NationStates Jolt Archive

The topic of capitalism often comes up on nationstates, but as far as I have seen, debate tends not to focus on the corporations that play such a big part in it. A simple question here, what would a nation/the world be like without corporations?

For reference:

cor·po·ra·tion
an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

so where talking an economy based on ma and pa stores?

I think the right way of putting it is: a nation where only actual people can be legal people.

What that would result in is what I'm asking you.

so where talking an economy based on ma and pa stores?

I figure that with greater liability, companies would be less likely to pollute or engage in other unsavory/illegal activities.

I figure that with greater liability, companies would be less likely to pollute or engage in other unsavory/illegal activities.
They'd also be far less willing to take risks, so the economy would grow at a much slower rate.

I figure that with greater liability, companies would be less likely to pollute or engage in other unsavory/illegal activities.

What exactly is the difference between a corporation and a company?

What exactly is the difference between a corporation and a company?
OK Hyde, say you own a Company(that isnt a legal Corporation) and I own a Company that is a Corporation(Corporation is really a Legal designation)

Everything your Company owns, you own.

Everything my Company owns...My company owns.

Everything your Company OWES, YOU Personally OWE.

Everything My Company Owes...SHWEET...Just the Company Owes.

Everything Your Company does...including complete accidents...you can potentially be liable for.

Everything my Company does, barring the most flagrant abuses of law, man and nature...only the Company and not ...SHWEEET...me are responsible for.

Corporations do ease fear of risk, because with a company that isnt a corporation..one good hit and its all over...pfft done.

OK Hyde, say you own a Company(that isnt a legal Corporation) and I own a Company that is a Corporation(Corporation is really a Legal designation)

Everything your Company owns, you own.

Everything my Company owns...My company owns.

Everything your Company OWES, YOU Personally OWE.

Everything My Company Owes...SHWEET...Just the Company Owes.

Everything Your Company does...including complete accidents...you can potentially be liable for.

Everything my Company does, barring the most flagrant abuses of law, man and nature...only the Company and not ...SHWEEET...me are responsible for.

Corporations do ease fear of risk, because with a company that isnt a corporation..one good hit and its all over...pfft done.

Got it.

I hate when people go on the "corporations are legal people" nonsense. Are they counted in the census? No. They're not "legal people." They do not have human rights. It is a lawfully recognized organization in a certain form that the government gets to tax twice. It is separate from the owners as far as liability is concerned, hence why you can't sue McDonald's and get Ronald McDonald's house and car. (You can only get money from McDonald's. Vast sums of money. Wah, corporations are legal people, I wanted his car!)

There would be companies of equal size and influence, they just wouldn't be called corporations.

They'd also be far less willing to take risks, so the economy would grow at a much slower rate.

Which is, of course, a good thing.
Economy doesn't need to grow that much if there are no corporations that need to grow at a cancerous rate to survive.

Life would be worse in a number of areas from medicine to entertainment.

Which is, of course, a good thing.
Economy doesn't need to grow that much if there are no corporations that need to grow at a cancerous rate to survive.

Uhh, no. Economic growth is based upon what consumers want, not based upon what corporations want. A stagnant economy means high unemployment, low living standards, widespread inequality and poverty technological backwardness, and quite likely repression. In fact, stagnation might even cause society to break apart and worsen things even further. It destabilizes and demoralizes people quite badly.

Stagnation is very, very, very bad for any society. Healthy growth is what you want because it keeps things moving forward; nothing can progress without a dynamic economy to support it; you need that growth to keep things moving upward.

Uhh, no. Economic growth is based upon what consumers want, not based upon what corporations want. A stagnant economy means high unemployment, low living standards, widespread inequality and poverty technological backwardness, ...

Ever heard of, well, for example, Inuit?
Ever read anything about other stable societies that were finished of by the arrival of "economy"?

Growth is only necessary in a society that is dominated by personal greed, or fast population growth. So if that's the society you want, then yes, you need economic growth, rapid depletion of natural resources, high crime rates due to social inequality and the need to keep up with trends no matter what the cost, and everything...

Ever heard of, well, for example, Inuit?
Ever read anything about other stable societies that were finished of by the arrival of "economy"?

It's called competition. Those who succeed, succeed, and those that don't fail. It's been happening since the first prokaryotes, and it's not going to stop for any group no matter how stable they are. The Inuit couldn't handle their competition and lost, and the people that defeated them reaped all of the benefits.

Sometimes, there just isn't enough for everyone, and the group that can get the most and keep others from doing the same wins. It may sound harsh, but life isn't fair and doesn't reward those who don't keep growing and expanding.

Growth is only necessary in a society that is dominated by personal greed, or fast population growth. So if that's the society you want, then yes, you need economic growth, rapid depletion of natural resources, high crime rates due to social inequality and the need to keep up with trends no matter what the cost, and everything...

And technology, high living standards, a wide variety of entertainment, plenty of consumer products, luxuries, travel, literacy, and so on. People want that, and that's why they are willing to work for it. People just don't want to live like hunter-gatherers, and they don't want to live in poverty. They want more and they are willing to do what it takes to get it.

