Corporations-your views on them

[BWS]

What do you think about large companies?
Do you think they are good, bad, other for society?
Why do you feel this way?
How about the financial aspects involved?

Once again, im just curious to see how people view large companies. I will try to respond here; my last thread I just read without any replies. Thanks.

[Flirp]

large corporations=good
how can they be large if no one buys from them

[BWS]

At 9/16/03 11:44 PM, Flirp wrote: large corporations=good
how can they be large if no one buys from them

I want more of an in depth approach here. How do they affect society? What do you feel they do good/bad?
Im not looking at how they market their product.

[karasz]

At 9/16/03 11:40 PM, BWS wrote: What do you think about large companies?

they have a path of survival liek anything, they do what they have to do to survive.

Do you think they are good, bad, other for society?

great for me, bad for the 3rd world places that work there...

Why do you feel this way?'

cuz they use people to produce a shitload of the same thing and they pay those people little... i mean i dont like it, but if i were in charge of a corporation iw ould do the same thing

How about the financial aspects involved?

nike for example costs way to fucking much, but if people pay for it its all good...

same thing with airplane tickets and college books... cost way to much but people are either too lazy or stupid to fight for better costs...

[BWS]

At 9/17/03 12:25 AM, karasz wrote:

At 9/16/03 11:40 PM, BWS wrote:

same thing with airplane tickets and college books... cost way to much but people are either too lazy or stupid to fight for better costs...

Its true. The problem lies in the type of market conditions they have, and their supply and demand curves. They are Monopolistically competitive, and so they can set prices a bit higher. Thanks for the input.

[OpIvy420]

I don't think massive corporations are good for our society. At the moment, there are only six massive conglomerates controlling all companies, all media in the United States. In 1990, there were twenty. At this rate, it won't be long until there is a single corporation controlling all government, all media, all business, in the entire country. At this point, how would this be any different from communism? This is my theory: Extreme capitalism will yield communism.

[stafffighter]

I dont think coporations are inherently evil. I just think that the biggest ones tend to have not gotten there honestly.

[BWS]

At 9/17/03 12:34 AM, OpIvy420 wrote: I don't think massive corporations are good for our society. At the moment, there are only six massive conglomerates controlling all companies, all media in the United States. In 1990, there were twenty. At this rate, it won't be long until there is a single corporation controlling all government, all media, all business, in the entire country. At this point, how would this be any different from communism? This is my theory: Extreme capitalism will yield communism.

I dont know where you get your information from bro. Dont you think that your presumptions are a bit excessive? I mean, we are entitled to our opinions, of course, but these seem very unfounded. And they dont control the government (Lobbiests manipulate it, but there are tons of them); also, contributions are made by much more than six corporations. Your theory has been written about before; at the moment, I forget who wrote about it. Anyways, thanks.

[The-Darklands]

For the economy large corporations can have both a negative and positive effect. It all depends on what they are selling. Larger corporations can dominate the market and form monopolies, which used to be quickly broken up before bush, clinton, bush era. Once a single company dominates a market it is a very bad situation for the consumer, but if many corporations are battling for dominance it is good for us. Given they haven't formed a coalition they will have price wars. Thus the consumer pays little for what in a regular market could cost a lot. This price war is bad for the 3rd world country the company decided to evade taxes from. They will pay less and less. Also safety conditions are expensive to uphold so... and so on. Its better to buy from a small company, your more likely to get your monies worth. Is that how you spell monies?

[BWS]

At 9/17/03 01:02 AM, miket311 wrote: For the economy large corporations can have both a negative and positive effect. It all depends on what they are selling. Larger corporations can dominate the market and form monopolies, which used to be quickly broken up before bush, clinton, bush era. Once a single company dominates a market it is a very bad situation for the consumer, but if many corporations are battling for dominance it is good for us. Given they haven't formed a coalition they will have price wars. Thus the consumer pays little for what in a regular market could cost a lot. This price war is bad for the 3rd world country the company decided to evade taxes from. They will pay less and less. Also safety conditions are expensive to uphold so... and so on. Its better to buy from a small company, your more likely to get your monies worth. Is that how you spell monies?

