Haven't been on the computer for a few days and this thread is probably dead, but I can't let this comment stand without a reply.
"And when the best use of a company's time, effort, and property is to condition minds to be more easily swayed?"
Give me one example where this has happened. Also give me specific actions as a basis for this statement. Vagueness does not work, you have to be able to prove this statement, otherwise it is just rhetoric. This is the type of socialist garbage that people spit out without any proof to back it up. It's almost not worth responding to but you will not win this argument by default.
"Or you could leverage the compulsive power of the state, as corporations have done with forced schooling. Children are now literally captive audiences for a 12-minute commercial called Channel One. Capitalism has wrought this travesty."
Compulsive power of the state was not created by Capitalism. It was a socialist scheme to take money from companies in a semi-free-market by not allowing them the product of their labor (taxes). Its those companies who can not produce that use the state to force producing companies to "compete" at their lower level.
As for schooling, it is a government run program not a corporate run program. If you were to open it to competition then the free-market schools would follow the same principles of a free market economy where only the best schools would survive and everyone would be getting a higher level of education because of it.
Capitalism DID NOT cause the travesty as you suggest. The parents bought the TVs and the video games. It is THEIR fault, not the companies that produce the products. Shut your damn TV off and stop asking someone to hold your hand and make your decisions for you. You are free to choose your own destiny.
tdogboy wrote: "You could say it is addicted to sucking up attention. It is definitely not us, but something else. It certainly involves us and can even masquerade as us sometimes, but those are times when it is most powerful and has us most in its grasp. I mean us as a society and at smaller levels down to us as individuals and even smaller than that."
then wrote:"Who has the courage to face it? What would that look like?"
You haven't even faced the reality that you are the only one who can give attention from your own mind. No one can take it from you. It is your responsibility to control yourself. Vote by turning off your TV, Internet or whatever place you find these "voracious appetite"s stalk you.
Let me start out by giving you the definition of Capitalism: An economic system based on private ownership of capital.
In other words you own your money and I own mine, and I have the free will to choose what I spend it on.
The problem is not Capitalism, our country created it by giving everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life liberty and property to be more specific as stated in amendment XIV (14 for you laymen out there) Section One. Hence the creation capitalism.
Communism is: A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
This is exactly how you "see 'em". As we all know from history. Capitalism wins, communism loses due to the very nature that one (Communism) believes that everyone is equal monetarity even though one may work and another may not. Capitalism says that you have the RIGHT to chose your own destiny and the profit that you accumulate along the way and where you distribute it.
Back to the origional discussion. People by their very nature try to maximize their profit (mentally and financially) by chosing the best use of their time, effort and property.
To sum it all up again from my previous post:
"Once you define it you will find that it is nothing new. If you want someone to pay attention you have to provide them with a VALUE. Something that a person would get for their attention."
What is the definition of Attention Economy that makes you think it is something new? This whole series of articles is about trying to come up with a story to validate the story. Just because you can conceive of a notion does not make it fact or even exist.
Once you define it you will find that it is nothing new. If you want someone to pay attention you have to provide them with a VALUE. Something that a person would get for their attention.
:: Solar IS capable of handling the load, all it requires is surface area, and I see a lot of empty rooftops in California.
That is the key factor, you need to cover so much surface area to equal the output of the current electricity producing facilities. Now let's say that was feasable to accomplish if everyone was willing to do it. The cost for all of this would be incredibly high.
:: Besides the standard ugly solar panels, you can also get solar cell shingles (in a variety of colors) and solar sheet roofing, if the appearance of your building is important.
Totally irrelevant to our conversation.
:: One of the major advantages is that it puts power production in the same physical location as the usage, minimizing line loss and the need for high-tension transmission capacity.
Good point. I'm not saying that we shouldn't use solar. It just isn't economically feasable at the moment, and until it is, there is an immediate need for more power and the only way to do that is with a new electric facility.
:: The only real barrier for solar is production capacity, but allowing consumers to be paid for power they produce would probably take care of that. There is a lot of unused production capacity right now in fab facilities that are capable of producing solar cells (though that may not be their primary purpose).
Now what makes you think that you are not going to be forced to give your power at lower than it costs you to produce (or recoup your investment) for the society because they don't want to pay that much for their electricity? You are in the same boat as the electric companies. Only now they will call you the capitalist pig because you want to own your own property and make a profit off it.
:: And, in fact, the number of plants that are down for "unscheduled maintenance" is suspicious to the inspectors who's job it is to make sure these same plants are properly maintained. I don't know about you, but I'll take their word over Duke's PR folks any day.
And what incentive would they have to do that? Their employers are going bankrupt and when they go out of business they lose their jobs. What could they possibly want to do that for?
:: It's interesting that you speak so matter-of-factly about something you admit you know nothing about. The government has very little to do with Mexico's financial problems, other than that they take a hands off approach. The wealthy in Mexico (I call them that because that's what they are), who are the folks who own the factories and other large businesses, keep wages low so no one can save up enough money to go into business for themselves. No one is being driven out of business by force, they just can't get the capital to go into business in the first place. That's exactly where America would be if not for the New Deal and the Socialist reforms it brought. As I said, review your history.
I say it matter of factly not because I have been there but because I have studied my history and read stories about the situation. Just because I haven't been there doesn't mean I can't see the result of their problems and failure of government.
As I mentioned before, this hand off approach to protecting individual rights and personal property is the problem. A better description would be turning a blind eye due to the corruption. That is why the wealthy stay wealthy and there is no money for new business. If you don't have money you can't bribe the government or anyone else for funding.
You mention nationalism in the next paragraph and I want to bring it up now. Nationalism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism. It is only a matter of time when the government needs money because they are spending more than they earn in taxes on Socialist "good" programs that they start Nationalizing companies. When that happens you get the death of rights. The right to your own property and right to chose what is the outcome of your labor.
:: The truth is that Mexico is far more Capitalist than America is. They are also Nationalist (which I think is the root of your misconceptions of how they deal with property), but that only means that you can only own property in Mexico if you are a Mexican citizen. It is absolutely not Socialist or Communist in any way, and that's why they have so many problems with poverty and crime.
It is impossible to be Nationalist and Capitalist. Read my above statement. Capitalism is only about individual rights and right to the produce of their labor. Nationalism is taking businesses and having the government run them and divy up the profit to the people (which inevitably falls into the coffers of the politicians)
:: Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-Socialism or anti-Capitalism. I think they both have strong merits as well as strong flaws. I think a balance between them is what's needed, and I think the balance we have here in America is pretty good. All I'm trying to do is make you see that the benefits you enjoy do not all come from Capitalism. There are a lot more benefits that you directly receive from our Socialist policies than you are aware of.
