Corporations have been a huge net good to society.

Such absolute thinking everywhere.

They can good and bad in many different ways.

What is bad is that they have no mind, no breaking point and they don't die,
their existence subject to the laws of nature or the things that help guide men.

reply to post by monkeyfartbreath


They are not. Corporations have the same rights as human beings which allows them to buy and hold rights in ways that other businesses can't.

Also, the board of directors of corporations have limited liability for the actions taken in name of the corporation. In other words a "get out of jail free" card.

Everything started in someone's garage.

Apple's first computer was made in a garage. They couldn't sell it to the American people because it took many hours of labor to make....nobody could afford it.


So they have slave labor camps in a foreign country make it.....and more people can buy Apple's products.


It's still slavery. We decimated China with pollution to make your Apple crap. They had people jumping off the roofs of the factories to kill themselves...working so many hours in poisonous air making that plastic junk.

Did Apple create anything for the world?

$$$$ for investors, DEATH to the workers who made it. Pollution in the country that made it.

You know a paper and pencil and a postage stamp to send a message was just as good. But for Government, Apple's created something for them to obtain data on a scale never imagined...free to the Government.


Corporations are evil. Mankind needs to slow down production or we're going to make this Biosphere uninhabitable. We need to live....not buy new plastic junk. We've seen no benefit from technology.

Only DEATH. And tools for DEATH

Corporations are a creation of Man so that would make man evil typical blaming something instead of the person typical liberal ideology.

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath
reply to post by Americanist

 

Yeah I just asked her again and she said she favors corporations. I asked her to explain and she said it was the lesser of two evils. Its either that or 7 billion people acting on their own and not having the resources to be efficient which would wreak even more havoc on her. She is hoping for a world war, so the humans thin their herd a bit.

In actuality, you have one of the Rothchild family members on the phone... They're exceptional at misleading the World. This includes disguising their voice of course!

I wasnt on the phone. I was talking to a tree.

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath
reply to post by Americanist

 

Yeah I just asked her again and she said she favors corporations. I asked her to explain and she said it was the lesser of two evils. Its either that or 7 billion people acting on their own and not having the resources to be efficient which would wreak even more havoc on her. She is hoping for a world war, so the humans thin their herd a bit.

Some of those wouldn't be able to do it, like oh about 39% that won't even get off their A$$ and work, so they would perish, most definately, because they simply don't like work, any kind of work, so either way, the population would quickly diminish. That's why population had only reached this point after globalism. It's a sickness, letting the inefficient to propegate and live. This is a sickness.

Just saying.

Originally posted by neo96
Corporations are a creation of Man so that would make man evil typical blaming something instead of the person typical liberal ideology.

edit on 16-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Circular logic at its finest.

So what conclusion does this lead you to? How about... Take more responsibility and resolve for your actions whether it be as a board member, banker, or buffoon.

Something tells me you're not a banker or a board member.

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath
reply to post by Americanist

 

Yeah I just asked her again and she said she favors corporations. I asked her to explain and she said it was the lesser of two evils. Its either that or 7 billion people acting on their own and not having the resources to be efficient which would wreak even more havoc on her. She is hoping for a world war, so the humans thin their herd a bit.

Some of those wouldn't be able to do it, like oh about 39% that won't even get off their A$$ and work, so they would perish, most definately, because they simply don't like work, any kind of work, so either way, the population would quickly diminish. That's why population had only reached this point after globalism. It's a sickness, letting the inefficient to propegate and live. This is a sickness.

Just saying.

edit on 16-10-2011 by ldyserenity because: spelling

Couldnt agree more.

I believe it is causing the de-evolution of mankind. Think about it, we subsidize the lazy and dumb to have more babies with welfare, while the smart and working stop at 1 or 2 kids because they cannot afford it.

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath
reply to post by Americanist

 

Yeah I just asked her again and she said she favors corporations. I asked her to explain and she said it was the lesser of two evils. Its either that or 7 billion people acting on their own and not having the resources to be efficient which would wreak even more havoc on her. She is hoping for a world war, so the humans thin their herd a bit.

In actuality, you have one of the Rothchild family members on the phone... They're exceptional at misleading the World. This includes disguising their voice of course!

I wasnt on the phone. I was talking to a tree.

And now Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey...

"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?"

Corporations didn't and don't invent squat.

People invent stuff and corporations buy it or steal it.

But more to the point corporations aren't a single thing: they are a collection of self-serving individuals.

Those individuals make nothing.

They control the production and delivery of stuff for their own ends; that you or we might benefit from that is a side effect, not necessarily their goal.

Corporations are merely vehicles to protect those individuals from being responsible for the consequences of their actions, allowing them to continue to do business and make money when their decisions kill, injure and despoil the lands. Without the immunity that the corporate model offers those individuals would be held accountable and jailed, executed, or barred from doing business.

That doesn't mean that we wouldn't have cell phones, it just means that those individuals wouldn't be the ones controlling how they are made, what is paid, etc., but rather that more ethical people would be doing so.