Oligopolies do overprice their product, however they still have to adhere to certain equilibrium conditions within the market. Monopolies pretty much never exist though; usually the only way this can happen is through government grants. I not quits sure what youre getting at about tax evasion. Also, you get your moneys worth from small companies because they are nearly perfectly competitive; they have to sell at the equilibrium point because of the marginal revenue curves they have. Thanks...very good for a first post!!

[Slizor]

What do you think about large companies?

They are not intrinsically bad (although they do exploit people, as is the nature of Capitalism.)

Do you think they are good, bad, other for society?

They are bad.

Why do you feel this way?

Because they control most political opinion and most political parties through lobbysts, media control, etc. They are not getting rid of free speech, they are just putting it on ideological rails which will lead people to their conclusions. Plus, I'd prefer a lot of little dogs rather than one big one.

Unity is power.

How about the financial aspects involved?

Eh? Rephrase that question, seems out of context.

[FUNKbrs]

My main problem with corporations is that they act like goverments. It's open rebellion. Accusations of treason work better than lawsuits, and immoral CEO's would straighten RIGHT the fuck up.

[BWS]

At 9/17/03 07:31 AM, Slizor wrote:

What do you think about large companies?

They are not intrinsically bad (although they do exploit people, as is the nature of Capitalism.)

Why do you feel that they exploit people?

Do you think they are good, bad, other for society?

They are bad.

Why? They present jobs, and, for the most part, offer products cheaper than they would normally be due to their allocation of capital.

Why do you feel this way?

Because they control most political opinion and most political parties through lobbysts, media control, etc. They are not getting rid of free speech, they are just putting it on ideological rails which will lead people to their conclusions. Plus, I'd prefer a lot of little dogs rather than one big one.

Well, there are plenty of lobiests that have just as much control, yet they have no corporate affiliation. Im not sure about what you mean by them getting rid of free speach and whatnot. Also, why have many small companies when a few larger ones will sell the product cheaper?

Unity is power.

How about the financial aspects involved?

Eh? Rephrase that question, seems out of context.

The fact that they have control over vast amounts of financial capital. This has many implications and can create both good and bad outcomes.
Thanks, good post!

[BWS]

At 9/17/03 01:33 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: My main problem with corporations is that they act like goverments. It's open rebellion. Accusations of treason work better than lawsuits, and immoral CEO's would straighten RIGHT the fuck up.

In order to run a large size company, there must be a hierarchy of control and areas under which the control is to be spread. Treason?! Funk, lets just shoot the fuckers point blank; why not, right?! :) Besides, we would have to kill the CFO's and Controlers too.
Funk, um, ya.

[The-Darklands]

To clear up the tax evasion, Large corporations have enough money to move their HQ to a 3rd countries and still won't have to pay import taxes. Explaining this is proving difficult. When a corp. is based in the US it has to pay extra taxes on its profits. When you move the HQ you no longer have to. It might only work if you move to a territory so its not considered an import. So yeah I pay more taxes so ceos can get more classy hookers end of story

[BWS]

At 9/17/03 04:00 PM, miket311 wrote: To clear up the tax evasion, Large corporations have enough money to move their HQ to a 3rd countries and still won't have to pay import taxes. Explaining this is proving difficult. When a corp. is based in the US it has to pay extra taxes on its profits. When you move the HQ you no longer have to. It might only work if you move to a territory so its not considered an import. So yeah I pay more taxes so ceos can get more classy hookers end of story

Sorry to inform you, but you are wrong about this. The reason why is because if income is earned in the U.S. you pay tax in the U.S.; you cannot avoid U.S. tax by merely moving you HQ to a foreign country and still conducting business in the U.S.; if it is a U.S. Corp, it pays U.S. taxes despite location. Import income from a Foreign Corp is only not taxed if the U.S. has a tax treaty with the other nation. Also, moving to another country because of labor costs doesnt always save you money because despite paying less for labor, the employees lack the human capital/resources to make up for the pay; they work cheaper, but arent as efficient.
Thanks for the post.

[Kenney333]

Large corporations tend to put profits over people, they are willing to damage society to get more profit.

But I really think that corporations have way to much power/control, how can a corporation be aloud to partially control the world if they're arn't even any elections to decide who runs those corporations.

Thats the problem with "freedom", sure the government is "democratic", but the undemocratic corporations are free to abbuse the earth and the people as much as they would like.

[FUNKbrs]

At 9/17/03 03:20 PM, BWS wrote: In order to run a large size company, there must be a hierarchy of control and areas under which the control is to be spread. Treason?! Funk, lets just shoot the fuckers point blank; why not, right?! :) Besides, we would have to kill the CFO's and Controlers too.
Funk, um, ya.

sorry, I'm on a tangent. It's the only way I can see that a laissez faire government can stop monopolies from forming. Because, really, the government IS a company. In exchange for taxes, they give us civil services. So the US is the world's biggest corporation. So then the other US corps are competition, but on a national level, which makes it treason.

I just think it's an interesting interpretation of existing laws. Oh, the powers of loose constructionism.....

[BWS]

At 9/17/03 04:36 PM, Kenney333 wrote: Large corporations tend to put profits over people, they are willing to damage society to get more profit.

Yes, for the most part they do. "Green companies" dont, but there are not too many of these. The reason why corporations act this way is because of what I say below (there are other reasons too, of course).

But I really think that corporations have way to much power/control, how can a corporation be aloud to partially control the world if they're arn't even any elections to decide who runs those corporations.

The do have a good deal of power, but what you are saying is a common misconception, to a point. You see, a corporation isnt ran like most people think. The Cheif ____ Officers merely conduct managment roles; the true shot callers are the ones who sit on the board. These people who sit on the board are in fact elected by the shareholders, but of course, they always are the ones who own the most shares. They make sure that the business conducts itself in their, and other shareholders, best interest; this equates to making as high of a profit margin as possible.

Thats the problem with "freedom", sure the government is "democratic", but the undemocratic corporations are free to abbuse the earth and the people as much as they would like.

Only to an extent. They almost always have to pay for negative externalities that arise due to their product.
Thanks Kiiinnyy! [/cartman]

[BWS]

At 9/17/03 06:32 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 9/17/03 03:20 PM, BWS wrote: It's the only way I can see that a laissez faire government can stop monopolies from forming. Because, really, the government IS a company. In exchange for taxes, they give us civil services. So the US is the world's biggest corporation. So then the other US corps are competition, but on a national level, which makes it treason.

Youre right, they are a company. They are a Monopoly in fact. The thing though is that these civil services have freeloaders galore because not everyone pays taxes. The treason issue is a bit abstract, but I follow you, I think. The thing is, they dont compete because they depend on them for tax revenue to an extent.

I just think it's an interesting interpretation of existing laws. Oh, the powers of loose constructionism.....

It is.
This is interesting. I dont really know much about Politics, but I know a shitload about business. Get back with me on this, but try to explain it in depth a bit more because I do find this theory of yours interesting.

[TheTio]

At 9/16/03 11:40 PM, BWS wrote: What do you think about large companies?

Depends how large, I like large, I hate huge

Do you think they are good, bad, other for society?

Large good, huge bad

Why do you feel this way?

Once a huge corporation gain a monopoly they start fucking with the entire thing microsoft style.
Pushing new laws tailored to serve them, suppressing patents on new better ideas, and exploiting the poor...then they get a political agenda, start attempts at influencing international policy etc, this is just the start

Whereas a large corporation still has to remain competitive, has opposition in the market to the changes they try and bring into the system...as for the poor, well their still fucked

How about the financial aspects involved?

I dont get it, do you mean the affordability of the products...I think its bad, sure coke is cheap, but its still a huge markup on sugar, water and chemicals...as for cars, they are expensive, and within 2 years are worth half what you payed for it
Then theres microsoft, its a huge corporation with a monopoly (linux does not break this) and their unbelievably rich, still their products are exorbitantly priced

Once again, im just curious to see how people view large companies. I will try to respond here; my last thread I just read without any replies. Thanks.

[mwn8989]

im cool with big companies, but when they start imposing on the little guys to the point where they eliminate any hope of competition, it takes the incentive out of creating a business, which is the exact reason there are anti trust laws on the books

[Sonic-Youth]

I think they help generate lots of jobs. One lareg corporation is better than a thousand "mom and pap" stores.

They are a bit greedya nd they need to be regulated.

[Slizor]

Bollocks, I wrote a response to this but it didn't get posted. This will just be a shorter version of it.

Why do you feel that they exploit people?

Well if we disregard the slave labour in the third world that some corporations use we come onto Engel's theory of surplus value (which you should be familiar with. For those who don't it basically means that Capitalists get money for nothing, while the workers get paid less than they should for working (a good example is a shareholder, they don't do anything yet get money.)) This is the whole foundation of Capitalism.

They are bad.

Why? They present jobs, and, for the most part, offer products cheaper than they would normally be due to their allocation of capital.

They

Well, there are plenty of lobiests that have just as much control, yet they have no corporate affiliation.

Those lobbyists would get money from mass membership, which is democratic. Corporate lobbyists are undemocratic because they over-represent small interests (money is very closely linked to power....especially in the US.)

Im not sure about what you mean by them getting rid of free speach and whatnot.

Media consolidation in the hands of a few people with overtly conservative politial agendas (ie Rupert Murdoch.)

Also, why have many small companies when a few larger ones will sell the product cheaper?

Because Unity is power. And a few larger ones may not sell a product cheaper, there's less competition.

The fact that they have control over vast amounts of financial capital. This has many implications and can create both good and bad outcomes.

They can create good outcomes.....but they generally don't. The interests of capital are rarely the same as the interests of people.

[BWS]

At 9/18/03 01:01 AM, TheTio wrote:

At 9/16/03 11:40 PM, BWS wrote:

Once a huge corporation gain a monopoly they start fucking with the entire thing microsoft style.
Pushing new laws tailored to serve them, suppressing patents on new better ideas, and exploiting the poor...then they get a political agenda, start attempts at influencing international policy etc, this is just the start

Well, there arent any monopolies that the government doesnt regulate to an extent. Oligopolies however do sometimes try to play games with pricing; thats why antitrust laws and the such are around.
Of course they are going to pursue laws that serve their best interest, but everyone else does too; they are just very effective at it because of contributions, and the fact that they represent many constituants. As far as competitive issues, they wouldnt try to stop someone from getting a patent; they would usually buy the patent. There are very few instances in which efficient patents arent manufactured. International policy is a huge issue, and so im not going to get into it too much. They do try and influence certain aspects of it, but sometimes it is good for the given nations people. Im not sure what you mean when you say they exploit the poor.

Whereas a large corporation still has to remain competitive, has opposition in the market to the changes they try and bring into the system...as for the poor, well their still fucked

Its not really size, its product. The product most often will dictate how their supply and demand curves act. The cost curves get influenced by size. These last two statments are just generalizations though. I still dont understand what you mean by saying that the poor get fucked.

How about the financial aspects involved?

I dont get it, do you mean the affordability of the products...I think its bad, sure coke is cheap, but its still a huge markup on sugar, water and chemicals...as for cars, they are expensive, and within 2 years are worth half what you payed for it

I mean how they conduct their finance. And yes, these products are overpriced. They have pretty inelastic demand curves. The Coke is overpriced because people value it higher than they do the raw ingrediants. An entrepenur creates wealth by combining capital in such a way that its inputs are cheaper than the value of the output as people determine it to be so. The additional value is found with the equilibrium point at which it sells. You dont have to but it, but you probably will (I know I will :)

Then theres microsoft, its a huge corporation with a monopoly (linux does not break this) and their unbelievably rich, still their products are exorbitantly priced

Microsoft isnt a monopoly, but its damn close. They can still screw around with their pricing, because of price/cost curve issues. But I agree, they do charge way too much for thier software; shit crashes all the time too >:(
Thanks

[Adept-Omega]

In response to the original question --

I think that overall, corperations are a good thing. Because of economic advantages such as limited liability, people don't need to live in fear of somethign screwing up and can be more bold in progressing the industrial fields. Also, acting as a separate legal entity allows many people to get jobs without being personally sued for their company's faults.

