Corporations have been a huge net good to society.

reply to post by monkeyfartbreath


You keep saying that but I have already explained to you that they are not the same. What don't you understand?

If you own a business and you make a product that makes people sick then you are accountable. If the board of the corporation OKs the production of a product that does that same they get off because they enjoy limit liability.

The advantage of a Corporation is that not just one person has a say. The company is owned by several people which all have a vote.

The problem is that the larger corporations have corrupt majority stock holders that only wish for control, as they already have enough money to do what ever they want.

Remember that Churches, National Greek Organisations, and other not for profit groups are incorporated, and without the incorporation the members of the "group" would have no legal say.

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath
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?

I say a great portion would die off because they would not do it!!! I think I said that two post back it would bring the population down.

Why should 7 Billion survive?

reply to post by monkeyfartbreath



Some things are better done by government, like roads, bridges and other national infrastructure.

Others are better done by corporate-like enterprises, minus the evasion of responsibility for the consequences.

Corporations, aren't the only form of business, you know: there are cooperatives, partnerships, non-profits, etc.

You are framing the debate as "would you prefer milk or whiskey?", while leaving out a myriad of alternatives.

Remember this: a corporation's primary legal reason for being is to avoid the consequences of and responsibility for bad decisions on the part of those who run it.

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by neo96
Yes they have been so good not a single person can live without them so good their entire existences depends on them and without them they and their lifestyles wouldn't exist and has evolved to the point where they want all their free crap and don't want to work or pay for them anymore hence the assualt on their existence which means they are assualting their own existences.

There's no such thing as a free ride if they get their way they are going to find out just exactly what that mean's.

Great point, Neo!

It seems that none of these people have visited communist countries to see the effects in real life. Well I have and it isnt pretty. You end up with two classes of people. The ruling class, which makes the 1% look huge, owns and controls everything and the rest of the people who are at the whims of their masters and live in fear of crossing the state.

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

There have never been a true communist democracy on this world. The ruling is supposed to be by the people not by a small elite. The corruption of the elite of not wanting to let go off power and let the people decide what should be done is the problem. You have the same problem in US but your masters are the wealthy 1% that manipulates the politicians. If you wanna be a slave to money and let them manipulate you into giving up more of your time and more of your freedoms, and let them decide what needs to be done then do that. Someday you might end up in a small 1 room apartment in a rundown ghettolike enviroment where you spend 12 hours a day working and your every move is controlled by the corporation you work for because this is the only place you can live because the corporations destroyed nature alltogether. Judge Dread might be a profetic movie if the corparations gets to control events like they do now.

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?

After some digging what you'll find with the larger more dated corporations is a bottleneck of ingenuity and integration. If there is no profit bearing to technology, things remain separated or don't get produced at all... I'd start with our energy production. Cold fusion is 20 years in the making and considerably more efficient, but oil has seen nearly 800% profit margins. Thorium is a cleaner fuel source for nuclear reactors, but to my knowledge there's not a market for Thorium bombs, casings, and ammo.


Now if you want to watch the Lion King on your 55" flat screen TV in 3D... It's coming soon!

reply to post by apacheman


So you are pro captialism as long as we dont have corps which give people limited liability? If thats what you are saying I can live with that.

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

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.

You must have watched this movie recently...

www.imdb.com...


Idiocracy (2006)

Private Joe Bauers, the definition of "average American", is selected by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, he awakes 500 years in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive.

reply to post by Americanist


Cold fusion hasnt been proven yet.

People are working on scaleable thorium reactors so maybe we will get there soon.

You cant replace the old until you get the new working in a cost competitive fashion that can give you the same benefits as the current way you are doing things.

Hopefully, in the next 50 years we willl get to cost effective, scalable renewable energy.

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath
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?

Neither is OK but if you did that and were not incorporated then you would be held accountable. Corporations get to use corporations personhood, which other business calssifications don't have, to shift the blame onto the corporation which of course doesn't care because it's only a pile of paperwork.

Originally posted by neo96
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.

Although this sounds like rambling on your part, at least you're paying attention? Ok, your debates are a cinch to pick apart. What can anyone else say about you really other than you should play yourself in the aforementioned movie.