You can't have both, it is impossible. Capitalism is based on individual rights and property ownership. Socialism is about giving someone elses property to the faceless masses that do not produce. Most people want this combination because they think it is morally the best way. But what they are asking for is for companies to produce products and make money and to divy up the profit to everyone else. No one ever asks for people to do hard manual labor and give the money to public companies (it is the reverse scenario but it makes as much sense as the one we currently follow). Capitalism is the only way if you want to have rights. History (all of it) has shown us this is the ONLY way. And I stand firm in the fact that Capitalism and the resulting Industrial and Technology Revolutions - is the only thing we can thank for the fortunes of America. Not one socialist program has helped to do anything but take away the rights and money of the producers and give it to the undeserving.
:: Actually, my math is correct. The wealthiest 10% pay only 30% of the actual tax dollars paid. That's a well documented statistic. How much did the VP actually pay after al his rebates, credits, refunds, etc? A lot less than you think.
Let's assume that those statistics are correct (Which I am only doing because I don't have them in front of me). You are still talking about 20% more than they should be paying in a government where everyone is supposed to have equal stake in the government.
As for the VP I don't know what his return was. They didn't mention it. They did however take out a lot more from him than from us even if they refunded 99% of HIS money (you use rebate, credit,etc as if the government owns his earnings that they took from him).
:: Yes they did. Review your history. Any history book will reveal how completely skewed your view of the Industrial Revolution is.
I have reviewed my history, and when it didn't make sense I looked it up myself instead of taking what they told me as fact. Who decides which books we are educated on in school in a government funded school system hmm? Figure it out. If the history books mentioned anything about the government being the problem for the collapse of the industrial revolution and creating the stock market crash we would never see it.
:: Microsoft has so much money that they are essentially immune to Capitalist market forces. Whether their products succeed has nothing to do with whether they are better than their competition.
No one is ever immune to market forces EVER. I think you don't really understand Capitalism. Like I told you before, read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, not the Keansian crap they peddle now a days.
:: You are incorrect. The wealthiest 10% controls over 90% of the wealth, and yet pays only about 30% of the taxes (these numbers I got from the presidential debates, and they were verified by several sources). The poorest, of course, pay essentially nothing or get back whatever they pay. That leaves the vast majority of the tax burden to the middle class. Microsoft and Cisco, the two richest corporations in the world, paid no taxes at all last year (from a story that was linked from/. a few months ago). Many of the worlds largest corporations get back more in tax rebates every year than they actually pay (another article link from/. within the last week or so). So, who's really paying for all this stuff? You and I are.
The math here is incorrect. You have to take into consideration not the percentage, but the actual dollar amounts. (I also want to comment that the wealthy don't "control" the wealth, they OWN the wealth.. it is theirs). Now if you take that into consideration, the wealthy and companies pay 30% on the actual dollar amount of the 90% of the wealth of the nation. You and I only pay on 10% of the wealth.
An example of this is our Vice President, he made something in the range of 36 million last year and paid 11 million in taxes. I can tell you for certain that my tax bill wasn't even close to that amount! And what does he get from the government more than I do? He uses the same roads, he uses the fire and police department as much as I do, neither of us collect un-employment. So what does he get for that 11 million? NOTHING. He pays for us our share of the cost of the government. The problem here is that because they are only 10% of the nation they are not the majority, so in a democracy we the 90% feel it is our right to vote on programs and spend their money. It is a disconnect between the origional founding principle of this nation where people are responsible for their share and have an equal stake in the government. We no longer care how much the government spends because it isn't our money we are really spending. Why stop a good thing huh?? That is the problem with the US. It will continue to get worse.
:: The abuse I was talking about was the abuse of the labor force by Industrialists. Government regulation came about because Corporations proved that they couldn't act responsibly on their own.
Not true, corporations didn't "abuse" people, they paid what they were worth to sit and do an easy but monotonous job on a factory line. You can't tell me it took more effort to do this than to say run a mom and pop store or weave your own clothes by hand. They just paid their value. The industrial revolution gave everyone more jobs and also because it increased the wealth of the nation it no longer became necessary for a family to make their child do laborous tasks because they made more money for the family. The most common thing people say about industrialism is that it used and promoted child labor which is simply the opposite. Look at any undeveloped country who has never gone through an industrial revolution and you will still see child labor. The only thing we have to thank for our fortunate position is Capitalism. It is an irrefutable fact.
:: The problem with Microsoft is that they have so much money that they can play the attrition game with another company, who may have a better product, and they will win every time, simply because they have more money. Basically, Microsofts ability to compete has nothing to do with the quality of their product (which I think is poor) and there needs to be room for other competition, if only to force Microsoft to put out better products.
That is true that they buy good products to improve their own product line. The fact is that they can bring these new innovations to us faster and cheaper than the people that couldn't raise the money to sell their own product. They bring that innovation to us. There is no way anyone can say that some day, maybe, if people were nice, and the moon and the stars were aligned properly that that small company COULD have brought a better product to market. The only thing that matters here is that they DIDN'T and no one (not even our government) can decide what will be invented and what will not.
As a side note, attrition is a double edged sword. If you spend all your money buying out MIGHT HAVE BEEN products, you run a very serious risk of depleting your income and savings. If that were to happen and someone does actually have a better product and brings it to market, you have seriously handicapped your chances of competing in the market. This is basic capitalism. It works and it should be left alone to do its job.
It's been a while since I've had this much feedback, but it's good to see.
:: Regarding California's power situation, PG&E and SCE said "deregulate us and there will be lower prices". They lied. Everybody knew they were lying except, apparently, the politicians. In theory deregulation would open up the system so that anyone could become a power producer.
They didn't lie, they just didn't have time to pay for the costs of moving from regulation to de-regulation, make any kind of profit and pass on the savings to the customers. They went in dept to do this and then were prevented from recouping their investment.
:: In reality, anyone who can produce phase-matched power (which is pretty simple) can feed that power into the grid. The catch is that PG&E made sure that they wouldn't have to pay for that power. Basically, the current situation is because of two mistakes made by the deregulators: preventing PG&E from signing long term contracts (although there was good reason for this at the time) and preventing consumers from getting paid for electricity they produced. The fact is that power is not that expensive to produce, and the distribution channels were already in place and had been for some time. Currently the price of electricity is artificially inflated because of several power plants being down for "unscheduled repairs". So many are down for this reason that serious questions are being asked by people who have been in the power industry for many years. It's unprecedented. It's unheard-of. And it's very suspicious.
