When Did American Businesses Get Out Of Control?

[RickJay]

Originally posted by Serendipity28 *
They already had the means to drastically reduce this by building metal cars – which they did for the wealthy only – using steam heat instead of coal stoves…*

This is off-topic, but I’m fascinated as to the different between a coal stove locomotive and a “Steam heat” locomotive. You are aware that the burning coal was used to produce steam, right?

[Serendipity28]

Yes.

Most of the types I’m talking about had coal burning engines and in each passenger car, they had a coal burning stove to provide heat. These stoves were what produced the inevitable fires during wrecks.

The pneumatic braking system had been around for some time but the rail roads did not want to go through the cost of installing it and the brakeman, those guys who hand set each set of brakes on each car, did not want to loose their jobs and also fought it. The latter seems odd because the job of brakeman was very dangerous and few ever managed to retire.

[El_Kabong]

The OP has been addressed in detail , but I’d like to add a few comments.

1. I’m no fan of the so-called “big box” stores, but unfortunately, the majority have spoken in favor. Sure, everyone bitches about the homogenization of shopping, the supposedly longer lines and poorer service, but if price is not their major consideration, why are they patronizing these outfits anyway? While the Wal-Marts and Home Depots may practice predatory siting strategies, these would not work if customers were truly loyal to the Mom-n-Pops that they claim to love, but desert as soon as the next discounter throws up its prefab walls.

2. If the author of the OP wishes to resist corporate control over the choice of music he listens to, he may wish to consider listener-supported radio (if available in his area). I live in the Philly area and after nearly two years here, would find it difficult to move to another location if something like the eclectic playlist of WXPN wasn’t available. The catch? If you have a conscience, you will need to pledge at least $50/year to keep the station on the air. The bonus? NO ADVERTS!

3. The OP’s screed against out-of-control corporations apparently does not extend to the big steel companies, possibly because they are near collapse anyway. I’m an ex-union guy who spent the first seven years of my so-called career around a steel plant, and I saw plenty of abuses of the system by both management and the unions. Nevertheless, I am sobered by the by the incredible loss of jobs as the industry dried up over the past thirty years. BTW, we have not stopped making things from steel; its just that imports apparently are cheaper than local production, no matter what level of technology or automation is used. Is this good or bad? Perhaps someone can tell me.

4. Re: the railroads, granted that many arguments can be made for the many abuses of management. OTOH, consider that the the industry was nearly driven to nationalization by such things as union-backed work rules that required five-man crews, including “firemen”, on diesel-powered trains, well into the '70’s, or government regulations that placed onerous tax burdens on railroads (which must maintain their own right of way) while subsidizing the maintenance of roads and airways. Can we only protect ourselves by regulating industries to the point of strangulation? While I always lean to the side of the consumer and employee over owner and management, I think the answer to the above question must be no.

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by Serendipity28 *
**Why do American businesses get out of control and why do we let them?

**

I wasn’t aware that they were out of “control.” Who’s control are they suppose to be under?

**
Deregulation of the airlines, supposed to create cheaper fares and better service has done the reverse. Programs have been shown on TV concerning passenger mistreatment, aircrew abuse, airline neglect to improve conditions for either and no law requiring them to report incidents of violence aboard aircraft.

**

Do you have any proof of this? I know a lot of people aren’t happy with the airlines but is this a direct result of deregulation? I admit I travel by air infrequently but so far I’ve been happy with Delta.

**
The automobile industry produces defective cars, such as the SUV with it’s chronic rollover problems, uses cheaper materials, charges higher prices and has hidden dangerous defects until forced to recall the vehicles containing them.

**

Sometimes they do produce defective cars. For the most part they produce cars that work and people seem to like them. I’m happy with my Saturn.

**
It became ‘good business’ for certain types of large companies to forcefully take over smaller, weaker ones, fire everyone, then sell off the assets and materials at a profit. More people were hurt by this than benefited.

**

“Force” doesn’t imply that they used guns or physical threats. It just means that the take over was unwanted. That’s what you risk by becoming a publically traded company.

**
Major mergers by various companies have placed tremendous amounts of consumer goods under the control of just a few, who then regulate the prices to their benefit. Campbell’s soup also owns Progresso and runs ‘competition’ commercials against itself for the higher priced, single serving food over the cheaper, two serving product.

**

Believe it or not some people like the higher quality single serving over the lower quality double serving. I don’t see a problem here. Are you accusing them of collusion? Because last time I checked that was illegal.

**
Where once there were dozens of gas companies, mergers, forced acquisitions, down and out deliberate ‘fuel wars’, and whisper campaigns have reduced the number to just a few, who now control all of the fuel in America.

**

They still compete against one another.

[b
Major drug companies, once concerned with developing products for the health of the nation, now are profit oriented and have priced drugs vital to life and health up so high that many people have to virtually give up their homes and savings just to get the ones they need.

**

Drug companies have always been out to make a buck. That’s never changed.

**
Stores like the mega corporation Walmart developed a tactic to wipe out competition. They show up in as many cities as possible, undercut the local department stores like Kmart, Sears, Winn Dixie and so on until many of them have to shut down or close outlets. Then Walmart starts upping it’s prices.

**

Walmart seems to supply all sorts of products for a lower price that consumers seem to want. Sounds like a great way for any business to prosper. And by the way there are still plenty of K-Marts, Winn Dixies, and other department stores in the area. And those are all national or multi-state chains not “local” ones.

**
A major book store uses similar tactics to wipe out competition, only they will bring in several stores at once.

**

The same principle applies. They provide us with a lot of books at lower prices and we benefit.

**
Their goal is profit and only profit. They carry only what sells well and fast.

**

OUCH! A blinding flash of the obvious. You’ve discovered the ancient secret Chinese secret of retail.

**
Record companies used to have to pay DJs to play their music. Now they tell them what they can and cannot play. They have the ability to take a second rate artist and have his or her songs played so much by so many stations that the public is fooled into thinking they are great.

**

Has it ever occured to you that people like these second rate artist? The ones without much talent tend to fade away as one hit wonders or fond memories of “remember them?”

**
They can make or break a musical group by promoting or restricting the playing of their music. Currently they sell CDs at the highest price the market will bare and admit this, having said that so long as people buy the music, why lower prices?

**

Bingo. Remember that ancient Chinese secret of retail?

**
Health care is now one of the major expenses in a person’s life and getting more expensive.

**

Can’t expect people to be resonsible for their own health care. How many people don’t eat the right foods, drink to much, or engage is risky behavior?

**
Business have flaunted and blocked environmental laws being

**

I’m sure you mean flouted.

**
enacted here that other nations use with good results, have tied people who fight them up in court until they run out of money,

**

I don’t live in other nations but I’m glad they’re getting along. Maybe they block environmental laws because to many watermelons are actually anti-indutrial instead of pro-environment.

**
The greedy oil companies should have known long ago that single hulled tankers are not the safest way to transport crude, but they make greater profits that way. Mega companies have fought cleaning up missions for decades while people living in their shadow sicken and die.

**

Yes, they should have. Which is why Exxon was fined quite a large sum of money.

**
Not too long back, a major agricultural sed company tried to introduce a limited life seed to farmers. It grows, produces and does not give viable seed. The reason? Greed.

**

I’ve got news for you that’s been true for a long time. Most farmers have been sending away for seeds for many years.

**
When and how did we let major corporations dictate our lives and even if we live or die?

Now, what do we do about it? **

What’s to do? Just admit you hate “big business” and get on with it.

Marc

[tomndebb]

Y’know, I was originally going to let this pass:

A major book store uses similar tactics to wipe out competition, only they will bring in several stores at once. They also make deals with book publishers for high volume items, and buy so much that unsold books can be bought back by the publishers. The publishers then start buying manuscripts mainly of the type the stores will sell because the smaller book stores cannot compete with various orders. In the end, competition is slight and this book mega company dictates to the public not only what they will read, but what publishers will publish. Their goal is profit and only profit. They carry only what sells well and fast.