Growth is what enables us to be more than just another animal species. It's how we got to the top and how we stay on top, and how we're able to do anything we want and have the freedom to be anything we want.

A simple question here, what would a nation/the world be like without corporations?Better.

People want that, and that's why they are willing to work for it. People just don't want to live like hunter-gatherers, and they don't want to live in poverty. They want more and they are willing to do what it takes to get it.

Insert "some" here and there, and you might be right...

Growth is what enables us to be more than just another animal species.

Sorry, but we aren't.

It's how we got to the top and how we stay on top, and how we're able to do anything we want and have the freedom to be anything we want.

You must be a USian. Brainwashed to actually believe that is the only way of being.


By the way, no one mentioned or advocated the total abolition of economic growth, just the consideration of a more sensible approach to what level of economic net growth (= growth more than required to compensate for changes like population increase) is needed, wanted, socially acceptable and environmentally sensible.

Insert "some" here and there, and you might be right...

More than enough for the system to not only stay around but to thrive and expand to new regions where it was not previously in place.

Sorry, but we aren't.

We're the smartest, most powerful, most intelligent, and most advanced species that has ever existed. We are capable of controlling our environment and our own progress as a species in ways that no other species is capable of, and we are totally dominant over this planet.

That makes us a hell of a lot more than any others out there.

You must be a USian. Brainwashed to actually believe that is the only way of being.

Only way that really works. No other way of life offers as many different opportunities and ways to improve yourself than our agricultural, market-based, democratic societies. No others have the economic capacity to support many of the things we take for granted.

By the way, no one mentioned or advocated the total abolition of economic growth, just the consideration of a more sensible approach to what level of economic net growth (= growth more than required to compensate for changes like population increase) is needed, wanted, socially acceptable and environmentally sensible.

If you don't grow above population, living standards don't increase. You just have more people with the same nominal standard of living; in fact, if growth doesn't surpass population growth, it will lead to rising unemployment and falling wages quite rapidly because the economy's productivity isn't expanding fast enough to accomodate the new workers.

USA does not have a free market economy, it is increasingly an elitist corporate model in which giant transnational business entities receive overly-generous subsidies to keep them in town, in a truly free market small business has a chance to compete, in the US increasingly they cannot against such powerful govt-backed monopolies. It is indeed the greatest contradiction of the so called capitalist 'free' market, as I pointed out in my last post.

Yes but this is your big contradiction, truly 'free' markets cannot exist without government interference and regulation at some level, without it market competition becomes stifled with massive monopolies. Markets in this way and many others are chronically prone to failure, and require state control to remain competitive and to create national growth.

It is indeed a shame because those of the upper classes have inevitably earned their excess property through exploitation of the lower classes, indeed nothing devalues the labor potential of an individual than having to live in such indignant conditions. Again, I'll go back to my original point of capitalism, there is no free market, especially in the US. Competition is stifled because the government gives subsidies to massive corporate entities so they wont leave the country, small business is increasingly becoming absorbed into a massive corporate state.

Not only is this anti-democratic, it is also anti-competitive, these monopolies destroy the ability of lower class people to gain social mobility, that it to create their own business and prosper. Increasingly, this is impossible because of corporate entities destroying the free market. So in this way no one can be empowered by the market, so can only be restricted by it, this is worst kind of government class oppression, where classes are set, they cannot be changes. The only way to combat this is of course though government interference, not on the side of the corporatists (as the US is doing) but on the side of small lower class enterprise, tax and the like incentives, subsidies and welfare, this is how economic self-sufficiency is achieved.

We're the smartest, most powerful, most intelligent, and most advanced species that has ever existed. We are capable of controlling our environment and our own progress as a species in ways that no other species is capable of, and we are totally dominant over this planet.

which totally contradict your previous statement of

It's called competition. Those who succeed, succeed, and those that don't fail. It's been happening since the first prokaryotes, and it's not going to stop for any group no matter how stable they are.

But I'll stop trying to get a so obvious "capitalist" to think outside his normal frame of mind and see that it might be possible to allow people to follow a different path in their lives than the one your not very intelligent or advanced need to dominate others (sorry, "competitive nature") will have you enforce upon them.

People just don't want to live like hunter-gatherers

yes, they do. if they don't do things that simulate that lifestyle, they aren't happy. basic fact of the world.

i guess without corporations the economy could move closer towards perfect competition, but that's to say other business models are incapable of wealth aquisition...


either way, y'all should watch this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Corporation/dp/B0006NKBXW/ref=pd_bbs_1/203-7459496-9207943?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1177578547&sr=8-1

i guess without corporations the economy could move closer towards perfect competition, but that's to say other business models are incapable of wealth aquisition...


either way, y'all should watch this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Corporation/dp/B0006NKBXW/ref=pd_bbs_1/203-7459496-9207943?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1177578547&sr=8-1Oh, I've watched that. I still can't help but admire that carpet manufacturing guy. I liked him a lot.

Oh, I just remembered a quote... probably one that I figure at least some of us should know.