Electricity is expensive to produce. The cost of building nuclear, gas and oil plants is very expensive. If you are talking about solar etc, it is not nearly capable of handeling the load required for California yet.
The reason that they are down for repairs is because there aren't enough of them around to produce the power and they are streached very thin. That is due to regulations in not being able to build any new plants for over 10 years. While the demand has substantially increased.
There is nothing suspicious except for the lack of the government accepting responsibility for it's actions and instead blaming the electric companies.
:: You obviously haven't spent much time in Mexico. I agree that the government is corrupt, but it most certainly does not regulate business. At all. That's part of the problem with Mexico. The wealthy keep the poor as poor as possible so that they can continue to pay slave wages and make an obscene profit. Why do you think so many Mexicans are so eager to cross the border and pick lettuce for a dollar an hour? because it's a better opportunity than they can find in Mexico.
I have never been to Mexico, and it's not in all cases that the government is keeping others out of business by force. The reason some of these wealthy people as you call them can force people out of business is with the use or threat of physical force. The second part is due to the government not valueing individual property rights (the basis for Capitalism)and protecting individuals from these threats. In Capitalism, no one is ever allowed to take from someone anything unless engaged in fair trade based on values to the individuals or companies in the negotiation.
The reason the Mexicans are leaving is because of the opportunities here and the fact that they can keep what they earn. If it were Russia on their border you can be sure they wouldn't be going there, because what you earn belongs to the society.
Look back to the 60's when the infamous "Brain Drain" happened in England. All large number of their best scientists came here because they were givin the opportunity to use the best equipment and had the most money to do research. This is purely due to Capitalism. They left because of the socialist attitude Britain has taken on with their (extreme) regulations for the "good of society".
:: The Sherman Act is not about knee-capping established companies, it's about preventing established companies from killing new ones in their infancy. Preserving competition and consumer choice.
It is ONLY about giving people without the intellectual capabilities the chance to steal ideas and take by force (government) intellectual property and forcing companies to accept less than they normally would for a service to allow these non-competitors into the game. i.e. allowing shared time by the FCC in broadcasting, inept ISP's using cable and telco lines for less than it costs to maintain. I can go on and on. As I stated before, if a company breaks the law, they are accountable under the justice system. That is all we need.
:: I have to reassert that America is NOT Capitalist.
You are correct, however we are semi-capitalist (True capitalism has no government controls). The reason for this is that under our constitution we are given life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. When the constitution was created it put the individual above government, and in doing so created capitalism. It worked for a while until government regulation over business came to pass.
:: First, under true Capitalism there would be no wellfare of any kind. Corporations are the largest benefactors of government wellfare programs. They're called other things, of course, like Subsidies or Tax Credits, but really it's wellfare. Why? Because "what's good for GM is good for America". Under a truely Capitalist system many of the large corporations we have to day would unrecognizable, if they still existed at all.
I disagree, under the current tax system the wealthy and corporations pay most of the taxes (the wealthy 1% as everyone calls them) and supply 99% of us with the benefits. I.e. lower taxes, unemployment and other welfare programs. If they did not have to pay these taxes then they would not need subsidies or credits.
- As an example, take the budget for the state you live in. Divide it evenly among the population and see how large your taxes would be. You (and I) are getting the real subsidies not corporations or the wealthy. A subsidy or credit is not a valid term if you are giving someone back money you took from them.
:: Second, under true Capitalism there would be no Intellectual Property laws. No patents, trade secrets, copyrights, or trademarks. All of these create artificial monopolies. Whoever created the best product at the best price would dominate.
Ahh, now you are getting it:) You have an objection to this? "Whoever created the best product at the best price would dominate." - Bringing a better product to market at a lower cost to the consumers so they have more money in their pockets is only beneficial to all. That is why the industrial revolution created wealth. The value of the individual's work was ultimately worth more in purchasing power. We are all benefiting today because of it.
:: Strong regulation was required in order to acheive the standard of living we enjoy today, and that regulation is almost entirely Socialist in nature. The Industrial Revolution was a study in abuse and a fine example of why pure Capitalism doesn't work.
See my above statement as to why it did create wealth. In socialism governments control corporations, atleast their profits. Lets look at the California power crisis as an example. They deregulated the power industry and before the new distribution companies could make any profit and create better channels and more power to customers using that profit, the state re-regulated the industry and told them they had to sell power at less than it cost to produce. This was for the good of "society" to keep the price down. We all see the result.
The industrial revolution did teach us about abuse but everyone is not seeing the truth of it. The abuse was from the government. Take the telcos for example. The only reason they became a coercive monopoly is because the regulations created caused competition to be locked out. Same with the railroad, oil and steel industries. That is what caused the stop to the industrial revolution. Due to the governments mistake (the government created these corporate monopolies by their own doing), they created the Sherman Act (Anti-trust) to fix it. Unfortunately all that did was give people who couldn't compete a way to use the government to knee-cap the companies making the best products for the lowest price (Microsoft and the like).
:: Without the Socialist policies of FDR's New Deal, America would be in the same boat as Mexico is right now: Rampant poverty and incredible polution, all maintained for the benefit of the wealthy minority. Unless you come from a family which has been wealthy for at least 100 years, you enjoy your standard of living because America is NOT Capitalist.
You have it wrong. The reason Mexico is the way it is, is because of the corrupt government regulating businesses and locking out competition unless you can pay them bribe money. This will be our fate due to our current path and law-making and the way the anti-trust laws are made up to be open to interpretation.
:: In a society, everyone contributes something, even the "slackers" whos contributions may not readily apparent. What is a slacker, anyway? To my construction-worker dad I'm a slacker because I sit in front of a computer all day. To me, my manager is a slacker because I don't see how he adds value to my companies product. Does he contribute? Sure, he contributes plenty of procedures and requirements that make my job more difficult. Obviously the CEO sees some value in what he does, or he wouldn't still be here.
My definition of a slacker is someone who gets more than he contributes. Someone who's value is equal to their contribution to a company's bottom line or what value someone is willing to pay for the services you render. Somone changing toilet paper should not get paid as much as a programmer. Everybody knows this instinctively (Read the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith for a concise picture of an individual's value in economics and value to society).
:: I also think Bill Gates is a slacker, because I don't think he contributes to the rest of society. I see him taking plenty, but I don't see him giving back. There are plenty that are worse than him, but I'm trying to stay in context.
