Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: OWS vs corporations.

Posted 9 years ago on Feb. 22, 2012, 10:35 a.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

OWS is trying to control government regulation. The very reason they oppose corporations is about government control.

Is this not hypocrisy ?

58 Comments

58 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by Faithntruth (997) 9 years ago

Today in the news there is a report on charges against an employee of the mining company that had a fire with 29 deaths in the mine. This happened because the person activeley pursued ways to get around mine saftey rules and regulations. If we didnt have rules and regs, he would not be under criminal investigation for his part in the deaths of 29 people. He would be back at work putting more peoples lives in danger.

This is the lesson of history. Business and people in business will go as far as they can to increase profit. I want them held in check, and i want them held responsible. I want regulations because people keep proving they need them!

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

A union would have gone a LONG way towards preventing this disaster.

Massey laughed at OSHA, paid the tiny fines and went with bad business as usual.

Everyone in Massey management deserves prison time.

[-] 3 points by Faithntruth (997) 9 years ago

Its all about personal gain and profit... They deserve to be tried for murder.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 9 years ago

People died in BP's Macondo Well blowout too. Still waiting for the prosecutions.

[+] -6 points by KochRocks (-70) 9 years ago

This happens because the "unions" protect these clowns. All unions must go (private, public,, federal) or whatever

[-] 3 points by Faithntruth (997) 9 years ago

Management does not belong to the union. You are so removed from reality and steeped in right wing propaganda that it is pointless to converse with you. People like you are what is wrong with America.

[+] -5 points by KochRocks (-70) 9 years ago

No the OWS goons and their failed leader "commando Odumbo" is what is wrong with America

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

You are what happens when one overdoses on FLAKESnews and crack.

You get everything backwards.

Do you also belong to the flat earth society?

[-] -2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

I only run from you GF. You scare me :-)

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago
[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

OWS is not against corporations at all, in my mind. It is just against them buying and controlling our government and ripping off the American people by exploiting their labor without fair compensation.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

beautiful world , are you a car salesperson ?

you say ows is not against corporatism and than you list four things wrong with it .. ?

that's like saying , " this car is perfect , except the tranny is blown, the motor won't start , it has a dead battery .. four flat tires and there is a crack in the windshield ! LOL

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

Yeah, but you still wanna drive, no?

I would like corporations to work within an economic system that benefits all people.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

you cant please everyone .. won't happen .. for example .. the cap onsales profits would certainly not please the back-riders..

it's too bad you can't understand how the cap works .. because if would could you would see the benefits and support it.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

Well explain it to me better, how it would affect all parties, the employer/capitalist, the laborer, the consumers who would buy the products. I'm sorry, I've had trouble wrapping my head around how it would affect wages, purchase prices and tax revenue, etc.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

okay .. first you need to step back and look at the broad strokes ..

  1. the cash that stimulated the recent boom , was borrowed cash .. it generated sales and jobs and profits ..

  2. When the borrowing stopped the economy recessed .

  3. Why ?

  4. What happened to all that money that was borrowed and poured into the economy?

  5. answer : the borrowed money ended up accumulated at the top and is not circulating.

  6. A cap on profits would have prevented the accumulation of wealth at the top .. and the borrowed money would have circulated back into the workers hands ..

consider this explanation as a wheel and this was only one spoke on the wheel ..

another spoke would explain how a cap on profits would encourage consumer spending because it lowers prices ..

a third spoke would explain how tax revenue would be generated through capping profits .. and this would balance the deficit .. which would prevent further job cuts ..

The cap is truly the silver bullet .. it solves the whole problem. and revives the economy ..

whats the solution ? well that depends on what problem you are trying to solve ..

A cap on profits does :

1: close the gap between rich and poor .

  1. stimulates the economy.

  2. reduces stress on the working man .

  3. creates fairness.

  4. prevents government bankruptcy ..

    the list goe on and on ..

The cap is a very abstract idea .. may I ask your ability to grasp abstract thought ?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

No. FriendlyObserverA, you know I have no ability to grasp abstract thoughts, LOL!