There does tend to be monopolistic drives and mergers, but that is why we do not have a completely free market economy, but a hybrid market economy -- to ensure relative fairness.

[BWS]

At 9/18/03 01:39 PM, Slizor wrote: Bollocks, I wrote a response to this but it didn't get posted. This will just be a shorter version of it.

I hate when that happens!

Why do you feel that they exploit people?

Well if we disregard the slave labour in the third world that some corporations use we come onto Engel's theory of surplus value (which you should be familiar with. For those who don't it basically means that Capitalists get money for nothing, while the workers get paid less than they should for working (a good example is a shareholder, they don't do anything yet get money.)) This is the whole foundation of

Capitalism.
Well, youre right, but they do put up money as an investment, and they arent guranteed an increase on their amount. As far as slave labor, it is a shitty dilemma. They work dirt cheap, but at the same time they dont have a tremendious output along with their pay. This is wrong (slave labor), I certainly wont argue with that. That is mainly due to politics, not business, and thats not really my area.

They are bad.

Why? They present jobs, and, for the most part, offer products cheaper than they would normally be due to their allocation of capital.

They

Well, someone has to do it. In our country, the opportunity is open to anyone. It could of course be owned by the government, but it isnt, and there are reasons why. This is a complex issue, and I havent gotten into it in depth that much. You see, as im sure you remember, a hands-on managment knows how to run the company more efficiently than an all encompasing owner (govt).

Well, there are plenty of lobiests that have just as much control, yet they have no corporate affiliation.

Those lobbyists would get money from mass membership, which is democratic. Corporate lobbyists are undemocratic because they over-represent small interests (money is very closely linked to power....especially in the US.)

True, they do. But, lets face it, in order to accumulate that money, they must appeal to a good amount of people in some way or another. This isnt to say that they will serve these people better, but through this it will likely offer its product in a better/more efficient way.

Im not sure about what you mean by them getting rid of free speach and whatnot.

Media consolidation in the hands of a few people with overtly conservative politial agendas (ie Rupert Murdoch.)

If people want to derive their information directly from bullshit sources, that thier problem! :) As we both know, media can be worthless for the most part. Im going to avoid the tangent and shut my mouth.

Also, why have many small companies when a few larger ones will sell the product cheaper?

Because Unity is power. And a few larger ones may not sell a product cheaper, there's less competition.

The fact that they have control over vast amounts of financial capital. This has many implications and can create both good and bad outcomes.

On the other hand, they might sell it cheaper. Unless they have a product that has almost no substitute, there is always a niche for competition. Most industries are nearly perfectly competitive due to the fact that there is easy entry into the industry; except for financial capital sometimes. Power, yes, they have it. Yes, they do have power though; this is a political issue, and its not my field.

They can create good outcomes.....but they generally don't. The interests of capital are rarely the same as the interests of people.

Well, depends on how you look at it. I just ran out of time, I gotta go!! This right here(these two paragraphs) could be a whole conversation though.
Thanks Sliz

[BWS]

*bump*
-----NEW QUESTION-----
So, how about taxes? What are things that you dont like about our taxes; im sure that you all have an opinion on this. Just thought that I would bump this thread and ask it here because I can see it converging with the previous topics a bit.

[bumcheekcity]

At 10/2/03 03:35 PM, BWS wrote: *bump*
-----NEW QUESTION-----
So, how about taxes? What are things that you dont like about our taxes; im sure that you all have an opinion on this. Just thought that I would bump this thread and ask it here because I can see it converging with the previous topics a bit.

I don't mind taxes at all. Paying a bit of money each month to sexure transport and health etc. is a good thing. I wouldn't mind paying even more taxes so the NHS could be better.

[Dagodevas]

Put simply…

Corporations (Large & Small) = Good
Monopolies = Bad

It’s because of big business we can have high-speed internet, satellite television, high-tech video games, futuristic home appliances, and all sorts of great things that make life a little more fun and easy. It’s only when monopolies *cough*Microsoft*cough* try to capitalize on being the only distributor of a single product does the economy begin to hurt and life becomes difficult.