Bill gates is not a slacker by definition. He contributes by bringing products at low cost (and dare I say reasonable quality and ease of use for the current state of technology). He earns what he is paid. He brought PC technology to the common man and created jobs that I think most of us here owe our livelyhoods to. If you break it down, he created my job indirectly and I benifit from that. Why should he not benefit in cash?
If you follow the logic here then you can not reasonably ask him to give his personal property to society when they do not provide a benefit to him. His money goes to the part of society that builds his multi-million dollar house. They provide value to him. He gives them jobs directly and they benefit directly. If Bill wasn't there, then that construction worker would have a harder time putting his kids through college.
:: I appologize for the condesending personal attacks. Your origional post struck me as the standard/. uninformed, semi-coherent, libertarian flame. This one was much better, and I thank you for it.
That's ok, we got past it and we are better for it:)
Ok, I read parts of your original post incorrectly. My apologies.
I do however disagree on a couple points in your last post:
:: He knows that he ordered people to do things that are against the law.
That may be true but the justice system is in place for that reason. People who break the law need to be tried according to the laws. Now the whole problem with this is that we are becoming a lazy society and don't want to deal with the burden of proof. Hence the antitrust laws, this is a set of laws that give the government the ability to create retroactive laws after someone has done something. Hence making a company commit a crime after the fact.
We don't need antitrust. Our justice system does exactly what it's supposed to do. As long as you can prove that someone is guilty.
Capitalism is most definately NOT a democracy. That is the beauty of it. Each individual is responsible for their own actions. The only thing we need government for is to uphold individual rights and protect personal property. That is the only reason that the US is number 1 in economics. People were given freedom to be in control of their own life and the result is Capitalism (And the greatest creation of wealth for the majority of people and a higher standard of living in recorded history - the Industrial Revolution).
:: And no, society is not just a group of individuals. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A mere group of individuals could never accomplish the things that a society is capable of, good or bad.
I whole-heartedly disagree here. Society IS only a group of individuals. The whole is only equal to the sum of it's greatest contributers minus the slackers who do not contribute.
As an additional note. You have made compelling arguments. In the second post you made more sense to me and I do not disagree with you on some topics. It is the best response I have received from anyone on/. because it contained some facts. However I am disappointed in your use of personal attacks and condesention. You would hold more credibility if you just stated your facts.
:: Get real! Where the hell have you been the last ten years, under a rock?
Is that the basis of your argument?
:: Oh, right! It's all the government's fault!
Yes it is. No one can force someone to buy a product in a free economy without the threat of a gun. The only ones that have the legal means to use force is the government itself. There should be a separation of economics and state just like church and state.
:: Do you have any idea *what* a monopoly is?
Apparently more than you. I atleast define it, you however do not. Lack of definition does not imply that you know every aspect of it and just don't "care" to enlighten the rest of us. Prove your point or move along.
You claim that you want personal responsibility yet you say that you want the government to take a persons ability to decide away.
Then you say it is the root of all societal problems. For one that's a load of crap, you yourself say that people blame everything on an untouchable entity. But you missed the one example that truely matters in this case i.e. "big" companies.
Where do you get off with this statement? It is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever heard/read. Read your statement again and tell me you aren't labeling Microsoft the same way.
And communism is not a moral high ground. Capitalism is, it is the only one that gives people the right to make their own decisions and not have someone who is less of a man/woman (intellectually) making decisions for them in the guise of "The Social Good"?? Who is society but a group of individuals that have something to contribute?
Come on now. You appear to be highly opinionated. Can you back up your statements (the bullshit ones) with a fact or two? You lose all credibility if you don't.
I would say this article was eloquent, being forceful and all, but the definition requires the use of facts. There are none.
The only rights being violated are those of Microsoft. I am thoroughly disappointed in the companies filing the anti-trust case. No company can be a coercive monopoly unless the government forces others out of the market for them. Is it a crime to be a monopoly because you have the greatest market share? I think not.
Corporations can not use force in our economy without the government's help. If you don't like a product, Microsoft will not come to your house and put a gun to your head and make you buy it.
I sincerely hope this anti-trust case is thrown out. Otherwise it will be a severe blow to our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - which includes building a company and not having the government break it up becase it is successful and the competition can't create better products.
Re:Not so unusual - Maverick!
on
The Business
·
· Score: 1
correction to my first statement - Sherman Act of 1890
To deaddrunk:
1. They elected through revolution and not stopping government controls.
2. What is your definition of "evil"? Contorl from the top down doesn't enter into my definition:
Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or deprives a being of any good; anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury; mischief; harm.
The difference between a dictatorship and a company is you can leave the company. You have the choice not to be harmed.
3. Corporations have to be efficient in a capitalist society. Otherwise someone who is will win their clients/market. You won't find an efficient democracy, you have to wait for EVERYBODY to vote to get even one thing done.
4. Whenever you remove a person's right to ownership someone has to use force to take it away. The government is the only one who can do that. Hence the Sherman Act reference. That is one set of laws doing exactly what you are suggesting we do. Now we are reaping the results where companies HAVE to bend rules and do all the bad things you say just to stay in business.
The Sherman Act gives the government a blank check to write Retroactive Laws. What I mean by that is a company may not be doing wrong by the laws established in the current justice system, but the anti-trust laws can make a law and apply it to your business befere it was even created. Imagine if someone decides after the fact that picking up a penny on the street is theft or that you helped someone else in your office out to get a better result on a task you were assigned and called it anti-competitive and sent you to jail. Is that fair? It wasn't a law when you did it! But for businesses this process seems to be OK.
Your suggestion of stealing property from a business owner and give it to "the people" would only make this worse. Someone will need to force business to do this and then you get Socialism.
To Telal:
Seems to work well for who? The people that started the company and made the jobs that were taken over? I don't see many new ideas or business starting over there. If I'm mistaken then show me some proof that it works.
To RedGuard:
I don't understand what you are refering to.
To prizog:
1. A stock holder invests money and is only responsible for the loss of his/her investment (That should be pleanty damaging if they make a poor investment decision).
2. Absolutely, the owners should be responsible for it's outstanding loans and losses. That is just bad management on their part. Maybe that will keep those that don't know how to run a company from trying. Capitalism has it's own checks and balances, let it do it's job.
