Forum Post: Corporations Don't Really Want a Free Market---Where they are Utterly Responsible for Their Actions
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 10:07 p.m. EST by AmericanRedWhiteBlue
(126)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
As the US has deregulated businesses, corporations have grown, all the while the American people's opportunities have shrank. Where are the opportunities---where are the jobs for regular Americans---they are outsourced to increase corporate profits!!!
The Politicians trusted the corporations to employ the 99% of Americans. That trust has been betrayed!!! Corporate CEO’s conveniently forget that they are part of the AMERICAN SOCIAL SYSTEM (unless it is convient for them to remember.)
At the current rate of corporate betrayal (and political complacency) we 99% will soon be paying in coal mine “script” at the corporate store, owing more and more to the company every week because our “script” fails to pay for food, clothing and shelter. They will suck us dry, in order to increase their bottom lines by a single penny, all the while cackling, “We keep what we kill! We keep what we kill!”
Corporations will run to the politicians and the judges quickly to attain financial relief (with bailouts to socialize their losses or to sue an elderly woman for a mortgage she can't pay), yet those same corporations tell us 99% to just, "Suck it up" when we demand relief. "Pick yourself up by your own bootstraps", the corporations say---as they beg for money and file lawsuits in our American social (judicial) system. Perhaps when Corporations run to court, in order to garnish the wages of someone in poverty (or to collect money from the 99% on loans they should not have offered), judges should say to the corporations, "YOU SIGNED ON THE DOTTED LINE, THEREFORE YOU ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE. JUST SUCK IT UP. You made the bad loan, you want individual responsibility, you are responsible for the risk of your bad loan. Write it off as Bad Debt and learn your lesson."
Free Market at it's best, right? Corporations should love it? Nah, they will surely threaten that loan interest rates must go up to account for the increased risk of default (Not taking responsibility for effective credit analysis to start with.) The truth is--- Corporations don't want a truly free market (utter hands off policy by the government---because they need shills to enforce their exploitive contracts----except on the floor of the stock exchange---where millions are traded without complex legal documentation, because the traders are accountable to each other.)
Remember Standard Oil---We need effective Antitrust Legislation to break up these Corporate Oligarchs!!!! They are ruining America. We need Sherman Act part 2!!!!
It could be said that in a real Capitalist system, Capitalists are terrified of free markets.
http://www.truthout.org/unequal-protection-jefferson-versus-corporate-aristocracy/1303196400
Simple solution: Enact Jefferson's 11th amendment and strip corp. person-hood. Corp money is then removable from gov legally as they no longer have the right to be there. We need One Demand. This one makes the structural changes needed and is already written by Jefferson himself. Ready for us to unify peacefully and uncompromisingly behind. Lets make a single meaningful demand. You know they won't give it to us willingly. One Demand.
This is right on the money! If there was one single goal of this movement, this should be it!!!!!
Kochs sure seem to love the idea of free markets - they at least want their TP tools screaming for them, but then, yeah, you're right, where they can get subsidies they're all over them... +1 trust busting.
There has never been and will never be anything remotely like this Free market the right goes on and on about endlessly. Its just a matter of who ultimately is the one writing the rules of those markets and right now thats the Corps., not the legitimate representatives of the people.
exactly
I think we had more incentives for corporations to move money/labor back into the US, like a flat, simple tax (no loopholes) and some way of ending relations between government and corporations, a free market could work. Of course, in a true free market, there would be no bail-outs from the taxpayers.
Taxes are not why they left in the 1st place. Lowering taxes for them again won't work. Why don't u folks understand that? They won't return unless they can pay people 50 cents an hr.with no benefits and no Unions or health and safety regulations. They want to return to 1880. Nothing less will suffice for these people.
Get the government out of the business of forcing monopolies. They don't occur naturally in capitalism, the market takes care of that fairly, without government force.
Why we need MORE government regulation (not less)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCudGmRIsfk
No. The government has been steering business too long. It ends up with business steering the government. Never the two should interact.
I watched the video, not all of it, I think I know the story
If you thought that was informative, look at this one, if feature clips of the player and the government
http://vimeo.com/25142692 Let me know what you think
Take a look at the video, it provides an alternative to your current mindset (from a Nobel Laureate Economist-who had 70 years of experience in economics):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCudGmRIsfk
I watched the video and agree, but I don't know what point you are trying to make
You wrote (Concerning the Government/Business Relationship): Never the two should interact.
I disagree with what you wrote.
The video provides evidence for the following: That governments need to steer markets via regulation, because, without regulation, markets (left to their own devices) tend to "Get into Trouble" (Paul Samuelson's words.)
Therefore, to the degree that businesses compete in these markets, the businesses need regulated.