CORPORATION, n: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
- Ambrose Bierce

Uhh, no. Economic growth is based upon what consumers want, not based upon what corporations want. A stagnant economy means high unemployment, low living standards, widespread inequality and poverty technological backwardness, and quite likely repression. In fact, stagnation might even cause society to break apart and worsen things even further. It destabilizes and demoralizes people quite badly.

Stagnation is very, very, very bad for any society. Healthy growth is what you want because it keeps things moving forward; nothing can progress without a dynamic economy to support it; you need that growth to keep things moving upward.

the problem is current levels of economic growth are wholly economically and ecologically unsustainable in the long run.

the other issue is corporations, like other profit machines, create wants in consumers. the entire system is geared to create artificial wants and needs in consumers, the fulfilment of which generates both an artificial (and short-lived) sense of self-worth for the consumer, and profit for the company. i really think that assuming consumer demand is actually an element to its own is simplistic, and really missing the huge part (and huge sums of money) companies spend trying to convince consumers to buy their shit...

stagnation is not good in the current economic system, but that system is unsustainable. another must evolve


edit:

Oh, I've watched that. I still can't help but admire that carpet manufacturing guy. I liked him a lot.

Oh, I just remembered a quote... probably one that I figure at least some of us should know.

CORPORATION, n: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
- Ambrose Bierce

yeah, he was good :) i liked his 'plane off a cliff' analogy a lot, too.

and good quote!

Corporations are only a method of organisation. in a world where only people are legal persons, organisations could be emulated by contracts between different individuals. It can make the head hurt to think how that'd work for largescale organisations, but it would. There just would be a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge amount of contracts between individuals.

People should not act as if groups of people collectively can be a separate entity whether it is "good for the economy" or not. Having consumer goods and the economy are not the most important things in the world and they should not be treated as such. It does not necessarily make anything happier for people. It isn't good for the people and that's what matters. People are animals not machines. They want to eat, fuck and things like that and lumps of metal and pieces of paper do not help with that.

In general, I agree with what Pure metal has said.

I hate when people go on the "corporations are legal people" nonsense. Are they counted in the census? No. They're not "legal people." They do not have human rights. It is a lawfully recognized organization in a certain form that the government gets to tax twice. It is separate from the owners as far as liability is concerned, hence why you can't sue McDonald's and get Ronald McDonald's house and car. (You can only get money from McDonald's. Vast sums of money. Wah, corporations are legal people, I wanted his car!)
But they are treated as individuals in every way except being on cenci etc.

i guess without corporations the economy could move closer towards perfect competition, but that's to say other business models are incapable of wealth aquisition...


either way, y'all should watch this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Corporation/dp/B0006NKBXW/ref=pd_bbs_1/203-7459496-9207943?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1177578547&sr=8-1

The Corporation actually does contain an excellent description of what a corporation is. It's given by Michael Walker, and I suspect the filmmakers want what he says to sound like a bad thing, but it isn't.

I hate when people go on the "corporations are legal people" nonsense. Are they counted in the census? No. They're not "legal people." They do not have human rights. It is a lawfully recognized organization in a certain form that the government gets to tax twice. It is separate from the owners as far as liability is concerned, hence why you can't sue McDonald's and get Ronald McDonald's house and car. (You can only get money from McDonald's. Vast sums of money. Wah, corporations are legal people, I wanted his car!)According to Howard Zinn, this all changed after the American Civil War, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed to help insure the rights of former black slaves. Corporate lawyers saw this as an opportunity to increase their powers considerably, by claiming that a corporation is in fact a sort of person who is being deprived of their rights. Mary Zepernick of the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy further states that between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought to the Supreme Court dealing with the 14th amendment. Out of the 307 only 19 cases were made by African Americans, while the other 288 came from corporate lawyers seeking "equal" rights for their corporate entities.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Perhaps people should be afforded some protections when they form a company, but I do not believe any where near the level of protection that corporations recieve. And I truly believe that investors should bear some degree of responsibility for the corporations they invest in.

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


What exactly do these attempts prove?

Note that they failed. This supports my statement.


Perhaps people should be afforded some protections when they form a company, but I do not believe any where near the level of protection that corporations recieve.

...because you want Ronald McDonald's pants, not just his money.

And I truly believe that investors should bear some degree of responsibility for the corporations they invest in.

...because giving someone money is equal to being responsible for what they do with it? How about this, people who give homeless people money should be responsible for anything that homeless person does with it. Same with food. It's an "investment" and people should be responsible for things they have no control over.

But they are treated as individuals in every way except being on cenci etc.

Treated as individuals except don't have the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to happiness, any other constsitutional rights, they don't get death or birth certificates, no one refers to them as individuals, no one confuses them for persons, they can't be murdered, they can't be raped, they can't get an education or degree....

Yeah. Treated as individuals in every way except... being treated as individuals. ;)

the problem is current levels of economic growth are wholly economically and ecologically unsustainable in the long run.

It depends, really. Intensive economic growth is effectively infinite; if you can make something 3% more efficiently each year, you can increase production at that rate steadily with no change in resource consumption.