We the consumers vote (with cash and our time) on a company based on their product or service. No one forces us to buy their product. No one forces us to work anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Haven't been on the computer for a few days and this thread is probably dead, but I can't let this comment stand without a reply. "And when the best use of a company's time, effort, and property is to condition minds to be more easily swayed?" Give me one example where this has happened. Also give me specific actions as a basis for this statement. Vagueness does not work, you have to be able to prove this statement, otherwise it is just rhetoric. This is the type of socialist garbage that people spit out without any proof to back it up. It's almost not worth responding to but you will not win this argument by default. "Or you could leverage the compulsive power of the state, as corporations have done with forced schooling. Children are now literally captive audiences for a 12-minute commercial called Channel One. Capitalism has wrought this travesty." Compulsive power of the state was not created by Capitalism. It was a socialist scheme to take money from companies in a semi-free-market by not allowing them the product of their labor (taxes). Its those companies who can not produce that use the state to force producing companies to "compete" at their lower level. As for schooling, it is a government run program not a corporate run program. If you were to open it to competition then the free-market schools would follow the same principles of a free market economy where only the best schools would survive and everyone would be getting a higher level of education because of it. Capitalism DID NOT cause the travesty as you suggest. The parents bought the TVs and the video games. It is THEIR fault, not the companies that produce the products. Shut your damn TV off and stop asking someone to hold your hand and make your decisions for you. You are free to choose your own destiny.
I will give you another example. I will successfully ignore your next post without any affect on my well being.
Someone please start the drum roll.
Because I choose to do something about information I don't want by taking away the opportunity. I practice what I preach.
Starting a business from scratch takes effort. Building a house takes effort.
Moving your eyes from one part of the screen to another or clicking the X on a browser window that pops up does not.
I think they call this using your brain in social interactions with other people that use their brain.
Let's face reality shall we?
tdogboy wrote: "You could say it is addicted to sucking up attention. It is definitely not us, but something else. It certainly involves us and can even masquerade as us sometimes, but those are times when it is most powerful and has us most in its grasp. I mean us as a society and at smaller levels down to us as individuals and even smaller than that."
then wrote:"Who has the courage to face it? What would that look like?"
You haven't even faced the reality that you are the only one who can give attention from your own mind. No one can take it from you. It is your responsibility to control yourself. Vote by turning off your TV, Internet or whatever place you find these "voracious appetite"s stalk you.
Ikari,
Let me start out by giving you the definition of Capitalism: An economic system based on private ownership of capital.
In other words you own your money and I own mine, and I have the free will to choose what I spend it on.
The problem is not Capitalism, our country created it by giving everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life liberty and property to be more specific as stated in amendment XIV (14 for you laymen out there) Section One. Hence the creation capitalism.
Communism is: A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
This is exactly how you "see 'em". As we all know from history. Capitalism wins, communism loses due to the very nature that one (Communism) believes that everyone is equal monetarity even though one may work and another may not. Capitalism says that you have the RIGHT to chose your own destiny and the profit that you accumulate along the way and where you distribute it.
Back to the origional discussion. People by their very nature try to maximize their profit (mentally and financially) by chosing the best use of their time, effort and property.
To sum it all up again from my previous post:
"Once you define it you will find that it is nothing new. If you want someone to pay attention you have to provide them with a VALUE. Something that a person would get for their attention."
My question to the author is what has changed?
What is the definition of Attention Economy that makes you think it is something new? This whole series of articles is about trying to come up with a story to validate the story. Just because you can conceive of a notion does not make it fact or even exist.
Once you define it you will find that it is nothing new. If you want someone to pay attention you have to provide them with a VALUE. Something that a person would get for their attention.
It's called Capitalism.
:: Solar IS capable of handling the load, all it requires is surface area, and I see a lot of empty rooftops in California.
That is the key factor, you need to cover so much surface area to equal the output of the current electricity producing facilities. Now let's say that was feasable to accomplish if everyone was willing to do it. The cost for all of this would be incredibly high.
:: Besides the standard ugly solar panels, you can also get solar cell shingles (in a variety of colors) and solar sheet roofing, if the appearance of your building is important.
Totally irrelevant to our conversation.
:: One of the major advantages is that it puts power production in the same physical location as the usage, minimizing line loss and the need for high-tension transmission capacity.
Good point. I'm not saying that we shouldn't use solar. It just isn't economically feasable at the moment, and until it is, there is an immediate need for more power and the only way to do that is with a new electric facility.
:: The only real barrier for solar is production capacity, but allowing consumers to be paid for power they produce would probably take care of that. There is a lot of unused production capacity right now in fab facilities that are capable of producing solar cells (though that may not be their primary purpose).
Now what makes you think that you are not going to be forced to give your power at lower than it costs you to produce (or recoup your investment) for the society because they don't want to pay that much for their electricity? You are in the same boat as the electric companies. Only now they will call you the capitalist pig because you want to own your own property and make a profit off it.
:: And, in fact, the number of plants that are down for "unscheduled maintenance" is suspicious to the inspectors who's job it is to make sure these same plants are properly maintained. I don't know about you, but I'll take their word over Duke's PR folks any day.
And what incentive would they have to do that? Their employers are going bankrupt and when they go out of business they lose their jobs. What could they possibly want to do that for?
:: It's interesting that you speak so matter-of-factly about something you admit you know nothing about. The government has very little to do with Mexico's financial problems, other than that they take a hands off approach. The wealthy in Mexico (I call them that because that's what they are), who are the folks who own the factories and other large businesses, keep wages low so no one can save up enough money to go into business for themselves. No one is being driven out of business by force, they just can't get the capital to go into business in the first place. That's exactly where America would be if not for the New Deal and the Socialist reforms it brought. As I said, review your history.
I say it matter of factly not because I have been there but because I have studied my history and read stories about the situation. Just because I haven't been there doesn't mean I can't see the result of their problems and failure of government.
As I mentioned before, this hand off approach to protecting individual rights and personal property is the problem. A better description would be turning a blind eye due to the corruption. That is why the wealthy stay wealthy and there is no money for new business. If you don't have money you can't bribe the government or anyone else for funding.
You mention nationalism in the next paragraph and I want to bring it up now. Nationalism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism. It is only a matter of time when the government needs money because they are spending more than they earn in taxes on Socialist "good" programs that they start Nationalizing companies. When that happens you get the death of rights. The right to your own property and right to chose what is the outcome of your labor.
:: The truth is that Mexico is far more Capitalist than America is. They are also Nationalist (which I think is the root of your misconceptions of how they deal with property), but that only means that you can only own property in Mexico if you are a Mexican citizen. It is absolutely not Socialist or Communist in any way, and that's why they have so many problems with poverty and crime.
