Not sure why protesters need to be the ones to provide a solution to the problem. Protesters are most often not economists or policy makers. All they really need to do is hold demonstrations to explain why the system is a failure.
But one of the major solutions is obvious: Banking regulation.
Just going to go ahead and quote myself since you apparently skipped it:
I think this really highlights the problem with the average voter... they don't understand what's going on and they don't care. People are entrenched in problem oriented thinking where the object is to simply point the finger at somebody else and complain, it's wallstreet, it's obama, it's republicans, it's socialist liberals, it's christian conservatives, and so it goes.
On some level it makes sense, we're not all economic planners. We elect these people to make intelligent choices on our behalf. The problem is that when you don't understand the issues it's hard to tell WHO is proposing a working solution and as a result you can't tell who the right candidate is to vote for.
I also want to point out that ignorance makes people incredibly easy to manipulate. So long as people want to intentionally keep themselves in the dark they're going to keep getting played by those who actually do understand what's going on.
Edit: Also banking regulation won't fix wallstreets corruption in politics and the two are basically intertwined, you don't get banking regulation unless you fix the corruption, if you're lucky you might get some brief relief but if you ignore the root cause it'll just weasel its way back in regardless of how much short term progress you make.
The main problem being corporations financing those who work in government, I think the solution that's trying to be impressed is a bit obvious, since the vocalized problem is constantly repeated. The actual solution would be to reverse rulings similar to Citizens United, and possibly eliminate corporate person-hood and lack of accountability. That's really the root cause of our problems.
Much as I agree with you in overturning Citizen's United, I think the effect that will have will be minimal at best. Most of the U.S. problems have been growing for a long time, Citizen's United was only ruled on in 2010. Corporate personhood isn't entirely relevant (although it's primarily the reason WHY the citizen's united ruling came out the way it did) as well considering the idea of the american dream was still alive and well just 50 years ago when corporate personhood as a concept goes back over 100 years. So that really can't be the root of the problem.
Senator Dick Durbin has been trying to pass public campaign finance reform for a while and the biggest roadblock is that there has been a lot of academic research done on the topic of whether or not campaign contributions affect the way politicians vote and the vast majority of them conclude that campaign contributions, even huge (6 figures and up) contributions, do not have any significant influence on policy-makers votes. In otherwords all the evidence seems to indicate that corporate money in politics does not seem to actually corrupt elected officials. Infact what is actually happening is donors seek out politicians that already match their views and they donate to them in much the same way a voter looks for the candidate that they agree with the most, and votes for them.
This isn't to say that real political corruption doesn't exist, anybody remember Ted Stevens? Guy became pretty popular a while back for coining the phrase "The internet isn't a big truck, it's a series of tubes." An oil-field service company founder helped pay for the remodeling of Ted Stevens house... He was basically the champion of wasteful spending, (the Bridge to Nowhere might ring some bells) and While in office he also helped funnel federal money to a long term friend of his and a former aide. The corruption exists, it just doesn't appear to be coming from campaign donations like everyone seems to think. That isn't to say campaign finance reform is bad, I think it's a really important thing because money is a serious advantage in any campaign, one that people who can't find corporate sponsorship don't get.
The real root of the problem though, is voters... Voters continue to elect people to office that (seemingly) do not reflect their interests, despite the fact that all of the evidence seems to indicate that candidates vote largely with the same beliefs they campaigned with. I attribute this almost entirely to complete lack of understanding of the issues that face our country, people cannot tell a good solution from a bad one, most of the people don't even understand the policies that are already in place let alone how they would be affected if they were changed. So they take the easy way out, pick a social issue and vote from that...
Recall what I said about Ted Stevens? After the avalanche of shit fell down on him and the indictments started rolling in, he ran for reelection and only narrowly lost, by a margin of less than 1% of the votes. Mind you, this was AFTER he had gone to trial and been CONVICTED, and still garnered over 145k+ votes... People are stupid. That video up there the guy says you dont need an IQ test to join the sentate, well you don't need one to vote either...
Everyone wants to pass the blame up to someone else but at the end of the day, they get into power because THE PEOPLE put them there.
I think an enormous credit to this rampant stupidity can be placed on the media as they are largely responsible for shaping and influencing the public discorse and how people understand and perceive topics. But I mean... how do you really deal with that? The only real way is to again, go back to the voter... Voters are consumers and when consumers start demanding news that actually provides insightful political analysis instead of problem oriented bullshit fist pounding and yelling then the media will provide it. Unfortunately everyone has looked at the success of the Fox news model of capitalizing on outrage and inflaming it instead of breaking down real issues, and the sad fact is that consumers are eating it up. People want to feel involved without being informed, so they compensate education for action. Marching in the streets is exciting and dramatic, reading a book about the financial meltdown is not.
I forgot to include my thoughts that I think you guys are right that this is a very bi-partisan issue. I mean, the D's have been in power for almost 4 years, and have done nothing to improve the issue, and very often worstening it. Voting everyone out is a solid threat, but does it really matter? Will it get anything done? What could we threaten the politicians with that would absolutely force them to pass appropriate legislation, or even something like an amendment?
Not to get too much into the political landscape here but Democrats have not been in power since June 2010. The senate is now overwhelmingly Republican (or Tea Party aligned) while the democrats have a marginal (but largely useless) advantage in the house. Prior to 2010, while the Democrats held both the house and the senate, they passed healthcare reform and the Dodd Frank Act (Financial Regulation) both against unified republican opposition. Since 2010 the Dodd Frank Act has been completely watered down to the point of uselessness and every republican presidential candidate has vowed to dismantle the healthcare reform bill the instant they get into office. Mitt Romney also vowed to repeal the Dodd Frank Act if elected. The banking regulation issue, at least, is not as bi-partisan as people think...
This is why congress has basically been completely stagnant for the last year and a half. It's at a political standstill, they have largely completely opposite ideologies and neither side has enough power to accomplish anything.
Voting people out WILL work. People just don't do it, or they do it to the wrong politicians.
Senator Dick Durbin has been trying to pass public campaign finance reform for a while and the biggest roadblock is that there has been a lot of academic research done on the topic of whether or not campaign contributions affect the way politicians vote and the vast majority of them conclude that campaign contributions, even huge (6 figures and up) contributions, do not have any significant influence on policy-makers votes. In otherwords all the evidence seems to indicate that corporate money in politics does not seem to actually corrupt elected officials.
Could you provide a link to this academic research? Sounds like an interesting read...
The real root of the problem though, is voters... Voters continue to elect people to office that (seemingly) do not reflect their interests, despite the fact that all of the evidence seems to indicate that candidates vote largely with the same beliefs they campaigned with.
