Meerkat's evil corporations (a rant if you will...)

[Phillip Allen]

Corporate...
FORMAL of or shared by a whole group and not just of a single member:
All adults take corporate responsibility for the upbringing of the tribe's children.

I keep hearing you denigrate corporate anything. Wars are for the benefit of corporation(s), a political party is for the benefit of corporation(s), lies are corporate, in short, everything wrong with the (your) world is corporate…is the term such a hang-up with you? Certainly corporations have sinned/erred but are they your Great Satan? If you hire a boy to mow the lawn, you are dangerously close to a corporation yourself, you know. The WBF is owned by a corporation...your medical bills are managed by a corporation...and on and on...

(The above definition is the Cambridge International Dictionary…)

I keep reading you spin everything in political threads back to the evil corporation of this or that...does that not include the political party which you support?

You are often well spoken but you often spin to the corporation as well...it tends to un-do your better points and in that narrow arena of corporate this and that you sound like a Bolshevik...(which I hope you are not)

Lest you think of this as an attack, let me point out that this is based on my visceral memory and I do not intend to defend my point but hope you consider it and through introspection, confirm or dismiss without further input from me…

Phillip

[Paul Pless]

let me point out that this is based on my visceral memory and I do not intend to defend my point do you mind if I start using this line :D LOL

[huisjen]

So what you're saying is that this is a complete troll, tossed out to get a rise, but you have no real interest in honest debate?

If a corporation was simply an assemblage of individuals, that would be one thing, but it is not. It is, legally, a person. This "person" is capable of committing crimes, yet can never be sent to jail. This "person" has no higher motive than the ugliest kind of greed. This "person" is theoretically immortal, and so does not care for the generations to come, and lacks human empathy.

Big money goes around the world
Big money underground
Big money got a mighty voice
Big money make no sound
Big money pull a million strings
Big money hold the prize
Big money weave a mighty web
Big money draw the flies

Sometimes pushing people around
Sometimes pulling out the rug
Sometimes pushing all the buttons
Sometimes pulling out the plug
It’s the power and the glory
It’s a war in paradise
It’s a cinderella story
On a tumble of the dice

Big money goes around the world
Big money take a cruise
Big money leave a mighty wake
Big money leave a bruise
Big money make a million dreams
Big money spin big deals
Big money make a mighty head
Big money spin big wheels

Sometimes building ivory towers
Sometimes knocking castles down
Sometimes building you a stairway --
Lock you underground
It’s that old-time religion
It’s the kingdom they would rule
It’s the fool on television
Getting paid to play the fool

Big money goes around the world
Big money give and take
Big money done a power of good
Big money make mistakes
Big money got a heavy hand
Big money take control
Big money got a mean streak
Big money got no soul...

[Ian McColgin]

It's just plain silly to assert that lefties demonize all corporations. Everybody makes and uses corporations for business, political, educational, social and charitable purposes.

It takes but a glance at Constitutional history to realize the profound (and wise) mistrust our founders had for large corporations. We paint our political revolution as against the king's tyranny but the king wasn't really doing it to us, and our founders knew that our revolution was really against the dictatorial power of corporate mercantilism. Democratic governance and people's rights are protected by the Constitution. Corporate rights are not mentioned.

Corporations are a terrific way to share limited risk without exposing all one's wealth.

Corporations are a nice way to gain and manage public capital.

Corporations that are clear and focused on their product are a wonderful way to spread decision-making to the appropriate action level, centralizing only what most economically be made central. Charitable corporations are better at this, as they are not tempted away from the main product line by a lust for quarterly earnings. Family or closely held corporations, while sometimes tyrannical in other ways, are often also good at this as the decision-makers are in love with their widgetts and can look to very long range investment and return.

At the bad side, the corporate de-individualization of responsibility is at the heart of politically corrupt control, as with the British East India Company, and becomes the prime organizing tool for modern Fascism as articulated by Mussolini:

"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. ... The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their respective associations, circulate within the State."

All you really need to do is look at a multinational like Nestle as it acts through its Poland Springs subsidiary to rip-off resources from the state of Maine and not contribute dime one to the social, infrastructual, and environmental devastation its industrial strength plants and transportation demands cause.

Corporations could be the prime tools towards making political democracy real by incorporating economic democracy. But to do that, the governance of a corporation must be made open to all affected, including labor, consumer and community entities. This is actually happening in some places, which is why I continue to recommend that people study the best modern economists like Amartya Sen.

