5 ms·

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 th

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.

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.