However, there is a finite amount, at present, in the amount of raw materials available to our economic needs.

the other issue is corporations, like other profit machines, create wants in consumers. the entire system is geared to create artificial wants and needs in consumers, the fulfilment of which generates both an artificial (and short-lived) sense of self-worth for the consumer, and profit for the company. i really think that assuming consumer demand is actually an element to its own is simplistic, and really missing the huge part (and huge sums of money) companies spend trying to convince consumers to buy their shit...

The only problem is that those wants exist independent of corporations; getting rid of them would do nothing to alter the demands of the market, it would only change the legal status of the companies. In order to change people's buying habits, you're going to have to change them. It's not the advertising, it's the culture itself that is ingrained with that desire for material wealth.

stagnation is not good in the current economic system, but that system is unsustainable. another must evolve

Another one is evolving; I'd say things like open-source are the early signs of this. Economic systems transition gradually as the prior one is not adequate to the needs of the present; we're going to change over time until our new system is in place.

There'd be less games like Final Fantasy Tactics and more like Big Rigs. :(

Oh dear God...

There'd be less games like Final Fantasy Tactics and more like Big Rigs. :(

The only problem is that those wants exist independent of corporations; getting rid of them would do nothing to alter the demands of the market, it would only change the legal status of the companies.

This sounds like an unjustified assumption to me.

A corporation has every motive to create artificial demand for its product; indeed, in a society where most of production is not geared towards basic needs, it is often a necessity.

In order to change people's buying habits, you're going to have to change them.

Or just prevent them from being changed.

It's not the advertising, it's the culture itself that is ingrained with that desire for material wealth.

"Culture" is not an independent entity.

This sounds like an unjustified assumption to me.

A corporation has every motive to create artificial demand for its product; indeed, in a society where most of production is not geared towards basic needs, it is often a necessity.

There has to be some latent demand for the product prior to it being sold, or else people won't be interested in buying it period. I won't deny that advertising does hype up that demand far beyond what it was originally, but there is always some latent demand for the products they offer even if it is in a more general sense than the specialized end product sold and advertised by the corporation.

Or just prevent them from being changed.

But the change has already happened, so we have to work to change already existent habits and the consumer culture that associates with it.

"Culture" is not an independent entity.

The aspects of culture that have led to our current consumer society are far older and far more entrenched than the modern corporation, so it takes a far bigger change in order to alter that culture. The current situation is the product of a lot more forces than just advertising by companies.

There has to be some latent demand for the product prior to it being sold, or else people won't be interested in buying it period. I won't deny that advertising does hype up that demand far beyond what it was originally, but there is always some latent demand for the products they offer even if it is in a more general sense than the specialized end product sold and advertised by the corporation.

How do you know that?

And "advertisement" is only a small part of the whole picture. Far more important is the simple fact that goods create their own demand; society adapts to new developments and drags its members along with it, like it or not.

Our present society, for instance, is in many ways based on the car... and a person without a car is not only harmed in an absolute sense, but in a sense relative to the fact that she lives in a car-based society.

But the change has already happened, so we have to work to change already existent habits and the consumer culture that associates with it.

Yes, and to do so we need to stop associating "what people will buy" with "what society should produce"... because in doing so we give an incentive for people to create artificial demand.

And that does indeed demand that we abolish (or at least severely limit the role of) institutions whose basic purpose is maximizing private profit through the provision of goods and services on the market.

Culture is not formed in a vacuum.

The aspects of culture that have led to our current consumer society are far older and far more entrenched than the modern corporation,

Really? Why do you think so?

Mass consumer culture seems to be a direct result of the mass production that paralleled the development of the modern corporation.

The current situation is the product of a lot more forces than just advertising by companies.

Indeed, but "advertising" is not the only way to create artificial demand.

What exactly do these attempts prove?

Note that they failed. This supports my statement.Check out the legal precedent in the US.

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.
- Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite
From Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)...because you want Ronald McDonald's pants, not just his money.A most compelling ad hominem, sirrah.

...because giving someone money is equal to being responsible for what they do with it? How about this, people who give homeless people money should be responsible for anything that homeless person does with it. Same with food. It's an "investment" and people should be responsible for things they have no control over.Yes, there are several laws that cover the funding of criminal and terrorist activities. Ignorance has never been an acceptable defense in court.

There has to be some latent demand for the product prior to it being sold, or else people won't be interested in buying it period.

so we've had a latent demand for broadband internet service providers since the paleolithic?

Well, before the turn of the last century, there was no such thing as a "corporation". Doesn't mean there was no big businesses - they did exist. The crucial difference was that prior to the advent of the corporation, business owners had names and faces - they were legally accountable and could be brought before a court, or face justice from the revolutionary mob.

In fact, Andrew Jackson (with his running mate Thomas Jefferson) ran for presidency on the platform of outlawing the "dangerous new legal concoction called the corporations". His manifesto read "corporations have neither bodies to kick nor souls to damn."

According to those in favour of "regulatory reform" - basically deregulation:

"In the 21st century we no longer need reams of rules and a phalanx of agency inspectors. Enlightened corporations understand the long-term advantage of protecting the public interest voluntarily."

Does anyone seriously believe that? If you do, then you might be just a touch gullible (or an apologist for white-collar crime).