Government isn't good enough to steer an economy. Look at the mess we are in now. That's with our best and brightest at the wheel. Free market economics in its true sense is a self regulating system. Government corrupts. Any market has good times and bad due to human nature, having a government do what it thinks is right- ensures failure. No man is good enough to do this.
As stated above--->Corporations don't want a truly free market (utter hands off policy by the government---because they need shills (and a social "legal" system) to enforce their exploitive contracts.) Corporations want crony capitalism, not free markets.
No they don't. You don't speak for corporations. You don't understand corporations. You seem to see a lot of evil in the world, maybe a reflection of self?
Continue your worthless Ad Hominem nonsense. I refuse to feed Ad Hominem Trolls.
That's ok one day hopefully it will make sense to you
Wow teamok, I didn't even know about Jefferson's proposed 11th Amendment! Thank you!
Thomas Jefferson was right-on! He knew that corporations could not be trusted to act in the best interest of average Americans.
I'm with you, enact Jefferson's proposed 11th ammendment.
thats true, instead of living wages they place the burden on welfare, r&d they get the gov to pay for it, healthcare they get the gov to subsidize it. we have been propping up wallstreet far to long
You have an interesting model.
Under your model the minimum individual wage would shift---depending on the ratio of 1. number of nuclear family members (in a married couple) and 2. Government poverty threshold income (for the year):
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml
e.g. A single working parent, in a nuclear family of four (mom, dad and 2 kids) would have to earn approximately $10.75 per hour to just exceed the poverty threshold (using 2080 hours in a working year.)
Your model would need to be regionally adjusted (cost of living in San Diego and New York City is much higher than in Clarksburg, WV---subsequently $10.75 an hour in San Diego/New York likely wouldn't work---(I used to have a friend (we lost touch over the years) in lower Manhattan who lived off Water Street and paid $3600 a month for a Studio Apartment---$10.75 an hour would not even pay the rent in her case---although the question can always be raised: Should it?)
Overall, you seem to be on the right track (I like it but will need to think about it more.)---Corporations may hate it because it could cut into profits (so what, though.)
Would still need to address corporate outsourcing of jobs overseas to increase their corporate bottom lines (i.e. Address corporations maximizing profits for the 1% to the detriment of the 99%- particularly when the politicians are bending over backwards to give Corporations what the Corporations want, in order to increase American jobs.)
Would also need to address how to decrease overall (true) U.S. unemployment to acceptable levels.
You seem to have something to build on!!! Awesome!!!
I think you're speaking of my model here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/corporations-dont-really-want-a-free-market-where-/#comment-78511 (referenced for others following along)
I've posted this idea in a few other forums for several months now, never thinking it would ever be feasible to implement. OWS's actions have me thinking it's ripe.
The main criticism I see of minimum wage (and most "living wage" proposals) is that they do nothing but increase unemployment and drive inflation. There is a large nugget of truth to those claims. My biggest complaint when I started out in the job market was that a minimum wage hike was effectively a demotion for everyone else. I remember receiving a minimum wage hike about the same time I was eligible for a pay raise; the wage hike was greater than the raise would have been, so after months of busting my butt learning how to do the job, I found myself... earning the same amount as the new employees I was assigned to train!
Some of the criticism I've heard from the Right is that this represents additional governmental interference in "private" business. And of course, it will reduce corporate profits. It will also put a hell of a lot of pressure on businesses that rely primarily on underpaid workers. Walmart springs to mind. I think it's far less intrusive and would be far more effective than some of the "tax the rich" plans that have been floating around, and as far as those highly exploitative companies are concerned, I think we'd be better off without most of them.
I figure the main criticism I'd get from the Left would be that I'm not taking care of the bottom rung, that I even refer to one exploitative aspect as a benefit of this system. The fact is that there are some jobs that don't deserve subsistence wages for 40 hours a week. There are also people who don't want or need subsistence wages - teens, living at home, just trying to fill their gas tanks. Moderately wealthy retirees looking only for something to keep themselves busy. If we don't leave room for people to work at below subsistence wages, these workers who will accept less than subsistence wages will be competing for employment with those of us who cannot accept less than subsistence wages.
One of the benefits I see is a reduction in the demand for public assistance, both in the amount needed per person, and the number of people needing any at all.
One of the side benefits I see is a benefit for both impoverished areas and businesses. The cost of labor in an impoverished region under this system would be far lower than the labor in a highly commercial region. While an employer would be benefiting from something that reeks of exploitation by choosing to move his business to such an area, he would also be investing in the infrastructure of that area, helping to improve the commercial prospects of that area, and ultimately, improving the poverty rate and level of that area.
Regarding the number of nuclear family members affecting the ratio, I'd use median family size, and median number of full time and part time workers in the family, median housing costs for that region, etc. Employers are prohibited from discrimination based on familial status, so someone who chooses to have a large family can't get extra benefits because of it.
