Profit vs Theft

[Chris]

Modern liberalism tells us profit is evil and theft is good.


Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another — their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

—Ayn Rand

We’re told that money is bad. Yet those who have less of it are constantly using the force of government to get more of it. Their leader in the White House, and his wife, call for service to replace the motive of profit. Yet if money and profit are so bad, why do those seeking the trillions in redistributed wealth want it so badly?

We’re told that profit is evil. Yet profit is a sign of health. Profit for Apple means that millions of people are buying affordable phones and computers. Profit for Exxon means millions of people have heat and fuel, instead of living in caves or shacks and riding in horses and buggies. If profit and success are so bad, why are the fruits of profit and success seen as so necessary — indeed, taken for granted?

We’re told that freedom cannot exist without guaranteed food, shelter, and medical care. But what about the freedom of those forced to pay for the food, shelter and medical care of those who don’t have it? Where does their freedom go? And what about the freedom of those who now depend on the government handouts, in greater numbers than ever before as the economy continues to stagnate and the entitlement state grows exponentially? How free is someone who depends on government to provide his food, shelter and medical care?...

More @ The Profit Motive is Good; The Loss and Theft Motive is Evil (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2012/11/the-profit-motive-is-good-the-loss-and-theft-motive-is-evil/).

[truthmatters]

Ayn Rand ended up broke and on SS

[Chris]

Ayn Rand ended up broke and on SS

Explain what that has to do with what she or the author have to say.

[Chloe]

I don't think profits are really evil in most cases but they can become evil if every decision made in a company is based on money. Yesterday was a good example I think. Retail companies like walmart and target decided to open on thanksgiving day instead of letting their employees have the day with family and friends. By doing that it also split up families that would normally have been at home by enticing them with great deals and big TV's. Are those profits really worth the message that those companies sent out to all of us that getting a TV for $150 is more important than spending time with your family and friends? Those sales really couldn't have waited till Friday? It's that kind of greed that really turns me off to a lot of those companies and even a lot of the people that chose a store over family. People are obsessed with buying stuff and having stuff that I think they forget what is a want and what is a need. Companies do the same thing by forgetting that not every day should be a day for making money. But that's just my personal opinion.

[Chloe]

I will say that if walmart or one of those stores that were open on Thanksgiving donated all of the money they made between 8pm and midnight last night to charity or something like that then that would be awesome.

[Chris]

I don't think profits are really evil in most cases but they can become evil if every decision made in a company is based on money. Yesterday was a good example I think. Retail companies like walmart and target decided to open on thanksgiving day instead of letting their employees have the day with family and friends. By doing that it also split up families that would normally have been at home by enticing them with great deals and big TV's. Are those profits really worth the message that those companies sent out to all of us that getting a TV for $150 is more important than spending time with your family and friends? Those sales really couldn't have waited till Friday? It's that kind of greed that really turns me off to a lot of those companies and even a lot of the people that chose a store over family. People are obsessed with buying stuff and having stuff that I think they forget what is a want and what is a need. Companies do the same thing by forgetting that not every day should be a day for making money. But that's just my personal opinion.

While I agree with the values you express--some paces round here close Sundays for family and church etc, I don't really see where Walmart and Target and others coerced anyone to work Thanksgiving evening, and they should be free to make that choice. Taxation, however, is coerced.

[Chloe]

While I agree with the values you express--some paces round here close Sundays for family and church etc, I don't really see where Walmart and Target and others coerced anyone to work Thanksgiving evening, and they should be free to make that choice. Taxation, however, is coerced.

I meant more that they coerced people to shop by opening when they did and offering the deals that they did just to make profits when it was not necessary at all. Between today and Christmas Day there will be plenty of money to be made by companies so by opening on Thanksgiving it just seemed low to me and greedy, but at the same time people chose to go because they want things, and that is wrong to me too. It was just wrong to me overall making employees come in on Thanksgiving night to work so that the company could take advantage of people that want to buy cheap stuff instead being with family and friends and having a day of just being happy. I'm sorry I know this isn't about thanksgiving and shopping but it was my example for profits being evil.

[Chris]

I meant more that they coerced people to shop by opening when they did and offering the deals that they did just to make profits when it was not necessary at all. Between today and Christmas Day there will be plenty of money to be made by companies so by opening on Thanksgiving it just seemed low to me and greedy, but at the same time people chose to go because they want things, and that is wrong to me too. It was just wrong to me overall making employees come in on Thanksgiving night to work so that the company could take advantage of people that want to buy cheap stuff instead being with family and friends and having a day of just being happy. I'm sorry I know this isn't about thanksgiving and shopping but it was my example for profits being evil.

Even in that sense, while I agree with the values you express, no one was coerced to work or to shop yesterday evening. People did what they did based on their own subjective values.

[Chloe]

Even in that sense, while I agree with the values you express, no one was coerced to work or to shop yesterday evening. People did what they did based on their own subjective values.

ok I understand what you mean now

[bladimz]

Profits aren't evil. What's bad is the greed that drives the push for more and more profit-making, often at the expense and well-being of their employees. As an example, the greed of a corporation such as Apple is what moves it's manufacturing and assembling work overseas (China, i believe) to a work environment that uses extremely cheap labor and no benefits responsibilities. This is legal and works well for Apple, but it sure as hell works against the american worker. If Apple kept every job in-country, they'd still make a very fine profit. But they know that they could make an even bigger profit employing overseas. And this helps the american economy, how? ... Isn't our choking economy exactly what our current national nightmare is all about?

So, sure, the corporations have the right and the freedom to generate their profits anyway they legally want. But when they want to send work overseas at the cost of the american worker, that's when i call BS on profiting. It's interesting how many corporate heads rant about the outrageous regulations that they must deal with and how much it costs them. They have the freedom to leave this country, and yet they stay. Why? Because most realize that no matter what, in the end, the cons of moving their home offices to another country easily outweigh the pros. It has to be that way. Otherwise, why do they stay? American patriotism and love of country? Try again.

http://gifs.gifbin.com/1237394303_karate_chimp.gif

Hey, they'd turn their operations over to a zoo full of chimps if they thought they could get the work done for bananas.

[Chris]

Profits aren't evil. What's bad is the greed that drives the push for more and more profit-making, often at the expense and well-being of their employees. As an example, the greed of a corporation such as Apple is what moves it's manufacturing and assembling work overseas (China, i believe) to a work environment that uses extremely cheap labor and no benefits responsibilities. This is legal and works well for Apple, but it sure as hell works against the american worker. If Apple kept every job in-country, they'd still make a very fine profit. But they know that they could make an even bigger profit employing overseas. And this helps the american economy, how? ... Isn't our choking economy exactly what our current national nightmare is all about?

So, sure, the corporations have the right and the freedom to generate their profits anyway they legally want. But when they want to send work overseas at the cost of the american worker, that's when i call BS on profiting. It's interesting how many corporate heads rant about the outrageous regulations that they must deal with and how much it costs them. They have the freedom to leave this country, and yet they stay. Why? Because most realize that no matter what, in the end, the cons of moving their home offices to another country easily outweigh the pros. It has to be that way. Otherwise, why do they stay? American patriotism and love of country? Try again.

http://gifs.gifbin.com/1237394303_karate_chimp.gif

Hey, they'd turn their operations over to a zoo full of chimps if they thought they could get the work done for bananas.

Frankly, I don't get the nationalistic argument you present. Economics naturally knows no unnatural borders. Apple going overseas helps those employees overseas with better jobs and us back home with lower prices.

What is argued regarding regulation and taxation is that if our government were to make to make the US more of a reg and tax haven, it would attrack American companies back and foreign companies to come here. Isn't that what you want?

[bladimz]

Frankly, I don't get the nationalistic argument you present. Economics naturally knows no unnatural borders. Apple going overseas helps those employees overseas with better jobs and us back home with lower prices.

What is argued regarding regulation and taxation is that if our government were to make to make the US more of a reg and tax haven, it would attrack American companies back and foreign companies to come here. Isn't that what you want?

First, if the US is suffering from an extremely weak economy, what good is to come from sending manufacturing overseas at the cost of a stronger american job market. Ask anyone who's been unemployed for any length of time, and they'll tell you they'd happily pay more for a discretionary product if it meant that work would return to the US.

Second, relaxing corporate regulations and taxation doesn't guarantee a return of good American companies. This also applies to foreign companies. Quality counts. And a tight regulatory rein helps to maintain a quality corporate environment. That's what i want.

BTW, i believe that any business environment is fluid. A business moving out just opens a hole that will quickly be filled by another company ready to pick up where the other co. left off. It's not like a hole left by a loose tooth... That's the beauty of entrepreneurship. There's always a new business just waiting for their chance.

[Chris]

First, if the US is suffering from an extremely weak economy, what good is to come from sending manufacturing overseas at the cost of a stronger american job market. Ask anyone who's been unemployed for any length of time, and they'll tell you they'd happily pay more for a discretionary product if it meant that work would return to the US.

Second, relaxing corporate regulations and taxation doesn't guarantee a return of good American companies. This also applies to foreign companies. Quality counts. And a tight regulatory rein helps to maintain a quality corporate environment. That's what i want.

BTW, i believe that any business environment is fluid. A business moving out just opens a hole that will quickly be filled by another company ready to pick up where the other co. left off. It's not like a hole left by a loose tooth... That's the beauty of entrepreneurship. There's always a new business just waiting for their chance.

First, lower costs ease hard times. Given the tax and reg climate, many of those going overseas wouldn't survive here.

Second, the likelyhood is very high. See the Index of Economic Freedom where it's demonstrated those countries more relaxed are economically better off.

Quality is subjective.

Yes, what Schumpeter called creative-destruction does seem to work. That's likely what would have happened if GM and Chrysler had been let go bankrupt.

[countryboy]

First, if the US is suffering from an extremely weak economy, what good is to come from sending manufacturing overseas at the cost of a stronger american job market. Ask anyone who's been unemployed for any length of time, and they'll tell you they'd happily pay more for a discretionary product if it meant that work would return to the US.

Second, relaxing corporate regulations and taxation doesn't guarantee a return of good American companies. This also applies to foreign companies. Quality counts. And a tight regulatory rein helps to maintain a quality corporate environment. That's what i want.

BTW, i believe that any business environment is fluid. A business moving out just opens a hole that will quickly be filled by another company ready to pick up where the other co. left off. It's not like a hole left by a loose tooth... That's the beauty of entrepreneurship. There's always a new business just waiting for their chance.
Do you believe we are in "an extremely weak economy"?

[countryboy]

I meant more that they coerced people to shop by opening when they did and offering the deals that they did just to make profits when it was not necessary at all. Between today and Christmas Day there will be plenty of money to be made by companies so by opening on Thanksgiving it just seemed low to me and greedy, but at the same time people chose to go because they want things, and that is wrong to me too. It was just wrong to me overall making employees come in on Thanksgiving night to work so that the company could take advantage of people that want to buy cheap stuff instead being with family and friends and having a day of just being happy. I'm sorry I know this isn't about thanksgiving and shopping but it was my example for profits being evil.
Wait a minute. Profits aren't necessary for businesses? Wow.....who knew?

[bladimz]

Do you believe we are in "an extremely weak economy"?Mea Culpa. I should say simply "a weak economy". Either way, my point stands.

[KC]

First, if the US is suffering from an extremely weak economy, what good is to come from sending manufacturing overseas at the cost of a stronger american job market. Ask anyone who's been unemployed for any length of time, and they'll tell you they'd happily pay more for a discretionary product if it meant that work would return to the US.

Second, relaxing corporate regulations and taxation doesn't guarantee a return of good American companies. This also applies to foreign companies. Quality counts. And a tight regulatory rein helps to maintain a quality corporate environment. That's what i want.

BTW, i believe that any business environment is fluid. A business moving out just opens a hole that will quickly be filled by another company ready to pick up where the other co. left off. It's not like a hole left by a loose tooth... That's the beauty of entrepreneurship. There's always a new business just waiting for their chance.

I think you're right that quality matters, but I think you are overstating the negatives of shipping jobs abroad. Usually the jobs we're losing are low quality, low education jobs. They are being moved to a place where there is a high supply of labor that need low educationjobs. In turn, we get lower prices and more high paying, high education jobs. Seattle is a great example of this.

[countryboy]

Mea Culpa. I should say simply "a weak economy". Either way, my point stands.

Am I safe in assuming you voted for Obama?

[bladimz]

First, lower costs ease hard times. Given the tax and reg climate, many of those going overseas wouldn't survive here.

