your "safeguards"
would be controlling the market system. Your idea of ending tariffs is ludicrous. You want them in the middle? WTF? Tariffs have to be raised or lowered determined by the economy. Not because you think corporations are making too much money. They are controlled by the ratio of imports to exports and other market conditions. You are the one who wants agendas. You keep talking about NAFTA and free trade agreements. Whether they work is a different issue from what we are discussing here. The point is you are pissing all over corporations and saying they need "safeguards" . Whether free trade agreements work is a separate issue.
Tariffs do protect US business. Business is good which helps the economy. So please explain to me why in the world we have free trade agreements which remove tariffs. You just completely contradicted yourself.

I said tariffs were good. I never said free trade agreements were good. I said the motive of the government to enact them was good. Not unscrupulous as you claimed. I never said they worked. We are talking about ethics of corporations, not economic decisions of the government.

The middle ground should be used. Something that helps our economy but also boosts trade. Not one polar extreme or the other.

come on, I expect you to know better than that. Obviously Tariffs have to shift with market conditions.

You would have a problem shopping and not buying any corporate products. Most of them are owned and made by a few conglomerates. If you went into a generic supermarket and there weren't corporate products in the store...You'd virtually walk into a store empty shelves.

this is what you don`t get. Just because a company is a conglomerate doesn`t mean it is unethical. You shouldn`t boycott a company because of its size. I said if you know a company is guilty of somethingyou are upset with, buy from someone else. You wont burn in hell if you buy from a conglomerate.

Any enough with all the leftist, communist name calling. You obviously aren't grasping the different between "control" and "safeguards". For example, government monitors trade and uses tariffs as one way to do so. Is that a communist control? No, it is a safeguard to protect business and the economy.

I am sorry if you are taking this as name calling. I did not intend to offend you. I just disagree with you about your definition of government intervention. A certain amount of government intervention is necessary and we have that. I feel you are crossing that necessary line and too much control of business in the hands of government leads to
socialism. Again, I am sorry Five, no malice intended. May

FiveB247

04-24-2003, 06:24 AM

Government safeguards are government control. Corporations shouldn't be run by the public sector. We are rehashing the same thing. The amount of government control you are talking about are socialist concepts. Your "safeguards" would be controlling the market system. Your idea of ending tariffs is ludicrous. You want them in the middle? WTF? Tariffs have to be raised or lowered determined by the economy. Not because you think corporations are making too much money. They are controlled by the ratio of imports to exports and other market conditions. You are the one who wants agendas.

You're not understanding what I saying. I never said tariffs should be removed....I'm saying they should be in the middle of the two extreme's ...one being free trade agreements and lowered tariffs which all favor corporations and hurt US economy..and the other polar of having high tariffs that block foreign goods in order to raise US production and consumption. Obviously I never said the public should run Corporations, but laws could enacted that protect both responsibility home and foreign practices. You aren't recognizing the obvious difference between control of the market compared to making corporations and business accountable for their actions. You also didn't remark on the notion of free trade agreements that we still comply with and how they weaken and hurt our economy. There are many market forces which shape and can help/ hinder our economy...tariffs and such agreements are some of them (especially considering they are all in the favor of corporations). And free trade agreements have large impact on corporate morals and ethics. Such agreements help corporations profit from using awful practices overseas.

You talk of government and economy as if they have no impact on the market whatsoever..and that any fixing of fluctuations are completely leftist? Do you think the same of Alan Greenspan playing with the interest rate? Is he a leftist controlling the market?

Just because a company is a conglomerate doesn't mean it is unethical. You shouldn't boycott a company because of its size. I said if you know a company is guilty of something you are upset with, buy from someone else. You wont burn in hell if you buy from a conglomerate.

You are naive thinking conglomerates don't act unethical or use awful practices. That's a large part of how and why they are they size they are. You just don't read it about it cause it's not in the media's benefit to talk or mention it.

A certain amount of government intervention is necessary and we have that. I feel you are crossing that necessary line and too much control of business in the hands of government leads to socialism.

Once again....I never said the government (public) should run business sectors. That is socialism. I said the government should take more action in corporations and conglomerates which are using bad business practices both here and overseas. But when you have government policies that are geared and benefit corporations to move overseas and use such practices...doesn't really add it. That's why I believe the government is responsible as well (nonetheless it all hurts the US economy....).

Bestinshow

04-24-2003, 07:08 AM

You're not understanding what I saying. I never said tariffs should be removed....I'm saying they should be in the middle of the two extreme's ...one being free trade agreements and lowered tariffs which all favor corporations and hurt US economy..and the other polar of having high tariffs that block foreign goods in order to raise US production and consumption.

And I will say it again. Tariffs can`t be in the middle. They have to be adjusted to market conditions. Otherwise they don`t work.

Obviously I never said the public should run Corporations, but laws could enacted that protect both responsibility home and foreign practices. You aren't recognizing the obvious difference between control of the market compared to making corporations and business accountable for their actions.

I feel they are responsible. Being guilty of certain transgressions doesn`t mean they aren`t responsible for them. I understand you perfectly. These laws you talk of are government control. We already have laws enacted. The rest has to be rectified by the system. Adding more laws is more control. That is why I say you are starting to cross the line.

You talk of government and economy as if they have no impact on the market whatsoever..and that any fixing of fluctuations are completely leftist? Do you think the same of Alan Greenspan playing with the interest rate? Is he a leftist controlling the market?

Actually any government intervention is considered socialism. A pure capitalist Democracy has no government intervention. Theoretically free enterprise and competion are supposed to fix everything. That doesn`t happen in the real world. We have to use artificial conditions such as antitrust laws and control the flow of cash through interest rates to aid the economy. Technically, yes, it is a form of socialist practice, as are, programs like Welfare and unemployment. They are necessary in the real world. When we over use these tools is when we shift to far to the left. That is the main difference in the philosophies of our two parties. Republicans feel market conditions should be adjusted with minimal government intervention "Small government" and let the market itself adjust the rest (Competition, consumers, etc.). Democrats want more government intervention
"Big government" which is more of a shift to the left. These are different philosophies. That is why you and I disagree. It is not bad or good to be either. No one can prove which is correct. But that is what I meant by I didn`t intend it to be name calling. I exaggerated a little to bust your balls because I like you, But you are a little more to the left than me. That is ok. We agree to disagree.

P.S. I don`t know enough about the free trade agreements to comment. But they are a separate issue and honestly, I don`t think I like them either if I understand them properly.
I was against them. I just said the motive was correct. I don`t think they accomplished it though.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>