Corporate image

[LibertyBeacon]

Gosh, and here I thought the reason people love Trump is because "he refuses to be PC", or "he says what's on his mind".

But I guess not -- say something they don't like and out come the death threats.

Sounds perfectly sensible to me.

 

[glhs837]

Well, of course, we have only her word that that actually happened. Seems liberals love to report death threats for everything, feeds the meme, doncha know. Dont know that it's ever happened.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Well, of course, we have only her word that that actually happened. Seems liberals love to report death threats for everything, feeds the meme, doncha know. Dont know that it's ever happened.

Sure, and by that same token the entire story could be made up and planted just to see how people react as yet another way the media manipulates.

But let's assume the death threat part is hyperbole. My general point remains.

 

[TheLibertonian]

This sounds like a Libertoniasm

Dang straight it is.

 

[Tilted]

That's the problem: we give more rights and protections to corporations than we do to ourselves.

I was gonna just say poppycock. But I decided instead to play along to try to understand why you (and others apparently) think that. So why do you say that?

I think it would be fair to say that we don't limit the rights of corporations (i.e. people acting through corporations or people using corporations) relative to those of people (i.e. when they're acting outside a corporate context) as much as some would like us to. Surely many would like the rights of corporations to be even more limited relative to those of people. But that's not the same as them having more rights than people do. It's them having less rights than people do, just not less rights to the degree that some would like.

Governments generally have their fingers on the scales in favor of people relative to corporations (as well as, relatedly, in favor of people acting as consumers or employees relative to people acting as businesses or employers). For whatever reasons, we look at the natural state of things and decide that we need to alter them so as to help the former relative to the latter - to, e.g., place rules on the latter when dealing with the former that we don't place on the former when dealing with the latter. Now, it may be true that we could still look at it as though the latter often has advantages over the former (I think it could just as easily and just as often be looked at as the reverse being the case). But that's not because the government is, on-net, doing things to favor the latter. It's because the government isn't doing enough to favor the former, that is to say isn't doing as much to favor the former as some would like. The reality remains that in general and on-net governments act - they have policy which - favors the former (people or consumers or employees) relative to the latter (corporations or businesses or employers).

I'd really like to know in what way you think it is that we give corporations more rights and protections than we give ourselves.

I also, btw, think that's a mistaken way of conceiving the situation. We are the corporations. They are either one way in which we - people - act or they are something which we - people - use to act. They are we just as being a business is something that we do, and being a parent is something that we do, and being an employee or consumer or musician or eater or construction worker or story teller or Christian or whatever is something that we do. They are we just as using paper or cars or buildings or baseball bats or computers are things that we do. It's still we, it's just that we act in many different roles and we use many different things to so act. To the extent we protect corporations, what we're really protecting is people - the people that own them or operate them or do various other things in association with them. In the corporate context we don't always protect those people as much as we do outside of the corporate context. But to the extent we do - to the extent there are rights involved - it is those people that we are protecting, those people whose rights are at issue.

 

[glhs837]

Sure, and by that same token the entire story could be made up and planted just to see how people react as yet another way the media manipulates.

But let's assume the death threat part is hyperbole. My general point remains.

Could be, but we have the original picture from someone posted to FB, we have her statements as to her what and why and when, we have HD corporate involved, so if it's a planted story, it's pretty elaborate. Could be someone went to that level, but pretty unlikely, it would have come apart by now were that the case. Whereas the death threat information is sole source. And, I might add, it's par for the course for liberal type folks to claim death threats, but rarely is that claim backed up. So forgive me if I doubt those claims. So, your point looked to be that if you disagree with Trump, you get death threats. If those are not real, then your point sorta collapse in on itself, doesn't it?

 

[Restitution]

Does anyone else find it odd that the girl's name is "Krystal Lake?" Where is the hockey-masked killer?

Also, does anyone else find it poetic that she is wearing a "We are Hiring" sticker?

 

[Larry Gude]

Does anyone else find it odd that the girl's name is "Krystal Lake?" Where is the hockey-masked killer?

Also, does anyone else find it poetic that she is wearing a "We are Hiring" sticker?

I think she has her Al Sharpton Tawana Brawley/Ferguson starter kit and did this with a mission in mind and Al is just waiting in the wings to swoop in and support claims of all sorts of vile things someone WOULD have done to her.

 

[Larry Gude]

So why do you say that?

I'd really like to know in what way you think it is that we give corporations more rights and protections than we give ourselves.