As far as the government threshold for income, the number there isn't absolutely critical. As long as it is in the general vicinity of "the poverty line", it would remain effective. A higher dollar amount will mean the employer has to pay a higher "standard wage", but it also means that the percentage of people above the line will be lower, so they can pay more people below that standard.
If you like the general idea, please spread the word! I certainly don't have all the answers needed to turn this into a functional piece of legislation!
Real simple: Prohibit businesses from increasing the poverty rate.
If the poverty rate is 10%, and a business pays more than 10% of its employees below the poverty line, that business is increasing the poverty rate for that region. It is earning a profit not through a superior business model, but through exploitation. Worse, it is competing with other, non-exploitative businesses, forcing them to either exploit the working class or go out of business.
Require that this business pay at least 90% of its employees at or above the regional poverty line, and all these problems disappear. This business stops shipping money from the 99% to the 1%, and the economy takes off like a bat out of hell.
The right wants a total free market, the left wants a total communist paradise. Smack dab in the middle of these ideologies is the perfect medium- a nice mixture of socialism and capitalism that...from what I've seen, the left is willing to deal with and the right isn't.
While a capitalist market may oppress your "wants", it is ultimately government itself which is oppressing your "needs". In a true free market one is not punished for being poor. It's a lifestyle decision. Our government makes it impossible to be poor. They mandate you to do things and steal any savings you have. If you own a home and refuse to pay the property tax extortion government takes it. If you decide to grow your own food government decides where you can do it, what crops/animals you are zoned for, and may not even allow you to water it using your own well. If you think you can hunt or fish again you must pay governments tolls. If you choose to travel you must fork over money to government for permission, be it a license or insuarnce mandates.
You can always refuse to give a corporation your money. You vote with your wallet. Being poor may not allow you to have that shiny new iphone, but the corporation is not going to force you to buy it.
Is an elderly woman's house a want? I don't believe so, but a financial institution (Corporation) will take her to court to take her house (if she fails to pay the bill.)
I understand (and feel) your frustration on taxes. I don't have an easy answer, except that we need to come up with the most equitable solution we can. We are individual Americans that are part of a huge social system (of which corporations are a part), we need to find an equitable balance between individual incentive and maintaining society.
Taxes reduce individual incentive, but all us individuals owe our individual success (to some degree) due to the great society we live in. We need the fairest system we can possibly create, providing maximal opportunity for success to all Americans---we owe this to the next generation of Americans, as well as to ourselves.
Currently, corporations don't want true free markets because they need a social (judicial) system in order to exploit us!
I used to work for a major (I mean major) financial institution as a Credit Manager, selling money via Mortgages, personal loans, etc.
I am ashamed to say that I was tasked with charging the highest interest rates I (legally) possibly could (often, I feel, exploiting folks that had no other options---with high interest loans.)
Until you have someone crying, begging you to help them keep a roof over their heads for their kids, then you rewrite their loan with a higher interest rate because you are told to, and the poor person signs because they have no other options---you don't know guilt. I quit the financial industry 12 years ago because I became disgusted with it.
The political right doesn't want a free market- they need a social (political/judicial) system to enforce their exploitive contracts.
Individual Americans need bailed out, just as corporations need bailed out.
If a company is too big to fail, guess what---it is too big! It is a financial threat to the national interests of the United States. It needs to be broken apart just as Standard Oil was. We need Sherman Act Part 2 to break apart the oligarchs.
Sincerely---Thank you for your posts. This is the true dialogue that we American need to have.
Effective Antitrust legislation (with aggressive enforcement) to break up these corporate oligarchs, combined with a legal system that forces corporations to be just as accountable as individual Americans is a good start---if we 99% have to pick ourselves up by our bootstraps, the corporations (legal individual entities) should too (remember---there are at least two parties to a legal contract and BOTH enter into the contract of their own volition.)
Lots of other things are needed, but these would help.
Bump, this is a good post.
The corporations do not want a "free market" because they know they can throw piles of money at our politicians and keep the game rigged in their favor. My comment how ever does not endorse moving to a truly free mark. In a free market competition is created on the backs of the workers... Lower prices in a free market means lower pay for the workers.
Anyway, there is a simple way to fix this problem... Remove the ability of corporations to buy our politicians maybe ? Just a suggestion.
One thing that would help would be severely curtailing campaign funding and salaries/benefits for anyone running for/holding a public office. It's the only way I can think of to get anyone with any integrity in a position to make grand-scale decisions, and the only way to obstruct the poisonous relations between Washington and corporate execs.
Exactly---those exploiters don't really want a free market where they are accountable for their own actions. They need shills to explit the 99%