Corporate image

[Tilted]

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

Okay, I'd agree with that.

But what has that to do with what I was talking about? The effect of people retaining rights even when they act through or as corporations hasn't caused us to function as a corporate oligarchy.

It is the people that hold the power in the United States. We have arguably done a poor job in wielding it; we've made bad collective decisions. But we are the ones that have the power and determine our social policies. To the extent we have problems created by those policies those problems are the consequence of the people having the power not the consequence of the people not having the power. As capable and intelligent as people may be individually, when they are tasked with collectively making decisions they tend to become far less so - often they effectively turn into idiots or a collective idiot. Such is the nature of democracy and the inherent problem with decision making systems built on democratic processes.

These various ideas that the media is to blame or that corporations are to blame or that this or that (other than we the people) is to blame are specious attempts to collectively and individually deny accountability for that which we have ourselves wrought. Such imaginings result from a considerable lack of self awareness and an unwillingness to be honest with ourselves. They represent our refusal, collectively and individually, to look in the damn mirror.

 

[TheLibertonian]

Okay, I'd agree with that.

But what has that to do with what I was talking about? The effect of people retaining rights even when they act through or as corporations hasn't caused us to function as a corporate oligarchy.

It is the people that hold the power in the United States. We have arguably done a poor job in wielding it; we've made bad collective decisions. But we are the ones that have the power and determine our social policies. To the extent we have problems created by those policies those problems are the consequence of the people having the power not the consequence of the people not having the power. As capable and intelligent as people may be individually, when they are tasked with collectively making decisions they tend to become far less so - often they effectively turn into idiots or a collective idiot. Such is the nature of democracy and the inherent problem with decision making systems built on democratic processes.

Understand I operate on the belief that economic power is a direct indicator of political power in our current system. Therefore, any system in which wealth is maintained in the hands of a very very slim percentage of the population inherently means political power is thereby held in those slim hands. If we're supposed to live in a liberal representative republic, isn't a corporate plutocracy inherently anathema to that very system?

Admittedly our initial political system didn't allow for complete universal suffrage, but wealth was also different both in its nature and how it was earned.

 

[Tilted]

Understand I operate on the belief that economic power is a direct indicator of political power in our current system. Therefore, any system in which wealth is maintained in the hands of a very very slim percentage of the population inherently means political power is thereby held in those slim hands. If we're supposed to live in a liberal representative republic, isn't a corporate plutocracy inherently anathema to that very system?

Admittedly our initial political system didn't allow for complete universal suffrage, but wealth was also different both in its nature and how it was earned.

If we had a corporate plutocracy it would perhaps be. But we don't, and thats evidence by so many of our societal policies.

But, anyway, corporate structure on the whole represents a distribution of wealth and economic power (as among people) not an aggregation of it.

Additionally, I don't think economic power is as directly tied to political power as you seem to think it is. That is the very nature of democracy as we know it. No matter how wealthy someone is, they only get one vote for various offices - they get the same unit of power, as exercised through voting, that most everyone else gets. The nature of the system is to defy what nature might have be the case and to assign most everyone an equal share of political power. Some people still wield that power more effectively or wisely, and they may have more resources which they may use to try to influence their fellow voters. But that is as it should be and it is still their fellow voters who have penultimate power. At best most of the disparate power (or rather, influence) created by disparate wealth is antepenultimate in nature. In other words, the main way that someone might use wealth to have more political power is by trying to influence voters - the people, themselves wealthy or otherwise - to vote in certain ways. And that makes it clear that it is those voters - those people, themselves wealthy or otherwise - that have the real power. They can choose to (effectively) sell it cheaply or use it undiscerning-ly if they want. Such is the nature of it being their power, they get to wield it as they choose and as limited by their own abilities and competence. But it is their power.

 

[Larry Gude]

Okay, I'd agree with that.

But what has that to do with what I was talking about? The effect of people retaining rights even when they act through or as corporations hasn't caused us to function as a corporate oligarchy. .

Sure it has. What of the reasons, core reasons, of incorporation is to shield members.

You keep going as you're reminding me of more and more things I can use to point out how corporations are Satan and the bane of our existence and author of all our woes.

 

[TheLibertonian]

If we had a corporate plutocracy it would perhaps be. But we don't, and thats evidence by so many of our societal policies.

But, anyway, corporate structure on the whole represents a distribution of wealth and economic power (as among people) not an aggregation of it.

Additionally, I don't think economic power is as directly tied to political power as you seem to think it is. That is the very nature of democracy as we know it. No matter how wealthy someone is, they only get one vote for various offices - they get the same unit of power, as exercised through voting, that most everyone else gets. The nature of the system is to defy what nature might have be the case and to assign most everyone an equal share of political power. Some people still wield that power more effectively or wisely, and they may have more resources which they may use to try to influence their fellow voters. But that is as it should be and it is still their fellow voters who have penultimate power. At best most of the disparate power (or rather, influence) created by disparate wealth is antepenultimate in nature. In other words, the main way that someone might use wealth to have more political power is by trying to influence voters - the people, themselves wealthy or otherwise - to vote in certain ways. And that makes it clear that it is those voters - those people, themselves wealthy or otherwise - that have the real power. They can choose to (effectively) sell it cheaply or use it undiscerning-ly if they want. Such is the nature of it being their power, they get to wield it as they choose and as limited by their own abilities and competence. But it is their power.

Do a thousand votes in support of something matter if the one person with the power to yay or nay in congress is paid by the corporation to vote a certain way. ANd bribery happens in so many technically legal ways.

Do you think that the trust busting under TR and Taft were necessary for the health of the republic? If so, why? If not, why not? '

And honestly, you're a lawyer. Do you really give a damn if I show up to you with my 400$ a month income and ask for you to represent me in our courts, or would you join the team of lawyers each being paid 50,000$ a day to argue in court that the corporation dropping chemicals in the river isn't responsible for any health effects it may have caused?

 

[Tilted]

Sure it has. What of the reasons, core reasons, of incorporation is to shield members.

You keep going as you're reminding me of more and more things I can use to point out how corporations are Satan and the bane of our existence and author of all our woes.

Yes, incorporation shields people from certain things. People. People. The people are protected from certain things, not the corporation. The people - as people, not as associates of the corporation - get protections from incorporation.

And, not for nothing, there are considerable trade offs for their getting that protection - rules relating to the corporate form that would not apply if they weren't using that form. So whatever additional protections those PEOPLE get from incorporating an interest they pay for it, so to speak, in other ways - per government rules.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes, incorporation shields people from certain things. People. People. The people are protected from certain things, not the corporation. The people - as people, not as associates of the corporation - get protections from incorporation.

And, not for nothing, there are considerable trade offs for their getting that protection - rules relating to the corporate form that would not apply if they weren't using that form. So whatever additional protections those PEOPLE get from incorporating an interest they pay for it, so to speak, in other ways - per government rules.

The people are shielded by the corporation. Yes. So, why don't we allow every US citizens to incorporate and have those shields? Because we consider corporations more important. They're the court. The people are simply the horsies.

I believe you're away...

 

[Tilted]

Do a thousand votes in support of something matter if the one person with the power to yay or nay in congress is paid by the corporation to vote a certain way. ANd bribery happens in so many technically legal ways.

Do you think that the trust busting under TR and Taft were necessary for the health of the republic? If so, why? If not, why not? '

And honestly, you're a lawyer. Do you really give a damn if I show up to you with my 400$ a month income and ask for you to represent me in our courts, or would you join the team of lawyers each being paid 50,000$ a day to argue in court that the corporation dropping chemicals in the river isn't responsible for any health effects it may have caused?

The kind of use of wealth you're referring to is problematic, I agree. But that's not the main way in which wealth is used to influence public policy. I would have no problem if using wealth that way was made illegal, to the extent it isn't already. But even still, a politician - if they wish to remain a an elected official - still has to be more concerned with what the voters collectively want. It is still the voters that determine who it is that gets to cast those votes and determine policy. If they want something badly enough, if enough of them do, they can demand it. If they choose not to, or can't form a powerful enough consensus to, then... again... that's a failing that tends to come with democratic processes. But the power still belongs to the people. Their abdication of it or their making inefficient use of it is not the same as them not being the ones who have it. Sometimes people who have power choose not to use it, or use it ineffectually. That's on them.

At any rate, this is what democracy is. This is what it looks like. If we don't like it, okay. Or if we don't like some of the results of it, okay. But this is what it is.

Also, I'm not a lawyer. But if I were, I'd probably care more about you with your $400 / month income than I would someone with more money if - if, if, if - you were on what I considered to be the right side of a given fight.

 

[Tilted]

The people are shielded by the corporation. Yes. So, why don't we allow every US citizens to incorporate and have those shields? Because we consider corporations more important. They're the court. The people are simply the horsies.

I believe you're away...

People can incorporate. That's how we have corporations. But in most contexts they wouldn't be best served by doing so because of the trade offs of being incorporated. In many contexts the harms from being incorporated outweigh the benefits.

But, anyway, it is the people that are protected by incorporation, not the corporations themselves. That's the point. You and others have tried to argue that corporations - as distinct from people - have more rights or protections. That is not the case. They have less. Even the protections that you are now identifying belong to people, not corporations to the extent you want to differentiate between them.

 

[Larry Gude]

People can incorporate. That's how we have corporations. But in most contexts they wouldn't be best served by doing so because of the trade offs of being incorporated. In many contexts the harms from being incorporated outweigh the benefits.

But, anyway, it is the people that are protected by incorporation, not the corporations themselves. That's the point. You and others have tried to argue that corporations - as distinct from people - have more rights or protections. That is not the case. They have less. Even the protections that you are now identifying belong to people, not corporations to the extent you want to differentiate between them.

