Do you support big businesses?

[PureX]

There is nothing wrong with looking out for #1 and maximizing efficiencies. Part of globalization means industry is going to countries that were like the U.S. a hundred years ago. We must adapt and become a service-based economy and put the time and effort into the service-revolution that was put into the industrial-revolution.

Where was this rule written, I wonder, that so many corporate toadies are always spouting off; about how we MUST all become the waiters and waitresses and pizza delivery boys for the rich while our manufacturing jobs all go to other countries so that the rich can get even richer? I certainly don't recall seeing it in the Constitution, anywhere. Yet for some reason this idea has been presented to us as if it were sacred and sacrosanct, because of course the maximization of corporate profits ALWAYS comes before the well-being of the men and women and families of the nation. Why, it's like the law of GRAVITY almost. Greed is never, EVER a bad thing! No matter how much we suffer for it.

 

[Comprehend]

which is a long winded way to say that it is compulsory... This is like reading Marx's communist manifesto.... I have read it before, you can spare me the class warfare nonsense.

Show me the people in this country who are forced to work for starving wages, unreasonably long hours or un unhealthy conditions...



you just described almost every adult in the United states. LOL.


well, the above would be your personal feelings... you are attempting to lump all coorporations into one group and you have provided zero evidence for your silly assertions. Not really the best argument...



you are seriously claiming that the only people that shop at big businesses are abused sheep who don't know what they are doing? LOL.

again... not a terribly compelling argument. I would suggest you let your ideology branch out a bit from Karl Marx and his class warfare but that is just me...

pureX... were you planning on responding to my post above?

 

[Quiddity]

*waives hands* Listen, I know topics in this forum are always of a sensitive nature, but it's one of the few places where people of all walks of life come together to exchange thoughts. So I ask everybody to please try using your words as civil as you can. Even in deep disagreements, please avoid irritating the person you are dialoguing with. :shout

 

[PureX]

pureX... were you planning on responding to my post above?

No, I wasn't planning to. I saw nothing in it worth responding to, and I felt that most folks would see the post and it's positions for what they are, on their own.

 

[PureX]

I'm hoping that if anyone has been following my posts here, and on other similar threads, they will eventually get the idea that I'm trying to present a different way of looking at "commerce" than the way we've all been taught, and sadly have come to accept as normal and even necessary. Commerce is a form of human interaction, and engagement, and we humans are in charge of it. We define it. And we govern it. We dictate it's terms. Commerce is not some sort of 'economic inevitability' that we can do nothing about, like the weather. And the more we allow ourselves to be convinced that it is, the more willing and complicit we become in the abuse and oppression and suffering that comes with pretty much any ungoverned human endeavor. Anarchy never results in peace, when we humans are involved.

We NEED to define commerce by it's positive and healthy results, and we need to DENY that which seeks to harm us as being acceptable forms of what we call commerce. We need to stop accepting exploitation as a viable and necessary component of commerce, because IT IS NOT a viable nor necessary component of commerce.

Beyond these points I'm not really all that concerned about the size of a given business enterprise. I tend to believe that larger business are more likely to be exploitive because they are less personal. But as Victor has pointed out, there are certainly exceptions to this general "rule" if it even is a "rule". Small businesses can certainly become exploitive, while some big businesses are clearly very fair and generous with everyone they interact with. However, I still maintain my position that the general rule is as I stated, and I have presented my reasoning for holding this position (which I have not seen anyone refute, yet).

