Are Corporations Bad For America?

[Pangloss]

Some interesting questions being asked in this thread. I like an elevated discussion.

 

One thing that I think people recognize here is that while I think we would all agree that it's bad when individual voices have no say in government, it's also bad when successful enterprises that have tons of relevent experience aren't listened to either. We want government to pay attention to that voice of experience and knowledge. We just want to make sure that it also understands that that voice has, by definition a very specific ulterior motive.

 

I'm actually reminded somewhat of the trade-off that the founding fathers made between the House and the Senate. They had to look at whether the most populous states should have the biggest voice in legislation, or whether all states should be equal in that regard. Obviously the comparison is not 100%, but I think there's a point to be made here about the value of compromise.

 

(But I don't think we want the same kind of compromise here that the founding fathers chose for congress! Eek, my analogy REALLY breaks down at that point....)

[Haezed]

I elaborated a great deal on my thoughts on this in post #17. If by limit you mean keep the maximum contribution, then yeah, I would.

 

I certainly agree that we should keep caps on individual contributions. There is a balance to be made to allow reasonable speech vrs allowing complete cooption of the democratic process. Where that line should be drawn is hard to say.

 

The first amendment excuse is awfully lame, since even the people who use it know it's just an excuse. It's the policy equivalent of the frivolous lawsuit: everybody knows it's bogus, but there's enough people in power benefitting from it (that is to say, all of them), that there's always someone willing to step up and make a case for the letter of law, spirit be damned. However, I also happen to think the letter argument is rather weak. It's quite the stretch to say that giving somebody money is "speech," "money talks" notwithstanding.

 

I respectfully disagree. The right to speak doesn't mean much these days without the ability to use the megaphone of TV, Radio, Print and, now, the internet. This takes money.

 

For this reason, the ACLU weighed in against a law which would have limited the total expenditures a candidate can make in a campaign.

 

The ACLU argued:

 

The state of Vermont would have us believe Act 64 is only about money and not about speech, when in fact the opposite is true," said ACLU senior staff attorney Mark Lopez, who is co-counsel in today's case. "A candidate who has reached the spending limit cannot even drive to the village green to deliver a political speech without violating the law, because mileage counts as an expenditure under this law."

 

I certainly don't see this as an "excuse." It's a legitimate POV.

[Haezed]

I'd say the reason they do bad things is because of lack of power in individual human beings.

 

No argument here. A group of people with the common objective of greed, if you want to be pejorative, or earning a living, are going to be more prone to moral failings than one individual. Groups dynamics come into play which can be very dangerous.

 

I remember a test my professor in group dynamics did with us. He gave out a math problem which was easy but had a trick. It was calculated to divide the class in half with one side being on the clearly right side and the other half clearly on the wrong. We were allowed to change groups if we realized we were wrong.

 

He then gave us 20 minutes to try to figure out a spokesperson who would advocate the correctness of our solution. After sitting down with the wrong group, I sat by myself and listened for five minutes before realizing we were flat wrong.

 

I told the group why we were wrong which was 100% the correct answer and went to the other side of the room where I was cheered while I was jokingly booed and called a traitor by my former group. No one else left that group even though it was crystal clear by this time that they had the wrong answer.

 

I'm sure everyone can think of real world examples where groups coalesce around the wrong answer, sometimes even on ethical issues. It just... happens.

 

The organization of corporations makes it inherently almost impossible for them to ever act for any reason other than the absolute maximization of profits. In other words, they are naturally utterly ammoral, insatiable monsters. That's why Google's slogan ("Don't be evil.") is such a big deal, and why most people are so cynical about it.

 

I don't see them as "utterly ammoral, insatiable monsters." I have known companies that are "good corporate citizens." All groups have their own cultures and not all of them are flat out evil or amoral. I take your point, however, that the bottom line is what matters and this is certainly true with some limits.

 

Basically agreed on 1 and 3, though, although I think you didn't really answer your own questions. You say they're necessary to be competitive, which is true, but that doesn't mean it's not a necessary evil, and it doesn't mean things can't ever change. It seems there's a gradual shift for more employee ownership, which HAS to be an improvement.

 

I'm not sure if companies owned by ESOPs are more "moral" than other companies and we have seen some movement from the public who want to buy into ethical/green mutual funds.

 

To answer your question, however, I see the danger of cooperations and they should certainly be regulated. These entities shouldn't get the benefit of being recognized as distinct artificial "persons" without corresponding burdens. I don't see them as evils.

[john5746]

Aren't corporations similar to a feudal system?

 

King - CEO

Nobles - Large Investors

Lords - Upper Management

Serfs - workers

 

I guess it is just too hard to compete without a strong King and Nobles. America's Kings seem to require more ransom than others for some reason. Maybe Americans in general want more? I know I do.

[Dak]

I don't like the idea of legislation. I prefer market solution.

 

two points:

 

1/ when it comes to stuff like anti-trust, vendor lockin, monopoly abuse, etc, there are no market solutions. the job of the govournment in a totally free market is to interfere with buisnesses just enough to ensure the that above don't happen.

 

2/ personally, i think the problem with megacorps is that they're too powerful, and can, to an extent, overcome market forses. like i said, why are so many megacorp dominated industrys so bad, from a consumer pov?

[swansont]

Let's not forget what money actually is -- the expression of civilized success at attaining an economic goal that benefits far more than the individual recipient. It's not automatically a corrupting influence, you know. There is a reason why we have checks and balances against the weight of popular opinion. The issue is not so much whether money should be completely removed from the equation, but rather whether there should be additional checks and balances against the influence of money.

 

I don't live in a democracy, and I don't want to. Not when the masses are running around demanding unpasteurized milk and screaming about how fire can't melt steel, thank you, no.

 

But we have a democratic component in the US, and making it so that money equates with influence confounds that. And when that influence comes from companies, rather than individuals, you have a situation where politicians will choose to look after the well-being of corporations instead of individuals. And last time I checked, the Constitution listed the rights people had, not corporations, and how the government is supposed to look after the interests of its citizens. So yes, I think there need to be additional checks and balances on how corporate money makes its way into political hands.

[ParanoiA]

two points:

 

1/ when it comes to stuff like anti-trust, vendor lockin, monopoly abuse, etc, there are no market solutions. the job of the govournment in a totally free market is to interfere with buisnesses just enough to ensure the that above don't happen.

 

2/ personally, i think the problem with megacorps is that they're too powerful, and can, to an extent, overcome market forses. like i said, why are so many megacorp dominated industrys so bad, from a consumer pov?

 

1/ Agreed and never said otherwise.

 

2/ Because we don't care. Just keep making cool little gizmos, video games and reality TV... This can be corrected however.

[jackson33]

Aren't corporations similar to a feudal system?

 

King - CEO

Nobles - Large Investors

Lords - Upper Management

Serfs - workers

 

I guess it is just too hard to compete without a strong King and Nobles. America's Kings seem to require more ransom than others for some reason. Maybe Americans in general want more? I know I do.

 

King, by birth right; CEO or CFO, generally achieved by a lifetime of work and achievement to attain the individuals dream.... occasionally the development of a product or service that with ingenuity and lack of a pool of such people choose to head their own company...Microsoft, Google, Apple just few.

 

Nobles, also by birth right; Large investors or the smallest all have a voice in the operation of any public company. one share will get you into any annual stockholders meeting and a voice.

 

Lords, birthright or special deed; upper management, again usually from hard work and the desire to achieve. you have no idea how many were born into poverty, self educated folks have achieved such status.

 

Serfs, generally conceived slaves; workers, folks that prefer leaving the responsibilities of business to others. additionally have chosen to perform labor for which they receive compensation. most have a voice in the conditions they work under and believe it or not refuse advancement at some point in their career.

 

Americans, really don't want much more than they achieve in their life. sure those that work hard, play by the rules and make the system work, would like more for what they do, but have the choice to do more or not.

 

there are so many story's in each successful business venture, it hurts to hear people talk down any form of the system. little Mom and Pops, to the giants have done so much for so many its ashame little credit is ever given. additionally these folks have tried and lost it all many time before they do achieve and just as many or more, try and never make it. the only gratification being the idea of effort.

[Dak]

2/ Because we don't care. Just keep making cool little gizmos, video games and reality TV... This can be corrected however.

 

really? so, if a company popped up offering, say, cd's for half their current price (easily doable, whilst still making a profit) that people wouldn't flock to buy from that record-shop, as opposed to HMV, virgin, etc?

 

the demand for cheaper anything is allways there, but its not allways met.

 

back to your op, i think multiple smaller buisnesses are where market forses are really felt. if there are 20 local cd shops, then the cheapest one is going to get the customers, so prices are driven down (within reason).

 

with just a few megacorporations dominating the industry, they keep prices high. why lower them to beat the opposition? the opposition will just lower their prices too, and then you'll both be making less. better to keep prices high, and squish any smaller startup companies that might come along and ruin the setup.

[Haezed]

back to your op, i think multiple smaller buisnesses are where market forses are really felt. if there are 20 local cd shops, then the cheapest one is going to get the customers, so prices are driven down (within reason).

 

Some of the richest people in small towns were the small merchants. Hence, Walmart came to be.

 

FWIW, one of the biggest impediments to small business formation is the health insurance crisis. People are far more willing to risk their money than their families' health.

[ParanoiA]

really? so, if a company popped up offering, say, cd's for half their current price (easily doable, whilst still making a profit) that people wouldn't flock to buy from that record-shop, as opposed to HMV, virgin, etc?

 

Well, keep this in the context of my original point on the matter...which was that an educated public can force businesses to be ethical using their purchase power. In theory, if the public really did do this kind of thing, then I doubt drastic price cuts would rule the day, although I'm sure you would see it and it would have some success.

 

back to your op, i think multiple smaller buisnesses are where market forses are really felt. if there are 20 local cd shops, then the cheapest one is going to get the customers, so prices are driven down (within reason).

 

I completely agree. My only reservation at this point is how realistic that is. I don't want to deceive myself into believing 20 small businesses can match the job of one huge business if it's unworkable. Economics is not my strong point so I'm not sure.

[Dak]

Well, keep this in the context of my original point on the matter...which was that an educated public can force businesses to be ethical using their purchase power. In theory, if the public really did do this kind of thing, then I doubt drastic price cuts would rule the day, although I'm sure you would see it and it would have some success.

 

i only half agree with this. sticking with buying audio cds as an example, what'r my options? to buy from a megacorp at extortionate rates, to go without music, or to buy online (with the megacorps making a concerted effort to prevent the latter from being an option)... there exist hardly any small music vendors that i can use my purchasing power to promote.

 

now that online music purchase is becoming easyer, i suspect audio cds will drop in price, but before then there was little choice, and little choice == little consumer power.

 

but i agree that lack of thought when buying is a huge contributer to the problem.

 

 

I completely agree. My only reservation at this point is how realistic that is. I don't want to deceive myself into believing 20 small businesses can match the job of one huge business if it's unworkable. Economics is not my strong point so I'm not sure.

 

good point. megacorps can manufacture and distribute cheaper and more effectively than multiple smaller companies; but, they can also get away with charging more. it seems that, more often than not, the two combine to be overall more expensive for the consumer, but that might be a false perception.

 

innovation is arguably more feasable with megacorps, so maybe there's a 'trickle-down' effect that compensates? tho even then it seems the innovation isn't neccesarily geared towards benifiting the consumer.

 

FWIW, one of the biggest impediments to small business formation is the health insurance crisis. People are far more willing to risk their money than their families' health.

 

health insurance crisis?

[Haezed]

health insurance crisis?

 

As in the high cost thereof?

[Sisyphus]

Indeed. That's one of the reasons I favor socialized medicine, to help out entrepreneurs and small businesses. But I guess that's off-topic.