It is impossible to be Nationalist and Capitalist. Read my above statement. Capitalism is only about individual rights and right to the produce of their labor. Nationalism is taking businesses and having the government run them and divy up the profit to the people (which inevitably falls into the coffers of the politicians)
:: Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-Socialism or anti-Capitalism. I think they both have strong merits as well as strong flaws. I think a balance between them is what's needed, and I think the balance we have here in America is pretty good. All I'm trying to do is make you see that the benefits you enjoy do not all come from Capitalism. There are a lot more benefits that you directly receive from our Socialist policies than you are aware of.
You can't have both, it is impossible. Capitalism is based on individual rights and property ownership. Socialism is about giving someone elses property to the faceless masses that do not produce. Most people want this combination because they think it is morally the best way. But what they are asking for is for companies to produce products and make money and to divy up the profit to everyone else. No one ever asks for people to do hard manual labor and give the money to public companies (it is the reverse scenario but it makes as much sense as the one we currently follow). Capitalism is the only way if you want to have rights. History (all of it) has shown us this is the ONLY way. And I stand firm in the fact that Capitalism and the resulting Industrial and Technology Revolutions - is the only thing we can thank for the fortunes of America. Not one socialist program has helped to do anything but take away the rights and money of the producers and give it to the undeserving.
:: Actually, my math is correct. The wealthiest 10% pay only 30% of the actual tax dollars paid. That's a well documented statistic. How much did the VP actually pay after al his rebates, credits, refunds, etc? A lot less than you think.
Let's assume that those statistics are correct (Which I am only doing because I don't have them in front of me). You are still talking about 20% more than they should be paying in a government where everyone is supposed to have equal stake in the government.
As for the VP I don't know what his return was. They didn't mention it. They did however take out a lot more from him than from us even if they refunded 99% of HIS money (you use rebate, credit,etc as if the government owns his earnings that they took from him).
:: Yes they did. Review your history. Any history book will reveal how completely skewed your view of the Industrial Revolution is.
I have reviewed my history, and when it didn't make sense I looked it up myself instead of taking what they told me as fact. Who decides which books we are educated on in school in a government funded school system hmm? Figure it out. If the history books mentioned anything about the government being the problem for the collapse of the industrial revolution and creating the stock market crash we would never see it.
:: Microsoft has so much money that they are essentially immune to Capitalist market forces. Whether their products succeed has nothing to do with whether they are better than their competition.
No one is ever immune to market forces EVER. I think you don't really understand Capitalism. Like I told you before, read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, not the Keansian crap they peddle now a days.
:: In fact, they generally aren't.
That's not a fact, that's an opinion.
:: You are incorrect. The wealthiest 10% controls over 90% of the wealth, and yet pays only about 30% of the taxes (these numbers I got from the presidential debates, and they were verified by several sources). The poorest, of course, pay essentially nothing or get back whatever they pay. That leaves the vast majority of the tax burden to the middle class. Microsoft and Cisco, the two richest corporations in the world, paid no taxes at all last year (from a story that was linked from /. a few months ago). Many of the worlds largest corporations get back more in tax rebates every year than they actually pay (another article link from /. within the last week or so). So, who's really paying for all this stuff? You and I are.
The math here is incorrect. You have to take into consideration not the percentage, but the actual dollar amounts. (I also want to comment that the wealthy don't "control" the wealth, they OWN the wealth.. it is theirs). Now if you take that into consideration, the wealthy and companies pay 30% on the actual dollar amount of the 90% of the wealth of the nation. You and I only pay on 10% of the wealth.
An example of this is our Vice President, he made something in the range of 36 million last year and paid 11 million in taxes. I can tell you for certain that my tax bill wasn't even close to that amount! And what does he get from the government more than I do? He uses the same roads, he uses the fire and police department as much as I do, neither of us collect un-employment. So what does he get for that 11 million? NOTHING. He pays for us our share of the cost of the government. The problem here is that because they are only 10% of the nation they are not the majority, so in a democracy we the 90% feel it is our right to vote on programs and spend their money. It is a disconnect between the origional founding principle of this nation where people are responsible for their share and have an equal stake in the government. We no longer care how much the government spends because it isn't our money we are really spending. Why stop a good thing huh?? That is the problem with the US. It will continue to get worse.
:: The abuse I was talking about was the abuse of the labor force by Industrialists. Government regulation came about because Corporations proved that they couldn't act responsibly on their own.
Not true, corporations didn't "abuse" people, they paid what they were worth to sit and do an easy but monotonous job on a factory line. You can't tell me it took more effort to do this than to say run a mom and pop store or weave your own clothes by hand. They just paid their value. The industrial revolution gave everyone more jobs and also because it increased the wealth of the nation it no longer became necessary for a family to make their child do laborous tasks because they made more money for the family. The most common thing people say about industrialism is that it used and promoted child labor which is simply the opposite. Look at any undeveloped country who has never gone through an industrial revolution and you will still see child labor. The only thing we have to thank for our fortunate position is Capitalism. It is an irrefutable fact.
:: The problem with Microsoft is that they have so much money that they can play the attrition game with another company, who may have a better product, and they will win every time, simply because they have more money. Basically, Microsofts ability to compete has nothing to do with the quality of their product (which I think is poor) and there needs to be room for other competition, if only to force Microsoft to put out better products.
That is true that they buy good products to improve their own product line. The fact is that they can bring these new innovations to us faster and cheaper than the people that couldn't raise the money to sell their own product. They bring that innovation to us. There is no way anyone can say that some day, maybe, if people were nice, and the moon and the stars were aligned properly that that small company COULD have brought a better product to market. The only thing that matters here is that they DIDN'T and no one (not even our government) can decide what will be invented and what will not.
As a side note, attrition is a double edged sword. If you spend all your money buying out MIGHT HAVE BEEN products, you run a very serious risk of depleting your income and savings. If that were to happen and someone does actually have a better product and brings it to market, you have seriously handicapped your chances of competing in the market. This is basic capitalism. It works and it should be left alone to do its job.
It's been a while since I've had this much feedback, but it's good to see.
:: Regarding California's power situation, PG&E and SCE said "deregulate us and there will be lower prices". They lied. Everybody knew they were lying except, apparently, the politicians. In theory deregulation would open up the system so that anyone could become a power producer.
They didn't lie, they just didn't have time to pay for the costs of moving from regulation to de-regulation, make any kind of profit and pass on the savings to the customers. They went in dept to do this and then were prevented from recouping their investment.
:: In reality, anyone who can produce phase-matched power (which is pretty simple) can feed that power into the grid. The catch is that PG&E made sure that they wouldn't have to pay for that power. Basically, the current situation is because of two mistakes made by the deregulators: preventing PG&E from signing long term contracts (although there was good reason for this at the time) and preventing consumers from getting paid for electricity they produced. The fact is that power is not that expensive to produce, and the distribution channels were already in place and had been for some time. Currently the price of electricity is artificially inflated because of several power plants being down for "unscheduled repairs". So many are down for this reason that serious questions are being asked by people who have been in the power industry for many years. It's unprecedented. It's unheard-of. And it's very suspicious.
