4 ms·

>A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it I guess it would surprise a lot of people that we have far mo

>A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it I guess it would surprise a lot of people that we have far more common "interests" with corporations and their success then we have opposing "interests". In other words, in most cases, the things that benefit corporations benefit the people (not everyone, always, and equally, of course). Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me.

devb 13y ago
> Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me. That's really sunshiny happy and everything, but corporations and I have entirely different motives and values. I could just as easily point out that murderers, pedophiles, and (yes) Nazis are people like you and me.
- onebaddude 13y ago
  >That's really sunshiny happy and everything It's reality. We own the shares, we work for them, we manage them, and we support them by buying their products. If we cease doing any of that, they no longer exist. This idea that "corporations" are one thing and people are another is preposterous.
  - scarecrowbob 13y ago
    I think you might be evaluating the referent of the word "we" incorrectly.
    - onebaddude 13y ago
      >I think you might be evaluating the referent of the word "we" incorrectly. I'll go out on a limb and say that every single person that participates in this forum falls under at least one of those "we".
laumars 13y ago
Run by a tiny subset of people like you and me. The problem is most of the time companies aren't there to benefit us. Chief Exec's will give themselves massive bonuses while cutting the wages on the lower tiers. Corporations will readily use dirty tactics and lobbying to drive smaller companies out of business without any thought of the people who depend upon that business. And so on and so forth. Corporations are not there to serve our interest, they're there to serve their shareholders interest. And unless you've got a direct dependence on said corporation (eg you work for them), then our interests aren't the same. Corporations should never be allowed to influence on politics. Particularly not on the scale that they already do.
- onebaddude 13y ago
  >"The problem is most of the time companies aren't there to benefit us." Most of the time, huh? Look at the Forbes 500 list and point to all the companies that aren't there to benefit us. Companies that aren't out to serve the public are few and far between, and go out of business. What a ridiculous argument. >Corporations are not there to serve our interest, they're there to serve their shareholders interest. And who are the shareholders? Some unknown entity? How is it that you separate "our" and "shareholder"? I'm a shareholder, and you probably are to. >Corporations should never be allowed to influence on politics. Corporations don't; the people within them do. Don't believe me? Try the following thought experiment: Everybody quits working at Berkshire Hathaway tomorrow. Does the company continue to contribute to the Democratic party? How would that work, exactly?
  - laumars 13y ago
    > Most of the time, huh? Look at the Forbes 500 list and point to all the companies that aren't there to benefit us. Companies that aren't out to serve the public are few and far between, and go out of business. What a ridiculous argument. Providing shit services at inflated prices while pocketing all the money for yourself isn't the same as service the public interest. But for the most part - I'm ok with that. Companies are not charities. However what I'm not ok with is companies influencing politics because there's a clear conflict of interest there. You don't grow to the size of an international corporation by being nice. It takes a degree of ruthlessness that flies in the face of the general public's best interest. > And who are the shareholders? Some unknown entity? How is it that you separate "our" and "shareholder"? I'm a shareholder, and you probably are to. So you're a shareholder of every single company that you are impacted by? I very much doubt you are. You'd have shares in Disney, Sony and all the other conglomerates that's crippling copyright law. You'd need shares in Apple, Samsung, Microsoft and all the other companies who abuse patent laws. Including companies who's shares are dropping because their business is failing and patents are their last stand. You'd also need shares in tobacco companies, drugs companies and every other business that lobbies with the government. For your argument that we have shares in companies as an excuse for immoral business practices benefiting the population, you'd also need shares in patent trolls. The fact is, you get screwed over by more business than you profit from. And that's with someone like you who does have shares; most of the developed world's population don't play the stock market. > Corporations don't; the people within them do. Don't believe me? Try the following thought experiment: That's a dumb argument because the two are the one and the same in the context of this discussion. You can't run a company without having people within them to run it. So it's quite blatantly obvious that we're talking about the tiny minority of the population who are heading those companies (and I even categorically stated that previously). Since their position is vastly different from the average person, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss them separately - which is why they're referred to in the general sense as "companies" and "shareholders" (note that with the latter definition when used in this context it's generally used to refer to those with more than just a tiny percentage of a share) That all said, it should be noted that individuals do perform actions they wouldn't normally agree with but do so because it's part of the companies strategy / policy. Sometimes a persons principles are sidelined by their desire to stay employed. Which is why it often makes sense to talk about a 'company' as a culture rather than a group of individuals.