And I apologize both in hindsight and in advance if the way I word these posts has caused anyone to feel insulted. I have no intent to insult anyone, but I do like to write without a lot of editing or what I call "mumbly-speak", and as we all know our biases and prejudices can slip through without our realizing it. Personally, I rarely take any offense from these discussions and I hope I am not causing any. But if I am, I do want to apologize. It's not my intent.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm hoping that if anyone has been following my posts here, and on other similar threads, they will eventually get the idea that I'm trying to present a different way of looking at "commerce" than the way we've all been taught, and sadly have come to accept as normal and even necessary. Commerce is a form of human interaction, and engagement, and we humans are in charge of it. We define it. And we govern it. We dictate it's terms. Commerce is not some sort of 'economic inevitability' that we can do nothing about, like the weather. And the more we allow ourselves to be convinced that it is, the more willing and complicit we become in the abuse and oppression and suffering that comes with pretty much any ungoverned human endeavor. Anarchy never results in peace, when we humans are involved.

We NEED to define commerce by it's positive and healthy results, and we need to DENY that which seeks to harm us as being acceptable forms of what we call commerce. We need to stop accepting exploitation as a viable and necessary component of commerce, because IT IS NOT a viable nor necessary component of commerce.

Beyond these points I'm not really all that concerned about the size of a given business enterprise. I tend to believe that larger business are more likely to be exploitive because they are less personal. But as Victor has pointed out, there are certainly exceptions to this general "rule" if it even is a "rule". Small businesses can certainly become exploitive, while some big businesses are clearly very fair and generous with everyone they interact with. However, I still maintain my position that the general rule is as I stated, and I have presented my reasoning for holding this position (which I have not seen anyone refute, yet).

And I apologize both in hindsight and in advance if the way I word these posts has caused anyone to feel insulted. I have no intent to insult anyone, but I do like to write without a lot of editing or what I call "mumbly-speak", and as we all know our biases and prejudices can slip through without our realizing it. Personally, I rarely take any offense from these discussions and I hope I am not causing any. But if I am, I do want to apologize. It's not my intent.

PureX, I was never taught any of this. It's not like I can't see what you are talking. I don't deny that such things exist or that what you are saying has NO merit. I think it does. I just really think you are painting it broader then it really is. If in fact it is as large a problem as you say, then I'd be right there trying to figure out a solution to it.

No offense, but nothing you've said thus far will fix the problem. It's just a different way of looking at it and nothing more. I just hope you can see there are some real good companies out there.

Thanks for the convo.

 

[PureX]

PureX, I was never taught any of this. It's not like I can't see what you are talking. I don't deny that such things exist or that what you are saying has NO merit. I think it does. I just really think you are painting it broader then it really is. If in fact it is as large a problem as you say, then I'd be right there trying to figure out a solution to it.

No offense, but nothing you've said thus far will fix the problem. It's just a different way of looking at it and nothing more. I just hope you can see there are some real good companies out there.

Thanks for the convo.

The first step in addiction recovery is to recognize that an addiction exists in one's self, and that it's causing some real problems. So far on this thread and others, I can't seem to get many people to even recognize this much, regarding corporate greed. So if you haven't seem me offering any solutions, yet, this is the reason.

Also, I haven't seen anyone here actually refute my positions, yet. You're saying that you don't see the problem, but that isn't really any form of refutation. That's just an expression of individual perspective. As human beings we all pretty much see what we want to see, and ignore what we don't want to see. And most of us don't want to see the unpleasantness of life, especially if we're complicit in causing it. So what you aren't seeing is not evidence that it's not happening.

But there is no disputing that many of our better-paying manufacturing jobs are going out of the country because the CEOs and share-holders of the companies that own those factories want to make more money by exploiting the cheap labor of other countries. This is ethically wrong, and because it's ethically wrong it has a very negative effect on both American workers and foreign workers and their families. And the claim for "efficiency" (maximizing profits) does not in any way excuse this unethical and damaging behavior. And pointing to the companies that have NOT done this yet, is not a reasonable rebuttal, either. So far I have seen no reasonable rebuttal. Especially for the unethical contention that a business's owners and CEO has the right to maximize profits by doing harm to it's employees.

 

[nutshell]

Where was this rule written, I wonder, that so many corporate toadies are always spouting off; about how we MUST all become the waiters and waitresses and pizza delivery boys for the rich while our manufacturing jobs all go to other countries so that the rich can get even richer? I certainly don't recall seeing it in the Constitution, anywhere. Yet for some reason this idea has been presented to us as if it were sacred and sacrosanct, because of course the maximization of corporate profits ALWAYS comes before the well-being of the men and women and families of the nation. Why, it's like the law of GRAVITY almost. Greed is never, EVER a bad thing! No matter how much we suffer for it.

Who said anything about waiters, waitresses and pizza delivery??? If you think that's what I meant by a service-based economy you're sorely mistaken.

You also don't realize that the common folk benefit from the success of big business.

 

[Comprehend]

No, I wasn't planning to. I saw nothing in it worth responding to, and I felt that most folks would see the post and it's positions for what they are, on their own.

I see...

 

[Guitar's Cry]

pureX... were you planning on responding to my post above?

I was kinda hoping you'd respond to post #42.

 

[Comprehend]

I'm hoping that if anyone has been following my posts here, and on other similar threads, they will eventually get the idea that I'm trying to present a different way of looking at "commerce" than the way we've all been taught, and sadly have come to accept as normal and even necessary. Commerce is a form of human interaction, and engagement, and we humans are in charge of it. We define it. And we govern it. We dictate it's terms. Commerce is not some sort of 'economic inevitability' that we can do nothing about, like the weather. And the more we allow ourselves to be convinced that it is, the more willing and complicit we become in the abuse and oppression and suffering that comes with pretty much any ungoverned human endeavor. Anarchy never results in peace, when we humans are involved.

I have never been taught anything like what you say is "the way we've all been taught". Of course we humans are in charge of it, define it and govern it. This is exactly the reason why I said you were wrong when you claimed people are being exploited by businesses.

We are all independent actors, we may choose when where and at what cost we will exchange money for merchandise. This is exactly why it is so ridiculous for you to claim that we are being exploited. You can't have it both ways, either we are brainwashed sheep or we are masters of ourselves and our capitol. Obviously, nobody in this country is forced to participate in any commercial exchange. If you want to see compulsory payment, look at the government and taxes. That is what compulsion looks like. If I don't send money to McDonalds, the Hamburglar doesn't come and reposses my car....

We NEED to define commerce by it's positive and healthy results, and we need to DENY that which seeks to harm us as being acceptable forms of what we call commerce. We need to stop accepting exploitation as a viable and necessary component of commerce, because IT IS NOT a viable nor necessary component of commerce.

I don't feel exploited, I don't think exploitation takes place generally in the US economy so I obviously also do not think it is necessary nor would I accept it if it were put forward. I like freedom.

Beyond these points I'm not really all that concerned about the size of a given business enterprise. I tend to believe that larger business are more likely to be exploitive because they are less personal. But as Victor has pointed out, there are certainly exceptions to this general "rule" if it even is a "rule". Small businesses can certainly become exploitive, while some big businesses are clearly very fair and generous with everyone they interact with. However, I still maintain my position that the general rule is as I stated, and I have presented my reasoning for holding this position (which I have not seen anyone refute, yet).

I don't think you have shown that exploitation takes place in our economy... you have merely asserted that it does. I have not seen any evidence from you at all.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

We are all independent actors, we may choose when where and at what cost we will exchange money for merchandise. This is exactly why it is so ridiculous for you to claim that we are being exploited. You can't have it both ways, either we are brainwashed sheep or we are masters of ourselves and our capitol.

Actually, I think psychology has shown we are somewhere between the two extremes. A hard determinist (or B.F. Skinner) would say we could be brainwashed sheep.

But I would tend to favor the "between-the-two-extremes" option. Commercialization is heavily based on psychology and sociology...

 

[Comprehend]

Unfortunately, the class situation in America is much more complex than this. The classes are more than simple economic divisions, they are subcultures. And, as with any cultural influence, it cannot be easily shaken off by one who wishes to. There is class movement, but the problem is that the lower classes must exist. Not everyone can (or may even want) be at the top.

But many do. The tension is high. The evidence is in the news. Gang violence, racial conflict, political upheaval: all are tied closely with social classes, of which big business plays a big part.

I don't see America this way at all. Why do you think that just because people are in different economic situations that there must be tension between them?

where is the tension high among classes? Who feels this anger? I don't, I am poor, I don't see my neighbors angry at rich people and they are poor too. Gang violence doesn't have anything to do with social inequality in my opinion. Those who choose to be in gangs would have been pirates 300 years ago. They won't work honestly for the lifestyle they want. There are plenty of gangs in Africa in areas where nobody is rich, how would you explain that gang violence?

Racial tension has to do with social equality not economic equality.

I don't see how big business has anything to do with what you have said except you asserted that it does...

Ever wonder why "bling bling"--the street term for symbols of wealth--is so important in the gangsta culture? These folks exist with little prospect for wealth due to their social and economic upbringing (yes, they could get a job, but imagine how hard it is when you don't even have an address, decent clothes, or even enough education to speak or write properly), yet are bombarded with images from the media (run by big business) depicting the pleasures of the upper class. Desiring such a lifestyle, they turn to gangs, where money can be easily found in less than legal ways.

I live in the south. I see white and black people go both ways, some want a lifestyle they are unwilling or unable to earn and therefore turn to crime. Others from the exact same social situation will work their way up slowly and do it legally. It has much much more to do with the individual and their work ethic than where they begin economically.

There will always be people richer than yourself no matter what you do (unless you are Bill Gates) I could just as easily complain about my lifestyle when I graduate from Law School next year and turn to a life of crime because I want to earn seven figures instead of six. Would you say it was a result of my economic situation?

There are not many people who do not have an address... and there are still places that will hire you without one. You just have to look at where you are and start working up, some people are willing to do the work, some aren't. I would rather get to work than sit around and complain...

Those who can find jobs may only find the lowest paid jobs open to them, due to their economic situation. Living from paycheck to paycheck severly limits their potential for movement within the system.

Not true. I have begun minimum wage jobs twice in my life and worked my way up quite quickly both times. I find it is hard work and not the place one begins that determines my wage. I may have to start at the bottom but I quickly rise to the top. Others can do the same with similar effort. I can give you dozens of examples of people I know personally including myself who have worked their way out of poverty.

 

[Comprehend]

I was kinda hoping you'd respond to post #42.

sorry, I forgot about it. I have responded above.

 

[Comprehend]

Actually, I think psychology has shown we are somewhere between the two extremes. A hard determinist (or B.F. Skinner) would say we could be brainwashed sheep.

But I would tend to favor the "between-the-two-extremes" option. Commercialization is heavily based on psychology and sociology...

*some* psychology might say that. Other psychology will say we are at one extreme and another will say the other extreme. We could have dueling philosophers all day if you like but we wouldn't get anywhere.

I'll see your Skinner and raise you a Kant and a Kierkegaard.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

sorry, I forgot about it. I have responded above.

Thanks!

I guess my best response is that we are attributing different causes to things such as racial tension and gang violence. I tend to see these as being cultural; but with the culture stemming from economic environments. I agree with the conclusion that many who are poor are poor because they don't want to work, though my premise is that they are so due to the culture they grew up in.

For me, denying that our heavily commercialized culture (commercialization stemming primarily from big business) has heavy influence on racial tension and gang violence is invalid.

But I'm looking at our culture from an entirely different view.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

*some* psychology might say that. Other psychology will say we are at one extreme and another will say the other extreme. We could have dueling philosophers all day if you like but we wouldn't get anywhere.

Granted, but I think they will all agree on the powerful influence of commercialization, and the psychological strategies and tools big businesses use on the public. I think.

I'll see your Skinner and raise you a Kant and a Kierkegaard.

