Corporations and You!

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
i wrote an essay on american healthcare back in my uni days and i was genuinely shocked at how immoral the private medical corporations are. how can a health care company but profit margins above medical facilities? i found examples of hospitals closing their ER rooms because they werent cost effective and attracted too many people with state insurance.

makes me even more thankful the NHS. in my humble communist opinion, EVERYTHING should be nationalised.




posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
It occurs to me that not everyone knows about these abstract references to SR. DocWagon and CrashCart are competiting firms which offer a range of emergency medical services for a hefty fee, up to and including major surgery, "emergency rescues" by High Threat Response Teams, and hospitalization. Now imagine several of these firms competiting- driving state funded medical services into a note in history books. They offer better services for cheaper and less crap to put up with, but also only to those who could pay. The poor would suffer, save for those that had access to street doctors of questionable intergrity and moral character.

The topic of how our medical system is run is one of the scariest to me.We are already well on our way to the point that only the people with money are going to be getting hospital treatment.

Today if you have no insurence and do not qualify for medi-care and you get cancer,they simply send you away to die somewhere else.

We want to think of america as compasionate and treats all people equal...but its far far from that.

The mid-40's single mother that has to give up costly medical care for herself so she can care for her children will die if she gets any type of treatable disease.

We have 100 of billions to throw away on iraqis and other countries yet we allow our own people to die when it would be very easy to help them.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bolshevik
a corporation can never be progressive in an ethical sense becuase they exist soley to establish profit and the only was to become economically viable is by employing overtly immoral tactics. the exploitation of cheap labour, erosion of union rights and destruction of any competition are widespread.

western economics is centered on the idea of rich companies becoming dominant and the rest hit the wall. without substantial changes to the economic structure (which i wont go into because i'll be called an idealistic commie again) i dont see how things can change.

someone also mentioned that they can see a time when major corporations own 99% of the worlds wealth. if you consider that in most western societies about the top 3% own 95% of wealth and in turn the developed west owns about the same percentage of the worlds wealth, we're already well on the way.



I dont think the problem is western economics but what happens when western economics become unregulated beasts. We have the tools to stop commercialims sprawl but they are too weak to be useful and need to be improved. And in response to McGotti, I dont think we should censor sexuality or anything but the things we are deeming socially acceptable are becomming more and more extreme. I dont think there is a problem with pornography and music but when pornography becomes twisted( midget porn). I think you guys also bring up important topics dealing with healthcare. Whats more threatening than a corporation who controls peoples right of safety?

[Edited on 24-2-2004 by Agent47]



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
and music but when music becomes irreleveant (rap)

Well that statement is INCREDIBLY closed minded



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by McGotti
and music but when music becomes irreleveant (rap)

Well that statement is INCREDIBLY closed minded


Ok your right I probably should edit that to take out music as a discussion in general seeing as rap is an expression of the African American culture, but it too is also being infected with commercialism. And I must confront the fact my undying love for classic rock is poisioining my brain. SO consider my statements edited.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Also what in the long term is more dangerous to the people, a decididly more liberal government hell bent on eliminating the obesity of capitalism or a world run by coperations hell bent on mass producing crap for the masses. I sight Wal Mart and Mao China as two contradictory examples.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   
rap is an expression of the African American culture, but it too is also being infected with commercialism.

That statement I agree with 100%...your right rap today is extremly commercialized and it disgusts me.But that is only the rap you here over and over again on t.v. and on the radio because the companies that own those record labels which produce that music also owns t.v. stations and radio stations therefor they only play and promote only the music which they own.

That being said rock is doing the exact same thing..and it sux too

It boils down to corporations controlling media and culture.

They saw the popularity of rap with todays youth and exploited it to the highest degree.


[Edited on 24-2-2004 by McGotti]



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by McGotti
rap is an expression of the African American culture, but it too is also being infected with commercialism.

That statement I agree with 100%...your right rap today is extremly commercialized and it disgusts me.But that is only the rap you here over and over again on t.v. and on the radio because the companies that own those record labels which produce that music also owns t.v. stations and radio stations therefor they only play and promote only the music which they own.

That being said rock is doing the exact same way..and it sux too

It boils down to corporations controlling media and culture.

They saw the popularity of rap with todays youth and exploited it to the highest degree.


Well do you agree that we as consumers can put an end to this trend or is that solely dependent on the FCC and other Federal regulatory agencies? I see more and more people diving further backwards into classic rock just to escape the crap that is new rock. So if the NWO is being established through coporations how does music key into all of this.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
I dont think the problem is western economics but what happens when western economics become unregulated beasts.


i agree with you. what i meant by western economics was the unrestrained free market. some limitations have to be imposed on corporations in order to prevent the corruption, price fixing and self-interest you mentioned. it all started in the 80s with the us/uk adoption of monetarism which was, and still is, an idea based on the principle of weakest to the wall while the rich prosper.

when youve got to the stage we are now where conomics is dominated by a handful of obscenely rich organisations, to some extent we're well past the point of no return. can it ever be in the interests of a capitalist government to attack big business?



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bolshevik

Originally posted by Agent47
I dont think the problem is western economics but what happens when western economics become unregulated beasts.


i agree with you. what i meant by western economics was the unrestrained free market. some limitations have to be imposed on corporations in order to prevent the corruption, price fixing and self-interest you mentioned. it all started in the 80s with the us/uk adoption of monetarism which was, and still is, an idea based on the principle of weakest to the wall while the rich prosper.

when youve got to the stage we are now where conomics is dominated by a handful of obscenely rich organisations, to some extent we're well past the point of no return. can it ever be in the interests of a capitalist government to attack big business?