Okay, so you put a cap on profits. A company can only exploit X profit off of A labor + B capital. Is that because they must pay the worker more? Or reduce the price of the good? I think you are saying reduce the price of the good.

So, a simple example:

A 5 + B 5 = 10, Price of good is 15, Profit is X 5

You want:

A 5 + B 5 = 10, Price of good is 13, Profit is X 3

or, do you want (I don't think you want this) I would like this:

A7 + B 5 = 12, Price of good is 15, Profit is X 3

You want the first one right? You, in a way, want to remove money from the economy, the borrowed money you talk about. It would lower the price of goods for consumers, but seems it would also lower tax revenue on two ends, corporate profits and sales tax. It would stimulate the economy, but so would a living wage, no? More money in people's pockets equals more spending.

How would you cap profits? Where do you draw the line? I can see it more clearly how to set a living wage. It would be based on cost of living in various geographical regions. I have trouble seeing how you would set prices on goods.

That's what I have so far.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

BW,

"More money in people's pockets equals more spending."

we both agree on this..

the cap will result in more money in the consumer pockets yes ..

yes but look at this ..

say you have lots of money in your pockets .. and you want to buy a brand new pair of shoes ... okay you have a thousand dollars and the shoes cost one thousand .. so you can buy one pair of shoes .[ this is without the cap] and the manufacturer makes one pair creating one job... okay so far ... but if there was a profit cap on the shoes .. and the retailer could only say double the markup price ..and the manufacture price is $ 100 so than the price of the shoes would be $200 at the retailer .. so you than couls buy 5 pairs of shoes .. creating more jobs at the manufacturing ...

the point being .. spending money is good but with a cap you can buy more with the money you spend .. and this is good for the economy .. with a living wage and no cap the shoes will simply rise in price .. and do the economy no improvement .. The cap is like a raise because for a thousand dollars with a cap you can buy 5 pairs of shoes instead of only one .. a cap increases the value of your dollar .. a cap is multi-beneficial .. so you want A7 the cap I present will give you A25

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

That seems like a very low profit cap. I don't know if capitalists would go for that. I was thinking more like the shoes would be $500 and you could buy two pairs. Even that is a huge mark-down in price.

How about this as food for thought? How much more crap do we need? Haven't we already bought ourselves into a frenzy? Does anyone need five pairs of shoes? Where does the consumption end?

A living wage would simply provide every working person with enough money to live a decent life. But, then, in a way, the profit cap is the same thing. I don't know. I'll have to think about it some more. Thanks for explaining.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

bw , the idea is not to buy 5 pairs of shoes .. but to gain purchasing power .. this is better than a living wage .. this creates economic recovery

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

your just not getting this ... bw ?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

Why? Am I only getting it if I agree with you? It's a huge concept that would transform our society. I don't get a little time to think about it now that I think I understand it a bit better? Don't be so pushy.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

lol ..you will never get it .. stick with .. history ?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

Nice. Very nice. I have a degree in economics FriendlyObserverB.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

sure you do ..and I am master of the universe.

edit: ran out of reply buttons below ..

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

Why did you change your comment. You said "sure you do..." And now you added "..and I am master of the universe."

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23478) 9 years ago

You say more about yourself with that comment.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4203) 9 years ago

you know what else would work? - if everyone would stop shopping at monopolies like Wal-mart and capping corporation's ability to bribe the people who make our laws that create the advantage for them

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

if walmart was capped , they would be as large as they are .. buying from china would give them very little profit with a percentage cap .. they would sell domestic .. more costly products , just to increase their profit markup.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4203) 9 years ago

not fixing the problem at it's root a cap is a band-aid

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

the root of the capitalist problem is unfettered profit. a cap deals with that problem directly . And this is correctable by government regulation/legislation. It is what ows should be asking for.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4203) 9 years ago

The root of unfettered profit is unfettered shopping - boycott monopolies and trade with despot regimes like China until they clean up their act- American companies are using Chinese citizens to make unfettered profits - why because of unfettered lobbying - End Corporatism, Cap Bribery, Boycott Monopolies - how can you look at any product made in China and not feel guilty buying it or angry that it costs so much in so many ways? http://cnnphotos.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/08/hong-kongs-poor-living-in-cages/

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

we just need a regulation on profit mark up .. it will settle everything we face in this economic crisis .. it will turn the economic tide around.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Corporations provide international efficiency.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

They could ( take the international standards organization for instance ) but that is not what they necessarily do. That is why they need watching and guidance.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 9 years ago

Not exactly sure what you're saying. Are you saying OWS and corporations both want to control regulations?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

I thought that would be obvious. Do you agree ?

