7 ms·

> to work hard to achieve the will of the people where do corporations fit into that ?

rayiner 7y ago
The idea that there's a dichotomy between "the people" and "corporations" is specious. Almost everyone is employed at a corporation. People buy food, clothes, entertainment, etc., from corporations. A vote for corporations is a vote for things "the people" need or enjoy--iPhones, movies, cars, lifesaving drugs, etc.
- bdamm 7y ago
  Careful. Corporations operate to fulfill their mandate to shareholders, which is to make a profit. Employees, suppliers, real estate, customers, even executives are just mechanisms to achieve that end goal. There's no real sense of justice beyond not getting shut down. People, on the other hand, live in the real world, and need protection from forces that wish to obliterate what they need to seek happiness. This is the primary function of government, ideally, to create the markets within which corporations and people can get along and operate to their goals with relative safety. Yes, we need corporations. But we are not corporations.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    > There's no real sense of justice beyond not getting shut down. Corporations have no greater or lesser sense of justice than people, because corporations are just groups of people acting in concert. (A fact that I'm reminded of every time I see a long line of cars with a single occupant in the HOV lane.)
    - bdamm 7y ago
      Groups of people behave differently than individuals. Corporations are constructed with the entire purpose of something that an individual wouldn't or couldn't do. It is the job of a board member to ensure that. A person in a company making a moral decision involving the company's behavior isn't acting from a sense of personal morality because it isn't happening to them. The consequences aren't generally on them, other than losing their job. Yes, companies can be amoral, but not for the same reasons that people can be amoral.
    - JudgeWapner 7y ago
      > groups of people acting in concert a better description would be "acting under contract" to produce returns for 99% wealthy shareholders at any cost whatsoever to the environment, to the economy, to other corporations, or to under-represented members of society.
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  the "will of the people" in the midwest isn't to have their manufacturing jobs sent to other countries. So yes, there absolutely is a dichotomy.
  - tepidandroid 7y ago
    The will of the manufacturing people you mean? It's certainly the will of the people to consume goods as cheaply as possible, is it not? One cannot have both high paying manufacturing jobs and $500, 70" TVs.
    - JudgeWapner 7y ago
      The people weren't offered a choice, "you can have inexpensive goods and go on unemployment, OR you an keep your jobs but with a 10% markup on electronics" (btw there was massive collusion by Samsung and Sony with subsequent settlement for price fixing in flat-panel TVs). Moving jobs overseas is evading the "free market" by literally moving the labor market somewhere else. The corporation captures the benefit, the old workers are unemployed, the new workers do not benefit from the social benefits of the nation to which the corporation pays it taxes, and the shareholders get an extra $1.00EPS on their dividend sheet (that they pay very litle tax on because their rates are lower than wage tax). It's an all-around scam.
      - tepidandroid 7y ago
        In my view, people were offered a very clear choice: Made in China or made in the USA, and they very consistently and unambiguously made their choice at every given opportunity with their wallets. Probably not the same people, mind you. People are inherently selfish. It's likely that those whose livelihoods depend on manufacturing realize the importance of buying domestic. But for everyone else, it's all about the wallet. Your sentence could be rephrased as: "I can have my inexpensive goods with a 10% markdown. You can go on unemployment." If people were not so selfish in their spending habits the more socially conscientious corporations would be the dominant ones, but clearly that is not the case today.
- sytelus 7y ago
  This is so wrong at so many levels. First, people don’t “vote” for corporations. You trade goods and service in exchange of money and it is not same as giving consent to be governed or policies. Furthermore, corporations are in essence dictatorship by CEO or board of directors or shareholders. They are not required to align with will of people outside of products. Quite opposite they are required to increase the shareholder value if it is legally allowed although it may not be morally good thing for society in longer term.

The idea that there's a dichotomy between "the people" and "corporations" is specious. Almost everyone is employed at a corporation. People buy food, clothes, entertainment, etc., from corporations. A vote for corporations is a vote for things "the people" need or enjoy--iPhones, movies, cars, lifesaving drugs, etc.

bdamm 7y ago
Careful. Corporations operate to fulfill their mandate to shareholders, which is to make a profit. Employees, suppliers, real estate, customers, even executives are just mechanisms to achieve that end goal. There's no real sense of justice beyond not getting shut down. People, on the other hand, live in the real world, and need protection from forces that wish to obliterate what they need to seek happiness. This is the primary function of government, ideally, to create the markets within which corporations and people can get along and operate to their goals with relative safety. Yes, we need corporations. But we are not corporations.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > There's no real sense of justice beyond not getting shut down. Corporations have no greater or lesser sense of justice than people, because corporations are just groups of people acting in concert. (A fact that I'm reminded of every time I see a long line of cars with a single occupant in the HOV lane.)
  - bdamm 7y ago
    Groups of people behave differently than individuals. Corporations are constructed with the entire purpose of something that an individual wouldn't or couldn't do. It is the job of a board member to ensure that. A person in a company making a moral decision involving the company's behavior isn't acting from a sense of personal morality because it isn't happening to them. The consequences aren't generally on them, other than losing their job. Yes, companies can be amoral, but not for the same reasons that people can be amoral.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    > groups of people acting in concert a better description would be "acting under contract" to produce returns for 99% wealthy shareholders at any cost whatsoever to the environment, to the economy, to other corporations, or to under-represented members of society.
JudgeWapner 7y ago
the "will of the people" in the midwest isn't to have their manufacturing jobs sent to other countries. So yes, there absolutely is a dichotomy.
- tepidandroid 7y ago
  The will of the manufacturing people you mean? It's certainly the will of the people to consume goods as cheaply as possible, is it not? One cannot have both high paying manufacturing jobs and $500, 70" TVs.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    The people weren't offered a choice, "you can have inexpensive goods and go on unemployment, OR you an keep your jobs but with a 10% markup on electronics" (btw there was massive collusion by Samsung and Sony with subsequent settlement for price fixing in flat-panel TVs). Moving jobs overseas is evading the "free market" by literally moving the labor market somewhere else. The corporation captures the benefit, the old workers are unemployed, the new workers do not benefit from the social benefits of the nation to which the corporation pays it taxes, and the shareholders get an extra $1.00EPS on their dividend sheet (that they pay very litle tax on because their rates are lower than wage tax). It's an all-around scam.
    - tepidandroid 7y ago
      In my view, people were offered a very clear choice: Made in China or made in the USA, and they very consistently and unambiguously made their choice at every given opportunity with their wallets. Probably not the same people, mind you. People are inherently selfish. It's likely that those whose livelihoods depend on manufacturing realize the importance of buying domestic. But for everyone else, it's all about the wallet. Your sentence could be rephrased as: "I can have my inexpensive goods with a 10% markdown. You can go on unemployment." If people were not so selfish in their spending habits the more socially conscientious corporations would be the dominant ones, but clearly that is not the case today.
sytelus 7y ago
This is so wrong at so many levels. First, people don’t “vote” for corporations. You trade goods and service in exchange of money and it is not same as giving consent to be governed or policies. Furthermore, corporations are in essence dictatorship by CEO or board of directors or shareholders. They are not required to align with will of people outside of products. Quite opposite they are required to increase the shareholder value if it is legally allowed although it may not be morally good thing for society in longer term.