OT: (US) Corporations are powerful entities

Page 4 of 5  
Han wrote:

Not a chance. Not unless taxes are increased a whole bunch and/or entitlements are cut another bunch. Downsizing the military would help too (do we really, really, need the Pax Americana?).
The feds are busy borrowing close to 40% of what they spend. Is that what you want? If so, a vote for Obama will assure that it continues. Me, I prefer someone who at least pays lip service to reduction.
You - and others - might want to view this... http://www.therightplanet.com/2012/05/reality-check-federal-budget-can-not-be-balanced-must-see-video /
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm all for downsizing the military because a Pax Americana should come from vision not from drones.

It is easy to demand frugality and austerity. I'd be all for it inan economy that is perking along. At the moment we don't need strangling of the economy by cutting almost indiscriminately. And we do need enhancing of the revenues. The Bush years have again proven that cutting taxes does NOT increase jobs, and does NOT promote a helathy economy. Still, we are better off than Europe (which isnt saying much) ...

Sorry, I didn't look at the video, but I agree with the premise in the first text paragraph(s). I do know that cutting a few loopholes in the tax laws isn't going to free up enough money, and the same for increasing taxes on the wealthy. Together something could work, at least a bit, but I am not betting on Congress to do much to either of these 2. The end is that we will have inflation at some point (my prediction in about 3 years from now). The housing market will start heating up. There will eventually be successful demands by unions and others for wage increases. I suggest judicious investing in the stock markets or in inflation protected federal bonds to keep abreast of the coming inflation.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/22/2012 3:15 PM, dadiOH wrote:

http://www.therightplanet.com/2012/05/reality-check-federal-budget-can-not-be-balanced-must-see-video /
If true, then it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/21/2012 9:27 PM, Bill wrote:

Get a grip. Inflation is basically essential to a healthy economy. The government MUST print more money the for the economy to grow. It is those that "get it" that invest and direct their time and energy to capture those extra dollars.
If the is only you and I in the population and there is only $10 for both of us to earn and spend what happens if another person is brought into the population, or you work twice as hard as I? You do not get any more money because there is no extra money to be used.
Your described hyper inflation goes towards paying those that the government promised to pay. For example every one getting government benefits including SS. If corporations are over taxed, read that as every one that works for that corporation, the workers get less pay and fewer, if any, are hired. And then defending our country and maintaining our infrastructure costs a fortune. Really and truly those two items are the only thing that the government should be spending money on. The government SHOULD NOT be involved in seeing that every one get treated equally monetarily.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's fixed pie (i.e. leftist) thinking. Growth <> inflation.

Again, the pie isn't a fixed size. If that were true, we'd still be in the dark ages.

If it's not in the Constitution, the government shouldn't be doing it.

Equal outcomes aren't in there, no.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

That is absolutely Not True. Although I'll admit it may be a little like using lighter fluid to help get a fire going. But it you don't have seasoned logs, the fire may be short-lived.

I could argue that hurling inflation at people is not fair to those that are try to save, and provide for themselves. Inflation treats government and others who are financially irresponsible better (it's easier to pay off fixed debt with lesser-valued dollars down the road).

The size of a population is not directly related to pricing. Theoreticaly, pricing is based upon the supply of money and the amount of goods and services available.

I didn't bring "borrowing for entitlement programs" into the picture. That is, to me, a completely unrelated issue. I support paying for benefits that were promised--preferably with cash in hand!
For example every one getting government

That sentence contains ambiguous, and the topic is deep enough for a book. I have free-market roots. But I can see areas where the free-market may need a little help. "Insider-trading" ought to be curtailed for instance, even though it is illegal. Perhaps politicians shouldn't be allowed to line their pockets from the responsiblities that we entrust to them. Holding people in jail also seems to becoming a profitable industry for some. We have a higher percentage of our population in jail than any other country in the world. Maybe some of the inmates are frustrated that they couldn't find a job?
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/22/2012 8:38 PM, Bill wrote:

Actually absolutely true for reasons I explained below. What I did not point out because I thought you might realize this is that the government does not get it right mot of the time. But if you want the exonomy to grow you have to increase the currency. Too much the dollar buys less too little , no growth.

Hog wash. The government will continue to spend and debt will continue to grow. surely you don't think the government will right it's wrong spending and go in the black. Add to that the population will continue to get less for its dollar.

Not talking about pricing at allllll. You missed the point.