Absent that, corporations in their sociopathic pursuit of profit remain the prime organizing tool for fascism, as fresh today as it was seventy five years ago.

[Dan McCosh]

I'm beginning to think that the concept of a corporation is evil in the sense that it abstracts any sense of value from work and production--in effect saying any way of making money is equally worthwhile. This is in itself the definition of a criminal sociopath.

[Meerkat]

I think all I can say is that the force behind "Corporatism": Capitalism, unrestrained; is a cancer upon the those they prey on.

Today's "free market" is aswirl with defacto monopolies that the government is disinclined to deal with - being that they're either in bed with them in the first place or take their handouts and do their bidding!

There ARE good corporations (good "citizens"). However, they do not tend to be the corporations that wield the power and influence in our society.

[Rick Tyler]

I heartily recommend reading a good college freshman-level economics text before continuing this thread.

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
We paint our political revolution as against the king's tyranny but the king wasn't really doing it to us, and our founders knew that our revolution was really against the dictatorial power of corporate mercantilism. It would take a week and 5,000 words to adequately explore Ian's contentions (not worth it for me...), but I would like to tackle this one. It doesn't take a modern penumbra-exploring Supreme Court Justice to understand the reasons for the American Revolution. The men who were behind it were kind enough to write things down, vote on the document, and then sign it. I don't find much railing against corporate mercantilism.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

[Alan D. Hyde]

In all organized human effort, there are two sides to every coin.

BUT, without the pace and depth of development driven by corporate activity since the Eighteenth Century (and were we still Jefferson's rural agricultural America), it is possible that--- for example--- the medical science which has thus far kept David (and many others) alive, may not yet have been developed.

So, I would second Rick's suggestion...

Alan

[ 11-21-2005, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Rick Tyler:
I heartily recommend reading a good college freshman-level economics text before continuing this thread.Very dramatic - for what purpse would this reading be done?

Please, cut to the chase and carry on the discourse! smile.gif

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
...
the medical science which has thus far kept David (and many others) alive, may not yet have been developed.

So, I would second Rick's suggestion...

AlanPlease share your point about econmics and not defer or dilute the conversation.

Advances in medicine are a good thing - laws that cherry pick a market and leave the most people with the least coverage and give the most profit to the pharmacutical companies is not good law, not good economics (for the general population at least) and not good citizenship. I'm speaking, of course, of the sweetheart deal the pharmacuticals secured with the Medicare prescription "benefit".

I'll say it again, and I don't think it can be argued: unrestrained capitalism is just as evil as any other unrestrained ideology, including democracy (when it becomes the tyrany of the majority)!

[ 11-21-2005, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[lagspiller]

...and for others of you, a European introductory sociology textbook.
Between them, there ought to be enough to reach a reasonable distributation of wealth & power.

[PatCox]

Rick, the reason the crown treated the colonies despotically is because the crown was acting at the behest of the powerful mercantile interests who were profiting off the laws that oppressed the colonists.

The statement stands. If it were not for the fact that the crown was enforcing laws that, among other things, prohibited manufacturing in the colonies in order to benefit the entrenched industrial interests in England, there would have been no revolution.

[Alan D. Hyde]

A sheet of paper's mighty thin, David, that doesn't have two sides...

ANYTHING is susceptible of abuse.

I am unaware of anyone who advocates "unrestrained capitalism."

Alan

[Dan McCosh]

Forget corporations. Organized crime has created the fastest-growing center of prosperity in the US today. Viva Las Vegas!

[Phillip Allen]

Well I'll be doggoned...I figured I'd only get a dressing down from Meerkat...turned into a nice discussion.

Just the same...I apologize to Meerkat...I have been in a sour mood all day and hard to get along with for others. It was not meant to be a troll as such but just a release of steam...I feel better

Plaudits for those turning it into a worthwhile discussion...

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
A sheet of paper's mighty thin, David, that doesn't have two sides...

ANYTHING is susceptible of abuse.

I am unaware of anyone who advocates "unrestrained capitalism."

AlanWell, to use a specific example that I'm familiar with and affected by, while he may not call it unrestrained capitalism, Bill Gates is quite happy with the tap on the wrist Microsoft got from the farce of an anti-trust suit the Clinton Administration started and the Bush Administration caved on.

Microsoft has publically (but quietly) been working and buying legislators ("contributing") to enact laws that further favor itself.