I also, btw, think that's a mistaken way of conceiving the situation. We are the corporations. They are either one way in which we - people - act or they are something which we - people - use to act. They are we just as being a business is something that we do, and being a parent is something that we do, and being an employee or consumer or musician or eater or construction worker or story teller or Christian or whatever is something that we do. They are we just as using paper or cars or buildings or baseball bats or computers are things that we do. It's still we, it's just that we act in many different roles and we use many different things to so act. To the extent we protect corporations, what we're really protecting is people - the people that own them or operate them or do various other things in association with them. In the corporate context we don't always protect those people as much as we do outside of the corporate context. But to the extent we do - to the extent there are rights involved - it is those people that we are protecting, those people whose rights are at issue.

No, it's not 'we'. We, an individual, does not act in the ways a company is. I get what you mean 'we' but 'we' act in a disinterested fashion as shareholders. We don't know the workers, we don't even know the bosses. We don't know the communities. We care, solely, about our share, it's value, and that pressure flows downhill and decisions are made, hiring, firing, work practice, how vendors are treated, community relations, political favors. We do NOT act that way as individuals. Very few of us look at our lives and our community through the 'profit only' lens that corporations have to behave in. Corporations are allowed to keep all manner of secrets while having the power to drug test it's employees which it likes to call 'partners' and 'associates' to make it sound better. People don't act like that or think like that.

A lot of this, most of it really, is a simple result of 'big'. We know sociologically that once you get passed 150 people or so, relationship breaks down. You can't know more people than that and feel and be connected to them. In our neighborhoods we don't treat the neighbor as competition that needs to be defeated and hamstrung and beaten every step of the way. If the manager owned the store, that would be one thing. He doesn't and he acts and behaves as per the expectations of his position based on people who know him as a name, maybe.

The corporate model in the US likes complicated. It likes lots of rules and regulations as it grows because it restricts competition. Power and size are attained and then, when there really isn't much competition, they go about wiping out the vendor network below so that that becomes controlled and consolidated. Corporations are appealed to with tax breaks, zoning breaks. People don't get that.
Corporations get to sit with power figures, including the president. We don't.

The branding and marketing and promotion and all of that is this fake competition whereby size and that power has nothing to do with building better mousetraps and everything to do with capturing profit away from as much other corporations as possible.

CVS here in town built a brand new store right across the street from an old store. How can it be that that new store could EVER produce enough profit out of it to justify that move? Well, it can't. But, as a corporation it can. People don't do that. Small companies don't do that.

Highs opened a brand new store on 97 in Howard County maybe 10 years ago and, a few years later, tore down the old store and built a brand new one on the same piece of ground. People don't do that. Small companies don't do that.

If corporations aren't supreme to us, why did they get bailed out with TARP and not the homeowner? Why does a politically connected corporation get government money? Because it has the right to develop the relationships that allow it, Solyndra comes to mind, access to OUR money for privatizing profit. I can't do that.

The Blessed St. Trump, he of the little guy, is a big fan of coaxing gummint into taking property to develop. I can't get your house taken so I can have a par 3 in my back yard.

Corporations have layer after layer of protections unavailable to you and I.

I just read something where 5 US companies, or whatever it is, hold 1/3 of ALL US cash? What is that??? Return of the Robber Baron's?

I am for a land of many small kings, not a few huge ones. So, dispositionally, I oppose 'large' and 'too big to fail'.

You have a bad position and is Hank Paulson gonna come along and promise you all the liquidity you need to get through it?

 

[TheLibertonian]

No, it's not 'we'. We, an individual, does not act in the ways a company is. I get what you mean 'we' but 'we' act in a disinterested fashion as shareholders. We don't know the workers, we don't even know the bosses. We don't know the communities. We care, solely, about our share, it's value, and that pressure flows downhill and decisions are made, hiring, firing, work practice, how vendors are treated, community relations, political favors. We do NOT act that way as individuals. Very few of us look at our lives and our community through the 'profit only' lens that corporations have to behave in. Corporations are allowed to keep all manner of secrets while having the power to drug test it's employees which it likes to call 'partners' and 'associates' to make it sound better. People don't act like that or think like that.

A lot of this, most of it really, is a simple result of 'big'. We know sociologically that once you get passed 150 people or so, relationship breaks down. You can't know more people than that and feel and be connected to them. In our neighborhoods we don't treat the neighbor as competition that needs to be defeated and hamstrung and beaten every step of the way. If the manager owned the store, that would be one thing. He doesn't and he acts and behaves as per the expectations of his position based on people who know him as a name, maybe.

The corporate model in the US likes complicated. It likes lots of rules and regulations as it grows because it restricts competition. Power and size are attained and then, when there really isn't much competition, they go about wiping out the vendor network below so that that becomes controlled and consolidated. Corporations are appealed to with tax breaks, zoning breaks. People don't get that.
Corporations get to sit with power figures, including the president. We don't.

The branding and marketing and promotion and all of that is this fake competition whereby size and that power has nothing to do with building better mousetraps and everything to do with capturing profit away from as much other corporations as possible.