However, the basic premise is so overwhelmingly false that I really can’t let it stand.

I’m not sure whether your “major bookstore” is supposed to be Border’s, Barnes & Noble, or B. Dalton, Bookseller, but your scenario is completely false.

The practice of “buying back” books is the basic practice of the book industry. It was started by the publishers in the early 20th (or, possibly, late 19th) century as a marketing tool. The publishers recognized that there was a better chance to sell 15 books if 50 were displayed than there was to sell 3 books if 15 were displayed. Booksellers were reluctant (naturally) to buy 50 books, so the publishers created the gimmick of buying back any unsold book after x months in order to get the booksellers to accept and display 50 copies. (The cost of manufacturing 50 books–if 15 sold–was more than offset by the income on the 15 books, whereas, there was substantially less income generated by selling only three books.)

Of the three major chains that I mentioned, every one makes it a practice to carry a large volume of titles (in smaller quantities) that they do not necessarily expect to sell. They use their basic profitability to “carry” titles that do not sell well, simply to make those available to the public (and generate customer goodwill by “having” unexpected titles). The only major chain that I know that used to not carry low volume titles used to be Waldenbooks, and they may have changed their strategy, for all I know.

Your later comments on what the publishers provide has a little bit of truth to it, but it was not driven by the book stores. As major publishers began to be swallowed by non-publishing conglomerates, those “foreign” (to the industry, not to the country) businesses demanded better return on investment and began insisting that publishers curtail attempts to provide wide markets, concentrating on high volume, narrow distributions. The result (which has clearly been imperfect) has been the emergence of many smaller publishers catering to the “slighted” markets. At the same time, the internet has been providing (a few, so far) outlets for other authors to disseminate their works.

It is possible (but not proven) that the reading public has been denied the opportunity to see certain varieties of books. The reason for that has little or nothing to do with any “major book store.”
By the way, this was hilarious:

mega corporation Walmart developed a tactic to wipe out competition. They show up in as many cities as possible, undercut the local department stores like Kmart, Sears, Winn Dixie

Wal-Mart and K-Mart were founded at about the same time to go after roughly the same market. Wal-Mart has had more success because they stayed out in the boondocks while they built up their capital and their experience while K-Mart went right into the fiercer suburban market on the heels of their predecessor dime stores, S.S. Kresge. Both are national chains. Sears is the long-time champ of the variety/department store. (Not the oldest, but the largest long-time player.) Sears is an international chain, not a local one. Sears, like K-Mart, has made a number of mistakes in the last 30 years, but they have also been pretty good about finding new ways to reorganize and come back to the market. Claiming that Wal-Mart is destroying poor, downtrodden, local Sears is absurd–and indicates a pretty tenuous grasp of reality.

[Caliban]

Zenster:
As a devout capitalist, it is refreshing to see so many step up to the plate and go to bat for our system.

Why must “devout capitalist” entail the most extreme, laissez-faire view of capitalism that even Adam Smith would probably cringe at? I believe that capitalism is the best economic system in the world, but I also believe that regulation by a democratic government is not always a bad thing, especially when it can help protect workers, consumers, and the environment. Does this make me anti-capitalist?

Zenster:
Most important is the distinct conflict of interest when large corporations donating to political campaigns. The ability to buy the ear of a politician is contrary to the interests of the American people. We need to eliminate the power structure of the lobbyists.

I’m glad we agree on this issue because I think it’s the single most important threat to America’s economic system. What good is government regulation when powerful corporations can bend the legislature to support their anti-competitive interests? Good regulation should reflect the will of the majority, not the richest corporations.

–Caliban

[Caliban]

MGibson:
What’s to do? Just admit you hate “big business” and get on with it.

I’m sure you hate “big government,” so what’s wrong if Serendipity28 hates “big business?”