From my own experience over the last 30 years (from before the rise of Microsoft), I can tell you that Microsoft has been an unmitigated disaster for the consumer software industry (now largely defunct within the areas that Microsoft "owns"). They have and continue to stifle innovation, produce products of indifferent quality (at least up until quite recently when they took so many hits on security) and of minimial value compared to what it could be (do you know, for example, that your internet access is throttled/restricted by Microsoft in desktop os'es in order to force you to buy their high priced server os'es if you want/need more connectivity?). They continue to ruthlessly stifle, attack and exclude any other competition. The anti-trust suit/settlement, not only did not slow them appreciably, it didn't even force them to change their tactics to any great extent. Even with the anti-trust decree, they are stonewalling and delaying availability of information and access to licenses that they where ordered to do - now 3+ years ago? Just a couple of weeks ago, the supervising judge nailed them for writing digital rights (DRM) license terms that excluded any other software manufacturer's products on devices (MP3 players and the like) that used MS DRM technology. MS hastily backed off that one and blamed it on a clueless junior peon in the legal department, but I don't believe that for a second - it's a standard MS tactic.

Microsux has effectively destroyed a large segment of the US software industry and they didn't do it the hard way - they didn't earn it on merit/quality, they stole it. They are now moving into other markets (TV for example) with the same rapacious tactics. I'm waiting for the day when MS either buys NBC or starts their own network.

[ 11-21-2005, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[Dan McCosh]

I got to thinking about this thread, more specifically the notion that advances in medicine came through corporate activity. Cures for smallpox, pneumonia, syphilis, polio, anthrax, to name a few were the result of publically funded research. I can't think of any specific medical breakthrough that came about as a result of the research activities of a specific corporation. I think the confusion here comes from the relatively recent policy change where publically-funded (and sometimes privately subsidized) research can be privatized and patented--in many fields including medicine. This is quite a bit different from research being undertaken through a corporation. Can anyone point to a specific medical breakthrough contributed by a corporation alone? I assume there must be one, just can't think of any.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Eli Lilly and Company developed economical ways to make and get to market at low cost both insulin and many major antibiotics, in each case medicaments which were of consistently high quality.

And, don't forget the much (unfairly) maligned Thimersol.

Many other major pharmaceutical companys have equally good records of accomplishment.

Alan

[Bruce Taylor]

Alan, Dan asked for discoveries produced by private corporations acting alone.

Insulin was discovered at a public facility (the University of Toronto) by independent academics Frederick Banting and Charles Best (neither of whom was in the employ of any pharmaceutical concern).

That Eli Lilly found an efficient (and presumably profitable) way to market the stuff is, of course, a good thing. But let's not give them more credit than they deserve.

It's become an article of faith, in some circles, that "innovation" is something that happens mainly in the private sector. It isn't so. It happens wherever curious, independent-minded people are given room to play and explore. It happens at IBM, and it happened at Los Alamos.

The early research that led to the internet was conducted with public funds. The infrastructure was largely put in place with public money (and farsighted legislative decisions by the U.S. govt.) When the private sector moved onto the net, it blossomed most impressively, but the early risks were borne by American and European taxpayers.

[Keith Wilson]

In fact, innovative research can often be more effective when publicly funded than when managed for profit. Most corporations cannot look far enough ahead and take large enough risks to do effective basic research. Commercializing things already discovered, yes. In addition, the direction of research is determined by profit potential, rather than public benefit. Drugs which one must take every day to alleviate a condition are more profitable than drugs which cure, and drugs which cure are more profitable than vaccines that prevent. The record of publicly-funded research over the past 50 or 60 years is truly amazing.

[Bruce Taylor]

Yup. Note, too, that a lot of private drug research consists of finding patentable alternatives to perfectly satisfactory generics, and convincing physicians to switch to them.

The amount of money the drug reps spend on swag for doctors is almost comical (my Maggie is a physician, so I have a little window on that world). The cash they spend taking your family doctor out to lunch to get him to use a new drug that may actually be less effective than its predecessors (like Celebrex, to take a recently notorious example) is included in the figures the PR guys love to cite about the costs of bringing new drugs to market.

Nothing wrong with any of that -- it's just business.

[TomF]

An interesting point - innovation comes when folks are freed up to think, without necessarily considering business (or any other) imperatives.