A big part of this movement is casting aside political apathy, reliance on MSM, and how to properly educate yourself on finances, economics, politics, and all kinds of stuff. There are teach-ins and educated speakers covering a variety of topics at these rallies. Many people are waking up, pulling their heads out of the sand and demanding accountability from their politicians. That alone will change the voting landscape. People are blaming themselves, but in my opinion, they are not at fault for not wanting to be a part of a system where the sole way for a candidate to show he/she is worthy of a position is by discrediting the other candidates. It's petty. It's childish. It's embarrassing. I should never be forced to vote for the "lesser of two evils"...
I'm at fault too, as I've never been very politically involved. However, this movement has given me the courage and motivation to take a more active role in our democracy. If nothing else, that makes it a big success in my eyes.
the D's have been in power for almost 4 years, and have done nothing to improve the issue, and very often worstening it.
They over played their "sweep into power" when they came riding back into Washington. They had a slim majority on the house and lost it 2 years in.
Their super majority in the senate evaporated when 1 senator, Ted Kennedy(D) died and Scott Brown(R) became "41" effectively blocking the D Team from doing much of anything other than parliamentary tricks and slight of hand.
The flip in the house came in midterm elections so they lost power to govern, 2 years into it. Those 2 years where all about the healthcare overhaul, which they tried to work with republicans and all it got them was poison pill legislation, stonewalling and watered down healthcare reform.
So you can look at as 4 years in power but its more like 2 spent trying to be post partisan and 2 years deadlocked by the GOP. You need all three branches of government to have a single party rule. Personally what we have is a pretty good mix, minus the NeoCons.
Anyway... all the left and right bickering and finger pointing is just manufactured distractions so people don't understand the real struggle between up and down.
Senator Dick Durbin has been trying to pass public campaign finance reform for a while and the biggest roadblock is that there has been a lot of academic research done on the topic of whether or not campaign contributions affect the way politicians vote and the vast majority of them conclude that campaign contributions, even huge (6 figures and up) contributions, do not have any significant influence on policy-makers votes. In otherwords all the evidence seems to indicate that corporate money in politics does not seem to actually corrupt elected officials.
I question the rigor of this study. Who was it by? Who funded it? What criteria was involved. Was there a any incentive to produce a particular outcome. It seems specious to claim money doesn't influence politicians.
Anyway... all the left and right bickering and finger pointing is just manufactured distractions so people don't understand the real struggle between up and down.
THIS. Keep the poor and middle class fighting among themselves over nonsense and the rich and powerful can do whatever they like.
Senator Dick Durbin has been trying to pass public campaign finance reform for a while and the biggest roadblock is that there has been a lot of academic research done on the topic of whether or not campaign contributions affect the way politicians vote and the vast majority of them conclude that campaign contributions, even huge (6 figures and up) contributions, do not have any significant influence on policy-makers votes. In otherwords all the evidence seems to indicate that corporate money in politics does not seem to actually corrupt elected officials. Infact what is actually happening is donors seek out politicians that already match their views and they donate to them in much the same way a voter looks for the candidate that they agree with the most, and votes for them.
This sounds like the biggest load of horse crap I have ever heard in my life.
I question the rigor of this study. Who was it by? Who funded it? What criteria was involved. Was there a any incentive to produce a particular outcome. It seems specious to claim money doesn't influence politicians.
Could you provide a link to this academic research? Sounds like an interesting read...
Just a couple...
Did Firms Profit From Soft Money?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Economics
Stephen Ansolabehere, James M. Snyder, Michiko Ueda
The important distinction here is that while campaign funding may not affect how a politician votes, the amount of money that a candidate has definitely helps determine the outcome of elections. Having an underfunded campaign practically ensures your demise. This is why I think campaign finance reform is still desperately needed.
This sounds like the biggest load of horse crap I have ever heard in my life.
Well gee whiz, thank you for that bold counter-argument. You make a really convincing point.
So instead of bribing politicians to sway their votes to the corporations.. The Corporations basically fund a candidate with so much money they win their seat and then support them? Still sounds like bad news bears either way.
This sounds like the biggest load of horse crap I have ever heard in my life.
Thanks, you just confirmed why politics failed since their inception.
Politics is all about blatantly disagreeing with something without anything to back it up. It's all made-up bullcrap used to keep the public in the dark and to keep everyone disagreeing with each other.
Seriously, why do most of you continue to talk about non-issues such as Political Parties, when the real issue has NOTHING to do with 'what political party is right?'
When will most of you understand and stop arguing over ridiculous nonsense that doesn't matter? Are you really that blind to the true issues underneath the facade?
Has the media poisoned our society THAT much, to where society can't even tell what is really important anymore....?
Using this third party as an example of how the movement isn't "true" since they are paid to protest.
Funny, doesn't everyone need to be making money in our current system to survive?
Trying to downplay their efforts because they wish to eat and have warm clothes out there. Hilarious double standards. Since charities request donations, I can no longer take them seriously either.
Using this third party as an example of how the movement isn't "true" since they are paid to protest.
Pardon me if I've misread, especially since I'm not experienced. However, aside from the title of the blog post accusing them, where in the actual ad does it specifically say they're hiring people to protest with the Occupy movement?
Even if they were though, wouldn't they just be considered a subsection of the movement? From what I've read in pocket news sources, it sort of just seems to me that a lot of unions are piggybacking onto the protest. And from what I've heard and read from Occupy protesters, they don't wish to exclude help from who they consider the 99%. I don't really think it's sufficient evidence to say the movement isn't "true".
So instead of bribing politicians to sway their votes to the corporations.. The Corporations basically fund a candidate with so much money they win their seat and then support them? Still sounds like bad news bears either way.
Kind of, except the candidate already intended to support the corporation and generally they campaign on that idea, it's not like they suddenly take up that role when they get into office, they run on that premise.
The problem is of course no politicians stance is ever phrased so bluntly. You end up with a situation like this:
Candidate A: "We need to reduce regulations because they're burdens to business and the growth of the economy and job creation!" Candidate B: "We need to add regulations because corporations cannot be trusted to do whats in the best interest of the country!"
How does a voter tell which one is right? How do they even know which one of these they agree with? The simple fact is that they can't. There isn't enough information provided in these two statements to draw an educated conclusion, any conclusion drawn only on this much information is going to be purely bias driven and not informative. Unfortunately the media's analysis basically stops at these soundbites and no one goes far enough for people to actually understand the effects of each politicians stance and people are unlikely to actively search for that information on their own. So people vote for the candidate that sounds good based on the minimal information they have, and then they're surprised when the candidate does what they said they would do and yet the voter gets screwed.