Corporations are faceless entities - they exist only on paper as bundles of stock certificates. The owners - sorry, Investors in stock are able to absolve any responsibility for anything the corporation does. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in iself. However, it gives people who are greedy, mean and care nothing about screwing other people over for their own personal gain a perfect and easy opportunity to do just that.

If you think that never happens, let me remind you of a few names: Enron, WorldCom, Dynegy, Adelphia, Harken Energy, Halliburton.

Ring any bells, does it?

In fact, Andrew Jackson (with his running mate Thomas Jefferson)

:confused:

:confused:

and abraham lincoln was the secretary of the interior in the jackson-jefferson administration

I am truly amazed by many of the misconceptions about corporations that have been expressed in this and other discussions.

Without corporations... There would be a LOT less government corruption.
Oh, I've watched that. I still can't help but admire that carpet manufacturing guy. I liked him a lot.

Oh, I just remembered a quote... probably one that I figure at least some of us should know.

CORPORATION, n: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
- Ambrose Bierce

Another one.

A criminal is a person with predatory instincts without sufficient capital to form a corporation. -Howard Scott

Here's one on the rich's defense of capitalism.

Nobody talks more of free enterprise and competition and of the best man winning than the man who inherited his father's store or farm.
-C. Wright Mills.

I am truly amazed by many of the misconceptions about corporations that have been expressed in this and other discussions.Care to enlighten us, oh wise one?

Check out the legal precedent in the US.

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.
- Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite
From Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)

And that has been upheld... when? How many times?

Corporations aren't people. Not legally, not in any other way.

A most compelling ad hominem, sirrah.

I'm only showing the difference. The key function of a corporation is so that the owner is not liable for debts incurred by the business. You want all owners to be liable, hence, you want Ron's pants as well as his money.

Yes, there are several laws that cover the funding of criminal and terrorist activities. Ignorance has never been an acceptable defense in court.

Yeah OK, then I hope you never donate anything to any homeless persons. Because they'll most likely be committing a crime with your donation and according to your profoundly erroneous sense of personal responsibility, you would be guilty.

Of course, maybe you can find me a legal precedent where someone got charged with any crime for putting a coin in a bum's hand. That would support your position.

And that has been upheld... when? How many times?

Corporations aren't people. Not legally, not in any other way.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juristic_person
The link gives three examples where the rights of Juristic People were extended and both refer back to the Santa Clara county ruling. One example being as recently as 2006 when -
In 2006, Google relied upon Due Process rights to fight a government seizure of the search queries of millions of its users. Because the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures has been extended to corporations like Google, the company was able to protect the privacy of its users.You may argue that there is nothing wrong with this, but corporations undeniably considered persons for the jurisdiction of much of the law.

The US and UK do not consider Corporations natural people, but do consider them to have the vast majority of the rights that natural people enjoy (this is the concept of Juristic Personhood).



I'm only showing the difference. The key function of a corporation is so that the owner is not liable for debts incurred by the business. You want all owners to be liable, hence, you want Ron's pants as well as his money.Would I get someone's pants if I were a creditor and they declared personal bankruptcy? No. You have no point and, as I have asserted before, merely wish to attack my character rather than my argument.



Yeah OK, then I hope you never donate anything to any homeless persons. Because they'll most likely be committing a crime with your donation and according to your profoundly erroneous sense of personal responsibility, you would be guilty.Another charming ad hominem. However, your are right, I don't give money to homeless people in the streets. Considering that a substantial number of homeless people suffer from drug addictions, it would be socially irresponsible of me to give them cash. Instead, I prefer to donate to charities like Shelter (http://england.shelter.org.uk/home/index.cfm).

Of course, maybe you can find me a legal precedent where someone got charged with any crime for putting a coin in a bum's hand. That would support your position.Why do think I would ever be able to do that? How could anyone ever prove who had given the homeless person money?

Besides, petty crimes are not covered by these laws. Also, when you invest in a company, you do so because you wish to gain a share of its profits from its activities. When most people give money to a homeless person it is normally explicit, or at least implicit, that the person is to spend the money on food, shelter or clothing. However, I do not condone giving money to strangers on the street, because they're most likely either a charlatan or a drug addict.

Anyway, this is very off topic. I have given various instances where corporations have been given juristic personhood.

Nobody talks more of free enterprise and competition and of the best man winning than the man who inherited his father's store or farm.
-C. Wright Mills.

lol i like that one :p

USA does not have a free market economy

QFT

Treated as individuals except don't have the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to happiness, any other constsitutional rights, they don't get death or birth certificates, no one refers to them as individuals, no one confuses them for persons, they can't be murdered, they can't be raped, they can't get an education or degree....

Yeah. Treated as individuals in every way except... being treated as individuals. ;)
Most of those things I meant as included in the "etc" but people do refer to corporations as individuals: they say x company bought over y company, someone was trying to sue x company. Corporations get tax for the whole company rather than for separate individuals. They are certainly not treated entirely as people but they are to a cetain degree. Most of the areas where they are not treated as people however are areas where it is physically impossible for them to be treated as such for example happiness (which is not a right but an emotion) can not be felt by corporation no matter how much they are treated as alive in other respects.

lol i like that one :p
That's the quote I think whenever Dubya opens his mouth on anything about the free market.

so we've had a latent demand for broadband internet service providers since the paleolithic?

