.
"How much is gold up?" he wondered. "My God, gold must be exploding!" He
explains that he and his clients went on to mint money as gold futures
shot up and the buildings came down.
Craven attempts to capitalize on tragedy aside, corporations and those
who operate them ar
>> okay, while we're on the subject of answering rhetorical questions, can
>> corporations attain orgasm?
>> Jim D.
If an orgasm were defined as that which provides self-awareness and positive feedback
at the climax of a developmental event, then corporations at
Jim asked:
okay, while we're on the subject of answering rhetorical questions,
can corporations attain orgasm?
Jim D.
No. They can play an important role, though, in the orgasms of those
for whom they are a fetish object. The sex involved is anal sadistic
and non-consensual. This is t
okay, while we're on the subject of answering rhetorical questions, can corporations
attain orgasm?
Jim D.
-Original Message-
From: David B. Shemano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 5/24/2004 10:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David B.
Shemano
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 10:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L] Can corporations have sex?
James Devine writes:
>> can a corporation have a gender, too? or rather, can a corpo
James Devine writes:
>> can a corporation have a gender, too? or rather, can a corporation have sex?
Absolutely, what do you think a corporate merger is? One corporation propositions the
other corporation. The do mutual due diligence to find out if they like each other.
There is a closing di
Michael Perelman requests:
>> David, could you tell us more about this case, please?
>>
>> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:39:22AM -0700, David B. Shemano wrote:
>> >
>> > Regarding corporations, everybody should be happy to know that the Ninth Circuit
>&
no-no among us materialist dialecticians.)
Rather, in practice, a corporation is more than the sum of contracts because this
situation is _imposed_ by the state on society -- in the corporations' name. We've got
government of, by, and for the corporations (the most organized form of capit
m Lincoln had
prophesied:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war,
corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high
places will follow, and the money power of the country wil
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How do you avoid touching during sex ? Must be quite a trick.
Charles
===
Remember the condom scene in "The Naked Gun"?
Ian
Response Jim C: Or, there are those phone numbers for phone sex, plus
new inno
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How do you avoid touching during sex ? Must be quite a trick.
Charles
===
Remember the condom scene in "The Naked Gun"?
Ian
Charles
asked:
> How do you
avoid touching during sex ? Must be quite a trick.
This is a slightly
"schizo" answer maybe, but I would say, it could happen in a dream. John Lennon
explains this as follows in his track #9 Dream, as follows:
On a river of soundThru the
mirror go round,
>the westerners don't come close to us indians when it
comes to being
>conservative about this stuff. we literally wrote the book
on sex, but
>now we don't even touch or kiss each other during sex ;-)
;-).
>
> --ravi
^^
How do you avoid
touching during sex ? Must be quite a trick.
Title: Message
Appropro our discussion
on corporations, I thought this might be of interest. Some
related webpages can be accessed via the links at the
bottom.
[>] Peter
Hollings
Source: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/KnowEnemy_ITT.html
Know Thine Enemy
A Br
OK. That's hillarious.
Joanna
ravi wrote:
Sabri Oncu wrote:
Of course, it is unsual for you westerners who forgot
the closeness touching one another brings out but I
don't blame you. It is just sad that you don't know
how to touch and kiss each other except when you have
sex.
the westerners
Sabri Oncu wrote:
>
> Of course, it is unsual for you westerners who forgot
> the closeness touching one another brings out but I
> don't blame you. It is just sad that you don't know
> how to touch and kiss each other except when you have
> sex.
>
the westerners don't come close to us indians whe
Marvin:
> I have a genuine interest in the issue, want to
> know more about it, and have no ax to grind. I
> think it was good of Juriann Bendian to raise it,
> and bad for Sabri to curtly dismiss his effort as
> a "bad essay" without any explanation
> except "derivative are dangerous" (indeed) an
domination of
corporations and their States--totalitarian forms of
economic and political rule.
IMO, one needs to go in the opposite direction, away
from commodity prodution and the wages system, in
order to get to a classless association of producers
who socially manage the means of
production
--- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike B. writes:
> >I'm wondering about these pressures to cut costs
> which
> Chomsky refers to. Don't they lead to the big, nice
> co:operative having to try to find cheaper sources
> of
> material via low wage, usually dictatorial political
> stat
Just to supplement Jim's comments, in Mondragon wages were set at comparable
outside market wages and then profits at the end of the year were allocated
to individual members savings funds which would be paid out on retirement.
The purpose was to build up funds for investment in expanding the
> One of the problems with a capitalist society (or, more generally, a
commodity-producing one) is that market competition encourages rampant
individualism and instrumentalism, undermining the needed fellow-feeling and
trust.
A problem I think is that many leftist politico's think that "solidarity
Sabri writes:
> The issue is the following;
>
> If I heartlessly set up some objective functions and
> crank my optimization tools to optimize them, why
> should anybody trust me?
>
> What if the optimal solution of my objective function
> requires me to screw you?
that's my concern, too. I thi
Mike B. writes:
>I'm wondering about these pressures to cut costs which
Chomsky refers to. Don't they lead to the big, nice
co:operative having to try to find cheaper sources of
material via low wage, usually dictatorial political
states?<
FWIW, David Schweikert's "market socialist" utopia of wor
"Wrong" in the sense lacking explanatory power. David
S.and I are conducting a fairly austerely nonmoral
discussion about the nature and proper explanation of
the corporation. jks
--- Jurriaan Bendien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that
> > investors find the limitation of liability an
> > attracti
Jim:
> I think Sabri goes much too far. All contracts --
> including unsigned ones -- are based on trust,
> not love.
Not all but most and I agree. Trust is the main thing.
What I had in mind when I wrote what I wrote was my
"contracts" with my late father, my son, my spouse, a
few close friends
that
> investors find the limitation of liability an
> attractive feature. What is wrong with that view?
"Wrong" in what sense - moral culpability, economic benefits or private
interest ? The search in on for new legal forms to offload costs and losses.
LLCs provide tax and managerial advantages.
--- paul phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike B wrote
>
> > I agree, it would be much better, if workers ran
> and
> > managed the the firms in which they exploited
> > themselves for surplus value. Honestly though,
> > hasn't the history of creating such entities, like
> > say
> > Mondragon
> Yes, but it is only with respect to non-contractual
> liabilities that the limitation is state imposed.
I disagree. First, a contract is state imposition or
creation. A contract, in law, is a promise the law
will enforce. Second, the limited libaility accorded
corporations is a matter
Jim wrote:
> I think that Sabri goes much too far. All contracts -- including unsigned
ones -- are based on trust, not love. (...) One of the problems with a
capitalist society (or, more generally, a commodity-producing one) is that
market competition encourages rampant individualism and instrumen
s is not correct. It is possible to have the corporate form without limited
liability. As I said before, the limitation of contractual liability can be a matter
of contract ("I promise to sell you widgets, but if I breach the agreement, you agree
to cap your claim at X."). The ult
Sabri Oncu wrote:
>After all, every human relation is based on some sort
>of a contract whether it is our relationship with our
>lovers, children, parents, siblings, friends and the
>like.
>
>Just that most these (unsigned) contracts are
>enforceable not by law but by love and we can always
>opt ou
we fighting about?
>
i called your definition (of corporations) reductionist. i am not
fighting with you. i used the term in a neutral sense.
that said, there are multiple arguments against reductionism. the
foundational ones are too detailed to hash out here. there is also the
argument against reduct
"Peter Drucker, the doyen of the management community, claims that 90
percent of all financial transactions in the world have no relationship with
either production or trade [of tangible goods and services]. Drucker refers
to this as the growth of the symbol economy" (see Peter Drucker, The New
Rea
> Why not simply say that human relationships are bound by love. After all,
> contracts are always conditional, whereas love is not.
Let's have a think. This idea would possibly help to explain why many people
disparage "free love" so much, as a dreamy hippy phenomenon, applying only
to marginalis
Sabri Oncu wrote:
After all, every human relation is based on some sort
of a contract whether it is our relationship with our
lovers, children, parents, siblings, friends and the
like.
Just that most these (unsigned) contracts are
enforceable not by law but by love and we can always
opt out prov
I am not sure if this is a _side issue_ Justin. As you
may have noticed, I do not use _scare quotes_ this
time since I use quotes most of the time, but not
always, to _highlight_ things.
>>
I don't think there is any need to put scare quotes
around "contracts" in a market socialist society. A
con
[A few months ago Business Week ran an article asserting that South Korea
had the biggest anti-corporate social movement of any country in the
world. Given the recent upheaval there and the issues raised in the
thread, I thought pen-ler's might find the following link on corporate
governance in Kor
>
> I always thought that corporations were legal
> fictions. Legal fictions are
> legally created entities aren't they? They may be
> more than this but they
> certainly are not less.
"Fictions" suggests they are not real. Here is an
example of a legal fiction
or equivalent.
