Lao Tse
Verified User
So you want amnesty to increase the taxbase? that seems left wing. see what a collectivist statist you are?
ATTN: NEOCONS... I have a plan....
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
So you want amnesty to increase the taxbase? that seems left wing. see what a collectivist statist you are?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Sorry, been away a few days on family business, but I wanted to come back to finish this argument with the ass...
Not ridiculous at all. You have already admitted they are unrelated.
If that is what "globalists" believe, they are ridiculous.
Again, a ridiculous position to have. Capitalism depends solely on a robust society, so how is destruction of society beneficial to a capitalist? Profit is indeed a primary importance to capitalists, but most of them realize they need a thriving and robust society to maintain increase in profit. This is why so many Corporations are involved in community, are contributing to society in meaningful ways, and are attune to the needs, wants, and desires of the general public.
Then why bother going to the expense of having a PR department and paying people to do public relations? It seems a bit stupid if they really don't care. Going back to the previous point, capitalist corporations are very aware of the advantages of a happy robust society.
Again, this is a ridiculous premise. You continue to try and argue that "globalism" is only interested in profits, and has no concern whatsoever, for the public it serves. Anyone who has ever studied a thing about Capitalism, knows full well, you can't have Capitalism when the people you serve have nothing to spend or no world to live in. If globalists destroy society, who is going to buy their stuff?
You keep calling me fascist, but you haven't shown me where I am being a fascist in anything I have ever said. You are continually promoting Socialist policy while attacking Capitalism and calling it "fascist" without any evidence. You want to tie it to Greed and Globalism, and present a ridiculous argument to portray Capitalism as some uncaring evil entity. It appears you hate Capitalism to me.
Propagandistic? Hmmm never heard that word, but... what do you call statements about Capitalism that defy rational logic and reasoning, while promoting an underlying importance of social causes?
No, communism is where everyone works for the state (commune) and all things produced are evenly divided among the masses by the state, or used in the function of the state. We've never been a communist nation.
Corporations have never dictated all policy. In fact, Corporations don't dictate ANY policy in the US, this is reserved for "We The People" according to our Constitution.
Me? A dumbass? You made the statement, I just responded with a question to it! Now you are claiming you didn't say what you said!
"I believe national policy should be more oriented towards maintaining the lifestyle of it's citizens instead of decimating america's working class for it's own short term gain."- AssHatZombie
Okay, HOW does the Nation "maintain the lifestyle" without any means of profit? Currently, we enjoy a pretty damn good lifestyle compared to most, but we rely on huge corporations making huge profits and paying huge taxes, to make that happen. You suggest we eliminate or restrict the ability of these huge companies to generate as much profits, which ultimately means less tax revenues, and less jobs... so how do you pay for the 'maintaining of lifestyle' in your idea?
My diatribe was in renouncement of Communism and Socialism, I doubt my Communist friends would listen to it any more than you have. Leeches who do nothing? Damn, there are leeches in every facet of the system, regardless of the system, it's like greed, it's not confined to Capitalists alone. In fact, most successful Capitalists are not "doing nothing" because they can't make a profit that way, it kind of defeats the purpose of being a capitalist. If I were going to be a 'do-nothing leach' I would vote Democrat and sign up for Socialist welfare!
I think you need to go look up the meaning of "Fascist" ...or better yet, just take a peek in the mirror. What you just said was pretty damn close to Fascism. It is the iron-fisted insistence that you are the empirical authority, and everyone else is wrong, and we are going to ultimately be forced to live with that or die. Propaganda full of generalizations is a fundamental tool of Fascism, and almost your entire post is full of these generalizations.
I have consistently said, unbridled capitalism without restraint, is not beneficial to society because of human greed, just as ANY ideology in purest form, is not beneficial because of human greed! I have repeatedly said, government (the people) have the obligation to regulate or restrict capitalist ventures to the degree necessary to compensate for human greed. Environmental standards, labor practices, working conditions, impact on public health or safety, etc... these areas should be considered with regard to capitalism, but this is where you have to draw the line. Capitalists are not being capitalistic to fix societies problems, they are doing so to make a profit.
