Jim,
Let's review:
You said: "A Corporation is only a form of a business along with Limited Liability partnerships, a dozen or so hybrid forms and Sole proprietors ships any one is only as good as those that lead it. What is your solution? where do you stop? Ban all forms of trade?"
I don't think it's unusual for anyone to think
that
you're writing in the context of "all forms of trade" and
about a corporation as "only a form of business" followed by a list
of other forms of business (including the baker, I'd imagine).
But, let's not focus too much on that because it gets better.
As your rambling on about corruption, you're completely missing the
point. It's
legal to pay an employee minimum wage (below the poverty line), lobby
for
anti-union legislation and take away pension benefits when a company
goes into
dire straits due to mismanagement. So, by definition, it doesn't
require
corporate corruption to exploit workers - just a clear understanding of
the
law.
Earlier in this thread, I wrote:
"The only thing that can fight the devastating effects of corporate
greed
is public consensus and a movement built from that consensus."
and
"We have become such a patriarchal society that we just hope that the
"character" of our leader is to our liking - and that's
nauseating."
Then, you wrote: "...it would require an increadibly fair wise and just
King or
some other form of goernment that could regulate without corruption LOL"
A King (as in a "patriarchal society")? It makes me curious to know
what's happening in YOUR mind.
Mike
JJJN wrote:
Mike,
Mike Redler wrote:
Jim,
Your statement puts all forms of business into one category (i.e. IBM
with the village baker) and redirects the discussion toward all forms of
trade. This is a direction that I won't be led into.
No it does not, that happens in your mind, but it does put COKE energy
and Enron in the same boat along with many of these BIG forms of Government.
Corruption and greed are not unique to Corporations only thats what I am
saying. (that includes the Baker)
The point I made directly addresses the wealth and power accumulated as
human labor becomes a commodity and corporate executives become the
beneficiary of that commodity. The less labor costs, the more profit is
made. More importantly, when money and power reach the highest levels of
government and do so as a representative of businesses who profit from
cheap labor, what's left to protect working families?
But this is a function of free enterprize and to eliminate it would
require an increadibly fair wise and just King or some other form of
goernment that could regulate without corruption LOL
As I said before, corporate executives who are paid hundreds of times
more than the salary of their employees, are living proof of the
imbalance which big business imposes on a government (supposedly)
created to protect all of it's citizens.
Thats right. I am not blind I know who really runs US and the UK and
all the other countrys that exist on this globe. So whats the answer?
Is there one?
Jim
Mike
JJJN wrote:
Mike,
A Corporation is only a form of a business along with Limited Liability
partnerships, a dozen or so hybrid forms and Sole proprietors ships any
one is only as good as those that lead it. What is your solution? where
do you stop? Ban all forms of trade? I don't like the greed and abuse
either, but I am practical enough to understand that not every
Corporation is run by an evil twin to Enron.
I also understand what you are saying that there need to be much stiffer
reforms in place to legislate ethics to those that are running many of
them.
But some how I just don't have the faith that people will wake up, and
if they do I think it will be to late.
Jim
Michael Redler wrote:
Jim wrote: "I really don't mind corporations, and I like to see them
make a profit when it means prosperity for all."
*Divided World: Rich Live Longer, Poor Die Younger*
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/062900-01.htm
Those who want wealth, will have it. Since there is no individual
who's work represents hundreds of times the value of his/her
employees, you arrive at two simple conclusions - that corporations
are a means of building wealth off the backs of others and that those
who own those corporations are obsessed with building empires and
monuments to themselves, off the backs of others.
The size of a corporation is a measure of the ambition to build that
empire and monument.
The only thing that can fight the devastating effects of corporate
greed is public consensus and a movement built from that consensus.
The sooner that greed effects public policy and makes enough people
suffer, the sooner the public will wake up to what's going on around
them and react to it.
Mike
*/JJJN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
I really don't mind corporations, and I like to see them make a
profit
when it means prosperity for all, I just dont like the powers in
Govrnment to be persuaded and corrupted by those profits. Yes this
one
needs some work,
Thanks
Jim
D. Mindock wrote:
>Hi Jim,
> I think number 4 could be dangerous. What if a corporation
wanted to
>withhold their taxes for some
>reason?
> I'd modify number 5:
>5) Government through representation of the people by the people.
>to this:
>5) Government through representation of only the people, by only
the people,
>for only the
>people. (No wiggle room on this one)
>And I'd add another article that strongly limits what is really
the root of
>all our problems, the
>immoral/unethical, inhumane influence of multinational
corporations which
>now control most of the world's
>governments and indirectly, their people. This is the elephant in
the room,
>imo. Corporations are
>not people or a person and deserve no special treatment. The
welfare of the
>people should be paramount to all considerations.
>In this vein, the environment is part and parcel of the welfare
of the
>people. You can't ignore it or trash it without it coming
>back to ruin your day, and your life. Corporations, as a rule,
don't give a
>hoot about the environment. We are all stuck on a small planet
that is
>getter more polluted every day. The oceans are loaded with PCBs
and mercury.
>This cannot continue without devastating consequences for all
living things.
>So, an article that explicitly encourages/enforces a healthy
environment
>should, imo, be added. I think it is that important.
>
>Peace, D. Mindock
[snip]
|