I am not a defender come what may of the corporate
form, but I am not an uncritical enemy of it either.
It really depends on how it plays out. Big capitalist
corporations mainly suvk, but I suspect thay is
because they are capitalist rather than because they
are corporate. Pro-plann
Justin writes:
> This discussion is getting a bit off the rails.
> Corporations are not "legal fictions" -- they are
> legally created entities, no more or less real than
> contracts. It is a strange species of "methodological
> individualism" to deny that t
Paul, for some reason, your messages come to the list with the wrong date, throwing
them down lower in my inbox.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
ragon
where I was doing some research on worker co-ops and he was leading
a group of Canadian students studying the Mondragon and its derivative,
the Valencia, model.)
For a depressing and entertaining history, origins and abuse of
corporations which addresses most of the issues in the main threa
liability is the primary benefit of the
corporation is simply incorrect. If limited liability were removed from corporations,
there would be a massive shift from equity financing to debt financing. In other
words, investors will call themselves creditors and not shareholders. The line
betw
;legal
> > person." (A legal person that's like an actual
> > person in many ways, with the obvious exception with
> > respect to the right to vote. But I doubt that
> > corporations -- especially the bigger ones -- need
> > the power to vote. They dominate govern
issuance, principal officer's location, directors'
names in order to be granted charter...
modern incorporation laws - dating to late 19th century when delaware
and new jersey wrote lenient/permissive measures (i think) - preserve
considerable business advantages of earlier era when co
on-technical reasons for believing that
"corporations" (as implemented, not as theoretical entities) are a bad
thing for various causes i consider important. however, it would be
difficult for me to find the technical flaw in david shemano's reductive
definition.
i discovered this list thr
son that's like an actual
> person in many ways, with the obvious exception with
> respect to the right to vote. But I doubt that
> corporations -- especially the bigger ones -- need
> the power to vote. They dominate government anyway.)
I agree that "metaphysically" a co
Coke, Sir Edward. 1612. The Case of Sutton's Hospital, 10 English
Reports, Vol. 77 (Edinburgh: William Green & Sons): pp. 937-76.
973: "a corporation ... is invisible, immortal, and rests only in
intendment and consideration of the law They cannot commit
treason, nor be outlawed, not excomm
I wrote:
>> Corporations have _limited liability_ which means that that after a certain point
>> (the
>> amount of capital "invested" by the stock-holders) the state has declared that the
>> costs of corporate malfeasance, accidents, etc. shall be absorbed by th
will
have a legal system and a set of rules for contract
law.
jks
--- Sabri Oncu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Justin:
>
> > Moreover one could imagine a market society
> > where, for example, the corporations did not
> > have undemocratic power and wealth, and w
Mike Ballard wrote:
In other words, hasn't wage-labour always resulted in
the developement of capitalist social relations?
Not really. Cuba has paid workers in pesos since 1960 but if capitalism
is restored there, it will be a result of other factors. Until an
socialist economy has such an enormous
rence between attempts to
create a worker-controlled island in a capitalist sea,
and the operation of worker-controlled enterprisers
(whether corporations or other enterprise forms) where
there is no or little wage labor, and they are the
dominant form. I should mention (c) that at least one
possible fo
we collectively create
fashions. We may ignore them at a cost. But it's relatively harmless for
individuals to ignore fashions. Michael does it all the time. :-) But
money or the state are forms of alienation on steroids. We ignore them at
our peril.
The fetishization of corporations is no
--- joanna bujes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David B. Shemano wrote:
> So, when I, avoiding immiseration, get a job to work
> in a corporation, I
> am entering in a contract over which I have any
> control? I can bargain
> for my wage? I can bargain for my vacation? I can
> bargain for the
> cond
--- andie nachgeborenen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moreover one could imagibe a market society where,
> for
> eaxmple, the corporations did not have undemocratic
> power and wealth, and where the workers managed them
> themselves. Such corporations would be far less
&
Justin:
> Moreover one could imagine a market society
> where, for example, the corporations did not
> have undemocratic power and wealth, and where
> the workers managed them themselves.
This is an interesting point.
I have never been against optimizing objective
functions, a
Gene, I don't think you need to be rude to David. I think that David has
participated for some time -- always with good humor. I disagree with him but I
still enjoy what he writes from time to time.
As for contempt -- I have contempt for Exxon-Mobil. I hardly believe that some grunt
working for
This discussion is getting a bit off the rails.