Why don’t we just admit that any organization that abuses power, whether it be “big business” or “big government,” should warrant our dislike? Why do we either have to hate “big business” and love “big government” or vice versa? This kind of unreasonable absolutism can only lead us down a blind alley.

–Caliban

[waterj2]

Seeing most other evil corporations adequately defended, I’ll jump in to support the automobile industry. In another thread where their supposed indifference to safety arose, I turned to Yahoo’s financial profiles, and found that the major US automakers have about a 3% profit margin. While 3% of GM’s total revenues is a huge amount of money, it certainly doesn’t seem compatable with the view of them blatantly disregarding the safety of their consumers to reap unfair rewards.

Cars today are safer, more reliable, and better built than they ever have been in the past. And the overall cost adjusted for inflation hasn’t increased nearly as much (if at all) as the technology has.

As for mandatory insurance laws, I would consider them fairly popular and wise. Just as you wouldn’t want to go to a doctor without malpractice insurance, so you wouldn’t want to drive on roads with thousands of uninsured drivers careening towards you, separated by only a double yellow line. The downside is that this measure of safety is not, nad really cannot be, provided without cost.

Some of the pro-corporate responses to your excellent post are pure creations of the corporate propaganda mill, which includes almost everything that can be used to influence public opinion.

So a post almost completely devoid of factual basis and dead wrong on several counts is “excellent”, while those of us who supply facts and figures are part of a corporate propaganda mill? I will say right now that I am a firm believer of capitalism out of principle alone. It has never really helped me much, as I figure I’m a bright and talented individual, yet the most I’ve ever made is $12 an hour catering part time. Currently, I attend college on an ROTC scholarship provided by the government, and will shortly be employed (again for far less than the average CS major from my school) by the US Navy, far from the corporate world. So in short, take your claims of a propaganda mill and shove them…

Many people fail to realize that megaprofits are made not only by screwing the consumer, but by superexploition of the producers, i.e., the workers. Inflation adjusted wages of airline workers are in the toilet. Many flight attendents qualify for food stamps and cannot afford to rent an apartment by themselves. Their work rules have made them migrant workers. This is a social cost of deregulation, which is not factored into the ticket price, but is a cost that must be borne, nevertheless.

Exactly what are you defining as megaprofits? Would you care to make a wager about what the overall profit margin of any major airline is? I would also like to see some cites showing that stewards and stewardesses are at all underpaid for what they do, and perhaps some explanation of how deregulation has affected this.

Many small cities have no airline service now. For those which do, tickets for short flights to or from them costs as much as a ticket from New York to London. There is usually no competition there. The hub system means fewer direct flights.

So now every city has an intrinsic right to cheap (subsidized if necessary) air travel? The reason centrally planned economies fail in every case is that they depend on diverting resources from where they create more value to where they create less value. In order to provide air service at cheap rates to every pissant little trailer park with an airstrip, the airlines would have to divert money from other areas. Air travel consumes resources, and cannot simply be regulated into existence.

There is profit and then there is PROFIT. The latter seems of the type that has no reguard for human life.

There have been isolated incidents (Ford Pinto springs to mind) of a corporation almost completely disregarding human life, but most of the arguments I’ve seen here are (a) wrong and/or (b) deal with such things as airline ticket prices or seeds where there is no connection to anything possibly life-threatening.

Now to answer the questions raised in the OP:

Is profit still good profit when it actually hurts all but a few?

How does profit hurt anyone? If one is overcharged for a product or service, did not that person obviously value it more than whatever sum of money he did spend?

When and how did we let major corporations dictate our lives and even if we live or die?

I don’t know about you, but major corporations don’t dictate my life. And they certainly do not dictate whether we live or die. They merely dictate the margin of safety associated with the products and services they provide. Those margins of safety are, almost without exception, higher today than they ever were in the past.

Now, what do we do about it?