In regards to the money, the number one thing that money provides a candidate is exposure (which anyone running against an incumbant desperately needs) but it also means that there are serious diminishing returns on the investment as eventually everybody has already heard of you. Supposedly a typical congressional seat you can expect to see about 5% increase in your vote share by doubling the amount of money you're putting into your campaign (this is assuming the other candidates are not spending money as well, if they are obviously the effects of everyones spending goes down.) So even though it's not the pervasive corruption it's portrayed as, yes it is still bad news as the power of "free speech" should be equalized and not disproportionately given more weight to the rich.
But simply having more valuable "speech" isn't enough to overpower actual voters, it only sways the ones who don't understand what they want. Great example of this was when Mitt Romney was trying to win his bid for the GOP nomination in 2008, he spent more money in a primary election than any other candidate in history, including $45 million of his own money, and still lost to John McCain. So simply spending a lot more money than the other guy isn't enough to overpower voters when the voters know what they want. Another excellent of example is Meg Whitman, former CEO of ebay, she spent $175 million on her campaign for Governor of California, 7 times more than her opponent, and still lost.
The main point I keep getting at with this is that voters still hold all the cards. People have themselves convinced they're slaves to corporations and have no power over politics anymore, this is simply false. At the end of the day corporations cannot force people vote for their candidate, people do that by choice. The people have all the power, and it isn't from marching in the street, it's from making informed voting choices in elections.
With that I'm gonna just bow out of this, it seems like my replies are getting longer and longer and usually in response to only to one or two lines of text I'm getting repetitive and I think I've made my point.
@PolyGoblin, sorry this is delayed but I'm glad to hear that there are outlets for people to inform themselves there, I wasn't aware of that. I'm hoping it all pays off in the end and people understand not only the issues but also what their current representatives stand for as there are a lot of good people in congress already that do genuinely have the peoples interests at heart and it would be painful to see them voted out simply because of blind "bi-partisan" outrage. Senator Dick Durbin has been trying to pass campaign finance reform forever (something I think the majority of the people in the wallstreet march would support) but to most people he's just another faceless politician whos robbing the people of their american dream and siphoning their money away to give to banks... and he's one of 44 members of the house and 12 members of the senate who supports it. Soo yeah.
This is a pretty typical situation. These large gatherings draw in the idiots too, and of course, the media jumps onto those morons for interviews, then start playing that footage on the nightly news. It makes it look like a bunch of ignorant kids out to cause havoc.
The thing is, I don't think most American's are against corporations making money, or a wealthy person being successful. The problem is, when they are influencing our government, and avoid paying their share of taxes.
That doesn't refer to ALL wealthy people, because obviously a lot of them do pay their taxes. But there are too many of them that pay little to no taxes, both personal and corporate. Their argument is that their actions are completely legal... and they are, but THAT'S the PROBLEM! They influenced legislation to deregulate, or create loopholes, that allow them to be tax free.
The problem is, people seem to lump these criticisms together, and claim it's class warfare. Personally, I'm tired of our governments stating they are out of money, and they only way they can offset it, is to cut essential programs, like emergency services, and education, or they'll have to raise taxes on the lower/middle class. As if there is nothing else our government is spending(wasting) money on, that can't be cut.
The thing is, I don't think most American's are against corporations making money, or a wealthy person being successful. The problem is, when they are influencing our government, and avoid paying their share of taxes.
Personally I don't mind corporations so long as they socially aware of their actions and choose to make the right decisions. Such as laying off 2 people at the executive level to save a few hundred jobs. Corporations that provide services and value their customers.
The ones that piss me off and need to be shut down are the ones that provide ZERO benefit to society.
Corporations that refuse to hire workers especially when they need to, because they want to put downward pressure on the economy in an effort to tilt the government in their favor. "The job creators will start hiring when the job creators get a pro job creator government in place" well isn't that grand... Personally that's terrorism and extortion.
Corporations that price fix and speculate on commodities like gas and grain around election time to angry up the public and get them to vote their way. Both sides do that and the cost of raising the price of cereal or a gallon of gas a few bucks is famine in countries that have zero voice. Way to go, kill thousands of people in poor countries just to get grandpa off the couch to vote out "the commies".
Disgusting.
PACs are corporations
They can receive unlimited campaign contributions from anywhere (Thank you citizens united and republicans for turning the TV and radio into a nonstop political ad war). They spring up over night launder billions in campaign contributions and do nothing but run slanderous ads and non-stop political hate speech. This is a corporation we can do without.
Corporations that slash thousands of workers from their payrolls while spending that same amount to lobby congress and the white house.
Corporations that shipped billions of jobs overseas because they could exploit 3rd world labor forces and pollute like they could in the 1800's. Now they want to roll back labor laws, unions, the EPA so they can bring all that back home. Fuck off... Those aren't the jobs we need. We don't need to exacerbate the healthcare crisis by giving millions of people cancer, lowering their life expectancy, lowering their quality of life and by doing so reducing the amount of money they make while increasing they amount of money needed to care for them as they die instead of work.
I'd rather be homeless and growing my own food in a shoebox, living in a clean environment. Than homeless, unable to grow my own food in toxic sludge and drinking out of a factory drainage pipe while sucking down lung fulls of shit that was banned in the 50's.
Campaign Finance Reform
To me this is more about campaign finance reform and bringing corporations under reasonable control, rather than destroying them all.
Citizen United really threw things into chaos and brought this to a boil. I don't think the republicans understand how much that pissed everyone off and how annoying its going to be over the next year as they bombard low information voters with a constant stream of non stop political rhetoric.
Corporations have a right to make money, fairly.
But not to exploit people, the environment or tilt the government/laws/regulations in their favor and make billions. They shouldn't be allowed to lobby the government they shouldn't be allowed to write laws for dimwitted lawmakers who don't bother to read them, and they shouldn't be allowed to comment on campaigns.
The candidates voices are the only voices that should be heard.
They should talk about the things they plan to do right instead of the things the other guy did wrong. Candidates should get 20-100k and 3mo to make their case in the media and that's it.
Personally I don't mind corporations so long as they socially aware of their actions and choose to make the right decisions. Such as laying off 2 people at the executive level to save a few hundred jobs. Corporations that provide services and value their customers.
These two aspects are mutually exclusive. Corporations exist to make money. Morals will lose out every time to profit. That is how it works.
Yeah I highly doubt morality exists in something who's only purpose is to make money, from anything and/or anyone. I agree with you Mark, but there's no way in hell.
I don't think just because an entity is a corporation that they are evil and should be done away with. As with any collection of people that get together to do something bigger than themselves that group can be used for good or evil and as a society we need to learn to limit and restrain the evil, and encourage and grow the good.
Corporations are like kids without guidance they go haywire and become unreasonable and irresponsible.