devb 13y ago

> Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me. That's really sunshiny happy and everything, but corporations and I have entirely different motives and values. I could just as easily point out that murderers, pedophiles, and (yes) Nazis are people like you and me.

onebaddude 13y ago
>That's really sunshiny happy and everything It's reality. We own the shares, we work for them, we manage them, and we support them by buying their products. If we cease doing any of that, they no longer exist. This idea that "corporations" are one thing and people are another is preposterous.
- scarecrowbob 13y ago
  I think you might be evaluating the referent of the word "we" incorrectly.
  - onebaddude 13y ago
    >I think you might be evaluating the referent of the word "we" incorrectly. I'll go out on a limb and say that every single person that participates in this forum falls under at least one of those "we".

laumars 13y ago

Run by a tiny subset of people like you and me. The problem is most of the time companies aren't there to benefit us. Chief Exec's will give themselves massive bonuses while cutting the wages on the lower tiers. Corporations will readily use dirty tactics and lobbying to drive smaller companies out of business without any thought of the people who depend upon that business. And so on and so forth. Corporations are not there to serve our interest, they're there to serve their shareholders interest. And unless you've got a direct dependence on said corporation (eg you work for them), then our interests aren't the same. Corporations should never be allowed to influence on politics. Particularly not on the scale that they already do.

onebaddude 13y ago
>"The problem is most of the time companies aren't there to benefit us." Most of the time, huh? Look at the Forbes 500 list and point to all the companies that aren't there to benefit us. Companies that aren't out to serve the public are few and far between, and go out of business. What a ridiculous argument. >Corporations are not there to serve our interest, they're there to serve their shareholders interest. And who are the shareholders? Some unknown entity? How is it that you separate "our" and "shareholder"? I'm a shareholder, and you probably are to. >Corporations should never be allowed to influence on politics. Corporations don't; the people within them do. Don't believe me? Try the following thought experiment: Everybody quits working at Berkshire Hathaway tomorrow. Does the company continue to contribute to the Democratic party? How would that work, exactly?
- laumars 13y ago
  > Most of the time, huh? Look at the Forbes 500 list and point to all the companies that aren't there to benefit us. Companies that aren't out to serve the public are few and far between, and go out of business. What a ridiculous argument. Providing shit services at inflated prices while pocketing all the money for yourself isn't the same as service the public interest. But for the most part - I'm ok with that. Companies are not charities. However what I'm not ok with is companies influencing politics because there's a clear conflict of interest there. You don't grow to the size of an international corporation by being nice. It takes a degree of ruthlessness that flies in the face of the general public's best interest. > And who are the shareholders? Some unknown entity? How is it that you separate "our" and "shareholder"? I'm a shareholder, and you probably are to. So you're a shareholder of every single company that you are impacted by? I very much doubt you are. You'd have shares in Disney, Sony and all the other conglomerates that's crippling copyright law. You'd need shares in Apple, Samsung, Microsoft and all the other companies who abuse patent laws. Including companies who's shares are dropping because their business is failing and patents are their last stand. You'd also need shares in tobacco companies, drugs companies and every other business that lobbies with the government. For your argument that we have shares in companies as an excuse for immoral business practices benefiting the population, you'd also need shares in patent trolls. The fact is, you get screwed over by more business than you profit from. And that's with someone like you who does have shares; most of the developed world's population don't play the stock market. > Corporations don't; the people within them do. Don't believe me? Try the following thought experiment: That's a dumb argument because the two are the one and the same in the context of this discussion. You can't run a company without having people within them to run it. So it's quite blatantly obvious that we're talking about the tiny minority of the population who are heading those companies (and I even categorically stated that previously). Since their position is vastly different from the average person, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss them separately - which is why they're referred to in the general sense as "companies" and "shareholders" (note that with the latter definition when used in this context it's generally used to refer to those with more than just a tiny percentage of a share) That all said, it should be noted that individuals do perform actions they wouldn't normally agree with but do so because it's part of the companies strategy / policy. Sometimes a persons principles are sidelined by their desire to stay employed. Which is why it often makes sense to talk about a 'company' as a culture rather than a group of individuals.