CVS here in town built a brand new store right across the street from an old store. How can it be that that new store could EVER produce enough profit out of it to justify that move? Well, it can't. But, as a corporation it can. People don't do that. Small companies don't do that.

Highs opened a brand new store on 97 in Howard County maybe 10 years ago and, a few years later, tore down the old store and built a brand new one on the same piece of ground. People don't do that. Small companies don't do that.

If corporations aren't supreme to us, why did they get bailed out with TARP and not the homeowner? Why does a politically connected corporation get government money? Because it has the right to develop the relationships that allow it, Solyndra comes to mind, access to OUR money for privatizing profit. I can't do that.

The Blessed St. Trump, he of the little guy, is a big fan of coaxing gummint into taking property to develop. I can't get your house taken so I can have a par 3 in my back yard.

Corporations have layer after layer of protections unavailable to you and I.

I just read something where 5 US companies, or whatever it is, hold 1/3 of ALL US cash? What is that??? Return of the Robber Baron's?

I am for a land of many small kings, not a few huge ones. So, dispositionally, I oppose 'large' and 'too big to fail'.

You have a bad position and is Hank Paulson gonna come along and promise you all the liquidity you need to get through it?

But corporations are people and it's apparently a good and moral thing for them to hold a majority of the wealth

 

[Larry Gude]

But corporations are people and it's apparently a good and moral thing for them to hold a majority of the wealth

Mobs are people, too. So are riots and so was Charles Manson.

 

[Tilted]

Larry - Okay, lots of things so I'm gonna try to stay somewhat focused...

(1) No, the top 5 U.S. corporations do not hold a third of all U.S. cash. Someone had to have been referring to the money that is held overseas by corporations because our tax policy won't let it be brought to the U.S. without confiscating large portions of it. The top 5 corporations probably do hold about a third of the money that fits that particular description. That's a much, much different thing. The majority of the wealth held in this country is held by individuals. (Though considering that can be tricky as large portions of the wealth that we hold is in the form of equity interest in corporations. We can get into the numbers if you'd like to.)

(2) We - the people - were bailed out through the TARP programs just as various corporate banks were. What was done there was to save us - from the collapse of the monetary system - more so than it was to save those banks. Those banks were actually the ones forced to pay for the bailout - through new restrictions on what they could do and through paying more money into our Treasury than they were forced to take to begin with. For most of them they were only at risk in the same ways that you and I and millions upon millions of other Americans were. We were just as responsible for the situation as they were, and we would have been crippled by others not paying us what we were owed just as they would have been by others not paying them what they were owed.

They were the central arteries in the system, that's why the liquidity had to be pumped in through them. They didn't benefit from that more so than we did though, they actually suffered because of it more so than we did. We've discussed this before, but some of them did not want to participate in that process. They were forced to take the money (which, as we've discussed before, was returned with interest and other profits to the U.S. Treasury). Others went along willingly because they realized they would benefit just as hundreds of millions of Americans would - that what was being proposed was the best way to save everyone, to save our entire financial system. If they hadn't taken the money, the worst that would have happened for them is that they would have crashed as businesses. The consequences for countless Americans - small businesses and individuals - would have been devastating. And, again, some of those banks insisted that they did not want the money but were forced to take it (and the conditions that would come along with it) in order to save us all from pain that would have made what we went through look like a picnic. Wells Fargo, e.g., said no way - we don't need your money, we're in fine shape, we aren't going to take the money. And they were told in no uncertain terms to sign their name on the paper or their business would be destroyed. That would have been easy enough for Secretary Paulson and various other government actors to do. It was no ideal threat. So, with the encouragement of some of the other big banks, they went along.

The notion that it was the big banks that were bailed out - not all of us, not the whole nation - is a great misunderstanding of what actually happened. It conflates where the (perceived to be) needed liquidity was (needed to be) injected with which parties were intended to be and actually were the primary beneficiaries. The banks benefited, but so did we - in meaningfully similar ways and for meaningfully similar reasons. Just because the doctor gives administers the shot in the ass, that doesn't mean that it's the buttocks that the shot is meant to (and does) help - at least, it's not just the buttocks. And even though that shot helped the body as a whole, perhaps even some other parts of it more than the ass, it might be the ass that's made sore by the shot.

(3) I asked in what way are corporations given more rights and protections than people are. Still focusing what happened with TARP, individual people were bailed out through it as well. They were actually, in effect, given money and not just loaned it. We have all kinds of programs - within TARP and just in general - that help individual people in comparable ways. At best you can say that corporations can get help that's similar to that which individuals can get. That's a stretch I think, but even accepting it it doesn't mean that corporations are given more rights and protections. We have all kinds of rules in place for corporations which we don't have in place for people acting in other contexts. I'd still like to know what rights you think we give corporations that we don't in effect give people. And to the extent you can identify a few, I'm willing to bet I can identify more that we give people that we don't in effect give corporations.

I typed pretty fast as I need to get to helping someone with some school work. So please don't make fun of me if I made 20 spelling or other mistakes.

 

[Tilted]

But corporations are people and it's apparently a good and moral thing for them to hold a majority of the wealth

A couple of questions:

(1) Are football teams people?

(2) Are a pen and paper (or a stove and a frying pan) people?

If not, should they not have the right to do certain things? For example, should a piece of paper not have the right to read 'Liberals suck!'? Should a football team not have the right to collectively say 'Conservatives hate America!'?

The point is, it is always the rights of people that are at issue. A corporation is either - depending on how you want to conceive it - individual people acting collectively based on agreed upon rules or something that people use to do something. It doesn't exist naturally and it never acts by its own volition. It is either people organized in a particular way or a tool created by people which people use. And whether we consider it as the former or the latter, it should be clear that it is those people that are doing things and those people who have the right to do those things. A billboard isn't a person but it has the right to say "Obama rocks!" just as a corporation has a right to say "Obama sucks!" Because the essential reality is that people are people. Sometimes they act collectively and sometimes they use other things to act or act through other things. But they are still people, people who have rights and who should have rights. It's a misleading framing of the issue to say that it is the billboard or the corporation that does or doesn't have rights.

 

[lucky_bee]

Look, if you know hd, they promote this personalization of the orange apron everyone wears.
It's a hat.

Wrong. HD's rules for personalizing the apron goes hand in hand with their dress code. The only pins, stickers, writing, cartoons, etc. allowed on your apron that are NOT already Home Depot generated, must be void of all political, religious, and/or otherwise offensive messages. BASICALLY, we were told to just stay away from everything except what Home Depot happens to hand out for free, and anything patriotic or military. I still remember the training videos about it.

I would know, as I used to be a "store artist"/cashier for HD. In fact, after recently stopping by the Waldorf store you'll still find some of my artwork on employees aprons as well as around the store on some old signs. I made a business out of "donations" for designing employee's names on their aprons and I made sure everything was kosher with those rules. I painted Jeeps, flowers and gardening tools, leopard print, guitars, and the most requested was usually favored pro sports teams logos. Management watched my designs closely and made sure I put nothing on their that could possibly offend a customer (besides a sports rival, always in good jest). Mine always passed inspection but I do remember a couple people being told a time or two that wearing Obama t-shirts was not appropriate to the dress code. Mind you this was in Waldorf. They were made to comply and so should she.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Wrong. HD's rules for personalizing the apron goes hand in hand with their dress code. The only pins, stickers, writing, cartoons, etc. allowed on your apron that are NOT already Home Depot generated, must be void of all political, religious, and/or otherwise offensive messages. BASICALLY, we were told to just stay away from everything except what Home Depot happens to hand out for free, and anything patriotic or military. I still remember the training videos about it.

OMG corporate generated flair, oh the humanity

 

[TheLibertonian]

A couple of questions:

(1) Are football teams people?

(2) Are a pen and paper (or a stove and a frying pan) people?

If not, should they not have the right to do certain things? For example, should a piece of paper not have the right to read 'Liberals suck!'? Should a football team not have the right to collectively say 'Conservatives hate America!'?

The point is, it is always the rights of people that are at issue. A corporation is either - depending on how you want to conceive it - individual people acting collectively based on agreed upon rules or something that people use to do something. It doesn't exist naturally and it never acts by its own volition. It is either people organized in a particular way or a tool created by people which people use. And whether we consider it as the former or the latter, it should be clear that it is those people that are doing things and those people who have the right to do those things. A billboard isn't a person but it has the right to say "Obama rocks!" just as a corporation has a right to say "Obama sucks!" Because the essential reality is that people are people. Sometimes they act collectively and sometimes they use other things to act or act through other things. But they are still people, people who have rights and who should have rights. It's a misleading framing of the issue to say that it is the billboard or the corporation that does or doesn't have rights.

If the practical result is a corporate oligarchy then I'd rather live in an anarchy.

 

[Gilligan]

If the practical result is a corporate oligarchy then I'd rather live in an anarchy.

LMAO.. you wouldn't last five minutes.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

LMAO.. you wouldn't last five minutes.

I am thinking Eugene from the Walking Dead, but less cool.

 

[glhs837]

I am thinking Eugene from the Walking Dead, but less cool.

Maybe the same hair

 

[TheLibertonian]

LMAO.. you wouldn't last five minutes.

I didn't say I would. I said I would rather live in an anarchy then live in corporate slavery.

And if I die I get to die free, not a corporate drone, not a slave.