It starts with what these people are taught in school. "Do whatever to get the deal done because tomorrow we'll be both be rich and who cares about the fallout, money buys protection". They're taught to be just like the robber barons of the 1800's. That needs to change. They need to grow spines and consciences or they shouldn't be allowed to run companies. Government regulated or private sector certification it doesn't matter but it starts at the top and it starts before they ever take the wheel of a corporation.
Honestly I think it should start with empathy training early on in life and continue through college...
Financial institutions could rank companies based on social responsibility instead of just raw profit. High profit but low responsibility could mean higher fines and taxes.
People can be aware of what they buy and where it came from and how it was made and choose NOT to buy things that are made with slave labor. The government should raise tariffs on corporations that do use slave labor so their goods aren't any cheaper. I'm all for warnings being put on products that where made unscrupulously and determent to some society somewhere.
I've personally witnesses a company be socially responsible deliver goods the world depends on and treat its workers right. They've negotiated with the union in good faith and given the workers a lot when the times where good and worked with the union when times where bad. They've taken great steps to make a clean manufacturing process and limit their environmental and social impact.
The company one that I've had a long history with but never worked for. The company is Boeing. Both my grandfather and my father and so many friends and family members have worked for them over the decades on all levels. Overall there is some abuse and wrong doing in recent years but over the history of the company they have operated as a responsible corporation and made obscene amounts of money by not manipulating the system. Shutting them down or replacing them would be catastrophic and impossible. Reforming them so they operate like they did over the majority of their history would be a lot easier and a lot more beneficial.
There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of companies that operate fairly in their business practices and just need some guidance.
Of course there are those that need to be dealt with harshly but that doesn't mean that all corporations get tar'ed and feathered. I don't like to see it happen to individuals who do nothing wrong and I don't like to see it happen to groups of people. I won't stand up for and defend corporations that are in the wrong, but I won't sit by and see innocent people get punished for things they never did, or disproportionately punished for minor things.
By all means go after those that break the laws, change the laws that are unfair but lets not lose ourselves into a mob mentality and think "the others" need to pay.
As with everything in life there needs to be balance.
The problem is it is black and white. It takes money to make money and there are practices and loopholes used to make more money. Monopolies on product advertising, patents, and just the sheer amount of bureaucracy has driven out all competition to the top. Considering this is an art site this is pretty out of our scope of reasoning, i think most of us ended up here because we wanted to work hard and make a living doing just that, some here have, but consdering this industry makes billions yearly i don't see many millionaires in these parts, fact is the money in this nation doesn't actually go to people who work hard it's almost insane to think it would at this point.
Every year the system is more broken, people have more debt, the top 1% have even more money.
To top it all off and this is what gets me the most, because of the gauranteed road to profits listed above, no one at the top actually gives a crap about what they make, they just want the dollar, don't care how. Con the hell out of the masses, appeal to the lowest common denominator, so long as they get theirs fuck it. Mcdonalds, latte's, pop music, and highly patented overpriced tech for everyone.
No one gets to make a difference unless they have a shitton of money and the only thing to do then is to try to make a shitton more, why rock the boat?
We have a deranged form of democracy with the vote being the diminishing dollar, the bodies of government now being corporations. In a largely uneducated and tasteless populous, majority still rules.
These two aspects are mutually exclusive. Corporations exist to make money. Morals will lose out every time to profit. That is how it works.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Corporations were chartered to serve the public good by providing valuable services with limited legal liability. All other priorities are supposed to be subordinate to that by law. This was the trade off they were offered for limited liability. They were also supposed to be limited to a 10 or 30 year lifespan, not allowed to buy other corporations, and they can't deviate from their mandate to serve the public good above all else or their charter is void.
Santa Clara Co. vs Southern Pacific Railroad changed all of that. Just by some inadmissible headnote on the case report from the court reporter that was used as false precedent to apply the power of individuals to corporations. The rest is history.
Now they have the power to buy laws, other corporations, and they still claim the right of personhood. They claim to be persons, yet they can buy other "persons"? Either they're not a person and don't have any rights natural to a living person or they're participating in enslaving corporations. Thanks to this, we have unjust laws and monopolies.
I don't think just because an entity is a corporation that they are evil and should be done away with. As with any collection of people that get together to do something bigger than themselves that group can be used for good or evil and as a society we need to learn to limit and restrain the evil, and encourage and grow the good.
There's a difference between a corporation and a company. A company is what you describe. Just a bunch of people that get together to make something. A corporation is a legal entity that's distinct and separate from the people who own it and operate it. Which basically means that the group of people who get together to make something can't be sued. Why? Because the government says so. This has moral hazard written all over it.
If you're making a product, you should be held accountable for it. There's no reason on earth a group of innocent people who just want to get together and make stuff need that kind of legal protection. It's obvious that the layer of separation is there to cover rich people's asses when things go bad. And this is not even taking into account Limited Liability laws.
Now they have the power to buy laws, other corporations, and they still claim the right of personhood. They claim to be persons, yet they can buy other "persons"? Either they're not a person and don't have any rights natural to a living person or they're participating in enslaving corporations. Thanks to this, we have unjust laws and monopolies.
I'll believe corporations are people as soon as Texas hangs one. Until that point, they're bullshit incarnate.
Walmart is struggling actually (finally). My brother recently got a (very shitty) job with them, and from what he's hearing/seeing, they are not doing well lately.
I think it's funny watching Fox News discredit this and call all the protestors (including veterans) unAmerican and as if it's some conspiracy and yet 100% fully support the Tea Party and even host it's movemennts.
I think it's funny watching Fox News discredit this and call all the protestors (including veterans) unAmerican and as if it's some conspiracy and yet 100% fully support the Tea Party and even host it's movemennts.
Not to mention they cheered the Arabs on during their "Arab Spring". That was a "democracy", but this is because these people "hate freedom"? Classic Faux News...
Only thing that surprises me is how many people still take what they say as fact
Vig I have to agree with them. Corporations are formed to make money for the shareholders. That is the first and last goal for the management. The executive may want to do things differently, but they cannot since they are only managing the company to raise the stock price, indefinitely. So in a sense uncontrolled, they are like a disease. We do not live in a unlimited world.
A good book on the subject is "The Corporation: The pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power"
Personally, I think there should be no public stocks versus just co-ops or employee owned stocks.
I think they can be reformed or at least an attempt should be made, if they fight it then they can be done away with. They either realize how poisonous they can be and don't take their companies down those roads or they cease to exists.
I totally agree with co-ops and employee owned companies. As things get darker and darker economically the tiny little dream of owning a self sustaining farm (or one that belongs to a co-op) keeps growing brighter and brighter. There are a few places locally that help would-be farmers acquire land train them and help them become sustainable. I love it...
Maybe I'm just a big lazy dirty hippy who wants to mooch off the land. But honestly if you asked me, it would more of an issue of self reliance. You idiots can do whatever you want just don't release any viruses or go and get us invaded by aliens.
