Corporate Greed & Conglomerates

[indie]

I think that one of the most pressing threats to the peace and security of modern society is the prevalence of corporate greed and the danger of conglomerates.

In both theory and reality, a corporation's sole purpose is to provide a return to its shareholders. Sad but true. People don't invest in the stock market because they want to "help" poor companies, nor do they invest because they think a company is really "nice." People invest in the stock market because they want to see their money grow at a rate faster than it would in a savings account, CD, land, etc.

Now, whether or not companies actually *do* provide a fair return to shareholders will be one of the ideas explored in this thread. In order to provide a return to shareholders, a corporation must grow or die.

How does a corporation grow? Here are some examples: By acquiring other related businesses, by acquiring unrelated businesses (diversifying), by integrating vertically, by expanding internationally or by moving operations overseas where land and labor are less expensive.

The huge "smart" companies know that diversification, among other things, is important. Here's an example:




Time Warner Inc. owns all Time Life Book companies (27 in all)

* On Cable:
HBO, CNN (8 CNN networks), Court TV, Time Warner Cable services, Road Runner interactive services, New York 1, Kablevision (Hungary)
* On Film and Television:
Warner Bros. (studios, film production and distrbution,) WB Television Network, Hanna Barbera Cartoons, Telepictures Production, Witt - Thomas Productions, Castle Rock Entertainment, Warner Home Video, Warner Bros pay TV, Warner Bros Theaters, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner South, Cartoon Network (3 channels), Turner Classic Movies, TNT, New Line Cinema, Fine Line Features, Turner Original Productions
* In Print:
Time Magazine (8 publications,) Fortune, Life, Sports Illustrated (3 magazines,) People (4 publications,) Entertainment Weekly (2 publications,) and 58 additional monthly or weekly publications.
* In Music:
Time Warner Music, Atlantic Records, Rhino, Elektra, and 49 other music production companies.
* In Partnership:
Joint ventures with Sony on Columbia House marketing, Music Sound Exchange, Viva, Channel V, Heartland Music,
* Online:
CompuServe Interactive, AOL and subsidiaries, The Knot Inc, MapQuest.com, Spinner.com, Winamp, DrKoop.com, Legend.
* In Sports:
Atlanta Braves
* In Retail:
MovieFone, iAmaze, (partial) Amazon.com, Quack.com

Some of the other big conglomerates are Disney, Gannett (News), and General Electric. . . . and they will only get bigger, because that's what businesses do.

Being an INTP, you can probably see the "Big Picture." I like to think of what's happening like what happens in the literal board game of Monopoly. The big conglomerates are like the Boardwalks, Park Places, Pacific Avenues, etc. Now, if you've ever played Monopoly, you *know* what happens . . . those who own those properties eventually end up winning the game.

Earlier in this post, I said that one of the things companies do to earn a higher profit is send some operations overseas where land and labor are less expensive. Also, there are fewer governmental regulations regarding environmental laws or labor laws.

One would hope that a corporation would take the "extra" profit from the reduced expenses and return it to the shareholders, but that's not what happens.

:shock: Really. Companies that move operations overseas don't give shareholders more of the profit; they give the CEOs more compensation.



Average CEO compensation at the 50 firms outsourcing the most service jobs increased by 46 percent in 2003, compared to a 9 percent average increase for all CEOs at the 365 large companies surveyed by Business Week. Top outsourcers earned an average of $10.4 million in 2003, 28 percent more than the average CEO compensation of $8.1 million. From 2001 to 2003, the top 50 outsourcing CEOs earned $2.2 billion while sending an estimated 200,000 jobs overseas. Source (http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2004/EE2004_pr.html)

I think that one of the most pressing threats to the peace and security of modern society is the prevalence of corporate greed and the danger of conglomorates. The current administration has made it clear that it supports big business . . . it supports outsourcing . . . it supports the systems that make a few people richer at the expense of the masses.

Finally, the alarming thing is that most people don't "hear" about these things on the news or in the newspapers because guess who owns the news channels and the newspapers and the news magazines? Conglomerates.

[mgb]

I can't wait for booyalab to see this one.

For more resourses I strongly recommend watching "The Corporation" it is fantastic and might scare the hell out of you.

I would also really strongly recommend reading "No Logo" by Naomi Klein.

For websites I found www.adbusters.org a great place to start. Also the Corporation website has a ton of links http://www.thecorporation.com to some great sites.

And I agree it is pretty scary. Some of us are worried about governments but I think the multinationals pose a much greater threat.

I also see that Adbusters has an even better Santa Claus greeting you than Groty does.

[SheepDog]

I just love it when people talk in defense of "american corporations" given the growing power and influence of multinationals.

[Boneca]

Finally, the alarming thing is that most people don't "hear" about these things on the news or in the newspapers because guess who owns the news channels and the newspapers and the news magazines? Conglomerates.This is something that I find very troubling. I see no reason why newspapers and -channels controlled by huge business conglomerates would be any better than state-controlled channels when it comes to censoring and sending propaganda.
Freedom of speech, anyone? :ph34r:

[SheepDog]

Instead of the government owning the media, the media ends up owning the government.

[Robespierre]

I think that one of the most pressing threats to the peace and security of modern society is the prevalence of corporate greed and the danger of conglomorates.

In both theory and reality, a corporation's sole purpose is to provide a return to its shareholders. Sad but true.

Why is that sad? This is what all people attempt to occomplish for themselve, some form of profit that they value. The individual wants to get the highest amount of money in exchange for his goods, be they farm produce, or labor. Groups of individuals form to accomplish the same goal. What's the problem?


People don't invest in the stock market because they want to "help" poor companies, nor do they invest because they think a company is really "nice." People invest in the stock market because they want to see their money grow at a rate faster than it would in a savings account, CD, land, etc.

The basic concept of modern capitalism. The capital (money or resources) flows to those companies who are most successful, this creating the constantly rotating market of firms trying hard to please the buying public.


Now, whether or not companies actually *do* provide a fair return to shareholders will be one of the ideas explored in this thread. In order to provide a return to shareholders, a corporation must grow or die.

How does a corporation grow? Here are some examples: By acquiring other related businesses, by acquiring unrelated businesses (diversifying), by integrating vertically, by expanding internationally or by moving operations overseas where land and labor are less expensive.

You should also add to this list, the better recognition and satiation of consumer wants. That is, if a company wishes to survive, it must better serve the consumer and his demands.


The huge "smart" companies know that diversification, among other things, is important. Here's an example:

[example omitted for brevity's sake]

Some of the other big conglomerates are Disney, Gannett (News), and General Electric. . . . and they will only get bigger, because that's what businesses do.

This conclusion is not necessarily true. A proper qualifier on your statement would be "under the current system of patronage and mercantilism".

Corporations under our current system, must constantly defend themselves not only against the whims of the market, but the whims of the legislators. If the congress decides your business needs some regulations, you are up shit creek.

So under this system of incesant meddling, a market is created for the government favors. Government enables corporations to compete with one another in the realm of law making. They can outbid each other on the next big congressman and buy his allegance. This is how large corporate business is done in america. The SOLE factor responsible for this is the government and its desire to exert control where it has no right to. Were the fedgov not selling favors or threats in the form of tariffs, subsidies, regulations, laws, and various other interventions, the corporations would have no avenue down which to buy and sell our freedom.

To restate, corporations in and of themselves present no threat, implied or otherwise to individuals. Corporations cannot throw you in jail or come into your house and take your children. Only governments can do these things, and it is only through governments that corporations do these things.


Being an INTP, you can probably see the "Big Picture." I like to think of what's happening like what happens in the literal board game of Monopoly. The big conglomerates are like the Boardwalks, Park Places, Pacific Avenues, etc. Now, if you've ever played Monopoly, you *know* what happens . . . those who own those properties eventually end up winning the game.

In the sense that they will eventually control government completely, I agree with you. However, the monopoly board comparison does not hold up in a free market. One does can never be forced to visit boardwalk, or even stay on the board for that matter.


Earlier in this post, I said that one of the things companies do to earn a higher profit is send some operations overseas where land and labor are less expensive. Also, there are fewer governmental regulations regarding environmental laws or labor laws.

To the great benefit of those who choose to work in the overseas operations.

This naked nationalism is very popular these days. To many, the only people in the world who deserve to be employed are Americans. Not to mention the implied destruction of the human rights of those wishing to exchange goods with those who live on the other side of the arbitrarily drawn political borders.


One would hope that a corporation would take the "extra" profit from the reduced expenses and return it to the shareholders, but that's not what happens.

But at the beginning of your post you told us that the SOLE purpose of corporations was to get a greater return for their share-holders. How can this be?


Really. Companies that move operations overseas don't give shareholders more of the profit; they give the CEOs more compensation.

Gasp! You mean some people might be making more money than other people? This must be stopped immediately!


I think that one of the most pressing threats to the peace and security of modern society is the prevalence of corporate greed and the danger of conglomorates. The current administration has made it clear that it supports big business . . . it supports outsourcing . . . it supports the systems that make a few people richer at the expense of the masses.

Can't disagree with that, that's what all government is all about.


Finally, the alarming thing is that most people don't "hear" about these things on the news or in the newspapers because guess who owns the news channels and the newspapers and the news magazines? Conglomerates.

People are also not likely to learn about the horrid excesses of government from their government run schools. Go figure.

[Robespierre]

And I agree it is pretty scary. Some of us are worried about governments but I think the multinationals pose a much greater threat.

I ask this in all honestly, what threat to you perceive as coming from the "multinationals"? Can they pull you over and arrest you if you are using a product made and sold by a rival? Can they take 50% of your income and use it to fund their CEO's pensions?

[Dman]

I just love it when people talk in defense of "american corporations" given the growing power and influence of multinationals.

Although classified as multinational, they are often controlled/majority-owned by american citizens.

[Dman]

I ask this in all honestly, what threat to you perceive as coming from the "multinationals"? Can they pull you over and arrest you if you are using a product made and sold by a rival? Can they take 50% of your income and use it to fund their CEO's pensions?

I can't answer for others, but I believe the perceived threat from them stems from the uncaring, blatant disregard for human lives that "faceless" corporations can have in their pursuit of profit. Think Ford Pinto for example.

[Robespierre]

I can't answer for others, but I believe the perceived threat from them stems from the uncaring, blatant disregard for human lives that "faceless" corporations can have in their pursuit of profit. Think Ford Pinto for example.

Faceless, uncaring, all of these are just as radical and alarmist as the terms which I use to describe government. Of course, I happen to believe that my description of governments happens to be much more appropriate, given that corporations may be indirectly responsible for SOME small amount of deaths, governments have accumulated quite a high score over the last century. Would anyone suggest that corporations have killed 500,000,000 people during the 20th century? Governments have. And from what I recall about the original topic of this thread, the author suggested that corporations are the gravest threat to civilization.

[Dman]

Faceless, uncaring, all of these are just as radical and alarmist as the terms which I use to describe government. Of course, I happen to believe that my description of governments happens to be much more appropriate, given that corporations may be indirectly responsible for SOME small amount of deaths, governments have accumulated quite a high score over the last century. Would anyone suggest that corporations have killed 500,000,000 people during the 20th century? Governments have. And from what I recall about the original topic of this thread, the author suggested that corporations are the gravest threat to civilization.

I wasn't implying that it was necessarily my opinion, just my belief of people's perceived threat, real or not.

And yes, I do agree that government actions are far more responsible for people's deaths. I think the argument is how many were perceived as "justified" vs. how many corporate caused deaths were perceived as "justified".

In other words government caused deaths could be construed as necessary to prevent further/greater deaths, whereas corporate caused deaths could be construed as necessary to gain profit.

[Robespierre]

I wasn't implying that it was necessarily my opinion, just my belief of people's perceived threat, real or not.

And yes, I do agree that government actions are far more responsible for people's deaths. I think the argument is how many were perceived as "justified" vs. how many corporate caused deaths were perceived as "justified".

That would likely be the argument.. so can I argue it with you? I mean, you tell me that is what other people think... so who do I address when I debunk it?


In other words government caused deaths could be construed as necessary to prevent further/greater deaths, whereas corporate caused deaths could be construed as necessary to gain profit.

See above.

[Dman]

That would likely be the argument.. so can I argue it with you? I mean, you tell me that is what other people think... so who do I address when I debunk it?



See above.

Sure, I'm game. I do have to get back to work at some point though, so my responses may have large time lags.

[mgb]

I can't answer for others, but I believe the perceived threat from them stems from the uncaring, blatant disregard for human lives that "faceless" corporations can have in their pursuit of profit. Think Ford Pinto for example.

I think the motives of corporations are what seperate them from governments. Corporations have one thing that drives them, money, specifically, more money. Nothing else matters. If it is cheaper to dump 10 million gallons of toxic pollutants into drinking water including the fines than it is to properly dispose of it, then they will. As much as a corporation is a group of people making human decisions, these decisions have to be made according to corporate guidelines which lead back to the corporation doing whatever it takes to increase growth and shareholder confidence.

The Corporation movie used the UN's guidelines on mental illnesses to define what a corporation would be. It came out as a psychopath. Though not scientific by any stretch and even when taken with a large dose of salt you get to see how far a corporation will go.

I am not saying they are better or worse than governments, they are just in a class of their own. Their multinational status is also particularily concerning because they have the opportunity to shop around for the government which best suits their needs to avoid particular standards. A great example of this is a lot of tankers being registered in Liberia. Why? Because they have loose shipping laws and you can get away with a single hauled tanker ship under their jurisdiction and not another country's. (I might be wrong about this, I didn't bother to look it up, but I am fairly certain about it). It is just one example, but so many exist.

And really, if you disagree with me fine, but do it after you have seen the movie.

[Dman]

Let’s examine why a government (using the U.S. as an example) would be responsible for causing deaths.

War – under the notion, genuine or not, that a greater threat exists that has the potential to cause more deaths through inaction than action. To many people, this seems to be a cause worth dying for, by being able to preserve their families ways of life, or just to prevent harm from coming to their loved ones. Most people who fight in the war understand the risk of death exists yet choose to do so anyways. However, as noble a cause as this may seem, there is also usually an element of corporate interest behind war. For example, large corporations in the industry of defense; large corporations in industries such as oil (for example); large corporations in industries that specialize in nation-building infrastructure.

Let’s examine why a corporation would be responsible for causing deaths (without taking into consideration the above involvement in war).

Profit - human life is given a tangible value, hence cost/benefit analysis can be applied to determine if an unsafe product, for example, should be discontinued or not. Say that it is determined that people will be killed by a particular product, with no warning of the risk. The corporation determines that it will cost more to eliminate the risk than to pay for lawsuits resulting from the deaths, so the decision is made to proceed with the deadly product.

Which seems more threatening?

[Robespierre]

Let’s examine why a government (using the U.S. as an example) would be responsible for causing deaths.

War – under the notion, genuine or not, that a greater threat exists that has the potential to cause more deaths through inaction than action. To many people, this seems to be a cause worth dying for, by being able to preserve their families ways of life, or just to prevent harm from coming to their loved ones. Most people who fight in the war understand the risk of death exists yet choose to do so anyways. However, as noble a cause as this may seem, there is also usually an element of corporate interest behind war. For example, large corporations in the industry of defense; large corporations in industries such as oil (for example); large corporations in industries that specialize in nation-building infrastructure.

None of which is possible without government.

And you label government causes as noble in nature, or at least you suggest they can be perceived as such. I say, no more or less than any corporation's causes may be noble.

I would suggest that there have been 2 just wars in the history of the united states, the revolutionary war, and the civil war. In the instance of the revolutionary war, the US government didn't exist yet, and in the case of the civil war, the US government was on the wrong side, the confederacy was the only party with a just cause in that war. ALL other wars are a result of government adventurism. Whether they have been spurred on by corporations or political movements, wars conducted by the US government have all been unjust, and have resulted in millions of deaths of americans and other peoples around the world.

How many people have corporations killed over the years? I mean, directly killed. How many people were killed by other people wearing uniforms with a walmart patch on the side and carrying an m-16?

Because if the only deaths you can pin on corporations is through shoddy merchandise or dishonest salesmanship, you are talking about a big difference. Not only that, but there is an incalculable amount of misery and suffering generated by foolish government policies everyday, up to and including starvation and death. Unnaturally high food prices, special protections for native farmers or industries, all manipulations of the free market that destroy wealth and standards of living.


Let’s examine why a corporation would be responsible for causing deaths (without taking into consideration the above involvement in war).

Profit - human life is given a tangible value, hence cost/benefit analysis can be applied to determine if an unsafe product, for example, should be discontinued or not. Say that it is determined that people will be killed by a particular product, with no warning of the risk. The corporation determines that it will cost more to eliminate the risk than to pay for lawsuits resulting from the deaths, so the decision is made to proceed with the deadly product.

Which seems more threatening?

Caveat Emptor. Unless there is some specific defect in the product that causes the sale of it to be conducted under fraudulent terms, then no crime exists. Like cigarettes. Corporations are not killing people by providing cigarettes. Corporations WOULD be killing people if they sold them cars that exploded into flames killing the occupants. So add all those sorts of things up and subtract from 500,000,000 to see how much more evil governments are than corporations.

[Dman]

I was actually referring to the people who fight in the war in an effort to save other’s lives as noble.