Corporations are a tool designed to concentrate wealth and diffuse and avoid responsibility.

reply to post by Americanist


So are you saying its illogical, kinda like talking about how corporations have ruined your life, while typing on your corporate built computer, sitting in your corporate built chair, at your corporate built desk, using your corporate delivered electric, and your corporate delivered internet access... All of which are destroying mother earth.

reply to post by Americanist


I'ts apparent you aren't but hey way to go to take it to a personal level much like you did in another thread last nite oh now what was it?

I wasn't worth the time maybe you should take your own advice.

reply to post by monkeyfartbreath


But you see, corporations enable the sickness?
They enable the weak and lazy IMHO.
But that's just the way I see it, their taxes go to paying to global socialism.
I think getting back to a naturalist lifestyle would be better.

reply to post by apacheman


So please enlighten me on how you would go about replacing the function of corporations?

I think there are only two choices for large, capital intense projects. Corps or Government.

So do you want the government fill this role or do you have a better idea?

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by monkeyfartbreath

 

But you see, corporations enable the sickness?
They enable the weak and lazy IMHO.
But that's just the way I see it, their taxes go to paying to global socialism.
I think getting back to a naturalist lifestyle would be better.

edit on 16-10-2011 by ldyserenity because: what is a glabal twice I made this error

I see your point. That is probably why all good corporations do everything they can to legally avoid paying taxes into this socialist government because they realise lazy and dumb people should reap what they sow.. Which is nothing other than a drug addiction or a good case of VD.

Corporations in general are not the problem here, the problem is the monopoly (which is illegal) that the large corporations have created. The corporate run "governments" of the world have imposed so many "laws" as to make it tough for a person like you or me to compete with them.

Let's use "banks" as an example.

When I was a boy in the 80's and early 90's we never even heard of many of these large corporate banks you now see everywhere. "Bank of America"" who was that, 5/3: didn't know they existed, Chase: I thought they did credit cards. We had Regional and local banks and they competed fiercely for your business.

Now most of the small regional and local banks are gone (we have one bank, and two credit unions left) and even the regional giant "Bank One", which owned a ten story office building downtown (our largest building in town). They were all bought out by larger Regional or National corporate banks, which were bought out by even larger National or world corporate banks.

I'm only 31 years old, and most of the "buyouts" happened within the last 15 years.

So how did these National and World corporations take over the banks so quickly?

Two Reasons:

One: Greed by the small bank owners and share holders

Two: Legislation in the 90's which allowed the larger banks to offer "incentives" which the smaller banks could not compete with. These "incentives" were the "free money" incentives that allowed these larger banks to give loans out to just about anyone, even if you had bad credit.

Other incentives include: free checking, mortgage's to anyone, Credit Cards with high limits, stock investing, and other things with "low" interest rates.

The smaller banks could not compete with this, because they could not absorb the loses this could cause, the banks didn't have a "Wall Street" to create a bubble for them, and they didn't have enough capital to sustain them during the "grace" period's before these loans were due.

The legislation's passed at the time gave certain big banks the ability to literally over run the little guy and take over the entire industry. These "Big" banks work together (most of which have the same shareholders) to create a monopoly and control the masses.

Now that the industry is in so called trouble, even more financial institutions are being bought out causing a bigger monopoly. Legislation is being passed to "prevent" this from happening again. The problem is the legislation is really only helping the big banks, as it is even further making it harder for the smaller banks (the ones that didn't get us in this mess) to compete, because they don't have the resources or capital to adhere to all the new rules.

I could go on and on here but the bottom line is that even the smaller banks were corporations, and most none profit groups are also corporations, so corporation's are not bad in general, it's the Large Corporations that want a monopoly on an industry in order to take control of the masses, pushing all of the "little guys" out of business.

corporation = not evil

Monopolies and Corruption = EVIL

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath
reply to post by apacheman

 

So please enlighten me on how you would go about replacing the function of corporations?

I think there are only two choices for large, capital intense projects. Corps or Government.

So do you want the government fill this role or do you have a better idea?

Take a look at this:

While the case for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it's hard to prove. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently, archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly) failed to support the progressivist view. Here's one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn't emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"

The worse Mistake In Human History

This is how we do not need corporations... WE just love shiny plastic things...we have become what the Budda feared most...materialistic. Materialism ties you and binds you inevitably to the physical existence.

But I realize you might not be a spiritualist or what not you may be atheist. So then there is no continuing cycle. So here your view would fit.
I am just giving my view.

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath
reply to post by apacheman

 

I think there are only two choices for large, capital intense projects. Corps or Government.

You are wrong. Incorporation is not the only commercial association available to coordinate capital ventures. If corporations were eliminated people would still get together to provide goods and services. They just would have the same rights and would be held accountable for the accions on behalf of the business

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath
reply to post by apacheman

 

I think there are only two choices for large, capital intense projects. Corps or Government.

You are wrong. Incorporation is not the only commercial association available to coordinate capital ventures. If corporations were eliminated peopl would still get together to provide goods and services. They just would have the same rights and would have to be held accountable.

edit on 16-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

A rose by any other name is still a rose. So lets say I create a partnership with millions of people in it and I start an oil company and drill and frack the earth. Does that make it ok then, since it isnt a corp?

reply to post by ldyserenity


So you think the earth could support
7 billion hunter-gatherers?

So that is what Progressives want, to Progress back to the hunter gatherer period of human history?