Its not quite to that point and for right now, I'm not ready to give up all hope on corporations but they do need to turn a corner or risk being done away with. If they choose to fight and they win, you'll know where to find me...
There's a difference between a corporation and a company. A company is what you describe. Just a bunch of people that get together to make something. A corporation is a legal entity that's distinct and separate from the people who own it and operate it. Which basically means that the group of people who get together to make something can't be sued. Why? Because the government says so. This has moral hazard written all over it.
If you're making a product, you should be held accountable for it. There's no reason on earth a group of innocent people who just want to get together and make stuff need that kind of legal protection. It's obvious that the layer of separation is there to cover rich people's asses when things go bad. And this is not even taking into account Limited Liability laws.
I'll believe corporations are people as soon as Texas hangs one. Until that point, they're bullshit incarnate.
Do you guys have some sort of upper limit on employees before you start executing people? I need to know since I'm planning starting a company between now and 2016 depending on certain things.
Do you guys have some sort of upper limit on employees before you start executing people? I need to know since I'm planning starting a company between now and 2016 depending on certain things.
A company is just a business that's held by a single owner or group of owners. They have full legal liability if the company is sued. A corporation is owned by shareholders who are not held legally liable. A company owner can loose capital and property if they are sued. Shareholder assets are not at risk in a corporation. The corporation bears the full risk while the shareholders are only on the line for their investments should the stock fall.
A company is just a business that's held by a single owner or group of owners. They have full legal liability if the company is sued. A corporation is owned by shareholders who are not held legally liable. A company owner can loose capital and property if they are sued. Shareholder assets are not at risk in a corporation. The corporation bears the full risk while the shareholders are only on the line for their investments should the stock fall.
Well it's going to be an LLC, I'm not an idiot
sure I'm just trolling a bit but the same things loop holes and tax write offs that mega corporations use to rake in the dough are the same things that help a small business barely scrape by.
There will be a major "Occupy" march here in our city tomorrow. This is spreading like a plague which isn't a bad thing by any means. Time to wake the fuck up.
Ice cream supports the Occupy movement. You don't want to hate ice cream now, do you?
Yes, Ben and Jerry's supporting the movement in no way undermines it by making it look like their advertising is targeting a mindless mass of stoners. Luls.
There will be a major "Occupy" march here in our city tomorrow. This is spreading like a plague which isn't a bad thing by any means. Time to wake the fuck up.
We've got people camping out in some of the parks downtown here in Iowa City, seems to be growing daily. A very small town but also very liberal college down(University of Iowa). Police apparently have been very supportive here, but not in Des Moines.
We need to kill off the Fed and revoke all corporate charters. Let them do business with full liability and zero political power by making it a felony in line with treason to give money or other monied incentives to government candidates, incumbents, and former legislators.
We also need to get rid of Fractional Reserve Banking. They are literally lending money that doesn't exist.
We need to get rid of the interest based economy, it's not something we need. It's really just a tool to enslave us with debt making us labor to pay off loans that most can never get over. It should be replaced with a non-interest money system. Our forefathers were doing it before King George outlawed it (while taking legal currency away with huge taxes to pay the war debts from the war with France, which incidentally was also in debt to the same banks for the same reason) at the Bank's behest creating massive poverty and unemployment, which sparked the American Revolution.
During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied.
"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.
In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."
It's the loaning of money at interest that is the primary cause for prices to rise and make things that should be affordable become unaffordable with out loans. Think about it, as loans have become larger and easier to get, things like college tuition and housing prices have risen astronomically. The banks create nothing but debt. Commerce and industry do not need these money changers in order to move ahead. This system forces the lowest financial class of Americans to toil endlessly to pay back debts that were created from nothing to line the pockets of bankers who produce nothing of value, but take everything of value from us.
Anyone who claims loaning at interest is necessary is either ignorant, insane, or in on the scam. Some try to justify it by claiming they take a "risk" when they loan money. What risk? They make these loans knowing full-well that if the debtors don't or can't pay back the loans, the income tax system they helped set up (which is why we have income tax) will cover the losses.
Replies
I also want to point out that ignorance makes people incredibly easy to manipulate. So long as people want to intentionally keep themselves in the dark they're going to keep getting played by those who actually do understand what's going on.
Edit: Also banking regulation won't fix wallstreets corruption in politics and the two are basically intertwined, you don't get banking regulation unless you fix the corruption, if you're lucky you might get some brief relief but if you ignore the root cause it'll just weasel its way back in regardless of how much short term progress you make.
This says it right here.
Senator Dick Durbin has been trying to pass public campaign finance reform for a while and the biggest roadblock is that there has been a lot of academic research done on the topic of whether or not campaign contributions affect the way politicians vote and the vast majority of them conclude that campaign contributions, even huge (6 figures and up) contributions, do not have any significant influence on policy-makers votes. In otherwords all the evidence seems to indicate that corporate money in politics does not seem to actually corrupt elected officials. Infact what is actually happening is donors seek out politicians that already match their views and they donate to them in much the same way a voter looks for the candidate that they agree with the most, and votes for them.
This isn't to say that real political corruption doesn't exist, anybody remember Ted Stevens? Guy became pretty popular a while back for coining the phrase "The internet isn't a big truck, it's a series of tubes." An oil-field service company founder helped pay for the remodeling of Ted Stevens house... He was basically the champion of wasteful spending, (the Bridge to Nowhere might ring some bells) and While in office he also helped funnel federal money to a long term friend of his and a former aide. The corruption exists, it just doesn't appear to be coming from campaign donations like everyone seems to think. That isn't to say campaign finance reform is bad, I think it's a really important thing because money is a serious advantage in any campaign, one that people who can't find corporate sponsorship don't get.
The real root of the problem though, is voters... Voters continue to elect people to office that (seemingly) do not reflect their interests, despite the fact that all of the evidence seems to indicate that candidates vote largely with the same beliefs they campaigned with. I attribute this almost entirely to complete lack of understanding of the issues that face our country, people cannot tell a good solution from a bad one, most of the people don't even understand the policies that are already in place let alone how they would be affected if they were changed. So they take the easy way out, pick a social issue and vote from that...
Recall what I said about Ted Stevens? After the avalanche of shit fell down on him and the indictments started rolling in, he ran for reelection and only narrowly lost, by a margin of less than 1% of the votes. Mind you, this was AFTER he had gone to trial and been CONVICTED, and still garnered over 145k+ votes... People are stupid. That video up there the guy says you dont need an IQ test to join the sentate, well you don't need one to vote either...
Everyone wants to pass the blame up to someone else but at the end of the day, they get into power because THE PEOPLE put them there.