Man has had a demand for information, in forms which can be preserved and transmitted to others. Thousands of years ago, the only methods were passing on verbal stories, and making markings on rock and trees.

Today we have better ways, but they fulfill the same wants.

Yes, and to do so we need to stop associating "what people will buy" with "what society should produce"... because in doing so we give an incentive for people to create artificial demand.

Can you explain "artificial demand"? And how companies can control the minds of people to create it.

And more importantly, can you explain why it is a problem (assuming you can explain it).

"What people will buy" is precisely, and only what people should produce. Why should people produce things that people do not want?

Producing things that people will not buy is wasteful. It wastes time, labour, and capital. That is why people don't do it, and when they find themselves doing it, they stop.

All your talk of "artificial demand" is simply a way for you to get out of explaining yourself. It does not matter where demand comes from, whether from consumers saying that something should be produced, or from producers offering an entirely new product to see whether or not people go for it.

The life you would have us live would be spartan, nasty, brutish, and short, and who defines what people need?

Can you explain "artificial demand"?

Demand that is relative to certain social circumstances.

And how companies can control the minds of people to create it.

It is not a matter of mind control.

It is a matter of producing goods that either create their own demand (through externalities) or that can easily be marketed in such a way as to create demand for them (through advertisements) - without having those goods actually be useful in any real sense, indeed, with the significant possibility that the goods are actually the opposite.

(Broadly speaking, the causes are far more extensive than what companies do and don't do. But that is another topic.)

And more importantly, can you explain why it is a problem (assuming you can explain it).

Because it's wasteful.

"What people will buy" is precisely, and only what people should produce. Why should people produce things that people do not want?

My point, obviously, was not that production should be oriented towards things that people WON'T buy.

It was, rather, that "what people will buy" is too BROAD - not too narrow.

It does not matter where demand comes from

Sure it does - for the same basic reasons we generally regard addiction as a bad thing.

The life you would have us live would be spartan, nasty, brutish, and short,

You don't even know what I propose yet....

and who defines what people need?

The people themselves, of course.

Demand that is relative to certain social circumstances.

Not an adequate explaination. What social circumstances?

that can easily be marketed in such a way as to create demand for them (through advertisements)

Advertising does not create demand, and saying that it does contradicts what you said not three lines before "not a matter of mind control".

Because it's wasteful.

No it isn't. You have said this yourself, if production is oriented to consumption, then it is by definition not wasteful. Production that does not lead to consumption is wasteful.

An example of wasteful production would be producing cars, only to dump them in the river upon completion.

It was, rather, that "what people will buy" is too BROAD - not too narrow.

Nonsense. Why should people be restricted to a lower living standard just because you want us to lead spartan lives?

Sure it does - for the same basic reasons we generally regard addiction as a bad thing.

And addiction covers your entire argument?

You don't even know what I propose yet

Don't get pretentious, I don't see you coming up with something that hasn't been suggested and refuted long before.

The people themselves, of course.

How, other than by people's patterns of buying and abstention from buying in a free market?

What social circumstances?

Um, why should I give you a narrower definition for a broad concept?

To borrow Free Soviets' earlier example, it's the difference between using broadband Internet access to satisfy a natural desire for information and communication, and using it to keep up in a society increasingly dominated by the Internet.

Advertising does not create demand, and saying that it does contradicts what you said not three lines before "not a matter of mind control".

False dichotomy. There are lots of ways to get people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do short of "mind control."

Marketing consciously attempts to mold the public's perceptions of a product... and in doing so, it appeals to much more than our reason.

If I decide rationally that a product will benefit me, fine. If I am influenced by advertisement, and the culture it promotes, to see a product as "good" without rational basis - or only in reference to ends that are themselves artificial - then that is not fine.

No it isn't. You have said this yourself, if production is oriented to consumption, then it is by definition not wasteful.

No, only if production is oriented to actual human welfare is it not wasteful.

When goods are consumed needlessly, that is also "wasteful."

Nonsense. Why should people be restricted to a lower living standard just because you want us to lead spartan lives?

Complex question.

And addiction covers your entire argument?

No... it's an example that illustrates a broader principle.

We can make everyone addicts, and then sell them drugs. That is gearing production to consumption, but is hardly a good thing for society... though it would surely be rather profitable to the drug dealers.

Thus, gearing production to consumption is not always good - it is a bad thing, in fact, when it provides an incentive to create unnecessary demand.

Don't get pretentious, I don't see you coming up with something that hasn't been suggested and refuted long before.

Okay. So, tell me: how will what I propose lead to lives that are "spartan, nasty, brutish, and short"?

How, other than by people's patterns of buying and abstention from buying in a free market?

Democratically.

Um, why should I give you a narrower definition for a broad concept?

You haven't actually given be a substantial definition.

To borrow Free Soviets' earlier example, it's the difference between using broadband Internet access to satisfy a natural desire for information and communication, and using it to keep up in a society increasingly dominated by the Internet.

This isn't an example, because both phenomenon are essentially the same.

