Corporate Personhood

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

So you approve of some of the tricks Romney used to make money for his investors, like buying a company that employs thousands of Americans, then bleeding off its cash and forcing it to take on the debts of some of his other holdings, then taking a big tax write-off when it's forced to close its doors and kick those workers to the curb? Is that your idea of free-market capitalism? I think it's horrible when the real heroes of the American economy, those businesses that not only play by the rules but also by the spirit of the rules, are getting hedged out by these mega-corporations that just pay to re-write the rules when it suits them.

While I can see your point on this, and even though I think it sucks, I still don't think the solution is government control. Could it be argued that those companies were not as profitable as people think and that the dismantleing of those companies was the best solution from a profit perspective if not inevitable sometime in the future? Seeing a company lose it's workers is hard, but that has been the way of business from the beginning. It seems that you present your argument from a perspective of fairness, without objectively looking at the situation. Anyone that loses their job would look upon it as unfair, as would the eople who empathize with them. But if we start arguing right and wrong from that perspective then no company will ever go under or dismantle. This was one big issue with me during the bailouts. I was strictly against such an act and felt that it would have cleansed the economy rather than boost it.(which there hasn't been much boosting as a result has there?)

 

 

Do you think any Clear Channel news editor would ever run a story about a Bain Capital holding that laid off a thousand workers and sent their jobs overseas right at Christmas time? Owning 850 radio stations means no one who counts on you for news is ever going to hear a bad word about your other companies.

I think to support your statement, it would have to be shown that clearchannel stations were pounding other companies on a certain subject while ignoring Bain Capitol of commiting the same offenses. Is that happening?

 

Do you think they would ever run an op-ed piece on how strange it is that the GOP is backing a candidate who is one of the Wall Street kingpin crowd that the majority of economists on the planet says was instrumental in causing the 2008 financial crisis that cost 8,000,000 American jobs adn plunged the whole world into turmoil? They don't have to lie to misuse the power of the press. They can simply not report things they think will harm their employer's other businesses.

 

From a list of their companies: The firm was founded in 1984 by partners from the consulting firm Bain & Company. Since inception it has invested in or acquired hundreds of companies including such notable companies as AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.

 

It doesn't seem like THIS wall street kingpin had anything to do with the financial crisis. Why make the connection?

 

Information is power and the media shapes public opinion which elects our legislators. Tell me you see how reducing competition and allowing these companies unbridled access to our lawmakers is a huge conflict of interest, PLEASE!

Yes, I do see your point. I just don't think that government control over who says what is any better. These companies may have reduced owners, but they have also managed to prosper in the employment of thousands of more people. Plus I think you're blowing the level of media coverage out of portion. The majority of media that catches my attention is that which opposes conservatives more than promotes them. Now I have absolutely no proof that this is the case, but that is just my perspective when I think about it.

 

Is that what you think, that once a regulation is in place that "they are hardly ever given any relief"?! What about the people those regs protect? What happens when politicians gut the regulations like Bush II did, to give these corporations some "relief"? Did that end up solving any problems for anybody but the guys at the top? How has that worked out for us?

You're going to have to be more specific. I'm clear on exactly what angle of business we are arguing with this statement.

[Phi for All]

JustinW, I think it's pretty clear you and I have completely different ideas about corporate governance and the responsibility it entails. You seem fine with executives doing anything they like within the law that makes them money, while I think a corporate charter carries with it an accountability to it's investors as well as the people it's made up of and the country or state that grants that charter. People, real people, want security and longevity for their hard work, not short-sighted executives who will sell them out to leverage a quick sale that makes them billions NOW but leaves destitute all the workers who were willing to sweat to make them hundreds of billions in the long run.

 

I don't believe in too-big-to-fail and bailouts, and I also don't believe in too big to prosecute either, but Wall street wants to have their cake and eat it too. Too many of these guys scream free market while they vie for no-bid contracts that squelch competition, and you seem to be OK with that, too. They don't want big government but they want to be subsidized with taxpayer money and again, you shrug and agree.

