gut;1230576 wrote:Ahhh, liberal naivete. You give away your product/service, either to buyers or workers, and soon there's nothing left to give away. And, again, these corporations are funded by investors - including mom & pop - who demand a return on their investment. Investment funds with a mandate to invest in green or "benevolent" companies are mostly fringe products and typically underperform. So while plenty of people pound the table for what you are claiming, when it comes time to put their money where their mouth is they tend to do the opposite.

gosh a ruddies that is not very benign of them.

gut;1230575 wrote:But you're wrong, they're not soulless. The workers and shareholders are the soul of these companies. Your beef is with those PEOPLE (and that's a WHOLE LOT of people), not the inanimate object that is a corporation.

Again, a lot of this goes back to a sense of entitlement, rather than lack of "fairness" over people whining not about what they are willing to pay (i.e. price dictated by supply and demand) but what they WANT to pay (which is always a number far less, often approaching zero).

a major reason for their creation is to separate people from the business. It is the corporation doing things, not a person. Produce a dangerous product, the corporation is responsible. practice discrimination in hiring and firing, the corporation is responsible. have an unhealthy work environment, the corpotion is responsible. not the guy in middle management or mom and pop investor but the corporation.
of course the corporations have had "people whining about what they were being paid." Those men working 16 hour days a minimal wage, those women working in dangerous conditions, those 10 year old children putting in a full day for a half day''s pay." Good old days for corporatiions when you did not have to mess with those damned whiners.

isadore;1230587 wrote:a major reason for their creation is to separate people from the business.

Like I said, it's to share risk & costs. Without limited liability, you kill innovation. That may not be of concern to people on the bottom of the totem poll, but take away the big office buildings with the big corporations and there's a lot less work for janitors, too.

If it's such a sweet deal then go start your own corporation. It's a free country.

gut;1230670 wrote:Like I said, it's to share risk & costs. Without limited liability, you kill innovation. That may not be of concern to people on the bottom of the totem poll, but take away the big office buildings with the big corporations and there's a lot less work for janitors, too.

If it's such a sweet deal then go start your own corporation. It's a free country.

you kill innovation. as if there was no innovation and invention without corporations. gosh all those inventions and discovery of ancient times done without corporations, all those of the enlightenment without corporations, those that began the industrial revolution without corporations, when morse, bell and farnsworth not in corporation when they invented the telegraph, telephone and television. You know when jobs and wozniak built the first apple computer and released to the market as Apple 1, they were not yet incorporated. Gosh people innovate and invent without being in incorporations. You obviously don't kill innovation.
No thank you, i have a conscience.
most corporations are small and private and seemingly no major threat. But the big ones that dominate our economy are truly soulless, conscienceless artifical entity.

isadore;1230581 wrote:they are soulless entities that have no obligation to be a positive force for humanity.

Exactly. No obligation at all!

isadore;1230691 wrote:you kill innovation. as if there was no innovation and invention without corporations.

You're getting there, but you're still pretty clueless

Con_Alma;1230832 wrote:Exactly. No obligation at all!

no obligation for us to allow them to exist.

gut wrote:Shame on those eviil corporations!

gosh, you may be developing a conscience.

isadore;1231001 wrote:gosh, you may be developing a conscience.

Do you think our country would be better or worse if corporations never existed?

I think the problem from the get go when corporartions are allowed to operate without strong government oversight. they are conscienceless.

isadore;1231022 wrote:I think the problem from the get go when corporartions are allowed to operate without strong government oversight. they are conscienceless.

So things that are run by the government have a conscience?

Al Bundy;1231066 wrote:So things that are run by the government have a conscience?

ultimately in a democracy uncorrupted by corporate influence, they reflect the will of the people

isadore;1231073 wrote:ultimately in a democracy uncorrupted by corporate influence, they reflect the will of the people

Wouldn't a coporation reflect the will of the people? If people do not buy the product or service that the corporation supplies, the corporation goes out of business. Something that is government run stays in business no matter how poorly it is run.

Al Bundy;1231082 wrote:Wouldn't a coporation reflect the will of the people? If people do not buy the product or service that the corporation supplies, the corporation goes out of business. Something that is government run stays in business no matter how poorly it is run.

