Are corporate interests and individual interests mutually exclusive?

[renie408]

It seems to me that for ANY party to be successful, they need to strike a balance between corporate and individual interests. I also think that if corporate leadership used their BRAINS instead of just focusing on their greed, they would see that policies that promote corporate welfare AT THE EXPENSE of the individual are unsustainable and therefore, eventually being to work AGAINST the corporate good. Again, it comes down to long term vs. short term thinking. Right now, the greedy oil industry can only see all the zeros in their profit statements. They offer as a palliative to criticism that they must work in their investors interests. Only they are not paying attention to the big picture. They do not see that by jacking up oil prices, they are spurring a much more accelerated interest in alternative fuel, they are damaging the over all economy (which isn't good for ANYBODY), amongst other things which are not good for their long term success.

So what I want to know is can there be a balance between corporate and individual interests that has the most chance of being good for everybody? Many people here speak against anything that looks like it might benefit big business. But logically, you have to factor corporate interests into the equation, or corporations go off and back people like George Bush, leaving the rest of us fucked. Also, many people here dismiss Clinton, etc, as corporate shills. But is there a chance that the Clinton crowd is trying to strike that balance? Are they THAT overtly for business over the individual? And if they are, then why were the late 90's so much better for the country than the early 00's??

[Tace]

1. The Balance Is That Corporations Must Be Subordinate To The People

It's really very simple. Corporations have been granted "personhood" by the courts. So they enjoy all the rights of individuals, with extra perks and very little liability.

Subordinate the corporations to the will of The People.

[renie408]

3. Um, that sounds good and all, but

is that really going to work? I am not talking about what everybody SAYS should happen. I am talking about reality.
This reminds me of showing horses. There are the guidelines where they tell you what the judge is SUPPOSED to be looking for and the standard to which you should be riding and training. And then there is what the judges are actually giving out blue ribbons for. And it is usually not very correct.

Yah, subordinate corporations sounds good. GO TEAM! But it is going to get our ass kicked because the corporations are doing to do everything they can to prevent that from happening.

[dogman]

2. No, but

When the corporate executives focus on bottom line with only short term success, and are brought into Congress to actually draw up the legislation affecting them, individuals are screwed.

[renie408]

4. This is what I am afraid of

That there is the chance that a CEO's success is so measured in the short term that they will always want to back the party that offers QUICK returns, regardless of long term effect.

[welshTerrier2]

8. it goes way beyond short-term/long-term issues

imagine that you want to control oil fields in Venezuela, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Uzbekistan and a hundred other places all over the world ...

imagine that some of these places have tyrannical dictators and others have fledgling democracies ... what do you do as a "profits are all we care about CEO"???????

you lobby the US government ... you bribe, you blackmail and you even assassinate if necessary ... you do this until you get the government to define the policies you want ...

and what are these policies ... you bribe, you blackmail and you even assassinate ... we give deadly weapons to guys like Saddam ... then we topple Saddam ... we enter into hideous terms with the Sudanese government that results in the calamity in Darfur ... we assassinate democratically elected leaders like Torrijos in Panama and Roldos in Ecuador ... we wage bogus drug wars in Colombia ... we infiltrate former southern Soviet states with our CIA and destablize their regimes ... we ignore the disasterous impact of global warming ... we refuse to acknowledge the need for alternative fuels ... we rape our national parks and coastlines for the sole benefit of big oil ... we pollute our air ... we fund $14 billion corporate giveaways to big oil in the latest energy bill ... we fight wars in the Middle East to destabilize the oil markets resulting in all-time record high profits for the oil industry ...

NO!!!!!!! Democrats should not support these abuses of the American people ...

the point is that this goes way beyond an MBA-like analysis of the role corporations play in the American economy ... what we really have is an imperialistic, immoral foreign and domestic policy run by those who have stripped us of our own democracy ...

Democrats need to differentiate between support for legitimate commerce and the genocidal greed of mega-corporations and the stranglehold they have on our government and our country ... we should not be "anti-corporation" or "anti-business"; we should be against what these large companies have been allowed to get away with ... and those that continue to be self-serving and against the national interest, especially those in critical industries like big oil and big pharma, should be nationalized if they refuse to put the American people first ...

[dogman]

10. It really comes down to the bottom line.

Not on the financial statements but the fact we presently have a fascist regime and there are very few willing to call it what it is. We need a mobilization against fascism, but it is a daunting task when they own all the tools needed to fight it.

[renie408]

11. What you said...

Ok, sounds good to me.


How do we do it? And are the Clintons NOT doing it? Are they pro-gigunda corporation to the detriment of the little guy? God knows, not the INDIVIDUAL, because INDIVIDUALS are Libertarians. The vast 'little guy'.

[welshTerrier2]

13. no, Democrats are NOT "doing it"

and Clinton is NOT "doing it" ...

it may not shock anyone to learn that the US objectives in Iraq are just a wee bit less idealistic than bush and the neo-cons (and the PNAC'ers) would have you believe ...

you really don't need to look too far beyond Big Oil's bottom line this year to understand who is benefitting from the policy ... we are there to procure and control Iraq's oil fields for the benefit of US corporate interests ... those who send our soldiers to die, and those who support continued occupation (regardless of how noble their objectives in Iraq may be), are doing nothing more than furthering Big Oil's agenda ...

we are not protecting our country from terrorists ... we are inflamming the war with terrorists ... we are not bringing democracy to the Iraqi people ... we are destroying their cities, their homes and their lives ... we are installing a puppet government that will trade its own security for the the Iraqi oil fields ...

so those, like Clinton, who push for more occupation to achieve ANY PURPOSE, are, in the end, supporting and enabling the corporate agenda ... whether they are truly "corporatists" with that as their primary motivation or whether they are unable to understand that we are in Iraq for nothing more than greed, their support for the corporate agenda is neither in the best interests of the American people nor the Iraqi people ... so yes, the agenda Clinton and most Democrats are currently supporting, especially in Iraq, is to the "detriment of the little guy" ...

[daninthemoon]

5. It's all a question of ethics, and as yousay, actual farsightedness.

[IChing]

6. Your premise should not state individual interests but the public interest

Individual interest implies a libertarian attitude over societal needs. The myth of American rugged individualism is implied in the concept of corporate interests. So the tone of the discussion is already tainted with ambiguity.

Individual needs, need not, and many times do not, conform to societal needs and visa versa although they may be inclusive to each other at times.

[renie408]

9. Semantics

cor·po·ra·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kôrp-rshn)
n.
1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body corporate.
3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.
4. Informal. A protruding abdominal region; a potbelly

in·di·vid·u·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd-vj-l)
adj.

1. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness.
2.By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion.
Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.


I was trying to differentiate between corporations and your average Joe Blow who is not benefitted by the current government fixation on big business. I was not really trying to promote a Libertarian agenda by referring to individuals. I stand corrected. No more informed on the question I asked, but corrected.

[IChing]

14. Edit your post if you would, I think you are on the right track

Once we have accepted the thing language with its framework for things, we can raise and answer internal questions, e.g., "Is there a white piece of paper on my desk?" "Did King Arthur actually live?", "Are unicorns and centaurs real or merely imaginary?" and the like. These questions are to be answered by empirical investigations. Results of observations are evaluated according to certain rules as confirming or disconfirming evidence for possible answers.

Without a definition of terms which are essential for the discussion of concepts, the average joe blow obviously uses language to describe terms that he may no know anything about(that's our Bush) ie. freedom, democracy etc. SO

Semantics are essential for helping us define the reality we are talking about.

Go ahead, it was not a slam

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. Do you really mean...

..."individual interests?" I normally think in terms of balancing private commercial interests of groups of individuals with the common collective interests of the people. Maybe we're talking about the same thing. In any case, it is the responsibility of the people to demand that their duly elected government officials (municipal, state and federal) strike and maintain this balance through continuous, diligent oversight. Unfortunately, we now have an illegitimate, fascist regime in power that feels no need to be accountable to the people because they control the ballot box. Private corporate interests now rule.

[StellaBlue]

12. "Are corporate interests and individual interests mutually exclusive?"

As with a marriage - yes and no.

Depends on whether your interest is freedom or money.

;)

[1932]

15. According to Amartya Sens Democracy as Freedom, what's good

for the people is good for economic (and social/human) development.

In my opinion, the problem is that corporations tend to be greedy and if you don't have a government that tells them to back the fuck off for their own good every once in a while, they overdo it and ruin everything for everybody, themselves included.

[renie408]

20. This is sort of where I was going...

I am thinking that if SOME business people could see that regulation helps them to NOT become bloated monsters consuming and exploiting and ruining the environment, then the world will exist much longer for them to operate in.

I suspect that this is most likely a naive hope.

[1932]

29. Yes.

I think a big problem today is that we have a government that has taken sides with the corporations.

It's not that I even idealize a world in which the government tilts entirely towards labor or consumers.

If they simply moderated fairly, we could have a dialogue about these issues and I think even if corporations lost a few of those debates, at least they wouldn't get crazy about it because they'd realized that the decisions were the product of informed debate and the will of the people.

[applegrove]

16. Humans have specific needs to function as a group. These needs

involve feelings. Corporations only have needs that see into the next year of profits. And there is nothing about feeling in them. Depends on the corporate structure and who leads.

As machines - corporations should be under the complete control of humans.

[Totally Committed]

17. Media Deregulation, The Bankruptcy Bill, Healthcare Costs,

NAFTA, CAFTA, drilling of ANWR, the price of prescription medicines... you tell me, were the corporate and the individual needs mutually exclusive?

TC

[renie408]

19. Try it this way..Do they HAVE to be mutually exclusive?

Hey, you are preaching to the converted on this. I am trying to figure out if there is a way to protect US and allow THEM to still conduct business in a manner they will consider fruitful...enough.

I guess my main question is: Is there a way to help business leaders see that by keeping their eyes only on the bottom dollar, in the end, they will screw themselves?

[Totally Committed]

24. I think they do... the purpose of Corporations is profit, not altruism...

The bottom line is the all-important thing for the vast majority of them. Bottom lines and stock returns and profits don't lend themselves to the human condition. Most only care for themselves and their stockholders, and most poor don't own stock.

On edit: As long as the choice is between profit and people, the people will lose every time with the corprations.

TC

[killbotfactory]

18. Something you must realize

Under the law, Corporations MUST put the making of profit first and foremost. From this simple fact, everything else follows. They only care about increasing their bottom line, because they are required to by law. They will always fund or "influence" policy to benefit themselves over regular people.

The only way to change this is to change corporate priorities under the law.

[renie408]

21. I guess that would be an uphill battle, eh?

[bluedawg12]

22. You are talking about enlightened capitalism?

Here is some info. I looked up for anyone interested in a quick study of these complicated topics.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1934/soulesevolution.htm

Source: A review from New International, New York, August 1934, pp.61-62.

<in recent years the New Republic has shifted to an ideal of enlightened capitalism guided by governmental control and checked by the power of organized labor, professions, and that mythical entity, “consumers”. >

This as a critique of capitalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

"Many Greens, Marxists and anti-Globalists agree that the governments of the major industrial economies are not serving in the role of protecting "the free market", but would go on to say that these governments are, in fact, acting to protect the owners of capital and corporations as their first priority, sometimes expressed as "socialism for the rich, capitalism (cut throat competition) for the poor." These critics, therefore, would assert that the correct term for the core industrial nations is neither capitalism, nor mixed economy, but corporatist. For example, voluble leftist Noam Chomsky says that "There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence. To the extent there ever was, it had disappeared by the 1920s or '30s."

[renie408]

23. Well...it sounds good, but the articles weren't particularly...

upbeat, were they?

I am not an economist. In fact, I pretty much sucked at Economics and bluffed my way through most of it. But it seems to me that even though the current climate might FEEL good to big business, if allowed to continue with as little regulation as they have now (and less if Bushco has its way), it CANNOT be sustained. Therefore, it is NOT healthy for either business or the PUBLIC.

[category5]

25. I have worked as a corporate manager.................

and it was for a $300 million annual sales privately held outfit.
They had 1000 employees all making decent wages. The only bad thing
I saw in my 23 years with that outfit is that the higher management
made a lot of dumb decisions, awarded themselves fat compensation
packages, and eventully the company went bankrupt and was bought out
by another outfit which downsized it drastically.

Fortunately I left the company as it was getting sold, for even a better
job with a government contractor.

My main beef against 90% of all US corporations is that the CEO's and
VP types are literally stealing $$$. The stock holders suffer and the
employees suffer financially. Most stock holders are just average
Americans holding stocks thru mutual funds and IRA's and 401-k plans.
The board of directors are "pals & buddies" of the CEO and sign on to
exorbitant compensation packages disproportionate to performance.


WE NEED LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY WHICH SOMEHOW WOULD REIN IN THE LOOTING
BY HIGHER MANAGEMENT.

[bluedawg12]

27. Milton Friedman is perhaps the best known living economist.

I gather he is the guru for the RW. It appears he had great influence over this WH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

> Milton Friedman...he headed the Reagan committee that researched the possibility of a move towards a paid/volunteer armed force, and played a role in the abolition of the draft that took place in the 1970s in the U.S

In recent years Friedman has devoted much of his effort to promoting school vouchers that can be used to pay for tuition at both private and public schools, saying, "What is needed in America is a voucher of substantial size available to all students, and free of excessive regulations."

"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible."

"We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork."

"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it <...> gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

"Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation."

"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem." <

[Robertwf]

26. L'Corporation--C'est moi

In law the corporation is an individual.
But yes, the corporation has its power because it is in reality bigger that a human "person," It must be subordinated to the will of the people.
One way to do this is to buy stock and then vote and attend shareholder meetings. Nothing freaks out the corporate monkeys more than seeing a lot of oddballs at the annual meeting.

[IChing]

28. So I have no money and If I did

i must invest in corruption in order to change it or support it?