I believe totally in "the power of the people" of any society, to have complete control of societal rules, capitalist regulation, and laws. It is inherently impossible to have this view and also be a Fascist.
Not ridiculous at all. You have already admitted they are unrelated.
If that is what "globalists" believe, they are ridiculous.
Again, a ridiculous position to have. Capitalism depends solely on a robust society, so how is destruction of society beneficial to a capitalist? Profit is indeed a primary importance to capitalists, but most of them realize they need a thriving and robust society to maintain increase in profit. This is why so many Corporations are involved in community, are contributing to society in meaningful ways, and are attune to the needs, wants, and desires of the general public.
Then why bother going to the expense of having a PR department and paying people to do public relations? It seems a bit stupid if they really don't care. Going back to the previous point, capitalist corporations are very aware of the advantages of a happy robust society.
Again, this is a ridiculous premise. You continue to try and argue that "globalism" is only interested in profits, and has no concern whatsoever, for the public it serves. Anyone who has ever studied a thing about Capitalism, knows full well, you can't have Capitalism when the people you serve have nothing to spend or no world to live in. If globalists destroy society, who is going to buy their stuff?
You keep calling me fascist, but you haven't shown me where I am being a fascist in anything I have ever said. You are continually promoting Socialist policy while attacking Capitalism and calling it "fascist" without any evidence. You want to tie it to Greed and Globalism, and present a ridiculous argument to portray Capitalism as some uncaring evil entity. It appears you hate Capitalism to me.
Propagandistic? Hmmm never heard that word, but... what do you call statements about Capitalism that defy rational logic and reasoning, while promoting an underlying importance of social causes?
No, communism is where everyone works for the state (commune) and all things produced are evenly divided among the masses by the state, or used in the function of the state. We've never been a communist nation.
Corporations have never dictated all policy. In fact, Corporations don't dictate ANY policy in the US, this is reserved for "We The People" according to our Constitution.
Me? A dumbass? You made the statement, I just responded with a question to it! Now you are claiming you didn't say what you said!
"I believe national policy should be more oriented towards maintaining the lifestyle of it's citizens instead of decimating america's working class for it's own short term gain."- AssHatZombie
Okay, HOW does the Nation "maintain the lifestyle" without any means of profit? Currently, we enjoy a pretty damn good lifestyle compared to most, but we rely on huge corporations making huge profits and paying huge taxes, to make that happen. You suggest we eliminate or restrict the ability of these huge companies to generate as much profits, which ultimately means less tax revenues, and less jobs... so how do you pay for the 'maintaining of lifestyle' in your idea?
My diatribe was in renouncement of Communism and Socialism, I doubt my Communist friends would listen to it any more than you have. Leeches who do nothing? Damn, there are leeches in every facet of the system, regardless of the system, it's like greed, it's not confined to Capitalists alone. In fact, most successful Capitalists are not "doing nothing" because they can't make a profit that way, it kind of defeats the purpose of being a capitalist. If I were going to be a 'do-nothing leach' I would vote Democrat and sign up for Socialist welfare!
I think you need to go look up the meaning of "Fascist" ...or better yet, just take a peek in the mirror. What you just said was pretty damn close to Fascism. It is the iron-fisted insistence that you are the empirical authority, and everyone else is wrong, and we are going to ultimately be forced to live with that or die. Propaganda full of generalizations is a fundamental tool of Fascism, and almost your entire post is full of these generalizations.
I have consistently said, unbridled capitalism without restraint, is not beneficial to society because of human greed, just as ANY ideology in purest form, is not beneficial because of human greed! I have repeatedly said, government (the people) have the obligation to regulate or restrict capitalist ventures to the degree necessary to compensate for human greed. Environmental standards, labor practices, working conditions, impact on public health or safety, etc... these areas should be considered with regard to capitalism, but this is where you have to draw the line. Capitalists are not being capitalistic to fix societies problems, they are doing so to make a profit.