So bolshevik your arguing that there is no recourse for the whole we have put ourselves in? That it would be too damaging for America to take on big business because it has already become to much of a threat? What about Microsoft then because we were able to undermine them if in just a small way and they would theoretically be the OS of the NWO coporations. Do you really think that nothing can stop corporations now or is there something else besides the gov?



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47



Well do you agree that we as consumers can put an end to this trend or is that solely dependent on the FCC and other Federal regulatory agencies? I see more and more people diving further backwards into classic rock just to escape the crap that is new rock. So if the NWO is being established through coporations how does music key into all of this.


I think the answer does not lay with the consumers 100%.....

If the owners of t.v. stations and radio stations also own the record labels then most of the music we here will be produced by them.Therefore the young that watch to much t.v. will be seeing these new manufactured music groups and think that is all there is....Plus the companies have done well at controlling what the youth think is cool and exploiting that financialy.

We as consumers can stop this but only if we can end the monopolies that have complete control over the music industry.


I see more and more people diving further backwards into classic rock just to escape the crap that is new rock. lol I am one of these people......the music like pink floyd have been an eye opener...I didnt know music could have a real point.

Pink floyd is the best



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by McGotti

Pink floyd is the best


AMEN TO THAT BROTHER.

I wonder where DE is, hes got some good stuff on our slip into a WTO ran world.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Why arent more people responding? Do they not think corporations are a viable threat or just not interested.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   
i didnt really mean that there can be no recouse in a conspiritorial sense, more economic. the world of ethical business we suggest simply isnt compatible with the rules of capitalism. what is in it for bush, blair or whoever to begin to dismantle big business? i would see a sustained and radical attack on major corporations as the weakening of free market capitalism. what is being suggested is that the government interferes in the economy to an degree that could only be described as redistribution of wealth. thats the way i see it anyway.

i understand your example of microsoft and in a sense that could be seen as an attack on hegemonic corporations, but its probably more akin to your example of the paltry fine on the price-fixing diamond merchants. a concession at best.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
Why arent more people responding? Do they not think corporations are a viable threat or just not interested.


I think the name of the thread throws people off to think that its only a discussion about 9/11..I did untill you pointed out what the point of the thread is.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bolshevik
i didnt really mean that there can be no recouse in a conspiritorial sense, more economic. the world of ethical business we suggest simply isnt compatible with the rules of capitalism. what is in it for bush, blair or whoever to begin to dismantle big business? i would see a sustained and radical attack on major corporations as the weakening of free market capitalism. what is being suggested is that the government interferes in the economy to an degree that could only be described as redistribution of wealth. thats the way i see it anyway.

i understand your example of microsoft and in a sense that could be seen as an attack on hegemonic corporations, but its probably more akin to your example of the paltry fine on the price-fixing diamond merchants. a concession at best.


So to be progressive we dont need to be radical is what you argue right? That it would be extremem to conduct war on corporations on a large scale. So would it be more reasonable you think to just single out extremely bloated and dangerous corporations like General Electric, Viacom, Comcast, or even Mcdonalds?



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by McGotti

Originally posted by Agent47
Why arent more people responding? Do they not think corporations are a viable threat or just not interested.


I think the name of the thread throws people off to think that its only a discussion about 9/11..I did untill you pointed out what the point of the thread is.


That's the reason it took me a while to look at the thread, maybe you should consider changing the title. I think it's also a mix of people not caring as well though.
I've started quite a few (what I thought) interesting topics, to which I got one or two replies. About a week ago I started one on who was a vegetarian and it got 9 pages of replies, probably my biggest thread. Go figure???



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Well hows the new title?



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
So to be progressive we dont need to be radical is what you argue right? That it would be extremem to conduct war on corporations on a large scale. So would it be more reasonable you think to just single out extremely bloated and dangerous corporations like General Electric, Viacom, Comcast, or even Mcdonalds?


on the contrary, i think being progressive necessitates radical action. im saying that an assault on big business is in itself an assault on free market capitalism (which is not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion). to ask a corporation to alter its emphasis from profit to something more egalitarian is essentially radical. you cant possibly wage a war of this nature on a small scale.

and like all systems of redistribution, the place to start is at the top with corporations like the ones you list. i dont think an assault on business could end there however. to put it a bit simply, its a matter of teaching everyone to be nice to eachother.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bolshevik

on the contrary, i think being progressive necessitates radical action. im saying that an assault on big business is in itself an assault on free market capitalism (which is not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion). to ask a corporation to alter its emphasis from profit to something more egalitarian is essentially radical. you cant possibly wage a war of this nature on a small scale.

and like all systems of redistribution, the place to start is at the top with corporations like the ones you list. i dont think an assault on business could end there however. to put it a bit simply, its a matter of teaching everyone to be nice to eachother.


Do you think the American people are even ready to abandon a system that they would feel has improved their live since the birth of the atomic age? I agree that a radical change is needed in order stop our slide into this terrible system we have discussed but can we do it?
And if we cant accept radical change are we there by accepting defeat?
Also what would replace our capitalism then? I ask because I havent seen a purely socialist system work out to perfection, European socialism has touches of capitalism and this allows some of the biggest corporations to be European (Viacom). The only country that doesnt fit the mold is China seeing as it has mixed its economic structure but doesnt produce a huge corporation. Or does China contribute to corporate growth by allowing them to mass produce in China?
Finally I ask is there anyway corporations will become a military force? Like with the ability to wage a war if they wanted?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum