Conquer Club

19:11:58 ‹bedub1› why would a liberal hate the corporations yet love the government when the government is the largest corporation ever with a giant monopoly?

19:12:40 ‹bedub1› do they believe politicians and their government are more honest then ceo's and their companies?

we can elect politicians. We have no say over corporate heads.. in fact, the whole idea of a corporation is to insulate the leaders from most of the direct impacts of their decisions.. except the balance sheets. (and sometimes, not even that really matters!)

Shareholders can vote on executives and customers can choose another business. And this happens every day, not every other year.

... and we can't choose another Gov't.

We elect Democrats and Republicans... and they both screw us!

That's why we need to fight for SMALLER gov't.

jimboston wrote:... and we can't choose another Gov't.

We elect Democrats and Republicans... and they both screw us!

That's why we need to fight for SMALLER gov't.

Can we also fight for smaller corporations?

Night Strike wrote:Shareholders can vote on executives and customers can choose another business. And this happens every day, not every other year.

Shareholders... is a small group of the same shareholders own stocks in the biggest corporations.

Customers... so that's why I can get a nice, efficient and inexpensive dishwasher that lasts for a long time... OOOPS wrong, according to our appliance repairman, the average life of most appliances is now only 5 years... and most companies don't bother to make many parts, either.. they want people to just buy a new one. Now, my grandmother and parents each had very serviceable ones that lasted well over 20 years. Besides, if you are living within your means, most people are not out buying all kinds of goods.. and if they do, won't be repeat customers.

BUT... you still don't explain how customer impact is going to ensure that we have decent roads and such.

Symmetry wrote:

jimboston wrote:... and we can't choose another Gov't.

We elect Democrats and Republicans... and they both screw us!

That's why we need to fight for SMALLER gov't.

Can we also fight for smaller corporations?

Sure.

1) Don't invest in the stock market.
2) Try to spend your money at small local stores and buy good produced by companies that are smaller and share your values.
3) Support anti-monopoly legislation... and write your political leaders when you feel a corporation is breaking laws or acting in violation of anti-trust regulations.

PLAYER57832 wrote:BUT... you still don't explain how customer impact is going to ensure that we have decent roads and such.

That's one of the jobs of the federal government. You've never explained how the government can run car companies better than the private sector.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:BUT... you still don't explain how customer impact is going to ensure that we have decent roads and such.

That's one of the jobs of the federal government. You've never explained how the government can run car companies better than the private sector.

Because I never said they should.

I trust neither government or corporations.

I was expecting a rap battle.

thegreekdog wrote:I trust neither government or corporations.

You have to trust your fellow citizens. However, for them to make reasonable decisions means having ready access to information. That means both free access to correct information (not as in ideology, but as in facts), various opinions about that information AND the time to review.

The power interests of late have been intent on ensuring that happens as little as possible.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I trust neither government or corporations.

You have to trust your fellow citizens. However, for them to make reasonable decisions means having ready access to information. That means both free access to correct information (not as in ideology, but as in facts), various opinions about that information AND the time to review.

The power interests of late have been intent on ensuring that happens as little as possible.

Whoa. Are you saying I have to trust you people on here?

Count me out. I'll be in my bus in the jungle; just let me know when the killing has subsided.

There is one important difference between Corporations and the Government. When a corporation fails it goes away, confined to the dustbin of history as it were. Borders booksellers, Woolworths, Ames, Bradlees, Pan Am Airlines, etc as examples. The public at large doesn't suffer other than a loss of service. When the government fails, it stays and repeats the same failures, regardless of the party in power. The public at large does pay the price (literally) when the government fails.

The reason why both corporations and the government get away with their egregious behaviour is because the vast majority of the public is apathetic and just rolls over and lets themselves be used as doormats.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I trust neither government or corporations.

You have to trust your fellow citizens. However, for them to make reasonable decisions means having ready access to information. That means both free access to correct information (not as in ideology, but as in facts), various opinions about that information AND the time to review.

The power interests of late have been intent on ensuring that happens as little as possible.

Whoa. Are you saying I have to trust you people on here?

Count me out. I'll be in my bus in the jungle; just let me know when the killing has subsided.