I believe totally in "the power of the people" of any society, to have complete control of societal rules, capitalist regulation, and laws. It is inherently impossible to have this view and also be a Fascist.
Last edited:
uscitizen
Villified User
Well since I am convinced there is no hell....
Lao Tse
Verified User
No I haven't, delusional toad.
That is what they believe, and yes, they are ridiculous.
Glad you see it my way.
Because they want to convince people they do care. They're LIARS. Do you know that word?
Destroying society is the goal.
You believe policy should be formulated to favor coporations instead of society at large. And sometimes there's overlaps that are good for all, but where there is divergence, fascists choose corporations over other considerations.
Give a statement about capitalism that defies rational logic and reasoning and I'll tell you what I call it. I'm thinking I'll call it the truth, knowing your standards.
Right but you act today like any labor standard or protectionist stance is communist. We've had them before, yet we're not communist, nor were we at the time.
And babies come from storks. The influence of corporations on policy is quite astounding.
Im not for limiting profit, nor am I for financing lifestyle without profit. Im for putting business back into a normal moral context.
Middle managers make a profit that way.
Fascism is not about "believing one is right". It's a form of government where the values of coporate fat cats dictate the rules of the society.
Good, because globalization is capitalism without restraint.
It's funny you think government represents the people. That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. It should but considering it represents the desires of businesses and banks, it's a fascist government.
You think you believe that, but you are actually a fascist, believing more earnestly in the entitled attitude of businessmen.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Society is already dead.
No, we believe that policy should favor no one. Principle is key here, you rights-denying ape.
Capitalism is natural in a free society like ours, where our founding ethos are Natural Rights.
Usually I just argue that it's contrary to our individual rights, whether or not the measure in question fits into the ole red book...
Yes, but you have to hold hands and rub elbos first...
You are for limiting profit, and you are not a moral person. You are amoral, and just trying to have your way
Yes, and we just can't have any of that capitalism running around, can we?
It should function as it was written. Either side to an argument that speaks in Jacksonian terms is equally wrong.
That depends on if your new definition of fascism includes freedom and individual rights...
Lao Tse
Verified User
Please elaborate.
So the fact that it favors corporations should bother you.
But where does fascism come in?
That's why you usually look like an idiot.
But what about corporate influence in our society. Address the meat, not the glaze.
Im not for arbitrarily limiting profit, if profit is reduced from putting business inside some kind of moral, forward thinking framework, then so be it.
We can have it, balance with other considerations.
That all is subject to interpretation, and we're in the process now, welcome to the process. "Do what it says" is a copout.
What depends on my definition of fascism?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Doesn't seem to be very much substance to your argument, it seems as if you are simply pointing your finger at me and saying... "I know you are, but what am I?" You keep repeating the same points I have shown you are invalid, as if they are still relevant. You must either address the counter point, or concede you are wrong about it. You can't just stubbornly keep arguing the things that have been refuted. That would be Fascist.
I believe policy should be formulated by the people of society through representative government. If it is indeed "good for all" this will be evidenced by the results of my belief in policy. You seem to think that government should control corporations and capitalism should pay for societal issues and needs, and if anyone else disagrees, they are a "fascist." I don't know about that... maybe in the context that I am a Capitalist Fascist as you are a Socialist Fascist, that may be what you are trying to say, I am not sure.
Well, take any of the "all corporations" generalizations you've made in this thread, for instance. This defies logic and reasoning, because, "all" corporations aren't anything across the board. The generalization that "globalists" care only about profits, and are never concerned with the societal needs of the people it serves. That is an absurd statement because it defies logic. Profits are solely dependent on the welfare of the society, without a happy and robust society, there are no corporate capitalist profits, and the happier and more robust a society, the more profits are realized by the corporation and capitalists. So, to assume they don't care about society, is contrary to their nature and function. It defies logic and reason, and is anything BUT "the truth."