I think an enormous credit to this rampant stupidity can be placed on the media as they are largely responsible for shaping and influencing the public discorse and how people understand and perceive topics. But I mean... how do you really deal with that? The only real way is to again, go back to the voter... Voters are consumers and when consumers start demanding news that actually provides insightful political analysis instead of problem oriented bullshit fist pounding and yelling then the media will provide it. Unfortunately everyone has looked at the success of the Fox news model of capitalizing on outrage and inflaming it instead of breaking down real issues, and the sad fact is that consumers are eating it up. People want to feel involved without being informed, so they compensate education for action. Marching in the streets is exciting and dramatic, reading a book about the financial meltdown is not.
Not to get too much into the political landscape here but Democrats have not been in power since June 2010. The senate is now overwhelmingly Republican (or Tea Party aligned) while the democrats have a marginal (but largely useless) advantage in the house. Prior to 2010, while the Democrats held both the house and the senate, they passed healthcare reform and the Dodd Frank Act (Financial Regulation) both against unified republican opposition. Since 2010 the Dodd Frank Act has been completely watered down to the point of uselessness and every republican presidential candidate has vowed to dismantle the healthcare reform bill the instant they get into office. Mitt Romney also vowed to repeal the Dodd Frank Act if elected. The banking regulation issue, at least, is not as bi-partisan as people think...
This is why congress has basically been completely stagnant for the last year and a half. It's at a political standstill, they have largely completely opposite ideologies and neither side has enough power to accomplish anything.
Voting people out WILL work. People just don't do it, or they do it to the wrong politicians.
(apologies for the super long reply)
Could you provide a link to this academic research? Sounds like an interesting read...
A big part of this movement is casting aside political apathy, reliance on MSM, and how to properly educate yourself on finances, economics, politics, and all kinds of stuff. There are teach-ins and educated speakers covering a variety of topics at these rallies. Many people are waking up, pulling their heads out of the sand and demanding accountability from their politicians. That alone will change the voting landscape. People are blaming themselves, but in my opinion, they are not at fault for not wanting to be a part of a system where the sole way for a candidate to show he/she is worthy of a position is by discrediting the other candidates. It's petty. It's childish. It's embarrassing. I should never be forced to vote for the "lesser of two evils"...
I'm at fault too, as I've never been very politically involved. However, this movement has given me the courage and motivation to take a more active role in our democracy. If nothing else, that makes it a big success in my eyes.
Their super majority in the senate evaporated when 1 senator, Ted Kennedy(D) died and Scott Brown(R) became "41" effectively blocking the D Team from doing much of anything other than parliamentary tricks and slight of hand.
The flip in the house came in midterm elections so they lost power to govern, 2 years into it. Those 2 years where all about the healthcare overhaul, which they tried to work with republicans and all it got them was poison pill legislation, stonewalling and watered down healthcare reform.
So you can look at as 4 years in power but its more like 2 spent trying to be post partisan and 2 years deadlocked by the GOP. You need all three branches of government to have a single party rule. Personally what we have is a pretty good mix, minus the NeoCons.
Anyway... all the left and right bickering and finger pointing is just manufactured distractions so people don't understand the real struggle between up and down.
I question the rigor of this study. Who was it by? Who funded it? What criteria was involved. Was there a any incentive to produce a particular outcome. It seems specious to claim money doesn't influence politicians.
THIS. Keep the poor and middle class fighting among themselves over nonsense and the rich and powerful can do whatever they like.
This sounds like the biggest load of horse crap I have ever heard in my life.
I believe I already said that, just not bluntly.
Did Firms Profit From Soft Money?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Economics
Stephen Ansolabehere, James M. Snyder, Michiko Ueda
Do Campaign Donations Alter How A Politician Votes? Or, Do Donors Support Candidates Who Value The Same Things That They Do?
The Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 40, No. 2
Stephen G. Bronars (University of Texas), John R. Lott Jr. (University of Maryland)
The important distinction here is that while campaign funding may not affect how a politician votes, the amount of money that a candidate has definitely helps determine the outcome of elections. Having an underfunded campaign practically ensures your demise. This is why I think campaign finance reform is still desperately needed.
Well gee whiz, thank you for that bold counter-argument. You make a really convincing point.
The corporation quickly snatches up 11 of the cookies. The Con and the Lib stare at the Corp in amazement.
The corporation then locks eyes with the conservative and says "you better watch out, he's after your cookie" and nods at the liberal.
Thanks, you just confirmed why politics failed since their inception.
Politics is all about blatantly disagreeing with something without anything to back it up. It's all made-up bullcrap used to keep the public in the dark and to keep everyone disagreeing with each other.
Seriously, why do most of you continue to talk about non-issues such as Political Parties, when the real issue has NOTHING to do with 'what political party is right?'
When will most of you understand and stop arguing over ridiculous nonsense that doesn't matter? Are you really that blind to the true issues underneath the facade?
Has the media poisoned our society THAT much, to where society can't even tell what is really important anymore....?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/help-wanted.php
Using this third party as an example of how the movement isn't "true" since they are paid to protest.
Funny, doesn't everyone need to be making money in our current system to survive?
Trying to downplay their efforts because they wish to eat and have warm clothes out there. Hilarious double standards. Since charities request donations, I can no longer take them seriously either.
Pardon me if I've misread, especially since I'm not experienced. However, aside from the title of the blog post accusing them, where in the actual ad does it specifically say they're hiring people to protest with the Occupy movement?
Even if they were though, wouldn't they just be considered a subsection of the movement? From what I've read in pocket news sources, it sort of just seems to me that a lot of unions are piggybacking onto the protest. And from what I've heard and read from Occupy protesters, they don't wish to exclude help from who they consider the 99%. I don't really think it's sufficient evidence to say the movement isn't "true".
The problem is of course no politicians stance is ever phrased so bluntly. You end up with a situation like this:
Candidate A: "We need to reduce regulations because they're burdens to business and the growth of the economy and job creation!"
Candidate B: "We need to add regulations because corporations cannot be trusted to do whats in the best interest of the country!"
How does a voter tell which one is right? How do they even know which one of these they agree with? The simple fact is that they can't. There isn't enough information provided in these two statements to draw an educated conclusion, any conclusion drawn only on this much information is going to be purely bias driven and not informative. Unfortunately the media's analysis basically stops at these soundbites and no one goes far enough for people to actually understand the effects of each politicians stance and people are unlikely to actively search for that information on their own. So people vote for the candidate that sounds good based on the minimal information they have, and then they're surprised when the candidate does what they said they would do and yet the voter gets screwed.
