5 ms·

Internationalist CORPORATE interests.

by nnnnni 13y ago

lettergram 13y ago
These corporate interests you talk about, you do realize that (usually) about 20%-40% of stock owned by regular people and/or employees.... Further, it's in the best interest of the company to support these corporations because they hire millions of workers who pay taxes and without them this country would be as poor as Uganda.
- beagle3 13y ago
  > Further, it's in the best interest of the company to support "company"? > because they hire millions of workers who pay taxes and without them this country would be as poor as Uganda. You are committing the fallacy of assuming if they don't get anything they want down to the last iota, they will pick up their stuff and go someplace else. That's not true; if they could have done that, they would have done that already for tax reasons.
  - a3n 13y ago
    > "company"? Possibly a Freudian slip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip
- dmix 13y ago
  Yes, what Uganda is missing is powerful mega-corporations colluding with an over-reaching state. That's what makes jobs and healthy economies. And mega-corporations love to pay taxes. /s
- alan_cx 13y ago
  "These corporate interests you talk about, you do realize that (usually) about 20%-40% of stock owned by regular people and/or employees...." So, presumably then acting in a questionable manner is fine because lots of "little" people make money from it. There for, if we assume such people understand that their money comes from such practices, they must there for approve? Ok, so, if it is so important that this corruption exists and it makes the "little man" money, then why is it such a secret? Or are we saying if fine to break laws or act in a shady way, as long as people make money? I'm sorry, I really don't understand the point of saying that regular people and employees own some stock. I don't see how that justifies or excuses questionable practice. Besides, if its benefiting one bunch of stock holders, it must be that another bunch are somewhere losing out.
rayiner 13y ago
While corporate interests are implicated in this sort of thing, internationalism is the big problem in this sort of process. It's one thing to convince 50+1% of voters that corporatism is in their best interest. It's another thing to bypass that process entirely and make policy through trade agreements with a bunch of regimes like Brunei.
- dmix 13y ago
  Globalist policies really are the core of the issue. If we agree that free flow of commerce benefits us as a society and trade protectionism is harmful, then the debate is between state-sanctioned liberalism (free-trade through policy and partnership agreements) vs actual liberalism (free-trade by removing trade barriers and tariffs). The Trans-pacific agreement goes well beyond reducing tariffs, it would establish a complex array of new barriers and policies as well: > [TPP] is a comprehensive free trade agreement, affecting trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership Large corporations acting out of self-interest would prefer to exploit a heavily state-controlled trade policy to gain advantages over smaller companies who can't afford the lawyers and politicians to navigate the complex legal and political process. A purely liberal approach is not in the interest of big corps, despite the common perception that big-corp CEOs are all free-market libertarians. They want free-markets for participants, but with strong limitations in place on who can become a market participant. One could argue that the barriers are necessary to protect consumer interests, but when the barriers (especially during instantiation via secret meetings and later during enforcement) are only navigable by large powerful companies, than the intended protections become significantly weakened. Primarily because - by side effect - the laws become easily influenced/tailored to existing companies, and therefore counter-act any long-term benefit by removing the additional consumer protections that would naturally occur via competition. I only touched on the corporate perspective, the same sentiment applies to countries within and outside of the agreements.
  - rayiner 13y ago

Internationalist CORPORATE interests.

by nnnnni 13y ago

Internationalist CORPORATE interests.

These corporate interests you talk about, you do realize that (usually) about 20%-40% of stock owned by regular people and/or employees.... Further, it's in the best interest of the company to support these corporations because they hire millions of workers who pay taxes and without them this country would be as poor as Uganda.

beagle3 13y ago
> Further, it's in the best interest of the company to support "company"? > because they hire millions of workers who pay taxes and without them this country would be as poor as Uganda. You are committing the fallacy of assuming if they don't get anything they want down to the last iota, they will pick up their stuff and go someplace else. That's not true; if they could have done that, they would have done that already for tax reasons.
- a3n 13y ago
  > "company"? Possibly a Freudian slip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip
dmix 13y ago
Yes, what Uganda is missing is powerful mega-corporations colluding with an over-reaching state. That's what makes jobs and healthy economies. And mega-corporations love to pay taxes. /s
alan_cx 13y ago
"These corporate interests you talk about, you do realize that (usually) about 20%-40% of stock owned by regular people and/or employees...." So, presumably then acting in a questionable manner is fine because lots of "little" people make money from it. There for, if we assume such people understand that their money comes from such practices, they must there for approve? Ok, so, if it is so important that this corruption exists and it makes the "little man" money, then why is it such a secret? Or are we saying if fine to break laws or act in a shady way, as long as people make money? I'm sorry, I really don't understand the point of saying that regular people and employees own some stock. I don't see how that justifies or excuses questionable practice. Besides, if its benefiting one bunch of stock holders, it must be that another bunch are somewhere losing out.

rayiner 13y ago

While corporate interests are implicated in this sort of thing, internationalism is the big problem in this sort of process. It's one thing to convince 50+1% of voters that corporatism is in their best interest. It's another thing to bypass that process entirely and make policy through trade agreements with a bunch of regimes like Brunei.

dmix 13y ago
Globalist policies really are the core of the issue. If we agree that free flow of commerce benefits us as a society and trade protectionism is harmful, then the debate is between state-sanctioned liberalism (free-trade through policy and partnership agreements) vs actual liberalism (free-trade by removing trade barriers and tariffs). The Trans-pacific agreement goes well beyond reducing tariffs, it would establish a complex array of new barriers and policies as well: > [TPP] is a comprehensive free trade agreement, affecting trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership Large corporations acting out of self-interest would prefer to exploit a heavily state-controlled trade policy to gain advantages over smaller companies who can't afford the lawyers and politicians to navigate the complex legal and political process. A purely liberal approach is not in the interest of big corps, despite the common perception that big-corp CEOs are all free-market libertarians. They want free-markets for participants, but with strong limitations in place on who can become a market participant. One could argue that the barriers are necessary to protect consumer interests, but when the barriers (especially during instantiation via secret meetings and later during enforcement) are only navigable by large powerful companies, than the intended protections become significantly weakened. Primarily because - by side effect - the laws become easily influenced/tailored to existing companies, and therefore counter-act any long-term benefit by removing the additional consumer protections that would naturally occur via competition. I only touched on the corporate perspective, the same sentiment applies to countries within and outside of the agreements.
- rayiner 13y ago