I remember hearing that post-it notes were invented due to 3M's policy (at least at one time) of giving their research staff time to doodle about with their own projects. One person, who wanted to have handy bookmarks for his hymnbook in the church choir, teamed up with another guy investigating temporary adhesives. And voila! Arguably one of 3M's biggest profit centres!

t.

[Jagermeister]

Once again, the mantra of the forum seems to come down to:

Freedom for me, but not for thee!

From my libertarian viewpoint, "unrestrained capitalism" is basically freedom: freedom of association and freedom of investment. People are free to do with their money what they will.

Those arguing for alternative economic organizations are arguing for a priori restraint of that freedom. Decisions of investment, pricing, planing, etc., must be approved by a commissariat, a government, or some other entity other than those who actually own the resources.

Placing those decisions in the hands of other people separates those making the decisions from those taking the risk, delays the decision making process, and takes the power to shape from the market away from the consumer and places it in the hands of an elite.

Does this mean there should be no rules? Of course not. No more than personal freedom exempts people from the rules of society. Businesses that violate other people's rights are subject to penalty and prosecution, the same as for individuals. Corporations are not shielded from the effects of their actions. Personal and corporate liability still remain.

Democratic capitalism is not a good system for the equitable distribution of power and wealth. It just happens to be the best system that is available. The alternatives are all worse, as evidenced by the dismal failures of communism, fascism, and socialism.

So, the next time you want to argue against "capitalism", remember that you are arguing against freedom.

[Jagermeister]

Bell Labs was the research arm of a private (albeit regulated) company. Bell Labs developed Unix, "C", and most importantly, the transistor.

Much more basic research is done by independent companies than is ever done by governments. Most of it is boring to those not in the field, and not well publicized. Government sponsored research tends to be well publicized (how else to keep the money flowing?) and expensive (which is why governments fund it). Government research usually results from private industry attempting to get the taxpayers to foot the bill for something (a) more expensive, and (b) more risky than they can get their investors to pay for. Research opportunities which can't be sold to the private sector are then sold to the public sector on a social basis, rather than an economic basis. Read Bjorn Lundberg for examples of the decisions that result. We spend billions to fight global warming with virtually no effect, when we could be saving billions of people by using that money to fight malaria, particulate pollution, and other more pressing matters.

No, I don't think that on the whole you can demonstrate that government funding research is more effective (by any definition) than private research funding. You can cherry pick here and there to fine rhetorical effect, but if you look at the overall picture, all measurements point to the successes of capitalism. Adam Smith still beats Karl Marx.

[Bruce Taylor]

Adam Smith still beats Karl Marx.Fortunately, we don't have to choose between doctrinaire socialism and unfettered capitalism.

That battle was fought long ago, and the winner was: the mixed economy.

[Keith Wilson]

One does not have to choose between Karl Marx and Libertarians, thank God. Neither end of the continuum gives a society that most of us would want to live in, and there's LOTS of space in the middle. And as for research, I certainly wasn't suggesting that privately funded research is a bad thing. It has certain advantages and disadvantages, as does publicly funded work.

I quite agree with you about the politics of who gets funding, and this works just as strongly with the right as the left, of course. Malaria is, however, an excellent example of the shortcomings of profit-driven research. Most of the people who get malaria are very poor, and despite the enormous benefits, there isn't a lot of money to be made there. Pure capitalist decision-making in this case gives us copycat drugs for Americans' allergies, while the Gates Foundation funds research on malaria. And if you can propose a libertarian solution to particulate pollution, be my guest. My point is that the optimum solution includes both private and public research funding.

[Dan McCosh]

I was talking about medical research in particular, as there are some immediate moral issues about a medical discovery that is limited to the most profitable markets. Still can't find an example of a genuine medical breakthrough developed by a corporation without input from governmental institutions. Bell Labs was a closely regulated utility--a monopoly, rather than a typical corporation. It was closer to the national research labs than a typical corporate R&D department. Corporations are a great way to commercialize an idea. That's mainly what they do.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Adam Smith NEVER promoted "unfettered capitalism."

RTFB.

He was, among other things, a professor of moral philosophy.

Alan

[Jagermeister]

Alan:

A most unenlightening comment.

It has been some time since I last read Wealth of Nations, and while I remember Smith was not opposed to taxes, even wealth taxes, I do seem to recall his almost unqualified endorsement of competition and likewise, his opposition to monopolies, especially when the latter were granted by government power.