In regards to the money, the number one thing that money provides a candidate is exposure (which anyone running against an incumbant desperately needs) but it also means that there are serious diminishing returns on the investment as eventually everybody has already heard of you. Supposedly a typical congressional seat you can expect to see about 5% increase in your vote share by doubling the amount of money you're putting into your campaign (this is assuming the other candidates are not spending money as well, if they are obviously the effects of everyones spending goes down.) So even though it's not the pervasive corruption it's portrayed as, yes it is still bad news as the power of "free speech" should be equalized and not disproportionately given more weight to the rich.
But simply having more valuable "speech" isn't enough to overpower actual voters, it only sways the ones who don't understand what they want. Great example of this was when Mitt Romney was trying to win his bid for the GOP nomination in 2008, he spent more money in a primary election than any other candidate in history, including $45 million of his own money, and still lost to John McCain. So simply spending a lot more money than the other guy isn't enough to overpower voters when the voters know what they want. Another excellent of example is Meg Whitman, former CEO of ebay, she spent $175 million on her campaign for Governor of California, 7 times more than her opponent, and still lost.
The main point I keep getting at with this is that voters still hold all the cards. People have themselves convinced they're slaves to corporations and have no power over politics anymore, this is simply false. At the end of the day corporations cannot force people vote for their candidate, people do that by choice. The people have all the power, and it isn't from marching in the street, it's from making informed voting choices in elections.
With that I'm gonna just bow out of this, it seems like my replies are getting longer and longer and usually in response to only to one or two lines of text
@PolyGoblin, sorry this is delayed but I'm glad to hear that there are outlets for people to inform themselves there, I wasn't aware of that. I'm hoping it all pays off in the end and people understand not only the issues but also what their current representatives stand for as there are a lot of good people in congress already that do genuinely have the peoples interests at heart and it would be painful to see them voted out simply because of blind "bi-partisan" outrage. Senator Dick Durbin has been trying to pass campaign finance reform forever (something I think the majority of the people in the wallstreet march would support) but to most people he's just another faceless politician whos robbing the people of their american dream and siphoning their money away to give to banks... and he's one of 44 members of the house and 12 members of the senate who supports it. Soo yeah.
The thing is, I don't think most American's are against corporations making money, or a wealthy person being successful. The problem is, when they are influencing our government, and avoid paying their share of taxes.
That doesn't refer to ALL wealthy people, because obviously a lot of them do pay their taxes. But there are too many of them that pay little to no taxes, both personal and corporate. Their argument is that their actions are completely legal... and they are, but THAT'S the PROBLEM! They influenced legislation to deregulate, or create loopholes, that allow them to be tax free.
The problem is, people seem to lump these criticisms together, and claim it's class warfare. Personally, I'm tired of our governments stating they are out of money, and they only way they can offset it, is to cut essential programs, like emergency services, and education, or they'll have to raise taxes on the lower/middle class. As if there is nothing else our government is spending(wasting) money on, that can't be cut.
Personally I don't mind corporations so long as they socially aware of their actions and choose to make the right decisions. Such as laying off 2 people at the executive level to save a few hundred jobs. Corporations that provide services and value their customers.
The ones that piss me off and need to be shut down are the ones that provide ZERO benefit to society.
Corporations that refuse to hire workers especially when they need to, because they want to put downward pressure on the economy in an effort to tilt the government in their favor. "The job creators will start hiring when the job creators get a pro job creator government in place" well isn't that grand... Personally that's terrorism and extortion.
Corporations that price fix and speculate on commodities like gas and grain around election time to angry up the public and get them to vote their way. Both sides do that and the cost of raising the price of cereal or a gallon of gas a few bucks is famine in countries that have zero voice. Way to go, kill thousands of people in poor countries just to get grandpa off the couch to vote out "the commies".
Disgusting.
PACs are corporations
They can receive unlimited campaign contributions from anywhere (Thank you citizens united and republicans for turning the TV and radio into a nonstop political ad war). They spring up over night launder billions in campaign contributions and do nothing but run slanderous ads and non-stop political hate speech. This is a corporation we can do without.
Corporations that slash thousands of workers from their payrolls while spending that same amount to lobby congress and the white house.
Corporations that shipped billions of jobs overseas because they could exploit 3rd world labor forces and pollute like they could in the 1800's. Now they want to roll back labor laws, unions, the EPA so they can bring all that back home. Fuck off... Those aren't the jobs we need. We don't need to exacerbate the healthcare crisis by giving millions of people cancer, lowering their life expectancy, lowering their quality of life and by doing so reducing the amount of money they make while increasing they amount of money needed to care for them as they die instead of work.
I'd rather be homeless and growing my own food in a shoebox, living in a clean environment. Than homeless, unable to grow my own food in toxic sludge and drinking out of a factory drainage pipe while sucking down lung fulls of shit that was banned in the 50's.
Campaign Finance Reform
To me this is more about campaign finance reform and bringing corporations under reasonable control, rather than destroying them all.
Citizen United really threw things into chaos and brought this to a boil. I don't think the republicans understand how much that pissed everyone off and how annoying its going to be over the next year as they bombard low information voters with a constant stream of non stop political rhetoric.
Corporations have a right to make money, fairly.
But not to exploit people, the environment or tilt the government/laws/regulations in their favor and make billions. They shouldn't be allowed to lobby the government they shouldn't be allowed to write laws for dimwitted lawmakers who don't bother to read them, and they shouldn't be allowed to comment on campaigns.
The candidates voices are the only voices that should be heard.
They should talk about the things they plan to do right instead of the things the other guy did wrong. Candidates should get 20-100k and 3mo to make their case in the media and that's it.
These two aspects are mutually exclusive. Corporations exist to make money. Morals will lose out every time to profit. That is how it works.
I don't think just because an entity is a corporation that they are evil and should be done away with. As with any collection of people that get together to do something bigger than themselves that group can be used for good or evil and as a society we need to learn to limit and restrain the evil, and encourage and grow the good.
Corporations are like kids without guidance they go haywire and become unreasonable and irresponsible.
It starts with what these people are taught in school. "Do whatever to get the deal done because tomorrow we'll be both be rich and who cares about the fallout, money buys protection". They're taught to be just like the robber barons of the 1800's. That needs to change. They need to grow spines and consciences or they shouldn't be allowed to run companies. Government regulated or private sector certification it doesn't matter but it starts at the top and it starts before they ever take the wheel of a corporation.
Honestly I think it should start with empathy training early on in life and continue through college...
Financial institutions could rank companies based on social responsibility instead of just raw profit. High profit but low responsibility could mean higher fines and taxes.
People can be aware of what they buy and where it came from and how it was made and choose NOT to buy things that are made with slave labor. The government should raise tariffs on corporations that do use slave labor so their goods aren't any cheaper. I'm all for warnings being put on products that where made unscrupulously and determent to some society somewhere.
I've personally witnesses a company be socially responsible deliver goods the world depends on and treat its workers right. They've negotiated with the union in good faith and given the workers a lot when the times where good and worked with the union when times where bad. They've taken great steps to make a clean manufacturing process and limit their environmental and social impact.