Yeah I got a bit out on a limb there. That said the government should not think that it is responsible for providing jobs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More currency <> inflation. Inflation is too much money chasing too little goods.

That's certainly the goal. Like many goals (world peace or, um, losing weight), it may not be achievable but that doesn't make it a less worthy goal.

But "inflation" is *ALL* about prices.

Amen! It should be worrying about a stable value of the currency.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Leon" wrote in message
Hog wash. The government will continue to spend and debt will continue to grow. surely you don't think the government will right it's wrong spending and go in the black. Add to that the population will continue to get less for its dollar.
The Clinton administration managed to.
Yeah I got a bit out on a limb there. That said the government should not think that it is responsible for providing jobs.
No, it isn't. But the federal government pays a SHITLOAD of people's salaries and wages in the form of contractors who build/perform public projects. Just think how many of your tax dollars got poured into all those no-bid Iraq war contractors like Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater. Why aren't we going to the moon again? Might be because of federal budget cuts to NASA? So, in a very real sense the government DOES create those jobs. Without that money those jobs and those businesses either never exist or they go away. And all those unemployed will now go on public assistance and then you'll scream yet again about all the wasted welfare dollars. Isn't that the real reason why the congress is screaming bloody murder about the defense spending cuts? Most of those congressmen probably have defense department contractors in their districts that will lose federal money and jobs along with it. Or road/bridge/public schools construction. Which is also why state and local government has been shedding jobs even while the private sector has been adding them. Federal dollars to those state and local entities have shrunk. Which is also why congress won't pass the president's jobs bill. That way unemployment remains a couple of percentage points higher and THAT can be blamed on Obama. And that, in the end, is the real goal isn't it?
And, so it goes . . .
Dave in Texas
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/23/2012 8:14 AM, Dave in Texas wrote:

You're perpetuating a myth. Government spending did not go in the black during the Clinton administration.
http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/01/09/did-bill-clinton-run-a-surplus-plus-our-titanic-moment/?singlepage=true
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill wrote:

I was a corporation. I was never powerful, just ask my wife :) ______________

A corporation is a business. The function of a business is to make a product or provide a service at a profit. That profit enables the business to grow, to develop new or better products, to provide raises for employees, etc. It also provides dividends to those who actually own the business: the stock holders...the people who funded the business in the first place and took the risk of losing their money.
A business can increase profit in several ways...
...they can raise prices but if the prices get too high or if they are higher than those of a viable competitor that will have diminishing returns.
...they can work more efficiently; i.e., more production per worker. Even if accomplished, it has a limit.
...they can decrease costs. If that means having manufacturing done overseas then that is what the managers should do; it is their obligation to the stock holders. ____________________
I think part of the problem was created by the workers themselves. By them (via unions) demanding ever higher wages. By them demanding a share of the profits in addition to wages. Of course, they always had the opportunity to share in the profits simply by purchasing stock; that, of course, would have probably meant foregoing various purchses - second car, boat, another TV, etc. - and I have no idea what that might have done to the economy.
Another part of the problem is government regulations. Some of them are necessary and useful, others are onerous and seem almost whimsical; all add costs. Two anecdotes...
I knew a fellow who wanted to develop a largish sub-division. It took seven years of government red tape before he could turn the first dirt.
I had a friend who had a good sized construction company. They were doing around 100 million a year, that would be around 400 million now. It had been in business for almost two decades, employed 100s of people. He up and closed it. Just flat shut down. Why? Because regulations were adding too much to the cost; he said it was costing him $50 per hour - $200 now - to keep even the lowest paid worker on his payroll.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dadiOH wrote: <snip>

<snip>
All of your thoughts are well-taken. This one meets in an interesting way with my post. It rather divides the people in the country. Maybe corporations can become "too (big and) powerful"?
The concept is something like "too big to fail". The corporations do not need to consider that more than its profits are at stake--and from a national perspective, that is not good for the nation or it's citizens, despite the fact that it may be very good for those entities that are shareholders of the corporation, domestic or foreign.
I am also aware that trying to run a closed system (like the Soviet Union and Communist China did) has not historically been a big success. I'm just thinking...(we need solutions).
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/21/2012 7:04 PM, Bill wrote:

Historically there have been huge corporation since of the 1500 when corporation were instrumental in the settlements of the New Worlds and the Far East. Nation have survived the collapse of these corporation, and will survive the collapse of corporations today.
obama pump billions into the auto industry. Did it make any difference? Many of his pet auto projects have gone done the drain with the money the government spent.
As long as the government over regulates auto companies and the cars they build, forces the companies to build cars that are theoretically impossible, and the designers don't recognize the practicalities of the items they are designing, the auto industry will continue to loose money, and eventually replaced by more efficient companies.
I drive a Chevy Cobalt that is the worst designed auto I have ever driven. bad design points: parking brake you can not get to with out lifting the center console, a trunk opening that is to small to put a picnic cooler through, and many others items.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/20/2012 10:25 PM, Bill wrote:

I used to do business as a self-employed individual. I decided to form a corporation for various legal and personal reasons. The corporation has one shareholder - me. It has exactly one director, one officer, and one employee - all me. It has the same income that I had before incorporating. Since "Corporations are powerful entities," do I now, through my corporation, wield more power than I did before? Am I now "perhaps too powerful"?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are an admirable individual, as a self-employed person. The corporations that are supposed to be powerful are others, where the CEO and perhaps a few other high officers can use the profits that the whole corporation has generated (perhaps hundreds of individuals or even more worked to achieve those profits) for whatever they deem necessary. It appears to me that some use the profits to promote their individual agendas. The SCOTUS has sanctioned this in a way (they didn't ask my advice). Now if all the workers and all the stockholders had agreed to the approach of this fictional CEO, that would be one thing, but at the moment there seems to be only a reckoning due AFTER the fact, if any.
I realize that unions may have the same abilities, but they are supposed to follow their members desires, while with corporations this is not the case.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/22/2012 2:10 PM, Han wrote:

But I'm not self-employed. I'm an employee of a corporation.

You're back-pedaling. Your original claim was that "corporations are powerful entities." Now you're saying that only SOME corporations are powerful entities. Well, but so what? Some individuals are powerful, others are not. Some government entities are powerful, others not so much. Some unions are powerful, others are ineffectual. Some partnerships are powerful, others are not. The same is true of any form of organization you may care to name. Any time that power is concentrated in the hands of a few, there is a potential for misuse of that power. So, why single out corporations, now limited to only some corporations?

As is true for individuals as well as any other form of organization.

If one person has first amendment free speech rights, two people also have the same right. If those two people act as a corporation, they still have the same right. If the corporation has a thousand shareholders, they still have the same right. Isn't that that the Supremes really said?

Why do you think non-shareholder employees control a corporation?

That's true of any organization that is governed by representatives of its members, rather than by its members directly. So again, why single out corporations?

Nonsense. Corporations are ultimately accountable to their shareholders. If the shareholders are dissatisfied with the acts of their agents, they can replace them. A majority of dissatisfied shareholders could call a special meeting at any time, remove and replace directors and officers, change the articles of incorporation and bylaws, pass corporate resolutions, etc. etc. If they don't, it's because a majority of shareholders are well enough satisfied with the job their representatives are doing.
From news accounts I have read, I would conclude that union leaders are often even less responsive to the wants of their rank and file than corporate officers are to their shareholders.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree that it often goes both ways. I gather that you agree with me that "less responsive" is NOT a good thing.
Btw, there have been experiments where union (representative)s had positions on the boards of corporations. Very often that led to better understanding and better long-term profits. The principled antagonistic stances of board of directors and executives of corporations versus workers is often counter-productive. As in politics, too often rhetoric then supercedes reason. Currently I see the American Airlines situation as such a lose-lose proposition.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In 1940 the unions did follow their member's desires. In 2012, not so much. It was probably the late 60's when unions went to the dark side and no longer cared about the members. The purpose of most unions at present is to collect dues and pay big salaries to the leaders. AFL-CIO Pres makes $293,000. UMW $175,000. Postal Workers, $241,000. You see the poor sob's picketing in the rain while the union bosses pull up in their Caddy to see if they are still on the line. I've been at the table for negotiations. I can tell lots of stories about them, none good for the worker.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You make the point. I agree. Unions (IMO, certainly for the "bigger" corporations) should have a seat on the board AND be responsible for the prosperity of both company and workers. I believe it is now working for the benefit of big, very aggressive union workers as the metalworkers union in Germany. Just an example where it could be.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

Maybe one should pay in proportion to size for the advantages gained by being a corporation is the USA? The "legal advantages" gained by obtaining that classification are not without financial value (obviously)? Maybe not. Please don't mistake me for someone looking for an argument.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.