Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For the Love of Bush
akasha_108 wrote: What is the advantage of a limited corporate life? The corporations wield too much power. And thus the solution is too abolish them? No, rein them in. Break them up. They are too large and many corporations are really a bunch of smaller groups anymore anyway. Unless you forgot this country was began as a rebellion against the British East India Companyvir a rather large and powerful multinational. And thus all coorporations today are bad and should be disolved? I would suspect that many a large corporation CEO would sigh a relief at having an almost impossible task of managing such a monster taken away from and in its place a smaller more reasonable one to manage. I suppose if you are locked into capitalistic thinking then this all sounds horrible. I am not locked into any thinking. I do favor things which works. The capital markets (and the corporate structure enables them) are the drivers of technology, innovation and growth. Not perfect, refinements always needed. But its sad you can think of no other alternative than to dissolve corporations and capital markets rather than reform them. Well you are a little wrong there. Since I work in the tech field I know that most of the innovation comes from small companies and startups. Later they may be gobbled up by a larger firm. Right now their batting average as far as the environment goes is not too good. And this is why they should be dissovled? Again thats a sad POV. Again I said nothing about dissolving them. Corporations, as well as individual proprietorships and partnerships (should they be disolved too?), are bound by environmental laws and regulation. Its primarily the governements fault, and ultimately the voters, that such laws, regulations and incentive mechanisms are weaker than optimal. Obviously you didn't read anything from the book link I included did you. Hartmann himself has a corporation. He isn't saying that you need to dissolve corporations but the restrictions the founding fathers put on them were there for good reasoning. If you want better environmental track records by corporations, tax pollution, enact real vehicle efficiency standards -- including trucks and SUVs, tax gasoline (on the order of $2/gal), enact a BTU and carbon tax (which would affect electical, natural gas and coal production), tax the full lifescyle costs of nuclear mining and waste, etc. In other words, incorporate the costs of pollution into the cost of things that pollute. As economists say, Internalize the externalities. If the above were done, corporations would have excellent environtal records. And the overall economy would be more efficient, cleaner, and growing at a faster rate (allowing more funding for things like educations and health.) I see nothing wrong with that idea. However you would still have to watch over the corporate gangsters. Just letting them run wild will plunder the planet into death. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: For the Love of Bush
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bhairitu Likewise that large corporations realize they are bad for society and ask Congress to reinstitute the laws that existed up until the Civil War when corporations did not have the rights of an individual, had limited size and life. What is the advantage of a limited corporate life? And how would the capital markets then function? Equity offerings would be for a 10 year company? Currently public shares would be converted to some limited life equity form? Limit even that though might be sub optimal for a particular market at a particular time? Let politicians determine optimal business unit sizing? Personally, I think there should be a constitutional ammendment stating that corporations have no rights save those explicitly given by Congress. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: For the Love of Bush
Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: akasha_108 wrote: B: No, rein them in. Break them up. They are too large and many corporations are really a bunch of smaller groups anymore anyway. ... I would suspect that many a large corporation CEO would sigh a relief at having an almost impossible task of managing such a monster taken away from and in its place a smaller more reasonable one to manage. A: It may be. But thats an opinion. Not substantiated. Regardless, it in itself is not a justification for breaking up a corporation. I generally favor smaller companies -- as most reseach points out - more innovation, higher growth etc. But Corps, who ere complying with laws and regulations, are in a better postition to determine that than you are I. And the scale of some industries is such that larger is more competitive than smaller. A: I am not locked into any thinking. I do favor things which works. The capital markets (and the corporate structure enables them) are the drivers of technology, innovation and growth. Not perfect, refinements always needed. But its sad you can think of no other alternative than to dissolve corporations and capital markets rather than reform them. Well you are a little wrong there. Since I work in the tech field I know that most of the innovation comes from small companies and startups. Later they may be gobbled up by a larger firm. You are missing my point. I was refering to capital markets being the drivers of technology, innovation and growth. The reference to corps was that it would be hard to have capital markets without corporations. It did not reference size of corps. I agree, studies show more innivation comes from smaller companies. Most of which are still corporations. Right now their batting average as far as the environment goes is not too good. And this is why they should be dissovled? Again thats a sad POV. Again I said nothing about dissolving them. A: What are you proposing then? Limiting their size? Thus breaking them up into many parts? In that case, the original form is dissolved. A: Its primarily the governements fault, and ultimately the voters, that such laws, regulations and incentive mechanisms are weaker than optimal. If you want better environmental track records by corporations, tax pollution, enact real vehicle efficiency standards -- including trucks and SUVs, tax gasoline (on the order of $2/gal), enact a BTU and carbon tax (which would affect electical, natural gas and coal production), tax the full lifescyle costs of nuclear mining and waste, etc. In other words, incorporate the costs of pollution into the cost of things that pollute. As economists say, Internalize theexternalities. If the above were done, corporations would have excellent environtal records. And the overall economy would be more efficient, cleaner, and growing at a faster rate (allowing more funding for things like educations and health.) I see nothing wrong with that idea. However you would still have to watch over the corporate gangsters. Just letting them run wild will plunder the planet into death. We are all for law enforcement. And currently corps and CEO are getting prosecuted to the extent of the current law. If current law allows for corps to dump uncompensated costs on sociey, laws adn regulations should be made stronger. Again, the problem is not primarily a particular business structure or its size, but its a problem of inadequate legislation and regulation to prevent cost dumping / externalities dumping on society. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For the Love of Bush
akasha_108 wrote: Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: akasha_108 wrote: B: No, rein them in. Break them up. They are too large and many corporations are really a bunch of smaller groups anymore anyway. ... I would suspect that many a large corporation CEO would sigh a relief at having an almost impossible task of managing such a monster taken away from and in its place a smaller more reasonable one to manage. A: It may be. But thats an opinion. Not substantiated. Regardless, it in itself is not a justification for breaking up a corporation. I generally favor smaller companies -- as most reseach points out - more innovation, higher growth etc. But Corps, who ere complying with laws and regulations, are in a better postition to determine that than you are I. And the scale of some industries is such that larger is more competitive than smaller. A: I am not locked into any thinking. I do favor things which works. The capital markets (and the corporate structure enables them) are the drivers of technology, innovation and growth. Not perfect, refinements always needed. But its sad you can think of no other alternative than to dissolve corporations and capital markets rather than reform them. Well you are a little wrong there. Since I work in the tech field I know that most of the innovation comes from small companies and startups. Later they may be gobbled up by a larger firm. You are missing my point. I was refering to capital markets being the drivers of technology, innovation and growth. The reference to corps was that it would be hard to have capital markets without corporations. It did not reference size of corps. I agree, studies show more innivation comes from smaller companies. Most of which are still corporations. Right now their batting average as far as the environment goes is not too good. And this is why they should be dissovled? Again thats a sad POV. Again I said nothing about dissolving them. A: What are you proposing then? Limiting their size? Thus breaking them up into many parts? In that case, the original form is dissolved. A: Its primarily the governements fault, and ultimately the voters, that such laws, regulations and incentive mechanisms are weaker than optimal. If you want better environmental track records by corporations, tax pollution, enact real vehicle efficiency standards -- including trucks and SUVs, tax gasoline (on the order of $2/gal), enact a BTU and carbon tax (which would affect electical, natural gas and coal production), tax the full lifescyle costs of nuclear mining and waste, etc. In other words, incorporate the costs of pollution into the cost of things that pollute. As economists say, Internalize theexternalities. If the above were done, corporations would have excellent environtal records. And the overall economy would be more efficient, cleaner, and growing at a faster rate (allowing more funding for things like educations and health.) I see nothing wrong with that idea. However you would still have to watch over the corporate gangsters. Just letting them run wild will plunder the planet into death. We are all for law enforcement. And currently corps and CEO are getting prosecuted to the extent of the current law. If current law allows for corps to dump uncompensated costs on sociey, laws adn regulations should be made stronger. Again, the problem is not primarily a particular business structure or its size, but its a problem of inadequate legislation and regulation to prevent cost dumping / externalities dumping on society. No offense but you sound like an armchair economist because I know several economists and they don't talk this way. ;-) You sound more like someone who has bought into some kind of libertarian thinking. We'll have to agree to disagree. :) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: For the Love of Bush
No offense but you sound like an armchair economist because I know several economists and they don't talk this way. ;-) Ah. you are the expert then. You sound more like someone who has bought into some kind of libertarian thinking. Nope. Everything I say I have worked through myself. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: For the Love of Bush
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: from Dr. Robert Svoboda's blog. snip If we pray for our foes, why have we not yet had a national day of prayer with an Osama focus? I love the idea, but it's a kind of catch-22. For the U.S. to hold a widely publicized national day of prayer for Osama would be the worst thing we could possibly do to him--and in that sense, it would be distinctly *un*-Christian. Otherwise, good piece. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: For the Love of Bush
Whats his blog web address? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: from Dr. Robert Svoboda's blog. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For the Love of Bush
http://drsvoboda.com/On Oct 11, 2005, at 3:18 PM, akasha_108 wrote:Whats his blog web address? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: from Dr. Robert Svoboda's blog. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Maharishi mahesh yogi Ramana maharshi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For the Love of Bush
Bhairitu Likewise that large corporations realize they are bad for society and ask Congress to reinstitute the laws that existed up until the Civil War when corporations did not have the rights of an individual, had limited size and life. What is the advantage of a limited corporate life? And how would the capital markets then function? Equity offerings would be for a 10 year company? Currently public shares would be converted to some limited life equity form? Limit even that though might be sub optimal for a particular market at a particular time? Let politicians determine optimal business unit sizing? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: For the Love of Bush
akasha_108 wrote: Bhairitu Likewise that large corporations realize they are bad for society and ask Congress to reinstitute the laws that existed up until the Civil War when corporations did not have the rights of an individual, had limited size and life. What is the advantage of a limited corporate life? The corporations wield too much power. Unless you forgot this country was began as a rebellion against the British East India Company a rather large and powerful multinational. And how would the capital markets then function? Equity offerings would be for a 10 year company? Currently public shares would be converted to some limited life equity form? I believe before the Civil War 40 years was the limit. Rockefeller was the one who in 1877 got New Jersey to extend the lifetime of a corporation. Thom Hartmann wrote a book on it: http://thomhartmann.com/unequalprotection.shtml Limit even that though might be sub optimal for a particular market at a particular time? Let politicians determine optimal business unit sizing? I suppose if you are locked into capitalistic thinking then this all sounds horrible. But so does a world run by the large corporations who have no more ability to rule than you or I. Right now their batting average as far as the environment goes is not too good. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
