The Corporation is in Serious Trouble

[maplesyrup]

The Edges of "Externality"

It is obvious that our corporations are in serious trouble. They have become crime-infested, unethical parasites on our society? What can we do to restore some credibility to corporations?

[Bakunin]

The thing is that we often can't. I think the only way is to change them one by one.

Wal-mart is a cheap labor corporation, we could higer their minimum wage to 10$ in canada by creating a law that target only wal-mart. Anyway they won't close their store if there is money to make and at 10$ minimum wage they still makes a lot of money. We just take them at their own games.

So if we make flexible law to target those corporations, we can patch some problem but we can't fix international problem.

[Hugo]

Wal-mart is a cheap labor corporation, we could higer their minimum wage to 10$ in canada by creating a law that target only wal-mart.

And the first thing Wal-Mart will do is fire thousands of people. A few will make more, many will join the ranks of the unemployed. Minimum wage laws create unemployment.

Anyway they won't close their store if there is money to make

You will make it much more difficult for them to make money and odds are they will close a lot of stores.

[idealisttotheend]

And the first thing Wal-Mart will do is fire thousands of people. A few will make more, many will join the ranks of the unemployed. Minimum wage laws create unemployment.

This is a myth. Walmart hires the people they need to run their stores, not one person more. Therefore Wal-Mart will not be able to fire thousands of workers since they have no supluss workers to fire.

Minimum wage laws may be the most effective tool for social justice available.

You will make it much more difficult for them to make money and odds are they will close a lot of stores.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. It seems to me that it is more difficult to make more money with fewer stores than with more n'est pas? Remember Walmart is not a local mom and pop but an internation beaurcracy that has the capital resources to run all the stores they wish.

As to OP.... the corporation is becoming much more prevalant as the major force affecting peoplle's day to day lives. This is a result of globalization. The probelm, IMO, is corporations looking at their short term interests (stock price) without considering their long term interests. I think if we could find a way to solve that problem it would go a long way to improving the situation.

[Hugo]

Walmart hires the people they need to run their stores, not one person more... It seems to me that it is more difficult to make more money with fewer stores than with more n'est pas?

Some Wal-Mart stores are more profitable than others. Some make only a small profit margin. If you raise minimum wage, you will move those stores from small profit-makers to small loss-makers, and Wal-Mart will close them because it makes no financial sense to keep them open, and all those who worked there, will be fired.

[idealisttotheend]

Some Wal-Mart stores are more profitable than others. Some make only a small profit margin. If you raise minimum wage, you will move those stores from small profit-makers to small loss-makers, and Wal-Mart will close them because it makes no financial sense to keep them open, and all those who worked there, will be fired.

1) The market is supposed to be demand centered. If people need a store there than a store will continue to be there, if not by WalMart than one of their very few (but higher priced competitiors).

2) WalMart can (and will since the market really isn't that demand centered in many respects) protect it's profit margin by raising it's prices. It's competitiors will either be similairly affected or become more competitiive as WalMart's ability to race to the bottom is curtailed.

[Bakunin]

I think all province's have different minimum wage, our is something like 7,3$ / hours. i think that it should be higher but for special case like international mega store, international fastfood, maybe there should be a special law to put more money in the people's pocket. like you say, thei hired the minimum empolyes, thats the same thing for mc donald, if their profit is reduce a little bit, they wont bother.

[Hugo]

The market is supposed to be demand centered. If people need a store there than a store will continue to be there

Oh, probably. It just won't be a Wal-Mart, because they'll only open a store where it will be profitable and they can't raise prices just in one store. What will happen is you'll add a hundred or so people to the unemployed in a small town when the Wal-Mart closes, and then a smaller competitor will move in employing less people, and consumer prices will rise because that competitor can't offer the prices that Wal-Mart offers. In short, there'll be less income and higher prices. Everybody loses.

WalMart can (and will since the market really isn't that demand centered in many respects) protect it's profit margin by raising it's prices. It's competitiors will either be similairly affected or become more competitiive as WalMart's ability to race to the bottom is curtailed.

Ah, so what you're advocating is punishing success and rewarding failure. Gotcha. Economic collapse won't be far behind.

If you want a good example of minimum wages harming employees, go back to the 1930s. The American economy was starting to get out of the depression when Roosevelt decided he'd raise the minimum wage. The unemployment rate peaked again and the economy collapsed anew. There's a good book on this called FDR's Folly, by Jim Powell.

The Employment Policies Institute in the USA estimates that the first $0.50 of the $1.00 minimum wage hike in 1996-1997 cost 645,000 jobs. The greatest job losses were amongst teenagers, blacks and single working mothers.

The simple fact is that wage and price controls hurt those they are supposed to help. If you really want to do something for the poor, abolish them.

[maplesyrup]

Why is it that the people with good incomes, or the wealthy, you know the Fraser Institute type supporters, always want to promote abolishing government protections for the less privileged in society, and yet the poor never want to do so.

Kinda makes one wonder, doesn't it?

If we don't have enough incomes to go around, why don't we really start narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor, by closing off all the tax loopholes for the rich, eh?

It is time Canadians seriously addressed narrowing the obscene and inmmoral income gap in Canada.

I hate to break it to ya, but greed is not a Christian virtue.

[Hugo]

Why is it that the people with good incomes, or the wealthy, you know the Fraser Institute type supporters, always want to promote abolishing government protections for the less privileged in society, and yet the poor never want to do so.

Probably because the poor don't have the time or inclination to study economics and often believe the grade-A bullcrap that well-meaning but ignorant people such as the NDP feed them. Bullcrap that will, in practice, end up hurting them far more than fiscally right-wing policies ever will. Communism, socialism and neo-socialism are all great for grinding the working man into the dirt.

why don't we really start narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor, by closing off all the tax loopholes for the rich, eh?

Better yet, why don't we stop the fiscal policies that keep the poor down, like minimum wages, price controls and sales taxes?

This is your problem, MS. The right-wing want to pull everyone up to the level of the rich, or as close as they can get. You want to drag everyone down to the level of the poor, or as close as you can get them.

I hate to break it to ya, but greed is not a Christian virtue.

No, it's a human failing, and you can either make it work for you and turn it to your benefit or you can make it a millstone around your neck to drown you.

[caesar]

The right-wing want to pull everyone up to the level of the rich, or as close as they can get. You want to drag everyone down to the level of the poor, or as close as you can get them.

Yeah right; if you believe that; you will believe anything.

ridiculous

[Cartman]

If low wages alone attracted corporations and led to economic growth, then would not countries like India etc. be more developed than Canada (considering they were both controlled by Britain)? It seems to me that working class gains (including the ability to obtain affordable educations, gov't paid health care etc) contribute to growth. I don't think workers should be considered liabilities. I suspect that when US companies do not have to pay for health care costs (insurance) directly (and our system is more efficient than is the US health care system), they find Canada more attractive.

I think that those advocating low wages are hypocritical. Who here wants to or is willing to work for third world wages? If not, why advocate that for others?

[August1991]

If we don't have enough incomes to go around, why don't we really start narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor, by closing off all the tax loopholes for the rich, eh?

There you go again MS. You assume the "income pie" is fixed in size and so the rich get rich by taking big pieces leaving small pieces for the poor. Have you ever thought that the rich make the pie bigger?

The right-wing want to pull everyone up to the level of the rich, or as close as they can get. You want to drag everyone down to the level of the poor, or as close as you can get them.

Yeah right; if you believe that; you will believe anything.

ridiculous

The same fixed pie argument applies to Cartman. I'll add that the poor in Canada have never been so rich as they are now. In fact, the poor today are as rich as the rich in, say, 1925. Think about it. (Cars, telephones, running hot/cold water, health...)

Minimum wage laws may be the most effective tool for social justice available.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Idealist. If you want rich people to help poor people, then steal from the rich and give to the poor (like Robin Hood). Don't do it by a "minimum wage" roundabout method. [Consider what would happen if it were illegal to buy or sell a car at a price of less than $50,000. What kind of cars would be bought and sold? If you had to pay $50,000, would you choose a Hyundai or Lexus? IOW, minimum wage laws simply price low wage earners out of the market.]

It is obvious that our corporations are in serious trouble. They have become crime-infested, unethical parasites on our society? What can we do to restore some credibility to corporations?

WTF?

Walmart relies entirely on voluntary relations. Its shareholders freely choose to hold its shares. Employees freely choose to work at Walmart. Customers freely choose to buy Walmart's merchandise.

The relation between citizens (taxpayers) and the government is not voluntary. I do not freely choose to pay taxes. I pay them under threat of imprisonment.

No corporation can force me into a cubicle unless I have agreed to go there. The State can imprison me - it can take my property - without my agreement. This is why we need a list of fundamental individual rights.

Please guys, in discussions of the corporation, keep these points clear. (I agree that the 'corporation' is a weird thing, but not in the 1920s, Communist way you and that foolish movie portray.)

----

BTW, Cartman, your Orchard postlogue quote refers to "it" which does not belong "here". What is "it"? Where is "here"?

[Bakunin]

the problem is that since walmart pay their employee the minimum wage, the competitor has to lower their wage to compete. Then the competitor lower his wage and the employe salary in this sector slowly goes down to the minimum wage. So wal mart leveled down the salary of this sector. Now he use its purchasing power to lower the cost of what he sell which is good for the consumer but that kill the competition and what will happen when their will be no competitor or only small competitor ?

another point is that since those employee are paid the minimum wage, they don't pay taxes. Some may argue that if walmart decide to close, its going to make unemployer but it will also create job since the old wal mart customer will have to buy is stuff somewhere.

[August1991]

the problem is that since walmart pay their employee the minimum wage, the competitor has to lower their wage to compete. Then the competitor lower his wage and the employe salary in this sector slowly goes down to the minimum wage.

"Race to the bottom" thinking.

Bakunin, do you believe that people's "natural worth" is nothing, zero, 0? Do you believe that people's only chance for value is a State Law?

Bakunin, I have a very different view of life, and its "value". People do not require a State to have value, as you suggest.

[Bakunin]

Bakunin, do you believe that people's "natural worth" is nothing, zero, 0? Do you believe that people's only chance for value is a State Law?

i don't think their natural worth is 0 or that their natural worth has to be dictate by offer/demand.

Im an humanist, i think we can't assume that evry man is good and therefore we must protect ourself from them with what is called the state and with rules.

in a capitalist system, the worker has to adapt to the demand of the society but we all know that its impossible. Another thing is that their is not enough jobs for evryone. Their are plenty of unskilled worker, wheiter thei are at school or thei quit school or their sector is full and they cant find an employer.

Since their are full of unskilled peoples who need a job, thei have to compete to get a job. They are willing to accept any wage because they don't have the choice. Wal-mart and mc donald and other company give them a job at the lower salary they can.

walmart give the lowest salary to the chinese kid then the lowest salary to the unskilled worker and makes money out of their employee working value. I think that its fair that the state force the salary to go up so the worker here can get a little bit more money for their value.

Else their is no difference between capitalism and a network of private dictatorship.

Bakunin, I have a very different view of life, and its "value". People do not require a State to have value, as you suggest.

Its ok to have different view and to constantly review the way we see life.

I think some people don't have good value. I want to be protected from those don't you ? I want to be able to live in a secure world where i can get most of my working value and i don't want others to suffer even if they are stupid.Well sometime i want them to suffer but thats because im stupid too

[Hugo]

Yeah right; if you believe that; you will believe anything.

ridiculous

Pure conjecture, not worth replying to.

The fact is that the left's policies are rooted in anger and jealousy, and as with most things generated from negative emotion are of little value. This can be perceived easily in the writings of Marx, documents filled with hate against all kinds of people - industrialists, bourgeosie, nobility, bankers, Jews, women, clergymen, families - and it's still around now. Witness MS's proposed solutions to the income gap. He proposes to punish successful corporations with punitive taxation and labor laws and to confiscate the property of the rich simply because they have that property. The wrongheadedness of these notions are fully shown by how they treat the poor. Rather than abolish ideas such as price and wage controls that have been proven time and time again to be grossly injurious to the poor, he proposes to build on them and embellish them.

Quite simply, leftist politics are about exacting revenge upon the rich for perceived wrongs, and they don't care how much they have to trample the working class into the dirt to do it.

in a capitalist system, the worker has to adapt to the demand of the society

This is a gross error. In a capitalist system, society and markets demand nothing, they only reflect what the people demand. The worker does not have to satisfy anybody's demands, it is up to industry and society to satisfy his. Of course, as with all things, we all have bargaining chips, and a worker with no experience, no qualifications and no training isn't in a position to demand much. This is why self-improvement is such a prize of capitalism, because a skilled and experienced worker can demand a lot more from his employer, and his employer in turn can demand a lot more from him. Everybody wins.

I think that its fair that the state force the salary to go up so the worker here can get a little bit more money for their value.

Looks good on paper, but as I've already said this is a great way to shed jobs amongst the poorest members of society. What such a policy invariably does is take those who are poor now and make them even poorer. Your intended targets - the rich - are barely affected. These policies are borne upon the backs of the working classes. Such are the contradictions of neo-socialism, like classic socialism before it.

It seems to me that working class gains (including the ability to obtain affordable educations, gov't paid health care etc) contribute to growth.

Exactly true, and this is why the mass unemployment that minimum wage laws create is so bad for the economy and for the working class. Minimum wage employees have little now, if you raise the minimum wage, they will have nothing.

[Cartman]

QUOTE 

Yeah right; if you believe that; you will believe anything.

ridiculous 

Pure conjecture, not worth replying to.

The fact is that the left's policies are rooted in anger and jealousy, and as with most things generated from negative emotion are of little value. This can be perceived easily in the writings of Marx, documents filled with hate against all kinds of people - industrialists, bourgeosie, nobility, bankers, Jews, women, clergymen, families - and it's still around now.

You should actually read Marx and Engels rather than the Coles notes version. Ever read "The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State"? Yeah, this is not anti-women. How do you get that?

Oh, and I am sure that you have actually read Das Kapital in full...yeah, not so much...Because Marx was often sarcastic, he should be read carefully. You should also realize that the advice offered by the Oracle on the Matrix should be subjectively interpreted.

[Bakunin]

Hugo, are you a member of the Natural Law Party of Canada ?

[Hugo]

Hugo, are you a member of the Natural Law Party of Canada ?

No, how about you?

You should actually read Marx and Engels rather than the Coles notes version.

My version is The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd Ed., edited by Robert C. Tucker, W. W. Norton & Company, 1978. What's yours?

Ever read "The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State"? Yeah, this is not anti-women.

Let's look at a more relevant document where Marx himself talks about women in socialism, rather than where Engels alone talks about women in history.

In Marx's manuscript of 1844 on private property and communism, he specifically refers to women as property. He describes marriage as "certainly a form of exclusive private property" and argues that women should remain as private property rather than be subjected to the "bestial form of counterposing to marriage" involved in regarding women as "a piece of communal and common property" as other socialist thinkers of the time had proposed.

Do you think that Marx was not anti-woman when he referred to women as property to be privately owned by men and argued for the perpetuation of such a vision?

Can I also take it that, since you have nothing to say in rebuttal, you agree that Marx hated "industrialists, bourgeosie, nobility, bankers, Jews... clergymen, [and] families"? I'm just wondering why you take cues from a man who hates such massive swathes of humanity and wishes massive violence upon them. Marx was as evil as Hitler, if you read his writings this becomes plain, as it also becomes plain when you consider that all those who applied his teachings were terrorists and despots.

Because Marx was often sarcastic, he should be read carefully.

Marx was usually sarcastic. Sarcasm is simply an insulting mode of speech, and Marx had plenty of insults to dish out. I believe you mean "ironic" and challenge you to produce some examples.

[Cartman]

Hugo, turn to page 737 of your text The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd Ed., edited by Robert C. Tucker, W. W. Norton & Company, 1978.

Our word family is derived from the Roman term "familia" which "signifies the totality of slaves belonging to one individual". Marx was not justifying such enslavement, he was reacting against it by referring to it as such. That is also why he and Engels referred to "the world- historic defeat of the female sex (p.736). I would suggest you re-read this as your interpretation is kinda off. Even though this was specifically written by Engels, it was taken from Marx's own writings. Marx's ideas themselves also changed significantly over time.

I will have to refer to his Manuscripts 'cuz that was a long time ago (when I first read it).

"industrialists, bourgeosie, nobility, bankers, Jews... clergymen, [and] families"?

Did you know Marx was Jewish and his father changed their family name to avoid racism? I will give you this one though. He equated Jews with the others. Even to add to your argument, I will admit that Marx was also very critical of the extreme poor (lumpenproletariat) for their lack of revolutionary zeal.

As for the others, he was reacting against the terrible abuse of power and exploitation that existed during this time. Remember, children were working long hours in mines, factories and mills for petty rewards. Government intervention did not protect them until the late 1800's. How can one not find this deplorable? Germans in general had negative sentiments against these groups. "There is a saying that they know the price of everything and know the value of nothing".

Finally, there is a big difference b/w Marx and the few remaining contemporary neo-Marxists. I think you will grant me that. I do not know of any NDPers that take cues from Marx. I suspect most have never read him.

I think you will also realize that although often thought to first use the concept, Marx was not the person to first coin the term "socialism". He had a very different idea of what that meant than most others.

Sorry for the long post

[Hugo]

Hugo, turn to page 737 of your text The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd Ed., edited by Robert C. Tucker, W. W. Norton & Company, 1978.

I'm familiar with the text. I believe that Engels' essay is an attempt at historical exposition from a Marxist perspective rather than a Marxist vision of womanhood.

Did you know Marx was Jewish and his father changed their family name to avoid racism?

I'm well aware. I'll quote Robert C. Tucker in the introduction to On the Jewish Question: "This, however, is not to deny that Marx, although he himself was of Jewish origin, harbored anti-Jewish attitudes, nor is it to deny that such attitudes found expression in this essay."

I will give you this one though. He equated Jews with the others.

Your intellectual honesty is to be congratulated.

As for the others, he was reacting against the terrible abuse of power and exploitation that existed during this time.

Many things are done in reaction against injustice. Hitler's thoughts and regime were a reaction to German defeat in WWI and what he viewed as Western, Communist and Jewish denial of the heritage of the German people. This reaction, however, created a horrifying entity. The American revolution, conversely, was a reaction to English economic and political oppression, and that reaction ushered in a new age of democracy and individual freedoms.

What I'm getting at is that reacting to a bad situation is not an excuse for creating a worse one.

Finally, there is a big difference b/w Marx and the few remaining contemporary neo-Marxists.

I'm aware of this. What I said was:

...the left's policies are rooted in anger and jealousy, and as with most things generated from negative emotion are of little value. This can be perceived easily in the writings of Marx...

What I meant by this was that while the modern left has significantly diverged from Marxist dogma, one can see the heritage of said dogma today.

I think you will also realize that although often thought to first use the concept, Marx was not the person to first coin the term "socialism". He had a very different idea of what that meant than most others.

Indeed, and I cited one such difference when I quoted Marx arguing against another socialist idea, that women should be communal property, in favour of the notion of women as private property.

Sorry for the long post

Par for the course on this forum, my friend.

[Cartman]

The American revolution, conversely, was a reaction to English economic and political oppression, and that reaction ushered in a new age of democracy and individual freedoms.

What I'm getting at is that reacting to a bad situation is not an excuse for creating a worse one.

I am belabouring this issue and promise to stop after this post. IMO, Marx's call for revolution led to some positive changes as well (redistribution/welfare states).

[Hugo]

Marx's call for revolution led to some positive changes as well (redistribution/welfare states).

I would have to debate that. Redistribution of wealth and the welfare state have done a lot of harm to the interests of the poor. Redistribution, for instance, has taken money away from those that would have employed the poor and so denied those poor both jobs and income. It has also perpetuated the social injustice that those who earn wealth may not keep it, so removing an incentive for self-improvement.

The welfare state has done much the same thing, and has done a lot to trap the poor in low incomes by removing an incentive to work and prosper. The transition from welfare to work is a near-impossible one because it transforms a person from a beneficiary to a benefactor, and not many want to take that step. I can go on, but suffice it to say that I feel that both redistribution and welfare are violations of individual rights, gross injustices and do far more harm than good, especially to those they are supposed to benefit.

[cgarrett]

hugo, it must seriously pain you to know that you live within a socialist state... and that the most powerful economies in the world, including the united states, are also socialist states. in fact, anywhere you witness people as a group pooling resources to produce roads, electrical grids, sewers and disposal, communications, etc then you are witnessing socialism in action! the really hilarious part of manufactured right wing political views is that they do not advertise to dispose of these socialist activities... because they know that the economy would collapse.

getting back to the original question regarding corporations. the powers of corporations and their ability to operate without transparency must be clawed back. particularly, they must be stopped from influencing our democracy in order to service their short term goals. that's the job of government, to regulate the free market economy to ensure stability and safety over the long term. but corporations have short term goals of making as much money as quickly as possible because business environments at the micro level are inherently unstable.

much momentum is building even amongst business leaders in the u.s. that globalization is all wrong and was devised to feed the short term goals of business interests from the beginning.

if company A decides to move some form of its operations offshore in a cost cutting move then that's beneficial for company A. but there is economic impact to moving these operations out of the local economy. if the local economy is company A's market, then people have less money to spend on company A's product. now if company B does the same thing then maybe that's fine too and works for company B. but what we are now witnessing is so many companies moving offshore and the economic impact is so great that the major market for these companies is disappearing. thus the trend for the average household income adjusted for inflation decreasing over time and economic vitality going with it...

I certainly will not be investing in north american markets for awhile...