Electricity is expensive to produce. The cost of building nuclear, gas and oil plants is very expensive. If you are talking about solar etc, it is not nearly capable of handeling the load required for California yet.
The reason that they are down for repairs is because there aren't enough of them around to produce the power and they are streached very thin. That is due to regulations in not being able to build any new plants for over 10 years. While the demand has substantially increased.
There is nothing suspicious except for the lack of the government accepting responsibility for it's actions and instead blaming the electric companies.
:: You obviously haven't spent much time in Mexico. I agree that the government is corrupt, but it most certainly does not regulate business. At all. That's part of the problem with Mexico. The wealthy keep the poor as poor as possible so that they can continue to pay slave wages and make an obscene profit. Why do you think so many Mexicans are so eager to cross the border and pick lettuce for a dollar an hour? because it's a better opportunity than they can find in Mexico.
I have never been to Mexico, and it's not in all cases that the government is keeping others out of business by force. The reason some of these wealthy people as you call them can force people out of business is with the use or threat of physical force. The second part is due to the government not valueing individual property rights (the basis for Capitalism)and protecting individuals from these threats. In Capitalism, no one is ever allowed to take from someone anything unless engaged in fair trade based on values to the individuals or companies in the negotiation.
The reason the Mexicans are leaving is because of the opportunities here and the fact that they can keep what they earn. If it were Russia on their border you can be sure they wouldn't be going there, because what you earn belongs to the society.
Look back to the 60's when the infamous "Brain Drain" happened in England. All large number of their best scientists came here because they were givin the opportunity to use the best equipment and had the most money to do research. This is purely due to Capitalism. They left because of the socialist attitude Britain has taken on with their (extreme) regulations for the "good of society".
:: The Sherman Act is not about knee-capping established companies, it's about preventing established companies from killing new ones in their infancy. Preserving competition and consumer choice.
It is ONLY about giving people without the intellectual capabilities the chance to steal ideas and take by force (government) intellectual property and forcing companies to accept less than they normally would for a service to allow these non-competitors into the game. i.e. allowing shared time by the FCC in broadcasting, inept ISP's using cable and telco lines for less than it costs to maintain. I can go on and on. As I stated before, if a company breaks the law, they are accountable under the justice system. That is all we need.
:: I have to reassert that America is NOT Capitalist.
:) You have an objection to this? "Whoever created the best product at the best price would dominate." - Bringing a better product to market at a lower cost to the consumers so they have more money in their pockets is only beneficial to all. That is why the industrial revolution created wealth. The value of the individual's work was ultimately worth more in purchasing power. We are all benefiting today because of it.
/. uninformed, semi-coherent, libertarian flame. This one was much better, and I thank you for it.
:)
You are correct, however we are semi-capitalist (True capitalism has no government controls). The reason for this is that under our constitution we are given life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. When the constitution was created it put the individual above government, and in doing so created capitalism. It worked for a while until government regulation over business came to pass.
:: First, under true Capitalism there would be no wellfare of any kind. Corporations are the largest benefactors of government wellfare programs. They're called other things, of course, like Subsidies or Tax Credits, but really it's wellfare. Why? Because "what's good for GM is good for America". Under a truely Capitalist system many of the large corporations we have to day would unrecognizable, if they still existed at all.
I disagree, under the current tax system the wealthy and corporations pay most of the taxes (the wealthy 1% as everyone calls them) and supply 99% of us with the benefits. I.e. lower taxes, unemployment and other welfare programs. If they did not have to pay these taxes then they would not need subsidies or credits.
- As an example, take the budget for the state you live in. Divide it evenly among the population and see how large your taxes would be. You (and I) are getting the real subsidies not corporations or the wealthy. A subsidy or credit is not a valid term if you are giving someone back money you took from them.
:: Second, under true Capitalism there would be no Intellectual Property laws. No patents, trade secrets, copyrights, or trademarks. All of these create artificial monopolies. Whoever created the best product at the best price would dominate.
Ahh, now you are getting it
:: Strong regulation was required in order to acheive the standard of living we enjoy today, and that regulation is almost entirely Socialist in nature. The Industrial Revolution was a study in abuse and a fine example of why pure Capitalism doesn't work.
See my above statement as to why it did create wealth. In socialism governments control corporations, atleast their profits. Lets look at the California power crisis as an example. They deregulated the power industry and before the new distribution companies could make any profit and create better channels and more power to customers using that profit, the state re-regulated the industry and told them they had to sell power at less than it cost to produce. This was for the good of "society" to keep the price down. We all see the result.
The industrial revolution did teach us about abuse but everyone is not seeing the truth of it. The abuse was from the government. Take the telcos for example. The only reason they became a coercive monopoly is because the regulations created caused competition to be locked out. Same with the railroad, oil and steel industries. That is what caused the stop to the industrial revolution. Due to the governments mistake (the government created these corporate monopolies by their own doing), they created the Sherman Act (Anti-trust) to fix it. Unfortunately all that did was give people who couldn't compete a way to use the government to knee-cap the companies making the best products for the lowest price (Microsoft and the like).
:: Without the Socialist policies of FDR's New Deal, America would be in the same boat as Mexico is right now: Rampant poverty and incredible polution, all maintained for the benefit of the wealthy minority. Unless you come from a family which has been wealthy for at least 100 years, you enjoy your standard of living because America is NOT Capitalist.
You have it wrong. The reason Mexico is the way it is, is because of the corrupt government regulating businesses and locking out competition unless you can pay them bribe money. This will be our fate due to our current path and law-making and the way the anti-trust laws are made up to be open to interpretation.
:: In a society, everyone contributes something, even the "slackers" whos contributions may not readily apparent. What is a slacker, anyway? To my construction-worker dad I'm a slacker because I sit in front of a computer all day. To me, my manager is a slacker because I don't see how he adds value to my companies product. Does he contribute? Sure, he contributes plenty of procedures and requirements that make my job more difficult. Obviously the CEO sees some value in what he does, or he wouldn't still be here.
My definition of a slacker is someone who gets more than he contributes. Someone who's value is equal to their contribution to a company's bottom line or what value someone is willing to pay for the services you render. Somone changing toilet paper should not get paid as much as a programmer. Everybody knows this instinctively (Read the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith for a concise picture of an individual's value in economics and value to society).
:: I also think Bill Gates is a slacker, because I don't think he contributes to the rest of society. I see him taking plenty, but I don't see him giving back. There are plenty that are worse than him, but I'm trying to stay in context.
Bill gates is not a slacker by definition. He contributes by bringing products at low cost (and dare I say reasonable quality and ease of use for the current state of technology). He earns what he is paid. He brought PC technology to the common man and created jobs that I think most of us here owe our livelyhoods to. If you break it down, he created my job indirectly and I benifit from that. Why should he not benefit in cash?
If you follow the logic here then you can not reasonably ask him to give his personal property to society when they do not provide a benefit to him. His money goes to the part of society that builds his multi-million dollar house. They provide value to him. He gives them jobs directly and they benefit directly. If Bill wasn't there, then that construction worker would have a harder time putting his kids through college.
:: I appologize for the condesending personal attacks. Your origional post struck me as the standard
That's ok, we got past it and we are better for it
:: A ruthless, successful capatalist (Gates)
You say capitalist like it's a bad thing.
Ok, I read parts of your original post incorrectly. My apologies.
/. because it contained some facts. However I am disappointed in your use of personal attacks and condesention. You would hold more credibility if you just stated your facts.
I do however disagree on a couple points in your last post:
:: He knows that he ordered people to do things that are against the law.
That may be true but the justice system is in place for that reason. People who break the law need to be tried according to the laws. Now the whole problem with this is that we are becoming a lazy society and don't want to deal with the burden of proof. Hence the antitrust laws, this is a set of laws that give the government the ability to create retroactive laws after someone has done something. Hence making a company commit a crime after the fact.
We don't need antitrust. Our justice system does exactly what it's supposed to do. As long as you can prove that someone is guilty.
Capitalism is most definately NOT a democracy. That is the beauty of it. Each individual is responsible for their own actions. The only thing we need government for is to uphold individual rights and protect personal property. That is the only reason that the US is number 1 in economics. People were given freedom to be in control of their own life and the result is Capitalism (And the greatest creation of wealth for the majority of people and a higher standard of living in recorded history - the Industrial Revolution).
:: And no, society is not just a group of individuals. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A mere group of individuals could never accomplish the things that a society is capable of, good or bad.
I whole-heartedly disagree here. Society IS only a group of individuals. The whole is only equal to the sum of it's greatest contributers minus the slackers who do not contribute.
As an additional note. You have made compelling arguments. In the second post you made more sense to me and I do not disagree with you on some topics. It is the best response I have received from anyone on
-Shikizen
:: Get real! Where the hell have you been the last ten years, under a rock?
Is that the basis of your argument?
:: Oh, right! It's all the government's fault!
Yes it is. No one can force someone to buy a product in a free economy without the threat of a gun. The only ones that have the legal means to use force is the government itself. There should be a separation of economics and state just like church and state.
:: Do you have any idea *what* a monopoly is?
Apparently more than you. I atleast define it, you however do not. Lack of definition does not imply that you know every aspect of it and just don't "care" to enlighten the rest of us. Prove your point or move along.
This begs for a reply.
You claim that you want personal responsibility yet you say that you want the government to take a persons ability to decide away.
Then you say it is the root of all societal problems. For one that's a load of crap, you yourself say that people blame everything on an untouchable entity. But you missed the one example that truely matters in this case i.e. "big" companies.
Where do you get off with this statement? It is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever heard/read. Read your statement again and tell me you aren't labeling Microsoft the same way.
And communism is not a moral high ground. Capitalism is, it is the only one that gives people the right to make their own decisions and not have someone who is less of a man/woman (intellectually) making decisions for them in the guise of "The Social Good"?? Who is society but a group of individuals that have something to contribute?
Come on now. You appear to be highly opinionated. Can you back up your statements (the bullshit ones) with a fact or two? You lose all credibility if you don't.
I would say this article was eloquent, being forceful and all, but the definition requires the use of facts. There are none.
The only rights being violated are those of Microsoft. I am thoroughly disappointed in the companies filing the anti-trust case. No company can be a coercive monopoly unless the government forces others out of the market for them. Is it a crime to be a monopoly because you have the greatest market share? I think not.
Corporations can not use force in our economy without the government's help. If you don't like a product, Microsoft will not come to your house and put a gun to your head and make you buy it.
I sincerely hope this anti-trust case is thrown out. Otherwise it will be a severe blow to our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - which includes building a company and not having the government break it up becase it is successful and the competition can't create better products.
correction to my first statement - Sherman Act of 1890
To deaddrunk:
1. They elected through revolution and not stopping government controls.
2. What is your definition of "evil"? Contorl from the top down doesn't enter into my definition:
Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or deprives a being of any good; anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury; mischief; harm.
The difference between a dictatorship and a company is you can leave the company. You have the choice not to be harmed.
3. Corporations have to be efficient in a capitalist society. Otherwise someone who is will win their clients/market. You won't find an efficient democracy, you have to wait for EVERYBODY to vote to get even one thing done.
4. Whenever you remove a person's right to ownership someone has to use force to take it away. The government is the only one who can do that. Hence the Sherman Act reference. That is one set of laws doing exactly what you are suggesting we do. Now we are reaping the results where companies HAVE to bend rules and do all the bad things you say just to stay in business.
The Sherman Act gives the government a blank check to write Retroactive Laws. What I mean by that is a company may not be doing wrong by the laws established in the current justice system, but the anti-trust laws can make a law and apply it to your business befere it was even created. Imagine if someone decides after the fact that picking up a penny on the street is theft or that you helped someone else in your office out to get a better result on a task you were assigned and called it anti-competitive and sent you to jail. Is that fair? It wasn't a law when you did it! But for businesses this process seems to be OK.
Your suggestion of stealing property from a business owner and give it to "the people" would only make this worse. Someone will need to force business to do this and then you get Socialism.
To Telal:
Seems to work well for who? The people that started the company and made the jobs that were taken over? I don't see many new ideas or business starting over there. If I'm mistaken then show me some proof that it works.
To RedGuard:
I don't understand what you are refering to.
To prizog:
1. A stock holder invests money and is only responsible for the loss of his/her investment (That should be pleanty damaging if they make a poor investment decision).
2. Absolutely, the owners should be responsible for it's outstanding loans and losses. That is just bad management on their part. Maybe that will keep those that don't know how to run a company from trying. Capitalism has it's own checks and balances, let it do it's job.
We the consumers vote (with cash and our time) on a company based on their product or service. No one forces us to buy their product. No one forces us to work anywhere.