There are very few areas where a solution is appropriate. For example, corporate welfare, where the government takes money by force and gives it to businesses, is simply wrong. Basically, any instance where force is used to aid businesses should be eliminated. Same with force ostensibly used to help the people.

[Major_Feelgud]

Serendipity28:

Don’t - fly, drive SUVs, buy from Walmart, buy insurance, join a HMO, read books.

Do - ride the train, ride bikes, read newspapers, etc.

Problem solved!

[Pyrrhonist]

*Originally posted by galen *
**
The OP is right on the mark in his indictment of corporate capitalism. And it will get worse if Bush is elected. But the corporate propaganda mill will convince millions that this is only the natural order of things. **

The corporate propaganda mill is a mythical creation of the mythical big government propaganda mill. Each side points the finger of blame elsewhere when neither side is an innocent and sole agent of good. The worst form of propaganda is accusing the opposition of propaganda.

By claiming “Corporate Capitalism” is * not * the natural order of things, I’m inferring you mean that “Government Regulation” * is * the natural order of things. Personally, I can’t imagine anything more unnatural than politicians creations reams of regulations.

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by Caliban *
**

MGibson:
What’s to do? Just admit you hate “big business” and get on with it.

I’m sure you hate “big government,” so what’s wrong if Serendipity28 hates “big business?”

**

Really? Can you find anywhere in my post where I railed against the government in general? Don’t worry I’ll wait here until you find it.

**
Why don’t we just admit that any organization that abuses power, whether it be “big business” or “big government,” should warrant our dislike? Why do we either have to hate “big business” and love “big government” or vice versa? This kind of unreasonable absolutism can only lead us down a blind alley.

–Caliban **

Except that Serindepity appears to dislike all corporations. Specific companies are not mentioned in many of the examples provided. And I’m not normally a stickler for making someone provide cites but Seridepity makes an awful lot of claims without any real evidence. His/her apparant dislike isn’t limited to a few companies or industries but instead stretches across the board.

I suggest you point your finger in another direction if you want to find an absolutist. At least until I do something like piss and moan about “big government.”
Marc

[Caliban]

MGibson:
Really? Can you find anywhere in my post where I railed against the government in general? Don’t worry I’ll wait here until you find it.

Thanks for your patience. You certainly did not rail against the government in your post and I apologize if my assumption about your dislike of “big government” is wrong.

MGibson:
Except that Serindepity appears to dislike all corporations.

I don’t read it that way. Serendipity seems to be complaining about specific abuses of power (however vague and poorly documented) by a few powerful corporations. The point I’m trying to make is that people should be able to criticize the practices of large corporations without being labeled anti-corporation or anti-capitalist.

–Caliban

[Mr.Zambezi]

Well, you can’t blame the spics, the niggers, the wops, degos, chinks or the fags…but you can blame corporate america for everything. Never mind that they employ many people or that they pay taxes, or that they provide goods and services that people routinely buy.

This is just a new way of creating a scapegoat for those that are too PC to pick on an ethnicity or that don’t find that the world conforms with their ideals.

Serendipity, don’t forget to blast the “Rich”. They are fair game too.

[Caliban]

Mr.Zambezi:
This is just a new way of creating a scapegoat for those that are too PC to pick on an ethnicity or that don’t find that the world conforms with their ideals.

Relax. It’s okay to criticize big business. You won’t be incinerated buy a bolt of lightning from the gods of the Free Market, I promise. Criticizing a big company for failing to act responsibly, for neglecting the environment, for undermining competition, or for disregarding the well-being of its employees is not comparable to racism and does not make one anti-capitalist.

If you read the posts of Serendipity28, who seems no longer to be with us, you will notice that he never attests to hating corporate America — only the greedy practices of a few large companies, aided and abetted by corporate welfare and lax government regulation.

It’s none of my business whether or not he hates all corporations. I do share many of his opinions and I can say that I have no beef with corporations in general, only those that abuse their power in a destructive fashion. Even then, I don’t really blame them. They are only doing what’s natural to them — trying to maximize profit. But I do find fault with a system that allows a few companies to become too powerful and ruin things for everybody else.