Second, the likelyhood is very high. See the Index of Economic Freedom where it's demonstrated those countries more relaxed are economically better off.

Quality is subjective.

Yes, what Schumpeter called creative-destruction does seem to work. That's likely what would have happened if GM and Chrysler had been let go bankrupt.

IMO, lower costs, because of work sent overseas, are a substantive cause of hard times. I'm going to have to do a little research to find out just how much better an american company fares in a foreign environment. Not just economically, but in other areas as well. Is the company enjoying the same quality of national military protection. Does the company have the same quality of transportation and road system available to them. What about the air and water pollutant levels. What about political pressures; are they better or worse in the foreign environment.

The point is, there are many other factors that will impact the overall "success" of the company's relocation than just less regulations and lower taxes.

[bladimz]

Am I safe in assuming you voted for Obama?
You are about as safe as a turkey leg at a Thanksgiving Day dinner. (Never make assumptions).

[Chris]

IMO, lower costs, because of work sent overseas, are a substantive cause of hard times. I'm going to have to do a little research to find out just how much better an american company fares in a foreign environment. Not just economically, but in other areas as well. Is the company enjoying the same quality of national military protection. Does the company have the same quality of transportation and road system available to them. What about the air and water pollutant levels. What about political pressures; are they better or worse in the foreign environment.

The point is, there are many other factors that will impact the overall "success" of the company's relocation than just less regulations and lower taxes.

I'm talking lower costs back here. My previous truck was made in Mexico. Ford was able to sell it cheaper because of that. I paid less, it allowed me to use the savings for other things.



The Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/) considers a wide range of factors in scoring each country.

[Chris]

Getting back to the theme of the topic though, whether we agree corporation ought to do this or that regarding profits, for what ever reasons of what's fair, what's just, it is their profits, their money and capital, their risk, and to take that from them, through regs and taxes, is theft.

[countryboy]

You are about as safe as a turkey leg at a Thanksgiving Day dinner. (Never make assumptions).
I like white meat. So that's a yes? :D

[countryboy]

I'm talking lower costs back here. My previous truck was made in Mexico. Ford was able to sell it cheaper because of that. I paid less, it allowed me to use the savings for other things.



The Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/) considers a wide range of factors in scoring each country.

It's the irony of ironies. Libs decry the outsourcing of jobs, while at the same time advocating for corrupt unions that make the cost of doing business here extremely difficult, if not impossible. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes010.gif

[Chris]

It's the irony of ironies. Libs decry the outsourcing of jobs, while at the same time advocating for corrupt unions that make the cost of doing business here extremely difficult, if not impossible. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes010.gif

Bastiat would refer to that as the difference between what is seen--helping union workers' wager--and what is not seen--harming the companies that pay the wages.

[KC]

The Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/) considers a wide range of factors in scoring each country.


Wow. If the index is to be trusted it's no wonder Awryly sees her island as so advanced.

[Chris]

Wow. If the index is to be trusted it's no wonder Awryly sees her island as so advanced.

Surprisingly, considering awryly's socialist views, NZ is fairly free economically. 4th behind Australia, Singapsre and Hong Kong.

[Awryly]

Surprisingly, considering awryly's socialist views, NZ is fairly free economically. 4th behind Australia, Singapsre and Hong Kong.


Have you not considered that it is possible to be "liberal" on economic policies, "conservative" on fiscal policies and "socialist" on social policies?

That's basically, what NZ is.

[Chris]

Have you not considered that it is possible to be "liberal" on economic policies, "conservative" on fiscal policies and "socialist" on social policies?

That's basically, what NZ is.

Stick to topic. See rule 9. You may of course start your own.

[Mainecoons]

If Apple kept every job in-country, they'd still make a very fine profit.

Let's see your proof for this statement, Blad.

[Mainecoons]

Does the company have the same quality of transportation and road system available to them. What about the air and water pollutant levels.

The old "infrastructure" red herring again from Blad. The percentage of government spending that goes to infrastructure is ridiculously small.


This week, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, who had popularized this argument on the Left before Obama made it a national campaign issue, released an ad bemoaning the fact that "China invests 9 percent of its GDP on infrastructure" while America "is at just 2.4 percent." (That includes state and local spending.)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/this-is-why-we-cant-build-that/article/2503752

In other words, with government in Americal blotting up somewhere north of 40 percent of GDP, it can only manage to spend 2.4 percent on infrastruture per one of your own libs, Blad.

Much of the rest of it is pissed away on failing programs, income redistribution and policing the world. Yet your solution isn't to redirect some of this wasted spending, it is to tax more and waste more. The standard liberal response.

At least I hope we've seen the last of your exaggerated claims about infrastructure as though it was a significant part of what our bloated, wasteful governments spend money on.

[Peter1469]

Let's see your proof for this statement, Blad.

I doubt that they could sell Apple products if they were made in the US.

[Chloe]

Wait a minute. Profits aren't necessary for businesses? Wow.....who knew?Well it's necessary for the business to stay open obviously but there entire business shouldn't be just about profit. The people that work for these businesses are not just tools to be used without any sort of heart or compassion in my opinion. Profits are important but not if it devalues the people working there.

[Peter1469]

Capitalism should not be devoid of morality. But consider, a profit motive includes caring for employees. Mal-treated employees are not a benefit to the bottom line.

[countryboy]

Well it's necessary for the business to stay open obviously but there entire business shouldn't be just about profit. The people that work for these businesses are not just tools to be used without any sort of heart or compassion in my opinion. Profits are important but not if it devalues the people working there.
And that's the great thing about liberty. You are free to work for anyone you choose, including yourself. :)

And actually, business IS, and should be entirely about profit, for without it you cannot do anything else in business. Including treating your employees well. ;)

[Chris]

Capitalism should not be devoid of morality. But consider, a profit motive includes caring for employees. Mal-treated employees are not a benefit to the bottom line.

And for customers, for if you harm customers you lose them as well.

[Chris]

Well it's necessary for the business to stay open obviously but there entire business shouldn't be just about profit. The people that work for these businesses are not just tools to be used without any sort of heart or compassion in my opinion. Profits are important but not if it devalues the people working there.

Have to agree with countryboy profits are necessary. A business not growing is failing for a competitor will be.

[shaarona]

While I agree with the values you express--some paces round here close Sundays for family and church etc, I don't really see where Walmart and Target and others coerced anyone to work Thanksgiving evening, and they should be free to make that choice. Taxation, however, is coerced.

When I was a young mother we had "blue laws".. nothing was open on Sunday.. and grocery stores weren't open 24/7 or on major holidays. It was nice..

When I was little and stayed with my grandparents in small town Alabama, shops closed on Wednesday afternoons.. We used to go fishing.. My grandmother wouldn't fish on Sunday, or wash clothes or go to the movies.

[Chris]

When I was a young mother we had "blue laws".. nothing was open on Sunday.. and grocery stores weren't open 24/7 or on major holidays. It was nice..

When I was little and stayed with my grandparents in small town Alabama, shops closed on Wednesday afternoons.. We used to go fishing.. My grandmother wouldn't fish on Sunday, or wash clothes or go to the movies.

Right, I agree, but it's nicer when businesses make these choices on their own and are not coerced by blue laws.

[Chloe]

And that's the great thing about liberty. You are free to work for anyone you choose, including yourself. :)And actually, business IS, and should be entirely about profit, for without it you cannot do anything else in business. Including treating your employees well. ;)
Have to agree with countryboy profits are necessary. A business not growing is failing for a competitor will be.I agree that they are necessary but that doesn't mean that profits should be the main reason for having that business and it doesn't mean that the profit Is more important than the employees or the community. A business should be beneficial to the place you live in as a whole and not just the people in charge that live in a completely different state. When the company gets so large and loses its sense of community and being a part of the local community then it slowly loses its heart I think, and when money becomes more important than the people that keep that business running then that business won't last anyway regardless how much money it will make.

[Chris]

I agree that they are necessary but that doesn't mean that profits should be the main reason for having that business and it doesn't mean that the profit Is more important than the employees or the community. A business should be beneficial to the place you live in as a whole and not just the people in charge that live in a completely different state. When the company gets so large and loses its sense of community and being a part of the local community then it slowly loses its heart I think, and when money becomes more important than the people that keep that business running then that business won't last anyway regardless how much money it will make.

