Corperations create poverty

Originally posted by finnegan
Joseph Rowntree, a successful entrepreneur but also a Quaker, whose first publication on the topic was in 1901, was the first to study in a competent way what it is that causes people to live in poverty, and other studies since then have consistently confirmed his work, one excellent example being an area study of poverty in a slum area of Nottingham (UK) c ...[text shortened]... liberals are hollowing out our economies and creating a social world that cannot be sustainable.

Interesting points but is Finnegan failing to analyse them in any other way: “Low wages are responsible for the present declining middle class.” Finnegan seems to have touched on another alternative to “low wage” being source of malady in point #2 below:

1- “Evidence shows that the middle class are a declining part of the economy and losing their comforts to an alarming degree, always under the Newspeak of neoliberal slogans.”
2- “The cold reality is that the neoliberals are hollowing out our economies and creating a social world that cannot be sustainable.”

Who is paying for this “social world?” Certainly not the “poor.” And not the “rich,” as there is simply not enough of the “rich,” even if taxed at 100%. Of course, if the rich were taxed at 100% there would no longer be a “rich” class.

It is obvious who provides the largesse to fund, as Finnegan puts it, “unsustainable social world created by the neo-liberals.” Obviously it is the middle class as they are the only group large enough and as Finnegan so rightly points out, the effort is definitely unsustainable as the middle class is crumbling under the weight.

Originally posted by Wajoma
crikey, if you don't like coporations you shouldn't deal with them.

Do really think people have a choice

Originally posted by crikey63
Do really think people have a choice

Sure you do, just go live as a hermit on Antarctica (the Wajoman utopia) and you'll never have to deal with corporations.

Originally posted by Quarl
Interesting points but is Finnegan failing to analyse them in any other way: “Low wages are responsible for the present declining middle class.” Finnegan seems to have touched on another alternative to “low wage” being source of malady in point #2 below:

[i]1- “Evidence shows that the middle class are a declining part of the economy and losing their comfort ...[text shortened]... s out, the effort is definitely unsustainable as the middle class is crumbling under the weight.

is Finnegan failing to analyse them in any other way: “Low wages are responsible for the present declining middle class.” Finnegan seems to have touched on another alternative to “low wage” being source of malady in point #2 below:

Despite your use of quotation marks, that is not what I wrote and you can verify this quite easily by looking back one page to what I did write. Note that quotation marks can only be used when accurately quoting your source and the use of quotation marks around invented wording that is radically different is dishonest and destroys your credibility.

You are falling victim to a simple scam in the way you describe the taxation of wealthy people and corporations. For one example (there are many) it is easy to demonstrate that executives are paying themselves a grotesquely disproportionate share of corporate revenues without the slightest reference to their actual merit. It has been shown in many ways and I do not intend to write you out a chapter of any book in this post. The justification of higher taxes on the income and wealth of the rich is that they are appropriating an unfair and unearned share of the common wealth and failing to distribute income and wealth in proportion to the contribution made by others, including the social assets from which they benefit and to which they should contribute.

Do your statistics and observe that the top 10% take such an immense proportion of the total wealth of our economy that this dwarfs the resources available to, for example, the middle class, despite the disparity in numbers. That is not earned and not deserved.

Any economic policy that fails to address the increasing concentration of income and wealth in the plutocracy is simply pointless. You are a victim of ideology and it is highly likely (I do not know how wealthy you are) that you are a typical example of what Marx called "false consciousness."

Originally posted by crikey63
Do really think people have a choice

There was a time when there were no corporations, people survived and prospered, corporations make that easy now.

You'd like to take the easy way then whine about it.

In history it has never been easier to live without corporations and all you can come up with is "boohoo, woe is me" grow a pair and make a stand for your "I hate corporations" and stop supporting them.

Originally posted by Wajoma
There was a time when there were no corporations, people survived and prospered, corporations make that easy now.

You'd like to take the easy way then whine about it.

In history it has never been easier to live without corporations and all you can come up with is "boohoo, woe is me" grow a pair and make a stand for your "I hate corporations" and stop supporting them.

I'm not sure how to reply to that , just nasty enough.

Originally posted by Wajoma
There was a time when there were no corporations, people survived and prospered, corporations make that easy now.

You'd like to take the easy way then whine about it.

In history it has never been easier to live without corporations and all you can come up with is "boohoo, woe is me" grow a pair and make a stand for your "I hate corporations" and stop supporting them.

What is this saying?

We should not place any regulatory restrictions on corporations because we can always avoid using them? That implies that we can turn to alternative providers and in a competitive market you are right enough.

In the absence of fair competition, unregulated capitalism will enable a minority of companies to establish a dominant market share and exercise monopoly power to the disadvantage of customers. The rival companies to whom we might turn in a fair, competitive market, will be driven out of business and our choices restricted to a growing extent.

In theory an unregulated market will result in new companies entering the fray, because large, monopolistic companies do not serve the market well. However, that is not going to happen without a fair competitive market place. In an unfair, monopolistic market place, new entrants will be destroyed before they ever threaten the dominant companies.

Originally posted by finnegan
What is this saying?

We should not place any regulatory restrictions on corporations because we can always avoid using them? That implies that we can turn to alternative providers and in a competitive market you are right enough.

In the absence of fair competition, unregulated capitalism will enable a minority of companies to establish a dominant ma ...[text shortened]... c market place, new entrants will be destroyed before they ever threaten the dominant companies.

New entrants may not be as cheap as large corporations because of their (large corporations) 'economies of scale' (means it costs them less to produce more).

New competitors can compete if the whiners did more than cry on message boards, but the truth is they like cheap stuff and whining on message boards is easier.

I repeat, with the availability of information it is easier than ever to disengage yourself from major corporations and form local co-operatives with like minded fellows.

But you see that is the test, and it's too much like hard work. It's easier than ever but it's still just tooooo hard compared to banging out another cry baby post on an anonymous message board.

Originally posted by Wajoma
New entrants may not be as cheap as large corporations because of their (large corporations) 'economies of scale' (means it costs them less to produce more).

New competitors can compete if the whiners did more than cry on message boards, but the truth is they like cheap stuff and whining on message boards is easier.

I repeat, with the availability of ...[text shortened]... ll just tooooo hard compared to banging out another cry baby post on an anonymous message board.

Sorry what exactly do you mean

Originally posted by crikey63
Sorry what exactly do you mean

It means if you think corporations are bad you should stop dealing with them, by dealing with them you are supporting them.

You're saying one thing but doing the opposite.

Stop dealing with them, form local co-operatives, trade within your co-operative.

In the internet age the information on how to do this is freely available, it also makes the task of forming co-operatives easier than ever.

Unlike the state which you are forced to deal with, corporations can exert no such coercion, you can choose not to support them, instead of just complaining about it.

Originally posted by Wajoma
It means if you think corporations are bad you should stop dealing with them, by dealing with them you are supporting them.

You're saying one thing but doing the opposite.

Stop dealing with them, form local co-operatives, trade within your co-operative.

In the internet age the information on how to do this is freely available, it also makes the tas ...[text shortened]... xert no such coercion, you can choose not to support them, instead of just complaining about it.

In all honesty my working days are virtually over, the point I was trying to make were the difficulties younger workers face. In order to form a cooperative, you need someone to cooperate with .Younger workers face a future without political and ideological unity , the're individuals . Working conditions in my younger days we're protected by strong unions, this is what I tried to point out.

Originally posted by finnegan

is Finnegan failing to analyse them in any other way: “Low wages are responsible for the present declining middle class.” Finnegan seems to have touched on another alternative to “low wage” being source of malady in point #2 below:

Despite your use of quotation marks, that is not what I wrote and you can verify this quite easily by looking ba ...[text shortened]... w how wealthy you are) that you are a typical example of what Marx called "false consciousness."

1- Finnegan: “Despite your use of quotation marks, that is not what I wrote and you can verify this quite easily by looking back one page to what I did write. Note that quotation marks can only be used when accurately quoting your source and the use of quotation marks around invented wording that is radically different is dishonest and destroys your credibility.”

I see your point clearly and apologise for my laxness with the rules. My point didn’t require this and it shall not happen again.

2- Finnegan: “You are falling victim to a simple scam in the way you describe the taxation of wealthy people and corporations.”

I did not make any mention of corporations or taxation of same, in my post. You can verify this quite easily by looking back to the top of this page. After your above complaint, I am surprised you are at ease placing words in my mouth. Invented wording is dishonest and destroys your credibility.

3- Finnegan: For one example (there are many) it is easy to demonstrate that executives are paying themselves a grotesquely disproportionate share of corporate revenues without the slightest reference to their actual merit.

Again, you are chastising me for a stance on executive pay which does not exist in my post. Since I made no comment regarding executive pay you haven’t a clue where I stand on that topic.

4- It has been shown in many ways and I do not intend to write you out a chapter of any book in this post.

Praise all the gods for sparing me that. Thank you, thank you very much.

5- Finnegan: ”You are a victim of ideology…”

Rest assured mate: I am no ones “victim”

Corporations are teh EVIL !
We should all be living in teepees by a river, chasing down our breakfast with a stick every morning and crapping in our back yard, as God intended.

Originally posted by Wajoma

In history it has never been easier to live without corporations and all you can come up with is "boohoo, woe is me" grow a pair and make a stand for your "I hate corporations" and stop supporting them.[/b]

I have a tendency to "sort of" agree. Though this sort of misses some points( I think). The main one is that,for society to fully benefit from advances in technology, health and productivity etc large amounts of money need to be pooled. This is particularly relevant in things like infrastructure, hospitals, schools etc. This needs a corporate style model. It needs large scale.
With regards to opting out I do not have access to food nearby that is not corporate controlled as even the so called local fruit shop is within the domain of Coles or Woolworths. We should not have to fight them on our own, or even as a co-op as the should NOT be allowed to do what they do.
Whenever we work for a multinational it becomes our job to inflict as much pain on our fellow workers as possible. Like gladiators of old, The corporate heads do not give a damn (actually, it is what they are trying to do) if we force one of their other sites to shut down. and opting out is not as easy as you make it sound. It should not be a choice that we should have to make.
I am not Boohooing for myself (My finances where generated in an era that the corporations were made to share.) I worry for my children and grandchildren. Also the boohoo thing is maybe a necessary emotion at the start of change.

Originally posted by FishHead111
Corporations are teh EVIL !
We should all be living in teepees by a river, chasing down our breakfast with a stick every morning and crapping in our back yard, as God intended.

Sarcasm noted,

But totally misses the point.

I believe that the corporate structure IS required, just not as it stands.