How Disgusting Are Big Corporations?

Greedy Corporation Trick number 4733:

Have you noticed changes in fast food?

It used to be that you could get a burger for one price, and then add cheese if you like, for an extra upcharge. Fair enough. Seems reasonable, right?

Well, get ready for greed based fast food.

Now the cheese is included and the price is already higher. And if you want the item without cheese, no discount. You pay for it whether you want it or not.

Not all restaurants are doing this, but this is the new greedy corporation trick, and it is catching on.

If we don't care, they will all be doing it soon enough.

All we can do is identify the restaurants which do this and stop shopping there. That is the only thing they care about.

you know what's worse? buying everything in the world with fake money.
 
Not exclusively true. Cuba and China both have free market systems in place alongside their socialism.

Those features evolved after several years of poor performance by the state sector. But their major industries are still largely state owned or controlled. And, socialist systems can still have free market elements while remaining state owned.

And, it depends on whether we are describing things as they are or communist theory. "Real" communists would claim those nations are not really communist because it goes against the entire basis for communism. Some studies of comparative communist systems claim that in practice the only thing they have in common is rule by the communist party and identifying themselves as communist.

Most Americans do not identify as Democrats or Republicans. Most Americans say they are members of neither party. We are roughly 30% Dem, 30% Rep, and 40% Independent.

I agree that is how they identify themselves, but most of those people regularly vote for the same political party. Only about 10% are "pure" independents.
 
Hi Flash,

The thing that most people get wrong is believing we have to choose between capitalism and socialism.

Where is it written or commanded that such a choice must be made?

Virtually every nation on Earth has a combination of the two.

The trick is to get the balance correct.

We will forever be hopeless to solve a problem if we can't even properly identify it.

I don't think anybody says we have to choose between them. One of the big problems is that both liberals and conservatives now use the term "socialism" to describe social welfare systems. Even Denmark, who Sanders holds up as a model, says it is not socialist.
 
I don't think anybody says we have to choose between them. One of the big problems is that both liberals and conservatives now use the term "socialism" to describe social welfare systems. Even Denmark, who Sanders holds up as a model, says it is not socialist.

There are no socialist countries. The Repubs just use that label to rouse up the uneducated. The countries they refer to are capitalistic. They have private industries and people work like we do. The difference is that tax themselves enough to have universal healthcare and a decent safety net. We send that money top the top one percent creating an oligarchy headed for a plutocracy.
 
There are no socialist countries. The Repubs just use that label to rouse up the uneducated. The countries they refer to are capitalistic. They have private industries and people work like we do. The difference is that tax themselves enough to have universal healthcare and a decent safety net. We send that money top the top one percent creating an oligarchy headed for a plutocracy.

China, North Korea, and Cuba are all socialist nations because most major means of production and distribution are state owned enterprises.

Agreed about Republicans misusing socialism but so do Democrats who pretend socialism means an extensive social welfare system. None of those who call themselves socialist want to nationalize any American industries.
 
Hi Flash,

I don't think anybody says we have to choose between them.

I get that constantly from conservatives. I argue for common sense government programs to help the disadvantaged and they call it socialism and then they tout the merits of capitalism as an alternative as if we have to choose between the two. The problem with that kind of thinking is that capitalism has no obligation to promote the general welfare but government DOES.

One of the big problems is that both liberals and conservatives now use the term "socialism" to describe social welfare systems. Even Denmark, who Sanders holds up as a model, says it is not socialist.

I am not one to quibble about text book definitions. I just go with the general lexicon.
 
Hi Flash,

I get that constantly from conservatives. I argue for common sense government programs to help the disadvantaged and they call it socialism and then they tout the merits of capitalism as an alternative as if we have to choose between the two. The problem with that kind of thinking is that capitalism has no obligation to promote the general welfare but government DOES.

I am not one to quibble about text book definitions. I just go with the general lexicon.

The problem with the general lexicon (or any definition) is determining what qualifies. It usually means programs I dislike are socialist. Most conservatives would not want public schools, Social Security, Medicare, or their FEMA checks abolished. It also means I don't like programs proposed by the other party. Conservatives are defending "socialism" given farmers by Trump and liberals oppose healthcare proposed by Trump. If Trump proposed Medicare for all conservatives would support it and liberals would oppose it.
 
China, North Korea, and Cuba are all socialist nations because most major means of production and distribution are state owned enterprises.

Agreed about Republicans misusing socialism but so do Democrats who pretend socialism means an extensive social welfare system. None of those who call themselves socialist want to nationalize any American industries.

China is capitalistic and people can move from job to job. They are taking great strides to improve the environment and elevating the quality of life. NK is a dictatorship. Cuba is too but based in socialism.
 
The problem with the general lexicon (or any definition) is determining what qualifies. It usually means programs I dislike are socialist. Most conservatives would not want public schools, Social Security, Medicare, or their FEMA checks abolished. It also means I don't like programs proposed by the other party. Conservatives are defending "socialism" given farmers by Trump and liberals oppose healthcare proposed by Trump. If Trump proposed Medicare for all conservatives would support it and liberals would oppose it.

Trump could propose medicare for all and see what the left would do. They would back it.
 
China is capitalistic and people can move from job to job. They are taking great strides to improve the environment and elevating the quality of life. NK is a dictatorship. Cuba is too but based in socialism.

so you think china isn't a dictatorship?
 
Let us take a moment to recap what big corporations have done for us, shall we?

I can think of a few examples. I'm sure you can add more.

Basically, the decision-making is all about increasing profits; all else takes on far less priority. And how is that working out for us?

PG&E, the same company that gave us drinking water laced with Hexavalent Chromium:


"From 1952 to 1966, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) dumped about 370 million gallons of chromium-tainted wastewater into unlined wastewater spreading ponds around the town of Hinkley, California, located in the Mojave Desert (about 120 miles north-northeast of Los Angeles).[1][2]

PG&E used chromium 6, or hexavalent chromium (a cheap and efficient rust suppressor), in its compressor station for natural-gas transmission pipelines.[1]:[3] Hexavalent-chromium compounds are genotoxic carcinogens.

In 1993, legal clerk Erin Brockovich began an investigation into the health impacts of the contamination. A class-action lawsuit about the contamination was settled in 1996 for $333 million, the largest settlement of a direct-action lawsuit in U.S. history. In 2008, PG&E settled the last of the cases involved with the Hinkley claims. Since then, the town's population has dwindled to the point that in 2016 The New York Times described Hinkley as having slowly become a ghost town.[4][5] " (wiki)

That same company is now in big trouble for PG&E wild fires being caused by it's equipment, which is not made to resist the normal winds of the dry season in the tinder-box of California.

Boeing made decisions which resulted in two 737MAX airliner crashes which killed 300 people.
This is the same company which narrowly averted loss of life due to 787 battery fires. The rush to profits prevented safe measures.

Volkswagon decided emissions regulations were just too onerous
to allow enough profits, so they cheated the entire world out of cleaner air for more money.

Dupont killed more people than 911 in India with a gas leak from a pesticide plant. Safety regulations were bypassed to save money.

Bayer-Monsanto decided to sell the same chemicals used in Agent Orange for domestic weed control. Who could possibly have predicted that would not end well? They just settled a huge lawsuit after a worker using their product got cancer. That was only one case, with others sure to follow. btw, they also use the same thing on our food crops. Yummy!

Amazon placed ambulances outside it's warehouse
because there was no air conditioning, and the inside temperatures soared as high as 115 degrees, but workers there were not allowed to slow down or take a break. Also, if any dropped and had to be stretchered off, more workers were on call and waiting to take their place. Anyone who refused lost their job. The owner of Amazon is the third richest man in the world.

The Koch Brothers corporation knew there was lots of money to be made in the fossil fuel industry if only the public sentiment did not embrace a mass movement toward the green movement. So they embarked on a very effective mass PR effort to cloud the debate over climate change.

Perdue Pharma decided to become a 'legal' drug pusher.
They heavily marketed oxycontin and other pain medications, which resulted in getting a lot of people addicted, leading to destroyed lives, families and fortunes. But the Sackler family got incredibly rich.

ENRON corporation, along with Arthur Anderson Accounting, pulled off a mass deception which made it's stock appear to be a really good deal. Many Americans bought in. They got ripped off, the books were cooked and most investors lost nearly everything.

The Tobacco Industry marketed cigarettes to children. Get 'em hooked while they are young and you have a customer for life. Well, as long as that life lasts.

The Auto Industry resisted installing seat belts and other safety related measures. Ralph Nader had to shame them into it. Safety improved.

The White Star Line rushed the completion of the Titanic in a bid to have the fastest most luxurious 'unsinkable' ships on the seas. We know how that ended. Speaking of a mighty ship sinking,

The Trump Organization
defrauded 'students' of Trump University, promising them the secrets of wealth. The lesson they got instead was that the wealthy get that way by extracting wealth from the non-wealthy, any way they can. Lying is just as good a method as any. Trump settled for $25 Million to avoid the bad PR of a scandalous well publicized court trial. This was no one-time slip up. Instead, this was indicative of business as usual for that organization, with MANY such digressions having come to light since Trump took such a high-profile position as President of the USA.

I could go on and on. I'm sure you can add more to this brief list. The bottom line is we cannot trust big corporations to have our better interest in mind as they pursue more profits. We must have a powerful government with strong regulations to protect ourselves and the planet from this institutionalized greed.

Anybody who thinks government should just 'get out of the way' and let capitalism deliver for us? We should be asking them exactly WHAT they expect capitalism to deliver!

Capitalism is a way for people with capital to get rich. That's it. Capitalism does not provide for our needs and does not have our backs. Instead, we have to WATCH our backs with capitalism around.

Now, I am not saying we should get rid of capitalism. Conservatives should be sure to ignore my words here. We do not have to choose between capitalism and socialism. We need capitalism for all the good things it produces. Products, services, reasonable profits - these are good things! But capitalism has no reason to take care of people in need. That's why we have socialism. So we can 'Promote the General Welfare,' and 'Promote Domestic Tranquility.'

Our challenge is not to choose between capitalism and socialism. It is to strike the correct balance between the two. (Conservatives should completely ignore that and continue to argue as if it is a choice and we can only have one system.) Admitting reality is not conservative's strong suit.

Cherry picking fallacy.

Boeing also made the 757 and 737 aircraft some of the most successful aircraft in the industry. They produced so many aircraft that flying on airlines was no longer a thing of the rich.
Volkswagon lowered the price of a car enough for practically anyone in Germany to afford one.
DuPont lowered the price of bromine production by half. It also created cheap and safe alternatives to ammonia as a refrigerant.
Monsanto has helped farmers to feed more people.
Amazon is successful because they have products that people want to buy using a website that works quite well. Delivery of product by Amazon has set a new standard.
The Koch brothers never invested in fossil fuel. Fossils don't burn. Define 'climate change'.
Ford Motor company lowered the price of cars enough for practically any American to own.
White Star line is now part of Carnival Cruise lines, a successful cruise line company. The Titanic sank not because of it 'being rushed into completion, it sank because it struck an iceberg in calm seas at night (when it's damned hard to see them). All ships now carry sufficient life jackets for all passengers and crew and have sufficient lifeboats for all passengers and crew because of the sinking of the Titanic. A 24 hour radio watch is now on every ship at sea as well. That also began because of the Titanic disaster.

Capitalism is the only economic system that creates wealth. Without it, there would be no cheap steel, no cheap aluminum, no Titanic, no Carnival Cruise lines, no aircraft, no computers, expanded water and food supplies, electric power, or any websites.
You ARE advocating the destruction of capitalism, no matter how much you lie to yourself.
 
Hi Flash,

The problem with the general lexicon (or any definition) is determining what qualifies. It usually means programs I dislike are socialist. Most conservatives would not want public schools, Social Security, Medicare, or their FEMA checks abolished. It also means I don't like programs proposed by the other party. Conservatives are defending "socialism" given farmers by Trump and liberals oppose healthcare proposed by Trump. If Trump proposed Medicare for all conservatives would support it and liberals would oppose it.

I think the last one is going a bit too far.

" If Trump proposed Medicare for all conservatives would support it and liberals would oppose it."

While it is difficult to even picture Trump backing something for the disadvantaged, those who favor such programs would continue to favor them if Trump capitulated.
 
Hello cawacko,

'Big money and big corporations don't support and/or donate to Democrats.' That's a Conservative Myth.
Facebook. Twitter. Microsoft. Apple. Amazon. DuPont. Enron.
Please don't try to pin that one on me. I never said anything of the sort. The Democratic Party old guard is heavily sold out to big money. That's why the Democratic Party had it 'IN' for Clinton over Bernie in 2016, despite the fact that Bernie had more supporters, more individual donations, and bigger crowds.

Obama was also a corporate sell-out.
He screwed corporations but good...even the ones that contributed to his campaign.
The only difference in the two parties is that the Democrats are like the 'Republican-light' party.
Compositional error involving people as the class...bigotry.
Recently, grass roots movements have been making inroads into the Democratic Party with such figures as AOC. Time will tell if these new recruits stick to their convictions or sell out as their power increases.
AOC wants to destroy the Constitution of the United States and replace it with fascism by oligarchy.
 
Hello Cypress,



Thank you for voicing a reality.

I think the problem of making that calculation is the coldness of it. Very large institutions such as corporations mean that the decision-makers are well-insulated from those who will bear the brunt of those decisions. A small business is more directly answerable to the needs of workers and customers because people look one another in the eye, shake hands, and have a stronger connection with one another. Big corporate executives never even meet the workers or customers. If they make decisions that hurt those people, they don't have to feel as much guilt over that because those people are little more than numbers on a ledger, simply data, to them.

Since these cold calculations are institutionalized on a grand scale, it becomes imperative that regulation is equally institutionalized, and that the regulation cannot be tainted by the involvement of the regulated. That's a big problem because such corruption is currently totally legal in the USA. (But we have the power to fix that...)

EVERY business must respond to the desires of its customers. Big or small, it makes NO difference.
 
My philosophy has long been that regulated capitalism works quite well for producing consumer products.

Money and material possessions are only one measure of a nation's wealth, success, and prosperity.

The public commons, the social welfare, and the social contract of the nation needs to be implemented and guaranteed by a representative democratic government.

In other words, a hybrid economy. The model I generally look to is the quasi democratic socialism of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, et al.

There are no democracies currently in the world today.

The United States is organized as a federated republic.
Don't try to couch fascism as 'controlled capitalism'.
 
Very good, Poli. Just as I've been saying for quite a while. We need to take chunks of socialism to patch up the great gaping holes in capitalism and chunks of capitalism to patch up the great gaping holes in socialism. Neither system works as it is.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

There are no holes in capitalism.
Fascism is not capitalism. Redefinition fallacy.
 
Back
Top