"corporate occupied territory"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by krossfyter, Feb 23, 2004.

  1. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #1
    Naders got me thinking a lot about this aspect of politics. How bad is it up there? Is it really all that bad or has he created a bigger issue then there really is?

    Nader has in his mind that corporate = satan I believe. I'm not naive enough to think for a second that corporations do not do bad thinks... i know they do... but how many do good things?... and wheres the evidence to wiegh out if they are doing more harm then good? I know corporations do things for charity... so i heard... so i assume. Is that it? Corporations employ millions of people and many of them donate millions of dollars to charity every year.

    If Nader goes to washington is he going to kick out all the corporations out of politics?


    I'm unclear on why Nader is making a broad case like this.

    Just how legitimite is this asserstion that he is making?



    help if possible thanks.
     
  2. krossfyter thread starter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #2
    anybody like to have a go at this one?


    did i ask to hard/complex of a question?
     
  3. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #3
    Nader believes that the US government should not be run as a subsidiary of corporate America, and he is correct to say that this is the situation as it exists today. I agree, which is why I voted for him in 2000.
     
  4. krossfyter thread starter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #4
    is there any hard evidence indicating that the government is more so serving corporate america as opposed to the other way around? i need some facts.

    say if he does become president (which is highly unlikely) how does he plan to fix this?



    thanks man... that helps a little.
     
  5. DavisBAnimal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #5
    Yeah, I mean, Nader is very vocal against "corporate interests" and "unpatriotic corporations" and on and on down the line, but I don't know I would characterize his position as one being "no corporations" but really one of hoping for increased corporate accountability.

    Look at his editorial here:
    http://www.essential.org/features/corporatesocialism.html

    He's calling for increased shareholder control, lessened reliance on corporate interests in the government, and a push for more corporate responsibility. I'm not sure he wants to eliminate corporations, just take the scandle out.

    Davis
     
  6. DavisBAnimal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #6
    This isn't a question a group of mac-addicts on a web forum are going to be able to suffinciently answer with a handful of web links. If you're really interested, I suggest reading "Corporation Nation" by Charles Derber:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-6247541-2570408?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

    It's a great read, and a great summary of what is wrong with the current corporate structure, and what can be done to reform it (step 1: reverse the 19th century Supreme Court decision that granted corporations constitutional status as a human being).

    Davis
     
  7. krossfyter thread starter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #8
    thanks DavisBAnimal for your help.

    some say whats most dangerous about nader is that he is naive especially about military and foreign affairs. does he hate the military? is his foreign policy basically to send flowers to all the nations?

    doesnt it say he will cut the military budget by 50 percent? i heard that he thinks its bloated.... so its 50 percent bloated?
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    I posted a link to this program a few days ago.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/

    Here also is the introduction to the show, which I highly recommend.

     
  9. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    i think i know why my investments did so well last year.
     
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #11
    Another one of those things for which I've found no satisfying answer has to do with consumers and corporate taxes. the income taxes on profits, anyhow. Isn't the consumer the actual payer of these taxes? If a corporation wants to have some profit margin, after taxes are paid, wouldn't it adjust its prices accordingly? Would not a group of competing corporations do the same, for all that they are competing-price conscious?

    It seems to me that if corporations paid no taxes at all on profits, their prices would be lower by roughly that amount. (Again, marketplace competition.) Sort of a six of one, a half-dozen of the other deal. You as an individual consumer would pay a bit more, if the government had to have the tax money, but you would pay less at the checkout counter.

    After all, no corporation has any money except as they sell a product. Same deal for government; a government has no money except as it takes your money in the form of taxes.

    'Rat
     
  11. DavisBAnimal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #12
    That's a reall nice theory, but I just don't think it works like that. I think if you take away the tax dollars the prices stay the same, cause, hey, profit motive, more profit with same prices and lower taxes. I think people trust too much in these coporations and in the system.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but when all those car companies moved their factories to Mexico to take advantage of the cheaper labor, did the car prices go down, or did the raw profits of the company go up along with the pay rates of the executives?

    I feel the same way about deregulation. Seems like a nice theory, the market should work itself out, be the best for the consummer, but everytime they deregulate up here my damn phone bill get higher! What gives?

    Davis
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    Philosophical questions about taxation are separate and apart from the issue of corporations engaging in fraudulent schemes to avoid paying taxes which have been lawfully assessed, while Congress looks the other way. We were challenged to come up with an example of Congress selling out to corporations. This is just one of them.
     
  13. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #14
    Davis, I gotta argue with you about deregulation. I called home from Korea in 1954; $12.00 per minute. When companies are begging you to buy their long distance phone service for a nickel a minute in the U.S., I gotta compare that with the old-days rates of 40 and 50 cents per minute.

    In 1975, the going price for regulated natural gass was $4 per 1,000 cubic feet. After deregulation, almost overnight the price fell to $2.