They both amount to trusting people.

However, on the one hand, you trust a huge number of people with many diverse interests, desires, needs. On the other you trust a very few people with only one real goal.. making money, and not even necessarily company profits, but money for stockholders, and those few people are heavily insulated from almost all negative impacts of their decisions.. be it financial ones (they may get ousted, but almost always have nice golden parachutes, etc. ... ), production ones (most companies start out by gaining ground by producing better products, but then quickly go to making things cheaply... until they finally get so bad the company fails), or environmental consequences, other externalities.

People competing against each other do often work towards similar goals. Companies do, too, but their goals are very often exactly contrary to the needs of society.

bedub1 wrote:19:11:58 ‹bedub1› why would a liberal hate the corporations yet love the government when the government is the largest corporation ever with a giant monopoly?

19:12:40 ‹bedub1› do they believe politicians and their government are more honest then ceo's and their companies?

This sounds like a Jerry Seinfeld routine. Is the next insight, why do conservatives favor small government, yet want government intervening largely into everyone's lives?

And what's the deal with airplane peanuts?


--Andy

Augustus Maximus wrote:The reason why both corporations and the government get away with their egregious behaviour is because the vast majority of the public is apathetic and just rolls over and lets themselves be used as doormats.

And the one thing that can counter this is education, information. Which is why controlling those is where the real efforts have been.

It is absolutely no cooincidence that No child left behind was passed and net nuetrality has simply dissappeared.

But.. its not even the intentional manipulation that is the most worrisom. Google manipulates a LOT simply by using popularity algorythms. Then there is that whole bit about the "like" button. (brought up a link on this earlier) Its inherently akward to say "like" about a story of holocaust terrors, for example.. even if that article is really, really good. When you get to complex scientific stuff, its even less likely. You may wade through a treatis, because you have the need/desire, but are you going to thrust that onto your friends? A nice joke, though or "juicy gossip"... spreads like wildfire.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I trust neither government or corporations.

You have to trust your fellow citizens. However, for them to make reasonable decisions means having ready access to information. That means both free access to correct information (not as in ideology, but as in facts), various opinions about that information AND the time to review.

The power interests of late have been intent on ensuring that happens as little as possible.

Whoa. Are you saying I have to trust you people on here?

Count me out. I'll be in my bus in the jungle; just let me know when the killing has subsided.

They both amount to trusting people.

However, on the one hand, you trust a huge number of people with many diverse interests, desires, needs. On the other you trust a very few people with only one real goal..

Hey, like the government, with its bailouts and many other means of financial support to CERTAIN corporations. (Not all corporations, because if I said "all corporations," I would sound as unreasonable as you.

PLAYER57832 wrote:People competing against each other do often work towards similar goals. Companies do, too, but their goals are very often exactly contrary to the needs of society.

Yet, companies and capitalism and market economies benefit society... The problem stems from too much state intervention, which is something you admire, or which you ideally present as the solution if only the politicians would stop behaving like politicians of course.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Yet, companies and capitalism and market economies benefit society...

No, actually they don't necessarily benefit society. Not without controls, they don't.

I am not saying capitalism is bad or that it is useless, but it is not he panacea that many here seem to want to believe. Government funded research is as much, and in modern times perhaps more the reason for advances than capitalism. That is because we have passed the "low hanging fruit", where people could make a new discovery and instantly profit. There are still exceptions, but most things now require long, painstaking research that will only occasionally yield tangible results. (the move to microcomputers and software engineering was one exception.. though that, too depended on prior government research)

To bring up an example I have brought up before, look at dishwashers and refridgerators. At first, it was great.. and you saw improvements toward being frost-free, freezer additions, etc. Then suddenly everyone had one. Refridgerators, as far as appliance companies were concerned were lasting too long. They brought up new refridgerators with new "features".. colors, shelving styles, etc. Sometimes there were real innovations,but the basic technology was already established. Many of those old refridgerators, built to last are still around. The new ones? They have a lifespan of 5 years. Moreover, many don't even last long.. and you often have to pay as much or more for a service agreement (definitely if you need service and don't have an agreement). Did all this really give us better refridgerators? No. I would be just as happy with the ones my grandmother and mother had. I don't, however have that option. I did buy used ones down in Mississippi, but here they just are not available. And, repairing the old ones cost as much as getting a new one. Is that reasonable ..that the parts to repair a machine should cost as much as the machine itself? Not really.

Capitalism works well when things are new, when there is easy innovation. It doesn't work once the status quo is achieved.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
The problem stems from too much state intervention, which is something you admire, or which you ideally present as the solution if only the politicians would stop behaving like politicians of course.

show your work.
seriously, there are places where the state has interfered inappropriately. That is, of course because they respond to big pockets and lobbying. However, saying there are places where government has done too much is not the same as saying governments should not control corporations at all. Government is the only entity that can make companies responsible for externalities. That they need to do. Government also needs to fund the baseline research upon which innovators can build, make products to sell, etc. I remember seeing an old display at the CA state fair showing all the benefits from the moon landings, then still relatively recent. I think I said this before, but as a kid all I can remember is Tang.. very dubious, but fun growing up. I have heard that Bill Gates could not do what he did without moon landing research. I don't know if that is true, but I do know that the government has brought us many major medical advances. (companies get to take the patents, though, so its hard to track this).

If there were one thing that would benefit us, its probably to do away with lobbiest. But.. even that would have downsides.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, actually they don't necessarily benefit society. Not without controls, they don't.

WHAT?!?!?!

[thegreekdog pokes out eyes with pen]

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Yet, companies and capitalism and market economies benefit society...

No, actually they don't necessarily benefit society. Not without controls, they don't.

I am not saying capitalism is bad or that it is useless, but it is not he panacea that many here seem to want to believe. Government funded research is as much, and in modern times perhaps more the reason for advances than capitalism. That is because we have passed the "low hanging fruit", where people could make a new discovery and instantly profit. There are still exceptions, but most things now require long, painstaking research that will only occasionally yield tangible results. (the move to microcomputers and software engineering was one exception.. though that, too depended on prior government research)

With the money stolen via taxation, who knows what that money would've created in the private sector.

Was spending billions (at the expense of the "social good") to launch a space ship to the moon faster than the Soviet Union really necessary? No. The US federal government had to beat the Soviets by taking its own people's money to fund something faster than necessary. For what purpose? Mostly for promoting nationalist sentiments (gotta have people feeling good about having their money stolen).

Also, if the US funds a particular field of research, then it isn't necessary for the private sector to do so, assuming they get the share of the spoils. So you can't proclaim that the private sector couldn't provide because the government has crowded out, and substituted, the need for R&D in particular areas or on particular projects.

Also, for your point to be justified, you would have to ascertain what specific portion of the government-funded R&D was really necessary. You merely lumped all defense spending in there, and said it works, and gosh darnit, the private sector and the people really needed it!

"Low hanging fruit." Yeah, Tyler Cowen talks about this, so I wonder if you're indirectly discussing his views... You do know that the "low-hanging fruit" refers to the decreasing benefits of public goods on the margin, right? (i.e. the diminishing marginal utility of further funding education and health care). You're defeating yourself with your own point...

PLAYER57832 wrote:To bring up an example I have brought up before, look at dishwashers and refridgerators. At first, it was great.. and you saw improvements toward being frost-free, freezer additions, etc. Then suddenly everyone had one. Refridgerators, as far as appliance companies were concerned were lasting too long. They brought up new refridgerators with new "features".. colors, shelving styles, etc. Sometimes there were real innovations,but the basic technology was already established. Many of those old refridgerators, built to last are still around. The new ones? They have a lifespan of 5 years. Moreover, many don't even last long.. and you often have to pay as much or more for a service agreement (definitely if you need service and don't have an agreement). Did all this really give us better refridgerators? No. I would be just as happy with the ones my grandmother and mother had. I don't, however have that option. I did buy used ones down in Mississippi, but here they just are not available. And, repairing the old ones cost as much as getting a new one. Is that reasonable ..that the parts to repair a machine should cost as much as the machine itself? Not really.

We had this debate, but you conveniently forgot, so why go through it again?

