And a large reason that is the case is because the govt limits the power a corporation has over you. Look into historical examples of times when corporations were not regulated by the govt, and the abuses they made.
Look up the pinkertons for an example of corporations using force.
I’d rather the monopoly of force be held in the hands of people I vote for.
In many ways, Comcast (and most similar companies) is actually closer to the government than to a “regular” company – many people literally have no choice but to deal with that organization if they want that service.
The car is not yours until the loan is paid off. It belongs to whoever holds the loan.
It will evolve towered oligarchy, no matter what you call it when you start out.
I’ve asked the same question myself.
I suppose in a sort of Ayn Randian way, they believe that corporations exist as a sort of entrepreneurial exercise where the market ruthlessly rewards the efficient and punishes the wasteful.
There’s also statements like this:
Companies are owned by private individuals (shareholders), not the government or “society” or whoever. If those shareholders are able to find funding to finance the company for the next millennium, that’s not really any concern of yours. Maybe you think that money would be better spent on cancer research or something. And maybe it would be. But the people with the money believe that Apple or even Sears would give them a better return on their investment, otherwise they would be investing in Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Meyer Squib or whoever.
But saying something like “Sears shareholders are spending zillions to avoid liquidating” shows the fundamental lack of business sense that Conservatives don’t want making those sort of decisions.
You don’t get anything for the part you do own, though. It’s all legal because you signed a contract, backed by the government you dislike so much. By not leaving you have effectively signed a contract with the government to be regulated by its laws.
Want to pay no taxes? Have no income. Easy-peasy.
As for Comcast, for TV there is competition in the form of satellite. But there are natural monopolies, like the water company, and government is a natural monopoly also. Unless you want to wind up in a situation like Syria.
[QUOTE=msmith537;20810551
Companies are owned by private individuals (shareholders), not the government or “society” or whoever. If those shareholders are able to find funding to finance the company for the next millennium, that’s not really any concern of yours. Maybe you think that money would be better spent on cancer research or something. And maybe it would be. But the people with the money believe that Apple or even Sears would give them a better return on their investment, otherwise they would be investing in Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Meyer Squib or whoever.
But saying something like “Sears shareholders are spending zillions to avoid liquidating” shows the fundamental lack of business sense that Conservatives don’t want making those sort of decisions.[/QUOTE]
The problem with Sears is that it got bought out by a person who thought he knew how to run the business - but didn’t. The stock price reflects what investors think. It is a kind of love it or leave it situation also.
But shareholders, unless they are very big ones, don’t have a lot of power otherwise. Elections make Cuba’s look democratic. There was a case where the shareholders were so made that they voted against a director. The Chairman, finding an empty seat on the board, appointed the same damn person to it.
Voters have a lot more power than that.
And we have the wonderful HP board. Always like to bring them up.
In any case the question is whether corporations are necessarily competent. I think you have plenty of experience to answer that one. The myth of corporate competence among conservatives is why Carley Fiorina could run for any office above dog catcher without getting driven off the stage by rotten tomatoes.
I am neither Liberal nor Conservative. I strongly agree with some Liberal ideas:
– Welfare State – makes Canada, Scandinavia, UK(?) much more humane then USA
– Ban on dangerous weapons – that is the law in many nations which have a fraction of US murder rate
Definitely corporations may be much worse then Government.
?
I was talking about Sears as a business. Of course I knew about the Sears-Kmart deal.
I can concern myself with whatever I want. If I don’t like how corporations operate, or how our economic system in general operates, then I am free to push for changes. The type of ownership that takes place with respect to corporations is very complicated and abstract, and it requires the backing of the government to enforce it. It all falls under the purview of politics and is the concern of everyone in a democracy.
You are arguing beside the point I was making. I was saying that corporations are often incompetent and wasteful. You are arguing something else here. The fact that shareholders are acting within their rights has nothing to do with the fact that incentive systems often lead failing companies to be massively wasteful.
Feel free to say how specifically I was wrong. A big company like Sears that is slowly failing is, due to the way our economic system works, caught on the horns of a dilemma. At any given stage of the failure, the execs have no incentive whatsoever to quit and liquidate: they will be out of work, and they get paid whether the business is failing or succeeding anyway. The stockholders are second in line after the debt holders, and in the vast majority of cases they are going to get nothing in the event of a liquidation. They have no incentive to quit either. So any company is going to fight to stay alive, no matter how pathetic. The company will continue to fail, by definition it will NOT be competent, and that can go on for a very long time. Do you think the arc of Sears since the 1990s has been good for anybody?
I’m sure that Newscorp, Comcast, Viacom, Disney, and Time Warner would tell us if corporations were a problem.
Corporations have much better access to the legal system than the average citizen does. If you piss one off (i.e., pose a any kind of threat to their revenue stream), they can and will fuck you up. In some cases, they can do it through channels that you might not even realize exist, and you will have to jump through hoops to deal with the mess.
Which might be a legitimate problem with the legal system, which is part of the government. But having a market without some sort of order is infeasible, and you need the government to maintain the order and function of the marketplace. The alternative is not anarchy or libertopia but utter chaos and ultimately some sort of oligarchic feudalism.
In other words, if you want to eliminate the government, you damn well better have something to replace it with. Perhaps Cosa Nostra (which has guns).
My sentiments are exactly as some stated before me, in essence government is not escapeable, corporations are. Therefore my concern should be to minimize the government and their influence on me since they cannot be ignored. You can shop elsewhere with corporations, not so with government.
Hmm, that seems a bit black and white. Are all corporations escapeable to you? If not, should you try to minimize their influence on you?
Why do you want to minimize the government’s influence on you? Shouldn’t you only want to minimize negative influences? Are you going to avoid the federal highway system because it “influences” you?
Well just to put this out there, I am just over the line to the right of center, so not all conservatives will agree with my opinions on the matter.
There are some gray areas as with everything in life and society, but for the most part, my answer is yes either way. Corporations and Governments will always exist, and they are great counterweight to one another. Corporations are much more avoidable, government is not. They both rely on people, so the equivalent of not supporting a certain product or practice of a corporation, is a healthy mistrust of ones own government in the same. One should seek to minimize all outside influences wherever possible and be as independent as self sustaining wherever possible. Just my opinion of course. Minimization Whenever Possible. Defensive, Productive, Lean, Efficient. It is difficult to put into practice, but not impossible and is something that [IMHO] should be aimed for. Thats my personal conservative ideology.
I would not avoid the highway system as it is something my taxes help pay for, I personally support and most importantly having a national (physical, not bureaucratic) infrastructure is essential.
Just my opinion, feel free to agree or disagree and know that I also respect yours.
Cheers
Well, corporations control your food:
Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto
They control the information you receive:
Disney, Alphabet(Google), Comcast, Viacom, 21st Century Fox
They control how you shop:
Walmart, Amazon
They control your social interactions:
Facebook, Twitter
They control your sources of energy:
ExxonMobil, BP
They control your money:
Goldman Sachs, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman
They control your health care:
Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson
I could go on, but you get the idea. The activities of corporations often have more of a day to day impact on people’s lives than government.
Yes, that is part of the democratic process. However, the Conservative party line is that the market should determine which companies survive. (of course…sometimes they need their friends who work for Goldman Sachs to explain to government why their company’s success is in the best interest of the market.
Governments are the only real protection the common people have from exploitation and abuse; governments are the only reason civil rights or personal freedom exist for any but a tiny privileged minority. Conservatives oppose such rights and protections so they slander government in an attempt to weaken it, which leaves people open for their goals of abuse and exploitation.
Without governemnt there’s no protection for minority religions, which means conservatives can bully people into submitting to theirs, or kill them for resisting. Without government there’s no protection for minorities, so they can oppress or kill people for having the wrong skin color or find the wrong gender attractive. Without the government there’s no legal equality for the genders, so they can sexually abuse or beat women whenever they like, just as “traditional values” demand. Without the government there’s no protection for the workers or consumers, so the former can be enslaved and the latter defrauded and poisoned.
Corporations on the other hand are innately exploitative and oppressive, so conservatives love them. That’s what conservatism is, exploitation and abuse.
Sears is probably incompetent. I doubt in five to ten years that there will even be a Sears. The DC public school system is probably incompetent. 19% of 8th graders score proficient or higher in reading. The DC public school system will outlive all of us. This is not an isolated example. Corporations that are incompetent will shrink and die. Governments that are incompetent will stay incompetent.
This is not just true for government, but government programs. Head Start was started in 1965, studies have consistently shown that Head Start makes no difference in the outcomes for its students. Head Start spent 9.5 billion dollars last year.
In 1952 the government was worried there would not be enough wool and mohair to make uniforms for a potential war with the USSR and so paid subsidies to the farmers who produced mohair. In 1960 the US army switched to synthetic fibers for its uniforms. 35 years later the US government ended the subsidy for mohair production. This lasted for 5 years before the subsidy was restored the government still subsidies mohair production.
This true for government workers as well. Zero people were fired for the massive government failure of 9/11. Federal government workers have a higher chance of dying than being fired. When I was working at a government office, periodically people would be cycled though to do paperwork. I later found out one was a pedophile who could no longer be trusted in the field so he was being sent around to various offices because he could not be fired.
Corporations are accountable for incompetence in a way governments are not. 85% of the fortune 500 from 1955 is no longer in business. In 1955, Detroit was the richest city in the world. Over the last 60 years Democrats have presided while the city is now one of the poorest and crime ridden in the country. The odds that a Democrat will not be elected in the next mayoral election are essentially 0%.
Modern small-government movement conservatives extol the private sector and denigrate the public sector because they are paid to do so, by private sector interests. These private sector interests may genuinely believe that they are enlightened libertarians leading the way to an anarcho-capitalist social order; or they may be cynically trying to get their hands on public assets. Either way, the money men pay “pundits” to write about how the guys that write the checks are always right, then find some below-average lawyers mad enough to buy into their nonsense and buy those guys political careers.
This is an awesome post! Great work puddleglum! 
Private corporations do not have a monopoly on legal violence, and cannot arrest me or shoot me if I don’t buy their products. Therefore, they have to actually figure out what I value and provide it before I will do business with them.
If I don’t like one corporation’s products, I can buy from another. That severely limits the power a corporation can wield over my life, and it forces them to be efficient and to provide what people actually want, rather than just forcing them to accept whatever is offered.
Because corporations exist in a system of free exchange of capital and ideas, which has proven itself to be the best method of growing wealth, increasing innovation, and providing for human happiness. Government control of production, on the other hand, has led to episodes of the greatest misery in human history.