I don't act like that at all, if you have read what I have stated. I have also given you an accurate definition of communism, and we have never been communist, you are correct about that.
babies don't come from storks, but corporations do not control policy. You have now changed to "influence" and that is acceptable, I will agree, they do "influence" policy. As well they should, in that, they are providing the jobs, and money, for policy to be implemented.
But you ARE for limiting profit, or at least trying to force corporations to pay for all kinds of social needs, wants and desires they shouldn't be required to pay for. And you simply can't finance lifestyle without profits, so it's good that you aren't for that.
The only place business is not in a moral context, is your twisted view that all corporations are concerned with only profits and not with the societies they serve. This point has been refuted, it is illogical and invalid. Yet, you insist on continuing to argue on the basis of it being valid.
Welfare recipients do not profit from sittin on their asses all day? What are you trying to say? As I pointed out, there are a lot of "do-nothings" in society, under any societal system, it is a lot like "greed" it is a human trait, not confined to capitalists, socialists, or even bums. My only point was, capitalists who are "do-nothings" are generally not in the Fortune 500, and are not reaching their full capitalist potential, so they are more rare than you seem to want to believe.
It is authoritarian in nature, the "state" rules with an iron fist, and "the people" have absolutely no say in anything, the only considerations are what is best for "the state" which includes corporation and industry. We don't have that system of government, we have a representative republic, a democracy based on inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. Do corporations have influence? Yes, because they are a part of the group, like each and every American is part of the group.
Which is foolishness, because capitalism without restraint will consume itself. Human greed prohibits capitalism from ultimately considering societal needs, which must be met to maintain capitalism.
Well, now you throw "banks" into the mix. They are also part of a free society, and capitalism. Yes, they should also have an influence. There is still no Fascism involved, that has become your pet buzzword, because you think it invokes some sense of urgency to your unsupported view.
I am not Fascist in any way, shape, or form. You keep saying it, but you've not shown anything I have said to be Fascist. I have never stated that businessmen are entitled, or anyone is entitled. We are ALL entitled! Capitalism is important to the prosperity of society as a whole, because it provides the means for financing the lifestyle you think we should have. Restricting it, attacking it, taxing it more, is simply counter-productive to your objectives, because it is the hand that feeds you.
Lao Tse
Verified User
You just can't read evidently.
evidenced by the result of your belief in the policy? That doesn't even make sense, dude.
Government should weigh corporate greed versus the effect of that corporate greed on the rest of the society. Believing that government should operate only based on what corporation want is fascist, and what we are heading toward now.
Profits are dependant on the welfare of society? NO they aren't. individuals can all be indebted and in bad shape, and profits still be great, in fact, this is the case now.
Or profits can be made to the detriment of other consideration, like security, for instance. Is it wise to be empowering the chinese military buildup? No.
Yes, you do act like that. and I know im correct. Thanks.
You're off on so many levels. They OVERLY influence policy and as far as "providing for the money for the policy to be implemented" i have no idea what you're smoking on that one.
I actually don't want massive social programs, I want outsourcing and insourcing and illegal immigration to all stop so those opportunities can go to CITIZENS so they can afford to take care of themselves.
It has not been refuted or refutiaded, or repudiated. It is not illogical, it just is. How is it illogical to say corporations are selfish and not really concerned about society? You're a mental disaster.
They're mostly do nothings, they go to their board meetings and vote give each other more money every year. Real hard work.
We basically do, but we use different terms. For neocon shitbags, the GDP is the abstraction they serve.
Yes. Globalization is foolishness. Thanks for understanding.
I use it because its an accurate descriptor. Banks should have a say? Where do BANKS get a vote, in the constitution I mean?
Your every utterance belies your innate fascisticism.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Oh, I read just fine, I posted exactly what I read, and it contains no substance, it is simply finger pointing and brash generalizations, with the fascist insistence that I am wrong and you are right and I am a fascist.
Maybe you should try reading the entire sentence, and the one before to gain context? "I believe policy should be formulated by the people of society through representative government. If it is indeed "good for all" this will be evidenced by the results of my belief in policy."
The results of my policy will be apparent, in that, the people will ultimately decide if something is indeed "good for all" and not government or corporations. What is it you don't understand about that?
Government should do what WE tell government to do! Period!
That is your opinion, and a lot of people share it. Notwithstanding, if the welfare of society is not considered, and in fact declines, it effects profits. The only way Corporations (greedy or not) can generate profits and growth with sustained consistency, is when the welfare of the people it serves is thriving and flourishing. During recessions and depressions, corporations do not make a lot of profits because people have no means of providing them profits by purchasing their goods and services.
Well, you must admit, you are backing off of your original statement a bit. Now, we have established the truth, and it wasn't that "corporations control policy" at all, only that they influence it. Your opinion is, they influence it too much, and my opinion is, they don't. If they did, the Power of the People would prevail and reel them in, as it always does in a Representative Republic.
I'm not smoking anything, it is a simple matter of economic principle, if there is no corporate infrastructure making profits, who is generating the money needed to provide for the policies? You say that you think nations should be more concerned with the needs of society, than with corporate profits, so... without corporate profits, kindly explain where they will get the money needed to implement the policies? It's okay to be jealous of the rich, but when you start outright hating the rich and want their corporate infrastructure destroyed at the expense of social programs, you are setting yourself up for certain disaster, because we depend on 'rich and greedy' corporations for jobs and incomes as well as taxes and revenues, to continue funding social needs. You can't have what you desire without corporations making huge profits, it's just that simple, and unless you can explain how it's possible, you can call me a Fascist all day long, it won't change reality.
I agree with you on illegal immigration, as well as outsourcing and insourcing, but you are scurrying away from the bombastic commentary you delivered earlier about the evil corporations who don't care about society and are just out to make profits.
Well it is illogical! Why would a corporation not care about the customers who are going to buy it's goods and services? It would seem, in order for them to make a profit to begin with, they kind of need a public for this... maybe you know of some way for corporations to profit from having no customers and not being able to sell their goods and services at a profit, but I don't, it seems completely illogical to assume this is the case.
You don't know what they do, and you can't say they ALL do anything. Stop generalizing and point out something specific, because you are really sounding like a retard. Again, you can be jealous of "middle management do-nothings" all you like, that is no reason to attack capitalism or corporations, and has nothing to do with how much they contribute to the needs of society. It's just more over-blown reactionary rhetoric.
I never said that banks have a constitutional vote. They do and are allowed a voice in the debate, as they are a part of our economic system.
Fascistism???? WTF? Stop using words that don't exist!
Lao Tse
Verified User
Your policy?
WHo's WE?
No it's not my opinion that corporate profits can be be good but the society can still be fucked in some fundamental way. It's a fact. The two things can be at once.
Corporate influence nears or is total control. I back off nothing so suck on that dweeb.
Corporatation don't care about their customers other than their ability to make the purchase. The illicity banking industry allows people to go into personal debt to make these purchases.
They all REALLY DO NOTHING. I stand behind that.
Stop denying realities that do exist.
WHo's WE?
No it's not my opinion that corporate profits can be be good but the society can still be fucked in some fundamental way. It's a fact. The two things can be at once.
Corporate influence nears or is total control. I back off nothing so suck on that dweeb.
Corporatation don't care about their customers other than their ability to make the purchase. The illicity banking industry allows people to go into personal debt to make these purchases.
They all REALLY DO NOTHING. I stand behind that.
Stop denying realities that do exist.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes, MY policy of democracy vs. YOUR policy of Fascist Socialism.
"WE" as in, "We The People" ...I thought I clarified that.
Well, is attacking corporate profits going to somehow solve the societies problems or make them better? I don't understand your plan. Profits are realized when people buy goods and services, the less money people have to do this, the worse profits are. This is why it is fundamentally defiant of logic to conclude corporations do not care about society.
Well, now you are back to the original idiotic statement you made, as if to prove a point or something. Corporate influence is no greater or lesser than Special Interest influence. Influence is NOT control, in total or in part!
The banking industry has absolutely nothing to do with individuals choosing to go into debt, it is not their business to decide how much debt you want to have or think you can handle, although they often limit the amount of debt they will let you be responsible for. There is nothing "illicit" about the banking industry! Why do you continue to use the bombastic descriptors? Can you not honestly make your point? If not, what does that tell you?
You keep saying it, but it defies logic and reasoning. ALL means that EVERY middle management person, does nothing! That is inherently false, if it were true, it still wouldn't comport with logic, why would a corporation expend valuable profits to pay someone to do nothing? There is no reason or logical purpose for them to do so, and it is indeed, contrary to what corporations are in business to do!
Now, you can just continue to mindlessly repeat yourself over and over again, but you are looking quite the idiot my friend, because your arguments do not follow reality or logic, and all you can say is the same stupid shit over and over, and call me Fascist!
Lao Tse
Verified User
Our democracy is a sham and is actually Fascist Socialism. And we share them.
You rarely clarify much.
I've never "attacked corporate profiits". They may be effected however if corporations are longer allowed to run roughshod over society. Them's the breaks.
Something else you keep missing on this is that people don't have to HAVE the money to buy things. Credit is plentiful. So corporations can actually do well, even as individuals are in a state of massive economic insolvency.
Yes. Let's bicker over the meanings of words. Complete influence = 100% control.
Special interest influence is also wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, right?
They prefer people in debt, they give it freely, they raise interest rates arbitrarily, they deceive, they are illicitly bombastic in their approach.
You need to question your grip on logic and reasoning. All clues have left you, leaving you clueless.
It does comport with logic and reasoning. You are a falsehood.
You're an internationalist fascist.
Lao Tse
Verified User
Oh, you mean Dixie? Yeah. He's been totally refudiated, but says it's all just illogical over and over again.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes, you attacked corporations and profits, you even do it in this very statement, after claiming you're not doing it. Do you have OCD?
Here's the "breaks" you moron, if you burden business, you always hurt the consumer. Corporations do not pay tax! They pass any new expenses on to the consumer in the form of price increase. Do you think the do-nothing middle managers are going to voluntarily take a pay cut? What a fool you are, if that is what you think. But beyond that, you want to punish corporations for this mythical 'running roughshod over society' you keep crying about, but haven't given the first example of. Any time you punish business, you harm the consumer.
You can certainly "float" debt for a while, and many people do, probably too many. This is not unlimited though, most lending institutions will only allow you to obtain so much debt before they stop allowing you to borrow. If you fail to repay your debt, the lending institution often has some collateral they can collect to offset your debt. Of course, we have pinheads like yourself, now demanding my tax dollars go to help people who over-extended themselves and can't pay their debts. In any event. none of this can be sustained over an extended period of time, eventually someone has to pay the piper, and the end result is bad for business.
There is a vast difference between "have some influence" and "completely control." There is no bickering about it, if you think they mean the same thing, you are an idiot. I don't like special interest either, in fact, I am not crazy about corporate influence, but we live in America where we enjoy free speech rights, so it is part of what we have to deal with. Personally, I think it is not as bad a problem as allowing morons like you to post your idiocy in public forums.
Neither banks or corporations "prefer" people in debt, you dumbass. Stop making these idiotic statements which defy logic! Why the living fuck would a bank or corporation want you to be so in debt you can't afford to buy what they sell? It's the equivalent to saying Restaurants prefer your hunger to be satisfied before you come to eat. It makes no sense, and absolutely defies logic and common sense. You keep repeating this idiocy, but you have given no examples, you can cite no instances, you are just hurling your stupid baseless generalizations at them without even thinking, apparently.
I'm confused as to where you are coming from, what you hope to accomplish. It seems you are vehemently opposed to corporate America in its present form, but does that mean you favor Marxism? You don't like corporations making profits, but if they don't, there is no corporate tax base, so you can't pay for the "lifestyle" you expect us to maintain. There is also no jobs, so people are unable to provide their own "lifestyle" and you don't seem to have an answer for how society pays for their lifestyle, without corporations making profits and providing jobs. You claim society is a victim to corporate profits, and you are standing up for the little guy, but you fail to explain how attacking corporations (who provide income and jobs) is supposed to help the little guy! In short, your mindless rant answers no questions, and provides no solution. You are simply exhibiting an emotive response, based on some stupid propaganda you've read, and I've soundly debunked for you here. Instead of taking it all in with an open mind, you've resorted to calling me a Fascist and insisting you are right in spite of defying logic. You've literally come down to one-line quips of denial in the face of facts you can't address, which just makes you more ignorant than when you started. I would suggest you just shut up, because like credit, smarts are limited.
Lao Tse
Verified User
Hey douchey. Profits may go down if businesses are forced to operate within a different set of parameters than the current NO PARAMETERS situation. That's not an attack on profits. Sometimes criminals make less profit when they switch from crime to a legitimate career, that's a long term improvement for him and society, not SOCIALISM or an ATTACK ON PROFITS.
Epicurus
Reasonable
What else should I do "for society" fascist?
Lao Tse
Verified User
How about just NOT allowing corporations to alter immigration policy to manipulate the labor market? Laborers deserve the traditional and inherent labor market protection of a controlled border and citizen friendly immigration policy.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Here is the problem, broken down in the simplest terms I can think of...
Whenever you restrict or regulate business, the result is never going to ultimately be a reduction in their profits. They will pass the cost on to the consumer in increased price, they will lay off workers, they will phase jobs out an not hire new workers to replace old ones, they will cut advertising and PR budgets, they will stop funding educational partnership programs and scholarships, but they will not EVER cut profits. Why? Because they are beholden to the stockholders. The CEO's will still make the same amount, the company profits will remain about the same, but society will ultimately suffer more as a result of your 'new set of parameters.'
Not to mention the fact that you expect Government to oversee this set of parameters, and the Government has proven itself to be totally inefficient at anything related to managing business and money.
Corporations have parameters, you are again going to your 'extremist' bag and grabbing a generalization that doesn't apply, to create false alarm and panic. We have a number of regulatory commissions who make sure Corporate Greed doesn't run amok. We fund and pay for an Environmental Protection Agency, to make sure greedy capitalists don't destroy the environment. We have numerous and countless government regulations and restrictions on capitalist corporate ventures, and to pretend or fantasize this is somehow not the case, is either ignorance or schizophrenia. To state that there is NO PARAMETERS, is a flat out LIE!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Let me take time out from ripping you a new asshat, to let you know I am in agreement with you on this issue. It is a good example of what I said earlier, regarding the need for some restraint of capitalism. Greed and Capitalism is behind the lack of action regarding illegal immigration. This is indeed an instance where "We The People" should step in and regulate/restrict capitalism.
In most cases, we should strive to allow commercial enterprise to flourish and profit, because when they do, we all win. It is important not to burden corporations with unnecessary regulations and restrictions, because it always effects consumers to do so. Even the situation we agree on, illegal immigration, will ultimately effect consumers if we prevail in the restriction on hiring them. Our produce will skyrocket in price, because we are going to pay for the increase in labor costs in the end. But it is an issue that is fundamentally more important than a $4 head of lettuce.