I think the main difference between the war caused deaths and corporate caused deaths is that of the rationale behind them. As I mentioned, war is fought under the notion of preventing a greater number of deaths caused by a foreign enemy. Corporate deaths are caused by the pursuit of more money. The US government can be swayed by the people to go to war or not to go to war. This leaves the power of that decision in the peoples hands. Therefore people do not feel as threatened by the gov’t as they know they can change the gov’s actions if necessary. Corporations on the other hand do much of their work on the sly, and people are unaware of their intentions and often have no say in what a corporation can or cannot do (without the govt help). This is far more threatening, since people do not feel they have any control over this situation.

Furthermore, a corporation has no duty to protect people and will only do so if it impacts its bottom line. This too is threatening.

Corporations are also responsible for many indirect deaths which are difficult to trace, such as pollution. How many have been injured/killed due to pollution? How many species have vanished because of this?

[indie]

I think the main difference between the war caused deaths and corporate caused deaths is that of the rationale behind them. As I mentioned, war is fought under the notion of preventing a greater number of deaths caused by a foreign enemy. Corporate deaths are caused by the pursuit of more money.

Very well said, Dman.

[SheepDog]

A couple thoughts keep entering my mind on this, but I don't have time to elaborate. Nonetheless, I'm surprised they haven't come up yet.

1) 'corporation' is not a synonym for business. It's a particular kind of business that has been given 'people rights', but is not held to the same standards of accountability for it's actions as a person would.

2) none of these corporations are acting, in my eyes, within a free market. There are all sorts of constraints in place that make the field far from level. It's nice to talk about ideals, but the realities of the current environment aren't occuring in that ideal world. I'm sure that for some, the ideal is the solution. If you think the ideal isn't going to happen right away, then there's still a lot to be fixed about the current situation.

[SheepDog]

This link discusses (a little) the first issue that I mentioned in the previous post
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations/Rise.asp

[Robespierre]

I was actually referring to the people who fight in the war in an effort to save other’s lives as noble.

I realize what you were referring to, but that type of war rarely happens. Even if it did, the war was started by another government. An example would be Finland during WWII. The commies invaded Finland, and the Fins successfully defended themselves. In that example, the Fins are just, yet they were forced to fight because of another government run rampant.

But just wars are very rare.


I think the main difference between the war caused deaths and corporate caused deaths is that of the rationale behind them.

Really? That's the main difference? Not that governments train people to kill and send them out to specifically shoot people to death? Corporations don't send out thousands of troops to occupy some territory or to physically destroy another corporation.


As I mentioned, war is fought under the notion of preventing a greater number of deaths caused by a foreign enemy.

This is laughable. Almost never is this true, as you have described a just war, and as stated, those are very rare.


Corporate deaths are caused by the pursuit of more money.

And.... what? What corporate deaths are you talking about anyways? People who choose to use some product they know to be unhealthy, like cigarettes? Or do the corporations bomb cities and send troops out to round up the citizens and arrest them all?

Not only is the comparison laughable, it is extremely insulting. Comparing commerce to war is about as hysterical as you can get.


The US government can be swayed by the people to go to war or not to go to war.

This is increadible. And? Are the PEOPLE right? We've covered this ground.


This leaves the power of that decision in the peoples hands.
Therefore people do not feel as threatened by the gov’t as they know they can change the gov’s actions if necessary.

I don't think I have to tell you that this is wishful thinking. Assuming the government decided to listen to der volksgemanschaft.. excuse me, the will of the people, what's to say the people are right?


Corporations on the other hand do much of their work on the sly, and people are unaware of their intentions and often have no say in what a corporation can or cannot do (without the govt help).

Don't have a say and should not have a say. Should I have a say in what shoes you put on in the morning? Why should you have a say in what corporations do, unless you happen to be a member, their actions do not directly impact you and as such, you have no right to intervene in any way.


This is far more threatening, since people do not feel they have any control over this situation.

So the truth is totally unimportant. Corporations are FAR MORE THREATENING because people feel that they don't have control?

I can't repeat this enough, as you apologists for fascism don't seem to get it. Governments have killed no less than 500,000,000 people in the last 100 years. How many people have been murdered by corporations?


Furthermore, a corporation has no duty to protect people and will only do so if it impacts its bottom line. This too is threatening.

Everyone, no matter what group they are a member of, is bound by natural rights. There exists no situation in which aggression is proper. Look at the real world and tell me that corporations could get away with ignoring this. Any corporation that did would quickly go out of business. Enron is a good example of this. Because of self interested investors auditing their investment, a horrible crime was uncovered and stopped. The markets punished Enron mercilessly. The only reason they are allowed to exist anymore is government foolishness in the form of bankruptcy laws and the like. Without special favors to large firms by government, Enron would have been completely gutted and the officers held responsible for their debts.


Corporations are also responsible for many indirect deaths which are difficult to trace, such as pollution.

This may be true, but again, we can place the blame entirely on governments. The progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century are mainly responsible for this. The act of polluting is a direct tresspass. Common law and stautory law has been steered in such a way, by government, so that these tresspasses are no longer considered such. Property rights are the single strongest way to ensure environmental quality, and they have been steadily eroded. And again, even if you hold corporations directly responsible for this, the amount of deaths would be laughable in comparison to those caused directly by governments.


How many have been injured/killed due to pollution? How many species have vanished because of this?

Certainly not 1/1000th of those killed by governments. It really is insulting to place these two figures in comparison.

Also, I would inform you that those places where government is or was largest, are those places with the absolute worst pollution. Russia is a good example of this. If you are a fisherman, you had better avoid eating what you catch, from any body of water. Not to mention the almost complete lack of birds, other than pigeons and crows, and the lack of any other animal life. Here in the US, we take this for granted, rabbits squirrels birds, etc. In Russia and most of the former communist states, these things no longer exist, and where they do, they are only in small pockets.

Places that have completely removed property rights are the worst polluted places on earth.

[Robespierre]

Very well said, Dman.

You've been quiet. Nothing to say about the horrible greed of corporations? Walmart is especially evil! What with all those low prices. Not very nice to their competition!

[Robespierre]

A couple thoughts keep entering my mind on this, but I don't have time to elaborate. Nonetheless, I'm surprised they haven't come up yet.

1) 'corporation' is not a synonym for business. It's a particular kind of business that has been given 'people rights', but is not held to the same standards of accountability for it's actions as a person would.

I agree completely. I have been using the word corporation instead of "firm" because it is the most common term for a large business concern. Nothing aside from humans deserves human rights. Corporations are not humans, and as such deserve no rights. The people who make up the corporation have rights that must be respected, but the corporation itself can never have these, or at least, shouldn't be treated as though it did.


2) none of these corporations are acting, in my eyes, within a free market. There are all sorts of constraints in place that make the field far from level. It's nice to talk about ideals, but the realities of the current environment aren't occuring in that ideal world. I'm sure that for some, the ideal is the solution. If you think the ideal isn't going to happen right away, then there's still a lot to be fixed about the current situation.

Also a good point. They operate in an environment in which perfectly acceptible activities could become illegal over-night. Say the importation of goods from one country or another. In that disgusting and paradoxically lawless environment, corporations protect themselves by trying to sway those in power with money. This is of course bad for all involved. The solution to this problem is not some pathetic bandage that wipes out free speech like the McCain Feigngold bill. The solution is to stop providing the product that these corporations are buying, which is favors from the fedgov. The sugar farmers loves high tariffs on the import of sugar. The candy industry hates this. The farmers have more money and therefor more political influence however, so they win out.

[SheepDog]

In that disgusting and paradoxically lawless environment, corporations protect themselves by trying to sway those in power with money. This is of course bad for all involved. The solution to this problem is not some pathetic bandage that wipes out free speech like the McCain Feigngold bill. The solution is to stop providing the product that these corporations are buying, which is favors from the fedgov.
I think this is the kind of thing that bothers me about these large corporations. It's not that they shouldn't be allowed to do business, but that the current state of affairs gives power to the powerful, and takes it from the less powerful. I don't mean to speak for everyone here, but I think that is the real problem, not corporations (or big business) in itself.

I heard this commentary on the radio this morning:
http://www.robertreich.org/reich/20041222.asp

It's about government regulation, but I think it makes a point that is relevant here (though he only mentions it briefly). Namely, companies are soliciting politicians to enact tort reform, which explicitly limits their liability when they do wrong. This implicitly means they can persue their profits with less concern for harming people.

Perhaps this deserves a different topic. I just thought this was integral to any discussion of corporations.

[Robespierre]

It's about government regulation, but I think it makes a point that is relevant here (though he only mentions it briefly). Namely, companies are soliciting politicians to enact tort reform, which explicitly limits their liability when they do wrong. This implicitly means they can persue their profits with less concern for harming people.

Perhaps this deserves a different topic. I just thought this was integral to any discussion of corporations.

I rarely agree with Robert Riech, but he is correct on this, at least the part about corporations changing the laws in their favor. This is precisely the corruption that is inevitable in our system. When the government has the power to make winners and losers, you had better bet that people will do next to anything to be on the winning side.

[indie]

You've been quiet. Nothing to say about the horrible greed of corporations? Walmart is especially evil! What with all those low prices. Not very nice to their competition!

I didn't have much time online yesterday. . . but lucky you, now I do. :smooch:

Let's take this, for example.


But at the beginning of your post you told us that the SOLE purpose of corporations was to get a greater return for their share-holders. How can this be?

I said that the sole purpose of corporations is to return a profit to shareholders, yes, but I ALSO said


Now, whether or not companies actually *do* provide a fair return to shareholders will be one of the ideas explored in this thread.

BTW, Robespierre:


*Government = Public sector.
*Business = Private sector.


You can't have one without the other. Governments issue currency. The private sector *uses* that currency. Governments regulate businesses with laws (i.e. environmental laws and labor laws and anti-trust laws). The private sector must abide by those laws or be shut down.

In your anarchist utopian ideal, neither governments nor business could exist. Or, I suppose businesses could exist, but they'd all have different forms of currency.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand.

Conglomerates . . . The Media conglomerates are probably the most imminent threats. It makes sense for some manufacturing businesses to be large because they get to benefit from economies of scale (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=economies+of+scale). The media conglomerates don't benefit from EoS, they do benefit from a lot of power. I would even venture to say that some of the media conglomerates have *more* power than the government, and that's quite possibly one of the reasons Bush got re-elected.

But that's beside the point. Let's examine what happened when the FCC deregulated the media. In 2001, there were Ten (http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html) big media giants and today there are only Six (http://www.emergingminds.org/diduknow/feb04_pg2.html).

Here's an interesting article: Stop the Media Mergers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30309-2004Sep17.html)

I especially like the part that said:


The relentless march of media consolidation has largely gone unreported in the mainstream press. After all, why would newspaper and media companies that already have control, and seek more, want their own outlets reporting stories that run counter to their financial interests?

This is definitely something to be worried about.

[Robespierre]

I didn't have much time online yesterday. . . but lucky you, now I do.

Joy.



BTW, Robespierre:


*Government = Public sector.
*Business = Private sector.


You can't have one without the other.

Ridiculous. The Soviets had one without the other. The early US was very close to having one without the other. And there is absolutely no reason why one could not exist without the other.


Governments issue currency.

Sure, they do now. They did not always. The centralization of banking and currency into government organizations is one of the key tools used to fund government. The fed loan themselves money out of thin air, expanding the money supply, and spend it like normal. This is no different than some guy with a printing press in his basement running of $100 bills and passing them at the grocer. Theft plain and simple. Why is there no alternative? Originally there was, both gold and silver were widely used. So when the feds started constricting their control on the money supply, they outlawed the use of gold as money.

We can talk about this as much as you like.


The private sector *uses* that currency.

Is *forced* to use that currency.


Governments regulate businesses with laws (i.e. environmental laws and labor laws and anti-trust laws). The private sector must abide by those laws or be shut down.

So without governments to push businesses around, the businesses would simply evaporate?


In your anarchist utopian ideal, neither governments nor business could exist. Or, I suppose businesses could exist, but they'd all have different forms of currency.

Oh no! How horrible!


Anyway, back to the subject at hand.

Conglomerates . . . The Media conglomerates are probably the most imminent threats. It makes sense for some manufacturing businesses to be large because they get to benefit from economies of scale.

Every human endeavor can be subject to economies of scale. Media production included.


The media conglomerates don't benefit from EoS, they do benefit from a lot of power.

So CNN doesn't benefit from producing most of its news shows in one building?

Or NBC doesn't benefit from being able to tap local affiliate reporters from any big city in the nation?


I would even venture to say that some of the media conglomerates have *more* power than the government, and that's quite possibly one of the reasons Bush got re-elected.

I'm sorry to go all ad-hom here, but the above statement is just plain stupid. How many people does the average newscorp have locked in prison? 'Cause the government has about 2 million in there... That's power.


But that's beside the point. Let's examine what happened when the FCC deregulated the media.

De regulated? Ahahaha. You mean differently-regulated. Much like the typical statist tries telling people that the California energy market was deregulated, this is a complete fiction.


In 2001, there were Ten big media giants and today there are only Six.

And due to the internet, all six combined are getting less and less a share of the real market for media.


Here's an interesting article: Stop the Media Mergers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30309-2004Sep17.html)

I especially like the part that said:

"The relentless march of media consolidation has largely gone unreported in the mainstream press. After all, why would newspaper and media companies that already have control, and seek more, want their own outlets reporting stories that run counter to their financial interests?"

This is definitely something to be worried about.

I laugh. Worry about it all you like. No person, organization, or other has a responsibility to provide you with media coverage according to your whims. If you don't like the crap they put out, steer clear of it. But this is not good enough for you. You think you know better than everyone else what is good for them. You would have the feds step in and manipulate the media more than they already do. Did it every occur to you that a lot of the problems you gripe about are brought on by government involvement to begin with?

[mgb]

Indiejade,

So, do you see Media Conglomerates as the biggest threat?

I personally feel that having few companies controlling the food supply as a bigger problem. That combined with genetically modified and enhanced foods.

I wasn't against GM foods at first. I think there could be a lot of benefit to them. But I don't think that is what is happening. Companies are catering to what sells and increases profits, not what is good for the public. For example, a recent study (heard it on the radio) shows that fruit is getting larger, but the vitamin content is staying the same, so they aren't at all better for you, you actually have to eat more to get the same benefit out of them.

One interesting problem the US has and no one else does is the use of growth hormones in dairy cows. I believe it adds bacteria to the milk (in the form of puss oozing from the udders) and some carcinogens. The FDA hasn't said no to these. But the media won't report it because of fear of losing advertising dollars from the big food companies.

[Robespierre]

I personally feel that having few companies controlling the food supply as a bigger problem. That combined with genetically modified and enhanced foods.

Again, what "control" do they have? They provide you with a service which you choose to use. You are free to supply yourself with food. Corporations can't force you to consume their products like governments can.

[Dman]

I realize what you were referring to, but that type of war rarely happens. Even if it did, the war was started by another government. An example would be Finland during WWII. The commies invaded Finland, and the Fins successfully defended themselves. In that example, the Fins are just, yet they were forced to fight because of another government run rampant.

But just wars are very rare.

It depends upon your definition of just. I see where you are coming from though, if there were no governments anywhere there would not be the mass killings. Yeah, because there have never been mass killings by non-governmental groups.




Really? That's the main difference? Not that governments train people to kill and send them out to specifically shoot people to death? Corporations don't send out thousands of troops to occupy some territory or to physically destroy another corporation.

I said the RATIONALE, not the method.


This is laughable. Almost never is this true, as you have described a just war, and as stated, those are very rare.

Almost never? You need to back that up to convince me.


And.... what? What corporate deaths are you talking about anyways? People who choose to use some product they know to be unhealthy, like cigarettes? Or do the corporations bomb cities and send troops out to round up the citizens and arrest them all?

Not only is the comparison laughable, it is extremely insulting. Comparing commerce to war is about as hysterical as you can get.

No, I'm not referring to products people know the risks of. Products, by-products, manufacturing waste, pollution, etc. Why do corporations try to deceive consumers about their products? Is the govt to blame for that too? I think not, it's because corporations want to sell more of their product to more people in any way possible. And yes I agree, comparing commerce to war is hysterical, but it is you who made the comparison. I’m trying to point out the rationale for people dying under gov’t influence vs. a corporate influence and why one is perceived as more threatening than the other.




This is increadible. And? Are the PEOPLE right? We've covered this ground.



I don't think I have to tell you that this is wishful thinking. Assuming the government decided to listen to der volksgemanschaft.. excuse me, the will of the people, what's to say the people are right?



Don't have a say and should not have a say. Should I have a say in what shoes you put on in the morning? Why should you have a say in what corporations do, unless you happen to be a member, their actions do not directly impact you and as such, you have no right to intervene in any way.

Of course their actions directly impact me. Particularly when their actions harm me or my family. The argument that the ones who harm will eventually go out of business is a fallacy, because all corporations eventually disappear in some form or another, but it may take decades and thousands of deaths before that happens. Regardless, I trust that you are versed enough in the subject to know that corporations can and do create products that are harmful without disclosing the risks to consumers, as well as the practices implemented in manufacturing products.


So the truth is totally unimportant. Corporations are FAR MORE THREATENING because people feel that they don't have control?

