Re: "Corporations and the aristocratic class that owns and manages them are
in control."And, as usual, liberals invoke their
one-size-fits-all "solution" to every problem -- more and bigger Big
Government.In the case of the writer, he appears to advocate
wresting control from corporate aristocrats, handing it over to liberal
political and bureaucratic aristocrats.Doesn't seem like much
of a solution.
@ procuradorHmm. I think I'll side with Thomas Jefferson on
A little more EIC history from Venkatesh Rao:"The EIC managed to
balance an unbalanced trade equation between Europe and Asia whose solution had
eluded even the Roman empire. Massive flows of gold and silver from Europe to
Asia via the Silk and Spice routes had been a given in world trade for several
thousand years. Asia simply had far more to sell than it wanted to buy. Until
the EIC came along. . . ."The EIC started out by buying textiles
from Bengal and tea from China in exchange for gold and silver. Then it realized
it was playing the same sucker game that had trapped and helped bankrupt
Rome."Next, it figured out that it could take control of the
opium industry in Bengal, trade opium for tea in China with a significant
surplus, and use the money to buy the textiles it needed in Bengal. Guns would
be needed."As a bonus, along with its partners, it participated
in yet another clever trade: textiles for slaves along the coast of Africa, who
could be sold in America for gold and silver."Quite a racket.
All in the name of corporate profiteering and "God save the Queen."
Excellent article. procuradorfiscal said:In the case of the
writer, he appears to advocate wresting control from corporate aristocrats,
handing it over to liberal political and bureaucratic aristocrats.You almost got it right, he advocates wresting control from corporate
aristocrats, handing it BACK to the American people, instead of handing more
power and control to corporate America, as in the republicans plan to privatize
the government for profit.
Who owns corporations? Stockholders!Who owned G.M. before Obama
"socialized" it? The American public including police retirement funds
and school teacher retirement funds.Who owns G.M. now? The
Government and unions and the government of Canada.Who lost
everything when Obama "socialized" G.M.? The police retirees. The
school teachers and everyone else who owned stock in G.M.The
structure of a corporation allows you and me to own part of a business. If we
buy the right kind of stock, we can vote on the operation of that
"business". If we choose the right "business", our money makes
us more money. Those "evil" profits go into OUR bank accounts and we
PROSPER even though Democrats consider "prosper" to be another evil
word.Why is it fair to PROSPER by buying stock in a corporation?
It's fair because we RISKED something in order to gain something in
return.Given the choice between a powerful government and powerful
corporations, I choose corporations. If I don't like those corporations, I
don't invest in them and I don't buy their products. A powerful
government gives us no choice, i.e. Obamacare.
Amen and Godspeed.
Outstanding letter. I appreciate the use of history to make a valid and
valuable point about today's economic problem. And I agree: I side with
President Jefferson on this one.
Mike Richards.The real truth is that most stockholders are simply
debt holders having no possibility of effecting the policies and actions of a
corporation. Mostly corporations are run by a small group of individuals who
own a lot of stock or have the ability to garner proxies from the general
stockholder population. I’ve seldom heard about proxy wars and think they
are a rare occurrence.All the evil that might be associated with
government by a religion in a theocracy would be the same and maybe worse in the
government by a corporation. The competition between corporations
is fierce and sometime very bloody. Usually the blood comes from innocent
people. The more like business corporations our government becomes, the more
blood will be spelt.
From author Thom Hartmann:“To do business in America or most
of the world does not require a corporate structure—people can run
partnerships, individual proprietorships, or simply manufacture and sell
products or offer services without any business structure whatsoever other than
keeping track of the money for the Internal Revenue Service.“It’s only when a group of people get together and put capital
(cash) at risk and want to seek from the government legal limits on their
liability, and to legally limit their possible losses, that a corporate form
becomes necessary. In exchange for these limitations on liability, governments
demand certain responsibilities from corporations. The oldest historic one was
that corporations ‘operate in the public interest’ or ‘to the
public benefit.’ After all, if the people, through their elected
representatives, are going to authorize a legal limitation of liability for a
group of people engaged in the game of business, it’s quite reasonable to
ask that the game be played in a way that throws off some benefit to the
government’s citizens or at least doesn’t operate counter to the
People who purchase corporate stock on the exchange are not really investors.
They are speculators. Unless, of course, they are purchasing part of an IPO.
Buying stock on the exchange is more like buying a used car than investing in a
corporation, since the money goes not to the corporation but to the previous
purchaser of the stock. If I buy GM stock, for instance, none of that money goes
to GM. I'm just speculating, hoping the stock increases in value. In that
way, though, buying stock is not like buying a used car, because I know a used
car is not going to increase in value. Of course, the same could be said for
some stocks, and they will give you far less mileage than a good used Toyota.
Kent,People who buy corporate stock are buying part of that company.
You may want to call it speculation, but the fact is, once they have purchased
stock, they OWN part of the company.Saying that the money from that
stock purchase does not go to the company is nor germane. The fact that is
germane is that one owner of that company sold his ownership to someone else.
The purchaser becomes the new part owner and he hopes that the company will do
well.Few people can afford to own an entire business. Even fewer
people want to own an entire business. They want to own part of a company that
they trust. They want to propser when the company that they partly own is
prosperous.Obama wants the government to own the "company".
The Constitution does not allow the government to own the company. That duty is
left to the States and to the people.
Bottom line to me is that the profit motive when put above all else makes
everything a racket including democracy.Profit notive is a means to
end not the end. You can be a widget maker that dreams of making the
best widget in the world, or you can be a widget maker that dreams of building a
yacht 10 feet longer than your frenemy by squeezing the life and benefits your
employees used to have for a hard day's work.
This is a truly stupid concept. Corporations and businesses of all sizes cannot
have government officials or legislators who know nothing about a business
running them. That is what got the Soviet Union into trouble, central planning.
We see the same thing for Iprovo, Utopia in Orem k etc. Even Front Runner and
the light rail nice as it sounds and looks is paid for by tax payers not the
rider. The less freedom a business has to run itself the less well it will do.
@ What in Tucket?You misunderstand the concept. This is not about
government running businesses. It is about what sorts of businesses we the
people should allow and what we should allow them to do, which is certainly our
right.James Madison considered himself a friend of commerce, but he
had reservations. In 1817 he wrote, “There is an evil which ought to be
guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of
holding it in perpetuity by... corporations. The power of all corporations ought
to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails
to be a source of abuses.”
Roger Terry,"We, the People" do not have any authority to
tell any business what it can or cannot do. We do not have that right. No
person has deeded over to "the people" the right to decided what a
business can or cannot do. No government has been authorized by the people
through the Constitution to tell a business what it can or cannot do.If we had that right, Michelle Obama's garden would end up in the
garbage, because, she, just like Roscoe Filburn, according to the Supreme Court
decision, Wickard v. Filburn, does NOT have the right to eat her own vegetables
or to give those vegetables to her neighbors, because doing that deprives some
other "farmer" the right to sell his produce to her and to her
neighbors. That is the law of the land. As far as I know, Wickard v. Filburn
has not been overturned.We, the People have NO right to tell any
other American what he or she can or cannot do. God gave us rights. Those
rights did not originate with the Government. A corporation is owned by the
people who have invested in it, not by the government.
Re: "The growing wealth acquired by [corporations] never fails to be a
source of abuses."Hmmmm. I wonder why liberals see this issue
with such clarity, as applied to corporations, but insist on willful blindness
regarding the same issue, as applied to Big Government?Inexplicable
liberal willingness to ascribe kinder, purer, higher motive to politicians and
bureaucrats than to corporate officers is simply insupportable in human
history.It's truly mind-bending that liberals seem so incapable
of learning a lesson that has been ruthlessly taught over and over and over
again -- the greatest excesses of greed, selfishness, and callous disregard for
the welfare of others have been demonstrated by governments, not
corporations.Liberals' misplaced trust in government is
historically more dangerous than hang gliding or dirt-bike riding. But, hey,
maybe their courting a rakish, devil-may-care personna, hoping to replace the
near-universal perception -- outside the liberal echo chamber, anyway -- of
leftists as overly-sensitive, overly-serious, overly-gullible rubes.
With a single short article, the author has burned the Declaration and he
anoints his pyre by citing the Declaration's very author. And the reaction
from the readers? Confusion? Protest? No. Applause!Astonishing.I understand the ire of the author. You don't
like the government to sell favors. I don't like it either. But this is
not the fault of the corporations, but of the system. You can't fight it
by demonizing corporations. You must crush the cause: that the system allows
for the granting of government favors.How do you change it? You
legislate that no law can be passed that does not apply equally to ALL citizens.
i.e. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal..."It was dishonest to cite Jefferson in this context.
Jefferson knew no large corporation started by free men striving and producing
without government favoritism. All he knew was the East India Company, founded
by a government, for the government.The government exists for ONE
proper purpose: to protect INDIVIDUALS' rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness... even if they pursue it in partnership with a large
Here is what some of you apologists for corporations are (purposefully?)
forgetting. A public company only has a fiduciary responsibility
i.e. worry about the bottom line and maximize profits for the shareholders.
Though, Screwdriver and Roger T tapped this concept in previous posts.p.s. I, too, side with Jefferson.
@ Wally WestIn the case of this corporate apologist, you may remove
your parenthetical question mark and replace it with an exclamation point.Yes, corporations are worried only about the bottom line and that is all
that they SHOULD be worried about.Mr. Terry has argued the
following:Properly, only the voice of the people can...1. Allow for the formation of a corporation2. Formulate the purpose of
the corporation... and that the purpose must explicitly be for some good of
society.3. Determine the longevity of the corporation.In
other words, Mr. Terry has convinced you that Jefferson was all for an
individual's right to his life, liberty and to pursue his happiness, but if
an individual tries to do it by doing commerce via a corporation, only his
neighbors can authorize that pursuit, and dictate the form of that business, and
just how successful he could become, and for how long.Yeah,
Jefferson, the man who risked life and limb to do away with the incursion of the
government into every branch of commerce with copious regulation and coercion
wanted to institutionalize the same in America.I think not.Actually, your man was Marx.
re: PippinI see I have touched a nerve. Mr Terry did nothing for
except give me hope that others see the real dangers of mass consumerism &
casino capitalism. TJ was right when he said, "...banking
institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the
American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,
first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow
up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their
children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." I am for moderation & common sense in all things. Color me naive for
expecting that 21st century America.You are partially right about 1
thing. I'm a Marxist... Groucho not Karl.