Corporations

I did a research paper on the supreme court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission...and let me tell you, i am scared shitless to see what has happened to this country... America Inc- [FONT=&quot]Government of the people by the corporations for the corporations...[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Corporations are the ones in control now.. democracy is no more.

 

My only question is this...

How do you think these massive companies got so out of hand?

 

What makes you think a state operated rig would have avoided this disaster any better than BP? If anything BP has greater interest in protecting their rig than the state would, you know, because they don't have a printing press and monopoly privileges.

No one seems to care that the government created corporatism, not the corporations.

 

Haha wat?

 

Most people, including yourself, fail to realize that the only reason these 'evil corporations' exist is due to government regulation. In case you haven't noticed government regulation almost always leads to favoritism of one company or another, allowing these companies to grow to monstrous proportions.

The state removes competition in industry by regulating it to the point where only one or two companies have the resources to continue legally. Perfect examples are our banking industry, our pharmaceutical industry, and our oil industry. All of these industries are subsidized out the ass and regulated to no end. Why? So the big companies can continue to make money. Their stock can continue to rise, making all of the politicians money as well.

The government is not your friend, either, Jdizzly.

 

The only reason this legislation exists is because Corporations push for it. If their wasn't a government the dominant business of the time would push for a government so it could legislate itself the advantages.

The problem is the corporation.

 

Why do you think BP lobbies for the Stimulus packages, global warming bills, corporate welfare, and funded Obama's rise to "leader" of the United State?

If the state didn't have the power to serve special interests, special interests would have nothing to lobby for. It's kind of a chicken and the egg thing, but big government came before big business.

 

You just admitted yourself that the corporation would need the state if it wanted to fend off competition and ignore consumer demand.

If you attack the corporations for taking advantage of a centrally planned economy you're only attacking the symptoms and not the cause.

 

Perhaps, but BP executives aren't elected by the American people. At the end of the day BP is still going to be a massive corporation raking in billion+ profits every year. In other words, they can afford these disasters.

On the other hand, what do you think would happen if this kind of shit happened when the one's doing the drilling was a government-run enterprise? Say goodbye re-election, hello impeachment. Unlike a for-profit corporation like BP, a public enterprise would not be able to afford such disasters and would logically invest a lot more time, energy, and money into prevention.

"Contrast the Congressional response to ACORN's federal contracts with its response to BP, which does billions of dollars in business with the federal government, specifically the Pentagon. BP holds more than $2 billion in annual US defense contracts and continues to be the premiere provider of fuel to the world's largest consumer of oil and gas: the Pentagon."

linky

Makes sense that BP would lobby so hard for government efforts since they want to keep those military contracts headed their way, huh?

The military needs oil. The military is not going away any time soon; it will continue to require oil. Rather than continue to fill the coffers of some other oil corporation, ones that have less of a pressing need to stave off environmental disaster - as I suggested earlier - would it not be better to cut out the corporate favoritism completely? We could have wells drilled in the US by the US for the US consumers. No more funding fucked up regimes in the middle east or giving away our cash to foreign companies. Just saying, it's an idea worth not immediately dismissing.

 

Really? Is there any proof of that?

It seems to me human nature would first dictate need for access to resources, establishing hierarchy would come after.

 

BP oil is purchased by US consumers and the US government. They can't afford these disasters if they don't handle them well.

The CEO is answerable to shareholders. They can fire him if the business is not being run properly.

When was the last time the failure of bureaucrats was blamed on a politician?

Of course a public enterprise could afford it, they don't rely on voluntary consumption to survive. The first rule of government spending is why build one when you can build two for twice the price.

Yea it does make sense.

 

The agricultural revolution gave rise to production of surplus of resources. With this surplus of resources came 'civilized' societies. 'Civilized' really means parasitic.

As soon as this surplus was available spirituality became organized religion and tribal/nomadic traditions became governmental/class hierarchy. This surplus is what allowed some members of society to sit back and do nothing. The food and water was there for their taking, they just had to figure out how to get it. They instilled the fear of God and the 'nobility' of law to justify their underhanded thievery.

If you really want to get down to it they arose from the same point in time; the agricultural revolution.

 

Exactly, that's what I thought.

When I think agriculture, I think business first. The next thing that comes to mind is regulation, government.

There's nothing wrong with these ideas, separate or combined. The inherent flaw lies in the constant, the variable that gives these ideas life.

 

The inherent flaw in government is that it must steal to survive.

The inherent flaw in business? There can be many flaws with business, but none are inherent. Businesses provide goods and services to people willing to pay for them. This can not be wrong. It is a voluntary interaction between two consenting parties. Nothing about it can be morally unacceptable.

Government? Government steals our money, gives it to these big corporations under the guise of necessity through legislature that subsidizes, regulates, and bails out these businesses. Without the government, these businesses wouldn't be able to take advantage of the people like they do.

 

When you look at the amount of political contributions from these companies, isn't it rather obvious? As with anything in politics, anything or anyone can be bought. Most were paid to look the other way long ago...

 

I'm sorry, but trying to use the words "BP" and "can't afford" together do not even make grammatical sense anymore, much less logical sense.

Uh, like this CEO or any CEO for that matter really gives a shit? Please. Unless the executive involved is facing criminal charges(a fucking hard thing to get to stick, especially with the "corporate" umbrella laws shielding personal liability), they don't care one way or another.

Like BP's CEO doesn't have a golden parachute worth about 10 times more than we could ever imagine, on top of all the hundreds of millions he has made in salary over the years? Yeah, like firing him is really gonna hurt.

 

I admitted that in a Democracy people have to fight their asses off to contain corporate interests.

Government becoming the tool of a corporation is a product of uneducated, slack jawed morons - which I am totally willing to admit American is FULL of.

 

This is true, and precisely why our founders wisely advised against Democracy... it always leads to tyranny.