–Caliban

[Mr.Zambezi]

Caliban, my point was that if you were to insert any other group into Serendipity’s (or Algore’s) diatribe, it would be highly offensive. for example, let’s take your statement and try it:

"It’s none of my business whether or not he hates all [blacks]. I do share many of his opinions and I can say that I have no beef with [blacks]in general, only those that abuse their power in a destructive fashion. Even then, I don’t really blame them. They are only doing what’s natural to them — trying to maximize profit. But I do find fault with a system that allows a few [blacks] to become too powerful and ruin things for everybody "

Welfare to blacks is runing this country!

I have listened to an unopposed attack on the “wealthy” (those making more than $107,000/year per household) and “corporate America”. THese are broad generalizations about two groups of which I am a member.

Let me ask, who the heck do you think is paying all of the taxes? Care to point out how corporations are a drain rather than a profit center?

If you are going to level vague and broad accusation, please back them up.

[Caliban]

Mr.Zambezi:
Caliban, my point was that if you were to insert any other group into Serendipity’s (or Algore’s) diatribe, it would be highly offensive. for example, let’s take your statement and try it:

First of all, as I said before, I have no problem with corporations (I work for one so I’d better not hate them too much). I do have a problem with the ones that misbehave.

Assuming that you could draw a direct parallel between corporations and racial classification, what’s wrong with disliking those blacks who do bad things? Or to avoid being called a racist do I have to like all blacks, regardless of how badly some may behave? If I hate a man because he mugged me at my ATM machine, am I a racist just because that man happens to be black or Hispanic? The point is, it’s okay to judge individuals based on their actions, as long as you don’t judge them for who they are. Since I only dislike corporations that in my opinion do bad things, you can’t call me a corporation racist.

Mr.Zambezi:
Let me ask, who the heck do you think is paying all of the taxes? Care to point out how corporations are a drain rather than a profit center?

Like I’ve said several times before, I have no problem with corporations in general, and I don’t think Serendipity28 did either. They are central to our economy, they pay a majority of the taxes, and without them several million Americans would be hard-pressed to find work. But they are not perfect and they can screw up at times, in which case I will not shy away from criticizing them.

–Caliban

[Mr.Zambezi]

Fair enough Caliban, but Serendipity was pretty much railing against corporations in general. Specifics such as airfares were just plain wrong.

IF only certain companies in certain instances are in the wrong, then there is no need to generalize. The OP should read “when did we let GM (or Dow, or United Air, etc.) do these specific things wrong?”

THe OP generalizes. I would add that this was a large part of Gore’s platform, which I, of course, take offense at.

[erislover]

Boy, these topics really get around, don’t they? Its always nice to see people get hollered at for asking someone to buy their product, then being roasted for making money off it so they can continue to sell that product.

In case everyone missed the point, purchasing any product is voluntary. If you don’t like big oil, don’t buy gas. If you don’t like big tobbacco, don’t smoke (or roll your own like I do ). If you don’t like watered down FCC-Brand television, don’t watch it.

Oh, and for the record, I am against Big Government…something that I cannot avoid like I can avoid products and companies I don’t agree with. “When buying and selling can be legislated, legislators are the first thing bought and sold.” But then, I guess since they don’t actually give us a product for it they can make a profit.

I don’t care if some feel this is an ad hominem argument. Capitalism has provided this world with more in the last 10 years (never mind 100) than any theocracy, dictatorship, or monarchy has. Not to mention wealthy China (snicker). If you feel that pointing to the country around you and saying, “Look,” is an ad hominem argument, then paint me guilty.

I guess we should collapse business now, before unemployment gets any lower and everyone starts profiting from business. That would really be a shame.

To lovers of regulation: perhaps you can explain how restricted liberty makes sense, or limited freedom? What about hampered genius? partial completion?

*To haters of Big Business: ever wonder why the little guy can’t compete? because the more money you make, the more taxes you pay. It is much more difficult to get ahead than to stay put. Big business can hind behind the tax collector, never fearing serious competition from the little guy. Don’t believe me?-- Would you trust Alan Greenspan?

Oh, probably not. He’s too wealthy.

[erislover]

Boy, these topics really get around, don’t they? Its always nice to see people get hollered at for asking someone to buy their product, then being roasted for making money off it so they can continue to sell that product.

In case everyone missed the point, purchasing any product is voluntary. If you don’t like big oil, don’t buy gas. If you don’t like big tobbacco, don’t smoke (or roll your own like I do ). If you don’t like watered down FCC-Brand television, don’t watch it.

Oh, and for the record, I am against Big Government…something that I cannot avoid like I can avoid products and companies I don’t agree with. “When buying and selling can be legislated, legislators are the first thing bought and sold.” But then, I guess since they don’t actually give us a product for it they can make a profit.

I don’t care if some feel this is an ad hominem argument. Capitalism has provided this world with more in the last 10 years (never mind 100) than any theocracy, dictatorship, or monarchy has. Not to mention wealthy China (snicker). If you feel that pointing to the country around you and saying, “Look,” is an ad hominem argument, then paint me guilty.

I guess we should collapse business now, before unemployment gets any lower and everyone starts profiting from business. That would really be a shame.

To lovers of regulation: perhaps you can explain how restricted liberty makes sense, or limited freedom? What about hampered genius? partial completion?

To haters of Big Business: ever wonder why the little guy can’t compete? because the more money you make, the more taxes you pay. It is much more difficult to get ahead than to stay put. Big business can hind behind the tax collector, never fearing serious competition from the little guy. Don’t believe me?-- Would you trust Alan Greenspan?

Oh, probably not. He’s too wealthy.

[jshore]

Well, I have to admit that even I did not completely buy into all the beefs the OP has against corporate America, but then I read the responses from the pro-corporate crowd and I get pretty queazy. I mean really Mr. Z, your attempt to equate concern over the excessive power of corporations with racism, ethnic hatred, etc. is really lame. I won’t even try to dignify it with a response except to say that, for one thing, a corporation is not a person.

I too am a “member” of corporate America if you count working for one and am not that far away from being a member of the “wealthy” by your definition. But, that doesn’t cause me to change my opinion that both have too much influence in our society at the moment. And it is just really, really hard for me to work up a lot of sympathy for the poor overtaxed upper classes. And finally, since when is not wanting to shower the wealthy with tax breaks taken as attacking them?

As for these arguments that corporations, unlike government, are somehow unable to exert control over us because we enter into buying their products voluntarily…Give me a freakin’ break. First off, we enter into the same voluntary contract in terms of our government…We are, after all, a democracy. And, it is extremely naive to take this view that we can easily opt out from corporate control (any easier than we can opt out of governmental control). We may have a choice to smoke, but they do their best to addict us to the habit, not to mention the lovely second-hand smoke we all deal with if we go to a bar or out to eat in a bar/restaurant. And, I may be able to avoid the corporate media (and, personally, in large part do), but it takes quite a bit of education and effort to do so.

And, finally, while I may be able to choose not to buy and SUV, I can’t choose whether other people do and thus lower my quality of life (endanger it in fact) by doing so…So, I in effect subsidize this. (I have often thought that I would be willing to pay a reasonable sum of money in tax money just to pay people not to buy SUVs if that what it would take…I would prefer giving a monetary subsidy to those folks rather than a quality-of-life one. Of course, the better way is to tax gasoline to partially offset the externalities as is done in Europe.)

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *

To haters of Big Business: ever wonder why the little guy can’t compete? because the more money you make, the more taxes you pay. It is much more difficult to get ahead than to stay put. Big business can hind behind the tax collector, never fearing serious competition from the little guy.

Oh…I see…We just lower all the taxes and all the ills associated with large corporations will just magically disappear…How convenient!