For you corporate types the only goal of our society is the production of goods and services at a profit. Corporations can do this. But without control the peripheral damage to our society is enormous. In the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century without regulation corporations were quite willing to work men, women and children to the limit and then throw them on scrap heap. It caused untold suffering to families, but we got cheap goods and services. Then and now corporations corrupt and undermine our government with their lobbying and money. But gosh they make a profit and their corporate officers are richly rewarded for it.

isadore;1231088 wrote:For you corporate types the only goal of our society is the production of goods and services at a profit. Corporations can do this. But without control the peripheral damage to our society is enormous. In the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century without regulation corporations were quite willing to work men, women and children to the limit and then throw them on scrap heap. It caused untold suffering to families, but we got cheap goods and services. Then and now corporations corrupt and undermine our government with their lobbying and money. But gosh they make a profit and their corporate officers are richly rewarded for it.

So we should go back to a society where everyone grows their own food and livestock? Do you think the farmers of the 19th century worked any less hard than a factory worker?

isadore;1231088 wrote:For you corporate types the only goal of our society is the production of goods and services at a profit.

Only govt can continue to sustain itself while piling on massive debt. I'm floored that you think there is any other way a corporation could, or should, act other than to produce at a profit. Your views suggest a complete ignorance of the concept of limited and finite resources.

These corporations make things like this happen...

Al Bundy;1231093 wrote:So we should go back to a society where everyone grows their own food and livestock? Do you think the farmers of the 19th century worked any less hard than a factory worker?

not 52 weeks a year. i believe in a society where businesses are regulated so the harm they do society is minimized, this would be especially true of business chartered by the government and given special advantages such as being consider economic entities with the right to hire, fire, borrow, lend, and make contracts.

gut;1231108 wrote:Only govt can continue to sustain itself while piling on massive debt. I'm floored that you think there is any other way a corporation could, or should, act other than to produce at a profit. Your views suggest a complete ignorance of the concept of limited and finite resources.

i am completely floored you believe corporations should not be regulated to protect society from the obvious harm they have done to it when and where they are unrestricted.

OSH;1231109 wrote:These corporations make things like this happen...

gosh they are making a profit and that makes it fine. HSBC is the bank of choice for terrorists and drug lords, but what the heck they make a profit for their shareholders.
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-hsbc-senate-20120717,0,3041182.story

isadore;1231111 wrote:not 52 weeks a year. i believe in a society where businesses are regulated so the harm they do society is minimized, this would be especially true of business chartered by the government and given special advantages such as being consider economic entities with the right to hire, fire, borrow, lend, and make contracts.

Do you have any clue what things were like for the 19th century farmer? You complain about the corporation working people 6 days a week, the farmer worked 7 days a week. A farmer worked from sunrise to sunset. It took much longer to do all of the tasks 120+ years ago because the evil corporations had not yet developed the things to make work easier. While the factories were not ideal situations, many people moved from farms to the cities because it was easier than working on the farm. Also, the owners of the corporation carried all of the financial risk instead of the farmer.

I used to hate corporations but now that I see isadore hates them I decided I like them so sorry I cannot contribute to this conversation.

Al Bundy;1231116 wrote:Do you have any clue what things were like for the 19th century farmer? You complain about the corporation working people 6 days a week, the farmer worked 7 days a week. A farmer worked from sunrise to sunset. It took much longer to do all of the tasks 120+ years ago because the evil corporations had not yet developed the things to make work easier. While the factories were not ideal situations, many people moved from farms to the cities because it was easier than working on the farm. Also, the owners of the corporation carried all of the financial risk instead of the farmer.

that is wrong they did not work sun up to sun set 52 weeks a year, it is not true. people left the farm in the post bellum era because farm could not support the large families that lived there. before they had a choice to move unto new lands but as the country became settled and as farm work became mechanized they had no choice but go to the city to seek employment in the exploitive factories. its nice to see someone defend the corporations that worked men, women and children until they were hurt or too sick and then threw them out to suffer. you have a real place in corporate management.

mcburg93;1231117 wrote:I used to hate corporations but now that I see isadore hates them I decided I like them so sorry I cannot contribute to this conversation.

which is a gain to the quality of discourse.

isadore;1231125 wrote:that is wrong they did not work sun up to sun set 52 weeks a year, it is not true. people left the farm in the post bellum era because farm could not support the large families that lived there. before they had a choice to move unto new lands but as the country became settled and as farm work became mechanized they had no choice but go to the city to seek employment in the exploitive factories. its nice to see someone defend the corporations that worked men, women and children until they were hurt or too sick and then threw them out to suffer. you have a real place in corporate management.

You believe in "the will of the people", correct? If someone chooses to take a job where he can work 6 days a week instead of 7, why they shouldn't he be allowed to exercise that option?