The company one that I've had a long history with but never worked for. The company is Boeing. Both my grandfather and my father and so many friends and family members have worked for them over the decades on all levels. Overall there is some abuse and wrong doing in recent years but over the history of the company they have operated as a responsible corporation and made obscene amounts of money by not manipulating the system. Shutting them down or replacing them would be catastrophic and impossible. Reforming them so they operate like they did over the majority of their history would be a lot easier and a lot more beneficial.
There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of companies that operate fairly in their business practices and just need some guidance.
Of course there are those that need to be dealt with harshly but that doesn't mean that all corporations get tar'ed and feathered. I don't like to see it happen to individuals who do nothing wrong and I don't like to see it happen to groups of people. I won't stand up for and defend corporations that are in the wrong, but I won't sit by and see innocent people get punished for things they never did, or disproportionately punished for minor things.
By all means go after those that break the laws, change the laws that are unfair but lets not lose ourselves into a mob mentality and think "the others" need to pay.
As with everything in life there needs to be balance.
Every year the system is more broken, people have more debt, the top 1% have even more money.
To top it all off and this is what gets me the most, because of the gauranteed road to profits listed above, no one at the top actually gives a crap about what they make, they just want the dollar, don't care how. Con the hell out of the masses, appeal to the lowest common denominator, so long as they get theirs fuck it. Mcdonalds, latte's, pop music, and highly patented overpriced tech for everyone.
No one gets to make a difference unless they have a shitton of money and the only thing to do then is to try to make a shitton more, why rock the boat?
We have a deranged form of democracy with the vote being the diminishing dollar, the bodies of government now being corporations. In a largely uneducated and tasteless populous, majority still rules.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Corporations were chartered to serve the public good by providing valuable services with limited legal liability. All other priorities are supposed to be subordinate to that by law. This was the trade off they were offered for limited liability. They were also supposed to be limited to a 10 or 30 year lifespan, not allowed to buy other corporations, and they can't deviate from their mandate to serve the public good above all else or their charter is void.
Santa Clara Co. vs Southern Pacific Railroad changed all of that. Just by some inadmissible headnote on the case report from the court reporter that was used as false precedent to apply the power of individuals to corporations. The rest is history.
Now they have the power to buy laws, other corporations, and they still claim the right of personhood. They claim to be persons, yet they can buy other "persons"? Either they're not a person and don't have any rights natural to a living person or they're participating in enslaving corporations. Thanks to this, we have unjust laws and monopolies.
There's a difference between a corporation and a company. A company is what you describe. Just a bunch of people that get together to make something. A corporation is a legal entity that's distinct and separate from the people who own it and operate it. Which basically means that the group of people who get together to make something can't be sued. Why? Because the government says so. This has moral hazard written all over it.
If you're making a product, you should be held accountable for it. There's no reason on earth a group of innocent people who just want to get together and make stuff need that kind of legal protection. It's obvious that the layer of separation is there to cover rich people's asses when things go bad. And this is not even taking into account Limited Liability laws.
I'll believe corporations are people as soon as Texas hangs one. Until that point, they're bullshit incarnate.
Hang a corporation? I'm up for that! Can we hang Walmart first?
Not to mention they cheered the Arabs on during their "Arab Spring". That was a "democracy", but this is because these people "hate freedom"? Classic Faux News...
Only thing that surprises me is how many people still take what they say as fact
here's a nice NEWS update
http://www.democracynow.org/
A good book on the subject is "The Corporation: The pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power"
Personally, I think there should be no public stocks versus just co-ops or employee owned stocks.
I totally agree with co-ops and employee owned companies. As things get darker and darker economically the tiny little dream of owning a self sustaining farm (or one that belongs to a co-op) keeps growing brighter and brighter. There are a few places locally that help would-be farmers acquire land train them and help them become sustainable. I love it...
I really dig the idea of having an urban farm like what people are doing in Detroit and in other areas.
Maybe I'm just a big lazy dirty hippy who wants to mooch off the land. But honestly if you asked me, it would more of an issue of self reliance. You idiots can do whatever you want just don't release any viruses or go and get us invaded by aliens.
Its not quite to that point and for right now, I'm not ready to give up all hope on corporations but they do need to turn a corner or risk being done away with. If they choose to fight and they win, you'll know where to find me...
Do you guys have some sort of upper limit on employees before you start executing people? I need to know since I'm planning starting a company between now and 2016 depending on certain things.
A company is just a business that's held by a single owner or group of owners. They have full legal liability if the company is sued. A corporation is owned by shareholders who are not held legally liable. A company owner can loose capital and property if they are sued. Shareholder assets are not at risk in a corporation. The corporation bears the full risk while the shareholders are only on the line for their investments should the stock fall.
Wayne Enterprises should never have gone public?
Well it's going to be an LLC, I'm not an idiot
sure I'm just trolling a bit but the same things loop holes and tax write offs that mega corporations use to rake in the dough are the same things that help a small business barely scrape by.
Ice cream supports the Occupy movement. You don't want to hate ice cream now, do you?
hehe you asshole..
[ame="
Yes, Ben and Jerry's supporting the movement in no way undermines it by making it look like their advertising is targeting a mindless mass of stoners. Luls.
We've got people camping out in some of the parks downtown here in Iowa City, seems to be growing daily. A very small town but also very liberal college down(University of Iowa). Police apparently have been very supportive here, but not in Des Moines.
I like that guy ^.^
We also need to get rid of Fractional Reserve Banking. They are literally lending money that doesn't exist.
We need to get rid of the interest based economy, it's not something we need. It's really just a tool to enslave us with debt making us labor to pay off loans that most can never get over. It should be replaced with a non-interest money system. Our forefathers were doing it before King George outlawed it (while taking legal currency away with huge taxes to pay the war debts from the war with France, which incidentally was also in debt to the same banks for the same reason) at the Bank's behest creating massive poverty and unemployment, which sparked the American Revolution.
It's the loaning of money at interest that is the primary cause for prices to rise and make things that should be affordable become unaffordable with out loans. Think about it, as loans have become larger and easier to get, things like college tuition and housing prices have risen astronomically. The banks create nothing but debt. Commerce and industry do not need these money changers in order to move ahead. This system forces the lowest financial class of Americans to toil endlessly to pay back debts that were created from nothing to line the pockets of bankers who produce nothing of value, but take everything of value from us.
Anyone who claims loaning at interest is necessary is either ignorant, insane, or in on the scam. Some try to justify it by claiming they take a "risk" when they loan money. What risk? They make these loans knowing full-well that if the debtors don't or can't pay back the loans, the income tax system they helped set up (which is why we have income tax) will cover the losses.