Phi for All

Corporations, especially the biggest ones, are chiefly concerned with making a profit. The biggest will pay enormous bonuses to executives who can map out a way to make another half a percent (for a company like General Electric, half a percent more profit figures out to be over $72M). They will perform every legal contortion they can to make that profit. Sometimes, breaking the rules is even profitable. Microsoft is famous for paying SEC fines that were in excess of $10,000 a day because they stood to make a great deal more. As long as fines were the only cost to them, they could crunch the numbers and still make money. The key here is the regulations. If the fines aren't stiff enough, we need to raise them. If they allow a manufacturer to put too much pollution into the air or water, we need to write tougher regs. The corporation officers don't want to go to jail, so make sure jail time is part of the consequences. Stop their ability to soften the laws and regulations and you can stop the practices that hurt the country. The corporations will claim they're being stifled, that the market is threatened, that what they do is best for everyone. They'll spend a carefully calculated amount of money trying to keep things in their favor, but won't exceed an amount that isn't profitable. If we stay tough, hold them to high standards and make them wipe their feet before they come tracking filth into THIS house, they will eventually realize the cost of scamming the system is too high. The corporations aren't evil, they're just like the scorpion in the story. It's in their nature to ruthlessly pursue profit. Toughen the regulations, make it clear this is the framework in which they have to operate if they want US business, and they will adjust and turn their sights on other ways to squeeze another half a percent out. They won't leave as long as there is profit to be made. Science needs to be funded by the public to stand as a benchmark for reality, and to discover new means of utilizing a work force that has lost it's former trades. Since we already have twice the military budget of any other nation on earth, we could afford to divert just 10% towards scientific research and still have plenty of security for the country. If we stopped the Bush tax cuts and ended our costly wars we could further improve research and pioneer work that the US needs to prosper. And while we're at it, let's stomp on the idea of privatizing everything and start funding public education again. I feel that's a priority that has too long been neglected and one that will haunt us for a generation or more. Public schools work if you take your foot off their neck.

First, the "reason" is in the rules we all agreed to when we joined. Second, when the thread strays into another subject section, there is no "threat", we have only two choices: delete or move, both are "actions", based on "reason". We deleted only the off-topic complaints about the move to Religion. I moved it back into a science section, the best compromise available to me. Aren't you being a little dogmatic yourself, Mr Convinced-He's-Right? At least you didn't run off with our ball. I'm saving your post, in case you decide maybe you were being hypercritical. If not, I look forward to your complaint thread. We save those, too.

! Moderator Note Off-topic posts have been removed. I'm going to move this to the Speculations forum strictly because the thread started out attempting science but moved to more religious responses. If it can continue in a scientific vein we can leave it here, otherwise it will be moved back to Religion.

In the US, our National Public Radio is supposed to be like that. I find them more informative than any televised news, they have sponsorship from private business but no real obligation to them and no commercials are allowed. Since Republicans are against anything the federal government sponsors that could be part of the economic market, they tend to view NPR coverage as slanted towards liberals. Since the Democrats support social programs like NPR, it furthers the Republican notion of bias. They may not be completely objective but I find them more so than any other news broadcast. It actually surprises me that more people don't appreciate a news program that tries to report the news as neutrally as possible. I'll bet a poll would show most people want just the facts so they could make their own decisions (seems like a likely default position, right?). To me, it's very important to have differing perspectives, and I especially like hearing what the BBC has to say about US news. I've heard stories there that aren't even covered by US sources.

I would say it's the way the technology is used that is to blame. We make things affordable on the front end and then pay the consequences on the back end. We've wasted a lot of resources on inefficient convenience. Technology also helped make us aware of the problem, so it's not all bad. It will most likely play a great part in helping to deal with it, too.

Perhaps this is why FOX News viewers tend to know less about the news. They want the talking heads to chew for them and spit out an opinion so they don't have to form one of their own. I mean, golly, being informed is HARD work!

We're too concerned with short-term economic costs and not enough with long-term resource costs. To me, the "rape"comes from not being as efficient as we can. We'd rather the gasoline and automobiles be cheap and pay for the pollution in terms of our health and disaster cleanups than require more efficiency to begin with. We have this mentality that five $20 shirts that last two years are better than a single $100 shirt that lasts four years. We trade the luxurious feel, durability and obvious aesthetics of the higher quality garment for the cheap variety and convenience of the lesser. We consume too much of the environment in the name of commerce and don't require that our resources be carefully husbanded. Perhaps our pride could come from a judicious use of our fair portion of the planet. Maybe other species could survive with us if we weren't burning up their habitats while we rejoice and glory in ourselves.