Let's look at TARP. Who was at risk? We, the people or they the corporations? I think you've declared you buy the propaganda that not only was it the corporations we should have worried about, the risk to the entire system but that it was such that that ought to be the focus. In that situation, the banks, insurers, they were deemed to be more important than all the people who ended up losing theirs homes, suck starting a .45, ruined lives.

Now, I concede that is a macro argument I am making. I tend to try and stay macro on larger issues in the belief that if you, we, act to promote the general welfare, more do well and there are less extremes.

IIRC, you and I used to be of a kind; that TARP was necessary to avert a disaster BUT that that disaster may well be just what we needed to flush the pipes, deal with all the chickens coming home to roost and the cows that came home with them. That the urgency of the moment would have served as the motive force to get all those brilliant minds to set aside their corporate interests to do what they all know needed doing in terms of liquidity, stability, separation of investment and risk, insurance and making the damn thing safe. Or no?

 

[TheLibertonian]

The kind of use of wealth you're referring to is problematic, I agree. But that's not the main way in which wealth is used to influence public policy. I would have no problem if using wealth that way was made illegal, to the extent it isn't already. But even still, a politician - if they wish to remain a an elected official - still has to be more concerned with what the voters collectively want. It is still the voters that determine who it is that gets to cast those votes and determine policy. If they want something badly enough, if enough of them do, they can demand it. If they choose not to, or can't form a powerful enough consensus to, then... again... that's a failing that tends to come with democratic processes. But the power still belongs to the people. Their abdication of it or their making inefficient use of it is not the same as them not being the ones who have it. Sometimes people who have power choose not to use it, or use it ineffectually. That's on them.

At any rate, this is what democracy is. This is what it looks like. If we don't like it, okay. Or if we don't like some of the results of it, okay. But this is what it is.

Also, I'm not a lawyer. But if I were, I'd probably care more about you with your $400 / month income than I would someone with more money if - if, if, if - you were on what I considered to be the right side of a given fight.

Which leads to a side question for me and one I've posed to friends; is democracy as we have it now truly the most liberating society?

Thankyou as usual for your answers though.

I know I come across as somewhat paranoid but I do really worry about the amount of influence we give materialistic corporations that have no morality beyond 'more money" over our lives, and I especially and concerned at people who will stop at nothing to prevent the government having a power and giving it to a corporation.

 

[Tilted]

Let's look at TARP. Who was at risk? We, the people or they the corporations? I think you've declared you buy the propaganda that not only was it the corporations we should have worried about, the risk to the entire system but that it was such that that ought to be the focus. In that situation, the banks, insurers, they were deemed to be more important than all the people who ended up losing theirs homes, suck starting a .45, ruined lives.

Now, I concede that is a macro argument I am making. I tend to try and stay macro on larger issues in the belief that if you, we, act to promote the general welfare, more do well and there are less extremes.

IIRC, you and I used to be of a kind; that TARP was necessary to avert a disaster BUT that that disaster may well be just what we needed to flush the pipes, deal with all the chickens coming home to roost and the cows that came home with them. That the urgency of the moment would have served as the motive force to get all those brilliant minds to set aside their corporate interests to do what they all know needed doing in terms of liquidity, stability, separation of investment and risk, insurance and making the damn thing safe. Or no?

We are still of a kind in that regard. But I don't need to think that TARP actually was X (X being something that is wrong in the particular way that you think it was wrong) in order to think that TARP was wrong. And I don't need to think that it was that particular X in order to prefer that we not have done it. (TARP here referring to a specific aspect of TARP, but I think you understand that.) I think we shouldn't have done it even though I think it would have created considerably more devastation - for most and typical Americans - had we not done it.

Excuse me for a few minutes, I need to sell some AAPL stock.

 

[Tilted]

Which leads to a side question for me and one I've posed to friends; is democracy as we have it now truly the most liberating society?

Thankyou as usual for your answers though.

I know I come across as somewhat paranoid but I do really worry about the amount of influence we give materialistic corporations that have no morality beyond 'more money" over our lives, and I especially and concerned at people who will stop at nothing to prevent the government having a power and giving it to a corporation.

I've long not been a fan of democracy. I don't know that I could endorse another form of governance as inherently better though. I just recognize a lot of weaknesses as being inherent to democracy. I don't see it as this marvelous thing that should necessarily be aspired to because it's clearly the best way for societies run.

But is it the most liberating way? I don't know, I'll have to give that some though. I think it's a complicated consideration because in some ways it surely is and in others it likely is not.

 

[TheLibertonian]

I've long not been a fan of democracy. I don't know that I could endorse another form of governance as inherently better though. I just recognize a lot of weaknesses as being inherent to democracy. I don't see it as this marvelous thing that should necessarily be aspired to because it's clearly the best way for societies run.

But is it the most liberating way? I don't know, I'll have to give that some though. I think it's a complicated consideration because in some ways it surely is and in others it likely is not.

To that point you have to define what liberties there are. Generally it's divided into personal, political, and economic.