Marketing consciously attempts to mold the public's perceptions of a product... and in doing so, it appeals to much more than our reason.

As does any form of persuasion. You haven't pointed out why this is a problem, not in any convincing way.

If I decide rationally that a product will benefit me, fine. If I am influenced by advertisement, and the culture it promotes, to see a product as "good" without rational basis - or only in reference to ends that are themselves artificial - then that is not fine.

So, your argument boils down to saying that some demand is not good enough for you because you don't understand the rationale behind it.

You cannot get into people's minds. The only conclusion you can justifiably draw from anyone's buying decisions is that they feel that it makes them better off.

"ends that are ... artificial" is simply not an argument.

No, only if production is oriented to actual human welfare is it not wasteful.

You previously said the people should define what they need, now you are defining what they need.

When goods are consumed needlessly, that is also "wasteful."

The people consuming them feel some need to consume them, or do they not have the right to determine what they need?

unnecessary demand.

Again, you are definining what people need, which contradicts what you said below and above (that the people should define what they need).

Democratically.

Sorry, that is not an answer. I asked you how the people themselves will define what their needs are. You told me how a majority of the people will define it for everyone.

This is not an adequate answer, because I did not ask "how will 50% plus one define what the people need".

Still, it is useful in defining what you propose (without you actually proposing it).

You haven't actually given be a substantial definition.

Yes, I did. You just didn't like it.

This isn't an example, because both phenomenon are essentially the same.

Nonsense.

I have a natural desire for communication. As such, I have a degree of demand for a variety of communication that is faster and easier to access than others.

But as a social creature situated among other human beings, I also have a need to participate in society... and in a society where the Internet is ubiquitous, I will ALSO desire Internet access to achieve that social participation.

Of course, in a society without the Internet, I would not need Internet access to meaningfully participate. The distinction is social circumstances. The first kind of demand is natural; the second artificial.

As does any form of persuasion.

Well, first, that's just not true. You can rationally convince someone that something is in his or her interest, or you can emotionally manipulate or deceive someone into doing something anyway... these are two different kinds of persuasion. We resort to the first when we think we have a strong case; we resort to the second when we don't, but we want something anyway.

Second, so what? Why should we be trying to "persuade" people into buying goods? Let them make their own decisions - with all the information, and without the manipulations of marketing.

You haven't pointed out why this is a problem, not in any convincing way.

Like I said: it's wasteful, and sometimes actively harmful.

So, your argument boils down to saying that some demand is not good enough for you because you don't understand the rationale behind it.

That's not what I said. Don't make shit up.

You cannot get into people's minds.

This is true, but applies just as much to your argument as to mine.

The only conclusion you can justifiably draw from anyone's buying decisions is that they feel that it makes them better off.

No, you can't draw that conclusion at all. People do things they don't think make them better off all the time.

"ends that are ... artificial" is simply not an argument.

It wasn't meant to be. It was a clarification of a point.

You previously said the people should define what they need, now you are defining what they need.

No, I'm not.

"No, only if production is oriented to actual human welfare is it not wasteful."

Strange, I don't see any definition of the specific constitution of "actual human welfare" there. :rolleyes:

The people consuming them feel some need to consume them, or do they not have the right to determine what they need?

Only a complete ignorance or non-comprehension of everything I have said up to now could lead you to resort to such an argument.

In order to argue rationally, you must, you know, actually address my objections to that line of argument... not just mindlessly repeat it like a well-trained parrot.

Sorry, that is not an answer. I asked you how the people themselves will define what their needs are. You told me how a majority of the people will define it for everyone.

Really?

Because there is only one vote on the subject, or one rigid majority-minority pattern?

That's highly doubtful.

Yes, I did. You just didn't like it.

Sorry, but the definition you gave is useless.

You can rationally convince someone that something is in his or her interest, or you can emotionally manipulate or deceive someone into doing something anyway... these are two different kinds of persuasion.

You are not in any place to judge which is which by their standards. You can only judge such things by your own standards, and since I don't care what your standards are, you are back to square one.

Like I said: it's wasteful, and sometimes actively harmful.

You have asserted that its wasteful, you have not shown that it is.

That's not what I said. Don't make shit up.

That is exactly what you said.

This is true, but applies just as much to your argument as to mine.

No it doesn't, because nothing in my argument requires me to judge anyone else's rationale for consumption.

No, you can't draw that conclusion at all. People do things they don't think make them better off all the time.

Nonsense. People do anything only because they think they will get something out of it.

Strange, I don't see any definition of the specific constitution of "actual human welfare" there.

You are the one who asserted that production should be geared to "actual human welfare", you define it.

Only a complete ignorance or non-comprehension of everything I have said up to now could lead you to resort to such an argument.

In order to argue rationally, you must, you know, actually address my objections to that line of argument... not just mindlessly repeat it like a well-trained parrot

You are not arguing rationally, you object to production being oriented to consumption, and say that people should only consume what they need, and then you say the people should decide (thus orienting the production to their consumption, because they will decide to produce the things they want to consume), and then you say that 51% of the people should decide for all.