Because most people understand that corporations are not in the business of looking after people’s best interests, they are interested in making profits. The gov’t, although it doesn’t always act in people’s best interests, at least has some facets of doing so. Usually the aspects of gov’t that are not looking after people’s best interests are busy looking after corporate interests. Based upon this I believe it is reasonable to say that most people find an entity that has little to no interest in their welfare more threatening than one that shows evidence of doing so.


I can't repeat this enough, as you apologists for fascism don't seem to get it. Governments have killed no less than 500,000,000 people in the last 100 years. How many people have been murdered by corporations?

No one knows. That's the point. We know why people die because of governments, and one way or the other can usually give a defensive reason for it. It's human nature; it's one tribe attacking another with one defending itself from the aggressor. But to say that a corporation kills so that its shareholders can make more money is unacceptable. In fact, many of the most despicable wars you mention that are not "just" are those fought for more resources, which is similar to corporate interests.


Everyone, no matter what group they are a member of, is bound by natural rights. There exists no situation in which aggression is proper. Look at the real world and tell me that corporations could get away with ignoring this. Any corporation that did would quickly go out of business. Enron is a good example of this. Because of self interested investors auditing their investment, a horrible crime was uncovered and stopped. The markets punished Enron mercilessly. The only reason they are allowed to exist anymore is government foolishness in the form of bankruptcy laws and the like. Without special favors to large firms by government, Enron would have been completely gutted and the officers held responsible for their debts.

See my earlier response. Define quickly. Quickly like after thousands are dead, quickly like decades later? And define out of business. Out of business like the name changed, or the head officers changed? The resources and the motives are still there.




This may be true, but again, we can place the blame entirely on governments. The progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century are mainly responsible for this. The act of polluting is a direct tresspass. Common law and stautory law has been steered in such a way, by government, so that these tresspasses are no longer considered such. Property rights are the single strongest way to ensure environmental quality, and they have been steadily eroded. And again, even if you hold corporations directly responsible for this, the amount of deaths would be laughable in comparison to those caused directly by governments.

Would property rights prevent the air from being polluted? Or the ice caps from melting? Or the oceans from being polluted?




Certainly not 1/1000th of those killed by governments. It really is insulting to place these two figures in comparison.

Also, I would inform you that those places where government is or was largest, are those places with the absolute worst pollution. Russia is a good example of this. If you are a fisherman, you had better avoid eating what you catch, from any body of water. Not to mention the almost complete lack of birds, other than pigeons and crows, and the lack of any other animal life. Here in the US, we take this for granted, rabbits squirrels birds, etc. In Russia and most of the former communist states, these things no longer exist, and where they do, they are only in small pockets.

Places that have completely removed property rights are the worst polluted places on earth.

That's because the state is acting as a corporate interest. You are comparing the size of government and the form of government. I would argue that some of the worst pollution in the world is in third world countries, where there is very little government REGULATION, regardless of the size or form of government.

[Dman]

Sure, they do now. They did not always. The centralization of banking and currency into government organizations is one of the key tools used to fund government. The fed loan themselves money out of thin air, expanding the money supply, and spend it like normal. This is no different than some guy with a printing press in his basement running of $100 bills and passing them at the grocer. Theft plain and simple. Why is there no alternative? Originally there was, both gold and silver were widely used. So when the feds started constricting their control on the money supply, they outlawed the use of gold as money.

We can talk about this as much as you like.

Hold up, now. No different than some guy counterfeiting? Huh? The guy using money for his own personal interest is the same as the Treasury printing money for everyone to use? And the last time I checked, the fed (assuming you mean fed govt?) borrowed money by issuing treasury bills, which are purchased by investors (foreign governments and privately held institutions).

Also, there are alternative forms of currency - negotiable orders of withdrawal (checks), electronic funds transfer, credit cards...

[Robespierre]

It depends upon your definition of just. I see where you are coming from though, if there were no governments anywhere there would not be the mass killings. Yeah, because there have never been mass killings by non-governmental groups.

What's the highest amount of people killed in a 24 hour period that you can think of? Even over a year's time. Nothing approaches the death dealt by governments.



Almost never? You need to back that up to convince me.

You are the one making a positive statement about some aspect of government. It is not up to me to prove your statement untrue, but for you to prove it true.


No, I'm not referring to products people know the risks of. Products, by-products, manufacturing waste, pollution, etc. Why do corporations try to deceive consumers about their products? Is the govt to blame for that too? I think not, it's because corporations want to sell more of their product to more people in any way possible. And yes I agree, comparing commerce to war is hysterical, but it is you who made the comparison. I’m trying to point out the rationale for people dying under gov’t influence vs. a corporate influence and why one is perceived as more threatening than the other.

I still don't get it.


Of course their actions directly impact me. Particularly when their actions harm me or my family.

That would be the definition of directly impacting you yes. However, I have a very hard time believing that this happens.


The argument that the ones who harm will eventually go out of business is a fallacy, because all corporations eventually disappear in some form or another, but it may take decades and thousands of deaths before that happens.

I disagree completely. Would you buy something if you knew there was a threat of death involved? Say for example, an unsafe car? The market is vastly superiour than any government regulatory agency in insuring safety. Burocrats can be bought off, and have no particular reason to be good at what they do.


Regardless, I trust that you are versed enough in the subject to know that corporations can and do create products that are harmful without disclosing the risks to consumers, as well as the practices implemented in manufacturing products.

This is possible, yes. But it is not something that is so huge a problem as to potentially destroy civilization, or even rival the troubles caused by wars. It is a miniscule and unavoidable aspect of human society. Massive meat-grinding wars are not.


Because most people understand that corporations are not in the business of looking after people’s best interests, they are interested in making profits. The gov’t, although it doesn’t always act in people’s best interests, at least has some facets of doing so. Usually the aspects of gov’t that are not looking after people’s best interests are busy looking after corporate interests.

Outside force, whether it is looking out for "der volksgemanschaft" or for the corporations, is always wrong. It cannot possibly be fixed or rigged in such as way as to make it right. By its very nature, it is wrong.


Based upon this I believe it is reasonable to say that most people find an entity that has little to no interest in their welfare more threatening than one that shows evidence of doing so.

To suggest that a corporation has little or no insterest int he welfare of its customers is a little niave. It just so happens that what corporations do is to provide some market with a product. It is in the best interest of the corp. to serve the best interests of the market, in order to gain a larger share of the market.


No one knows. That's the point. We know why people die because of governments, and one way or the other can usually give a defensive reason for it.

Thus making the case against governments all the more solid.


It's human nature; it's one tribe attacking another with one defending itself from the aggressor. But to say that a corporation kills so that its shareholders can make more money is unacceptable. In fact, many of the most despicable wars you mention that are not "just" are those fought for more resources, which is similar to corporate interests.

Even if you were right, which you are not, who actually faught the wars?! Corporations did not. Governments did their bidding. That is the whole point here. Centralized coercive power in any form is bad. There are a number of ways in which that power can be used for evil, but the end result is the same, death and poverty.


See my earlier response. Define quickly. Quickly like after thousands are dead, quickly like decades later? And define out of business. Out of business like the name changed, or the head officers changed? The resources and the motives are still there.

Motives are not the problem in this discussion. If you stab my eye out with a pencil for "good motives", I am still out one eye. Whether someone paid you to do it, or whether you believed you were letting an evil spirit out of my head, the injury stands. Actions motivated by so called "greed" are not worse than those motived by der volksgemanschaft.

Quickly as in days after a problem is discovered and proven to in-fact be a problem. And out of business can mean any number of things. As I said, the government gets involved at that point, so nothing is certain.


Would property rights prevent the air from being polluted? Or the ice caps from melting? Or the oceans from being polluted?

If the people who owned the property around the air-polluting party didn't like it, yes. Do you like breathing soot-filled air?

Can you honestly tell me that governments are good, in any way, for the environment?


That's because the state is acting as a corporate interest. You are comparing the size of government and the form of government. I would argue that some of the worst pollution in the world is in third world countries, where there is very little government REGULATION, regardless of the size or form of government.

And why do you suppose those third world countries are "third-world" to begin with? What makes Zambia poorer than New Zealand? Lack of property rights.

[Robespierre]

Hold up, now. No different than some guy counterfeiting? Huh? The guy using money for his own personal interest is the same as the Treasury printing money for everyone to use?

Almost the same, the treasury is worse because it can do it on a much larger scale and has the power to kill people who hassle them.


And the last time I checked, the fed (assuming you mean fed govt?) borrowed money by issuing treasury bills, which are purchased by investors (foreign governments and privately held institutions).

Indeed they do issue treasury bonds. And do you know how they pay off those bonds? By issuing more bonds. You know what happens when you pay off your credit cards with other credit cards? Trouble.

Either way, treasury bonds are only one way that the feds raise funds. The federal reserve also buys bonds from the federal government. The money used to purchase these is created out of thin are, thus expanding the money supply.


Also, there are alternative forms of currency - negotiable orders of withdrawal (checks), electronic funds transfer, credit cards...

Not one of those is actually an alternative currency. All are ways of moving dollars around. So when the fed-reserve prints more and more of them, the stuff in your pocket drops in value. Also, check out that line printed on your cash that states it is "legal tender fort all debts, public and private". This means it is illegal to refuse payment in dollars. So if you open a store, and state that you accept only gold coins in payment, any old bloke could walk in and shut you down if he called the feds.

[Dman]

Is *forced* to use that currency.

No. Chooses to. If I ask my neighbor to paint my house, and in return I will pay him by mowing his lawn, I am not being forced to use currency.


I'm sorry to go all ad-hom here, but the above statement is just plain stupid. How many people does the average newscorp have locked in prison? 'Cause the government has about 2 million in there... That's power.

But if the media were manipulating the government to do its will, i.e. in some cases resulting in people being locked in prison, it would be stupid to say that the government was more powerful than the media, now wouldn't it?

[Robespierre]

No. Chooses to. If I ask my neighbor to paint my house, and in return I will pay him by mowing his lawn, I am not being forced to use currency.

This is not a currency exchange, but a barter. If you wish to use currency, you are forced by federal laws to accept US dollars if offered.


But if the media were manipulating the government to do its will, i.e. in some cases resulting in people being locked in prison, it would be stupid to say that the government was more powerful than the media, now wouldn't it?

Nope, it would still be silly to suggest that the power lies anywhere but in government. No matter how "persuasive" some private group might be, they can never actually do the deed.

[SheepDog]

IRS cares about barter, too:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=113437,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

[Robespierre]

IRS cares about barter, too:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=113437,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

Yeah, well...shit. They really do have every possible escape covered.

[Dman]

I still don't get it.

Bingo!


I disagree completely. Would you buy something if you knew there was a threat of death involved? Say for example, an unsafe car? The market is vastly superiour than any government regulatory agency in insuring safety. Burocrats can be bought off, and have no particular reason to be good at what they do.

As I mentioned, buying something with an implied level of risk, like a car, and NOT knowing the true risk involved, like a car that would explode and kill me if a bird crapped on it.






To suggest that a corporation has little or no insterest int he welfare of its customers is a little niave. It just so happens that what corporations do is to provide some market with a product. It is in the best interest of the corp. to serve the best interests of the market, in order to gain a larger share of the market.

How about corporation whose customers are other corporations, i.e. B2B? Are they concerned about the end user consumer, way down the line? Maybe if millions of people are being harmed, but by then it’s too late, isn’t it. Or how about if the corporation’s primary customer base was far away from where it was geographically located. Would it care about what happened to the people who lived nearby, who may be unwittingly subject to the harmful manufacturing practices of the business?



Motives are not the problem in this discussion. If you stab my eye out with a pencil for "good motives", I am still out one eye. Whether someone paid you to do it, or whether you believed you were letting an evil spirit out of my head, the injury stands. Actions motivated by so called "greed" are not worse than those motived by der volksgemanschaft.

Quickly as in days after a problem is discovered and proven to in-fact be a problem. And out of business can mean any number of things. As I said, the government gets involved at that point, so nothing is certain.

The difficulty with arguing these points to you is that when you can’t think of a more pointed response, you default to “that’s because government exists”. Well, since governments are ubiquitous and have been for centuries, of course you can point the finger at them. You could say that they are responsible for virtually anything, including the existence of corporations. That’s a cop-out to me because you can’t argue what “might have been” had they not existed. It’s similar to saying that everything is the white man’s fault.




If the people who owned the property around the air-polluting party didn't like it, yes. Do you like breathing soot-filled air?

That’s assuming you know that the air is polluted. People did not know what acid rain was or what was causing it for years. Same thing with the chromium poisoning stuff in the water in that Erin Brokovich story.




And why do you suppose those third world countries are "third-world" to begin with? What makes Zambia poorer than New Zealand? Lack of property rights.

Fine. How about corporations that pumps highly toxic crud into the atmosphere, which hits the jet stream and spreads around the world. But nobody knows precisely where the pollution is originating. Or upstream rivers, which cumulatively add more and more pollution from other corporations as we go down river, and the property owners who are being affected are hundreds of miles away on the shoreline of an ocean. Who’s responsible? No one corporation is causing most of the damage, it is the sum of all of them. Or ocean levels rise due to the actions of thousands of corporations, which destroys property around the world.

[Dman]

Indeed they do issue treasury bonds. And do you know how they pay off those bonds? By issuing more bonds. You know what happens when you pay off your credit cards with other credit cards? Trouble.

Or by reducing spending and using that spread between tax revenue & spending to pay it off. Takes a fiscally responsible gov't though.


Either way, treasury bonds are only one way that the feds raise funds. The federal reserve also buys bonds from the federal government. The money used to purchase these is created out of thin are, thus expanding the money supply.

Yes. It’s an attempt to keep the economy stable, to protect people from economic hardships like the depression. In your world, the market would be allowed to eventually stabilize itself. In the long run. But in the long run, we are all dead. I believe I stole that line from Keynes.


Not one of those is actually an alternative currency. All are ways of moving dollars around. So when the fed-reserve prints more and more of them, the stuff in your pocket drops in value. Also, check out that line printed on your cash that states it is "legal tender fort all debts, public and private". This means it is illegal to refuse payment in dollars. So if you open a store, and state that you accept only gold coins in payment, any old bloke could walk in and shut you down if he called the feds.

Not sure why you would care about an alternative form of currency, if the existing one is universally accepted as legal tender. Unless you just want to try and bolster a flawed point.

[Dman]

Nope, it would still be silly to suggest that the power lies anywhere but in government. No matter how "persuasive" some private group might be, they can never actually do the deed.

Whaaaat the....?

According to that logic, it is not the government who is “doing the deed” anyways, it is the individual police officers who are physically handling people! The government is merely “persuading” the police to behave this way!

Yeah, the mafia boss has no power, he’s not doing the deed, just persuading people to do it. Ok….how silly of me!

Don't fall apart on me now.

[Robespierre]

As I mentioned, buying something with an implied level of risk, like a car, and NOT knowing the true risk involved, like a car that would explode and kill me if a bird crapped on it.

OKay. So that's what is more threatening than war, nuclear or otherwise? Defective products?


How about corporation whose customers are other corporations, i.e. B2B? Are they concerned about the end user consumer, way down the line?

In the sense that the other corporations ARE the consumer, yes, on two levels. If the corporation they are selling to stop buying their product, they go out of business. If the people who buy the products that the second corp produces witht he products sold to the second corp by corp one stop buying them, then the first corp goes down too.


Maybe if millions of people are being harmed, but by then it’s too late, isn’t it.

Yep, then you'd be in the realm of government caused deaths.


Or how about if the corporation’s primary customer base was far away from where it was geographically located. Would it care about what happened to the people who lived nearby, who may be unwittingly subject to the harmful manufacturing practices of the business?

Of course they would, for all the reasons I have previously beaten to death.


The difficulty with arguing these points to you is that when you can’t think of a more pointed response, you default to “that’s because government exists”. Well, since governments are ubiquitous and have been for centuries, of course you can point the finger at them. You could say that they are responsible for virtually anything, including the existence of corporations. That’s a cop-out to me because you can’t argue what “might have been” had they not existed. It’s similar to saying that everything is the white man’s fault.

Actually, my line of argument is in no way similar to the "blame whitey" syndrome. I have very specifc example where you have yet to show that government is NOT the main entity that causes the harm. Of course there are problems that occur that are not a result of government, I have stated this before also. These things will always exist in society. Theft, murder, arson, whatever you like, there will always be crime, to deny this is to be utopian, which I am not.

In each case, be it education, defense, justice, health, whatever, I have shown clearly how government causes direct harm to millions. You're best refutations have consisted merely of claiming that without these systems, there would be no _______(fill in the blank).


That’s assuming you know that the air is polluted. People did not know what acid rain was or what was causing it for years. Same thing with the chromium poisoning stuff in the water in that Erin Brokovich story.

Are you seriously citing Erin Brokovich? As I said, I don't claim there would never be problems, I only claim that they would be much better handled, recognized much quicker, and dealt with in a just way. Did not the Brockovich situation occur in a nation-state with a pollution regulatory body and all manner of regulations on industry? Do we not have enough regulations? All the greatest environmental disasters seem to happen when property rights are restricted. Russia and the her former colonies are all basketcases of environmental problems. Look at the Bhopal disaster, India is a horrid example of government run industry, massive corruption, and lack of private property rights.


Fine. How about corporations that pumps highly toxic crud into the atmosphere, which hits the jet stream and spreads around the world. But nobody knows precisely where the pollution is originating.

Yeah, no shit, what would we do if something like that happened? What if a meteor slammed into the moon and blew it up? You can make up outlandish examples which are unlikely to ever happen all day long, it won't further your cause. Unless you can show that under a system of violent overlordship known as government the problem would be handled in a better way, the examples are a waste of time.


Or upstream rivers, which cumulatively add more and more pollution from other corporations as we go down river, and the property owners who are being affected are hundreds of miles away on the shoreline of an ocean. Who’s responsible?

Everyone who put chemicals in the river. Simple.


No one corporation is causing most of the damage, it is the sum of all of them.

So how would you punish a mob of twenty people who drag someone out of their home and burn them to death? Should we let them all go?


Or ocean levels rise due to the actions of thousands of corporations, which destroys property around the world.

Who ever has property that has been damaged as a result of the action of another, has recourse to stop them from performing the action in question.

[Robespierre]

Or by reducing spending and using that spread between tax revenue & spending to pay it off. Takes a fiscally responsible gov't though.

The United States has had a public debt since 1836. No government is fiscally responsible. Aside from the fact that governments will continue to spend at will no matter what, they are still spending stolen money. Even if they were staying within their budgets, the evil remains.


Yes. It’s an attempt to keep the economy stable, to protect people from economic hardships like the depression. In your world, the market would be allowed to eventually stabilize itself. In the long run. But in the long run, we are all dead. I believe I stole that line from Keynes.

Yes, and Keynes is the biggest economic buffoon of all time. I'm glad you brought up the depression. That usually comes up right away, as it has been so popularized as a failing of Laisse-faire capitalism. The very policies which you are now defending, government debt, fiat currency, and central banking are directly responsible for the depression.

The Federal Reserve system was created in 1913, same year that the income tax was created. During WWI, Wilson grabbed-hold of most industry in the nation and spent like crazy, as a result, there was a brief correction in 1919-21. Since the Federal Reserve was still young, not all the banks in the country had yet signed on to it, and it did not have complete control just yet. This changed in the mid 20's though. Soon the fed was regulating interest rates, setting reserve-rates, and a whole butt-load of other banking regulations. This meddling originally caused the boom of the late 20's. Credit was cheap, investors were everywhere, and money was flowing. However, the fed began to understand that it was setting up the country for a big fall.

Dang, my new compy just showed up. I'll catch you later. Don't worry, I'll let you know why central banking is crap and why commodity money is not.

[Dman]

OKay. So that's what is more threatening than war, nuclear or otherwise? Defective products?



In the sense that the other corporations ARE the consumer, yes, on two levels. If the corporation they are selling to stop buying their product, they go out of business. If the people who buy the products that the second corp produces witht he products sold to the second corp by corp one stop buying them, then the first corp goes down too.



Yep, then you'd be in the realm of government caused deaths.



Of course they would, for all the reasons I have previously beaten to death.



Actually, my line of argument is in no way similar to the "blame whitey" syndrome. I have very specifc example where you have yet to show that government is NOT the main entity that causes the harm. Of course there are problems that occur that are not a result of government, I have stated this before also. These things will always exist in society. Theft, murder, arson, whatever you like, there will always be crime, to deny this is to be utopian, which I am not.

In each case, be it education, defense, justice, health, whatever, I have shown clearly how government causes direct harm to millions. You're best refutations have consisted merely of claiming that without these systems, there would be no _______(fill in the blank).

Your arguments are based on the premise that the government is the source of unnecessary harm. I disagree. You are simply making the government a scapegoat for natural human behavior. Without government, the world would be a considerably different place, but human nature would still exist. Wars would still be fought, people would still be hurt and killed. It would be more like the wild west, where you have to constantly live on edge and could never completely relax. Mistrust would permeate society, but instead of being directed at the government, it would be directed at every living person and every product would be met with skepticism and distrust. Sounds great, where do I sign up!


Are you seriously citing Erin Brokovich? As I said, I don't claim there would never be problems, I only claim that they would be much better handled, recognized much quicker, and dealt with in a just way. Did not the Brockovich situation occur in a nation-state with a pollution regulatory body and all manner of regulations on industry? Do we not have enough regulations? All the greatest environmental disasters seem to happen when property rights are restricted. Russia and the her former colonies are all basketcases of environmental problems. Look at the Bhopal disaster, India is a horrid example of government run industry, massive corruption, and lack of private property rights.

Yeah, ya like that? I must admit I don’t like Julia Roberts though. Do real life examples that were made into movies offend you in some way, or are you just being elitist?


Yeah, no shit, what would we do if something like that happened? What if a meteor slammed into the moon and blew it up? You can make up outlandish examples which are unlikely to ever happen all day long, it won't further your cause. Unless you can show that under a system of violent overlordship known as government the problem would be handled in a better way, the examples are a waste of time.

Whoa there, calm down. Unlikely? Outlandish? Hmmm…..I guess I don’t have anything to say about that, other than do you read the newspaper.



Everyone who put chemicals in the river. Simple.


Yeah, simple. Oh, unless it is a commonly used toxic chemical, and somebody is shipping it to lakes/rivers and dumping it there (because it’s cheaper to do it that way), and nobody ever witnesses it. But that’s probably outlandish. Who would do such a thing!


So how would you punish a mob of twenty people who drag someone out of their home and burn them to death? Should we let them all go?



Who ever has property that has been damaged as a result of the action of another, has recourse to stop them from performing the action in question.

Yes, you destroyed my property for actions you committed decades ago, and you are no longer in business, but please stop that now.

Sometimes your points start to make sense to me, but when I throw up a valid objection to test them, you fall apart and rant or use weak arguments that I must spend more time refuting or repeating until you give up and ignore, or insult, or blanket with "I've already covered that to death". However, I appreciate the mental stimulation immensely and you have piqued my interest enough in the subject to do further research. For that I thank you.

But ultimately we both know I’m right. And you better start paying your taxes, because these arguments never hold up in tax court.

[mgb]

I have to wonder what influence corporations have had on countries going to war. Although corporations are a fairly recent phenomenon I wonder if the "cost of war" has risen proportionally with inflation and the relative cost of weapons over the years. I don't think that could be easily answered, but at close to $200 billion for the current war, someone is making a lot of money.

[SheepDog]

I have to wonder what influence corporations have had on countries going to war. Although corporations are a fairly recent phenomenon I wonder if the "cost of war" has risen proportionally with inflation and the relative cost of weapons over the years. I don't think that could be easily answered, but at close to $200 billion for the current war, someone is making a lot of money.
And someone is paying that money. Or will have to pay it eventually.

[indie]

*Government = Public sector.
*Business = Private sector.

You can't have one without the other. Governments issue currency. The private sector *uses* that currency.


Ridiculous. The Soviets had one without the other. The early US was very close to having one without the other. And there is absolutely no reason why one could not exist without the other.

Ugh, Robespierre. You couldn't come up with anything better than that? Believe it or not, an accepted form of currency is necessary to any modern economy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway . . . back to the more relevant and more intelligent remarks.



Indiejade,

So, do you see Media Conglomerates as the biggest threat?

I personally feel that having few companies controlling the food supply as a bigger problem. That combined with genetically modified and enhanced foods.

No, I don't view the media conglomerates as the biggest threats, only as threats that have the potential to influence the move toward action.

People rely on the media (consciously or subconsciously) to tell them what is important in the world today. When the FCC deregulated the percent control companies could have, there was hardly a blip on the evening news. American Idol was the big thing then.

I remember this because I remember reading some article (on the Internet, of course) that was talking about how the latest American Idol program had received somewhere around 29 million calls, but on the same day, the "less important" news of FCC deregulation had had barely registered on the radar. I even briefly considered making it the topic of my MBA project.

It's almost like we have this mindless drone of a generation that is happy to be told what is "cool" and what to watch. Corporations love being able to sell superficial bull-shit to people.

It just pisses me off, I guess. There are real problems in the world that people need to know about, but they don't get addressed because the media conglomerates won't tell people . . . they are more concerned with ratings and 30-second spots for commercials.

[mgb]

It's almost like we have this mindless drone of a generation that is happy to be told what is "cool" and what to watch. Corporations love being able to sell superficial bull-shit to people.

It just pisses me off, I guess. There are real problems in the world that people need to know about, but they don't get addressed because the media conglomerates won't tell people . . . they are more concerned with ratings and 30-second spots for commercials.

That reminds me of the Josey and the Pussycats movie. Pink is the new red!

After doing some research I found the companies I had heard the least of were usually the ones that had the most control. They hadn't spent a lot of time branding themselves...just making sure the companies they had picked up along the way were well branded.

Conagra (http://www.oligopolywatch.com/2003/07/20.html)
General Dynamics (http://www.warprofiteers.com/article.php?list=type&type=12)
Lilly (http://adbusters.org/metas/psycho/prozacspotlight/index.php)

These are just a couple of examples. Somewhere I have a list of the Hundred Largest Economies in the world and 49 of them are corporations.

[Robespierre]

Ugh, Robespierre. You couldn't come up with anything better than that?

Well, I guess that's one way of not responding.


Believe it or not, an accepted form of currency is necessary to any modern economy.

One and one only? Why?


Anyway . . . back to the more relevant and more intelligent remarks.

At last!


No, I don't view the media conglomerates as the biggest threats, only as threats that have the potential to influence the move toward action.

People rely on the media (consciously or subconsciously) to tell them what is important in the world today. When the FCC deregulated the percent control companies could have, there was hardly a blip on the evening news. American Idol was the big thing then.

Yeah, they still own all the airwaves. The FCC is the tool for centralized control of broadcasting, which allows the big corps to dominate. If the airwaves were actually private property, like they should be, this problem wouldn't exist.


I remember this because I remember reading some article (on the Internet, of course) that was talking about how the latest American Idol program had received somewhere around 29 million calls, but on the same day, the "less important" news of FCC deregulation had had barely registered on the radar. I even briefly considered making it the topic of my MBA project.

Only briefly?


It's almost like we have this mindless drone of a generation that is happy to be told what is "cool" and what to watch. Corporations love being able to sell superficial bull-shit to people.

This is no different now than it has ever been. Mass consumption of media is a fact of life. You may not like the mass' taste in music or tv or news, but you have no right to dictate what they should be consuming. Nor does the mass have a right to force its opinions on any individual. Voluntary relationships, that's the key.


It just pisses me off, I guess. There are real problems in the world that people need to know about, but they don't get addressed because the media conglomerates won't tell people . . . they are more concerned with ratings and 30-second spots for commercials.

The actual reason they don't get addressed is because most people don't care enough. Those that do gave up on the orthodox media outlets years ago and never looked back. Seriously, if you want the real news, you have to go look for it, and everyone is capable of looking, they just don't give a shit.

[Robespierre]

I have to wonder what influence corporations have had on countries going to war. Although corporations are a fairly recent phenomenon I wonder if the "cost of war" has risen proportionally with inflation and the relative cost of weapons over the years. I don't think that could be easily answered, but at close to $200 billion for the current war, someone is making a lot of money.

An older boy told me to do it! It's not my fault!

[Dman]

Popular media = priority on entertainment, not information

Many people want others (leaders) to take care of larger issues so that they may focus upon the details of their own lives. Indeed, they don't care enough because they assume someone will take care of the larger issues if they become problematic.

[Robespierre]

Popular media = priority on entertainment, not information

Sorry about getting shirty with you yesterday.

Central banking is a form of usury, which should be defined as a government granted priviledge to extract interest payments and exploit monetary exchanges. I have no problem with loans, interest, investing, any of that, so long as it happens in a voluntary relationship. However, the US Dollar is no long a voluntary means of exchange, one can be forced by man with guns to accept payments in US Dollars. And these Dollars are printed up whenever the gov needs to pay some bills. Sure, they don't always monetize their debt, but it happens often enough.

Even if I accepted the idea of a minimal government to protect private property rights only(minarchy), I would oppose central banking. Indeed, anyone who supports small governments would be a fool to support central banking, as this is the easiest method for governments to grow. With the ability to inflate the currency, governments need not raise taxes when they run over budget, but simply print up the money, or "borrow" it from the central bank. Many a book has been written on the corrolation between central banking and adventurous wars. The Bank of England is a pioneer in this field.

[Dman]

Sorry about getting shirty with you yesterday.

No prob. I had a couple drinks with lunch so I was getting a bit weary myself.


Central banking is a form of usury, which should be defined as a government granted priviledge to extract interest payments and exploit monetary exchanges. I have no problem with loans, interest, investing, any of that, so long as it happens in a voluntary relationship. However, the US Dollar is no long a voluntary means of exchange, one can be forced by man with guns to accept payments in US Dollars. And these Dollars are printed up whenever the gov needs to pay some bills. Sure, they don't always monetize their debt, but it happens often enough.

Agreed (although I can't think of an example where someone would "force" another to take payment - "I'm going to give you my money whether you like it or not!")


Even if I accepted the idea of a minimal government to protect private property rights only(minarchy), I would oppose central banking. Indeed, anyone who supports small governments would be a fool to support central banking, as this is the easiest method for governments to grow. With the ability to inflate the currency, governments need not raise taxes when they run over budget, but simply print up the money, or "borrow" it from the central bank. Many a book has been written on the corrolation between central banking and adventurous wars. The Bank of England is a pioneer in this field.

I agree that central banking is not the ideal way to go; I suspect that is why the US was not originally set up with one. However it would be difficult to operate under our current economic structure without one, or at least something acting as a central bank. I’m sure you are aware of the reasons it was implemented, presumably under good intentions (maintaining stability, protecting consumers, etc.) which of course you could argue that the only reason there would be any economic instability or ill will towards consumers was due to the govt actions in the first place.

[Robespierre]

Agreed (although I can't think of an example where someone would "force" another to take payment - "I'm going to give you my money whether you like it or not!")

For a long time it was specifically illegal to make contracts in terms of gold. So if you took out a loan from me in gold, I would be forced to accept US dollars in repayment. Or if we make a contract, say you will paint my house in exchange for 2oz's of gold, and at the last minute I could tell you I changed my mind, that I was giving you US dollars instead, and no court would recognize the contract. You could have painted my house, and refused to accept my dollars and demanded gold like the contact said, and be totally left out in the cold. There are plenty if instances where this comes up. Also, you must consider gresham's law, bad money drives out the good. If there is some form of currency like gold, competing with the paper standard of the dollar, people will start keeping the gold coins as they rise in value above the dollars, hoarding them, and passing the dollars instead.


I agree that central banking is not the ideal way to go; I suspect that is why the US was not originally set up with one. However it would be difficult to operate under our current economic structure without one, or at least something acting as a central bank.

It would be difficult, becuase our current economic structure is fundamentally unsound. We go through the boom and bust cycle, as every economy that runs on a paper-standard does. For some period of time, inflation is slight but steady, and everything makes silly statements about the "new economy" and "post scarcity" economics. Then the inflation hits in the wrong places, and it comes crashing down. Prices get pumped up by the influx of government spending, which creates serious dislocations in the markets. These are then corrected.

With a commodity money, which would likely evolve out of our current one if the feds let go of the dollar, the value floats based on the demand for the currency and the supply of the currency. This means that when savings are low, loans become harder to get and interest rates go up. This also means that economic growth naturally slows. This is a natural mechanism that keeps economies from over-heating and causing serious dislocations. When a central bank sets the interest rates from an office in DC, the rate may or may not have any corrolation with the amount of savings. Thus, businesses may continue to take out loans and expand production even as demand for their services is actually declinging, which puts them in a hole that they never recover from.


I’m sure you are aware of the reasons it was implemented, presumably under good intentions (maintaining stability, protecting consumers, etc.) which of course you could argue that the only reason there would be any economic instability or ill will towards consumers was due to the govt actions in the first place.

No, the reason a central bank was created was because the banking moguls like Morgan and Rockafeller wanted to keep the newly expanding market for banking, centered on Wallstreet. So they bought some senators and got to work. 1910 the bigwigs met at Jekyle Island and planned the whole thing out, then by 1913, they got their man in the whitehouse by splitting the republican vote by running Teddy Roosevelt on the Bullmoose ticket. So Wilson was happy to sign anything they put in front of him.

Government simply doesn't act in the "best interests" of the people. Even when it appears that there is no ulteriour motive, that just means we haven't looked close enough.

[SensEye]

I think you guys may be guilty of throwing the baby out with the bath water regarding central banking. In my mind central banking is the optimal way to go for a modern economy. The problem, as you guys have stated, and that I do agree with, is that the government is allowed to borrow. I would maintain central banking but prohibit the government from running a deficit.

Of course, Robespierre will argue that it would be impossible to fetter the government in this way. It would be difficult and admittedly improbable at this point in human political evolution, but not impossible in my opinion.

I should add that I don’t think Robespierre’s “no government” political philosophy is realistic. I would say any such anarchistic setup would rapidly mutate to totalitarianism. Groups would form, and the most powerful group would impose its will on the others. Regimes would come and go, and things may collapse back into anarchy for periods, but then I think the cycle would repeat.

Libertarianism might work, but that would require some form of enforcement agency (a.k.a government) to protect property rights. I would expect that government to corrupt into a totalitarian regime also. Not sure if Robespierre can propose a mechanism to control a minarchy (to use his term). If he can I would suggest a similar mechanism could be used to prevent a government from abusing a central banking system.

[Robespierre]

I think you guys may be guilty of throwing the baby out with the bath water regarding central banking. In my mind central banking is the optimal way to go for a modern economy. The problem, as you guys have stated, and that I do agree with, is that the government is allowed to borrow. I would maintain central banking but prohibit the government from running a deficit.

What about central banking do you suppose is good for an economy? Any economy?


Of course, Robespierre will argue that it would be impossible to fetter the government in this way. It would be difficult and admittedly improbable at this point in human political evolution, but not impossible in my opinion.

That's a good point, but not the best argument against central banking. It simply isn't economically beneficial. It is like morphine, there are extreme highs, then deadly lows. It has been happening since the birth of this country for various reasons, the most prevalent being fractional-reserve banking, then after 1913 the ups and downs got much much worse with the addition of the federal reserve.


I should add that I don’t think Robespierre’s “no government” political philosophy is realistic. I would say any such anarchistic setup would rapidly mutate to totalitarianism. Groups would form, and the most powerful group would impose its will on the others. Regimes would come and go, and things may collapse back into anarchy for periods, but then I think the cycle would repeat.

I think you are right, and this proves that my view of the world is correct, as this is exactly what has been happening since the beginning of time. It will take a serious increase in the understanding and acceptance of human rights before it gets any better.


Libertarianism might work, but that would require some form of enforcement agency (a.k.a government) to protect property rights. I would expect that government to corrupt into a totalitarian regime also. Not sure if Robespierre can propose a mechanism to control a minarchy (to use his term). If he can I would suggest a similar mechanism could be used to prevent a government from abusing a central banking system.

There is no mechanism that will work forever to keep governments small. The example of the US has proven this. The original form of our federal governement was a minarchy, as little interference as they felt was possible. But over time various interests got hold of it and grew it into the death dealing behemoth of today.

[Robespierre]

Whaaaat the....?

According to that logic, it is not the government who is “doing the deed” anyways, it is the individual police officers who are physically handling people! The government is merely “persuading” the police to behave this way!

Yeah, the mafia boss has no power, he’s not doing the deed, just persuading people to do it. Ok….how silly of me!

Don't fall apart on me now.

You are likening the corporations to the government in its employment of police?

[Dman]

Let's keep in mind that comparing the economy of decades or centuries ago has little to do with the economy we are living in today. There have been too many fundamentally radical changes to make even a relative comparison.

As to the reason for the existence of the Federal Reserve, I am enlightened (although as yet skeptical, haven't delved in). You at least have to give them credit for pulling off such a monumental scheme that essentially now dominates the planet in some form or another. Pretty impressive.

[Dman]

You are likening the corporations to the government in its employment of police?

Too lazy to go back and get exact quotes, but I believe we were referring to if the media influenced the government then it would be more powerful than the gov. You responded by saying no, the media does not put people in jail the gov does so the gov is still more powerful. To which I replied sarcastically that it would be like saying (paraphrasing) the head boss of the mafia was less powerful than the hooligans who carried out the bosses will.

If the media were able to influence the gov to its will, the media would effectively be more powerful than the gov.

Si, comprende senor?

[Robespierre]

Let's keep in mind that comparing the economy of decades or centuries ago has little to do with the economy we are living in today. There have been too many fundamentally radical changes to make even a relative comparison.

Name one. The laws of supply and demand still apply. There really is no major difference other than the government interferences. Sure, the transactions may take a different form, like debit cards rather than cash, but the same fundamental praxeological laws apply to them.


As to the reason for the existence of the Federal Reserve, I am enlightened (although as yet skeptical, haven't delved in). You at least have to give them credit for pulling off such a monumental scheme that essentially now dominates the planet in some form or another. Pretty impressive.

Indeed it is. And most people don't know this, but technically, it is not owned by the fedgov, but is a private organization. The directors are all the presidents of the biggest banks in the country. And if you don't think they use that power to advance their own personal business interests, you... well you should.

[Robespierre]

Too lazy to go back and get exact quotes, but I believe we were referring to if the media influenced the government then it would be more powerful than the gov. You responded by saying no, the media does not put people in jail the gov does so the gov is still more powerful.

Yes.


To which I replied sarcastically that it would be like saying (paraphrasing) the head boss of the mafia was less powerful than the hooligans who carried out the bosses will.

I say, the analogy makes no sense, because the corporations do not employ the government in the same sense that a mafia boss employs his goons, or the sense that police depts. employ their goons.

It would be like my neighbor telling me that he didn't like the guy down the street, and I went and shot the guy down the street. Who would be the guilty party? Me or the neighbor? I would say it would be me.


If the media were able to influence the gov to its will, the media would effectively be more powerful than the gov.

Si, comprende senor?

Yeah, I understand what you are saying, but it simply isn't true. Influence is not the same as direct control and ultimate responsibility. ВЫ понимаете?

[SensEye]

What about central banking do you suppose is good for an economy? Any economy?
Well I don't want to go back to barter. So we need a form of currency. I don't think decentralized banking where everybody and their dog can issue some sort of scrip is workable. Nobody will have sufficient faith in any particular institutions currency.

The only other alternative I can think of is an asset backed currency like gold. I think fiat currency from a central bank is superior to gold backed currency. It just seems silly to me that your currency supply should increase because somebody stumbles upon the results of geology. And your currency supply should not be getting used to fill teeth, or make electronic components or jewelry or whatever. It should be a measure of value and nothing more.


That's a good point, but not the best argument against central banking. It simply isn't economically beneficial. It is like morphine, there are extreme highs, then deadly lows. It has been happening since the birth of this country for various reasons, the most prevalent being fractional-reserve banking, then after 1913 the ups and downs got much much worse with the addition of the federal reserve.
I don't agree. I think the ups and downs are less worse since the addition of the federal reserve. Also, I think the ups and downs are much more the result of irresponsible government spending than of central banking. If we could eliminate government capability to borrow and run deficits I don't think you would see drastic ups and downs solely as a result of private borrowing. If banks didn't think governments would bail out stupid citizens/businesses who overextend themselves with borrowing (i.e. the citizens/biz would default and the bank itself would have to take the hit) they would be much more discriminating with their loan qualifications and would serve as a self regulating control feature.

And your statement that central banking (really fractional reserve banking) is not economically beneficially is an over generalization. There are problems with fixed currency supply banking (asset backed, non fractional reserve) as well. The limited loan supply applies a brake to the economy and can result in run away interest rates. These can prove highly detrimental to an economy as much as the odd boom/bust cycle that can occur from over expansion of the currency from on demand loans. Whose to say whether boom and some bust is inferior to slow but steady. It all depends on how slow or the delta between boom and bust cycles. During my lifetime the booms have outweighted the busts so far. I think if government incompetance can be kept out of the mix, the current system may prove optimal.

[Dman]

Indeed it is. And most people don't know this, but technically, it is not owned by the fedgov, but is a private organization. The directors are all the presidents of the biggest banks in the country. And if you don't think they use that power to advance their own personal business interests, you... well you should.

I did actually know that one. I have quite a bit of knowledge in what the Fed Reserve does, thanks to biz school, but very little as to the history and other non-biz related stuff about it. Or I guess you could say very little knowledge of what the public university I attended didn't WANT me to know about it.

[Dman]

Yeah, I understand what you are saying, but it simply isn't true. Influence is not the same as direct control and ultimate responsibility. ВЫ понимаете?

Yes; I agree it is not the same as direct control and ultimate responsibility, but the argument was about power - and is not influence power?

[Robespierre]

Well I don't want to go back to barter.

Why would anyone go back to barter? You do realize that the central bank of the US, the federal reserve, wasn't created until 1913? Do you suppose that money didn't exist until then?


So we need a form of currency.

Currency, for most of its long history, has existed without the aide of central banks, or even governments in some cases.


I don't think decentralized banking where everybody and their dog can issue some sort of scrip is workable. Nobody will have sufficient faith in any particular institutions currency.

Exactly, in such a system only most trusted would end up being used. Either way, a commodity standard is much more likely to emerge, one in which paper money would likely be directly exchangeable for gold in a vault.


The only other alternative I can think of is an asset backed currency like gold. I think fiat currency from a central bank is superior to gold backed currency. It just seems silly to me that your currency supply should increase because somebody stumbles upon the results of geology.

Why should that be any more silly than the currency supply increasing because the president in power wants to be re-elected? Especially considering no one would be forced to accept the commodity currency.


And your currency supply should not be getting used to fill teeth, or make electronic components or jewelry or whatever. It should be a measure of value and nothing more.

And how is a dollar a measure of value? Really, the only possible way a currency can become useful is if it is first something which has a demand outside of its use as currency. This is true of paper money as well, as the dollar was originally defined as 1/20th an oz of gold. It is only since 1933 that they started fucking with that.


I don't agree. I think the ups and downs are less worse since the addition of the federal reserve.

Any evidence for this? What was the worst depression before 1913? Was it worse than the depression of 1929-45?


Also, I think the ups and downs are much more the result of irresponsible government spending than of central banking. If we could eliminate government capability to borrow and run deficits I don't think you would see drastic ups and downs solely as a result of private borrowing.

I completely disagree. One of the most important functions of the central bank is setting a centralized interest rate. This fundamentally bypasses the market mechanism that regulates economic growth and keeps prices in line with demand and supply.


If banks didn't think governments would bail out stupid citizens/businesses who overextend themselves with borrowing (i.e. the citizens/biz would default and the bank itself would have to take the hit) they would be much more discriminating with their loan qualifications and would serve as a self regulating control feature.

Exactly, another argument against centralized banking, another feature of which is deposit insurance, which you properly label as having a dangerous effect on the market.


An your statement that central banking (really fractional reserve banking) is not economically beneficially is an over generalization.

Fractional reserve banking is NOT the same as central banking. Fractional reserve banking is that practice of creating two or more owners for one unit of money, by loaning out that money which is deposited by party A, to party B. This expands the money supply and is a form of fraud.

Central banking is governent control of interest rates, currency, and other banking regulations. Central Banks can set the reserve rate, but the evils of fractional reserve banking do not require a central bank to appear.


There are problems with fixed currency supply banking (asset backed, non fractional reserve) as well.

I know of no one calling for a fixed currency supply.


The limited loan supply applies a brake to the economy and can result in run away interest rates.

Which is entirely appropriate when there is not enough savings to fund more loans! This is the problem we face right now, there is a negative net savings rate in this country, but the interest rate is set incredibly low. We will pay the price for this idiocy soon enough.


These can prove highly detrimental to an economy as much as the odd boom/bust cycle that can occur from over expansion of the currency from on demand loans.

Look at all of the worst economic disasters in the world, and you will see that there is a central bank behind every one of them.


Whose to say whether boom and some bust is inferior to slow but steady.

A rational economist would. But an individualist like myself would say that it doesn't matter what the economy is doing, so long as human rights are recognized.


It all depends on how slow or the delta between boom and bust cycles. During my lifetime the booms have outweighted the busts so far. I think if government incompetance can be kept out of the mix, the current system may prove optimal.

Do you think it is possible to keep the government out of the government? Because that is what you are proposing when you propose keeping the government out of our current system, it IS the system. It allows no competition, either in currency or banking.

[Robespierre]

I did actually know that one. I have quite a bit of knowledge in what the Fed Reserve does, thanks to biz school, but very little as to the history and other non-biz related stuff about it. Or I guess you could say very little knowledge of what the public university I attended didn't WANT me to know about it.

Okay, so you knew it was run by presidents of all the biggest banks. So how does that make any sense? Do you approve of that?

[SensEye]

OK some confusion about what I mean by central banking. My bad, I have only a lay understanding of economics. Let me just say I want nothing to do with commodity backed currency. I want nothing to do with loans only available because there is "gold in the vault".


Any evidence for this? What was the worst depression before 1913? Was it worse than the depression of 1929-45?
Well that is hard to say. I would have to go back and study economic history. Several things would have to be established. I would have to determine that the depressions since 1913 are solely the result of central banking and not other significant factors. Since there has only been one serious depression since 1913 and yet central banking has persisted, it leades me to suspect that central banking was not the primary cause.

Also, we would have to agree on the measure of a depression. Is it the standard of living of the average member of society? What else do you suggest? I don't think we can compare pre-modern era societies with today. How did the economy work in the Roman empire? I confess I don't know. I don't know if they used a central banking concept or not. I don't know what years of the modern era used commodity backed currency or how to get good economic data to asess depressions from those periods.

I'm too lazy to do the research, but I am not prepared to accept that central banking has been a detriment to society. So we will just have to agree to disagree for now.


A rational economist would. But an individualist like myself would say that it doesn't matter what the economy is doing, so long as human rights are recognized.
First let me apologize for glossing over many or your points. I think we disagree at a fundamental level to such a large extent that we won't make much progress debating the details.

The above quote is where we start get to the crux of our issues. In my mind it always matters what the economy is doing. Human rights will always get trampled if people are starving. I don't belive human nature will ever change in this regard. Therefore, I believe a prosperous economy, that maximizes the standard of living for the greatest number of people, trumps individual human rights.

I will note that I do not think the current social democracies of the western world reflect the ideal. They do not respect individual rights enough. But I don't feel there is any black and white. There is an optimal balance somewhere in between.


Do you think it is possible to keep the government out of the government? Because that is what you are proposing when you propose keeping the government out of our current system, it IS the system. It allows no competition, either in currency or banking. It's not easy. But I believe there will always (and needs to be) a form of government. If I read you right, you are hoping (proposing?) for some sort of enlightened age of reason where everybody respects individual rights and no regulatory body will be required. I think this is impossible and not even desireable. The best we can hope for is to put a leash on the government tiger. I believe it is as acheivable as your goal, although neither may ever come to pass.

[Robespierre]

OK some confusion about what I mean by central banking. My bad, I have only a lay understanding of economics. Let me just say I want nothing to do with commodity backed currency. I want nothing to do with loans only available because there is "gold in the vault".

That's very interesting. Why do you demand that I agree with you?


Well that is hard to say. I would have to go back and study economic history. Several things would have to be established. I would have to determine that the depressions since 1913 are solely the result of central banking and not other significant factors. Since there has only been one serious depression since 1913 and yet central banking has persisted, it leades me to suspect that central banking was not the primary cause.

Only one? Perhaps you have heard of the Japanese Yen, or the Wiemar Republic? Or the Peso? Or the Ruble? Or the Rupee? Or (insert name of Brazillian monetary unit here)? Or the lira? There is a widespread history of monetary implosions all over the world. And just because the great depression was especially bad, should we ignore every depression and recession since then? Why? We have had a constant on-off cycle of boom and bust hampering us for a long time.


Also, we would have to agree on the measure of a depression. Is it the standard of living of the average member of society? What else do you suggest? I don't think we can compare pre-modern era societies with today.

Why not?


How did the economy work in the Roman empire? I confess I don't know. I don't know if they used a central banking concept or not.

Economies "work" the same way everywhere, and throughout all history. The fundamental laws do not change.


I don't know what years of the modern era used commodity backed currency or how to get good economic data to asess depressions from those periods.

Then why tell me that central banking works? And not just tell me, but force me to USE the currency produced by these central banks?


I'm too lazy to do the research, but I am not prepared to accept that central banking has been a detriment to society. So we will just have to agree to disagree for now.

Okay then.


First let me apologize for glossing over many or your points. I think we disagree at a fundamental level to such a large extent that we won't make much progress debating the details.

This probably isn't really true. The extreme nature of my characterizations sometimes makes it seem as though I were viewing a different system and reacting to different stimuli than the rest of you. Either way, I really do mean what I say.


The above quote is where we start get to the crux of our issues. In my mind it always matters what the economy is doing. Human rights will always get trampled if people are starving. I don't belive human nature will ever change in this regard. Therefore, I believe a prosperous economy, that maximizes the standard of living for the greatest number of people, trumps individual human rights.

Liberty is the mother of wealth and order, not the daughter.


I will note that I do not think the current social democracies of the western world reflect the ideal. They do not respect individual rights enough. But I don't feel there is any black and white. There is an optimal balance somewhere in between.

I disagree. This is a popular stance though, the idea that a bargin can be struck where by many illegitimate forms of governance can be reconciled into one that actually works. Anything that falls short of absolute non-aggression and respect for property rights is a bad system. This doesn't mean there will never be agression, merely that the system itself should not be one of the aggressors!


It's not easy. But I believe there will always (and needs to be) a form of government. If I read you right, you are hoping (proposing?) for some sort of enlightened age of reason where everybody respects individual rights and no regulatory body will be required.

Not at all. Right now, because we do NOT live in an enlightened age, we cannot trust any indvidual or small group of individuals to make decisions which bind the rest of society by force. Democracy is the Utopian philosophy.


I think this is impossible and not even desireable. The best we can hope for is to put a leash on the government tiger. I believe it is as acheivable as your goal, although neither may ever come to pass.

A disturbing portent. I hope you are wrong.

[SensEye]

That's very interesting. Why do you demand that I agree with you?I don't actually. I do want a state backed fiat currency and some form of fractional reserve banking for my use. I might be OK with allowing competitve currencies. I don' think you could compete successfully though. The issue of taxes on competive currency transactions would have to be resolved. They might have to be in state currency, which I know you would feel is unreasonable.

Regarding depressions, I admit they happen. So do booms. Where we conflict is you think busts are detrimental to humanity to such a degree that you would prefer commodity backed currency and full reserve banking (is that the term?) to throttle currency supply expansion. I don't agree and I think that the standard of living under what you feel is a non beneficial central banking economy is higher than ever. So I contend central banking system economies are superior to commodity currency economies. That's not proof, but I don't see any proof that during the era of commodity backed currency humanity was better off by any measurable standard. I wish to know what standard you would choose to measure by so we can at least attempt to put commodity backed currency economies to the test. It's a shame no country chooses to use one today (that I am aware of).


Liberty is the mother of wealth and order, not the daughter.And good government (as opposed to anarchy) is the father.


I disagree. This is a popular stance though, the idea that a bargin can be struck where by many illegitimate forms of governance can be reconciled into one that actually works. Anything that falls short of absolute non-aggression and respect for property rights is a bad system. This doesn't mean there will never be agression, merely that the system itself should not be one of the aggressors!
...
Not at all. Right now, because we do NOT live in an enlightened age, we cannot trust any indvidual or small group of individuals to make decisions which bind the rest of society by force. Democracy is the Utopian philosophy. Here's where you lose me. I agree the system should not be one of the agressors. I feel there must be a system, thus we must work to control the system not banish it. I am not clear what you are proposing for a system. You do agree that "respect for property rights" will not just spring into being, correct?

[JAFF]

Sorry that I am a bit late for the party, but there are a couple of things that Id like to respond to.



The only reason they are allowed to exist anymore is government foolishness in the form of bankruptcy laws and the like. Without special favors to large firms by government, Enron would have been completely gutted and the officers held responsible for their debts.

How, exactly, would the officers of Enron be held responsible for their debts if not through the coercive force of some central organization ?

Shouldn't officers who perpetrate such crimes be subjected to some form of government violence, or should such matters be dealt with by angry mobs with pitchforks and torches?

In any case, when Enron or any other company is completely gutted, everyone who worked for it would still be out of a job and a pension. Of course, these issues aren't of any concern because the jobless and defrauded former employees all entered into "voluntary contracts" and, therefore, its their own fucking fault. Ah, the beauty of the free market.



This is no different now than it has ever been. Mass consumption of media is a fact of life. You may not like the mass' taste in music or tv or news, but you have no right to dictate what they should be consuming. Nor does the mass have a right to force its opinions on any individual. Voluntary relationships, that's the key.

This is the real problem that I have with anarcho-capitalism. Can't there be situations where relationships are forced upon people, even without any positive action? For example if a company has a monopoly on the creation of a needed drug, then an agreement to buy that drug could only be called voluntary in the loosest of senses. Without some sort of central regulation, the only way to guard against abuse would be through natural market adjustment, which for obvious reasons will not work in some circumstances, and is cumbersome even when it is possible (Although this is obviously true of government economic policy as well)

A more likely scenario would be a person who needs to work to in order to support him/herself, and is forced to accept a job for an inadequate amount of pay. The association is technically voluntary, but since the decision is forced upon you by your circumstances, how can the system really work?

[indie]

New information = new opinion

In the Jan 05 issue of Wired magazine, there's an article on BitTorrent (http://www.bittorrent.com). Now, for someone who spends as much time online as I do, I cannot believe I've not heard of or come across info about this nifty service.

For anyone else who might be in the dark about this, (probably none of you, but oh well) BitTorrent is basically a file-swapping service. . . it works differently than P2P in that it downloads "chunks" of large files (software, movies, TV shows, etc) to different users' computers and can upload those chunks simultaneously. . . it therefore doesn't get the bottlenecks that P2P does and also is neat because the more "popular" a file, the quicker it will download. (This is probably a "duh" to many of you, please forgive) Anyway, the guy who started BT, Bram Cohen, has Asperger's Syndrome, and just might be INTP.

Here's another interesting snip from the article (paraphrased)


In the fall, a Swedish site posted a torrent for Shrek 2. Dreamworks sent a cease and detist letter demanding the site take it off. One of the site's anonymous owners replied: "As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the US. Sweden is a country in northern Europe [and] US law does not apply here. . . . It is the opinion of us and our lawyers that you are fucking morons."

Hehe.

Anyway, the globalization of media is certainly something to think about. The media conglomerates are probably very worried about this new trend toward media distribution. The infrastructure that the conglomerates spent billions of dollars on (airwaves and wires, for example) are no longer necessary for distribution. People are able to post pretty much anything online and have it accessible worldwide. I'm willing to bet that between their money and power, they are willing to do just about anything to prevent this from happening or becoming a "problem."

New information = new opinion. I suppose the danger lies in how far will the media conglomerates go to keep their status as media conglomerates? What vital information will they hide from the public? When those lawsuits do arise and go to the courts will we hear about it on the evening news? On MSNBC.com? On 60 Minutes? In the Washington Post? Probably not . . . less people will be informed, therefore less people will take action, and in the end, the lawyers and conglomerates just might come out on top.

[relaxo]

This is the real problem that I have with anarcho-capitalism. Can't there be situations where relationships are forced upon people, even without any positive action? For example if a company has a monopoly on the creation of a needed drug, then an agreement to buy that drug could only be called voluntary in the loosest of senses.


A needed drug? People were functioning without this drug before, and now it is needed because it has been created? Created by the free market, which is just you and I doing our thing. Did government create this drug? How many needed drugs can government create compared to private business?
Capitalism is a tool for humans to use to get results. The free market is more efficient than government.



A more likely scenario would be a person who needs to work to in order to support him/herself
(everyone has to "work" to support themselves...)


, and is forced to accept a job for an inadequate amount of pay. The association is technically voluntary, but since the decision is forced upon you by your circumstances, how can the system really work?

How is this different from anything else? I am forced to live in a part of the Earth where snow falls in winter. Should I blame nature? I demand government stop winter.

What is an inadequate amount of pay? When you can't feed yourself? if you can't feed yourself you won't be working anyway, you will be dead.

These theorectical concerns do not mirror reality.

What about the person who starts up a business and can only hire people at such high wages that s/he can no longer run the business? Inadequate profits (i.e pay), therefore the worker can screw the business by demanding high wages. That's OK however right? Who cares about business people and their needs and desires. They just do silly things like create the system that allows the creation of goods and services.

If the government starts running things, now it's 'capitalism' in government, which gives the business leaders the ability to use force as well.

Since history shows people fight for control of wealth, I prefer my economics separated from the legitimate use of force (government).

[Dman]

I'm still looking for an anti-government believer to explain to me how monopolies would be dealt with in the absence of government. Monopolies are a natural occurence in the free market, yet they work to destroy the basis of a free market. Solution?

[indie]

I'm still looking for an anti-government believer to explain to me how monopolies would be dealt with in the absence of government. Monopolies are a natural occurence in the free market, yet they work to destroy the basis of a free market. Solution?

Thank you, Dman, for elegantly and succinctly boiling down the gist of this thread. That's what I want to know.

[Edmond Zedo]

Solution?
"None." Er, I mean "Let them eat cake!"

[relaxo]

Do monopolies destroy the free market?
Please provide examples rather than theory.

(and what is an anti-government believer?)

[melancholeric]

Do monopolies destroy the free market?
Please provide examples rather than theory.

(and what is an anti-government believer?)
You could provide examples of your utopian society aswell, couldn't you? Rather that theory.

[relaxo]

You could provide examples of your utopian society aswell, couldn't you? Rather that theory.

I don't have a utopian society.
Please provide examples of monopolies destroying the free market.
Surely there must be something out there, it's been prophesized for over 100 years now. I am very interested.

[indie]

The East India Company in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations

[melancholeric]

I don't have a utopian society.
Please provide examples of monopolies destroying the free market.
Surely there must be something out there, it's been prophesized for over 100 years now. I am very interested.
Somehow you managed to missed the point. Not surprising, really.
Point out one example of a completely free market.
Such a thing has never existed after industralization. Thus, you (plural form. I have no interest to get involved with this.) have to discuss it theoretically.
It might be that the existence of nation-states (thus, goverments) has prevented monopolies so far.

[Dman]

Thank you, Dman, for elegantly and succinctly boiling down the gist of this thread. That's what I want to know.

Welcome. Frankly, I’m shocked that I haven’t heard a valid retort to that argument. The pro - free market – anti-gov’t. folks seem to have every base covered, yet I haven’t heard anything on this most basic subject.

[Dman]

Do monopolies destroy the free market?
Please provide examples rather than theory.

(and what is an anti-government believer?)

It would be difficult for me to provide an example, rather than theory, of monopolies destroying free-markets, since there is no such thing as a completely free-market. The idea of a completely free market is a theory, so of course I can only provide theoretical arguments against it.

Having said that, it is simply a fact of a free market that monopolies will naturally occur, and will also naturally undermine the facets of that free market. A free market is all about the freedom to choose, i.e. competition. The existence of a monopoly takes away that freedom, and by definition causes a free market to not be free. They distort the free market into something that can still be considered free of external influence (i.e. gov’t.), but are effectively acting the same as an external influence would, thereby undermining the very principles of a free market.

By “anti-government”, which I use loosely, I am referring to those who believe there should be no government at all but rather let the market reign over everything.

[Claverhouse]

Welcome. Frankly, I’m shocked that I haven’t heard a valid retort to that argument. The pro - free market – anti-gov’t. folks seem to have every base covered, yet I haven’t heard anything on this most basic subject.
Well, considering that on no basis other than religious faith can it be explained why, in their dreamworld of no government and free-market libertarianism they believe 'Property-Owning Rights' should be, let alone would be, respected, some mysteries have to be forever hidden from the eyes of the profane...




Claverhouse :ph34r:

[relaxo]

It would be difficult for me to provide an example, rather than theory, of monopolies destroying free-markets, since there is no such thing as a completely free-market.

However, there are freer markets, and less free markets. Therefore there should be examples of monopolies that exist without government intervention.



A free market is all about the freedom to choose, i.e. competition.

A free market is about economic freedom. You have a right to produce what you can and you have a right to consume what you are able to purchase. You do not have a right to choice. Choice is a byproduct of the economic activity of producers. If there are many producers, you have choice. If there is one producer, you have the choice to consume their product, or not. You can not force choice in a free market. Someone produces or they do not. If only one company is producing a product, be thankful that someone is. You may not like the price, but you do not have a right to force that producer to change the price.

A monopoly is not possible in a free market. A monopoly implies that there is no competition. However, there is always competition for any product. You are the only producer of coal? Fine. I'll start up an oil company. There is always an alternative. Those who lack imagination will of course disagree.

For a company to ensure that competition will not occur, the company would have to produce the good or service at a low enough price to discourage others from entering the market. If the price is too low (which is a benefit for the consumer), the company will go under and competition will enter. If the company offers no variety, others can enter the market with variety.
By pricing to keep out competition the consumer benefits. What good is choice of the exact same product if both products are at a higher price?

Only when government (perhaps usually at the request of a business) grants special privilege can a monopoly truely occur. No competition is allowed by law, or subsidies are granted thus keeping competition out. Now the price can be anything and no one can do anything about it, except government.
But why is a monopoly controlled by government, potentially costing more in taxes to subsidize it, better than a company that produces at a price to keep competition out?

[relaxo]

Well, considering that on no basis other than religious faith can it be explained why, in their dreamworld of no government and free-market libertarianism they believe 'Property-Owning Rights' should be, let alone would be, respected, some mysteries have to be forever hidden from the eyes of the profane...



True, you always need a government that protects individual rights, which include property rights.

[Dman]

However, there are freer markets, and less free markets. Therefore there should be examples of monopolies that exist without government intervention.

Ok, I’ll play along. Debeers. This monopoly exists without direct government interference. Do you think diamonds are priced so high due to scarcity, intrinsic value, high demand? No. There is such a large supply of diamonds on this planet, they are worth hardly a fraction of their current price. The reason the price is so high is because one company controls all the output and production of diamonds on the market. Cubic Zirconium, arguably a superior product, is far less priced than “real” diamonds. However, if not for Debeers, “real” diamonds would actually cost less than C.Z.! But due to their monopoly of the market, they can artificially restrict supply, driving up demand, and thus prices. And yes, we now have a substitute product (C.Z.), but it took one hundred years.


A free market is about economic freedom. You have a right to produce what you can and you have a right to consume what you are able to purchase. You do not have a right to choice. Choice is a byproduct of the economic activity of producers. If there are many producers, you have choice. If there is one producer, you have the choice to consume their product, or not. You can not force choice in a free market. Someone produces or they do not. If only one company is producing a product, be thankful that someone is. You may not like the price, but you do not have a right to force that producer to change the price.

A monopoly is not possible in a free market. A monopoly implies that there is no competition. However, there is always competition for any product. You are the only producer of coal? Fine. I'll start up an oil company. There is always an alternative. Those who lack imagination will of course disagree.

Try this for imagination, I don’t think it’s a stretch: say a company has proprietary knowledge of some new, highly demanded technology. This company thus becomes very large, and acquires the ability to buy-out any up-and-coming competitors. Hence, no competition, and due to the proprietary knowledge that only they have, no substitutions. In other words, a monopoly, no government required.


For a company to ensure that competition will not occur, the company would have to produce the good or service at a low enough price to discourage others from entering the market. If the price is too low (which is a benefit for the consumer), the company will go under and competition will enter. If the company offers no variety, others can enter the market with variety.
By pricing to keep out competition the consumer benefits. What good is choice of the exact same product if both products are at a higher price?

Only when government (perhaps usually at the request of a business) grants special privilege can a monopoly truely occur. No competition is allowed by law, or subsidies are granted thus keeping competition out. Now the price can be anything and no one can do anything about it, except government.
But why is a monopoly controlled by government, potentially costing more in taxes to subsidize it, better than a company that produces at a price to keep competition out?

See above examples. Also, referring to your energy producing example, suppose a region has no coal, oil, or gas deposits, and the only efficient energy source is a river, i.e. hydro-electric dam. Thus no competition, and the only substitution would be buying gasoline powered generators, which would be much more expensive than paying the hydro power plant’s prices. Would this power plant not be a monopoly? You’re kidding yourself if you believe there is no way a monopoly could exist in the absence of government.

[relaxo]

Debeers. This monopoly exists without direct government interference... And yes, we now have a substitute product (C.Z.), but it took one hundred years.

That is a pretty good example. People obviously value diamonds more than Cubic Zirconium which allows Debeers to charge high (market) prices. However, there is an alternative now, and there has never been anyway to stop another person to discover diamonds and sell them in a free market. Therefore debeers has not destroyed the free market (unless they have government privilege)



Try this for imagination, I don’t think it’s a stretch: say a company has proprietary knowledge of some new, highly demanded technology. This company thus becomes very large, and acquires the ability to buy-out any up-and-coming competitors. Hence, no competition, and due to the proprietary knowledge that only they have, no substitutions. In other words, a monopoly, no government required.

Yes, could very well happen. We would all make a lot of cash off this company. We just start up a business that says it is going to compete, and they buy us out. I'd do it every couple of months and make a fortune.
Realistically this company would be bankrupt if it spent all of it's time buying up competitors. Competition is not a requirement of a free market, which is the question.
As long as you are free to produce what they are producing, you are in a free market, whether they buy you out or not.




See above examples. Also, referring to your energy producing example, suppose a region has no coal, oil, or gas deposits, and the only efficient energy source is a river, i.e. hydro-electric dam. Thus no competition, and the only substitution would be buying gasoline powered generators, which would be much more expensive than paying the hydro power plant’s prices. Would this power plant not be a monopoly? You’re kidding yourself if you believe there is no way a monopoly could exist in the absence of government.
or perhaps the story is instead of paying the gasoline powered generators monopoly's high prices someone built a hydro-electric dam, saving everyone money with lower prices. Sounds like competition.

The question is, though, does a monopoly destroy the free market. As long as you are able to produce what you want and can, then there is a free market. The free market can only be destroyed if the government grants special political privilege to a company making them the only legal producer of a product.

[CoHo]

Continuing with the concept of Free Market.

How do highways and streets fit into the Libertarian perspective?

Also, how do most current government controlled sectors such as energy, waste, sewage, and water fit into the Libertarian point of view?

Several government sectors, such as public transportation, are easy to explain off, but I've always been curious about the more difficult areas.

[relaxo]

Continuing with the concept of Free Market.

How do highways and streets fit into the Libertarian perspective?

Also, how do most current government controlled sectors such as energy, waste, sewage, and water fit into the Libertarian point of view?

Several government sectors, such as public transportation, are easy to explain off, but I've always been curious about the more difficult areas.
I'm interested too. I think energy is an easy one to take away from government, but roads and such seem a little more interesting. Certainly health care should not be run by government.

[Dman]

That is a pretty good example. People obviously value diamonds more than Cubic Zirconium which allows Debeers to charge high (market) prices. However, there is an alternative now, and there has never been anyway to stop another person to discover diamonds and sell them in a free market. Therefore debeers has not destroyed the free market (unless they have government privilege)

If that’s true, then where are these people with their diamonds? It seems you’re trying to redefine what a monopoly is. Debeers has control over the distribution channels of diamonds. If someone finds diamonds, they would not have access to the distribution channels that sell them to end-users. Sure, he could set up a stand and sell them at the Saturday market, maybe make a couple bucks, but realistically could never progress beyond that to even slightly tapping the market for diamonds.

The point is that diamond prices are artificially high, solely due to the exclusive control wielded by one entity. In other words, a monopoly that is “producing” the entire world’s supply of a product that until very recently had no substitute. The price of a diamond is not determined by a free market. The free market for diamonds has been “destroyed” since the exchange of these products is not open to all without constraint.



Yes, could very well happen. We would all make a lot of cash off this company. We just start up a business that says it is going to compete, and they buy us out. I'd do it every couple of months and make a fortune.
Realistically this company would be bankrupt if it spent all of it's time buying up competitors. Competition is not a requirement of a free market, which is the question.
As long as you are free to produce what they are producing, you are in a free market, whether they buy you out or not.

Under this circumstance, since the required information for this technology is proprietary, there would be very few potential competitors as no one had the ability to reproduce it. My point was that if someone did appear to be getting close to acquiring this knowledge, they would be either bought out or run out of town (muscle their suppliers to refuse to do business with them, such as offering their suppliers a lucrative, exclusive contract to do business with only us). Not the same as spending all their money on every person who claimed to be a threat.

And you are not free to produce what they are producing, because they have cornered the market on the vital ingredient necessary to produce this product (think diamonds before C.Z. came along). So there is one seller for a product that has many buyers, who has exclusive control over this market. A monopoly. No gov’t. interference. No competitive bidding open to all, no freedom to produce what they are producing, effectively no free market for this product. If I am mistaken, then how can you describe this situation as a free market? If virtually every product ended up becoming like this type of situation, would that constitute a free market? Free to who?



or perhaps the story is instead of paying the gasoline powered generators monopoly's high prices someone built a hydro-electric dam, saving everyone money with lower prices. Sounds like competition.

There is only one river that can be dammed. How many dams can you put on a river without interfering with the other dams? And how many power lines are you going to install to each business and residence? One for each competitor, right? Sounds like a logistical nightmare.


The question is, though, does a monopoly destroy the free market. As long as you are able to produce what you want and can, then there is a free market. The free market can only be destroyed if the government grants special political privilege to a company making them the only legal producer of a product.

Ok, so as long as there is no government, one company can theoretically control virtually all the worlds products, but it would still be a free-market?

[indie]

Debeers has control over the distribution channels of diamonds. If someone finds diamonds, they would not have access to the distribution channels that sell them to end-users. Sure, he could set up a stand and sell them at the Saturday market, maybe make a couple bucks, but realistically could never progress beyond that to even slightly tapping the market for diamonds.

The point is that diamond prices are artificially high, solely due to the exclusive control wielded by one entity. In other words, a monopoly that is “producing” the entire world’s supply of a product that until very recently had no substitute. The price of a diamond is not determined by a free market. The free market for diamonds has been “destroyed” since the exchange of these products is not open to all without constraint.

The free-market theory is based on these assumptions:



* free flow of information - it is possible for any consumer to know everything relevant about the products s/he is considering buying.

* no barriers to competition - anyone who wants to can become a supplier in a market and compete on an even basis with the existing suppliers, assuming equal competence and ability.

* direct responsibility - consumers are spending their own resources to buy things for their own use. Source (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FreeMarket)

Those assumptions are glaringly non-relevant in today's society. "Free-flow of information" is largely hindered by the media. The "no-barriers to competition" is hindered by the government and by the basic power large corporations possess. "Direct responsibility" for purchases by consumers are non-relevent in the age of credit-cards (well, okay, in the age of *extravagant* credit-card companies that encourage consumers to spend more than they are capable of paying back).

Adam Smith, the "father" of capitalism, probably could not have fathomed what our society would be like today. His "assumptions" for the free-market society were probably very accurate and useful for his time, but they not very relevant today.

He lived from 1723 - 1790 for hell's sake! The world has changed a lot since 1790. The wooden pedestels upon which his theory is formulated are beginning to rot, yet they are the very same assumptions which economists stand by steadily, even today.

I certainly hope a new school of economic thought emerges soon. If anyone here knows about openings in one, let me know so I can sign up.

[FactsDontMatter]

I certainly hope a new school of economic thought emerges soon. If anyone here knows about openings in one, let me know so I can sign up.
Well, there is the emerging Post-Autistic Economics movement...

www.paecon.net

[PsiKik]

I had an idea, imagine the economy as an ecosystem with
corporations as organisms inhabiting that ecosystem.
I visualized them as blob like bacteria, gobbling each other up and becoming larger.
People where just like cellular matter to be eaten and processed, assimilated or excreted.
And all this time the petri dish they were inhabiting was getting more poluted with their waste products.

[sbw]

And I agree it is pretty scary. Some of us are worried about governments but I think the multinationals pose a much greater threat.

Robespierre said everything I don't have time to; fight the good capitalist fight, brother!

Why are we scared of corporations? They are just trying to get rich (as are most of us); government, in absence of that clearly-defined goal, ends up doing all sorts of terrible shit. I absolutely think it makes more sense to be afraid of governments (which tend to grow more repressive over time) than corporations (which merely grow in the directions that their constituents--I mean, consumers--request).

Scott

[Nighthawk]

The current administration has made it clear that it supports big business . . . it supports outsourcing . . . it supports the systems that make a few people richer at the expense of the masses.

I'd wager that a Democratic candidate would support all these things too, no matter what he/she says. Kerry was pro-outsourcing too. USA is screwed no matter who gets voted into office. Republicans start wars and piss away the budget. Demos will tax you to death. I don't like either.

[mgb]

Robespierre said everything I don't have time to; fight the good capitalist fight, brother!

Why are we scared of corporations? They are just trying to get rich (as are most of us); government, in absence of that clearly-defined goal, ends up doing all sorts of terrible shit. I absolutely think it makes more sense to be afraid of governments (which tend to grow more repressive over time) than corporations (which merely grow in the directions that their constituents--I mean, consumers--request).

Scott

Wow, an almost three month old quote.

Corporations have a much easier time getting rich than you do. Granted, the opportunity to do so was afforded to them by the leaders of the country, but they do everything they can to take advantage of that.

From here (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001897382_corptax07.html).



The report showed 61 percent of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1996 through 2000. The study was based on an IRS sampling of more than 2 million tax returns, most from smaller companies.

U.S. companies paid an average of $11.88 in corporate taxes for every $1,000 in gross receipts, the study said.

Small firms were more likely to avoid taxation than large ones, it showed. About 38 percent of big companies (those with more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in revenues) paid no taxes during the five-year period.

Scott, did you pay taxes during this time? Because if you did, it seems like a lot of companies have a leg up on you.

And I know, the immediate response is that there is a trickle down in the economy and the wealth not used to pay taxes gets spread out through the entire economy. But that isn't consistent with the increasing gap between rich and poor.

It might seem like corporations are just innocent players in the game of the economy, "trying to get rich like everyone else" but they aren't. It's more like the NBA All Stars heading over to an elementry school to play the kids hanging around after school, then beating them up after they win and taking all their money.

Or if you don't like the Seattle Times, you can read the whole boring report (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001897382_corptax07.html).

[Dman]

I’ll throw this out there –

As an idea, yes, capitalism seems to be the most natural system from an economic stance. However…

The problem arises when corporations that have become very powerful act in a manner which causes great harm to its stakeholders, i.e. people get accidentally killed, environment gets irreversibly damaged, etc.

The “theory” is that market forces will deal with these and the problems will be corrected, which seems like a reasonable theory when you study it closely.

But here is where the problem lies. Many of these problems that the market will naturally correct take a long time to “work themselves out” via the market. By a long time I mean when it’s too late, i.e. many people are dead, environment is damaged, etc. in the meantime. People’s lives are too short to wait for some of these “market forces” to work themselves through. This is where some type of regulatory body becomes necessary, to attempt to ensure that these harmful activities do not materialize in the first place, or at least to minimize the damage done.

Unfortunately the nature of government is that it grows easily but is very difficult to trim, among other things, and those things get in the way of what the primary purpose of gov is. However, to say we’d be “better off” without government seems unreasonable to me. We might be better off with less government, or more efficient government, but no gov appears too extreme. We’d be trading one irritation to a far worse irritation, IMO. I just don’t see a realistic vision of a utopia with a pure capitalist system absent of gov.

[mgb]

I’ll throw this out there –

As an idea, yes, capitalism seems to be the most natural system from an economic stance. However…

The problem arises when corporations that have become very powerful act in a manner which causes great harm to its stakeholders, i.e. people get accidentally killed, environment gets irreversibly damaged, etc.

The “theory” is that market forces will deal with these and the problems will be corrected, which seems like a reasonable theory when you study it closely.

But here is where the problem lies. Many of these problems that the market will naturally correct take a long time to “work themselves out” via the market. By a long time I mean when it’s too late, i.e. many people are dead, environment is damaged, etc. in the meantime. People’s lives are too short to wait for some of these “market forces” to work themselves through. This is where some type of regulatory body becomes necessary, to attempt to ensure that these harmful activities do not materialize in the first place, or at least to minimize the damage done.

Unfortunately the nature of government is that it grows easily but is very difficult to trim, among other things, and those things get in the way of what the primary purpose of gov is. However, to say we’d be “better off” without government seems unreasonable to me. We might be better off with less government, or more efficient government, but no gov appears too extreme. We’d be trading one irritation to a worse irritation, IMO. I just don’t see a realistic vision of a utopia with a pure capitalist system absent of gov.

In a pure capitalist system, the companies would become the government. Just not elected nor responsible to anyone. Unmitigated power.

[Dman]

I hope ole Robespierre comes back for spring break. We have some open-ended issues to discuss with him yet…

He dodged my point about the ramifications of the market taking a long-term time span to correct itself, by changing the subject to what caused the depression (see page 5 of this thread). I also never got to grill him about monopolies, although I’m pretty sure I know where that one will go – “no such thing as a monopoly without gov’t” & all that trash.

Don’t see what the argument could be against the long-term corrections though. TS, people will just have to suffer? Not a viable argument. Ok, yeah, so I’m shamelessly baiting.

[Dman]

I hope ole Robespierre comes back for spring break. We have some open-ended issues to discuss with him yet…

He dodged my point about the ramifications of the market taking a long-term time span to correct itself, by changing the subject to what caused the depression (see page 5 of this thread). I also never got to grill him about monopolies, although I’m pretty sure I know where that one will go – “no such thing as a monopoly without gov’t” & all that trash.

Don’t see what the argument could be against the long-term corrections though. TS, people will just have to suffer? Not a viable argument. Ok, yeah, so I’m shamelessly baiting.

I said I'm shamelessly BAITING...a world without government would NOT work for several reasons...the "market" cannot take care of EVERYTHING...it would not be a SUSTAINABLE system...

[C.J.Woolf]

I hope ole Robespierre comes back for spring break.
For a moment I thought you were referring to the historical Robespierre. Madame Guillotine, the Reign of Terror, and all that. It has been a while since the tree of liberty has been refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

(I know the Reign of Terror was a bad thing overall, but gawd it's satisfying when arrogant rulers get theirs good and hard.)

[Claverhouse]

For a moment I thought you were referring to the historical Robespierre. Madame Guillotine, the Reign of Terror, and all that. It has been a while since the tree of liberty has been refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

(I know the Reign of Terror was a bad thing overall, but gawd it's satisfying when arrogant rulers get theirs good and hard.)
The majority of the victims were peasants and small tradespeople. The aristocrats led the first part of the revolution, then ( sensibly ) left once it passed into the hands of the middle class and bourgeoisie.

The latter refrained from handing on the torch to the peasants and workers --- who could start massacring them --- so the republic remained in the hands of lawyers. An enviable prospect for any state.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[indie]

So, I finally got around to watching that movie The Corporation. Oh my hell, that movie was like an intellectual buffet of interesting stuff! It created all kinds of cool happy waves in my brain and it made me actually want to do something constructive.

One of the most interesting concepts discussed was that of the corporation as a psychopath. As a “legal person” with all the rights and privileges of a normal person, it can buy and sell property, sue and be sued, borrow money. Most importantly, however, it is legally bound to put the bottom line above everything else, including the public good. “They have no soul to save and they have no body to incarcerate” is a memorable quote from the movie.

According to the World Health Organizations’ Manual of Mental Disorders, corporations and psychopaths share these traits:

* Callous unconcern for the feelings of others
* Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships
* Reckless disregard for the safety of others
* Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit
* Incapacity to experience guilt
* Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors.

“If the dominant institution in our society was created in the image of a psychopath, who bears the moral responsibilities?” asks the movie. The answer is nobody. No one person can be held responsible for the actions of a company. . . the concept of limited liability protects the owners. At the same time, companies create various negative externalities for both society and the environment, things that they profit from, but that society has to pay for. . . things like pollution, toxic waste, and destruction of natural habitats. This is not right!

Another outrageous thing discussed was about how society is moving toward privatizing everything, including air (pollution vouchers), water, and even the basic units of life. Various organizations own patents on certain genes, breeds of mice, and in some country people aren’t even allowed to collect rain water, because a company has claimed the right to every drop of water that falls from the sky! People who are found guilty of collecting rainwater have their homes taken away from them, believe it or not.

That corporations have this much power is NOT RIGHT. Corporations are spreading like viruses away from the US (where there are at least *some* laws to prevent them from being completely evil) to places where they are able to just treat people like disposables, destroy and plunder the environment, and pack up and leave when the wages get to be too expensive (paying someone from El Salvador $0.03 for making a shirt that sells for $17.99 USD and leaving when they end up having to pay $0.07 cents, for example).

So, after I finish with this, I’m going to start a new thread. It’ll be a “think tank” type of thread where we can brew up some ideas about an idealized environment for the planet.

It should be a fun experiment, where we can pretend we’re like the drafters of the constitution (what are the basic human rights? how should power be balanced?), only instead of a bunch of old white men creating the laws for a nation seeking religious freedom, we’ll be an age and gender and ethically-diverse group of people with the common goal of preventing power-hungry psychopathic corporations from destroying our planet and hurting people . And instead of “One Nation under God,” the crowning phrase should be “One Planet Near the Sun” since we’re all in this together. . .

I’ve tentatively named it “Project Karma,” but if anyone has another suggestion, that would be fine. :)

[MaroonBells]

Another outrageous thing discussed was about how society is moving toward privatizing everything, including air (pollution vouchers), water, and even the basic units of life.

IndieJ,
My college professor Gert Junne focused on this issue of privatization of water (due to the shortage of fresh water) when I was still at the U of Amsterdam. Haven't talked to him in years. Maybe you can google him and see if you can dig up some literature. He was PoliSci prof, International Political Economy specialty.

[Robespierre]

* Callous unconcern for the feelings of others
* Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships
* Reckless disregard for the safety of others
* Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit
* Incapacity to experience guilt
* Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors.


Do you think that governments are more or less psychopathic than "corporations"? Before you answer, ask yourself how many people have been directly killed by governments in the last 100 years, compared to those who have been directly killed by corporations. Or better yet, how many corporations have held the entire world hostage with nuclear weapons?

[crule81]

Do you think that governments are more or less psychopathic that "corporations"? Before you answer, ask yourself how many people have been directly killed by governments in the last 100 years, compared to those who have been directly killed by corporations. Or better yet, how many corporations have held the entire world hostage with nuclear weapons?

Oh come on, don't you watch cartoons and superhero movies?

[Claverhouse]

Do you think that governments are more or less psychopathic that "corporations"? Before you answer, ask yourself how many people have been directly killed by governments in the last 100 years, compared to those who have been directly killed by corporations. Or better yet, how many corporations have held the entire world hostage with nuclear weapons?
This may well be true --- although were you to include in that glorious array of the sanctified corporations employers of any sort < excluding for your benefit the governments accursed of God and man > I should imagine that the total of deaths, misery and cruelty might well exceed anything of which any government was possible. The present state of Eastern Congo is a capitalist-libertarian paradise, with absolutely minimal governmental intervention. It is not so pleasant for the workers there. As long as they live, which isn't that long anyway. Especially if they refuse the opportunities for employment offered by the corporations. --- Nonetheless, a government to be obeyed, at least nominally must represent the state: a corporation to be obeyed, has not even a shred of mandate from anyone or anything, no matter how illegitimate the claim ( such as 'the will of the majority' or 'the will of the elite' to name two fallacies ).

And equally obviously, without any form of protection from a locally dominant corporation it's power is as coercive as any government's since you would either have to take such terms as they give you, or starve. There is very little free land about in most civilised countries to escape to.


The prospect of being ruled by corporations is as gruesome as being ruled by Indiejade's Rainbow Committees, listening to all regardless of race, sex, creed, age or mental competence, and then doing whatever imbecile decree they have come up with.



“They have no soul to save and they have no body to incarcerate” is a memorable quote from the movie. In the nineteenth century it was: 'No soul to damn and no body to kick', rather blunter and less prissy, but that's the movies for you.

[ Prolly, the great W. S. Gilbert, who had strong views on joint-stock incorporation, allowing capitalists to escape their debts. ]




Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Robespierre]

This may well be true --- although were you to include in that glorious array of the sanctified corporations employers of any sort < excluding for your benefit the governments accursed of God and man > I should imagine that the total of deaths, misery and cruelty might well exceed anything of which any government was possible. The present state of Eastern Congo is a capitalist-libertarian paradise, with absolutely minimal governmental intervention.

Oh really? It looks for all the world to be more like a mafia war, pitting small government against small government. I could very well be wrong though...


It is not so pleasant for the workers there.