I'm not aware of any business like that caricature. It is various interests that drive people to create a business, from selfish to altruistic reasons, and regardless the reason, the company benefits the community by bringing it not just products or services it desires--how else stay in business--but jobs and tax revenues.

It's not just about money.

[Awryly]

I'm not aware of any business like that caricature. It is various interests that drive people to create a business, from selfish to altruistic reasons, and regardless the reason, the company benefits the community by bringing it not just products or services it desires--how else stay in business--but jobs and tax revenues.

It's not just about money.

What taxes? Big business escapes most of them. Thanks to its fervent lobbyists.

I have always imagined that people like you, who are deluded by Tea party fantasies, contribute taxes that support the rich because you hope to live in a world that is beyond your tiny reach.

Is that so?

[Awryly]

It must be Sunday in the US. Another day of rest.

And a day behind.

[Chris]

What taxes? Big business escapes most of them. Thanks to its fervent lobbyists.

I have always imagined that people like you, who are deluded by Tea party fantasies, contribute taxes that support the rich because you hope to live in a world that is beyond your tiny reach.

Is that so?

No, just another idiotic straw man of your invention.

[bladimz]

The old "infrastructure" red herring again from Blad. The percentage of government spending that goes to infrastructure is ridiculously small.



http://washingtonexaminer.com/this-is-why-we-cant-build-that/article/2503752

In other words, with government in Americal blotting up somewhere north of 40 percent of GDP, it can only manage to spend 2.4 percent on infrastruture per one of your own libs, Blad.

Much of the rest of it is pissed away on failing programs, income redistribution and policing the world. Yet your solution isn't to redirect some of this wasted spending, it is to tax more and waste more. The standard liberal response.

At least I hope we've seen the last of your exaggerated claims about infrastructure as though it was a significant part of what our bloated, wasteful governments spend money on.Well, i'm glad that you have a handle on the "standard liberal response", Coons. You can prattle on about infrastructure as you like; it has little to do with my comments about a relocated american corporation to a foreign company. My point still stands.

[patrickt]

Fortunately, government is not about money. People don't go into politics to get rich. It's all done for the good of the people in general. Now, please excuse me while I laugh myself sick.

Of course, business is about money. But, there are natural restraints on business. Screw your employees and your costs go up. Screw your customers and you go out of business. Politicians write the laws and can do as they damn well please and do. And, they get wealthy while doing it.

If President Obama is successful, the only wealthy people will be politicians. Everyone else will be incredibly poor.

[bladimz]

Capitalism should not be devoid of morality. But consider, a profit motive includes caring for employees. Mal-treated employees are not a benefit to the bottom line.Very true. Which is why it is so unfortunate that many business owners refuse to see it that way. This is the very reason why unions exist. A union affords the employee representation regarding any work-related disputes. Contrary to the weak-minded rants, unions are there for when they are needed. They are not an automatic machine that keeps pushing up against management. They are there to act on behalf of the employees when needed. Of course, anti-unionists like to pretend that "corrupt" is just a natural part of the union's makeup. Even if that is so, which it isn't, only 17% of american workers are union members.

So when someone tells you that "it's unions what's killin' this country", you just tell them that they're full of shit. What's killing this country has less to do with unions and much more to do with the corrupt collusion between Big Business and our government. Money and profits at the expense of the very existence of our nation.

Company profits are a very necessary part of doing business. I know. I've owned a business for 25 years. It's when profits are gained at the physical, psychological and/or financial cost of their employees that it becomes a serious problem.

So if someone tells you that "those employees can always quit their jobs and find another one", you can just tell them that they are full of shit. How many workers do you know, especially in this current environment, that can or would just walk out on one job and into another? Not many, i bet. Of course, they could leave and very possibly wind up on welfare. But then they're just "the takers". Now you have to ask yourself: do you want more "takers", or is it more realistic for a union to be present to assist in maintaining a balanced management-employee environment. I'll take the union any day.

[bladimz]

Fortunately, government is not about money. People don't go into politics to get rich. It's all done for the good of the people in general. Now, please excuse me while I laugh myself sick.

Of course, business is about money. But, there are natural restraints on business. Screw your employees and your costs go up. Screw your customers and you go out of business. Politicians write the laws and can do as they damn well please and do. And, they get wealthy while doing it.

If President Obama is successful, the only wealthy people will be politicians. Everyone else will be incredibly poor.You're almost right. Politicians do write the laws, but they write laws that will work to the favor of Big Business. That's what corporate lobbying is all about. And that is how our congressional members get rich, and Big Business stays rich.

If someone tells you that "it's all Obama's fault", you tell them that they're full of shit. This has been going on for a hundred years.

[Chris]

You're almost right. Politicians do write the laws, but they write laws that will work to the favor of Big Business. That's what corporate lobbying is all about. And that is how our congressional members get rich, and Big Business stays rich.

If someone tells you that "it's all Obama's fault", you tell them that they're full of shit. This has been going on for a hundred years.

BINGO.

So how stop crony capitalism?

Do we eliminate the right to petition the government? Would require an amendment, and probably not a good idea.

Do we eliminate those who seek political means to obtain what they want? Since man will always seek the easier means, they will keep coming.

Do we eliminate those who offer such means? Power corrupts, absolutely.

[Cigar]

BINGO.

So how stop crony capitalism?

Do we eliminate the right to petition the government? Would require an amendment, and probably not a good idea.

Do we eliminate those who seek political means to obtain what they want? Since man will always seek the easier means, they will keep coming.

Do we eliminate those who offer such means? Power corrupts, absolutely.


Does Citizens United ring any bells for yea?

[Chris]

Does Citizens United ring any bells for yea?

Like the right to petition the government, free speech is another right you want to trample? The purpose of government is to protect rights, not trample them.

[bladimz]

BINGO.

So how stop crony capitalism?

Do we eliminate the right to petition the government? Would require an amendment, and probably not a good idea.

Do we eliminate those who seek political means to obtain what they want? Since man will always seek the easier means, they will keep coming.

Do we eliminate those who offer such means? Power corrupts, absolutely.Oh it would require a vast set of reforms and reconstructions, i believe.

All congressional members will work for the people. Not themselves. This means they will work using a "time card" at an hourly rate to be determined by current national average employee rates. This means they would have to work a normal 40-hour work week, basically. It will be illegal for any of them to interact with any corporate entities: lobbyists, CEOs, etc. that may attempt to influence them in any way. Their work will be reviewed by an oversight committee on a bi-weekly basis. Thelr benefits will be similar to those offered in the private sector. And this is just the start...

These people need to live and work under the same conditions as the average american. They need to understand and feel the frustrations and the worries of the average american.

[bladimz]

Like the right to petition the government, free speech is another right you want to trample? The purpose of government is to protect rights, not trample them.
Citizens United, like any other politically-backed organization, should have no direct contact with any congressional members. Let them buy air-time, ad space in print media, and use direct-mail to sell their agenda.

[Peter1469]

Like the right to petition the government, free speech is another right you want to trample? The purpose of government is to protect rights, not trample them.

Citizens United was about corporate personhood.

Every board member and every stock holder of Citizens United has constitutional rights to petition government, and to give campaign contributions.

[Chris]

As long as our government recognizes corporate personhood corporate contributions will be legitimate. The source of the problem is once again government.

[Chris]

Oh it would require a vast set of reforms and reconstructions, i believe.

All congressional members will work for the people. Not themselves. This means they will work using a "time card" at an hourly rate to be determined by current national average employee rates. This means they would have to work a normal 40-hour work week, basically. It will be illegal for any of them to interact with any corporate entities: lobbyists, CEOs, etc. that may attempt to influence them in any way. Their work will be reviewed by an oversight committee on a bi-weekly basis. Thelr benefits will be similar to those offered in the private sector. And this is just the start...

These people need to live and work under the same conditions as the average american. They need to understand and feel the frustrations and the worries of the average american.

I'm all for regulating government.

[Peter1469]

As long as our government recognizes corporate personhood corporate contributions will be legitimate. The source of the problem is once again government.

That is seeing only part of the problem.

[Chris]

That is seeing only part of the problem.

Hmm, I've already addressed above both the business and government sides of the problem. What's the part I'm missing?

[Peter1469]

Hmm, I've already addressed above both the business and government sides of the problem. What's the part I'm missing?




The source of the problem is once again government.

[Chris]

As sufficient cause it is the source. Business is a necessary cause but you can't change what man is and man will tend to select the easiest path to what we wants. The political path is easier than the economic.