I'm not a poker player, but I'll throw a Sarte in there for good measure.

 

[Aqualung]

We could have dueling philosophers all day if you like but we wouldn't get anywhere.

Let's have dueling banjos, instead. Then at least we'd be getting nowhere musically.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Work ethic gets people farther than they realize. If it is your job to mop the floors, make them look better than when they were new. If you are the assistant manager, have your inventory perfect, lead by example. Most industries you start at the bottom, work harder than everyone else and make the least money. Being hard working, honest, and on time will get you noticed.

Wealth has never came from labor. No paycheck is ever going to make you rich. Even the biggest paychecks shrink when you hit higher tax brackets. Wealth has come from saving and investing. Say you work for a company that is doing good in the stock market, invest in your company and you might get to share the wealth.

Perhaps you can't afford to save any money. You need to find ways to make extra money and save that. Most people just buy a bigger house, drive a newer car or take a better vacation instead of socking some cash away. It is not how much you save, it is getting into the habit of saving and keeping those funds socked away. Once you put the money away, keep it away.

Learning to live below you means is a challenge for everyone. Doctors and Lawyers have this same problem. You can't fight big corporations, but you can invest in them. The best thing you can do first though is invest in yourself. Get an education or learn a trade.

I know a guy who dropped out of school and slept in the back of his truck. No one would hire him so he started washing windows. He bought a pole, brush and a squeegee and used an old bucket he found. Ammonia cost him 50 cents to do a 35 dollar window cleaning job. He was hard working and honest and now he owns a company that employs 10 men and they do sky scrapers now. His house is paid off and he plans to retire when he is 50.

No one can import window cleaners. It is a low skill job, but in an age where people don't do windows, he had a market ready to be cashed in on.

eBay is another opportunity. People go to yard sales and list items for triple profit. I read in Money Magazine where a guy lost his job and he started a dog poop cleaning service. Everyone needs their gutters cleaned or their lawns mowed. Many people do it for extra income and keep their regular job until their business is going well.

If you hate your job, fire your boss! If your unsatisfied with your rate of pay, work for yourself and you will see that your service has a going rate, just like the job you have now does.

The problem is not with greedy corporations. The problem is you are not marketing your skills to the highest bidder. Be the best you can be and people will compensate you for your effort.

 

[Quiddity]

The first step in addiction recovery is to recognize that an addiction exists in one's self, and that it's causing some real problems. So far on this thread and others, I can't seem to get many people to even recognize this much, regarding corporate greed. So if you haven't seem me offering any solutions, yet, this is the reason.

Also, I haven't seen anyone here actually refute my positions, yet. You're saying that you don't see the problem, but that isn't really any form of refutation. That's just an expression of individual perspective. As human beings we all pretty much see what we want to see, and ignore what we don't want to see. And most of us don't want to see the unpleasantness of life, especially if we're complicit in causing it. So what you aren't seeing is not evidence that it's not happening.

Actually, what I said is that I think the problem exist, but I don't see it as large as you are painting it. Just remember that the very words you are using can apply to you. And there is nothing to refute if I agreed with you that greed is wrong.

But there is no disputing that many of our better-paying manufacturing jobs are going out of the country because the CEOs and share-holders of the companies that own those factories want to make more money by exploiting the cheap labor of other countries. This is ethically wrong, and because it's ethically wrong it has a very negative effect on both American workers and foreign workers and their families. And the claim for "efficiency" (maximizing profits) does not in any way excuse this unethical and damaging behavior. And pointing to the companies that have NOT done this yet, is not a reasonable rebuttal, either. So far I have seen no reasonable rebuttal. Especially for the unethical contention that a business's owners and CEO has the right to maximize profits by doing harm to it's employees.

Atleast not from me. I have no intention of providing a rebuttal to something I agree with. Our disagreements lies in that I believe business can still maximize profits without doing harm.