I'll sum up the problems with your example:

1) You ignore the additional costs in producing longer lasting products, which defeat their own usefulness as the technology becomes obsolete, and replaceable parts become too expensive to continue producing.

2) You mistaken this unseen cost for some corporate conspiracy, which to you explains why all corporations have colluded in creating only supposedly short-lasting products.

3) You also ignore that people value cheaper commodities which last an expected amount of time (however short that may), more so than they value more expensive, yet supposedly longer-lasting products. It doesn't matter that nearly everyone puts their money into products which you don't like, because you will continue to conveniently blame the corporations for this (all corporations too).

PLAYER57832 wrote:Capitalism works well when things are new, when there is easy innovation. It doesn't work once the status quo is achieved.

I'd like to ask what are you babbling about, but I fear that it would be pointless.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
The problem stems from too much state intervention, which is something you admire, or which you ideally present as the solution if only the politicians would stop behaving like politicians of course.

show your work.

seriously, there are places where the state has interfered inappropriately. That is, of course because they respond to big pockets and lobbying. However, saying there are places where government has done too much is not the same as saying governments should not control corporations at all. Government is the only entity that can make companies responsible for externalities. That they need to do. Government also needs to fund the baseline research upon which innovators can build, make products to sell, etc. I remember seeing an old display at the CA state fair showing all the benefits from the moon landings, then still relatively recent. I think I said this before, but as a kid all I can remember is Tang.. very dubious, but fun growing up. I have heard that Bill Gates could not do what he did without moon landing research. I don't know if that is true, but I do know that the government has brought us many major medical advances. (companies get to take the patents, though, so its hard to track this).

If there were one thing that would benefit us, its probably to do away with lobbiest. But.. even that would have downsides.

Show my work? I just reflected the standpoints that you imply with your replies over the past 2 years on the fora.

I said "too much" state intervention. In general, that is true. If the government intervenes more in the market, you get countries like the Soviet Union and pre-market economy China, with their vast amounts of poor people and yada yada.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, if the US funds a particular field of research, then it isn't necessary for the private sector to do so, assuming they get the share of the spoils. So you can't proclaim that the private sector couldn't provide because the government has crowded out, and substituted, the need for R&D in particular areas or on particular projects.

[thegreekdog inserts the bionic eyes provided by the government and their benevolent research]

I wonder why the government funds research and development? Could it be because corporations control government? I mean, perish the thought... Player is actually arguing for more corporate control of government!

Let's play this out.

CEO: Man, it costs us like $2 million a year to do this stupid research. I'm really sick of this.
Lobbyist: Hey, let me talk to Senator Smith.

Lobbyist: Senator Smith, long time no see.
Senator Smith: Hello Lobbyist. How are the children?
Lobbyist: Great, thanks for asking. How would you like Company X to fund your next three campaigns?
Senator Smith: I'm listening... what else you got?
Lobbyist: A job in the board of directors?
Senator Smith: Done... what does Company X need?
Lobbyist: Company X is spending $2 million a year on research. If we gave you $200,000 each year plus that cushy director job, can you get the taxpayers to foot the $2 million?
Senator Smith: Hells yeah dude. In fact, I'll get you $4 million.
Lobbyist: Awesome. Thanks.

CEO: Wow... we just reduced our expenses by $2 million, got an additional $2 million in R&D funding, AND we get an R&D tax credit for any research and development we do on our own.
Lobbyist: Nice! That will be $50,000 for my services.

Stop that, TGD! Don't let her know that in order for the government to put something into the economy, it has to take something from the economy!

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, actually they don't necessarily benefit society. Not without controls, they don't.

WHAT?!?!?!

[thegreekdog pokes out eyes with pen]

Unrestrained capitalism is what got us everything from children at looms to burning rivers. It took riots, people willing to literally lay their lives on the line to form unions in order to combat this.

If you look at actions of capitalists, even US capitalists in other countries, it gets far worse.
And.. the current trend is to move back in that direction. It doesn't matter that we probably won't reach quite those depths again, because the point is that unrestrained capitalism doesn't benefit society.

Captilasm gave us a LOT of very negative stuff, and some good stuff.

bedub1 wrote: when the government is the largest corporation ever with a giant monopoly?

You what?