This is not a rational set of arguments. It is a bunch of empty platitudes. There are no cohesive ideas, or thoughts in what you are saying. Just images that make you feel good.

Really?

Because there is only one vote on the subject, or one rigid majority-minority pattern?

That's highly doubtful.

I asked you how the people would decide, you said democratically. That is not an answer, that is how the majority decides for the minority.

Enough of this. Sometimes I'm willing to argue against people who aren't interested in actually paying attention to what I say, but I think I'll pass this time; you're boring.

Go preach your religion to someone else. Try someone who hasn't heard it all already.

Edit: But perhaps one thing is worth pointing out:

You cannot get into people's minds.

People do anything only because they think they will get something out of it.

The topic of capitalism often comes up on nationstates, but as far as I have seen, debate tends not to focus on the corporations that play such a big part in it. A simple question here, what would a nation/the world be like without corporations?

For reference:



See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

without the corporatocracy of today, its almost total adamant and irresponsible and conscoucless dominance, well mom and pop retailing and unionized infrastructure, savings accounts insured up to $15K, a strong social security and railroad retirement system, generaly a capitolism with corporations only dominating about a third or less of it and those de regur unionised, well that and a bear bones f.d.r. 'socialism' is the kind of 'capitolism' i grew up with in the u.s. and if it hadn't been for the prejudices that were indemic at the time, it think it would have been pretty darn cool.

the automobile had not yet become a defacto god, though most people wanted one, everyone had ridden in one, and slightly more then half the people had, but there were still a lot of us who did not, and there was a LOT of public transportation, including local services on intercity carriers, even out in the boonies.

i don't know if anybody born after 1980 can even immagine it.

but the thing is, anti-environmentalism and union bashing damd sure isn't ever going to bring that back, nor was it, entirely without self-destructive flaws that would sooner or later led to either something like what we've got now, or some sort of collapse.

of course it could have led to a much softer collapse if it had been played right. there were other options too and still are.

i think the kind of socialized capitolism that kept europe's act togather from the end of the late 40s until well into the 80s, even 90s, and still keeps it from completely going to the same hell america has, can and would work pretty good. although there are still problems.

i'm not convinced it's possible to ever have a capitolism that isn't at least a little tiney bit inflationary. and at least a little tiney bit dependent on there being a certain percentage of 'have nots'. and those are the major flaws that limit its sustainability. in any one government. though of course a constant state of some percentage of governments falling and other rising to take their place is possible, with none of them being exempt.

but there's one big problem with that, and with, as far as i can see, every other idiology that's ever been practiced or claimed to be by any government and that is 'the environment' i.e. that web of life, from which the air we breathe, among other things we could not live with out, is utterly dependent upon coming. that every economic theory that enjoys any kind of prominance today blindly and adamantly isolates itself from.

and indeed the circular illogic of little green pieces of paper is isolated from that reality of our dependence on nature's cycles of renewal. and that is why i refer to it as circular illogic in the first place.

it may be possible to have a monetary economy that is noninflationary and one that is not self isolate from the realities of our dependence upon nature as the life forms that we are. i don't know and could not say for certain one way or the other. but i do know, that blindly, adamantly, demonizing everything that doesn't kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper, is thoroughly screwing us all and the planet that is the only one we currently have and is ever likely to be able to sustain our existence as a species.

=^^=
.../\...

Ever heard of, well, for example, Inuit?
Ever read anything about other stable societies that were finished of by the arrival of "economy"?


I've read much about the Inuit, including how they willingly participated in the active incorporation of European explorers and traders into their society in order to gain greater access to the technologies that tend to make life easier (firearms being the big one). No doubt the transition to the wage economy has brought very serious social problems. Much of these social problems can be attributed to the past systematic disenfranchisement of the Inuit from the political process; the Inuit have accomplished amazing things in the course of making (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut) their (http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?Lang=En&ID=1) voices (http://www.tunngavik.com/english/index.html) heard (http://www.itk.ca/). One should note that this process includes actively engaging modern government (local, national, and international) and "economy" from the unique Inuit perspective. Indeed, a continuing key political concern among the Inuit, judging from the present activities of the Government of Nunavut and other Inuit political and social organizations, is trying to reduce poverty by expanding economic development and employment for Inuit.

One should probably try to keep in mind that the egalitarian society based on reciprocity was not necessarily a product of any anti-"economy" ideology, but was rather a pragmatic response to the fact that in the absense of sufficient natural resources and derivative technologies, not sticking together in one of the most hostile environments on Earth is a good way to die quickly. But if one takes the time to study the anthropological and ethnographic histories, one will find that the Inuit were perfectly happy to adopt the evil and insiduous treacheries of "economy" as quickly as they could, gaining greater access to useful natural resources and derivative technologies, if it meant a greater chance of survival.

If I can state my own personal opinion frankly, holding some overly-romanticized notion of the value of "stable societies" is a luxury enjoyable only by those who need not worry about starving or freezing to death on a daily basis.


Growth is only necessary in a society that is dominated by personal greed

Or, as described above, for societies that feel no need to suffer in abject misery if it isn't necessary.

As far as the whole corporation topic is concerned, there's really only one thing to say (again):

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."
-- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations