Why did our founding fathers hate corporations?

Topspin said:
I have the intellect to know you were a dropout.:fu:
Click to expand...

A dropout? Wow...really Topspin. Well, you know what, in the short time I had a mother, she taught me more about life, character and honesty than you will ever learn. When she died, and my dad was terminally ill, I could have said screw my 13 year old sister and 7 year old brother, they can fend for themselves. I'm going to put myself first. But it would have been an insult to the person my mother was. I would have been ashamed to look her in the eye when we meet again. I made the right decisions. I made more money in sales than many professional men. And I loved what I was doing. Sales is the ultimate 'people' profession. I set my own hours, didn't punch a clock, got to do a lot of traveling over the years and got to play a lot of golf.

A piece of paper doesn't make a man...you are living proof.
 
Dixie said:
Bfoon, I won't say a word about your education, what matters is your mind. In your head, you have a very immature and naive, almost infantile, view of what things were like in the past. I have noted this in other threads on other topics as well, it's nothing personal, you just don't expand your mind enough to realize things haven't always been as they are. From that perspective, you assume that "corporations" and the concerns our founding fathers may have had regarding regulation of them, is somehow transposed to how we should view "corporations" in modern times. This is just plain foolish.

I have a good friend in Birmingham, he owns an electrical contracting business. He has a retail outlet, where customers can come to the showroom and look at the various lighting and such, and he employs dozens of people, who go out and install the stuff, sell the stuff, keep track of the business, etc. HE is a modern "corporation" because he is "incorporated!" His business made over $3 million last year, but he is not what I would consider "uber-wealthy" by any means. He does live in a nice house, and his kids have nice stuff, and I guess he is doing okay financially, but he is not a rich greedy robber baron. Nowadays, THIS is the rule and not the exception, when it comes to "corporations" and there are very few "monopolies" left in America.

Putting this in historical perspective, do you know and understand, what would have happened to my friend described above? Well, when he first had the vision to start his business, and started making good money at it... some European King would come along with his army, and take his property...maybe even kill him. Then, they would own the wealth from his vision, not him. This was what "corporations" mostly represented in the mid-1700s, around the world. This was why our Founding Fathers had deep concerns about our government having the means to regulate them. But the definition of what a "corporation" was in 1750, is not the same as it is today.
Click to expand...

Dixie, nice try spinning the issue. The heavy regulations, restrictions and public obligations our founding fathers placed on corporations were placed on corporations that were owned by American shareholders, not a bunch of occupying hessian.
 
Topspin said:
where did I say congress navy boy, I'm pointing to you as uneducated.
Click to expand...
In my experience, having interviewed and sadly sent packing many of your fellow "degree holders";....I found many of them, like you, were too stupid to know what they didn't know....and not a trait I wanted to see in my company's employment....
Well, at least some of them could become financial analysts or even asst. managers.
 
Bfgrn said:
Dixie, nice try spinning the issue. The heavy regulations, restrictions and public obligations our founding fathers placed on corporations were placed on corporations that were owned by American shareholders, not a bunch of occupying hessian.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am sure, since "foreign" corporations were pretty much unheard of inside one's own country in 1750. But remember, American shareholders in 1750, were mostly British colonists and blue-bloods. Again, perception of reality for the times, is something that seems to escape you. In 1750, through 1776, when our Founding Fathers were debating the role of corporations, the role of government regulation of them, and the role of the people involved.. things were much different in the world, and our understanding of a "corporation" was extremely different. Most corporations of that period, were either owned outright by the government, or heavily influenced by the government, and mostly, that government was British, because... well... we hadn't formed our government yet!!
 
Dixie said:
Most corporations of that period, were either owned outright by the government, or heavily influenced by the government, and mostly, that government was British, because... well... we hadn't formed our government yet!!
Click to expand...

Heard of "too big too fail"? Everything stays the same.
 
Dixie said:
Oh, I am sure, since "foreign" corporations were pretty much unheard of inside one's own country in 1750. But remember, American shareholders in 1750, were mostly British colonists and blue-bloods. Again, perception of reality for the times, is something that seems to escape you. In 1750, through 1776, when our Founding Fathers were debating the role of corporations, the role of government regulation of them, and the role of the people involved.. things were much different in the world, and our understanding of a "corporation" was extremely different. Most corporations of that period, were either owned outright by the government, or heavily influenced by the government, and mostly, that government was British, because... well... we hadn't formed our government yet!!
Click to expand...

Dixie...the heavy regulations, restrictions and public obligations our founding fathers placed on corporations were placed on corporations that were owned by American shareholders AFTER the founding of our nation. You want to focus on the time period when the patriots rebelled against the largest trans-national corporation in existence at that time...The British East India Company.

The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
 
Bfgrn said:
Dixie...the heavy regulations, restrictions and public obligations our founding fathers placed on corporations were placed on corporations that were owned by American shareholders AFTER the founding of our nation. You want to focus on the time period when the patriots rebelled against the largest trans-national corporation in existence at that time...The British East India Company.

The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
Click to expand...

YEs. our nation was founded on anti-globalist sentiment. Now the globalists are trying to pervert our freedom once again.
 
AssHatZombie said:
YEs. our nation was founded on anti-globalist sentiment. Now the globalists are trying to pervert our freedom once again.
Click to expand...

When you go watch the nephew's little league game, do you shout at the kids 'don't swing unless that ball was wound in the USA?'...How do you call the dog...is the poor animal able to surmise your anti-global gibberish means 'here spot'? :whoa:
 
Bfgrn said:
When you go watch the nephew's little league game, do you shout at the kids 'don't swing unless that ball was wound in the USA?'...How do you call the dog...is the poor animal able to surmise your anti-global gibberish means 'here spot'? :whoa:
Click to expand...

those are funny and absurd scenarios, i rolfed. But the fact remains that globalism in practice is really fascism with an internationalist orientation to it, or internationalist fascism as i call it.
 
AssHatZombie said:
those are funny and absurd scenarios, i rolfed. But the fact remains that globalism in practice is really fascism with an internationalist orientation to it, or internationalist fascism as i call it.
Click to expand...

Even without globalization, corporations have destroyed the fabric of this nation. They have destroyed the 'local' economies that made America self sustaining communities. Trades, small neighborhood family businesses and the skills they produced and handed down from one generation to the next are gone, example: culinary skills...butchers & bakers.

And the corporate 'Wal-Marting' of America has also extracted the wealth from those communities and placed it in the hands out outsiders. Many of the public servants came from the local entrepreneurs and businessmen. Much of the community development came from philanthropy by those same local businessmen putting back into the community they grew up in and acquired their wealth in.

Now, we have to subsidize Wal Marts...

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. ref
 
Bfgrn said:
Even without globalization, corporations have destroyed the fabric of this nation. They have destroyed the 'local' economies that made America self sustaining communities. Trades, small neighborhood family businesses and the skills they produced and handed down from one generation to the next are gone, example: culinary skills...butchers & bakers.

And the corporate 'Wal-Marting' of America has also extracted the wealth from those communities and placed it in the hands out outsiders. Many of the public servants came from the local entrepreneurs and businessmen. Much of the community development came from philanthropy by those same local businessmen putting back into the community they grew up in and acquired their wealth in.

Now, we have to subsidize Wal Marts...

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. ref
Click to expand...

Globalization has allowed them to cut whole NATIONS out of their own supply chain. Globalization has made corporatism much more subversive and destructive.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Globalization has allowed them to cut whole societies out of their own supply chain. Globalization has made corporatism much more subversive and destructive.
Click to expand...

Globalization has made most manufacturing jobs extinct in America. America will never be able to compete with 3rd world wages and the environmental, working and living conditions those wages create.
 
Bfgrn said:
Globalization has made most manufacturing jobs extinct in America. America will never be able to compete with 3rd world wages and the environmental, working and living conditions those wages create.
Click to expand...

Socialism, high taxes, and unions have chased away jobs!

Socialism has also made our dollar worth less and less each day we live under it.
 
Bfgrn said:
Globalization has made most manufacturing jobs extinct in America. America will never be able to compete with 3rd world wages and the environmental, working and living conditions those wages create.
Click to expand...

Which is why globalization should be abandoned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top