Corporations are not "legal fictions" -- they are
legally created entities, no more or less real than
contracts. It is a strange species of "methodological
individualism" to deny that they "really" exist merely
becau
David B. Shemano wrote:
You see a bogeyman called a "corporation." You are fetishing the
corporation. I see tens, hundreds, thousands of contracts between
real people intended to actualize a real end.
So, when I, avoiding immiseration, get a job to work in a corporation, I
am entering in a contr
Corporations don't speak but that does not mean
they don't have the right of free speech. Officials (i.e.) real persons sign
contracts on behalf of corporations too . Does that mean corporations cannot
sign contracts or have rights and obligations flowing from having signed
contr
- Original Message -
From: "k hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But then with respect to coporations contracts are themselves often
between
what are persons only qua legal fictions, or between them and individuals
rather than anything that could be explained in terms of contracts between
indiv
legal
fiction is an oxymoron. Surely the point of the term is that corporations
are not persons as you and I are persons. Even Bush would not consider a
union of Mary Kay and Revlon cosmetics some sort of lesbian marriage. Well I
cant be sure of that!
I took Eugene to be concerned about the extent to
- Original Message -
From: "David B. Shemano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What is that word Marxists like to use to describe unreal objects that
people think are real? Fetish? You see a bogeyman called a
"corporation." You are fetishing the corporation. I see tens, hundreds,
thousands of contr
Eugene Coyle writes:
<< <I have never seen a corporation speak. I have seen real people speak on behalf of corporations. Why do you believe that those people do not have a right to speak?
What is that word Marxists like to use to describe unreal objects that people think
- Original Message -
From: "Eugene Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This interlocking series of contracts has the right of free speech?
I think the series of responses Shemano gives in this thread is sillier
than neo-classical micro. He describes a total phantasy world, just as
the micro the
This interlocking series of contracts has the right of free speech?
I think the series of responses Shemano gives in this thread is sillier
than neo-classical micro. He describes a total phantasy world, just as
the micro theorists do. But the world both try to hide is terribly
real.
This
James Devine writes:
>> Is this a different David Shemano, who I thought was a lawyer of some sort?
>> Corporations have _limited liability_ which means that that after a certain point
>> (the
>> amount of capital "invested" by the stock-holders) the state
David B. Shemano wrote:
You wish me well with my liberty, but what about my liberty to enter
into a series of contracts with other real persons, and calling
those interlocking series of contracts a "corporation?" What is a
corporation, but an interlocking series of contracts between real
persons?
- Original Message -
From: "David B. Shemano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You wish me well with my liberty, but what about my liberty to enter into
a series of contracts with other real persons, and calling those
interlocking series of contracts a "corporation?" What is a corporation,
but an int
On Thursday, March 11, 2004 at 16:06:17 (-0800) David B. Shemano writes:
>Michael Perelman writes:
>
>>> I wish you well with your liberty. You are a real person. I do not feel that E-M
>>> is
>>> a real person, but an illigitate creation of state.
>
>You wish me well with my liberty, but what a
Dave Shemano writes: >What is a corporation, but an interlocking series of contracts
between real persons? <
Is this a different David Shemano, who I thought was a lawyer of some sort?
Corporations have _limited liability_ which means that that after a certain point (the
amount of c
Michael Perelman writes:
>> I wish you well with your liberty. You are a real person. I do not feel that E-M
>> is
>> a real person, but an illigitate creation of state.
You wish me well with my liberty, but what about my liberty to enter into a series of
contracts with other real persons, an
The 10 Worst Corporations of 2003
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
2003 was not a year of garden variety corporate wrongdoing. No, the
sheer variety, reach and intricacy of corporate schemes, scandal and
crimes was spellbinding. Not an easy year to pick the 10 worst
companies, for sure
could you please send me a tee shirt with the logo?
http://www.cvworkingfamilies.org/current.html
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 02:55:37PM -0800, Eubulides wrote:
> Corporate Voices for Working Families
> http://www.cvworkingfamilies.org/facts.html
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California S
Corporate Voices for Working Families
http://www.cvworkingfamilies.org/facts.html
Original Message
Subject: IMF Loan Conditions for Nicaragua Require Privatization
Measures That Would Enrich Corporations at the Expense of People
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:48:29 -0500
From: "Dennis Roy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For Immediate Release: Contact:
The following is an excerpt from an interview with Robert Willens a tax
expert, published in Barron's 8/26/02. FYI.
Joanna
___
Q. We've talked aobut some macro issues. How about some micro issues?
A. A lot of companies have sustained losses this year. When a company has
Sabri Oncu writes:
>On another note, what happens if there are more than one "democratically
centralized" parties, each claiming to be the vanguard of the working and
allied classes? Which one gets to lead the revolution?<
the one that's correctly following Lenin. It should be obvious, comrade!