Has the concept of property rights made its way to this portion of the world? I would suggest that indeed, it has not, which explains most of the extreme poverty and tribalism.


As long as they live, which isn't that long anyway. Especially if they refuse the opportunities for employment offered by the corporations.

So how did these people get by before the evil corporations came by? Unless it is the case that corporations literally force people to work at gun point, and it may well be the case- I don't know, then what harm is done by the corporations?


--- Nonetheless, a government to be obeyed, at least nominally must represent the state: a corporation to be obeyed, has not even a shred of mandate from anyone or anything,

So now a government and a state are seperate things?


no matter how illegitimate the claim ( such as 'the will of the majority' or 'the will of the elite' to name two fallacies ).

The most important point in all this is that NO government claim can be legitimate. And unless the a corporation is using violence, its claims cannot be illegitimate.


And equally obviously, without any form of protection from a locally dominant corporation it's power is as coercive as any government's since you would either have to take such terms as they give you, or starve.

Why? Where on earth do such conditions exist? How did these conditions come to exist? Did corporations exist before people?


There is very little free land about in most civilised countries to escape to.

Mainly because governments have illegitimately laid claim to almost all of the surface of the earth, and violently exclude people from using the stolen land.


The prospect of being ruled by corporations is as gruesome as being ruled by Indiejade's Rainbow Committees, listening to all regardless of race, sex, creed, age or mental competence, and then doing whatever imbecile decree they have come up with.

Who suggests being "ruled" by corporations? What powers of government do you suppose ANY corporation has, aside from that influence directly granted to it BY the government itself? That is, without governments around, what makes you think that a corporation would be able to violently impose its "will" upon anyone?


[ Prolly, the great W. S. Gilbert, who had strong views on joint-stock incorporation, allowing capitalists to escape their debts. ]

As should be obvious by now, those actions that corporations take which are violent in nature, eg avoiding debts(a form of theft), can only exist in a system where a violent government enables them to take these actions.

[indie]

Do you think that governments are more or less psychopathic than "corporations"?

No, not "more" or "less." Equally as psychopathic, but in a different way. The government is psychopathic because it *allows* business to go on being psychopathic. That's why I was proposing we examine the very structure of the economic system itself in the Project Karma thread.


Before you answer, ask yourself how many people have been directly killed by governments in the last 100 years, compared to those who have been directly killed by corporations. Or better yet, how many corporations have held the entire world hostage with nuclear weapons?

We've already been over this. I already know about your opinions on that subject; they are "fundamentally flawed" and therefore not interesting to me.


In the nineteenth century it was: 'No soul to damn and no body to kick', rather blunter and less prissy, but that's the movies for you.

[ Prolly, the great W. S. Gilbert, who had strong views on joint-stock incorporation, allowing capitalists to escape their debts. ]

Oh, yes. . . I think they mentioned Gilbert. The "original" is much better.

MaroonBells, TY for the info. :)

[Robespierre]

No, not "more" or "less." Equally as psychopathic, but in a different way. The government is psychopathic because it *allows* business to go on being psychopathic.

This is why I find your opinions to be someone psychopathic as well. You can *maybe* find some isolated examples where corporations have hired mercenaries to kill some people. And should there be any instances of that case, the corporations in question are evil, no doubts. However, it is not debatable as to whether or not governments have done this, it is only a matter of how many have died. There is no question that the number is in the tens of millions, if not hundreds. And this is not counting the greed and corruption of governments that has caused famine and disease, this is just direct murders by the state. How can you square your answer that governments are psychopathic because they "allow" corporations to act freely? Do those millions of deaths mean nothing when you are adding up the plus and minus' of governments?


We've already been over this. I already know your opinions, they are not interesting to me.

Of course not, my opinions cut off your illogical and self-pittying arguments against individual liberty. Freedom for you is lovely, but freedom for anyone else seems to scare you.

[indie]

This is why I find your opinions to be someone psychopathic as well. You can *maybe* find some isolated examples where corporations have hired mercenaries to kill some people. And should there be any instances of that case, the corporations in question are evil, no doubts. However, it is not debatable as to whether or not governments have done this, it is only a matter of how many have died. There is no question that the number is in the tens of millions, if not hundreds. And this is not counting the greed and corruption of governments that has caused famine and disease, this is just direct murders by the state. How can you square your answer that governments are psychopathic because they "allow" corporations to act freely? Do those millions of deaths mean nothing when you are adding up the plus and minus' of governments?

Please do not apply your preconceived notions of what makes up a "business" or a "government" to this discussion. The lines have alreadly been blurred to the point where it's impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins.
One piece of evidence is the current situation in Iraq where people have been dying under the ruse of "freedom" when, in actuality, they have actually been dying for "profit" for the "big conglomerates" oil and such. I'd say business is quite responsible for quite a few deaths.

Ever heard of something called a "negative externality?" I encourage you to look it up.


Of course not, my opinions cut off your illogical and self-pittying arguments against individual liberty. Freedom for you is lovely, but freedom for anyone else seems to scare you.

Of course. Because *your* opinions are right and *mine* are wrong. Silly me.

Robespierre, I strongly urge you to refrain from resorting to personal attacks in this forum.

[Robespierre]

Please do not apply your preconceived notions of what makes up a "business" or a "government" to this discussion. The lines have alreadly been blurred to the point where it's impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Yeah, you did say that once before. I guess... keep saying it.


One piece of evidence is the current situation in Iraq where people have been dying under the ruse of "freedom" when, in actuality, they have actually been dying for "profit" for the "big conglomerates" oil and such. I'd say business is quite responsible for quite a few deaths.

If I asked you to kill someone, and then you did, would I be responsible for that person's death, or you? or both of us? I woud suggest that the person who committs the crime is the responsible one, and the ONLY responsible one. Without government, the Iraq war would not be possible, corporations would never spend so many billions on something so incredibly useless and unprofitable. However, as you suggest, they are not beyond asking violent governments to spend this money.


Ever heard of something called a "negative externality?" I encourage you to look it up.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. I suggest you explain first, how a negative externality could possibly come to exist in a system of absolute property rights.


Of course. Because *your* opinions are right and *mine* are wrong. Silly me.

Well, so far you have only exclaimed what it is you feel. You haven't yet provided any reasoning or logical basis for your arguments. Silly indeed.


Robespierre, I strongly urge you to refrain from resorting to personal attacks in this forum.

Concentrate on explaining your opinion that all corporations are bad, and that governments are only bad for allowing corps to act, despite the fact that governments have directly murdered hundreds of millions.

[coffeezombie]

Concentrate on explaining your opinion that all corporations are bad, and that governments are only bad for allowing corps to act, despite the fact that governments have directly murdered hundreds of millions.

Without governments, don't you think corporations would just take the place of governments? How would the world be any different? Government is basically a corporate system itself, just a not for profit corporation.

[Robespierre]

Without governments, don't you think corporations would just take the place of governments?

It's not impossible that some might. In that case, my arguments against governments would still apply. If murder is wrong for one group, it is wrong for all groups.


How would the world be any different? Government is basically a corporate system itself, just a not for profit corporation.

Most governments, including the US government, have no functional similarity to corporations. Investors need not be satisfied for a government to remain in power. We can't sell our stock in the US Government if we don't like it, as they violently control that aspect of their existence. Corporations can't toss people in jail who refuse to buy their products. Stop paying income taxes and see how long it takes for them to find you.

No, there is a fundamental and morally important difference: governments are NOT OPTIONAL, corporations, where not involved with governments, must operate on an entirely voluntary basis.

[coffeezombie]

Most governments, including the US government, have no functional similarity to corporations. Investors need not be satisfied for a government to remain in power. We can't sell our stock in the US Government if we don't like it, as they violently control that aspect of their existence. Corporations can't toss people in jail who refuse to buy their products. Stop paying income taxes and see how long it takes for them to find you.


Well, in such a system, you sell your money in one corporation only to buy stock in another corporation. Basically, it's either the same as emigrating or electing a new government. The way I see it, a world without a government has these two major disadvantages.

1. There is no force in place to correct for market inefficiencies.
2. Those with more money have more power, and have the financial incentive to keep their class of people continually in power. In a representative democratic government system, each person still counts as one vote, no matter how much money he or she has, and a more equal society is created through the mechanism of "buying votes."

Thus without a government, you are enslaving a large portion of the human race to corporate powers. If you have so little feeling for others that you can willingly do that to so many members of your fellow species, then perhaps libertarianism is best for you.

[Robespierre]

Well, in such a system, you sell your money in one corporation only to buy stock in another corporation.

Why must that be so? Why must you own stock in ANY corporation? And what would prevent someone from selling off one stock and simply keeping that money? What forces that individual to re-invent that money into another corporation?


Basically, it's either the same as emigrating or electing a new government.

Actually, it isn't. Property rights are not respected if you choose to change governments. You must lose your land property in order to change government. And there is no legitimate case for the US government to claim to own or have previously owned most of the property within the US. This would be like cancelling your cell phone service, and being forced to hand over your car.


The way I see it, a world without a government has these two major disadvantages.

1. There is no force in place to correct for market inefficiencies.

Define a market inefficiency. You assume, by stating this, that there is one objective goal for markets to achieve, else how could you measure their efficiency? Is there a correct price for oil, above and beyond that agreed upon by two individuals?


2. Those with more money have more power, and have the financial incentive to keep their class of people continually in power.

Certainly people who have more property have more to control, but they have an equal amount of control over other people, that amount being zero.


In a representative democratic government system, each person still counts as one vote, no matter how much money he or she has, and a more equal society is created through the mechanism of "buying votes."

The democratic system is one of the worst forms of government imaginable. What right do any of my neighbors have to vote over whether or not I should be allowed to consume certain substances, or any other act performed by nation-states which infringes individual liberties?


Thus without a government, you are enslaving a large portion of the human race to corporate powers.

This is often repeated, but rarely explained. How exactly, without the help of governments, can corporations, or the rich in general, enslave anyone?


If you have so little feeling for others that you can willingly do that to so many members of your fellow species, then perhaps libertarianism is best for you.

Again, you've yet to explain how promoting individual liberty is equivalent to enslaving the entire human race. Freedom is slavery, very Orwellian.

[coffeezombie]

Those with money have power over those without money. Without redistribution of wealth, corporations will use the desire for money that all people have to essentially enslave them. Basically libertarianism takes capitalism and makes it the form of government. What you will end up having is an oligarchy where corporate interests band together and keep money within their own greedy pockets. Enslaving at least half of the human species to "wage slavery" where they cannot earn enough to make ends meet is not freedom.

[Robespierre]

Those with money have power over those without money.

By what mechanism?


Without redistribution of wealth, corporations will use the desire for money that all people have to essentially enslave them.

Or, as has been demonstrated, corporations will act to satisfy the demands of the most people in order to make the most money in serving them. Really, there is no conceivable mechanism for the actions which you discuss, without a coercive government.


Basically libertarianism takes capitalism and makes it the form of government.

Not at all, that would be corporatism. I don't suggest that corporations replace government, I don't want ANY group to impose its values upon any other group by force.


What you will end up having is an oligarchy where corporate interests band together and keep money within their own greedy pockets.

How will they get and keep that money without interacting in a positive way with the rest of society?


Enslaving at least half of the human species to "wage slavery" where they cannot earn enough to make ends meet is not freedom.

Of course not, there is no such thing as wage slavery, where governments are not involved.

[coffeezombie]

By what mechanism?
By the mechanism that people need that money to live and will do whatever it takes to acquire such money



Or, as has been demonstrated, corporations will act to satisfy the demands of the most people in order to make the most money in serving them. Really, there is no conceivable mechanism for the actions which you discuss, without a coercive government.
Um, no, corporations only satisfy the demands of people because of government intervention and because of the presence of competitive forces. Without government intervention to force product standards and to price certain products fairly, and without government to break up monopolies, corporations are free to do whatever they want to people who need their product.



Not at all, that would be corporatism. I don't suggest that corporations replace government, I don't want ANY group to impose its values upon any other group by force.
I'm telling you that will happen though. If the rich amass all the weapons, what can you do to stop them without some kind of governmental social contract?



How will they get and keep that money without interacting in a positive way with the rest of society?
Well, it won't happen right away. I'm just telling you that it will eventually happen without mechanisms to redistribute wealth.



Of course not, there is no such thing as wage slavery, where governments are not involved.
This is ridiculous. Do you have any idea what the minimum wage would be without government intervention, if corporations could just decide what to pay on their own? Of course, labor unions help. but those are essentially governments with a power structure as well.

[sbw]

coffee--

just because employers would pay their employees less than the minimum wage if they were allowed to do so does not mean than any of said employees are victims of slavery. Say the minimum wage laws were removed and I could pay people 1 dollar per hour. The following would occur: employees with marketable skills would not come anywhere near me, because they could make more money elsewhere. The reason they could make more money elsewhere is because of specialization within industries. For instance, if I'm offering 1 dollar per hour to wait tables, a more high-class establishment would likely be willing to pay more (say, 2 dollars per hour) in order to attract the potential employees who possess marketable skills (in the profession of table-waiting, these would include friendliness, verbal dexterity, memorization/recollection, whatever)...as such, my theoretical restaurant would end up with a wait-staff comprised entirely of dumb, surly people and english-challenged immigrants (i.e., the potential employers that the higher-level employer within my industry would reject)...this circumstance, in turn, might inspire higher pay-rates at my shop, since one would expect higher revenues at a restaurant with friendly, competent employees than at a restaurant with dumb surly employees (or ones that can't understand your order in your native tongue), and one would also expect that if I own the restaurant, I wish to maximize my revenue...MARKET CORRECTION! VOILA!

this example was intended to illustrate that people earn more money than they otherwise would by providing VALUE. I will DESIRE pay them more than the minimum (whether defined by minimum wage legislation or, lacking that, however little I could get away with) if-and-only-if the value of the services which they provide justify such an action. As such, I would be entering into a voluntary transaction wherein I trade my money for the services of another person (who they themselves desire to sell their services in return for my money), rather than being coerced at the point of a gun as to how much I have to pay my employee (as is the case in any society where minimum wage laws exist).

I personally am of the opinion that this is a simpler system to keep track of than paying people more because they "need" it, or somehow "deserve" it (via some manner of altruistic lunacy bullshit).

Scott

[sbw]

oh, and other stuff I forgot: if these poor, downtrodden employees want to make more than the 1 dollar per hour that I am offering, they are free to do so; all they have to do is acquire more or better or different vocational skills. Talent gets paid; just look at all the felony convictions amongst professional athletes.

and robespierre, keep preaching the good word, man.

Scott

[Robespierre]

By the mechanism that people need that money to live and will do whatever it takes to acquire such money

That is the fundamental fact of life. And as I stated in the second amendment thread, it is why I can never endorse a coercive government.


Um, no, corporations only satisfy the demands of people because of government intervention and because of the presence of competitive forces.

What do you suppose corporations would do, with no government around? Would they start producing products that no one wants to buy? How would these corporations make money? The fundamental method by which businesses make money on the free market is catering to the demands of their customers. Without this, no business, on the free market, can survive.


Without government intervention to force product standards and to price certain products fairly, and without government to break up monopolies, corporations are free to do whatever they want to people who need their product.

Really? Whatever they want? And who would be there, forcing those people to buy their products?

There are a number of fallacies involved in this view, and it is difficult to unpack them all at once. Primarily, price controls and "quality" controls are tools of business, not the consumers. The bigger, more politically connected companies in the market use these schemes to limit competition, and gain coercive power over the market.


I'm telling you that will happen though. If the rich amass all the weapons, what can you do to stop them without some kind of governmental social contract?

The "rich" won't be able to extert any more coercive power over the people than anyone else can, without government around to actually give them real power. I think what you are describing actually IS a government.


Well, it won't happen right away. I'm just telling you that it will eventually happen without mechanisms to redistribute wealth.

And I tell you that any mechanism to redistribute wealth is one that must be based upon theft, and will always be corrupt. History proves me correct in this. All attempts to level out society have resulted in massive corruption, and often times had the opposite effect, that of expanding the poor class, while allowing the political class to solidify and extend their powers. The US UK and USSR are all good examples of this, in very different circumstances and backgrounds.


This is ridiculous. Do you have any idea what the minimum wage would be without government intervention

Well, without government violence, there would be no enforcible minimum. However, if one were to make projections as to what the average wage would be without government manipulation, one could expect it to be significantly higher.


if corporations could just decide what to pay on their own?

Can you imagine what would happen if there were no minimum price on milk? What if milk buyers were allowed to decide what price to pay on their own?

Labor is something that laborers sell. If they don't like the price, they won't sell. It's simple market economics.


Of course, labor unions help. but those are essentially governments with a power structure as well.

Labor unions are a form of organized crime. They move into some piece of private property and violently control some aspect of it. Labor unions are a disgraceful cancer on our society.

[Architectonic]

By what mechanism?

More money = more choice.

[Robespierre]

More money = more choice.

How does this impose upon anyone else though? The original statement was that the rich control the poor. How? Certainly if one has more property, one has more choices of what to do than those who have less. Yet this doesn't explain any mechanism for imposing any choices on others.

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS

[dubbeltop]

yeah baby finally the markets are out off control.Ceo of public companies turn private and get a huge financial reward.The board is ok the shareholders are ok Why? Because the people pay for it. But dont worry one day there greed will stop and we can start rebuilding society in a smaller way.