 

Both of us seem to love our country, but I think things are pretty shitty right now and you don't. I really think you're conflating some of the businesses you've worked for, probably great examples of what corporations should be, with these mega-corporations that can buy political influence and change laws for profit no matter what the cost is to We, the People.

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

People, real people, want security and longevity for their hard work, not short-sighted executives who will sell them out to leverage a quick sale that makes them billions NOW but leaves destitute all the workers who were willing to sweat to make them hundreds of billions in the long run.

It's wierd how an individual would willing work for someone like that. It seems to me that they are free to work where they choose. I know, I know, the economy is in a state that makes it difficult for people to make that kind of choice. But the freedom of choice is still there.

 

 

I don't believe in too-big-to-fail and bailouts, and I also don't believe in too big to prosecute either, but Wall street wants to have their cake and eat it too.

I don't either. I believe in no bailouts what-so-ever, and prosecuting ANY one who breaks the law. There are no ifs ands or buts about that. It should be cut and dry.

 

 

Both of us seem to love our country, but I think things are pretty shitty right now and you don't.

I don't think we disagree about things being shitty either. I just think we disagree about how to go about fixing them.

 

 

I really think you're conflating some of the businesses you've worked for

Maybe to some degree.

 

 

with these mega-corporations that can buy political influence and change laws for profit no matter what the cost is to We, the People.

And I've already agreed that this practice shouldn't go on. I've already stated that business shouldn't manipulate policy. I feel that if there is a real issue affecting business, they can take that up the way us regular citezens do.

[questionposter]

If corporations are people, then corporations are psychopaths who need to see a psychiatrist 24/7.

Edited April 16, 2012 by questionposter

[DrDNA]

Don't be such a tease, Doc. At least cut my steak for me, too, while you're feeling so generous.

 

What size would you the pieces of your steak before I feed them to you?

BTW> Since I am so generous, and feeling especially so at the moment, it is Filet Mignon. You can thank me later.

[imatfaal]

Phi - sorry for this bit of thread necromancy, but read an interesting tidbit and I know that corporate personality is a subject that really exercises you. The next Archbishop of Canterbury and most senior Bishop of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion is an ex high-powered oil exec and after his Damascene moment enrolled at a theological college and studied to be anglican priest. His thesis brought both parts of his learning and experience together - "Can Companies Sin?"; I gather it makes the (natural?) extension from a corporation being a legal person to thus also being a moral agent. I will be trying to get hold of a review/e-copy/summary and will let you know if I can find a link. Makes a change for the ArchBish to be a lawyer/economist rather than a classicist; unfortunately it also means that almost all the powerful men (and they are all men) in power in UK went to the same posh-boys school - Eton College

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20242129

[Phi for All]

Phi - sorry for this bit of thread necromancy, but read an interesting tidbit and I know that corporate personality is a subject that really exercises you. The next Archbishop of Canterbury and most senior Bishop of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion is an ex high-powered oil exec and after his Damascene moment enrolled at a theological college and studied to be anglican priest. His thesis brought both parts of his learning and experience together - "Can Companies Sin?"; I gather it makes the (natural?) extension from a corporation being a legal person to thus also being a moral agent. I will be trying to get hold of a review/e-copy/summary and will let you know if I can find a link. Makes a change for the ArchBish to be a lawyer/economist rather than a classicist; unfortunately it also means that almost all the powerful men (and they are all men) in power in UK went to the same posh-boys school - Eton College

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20242129

I would love to see that.

 

I was actually thinking about reviving this thread myself, since my state voted to draft a proposition limiting campaign contributions by corporations. Montana went even further and established a policy that denies corporate personhood based on the Citizens United ruling because corporations are NOT people.

[ecoli]

I would love to see that.

 

I was actually thinking about reviving this thread myself, since my state voted to draft a proposition limiting campaign contributions by corporations. Montana went even further and established a policy that denies corporate personhood based on the Citizens United ruling because corporations are NOT people.

I don't mind if corporations are considered people... In fact, polygamists should incorporate themselves, that way any arbitrary number of people would be reduced to a single personhood and they can marry an abitrary number of incorporated people, reincorporate, ad naseum. I haven't read the legislation, but if this is a legitimate hack it would drive conservatives crazy.