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by monkeyfartbreath

 

Your mistaking corporations for science. Science existed before the modern incarnation of the corporation. It gave alot of good things to society without the need for corporations.

Science creates an idea, a theory, a working model. Corporations take those things and provide the capital to implement those things on a large scale. Do you really think the bunch of scientists that contributed ideas to say the cell phone network would be able to roll out that technology without a corporation to gather the financial resources to implement it?

Your under the assumption that there cant be societies without money where resources and scientist and workers can't work together. Just because it haven't happend yeet don't mean it won't happen in the future. Think of all the people that could help production and brainstormin and science if we did not need moneycrunchers at a company and cashiers at suppermarkets. Handling money is a waste of time and resources. Think of the advances in science when you can get all people in a field together to work at a problem and not have to compete with others that makes the process slower since it is smaller teams. Of course you need to be more tolerant to other peoples ideas and maybe suppress your ego to make that work.

reply to post by daskakik


Why is neither ok? I said I would form it as a partnership so we could be held accountable. What more do you want?

reply to post by monkeyfartbreath


I am for responsible capitalism that includes a cap on wealth and market share.

Once you've made enough money to see to all conceivable needs of you, your immediate family, and your extended family, from where do you derive the right to take more?

If the extent of your argument is that "I want it and can take it, so there", my reply is to look at the French Revolution: the royalty argued much the same way but discovered that the people wanted their heads and took them, too.

There is no moral, ethical, or legal justification for unlimited wealth.

In the economics I learned, it requires a minimum of seven competitors to ensure against monopolistic practices, and I would limit any company's market share to no more than 1/8 of the market to ensure this.

Again, there is no legal, ethical, or moral justification for monopolies or for complete freedom to dominate a sector.

Innovation only comes when there is a credible chance to compete successfully. Allowing a too-small set of companies to dominate an industry virtually guarantees stagnation and ultimate denial of change.

reply to post by apushforenlightment


So how are people going to eat without money to buy food? How you going to get resources to build what you need for your invention? Are you planning on buying a cell phone tower with a truckload of potatoes or something? The world cant function without money unless you went to some sort of global government that claimed ownership to everything in the world. That sounds realllll pleasant.

Originally posted by monkeyfartbreath
reply to post by Americanist

 

Cold fusion hasnt been proven yet.

People are working on scaleable thorium reactors so maybe we will get there soon.

You cant replace the old until you get the new working in a cost competitive fashion that can give you the same benefits as the current way you are doing things.

Hopefully, in the next 50 years we willl get to cost effective, scalable renewable energy.

Cold fusion has been a reality. You might find it interesting at the same time further testing was being done the market was also flooded with a crap-tastic batch of palladium. I wonder what company had been selling the junk.

Cost competitive vs. radiating our oceans and food supply for millennia out... You're so adorable it pains me!

reply to post by apacheman


LMAO! Now if a person cannot benefit from doing more after they have met the needs of their family then why wouldnt they just retire as soon as they reach that goal. Then what you have is all the most talented people on earth retiring at age 30 or less and then the world ends up being run by the ones that werent smart enough to get there.

Plus, do you cap the risks when someone risks their time and money starting a business under your system? Why would anybody take that risk just to get the same thing as those that didnt.

reply to post by Americanist


I need you to show me some proof that cold fusion works, and not from some shady geek fantasy website that thinks everything anyone claims they invented works.

reply to post by monkeyfartbreath


Fraking the earth is not OK in both situations. Of course taking responsibility is comendable but, in the real world and people being what they are, they will always opt for the "get out of jail free" card.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by monkeyfartbreath

 

Fraking the earth is not OK in both situations. Of course taking responsibility is comendable but, in the real world and people being what they are, they will always opt for the "get out of jail free" card.

Why cant we frack the earth? You use oil dont you? You drive? Use anything made of plastic? Ride a bus? Take a taxi? Heat your house? Use electicity?

The earth will be fracked for oil and natural gas, because humans need oil and natural gas and pay their hard earned money for oil and natural gas. So I am doing them a favor giving them what they want.