I'm not sure what definition you are using for "unfettered capitalism". I do not use "capitalism" as a synonym for "greed", but in its sense, to quote from Wikipedia,


In common usage, the word capitalism means an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, and the investment of capital and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined mainly in a free market, rather than by the state. In capitalism, the means of production are generally operated for profit. From the above definition, I do not recall any passages from Wealth of Nations that would indicate anything other than Smith's endorsement of such a system. Perhaps you could elaborate on your comment, since I have neither the time nor inclination to RTFB at this moment.

[Bruce Taylor]

RTFBIRTFBYPCN

[lagspiller]

Far as I remember, Adam Smith did promote unhindered, raw capitalism. He firmly believed that his 'invisible hand' would be a boon to all mankind.

Marx, on the other hand, wrote a brilliant analysis of why the 'invisible hand' and Smith's other moral-philosophic ideals were not capable of controlling all the possiblities for actors in the capitalist system to pervert the system. (Try to keep communism separate from socialism, they are different things)
Marx' problem is not his description of what is bad in capitalism, it is that he literally has nothing to replace it with. Only some extremely vague chapters ending in a 'workers paradise'. Hardly anyone argues that THAT was the solution any longer. But his analysis of capitalism is good. It shows very clearly how UNFREE a uncontrolled capitalist system becomes.

This is exactly what the laws balancing out economic and political power do.... they keep the best system around working at the highest level of freedom for everyone - instead of maximising freedom for some at the cost of freedoms for most.

You guys should be proud of your system. It works quite well.

[ 11-22-2005, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: lagspiller ]

[Bruce Taylor]

Far as I remember, Adam Smith did promote unhindered, raw capitalism.Lagspiller, the popular use of Smith's name as shorthand for the most extreme forms of laissez-faire capitalism is inaccurate and unfair (which is to say, less interesting than the man himself and his work). His name, like Darwin's, has been conscripted to causes he never espoused.

Nevertheless...what Jagermeister was saying (quite agreeably, and civilly, I thought) was not hard to follow, and Alan's coarse acronym (whether aimed at J. or me) was disrespectful.

[ 11-22-2005, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Bruce Taylor ]

[Alan D. Hyde]

No one here wishes to Read The Fine Book??? :D

Adam Smith's thoughts on economics assume, as do Locke's and Jefferson's on democracy, that the members of a society will exercise self-discipline, that they will behave with rational regard for their enlightened self-interest, and that laws protecting the persons and property of citizens will be appropriately enforced.

Both assume that we will work to rise above Hobbes' "state of nature" with its "nasty, brutish & short" existence.

Alan

[ 11-23-2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[troutman]

Its interesting to see this discussion on capitalism especially between people who are not Americans and Americans. I wonder if non- americans know what the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory was. I know knowledgable Americans can't talk about capitalism unfettered or otherwise without thinking of that awful event and Love Canal to name a few.

[Keith Wilson]

In one of the funnier passages in Patrick O'Brian, Jack Aubrey says he thought that "nasty, brutish, and short" referred to midshipmen. :D

And along with Adam Smith, you might want to read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair for a description of capitalism unfettered by government interference. It was published in 1906, and describes in profuse and accurate detail the conditions in the Chicago packing plants. You can ignore the last chapter or two where he expounds tediously on how Socialism will fix it all. His description of the problem is quite eloquent, whether or not one agrees with his proposed solution.

[ 11-23-2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Bruce Taylor]

No one here wishes to Read The Fine Book???I've Read The Fine Book You Pleasant Clever Narwhal. :D

[George.]

Corporations are neither "good" nor "bad" - that is so Mannichean...

They can be useful to society, and they can also do great harm. Like government, labour unions, TV, and so many things, they need to be endured, and also somewhat restricted.

But one thing has changed recently. With globalization, corporations have acquired enormous power over the nation-state - the power to threaten to move elsewhere, with their jobs and tax contributions. No longer can society control them to deal with externalities and market failures - they can now retaliate with economic disaster. This is particularly so in emerging economies, which can be wrecked overnight by "the market." But it also applies to developed nations.

That is why the multinational corporation is suffering increasing criticism. Because the pendulum has recently swung too far, giving it too much power over our lives. And we do not want any entity to have too much power over our lives - be it government, church, or corporation.

[Bruce Taylor]

And we do not want any entity to have too much power over our lives - be it government, church, or corporation.Spot on.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Wholly agreed.

Pluralism in human society is akin to heterogeneity in natural environments.

Both conduce to safety, stability and continuing evolution.