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 9 years ago

It's not obvious from your post. And yes, I agree, except for the hypocrisy part. The government exists for We the People, don't you agree? It imposes such regulations on corporations as is necessary to restrict corporate malfeasance, over-reach, and general disregard for citizens and the environment. When corporations influence their own regulation it is a topsy-turvy world, like Alice in Wonderland. OWS just wants government returned to it's original function, serving We the People.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Sure. But the deregulation of loans was designed with we the people in mind. Problem was as soon as the housing market became flooded with buyers, prices went up 50 %. Is this government or corporation fault? Or should they have also placed a cap on profit to " counter balance the deregulation ?

And yes it is hipocracy. Both groups want control over government regulation. Neither should have , and both should have.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 9 years ago

That is a bias and overly simplistic version of events.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Simplistic, but yet no one understands !

[-] 2 points by buik6 (18) 9 years ago

whenever one group wants to overthrow an existing system they are hypocrites?

you fuckin retard. never post such stupid shit where i can see it again.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4203) 9 years ago

The regulatory boards once designed to protect the people in common sense things like preventing poisoning a community's well water with toxic waste (in exapmle) and the FDA are all completely being staffed with individuals from the major corporate monopolies. So I ask why not just use the police - corporations have special boards designed to regulate them - whereas you and I have the cops or FBI. Logic would say that since they pay and bribe to get the right official elected - who is responsible for staffing the "regulatory board" and then doing whatever they want without any other sort of policing other than the citizens of this country - that we must fight back!! So now we must be the regulators because there is no one else.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

I honestly believe the go ernment has not been corupted and is doing the best they can. With every new situation arises a new debate. Right now we need acap on profits. But this is a big legislation with great opposition. It is the right thing though.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4203) 9 years ago

Trusting your government is like trusting a priest in a daycare. And capping profits teeters into communism. There must be a balance between socialism and capitalism to prevent both corporatism and communism (because they are the same end of the horse shoe.)

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

once you realize how the cap works you will understand its true potential at creating balance, and how we haven't seen this long ago ?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

To equate a corporation controlled by how much you own of it, to a government controlled by one vote per citizen, shows the contempt some hold for democracy; it can also be found in their posts about the people voting themselves wealth. Funny position for people who sell the idea that we can all be rich isn’t it?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Private enterprise is tyranny by all definition. And completely insults democracy and freedom. They are two enemies competing for power within one nation.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 9 years ago

I see no hypocrisy in "taking control from corporations". That is a more summarized version of your selective wording. It is also not the only reason to oppose corporations.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

The hypocrisy is in doing the very thing you condemn. Containing government regulation is an OWS goal. As is corporations goal.

It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 9 years ago

"Control over the government" and "corporate control over the government" are two different things. OWS disapproves of corporate control over the government. Why would OWS condemn people control over the government? If the control will go to either OWS or corporations, I would not hesitate to choose OWS. Again, I do not see hypocrisy... it is only the selective way you word it.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Actually it reminds me of the American revolution. They opposed the king and became just like him through individual capitalism.

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 9 years ago

Hey NIT.. U Pick!

( not as good an Argument as you perceive it to be.)

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 9 years ago

where do unions invest their pension money? hint : corporations.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Go back to bed.

OWS, Occupy, the 99% movements are all about getting the control of government back in the hands of the people.

ALL of THE PEOPLE. Of By & For whom it was created.

Hypocrisy? Please wake up after a nice long rest and after much consideration of facts.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

The government belongs to the 100%.