    BAck to Nader: I happened to hear a radio talkshow called "For the People"; a guy named Chuck Harder from White City, Florida. He had Nader on as a guest, for a lengthy discussion period.

    It was a love fest of conspiracy theory. "They" are trying to wreck the US economy with things like NAFTA and GATT. (Why those who see us as their primary market would want to wreck our buying power escapes me.)

    Note that "Unsafe At Any Speed" was primarily about a car which was no longer in production, and wasn't nearly as bad as Nader made it sound. But, it gave him fame and publicity, and he became the Grand Guru of consumer safety. He apparently never found a "protection" law or regulation he didn't like, and I long ago coined the word "Naderism" to express an idea: If we pass enough laws and write enough regulations, we'll all live in a nice, warm, safe swaddling-cloth world. One aspect of this, of course, is that costs be damned . Another is that you are too stupid and government must protect you from yourself.

    While some degree of consumer protection is indeed a Good Thing, a side-effect is that personal security from all hazards has become a shibboleth in this country. And that, chilluns, is why we have so many people willing to trade liberty and personal sovereignty for government's protection agains terrorism.

    So, while I share Nader's concerns to some degree on many subjects, I damned well don't need Big Nanny to watch over me.

    'Rat
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    'Rat, if you check out his website, votenader.org, you will see he's promoting a platform that goes far beyond consumer protection issues. If you want to criticize Nader, perhaps you should criticize him for the stands he is taking today, not for a book he wrote 40 years ago.
     
  15. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #16
    That theory relies on a disinterested perfectly tuned marketplace which does not and can not exist. Take your apple computer, is it cheaper now than it was 2 years ago? Have not corporate profits gone way up in the last year while general wages remained stagnent? If there is uncertainty in the oil market prices at the pump rise immediately but when crude oil prices fall it takes 2 months for prices at the pump to fall.

    Prices might fall IF the CEO feels like lowering them. Why should I have to make up the difference in my payroll taxes just hoping for cheaper Fritos? What if I do not consume a lot of products? Why does my economy of means, if the position you are holding is that cheaper corporate tax is balanced by cheaper products, mean the I get less benefit than someone who buys every latest do-dad?

    THere's the theory and then there's reality.
     
  16. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    wwworry, lemme try one more time: Corporate profits may be up, but when measured as "profitability" or return on investment, they suck. They've been in the toilet for over twenty years. Why else are corporations moving their operations out of the U.S.? 'Cause the stockholders are POed, that's why; they ain't making no money from dividends.

    P/E is a measure: Price to earnings ratio. The S&P 500 averages 30. That's 3.3% gross profits before taxes.

    Say it cost you $1,000 a month for all necessary expenses. Call these your "cost of doing business". Your monthly income is $1,033, or a 3.3% return: Your P/E ratio is 30. You're in deep doodoo, and move to Mexico for a lower cost of living...

    IJ, I am fully aware that Nader is interested in many things beyond consumer protection. However, he wants government to expand its powers in all these many things; he always has. You cannot have such expansion without increasing the police powers of all government, whether the SEC or OSHA or the TSA, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad vomitum. Haven't Clinton and Bush done enough of that?

    I'm fed up with all this "I'm gonna save you!" scare-tactic stuff. Lyndon ws gonna save us from poverty. Duh? Several trillion bucks later, and? "We need a strong military and counter espionage!" Okay. Several trillion dollars later; hey! Where's the WTC? "We need better education!" A gazillion federal bucks later and Johnny can't make change or read a ruler.

    Right now, I sorta think I'd be happy with a bunch of non-compassionate folks who are mostly isolationist in their thinking. Not necessarily for the long haul, but I need a break from all this do-good stuff that's wrecked the economics of us and a lot of the rest of the world.

    I don't know whether to write in Ron Paul or Howdy Doody, but all the other options are worse.

    'Rat
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    'Rat, as I've said, I'm not going to vote for Nader this year, but that doesn't change the fact that he's raising issues that nobody else in the race has the guts to even mention, the most serious of which IMO is the corporatization of the US government. I don't necessarily have to buy into any Nader package beyond this, let alone defend or excuse everything the man has ever said over his 40 years in public life.
     
  18. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    Sure, there's no doubt that Nader has and will address issues the others will run from. But, so did David Duke. :)

    I totally disrecall the science fiction novel from back in the 1950s that addressed the issue of "Corporate America" as de facto becoming the government. One of Kornbluth's? Anyhow, the thing to remember is that so long as government gets ever more involved in business, the people in business will lobby as hard as they can afford, to either avoid more regulation, or change the format to their benefit. The pace and effort of the lobbying have been steadily increasing over these last forty or so years that I've been watching.

    But where are you gonna find the "best and brightest"? In the public sector, or in the private sector? I'd bet on the latter, and I'd bet the brightest usually win.

    'Rat
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    I'd answer your question, but I can't get beyond your comparison of Ralph Nader to klansman. That is truly offensive.
     

Share This Page