Link to enough scientific knowledge to know fact from fiction. Also fun.

It's difficult to trust any "journalist" who's interests conflict with that of either their employer or their sponsors. Yet another reason why corporations shouldn't be allowed to own the media. In fairness, at least CBS and News Corp are media exclusive mega-corporations, unlike General Electric that manufactures products globally and also owns major media outlets.

It makes me want to cry. They have such a huge following. I watched an interview with Hannity where he used www.homelandsecurityus.com as a source supporting his contention that Sheik Gilani and his followers were on a terrorist watchlist (they had, in fact, been removed from such a list two years prior to the interview). The actual US Homeland Security website is www.dhs.gov. FOX viewers accepted a private .com site as official government evidence condemning people as terrorists because FOX "journalists" said so, an obviously deliberate deception. It's no wonder FOX News viewers know so little about reality.

Perhaps. Or the incentives to bringing resources which will be used primarily in the US could offset the lost advantages for under-employment of US personnel. I'm not sure I like that, though. It also bothers me that the Republican platform keystone is free market competition, while at the same time they lobby for special consideration and taxpayer subsidies for certain players in certain industries. Reagan allowed a small group of US sugar barons to clamp down on imports of cheap sugar, setting up a complicated loan program through the Dept of Agriculture that assures certain prices to them. Imports were half the market but now only account for 15%, with tariffs driving the price up over what US sugar sells for, which is twice what the rest of the world pays. In all, US consumers pay an extra $2B/year because of this subsidy. It benefits no one but a few players and the subsidies actually amount to paying extra taxes for the privilege of paying higher sugar prices. You can't even argue about the jobs the sugar industry creates, because keeping the system in place costs $826,000 for each sugar production job saved. How on earth can that be considered anti-tax, pro-market or pro-consumer, Republicans? Who are you going to nominate to redress this atrocity against the market? Where's your messiah now?

Last year, they paid, let's see, add the 2, carry the 1... NOTHING! To be fair, they took advantage of every loophole and write-off the government allows, but as you said, how much influence do they have on legislating those write-offs and loopholes? That's a big reason why corporate influence in politics HAS to be severely restrained. They're messing around with free market competition, the Republican Holy Grail. At the very least, I'd like to see some regs stating that a company that claims to be American and gets US tax advantages and incentives has to have at least 51% of it's work force in the US. That should fit right in with the Republican platform. In fact, it fits so well, you could propose it and watch all the Republican politicians who scream about it, knowing that those are the guys deep in the corporate pockets. Line those bastards up against the wall first.

Monopolies are not a question of morality, it's an unfair advantage affecting the market. Corruption is unchecked except by regulation when there is no competitor for the market to turn to. Some alternatives may be available that completely bypass a core product group, but if GE is allowed to corner the market on light bulbs, would you seriously consider using candles instead? If so, what if I had the monopoly on fire extinguishers? I'm still very concerned with the neo-con influence on GOP-sponsored legislation. It all seems aimed at benefiting not just business, but certain businesses. No Child Left Behind has had crippling effects on public education, but has profited GW Bush's brother Neil very well. After Neil was barred from banking following the Silverado debacle, he started Ignite Learning, a company that makes software that teaches schools how to take the comprehensive tests NCLB is all about. Similarly, the no-bid defense contracts that Halliburton enjoyed are an affront to free market sensibilities, especially when parts of those contracts cost 2-3 times what individual contractors would have charged. And don't even get me started on how fiscally irresponsible it was to deny Medicare the right to negotiate discounts on prescription drugs under the Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003. To me, fiscal responsibility is all about efficiency and long-range effects. I hope we can find a Republican who actually follows the Republican platform so voters can at least feel represented by their party.

Which is why federally regulated programs are particularly effective for the nation as a whole. The wealthy are still wealthy and the poor aren't devastatingly poor. The wealthy get the benefits of a happier, smarter, healthier work force for the businesses they own while still enjoying the advantages of privilege, and life is more bearable for those who have no such advantages. The best solutions are those that take everything into consideration, and don't just focus on the extreme ends of the spectrum.

This is a great example of where Ron Paul goes too far. Road costs can be drastically reduced by other means, whereas privatization could do nothing but raise them. Boo, Ron Paul! I agree with his stance on fiscal responsibility (I used to call myself fiscally conservative, but now I truly dislike what that has come to mean). I agree with him about not policing the world with aggressive military actions against sovereign nations. But like most extremist positions, his "purist" ideology fails to take reality into consideration and he dives right into the fringe. While I can certainly understand removing cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, I'm not as sure about legalizing all drugs. While I'd welcome a reform of the Social Security Act, abolishing it would only increase costs through privatization. And he's obviously enjoying some kind of controlled substance if he thinks monopolies should be allowed with only the concept of a voluntary contract to keep them honest.

Why is it people who whine about paying taxes for shared services suddenly grasp the concept when it's insurance? They don't mind the masses joining the risk pool to drive down their costs of owning a bunch of toys then. But when it comes to things like social programs, or public libraries, or public schools, or swimming pools, or a family protection fund like Social Security, things they likely won't get much direct use from, they scream about the burden. Yet these things improve the quality of life for the majority of citizens, and make those citizens more capable and productive, something you'd think the Libertarians and the wealthy would appreciate. I know why the wealthy don't want to pay for these things the lower classes enjoy more. But I would ask even the Libertarians who want to privatize everything, what will happen when education is privatized? Are you going to be OK with it when the corporations still want K-12 education to be mandatory until age 18? How does that fit in with your idea of free market capitalism with no government intervention? Because you know there will be many lower income families who won't be able to afford the much higher cost of privatized education for their children, and that's a market that the education corporations won't want to miss out on.

Because that's worked out so well where? Adjust for inflation and rising costs and I'm still paying 25% more for my utilities since they went private. Here's a study that might help your perspective. Privatize Social Security? Do you have any concept of the disaster we'd be in right now if Bush's plan to privatize SS during his second term had been successful? You'd have a bunch of even richer bankers and a nation full of retired homeless people. And how could any private library be operated at the level I enjoy right now without charging me at least 25% more in order to satisfy their stockholders? As for roads, there are better ways to save taxes than privatization. In Germany, home of the Autobahn (which is no different in concept than the Interstate Highway system in the US), they use asphalt just like most countries, yet they spend a fraction of what we pay per mile on road maintenance. They also have glass-smooth roads that last for many years without needing costly repairs. What’s their secret? They let the asphalt cure for 3 months before they let anyone drive on it. They divert traffic and drivers are made aware of alternate routes. After the asphalt cures it wears like iron and is pure heaven to drive on. On one hand, road maintenance employs a ton of people, from the workers to the asphalt manufacturers. Letting us drive on fresh asphalt means less time waiting for our favorite roads to become available again. But we pay a lot in taxes and get terrible roads in return. On the other hand, letting them cure would mean a huge savings in taxes. We’d also spend less on vehicle maintenance due to fewer potholes. And we’d have better roads to drive on. But we’d have to detour longer. Sorry to go all off-topic, but privatization is just bad, imo. Some folks just don't want to have to pay taxes so the lesser folks can enjoy a swimming pool. Unless they own the pool....

How do you argue even a slightly higher tax rate for people who are convinced they don't need the programs it gets spent on? I swear there are some disconnected brains out there that can't figure out who builds the roads and the libraries. I read something recently in that regard. I'll try to find it. They were trying to equate Blackwater Security to Hitler's brownshirts.

I always knock with my hand. You're thinking of what I use for the doorbell. And you're thinking really hard, I can tell. I hope this doesn't cause Mystery111 to change his plans to come back.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations due the speculatory nature of the thread. Science News is for reported stories about science. Upon review, if the hypothesis can pass the tests of scientific methodology, it will be moved to the appropriate section in the accepted sciences.

OWS is calling for the repeal of legislation that has given corporations and banks an unfair advantage, such as the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which creates some very dangerous conflicts of interest in banking. I think they realize that the banks and corporations have unfairly manipulated the government, and are interested in using the government system to level the playing field, in addition to changing some key policies regarding profiteering in general. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the Tea Party and the OWS movements uniting their efforts. If they would each give up their most radical and conflicting ideals and focus on curbing the political influence of big business, I think they could gain even more widespread endorsements. There are lots of businesses in the US that aren't interested in sacrificing their integrity and personnel for growth by any means possible.

Don't need to. As soon as Mystery111 leaves, we teach him the secret knock and then lock all the doors.

I set the detonator on your tracking device for 5 months, just to give you some wiggle room. Good luck and make sure you come back.

You're... looking up... the answers?! Oh, no, that's just... wrong.

I've done this one with four lines before, but never three. I'll be interested to see the answer.