Alan

[George.]

Wow! I got Alan and Bruce to agree with me on something! :cool:

Which just goes to show you, there are thinking, reasoning people in the bilge, even if they vote all wrong on election day... :D

[Phillip Allen]

Originally posted by George.:
Wow! I got Alan and Bruce to agree with me on something! :cool:

Which just goes to show you, there are thinking, reasoning people in the bilge, even if they vote all wrong on election day... :D See: benevolent design thread...

[TomF]

Beat me to it, Phillip! ;)

[Jagermeister]

I wouldn't eat meat for about a year after I read "The Jungle" in high school. For me, Sinclair's expose also shows the power of the consumer even absent government intervention. People weren't so enamored of canned meat once they realized it might contain "long pig" (e.g., people who fell into the rendering vats). IIRC, the worst of the product went to feed Army troops.

Perhaps the greatest gift of government is providing a framework for transparency. Once the public sees problems, the perpetrators are unable to continue.

In Googling for this thread, I encountered references that "enlightened self-interest" was a concept introduced by Alexis de Tocqueville. Although I have read of de Tocqueville, I have not yet read his works. Would anyone who has care to comment?

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
Eli Lilly and Company developed economical ways to make and get to market at low cost both insulin
AlanI suppose it depends on your definition of "low cost": my insulin is well over $100/mo for 3 small vials.

[Keith Wilson]

Yeah, it gives one an entirely different perspective on sausage, doesn't it? :eek: ;)

One of the results of publication of The Jungle was the FDA, a part of the federal Food and Drug Act of 1906. While I agree that enforcing transparency is a very important function of government (current food labeling regulations are one example), it isn’t sufficient. Transparency alone without any laws enforcing a minimum standard leads to good food at a higher price, and for bottom dollar, something like the 1905 potted meat.

I think we would both agree that some regulation of the free market is necessary; the question is how much.

[N. Scheuer]

Liberals tend to denegrate "Corporations" simply because of the seeming common denominators of behavior exhibited by the people who run the "Corporations".

The people who managed Enron, or the people responsible for Love Canal are only the ones who got caught. There seem to be all to many others (didn't the best of them all get MBA's at Harvard? or some other MBA program kpatterened after the Harvard Business School?) all too willing to do absolutely anything to earn that end-of-year bonus; all too many interested only in the bottom line for the next quarter; all too many willingto commit felonies instead of decent moral behavior.

"Corporations" is simply a way of signifying common behaviors by Managers.

The Managers I respect in Business never thought about MBA's, they were the Henry Fords, Igor Sikorskies, and Bill Gateses who invented the products which their corporations manufactured.

Moby Nick

[Andrew S/Y Rocquette]

perhaps at a bit of a tangent, but something I originally posted during the G8 discussions is below. A point worth bearing in mind is that a corporation is indeed a legal "person" but in practice is a culture made up of its employees and their collective memories and experiences. And, the Enrons of this world apart, MOST corporations realise they have a social responsibilty above and beyond maximising profit for shareholders, as do most individuals. We are all - individuals and corporations - part of society and have responsibilities that go along with that.

I have a strong view on this - I am head of product development for one of the UK's largest fund management companies. And in my experience, the "City Fatcats" "Wall Street Sharks" or Faceless Grey Suits" are far from that, and generally are acutely consciously aware of the impact of our business decisions.

Lord Browne, Chairman of BP the energy company, is publicly on the record with his views on the corporate responsibility of large domestic and multinational companies.

Agreed they don't always do it, but then again, individuals also live in a state of imperfection. It's why we have government regulators...and police on the high street at closing time on a Saturday night.

Anyway - apologies for the below repost, but perhaps interesting.

Cheers

Andrew

* * *
I think global trade and capitalism is actually the answer, not the problem, despite those who say that it is the scourge of the world’s poor and exploits the developing world.

It's how the trade process is implemented that is unfair, not free trade per se.

It is irrefutable that trade creates wealth due to the cyclical transfer of capital, goods and materials. Allowing capital to flow to where it can most efficiently be applied also means reduced wastage, increased productivity and increased prosperity – in other words the pie gets bigger overall. The financial markets assist that efficient flow of capital around the world.

But the process of global capitalism can also disenfranchise elements of that trade cycle very easily, and result in individuals, groups and indeed whole nations getting an increasingly small slice of the pie, in absolute as well as in relative terms. I do however believe that anti-globalisation protesters are fundamentally missing the point, and are not seeing the wood for the trees. They are hung up on the second point, whilst missing the first.

You can make a very strong economics-based argument that too much charity capital and debt-relief actually makes things worse in so much as it's a completely inefficient use of capital and results in wastage, corruption and propping up despotic regimes. Even when going on good causes, it is not necessarily the best cause or is being spent the right way. Aid monies must be targeted in such a way as to maximise their benefit.

All countries need the building of capacity to allow economic growth and prosperity. The lack of democratic regimes, the absence of bureaucratic infrastructures free of corruption, and a lack of education and basic healthcare are the real killers, and it is these we need to address. Incidentally, debt relief is, I believe, generally a Good Thing, as long as you do not just encourage a profligate repetition.

Singapore and Tanzania (the latter then Tanganyika and Zanzibar) both gained their independence from Britain in the mid 1960s. Look at the difference in prosperity between them now. At the end of the nineteenth century Argentina was one of the wealthiest regions in the world, with a greater per capita consumption of champagne than Paris. Look at it now. Without the rule of law, especially focusing on property rights, there will be no investment in the future. What entrepreneur will invest into a farm, factory or hotel if it will be taken away by a corrupt regime, burnt down or bribed out of existence?

We have been having a bit of a slanging match in Europe over the EU budget recently (yes, this is indeed relevant - highly!) between the UK on one side, and mainly the French on the other. This is as the UK gets a roughly £3 billion annual rebate on EU contributions, and the French get massive amounts of yearly funding for the Common Agricultural Policy or CAP.

Both sides think the other is unfairly advantaged. But it is not just a clash over money. And what has this to do with third world development? Everything, I'd say. Cows in Europe live on more from the CAP funding than the average person in sub-Saharan Africa does. We are using our wealth in Europe to prop up a vastly inefficient farming system, where 40% of the EU budget is effectively going on 4% of the economy.

But on the other hand, if you go for a more free market system, there are consequences. If there’s a large-scale reduction in European farm subsidies, then the UK model of large supermarkets and industrial-scale farming will predominate over the inefficient but highly-specialised French farmers with their glorious range of produce and strong agrarian culture. And it is difficult to put an economic value on a way of life and cultural values.

It is the same argument that has resulted in Britain having a stronger economy with better GDP growth than has France, but at the cost of poor public health care and public transport in comparison with the French. France as a nation has chosen to be less efficient in overall economic terms in order to provide a level of public services they feel appropriate.

This is a philosophical choice, but unfortunately one that has massive financial ramifications for the third world, as our collective developed world decisions effectively close our markets to imports that simply cannot compete with EU or US subsidies for sugar or wheat. George Bush’s repeated statements that he will not agree to implement climate change controls to the detriment of the US economy is a similar argument, putting current US economic interests before global ones.

It is the decision to free up trade and empower the third world that will make poverty history - over time. And any decisions we make in the developed world, be it the UK on debt relief and removing trade barriers, or the US on global warming, has consequences not only for the third world, but also for our own countries with both economic and cultural impacts from change.

What I don't think is negotiable any longer is the moral imperative for change, and for the requirement to give developing nations a chance to compete on an equal footing. In fact, over time I believe making the right choices will make the developed nations more prosperous as well, as increased overall trade can benefit all parties.

In the short term however this is not the case, and British, French and American politicians are pandering to short-term interests tied into the next election, or the one after that. And unfortunately the developing world does not have a vote in British, French or American elections...as our unborn also do not vote on the decisions of which they will inherit the legacy.

I think we have to take some self-sacrificing decisions not only about debt relief but also about trade subsidies and global warming. We have to put major efforts into building capacity in developing nations, in growing the rule of law and a stable political regime that will allow people to develop to the best of their ability.

It is having the courage to realise we have benefited from the developing world for now nearly 500 years of colonisation and trade on our terms - we have to make the right choices now to give a chance for the rest of the world to join our prosperity to the future benefit of all. It can be done.

There will be pain and losers on both sides. But the chance is there.

[ 11-23-2005, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Andrew S/Y Rocquette ]

[Phillip Allen]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
Eli Lilly and Company developed economical ways to make and get to market at low cost both insulin
AlanI suppose it depends on your definition of "low cost": my insulin is well over $100/mo for 3 small vials.</font>[/QUOTE]I believe it means "low caost" to the manufacturer...the cost savings manifests itself as bonus checks