J
On another note, what happens if there are more than one
"democratically centralized" parties, each claiming to be the
vanguard of the working and allied classes? Which one gets to
lead the revolution?
Sabri
P.S: I lost the count of such vanguard parties in Turkey. There
are way too many.
command exists.
> Only member's will and passion is required. In a sense This
> type of organization is network-type like Al-Qaeda. On the
contrary,
> for example, in US financial corporations as you, You may
decision
> business yourself, but you must seek profit in decentralize
gt;> of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership
>>> has been put forward.
>>
>> Dear Miyachi,
>>
>> I have served at a few of the most Stalinist institutions in the
>> world: US financial corporations. They talked about
>> centralizati
Truss disappointed with US subsidies deals
CANBERRA, Dec 12 AAP|Published: Wednesday December 12, 7:49 AM
http://www.theage.com.au/breaking/
The United States will not cut billions of dollars in farm subsidies despite
a plea in Washington from a high-level group of Australians, including
Agric
Came across the below as I was searching for further work on Roger
Sugden's use of "divide & rule" in the international division of
labor. That essay -- Divide and Rule by Transnational Corporations--
builds on Stephen Marglin's "What do Bosses do?" and can be
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/oil1.htm
rayers. Mensches were loyal to art and family. It
was simple, but it worked.
Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/25/magazine/25SCHNABEL.html
The New York Times, November 2, 1986, Sunday, Late City Final Edition
THE AVANT-GARDE COURTS CORPORATIONS
BY CATHLEEN MCGUIGAN; Cathleen McG
PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 7:10 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:8471] Re: Re: Walden Bello on dismantling corporations an
> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:34:03 -0800
> From: Peter Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I appreciate the spirit behind Bello's piece (as
dispensation as a sort-of golden age, and it presents as its agenda all those
> progressive things that governments were supposed to do back then but generally
> didn't or at least not very well. Its call to dismantle the TNC seems to be hedged
> by support for nationally-based priva
Ian says:
>So what's your meta-reformist plan to get us beyond M-C-M' Yoshie?
First of all, I think we (in the USA) have to get more serious about
reform struggles at local & national levels. When we have no power
base, no mass movement in this country (USA), we can't "craft a set
of rules a
uot;to socialize (which is not necessarily to put
> under public ownership) corporations national and transnational, and
> to craft a set of rules and governing procedures to make possible
> trade without the lash of global competitiveness that has poisoned
> every national political e
>Marxists would be free to study and write about M-C-M'.
> >
> >Peter
>
> Seriously, Peter, you criticize Bello for being "much too reformist,"
> but your program -- "to socialize (which is not necessarily to put
> under public ownership) corporatio
>Marxists would be free to study and write about M-C-M'.
>
>Peter
Seriously, Peter, you criticize Bello for being "much too reformist,"
but your program -- "to socialize (which is not necessarily to put
under public ownership) corporations national and transnat
Marxists would be free to study and write about M-C-M'.
Peter
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> All that without abolishing M-C-M'?
>
> Yoshie
>Me, I would begin talking about concrete steps to socialize (which is not
>necessarily to put under public ownership) corporations national and
>transnational,
>and to craft a set of rules and governing procedures to make
>possible trade without
>the lash of global compet
ed to do back then but generally
didn't or at least not very well. Its call to dismantle the TNC seems to be hedged
by support for nationally-based private corporations that are supposedly more
responsive, and it seeks no discernable management over the global trading system.
Me, I would beg
<http://www.policyalternatives.ca/>
Should corporate-led institutions be reformed or disempowered?
It's not off the wall to think of dismantling corporations
[Part II of The most crucial task facing the world's NGOs]
by Waldon Bello
The CCPA Monitor, February 2001, pp 14-16
Th
tes the power that corporations wield.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
JD:
what's wrong with the theory of tax incidence that says that when they are
officially "paying" the tax, the corporations are really shifting the tax
to consumers or to workers (rather than the stockholders)? It seems to me
that the only exception to the corporations'
what's wrong with the theory of tax incidence that says that when they are
officially "paying" the tax, the corporations are really shifting the tax
to consumers or to workers (rather than the stockholders)? It seems to me
that the only exception to the corporations' abilit
And here's the full report:
http://www.ctj.org/itep/corp00pr.htm
mbs
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/20/business/20TAX.html
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/20/business/20TAX.html
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
