Dav Posted March 30, 2006 Report Posted March 30, 2006 I highly reccomend this do!@#$%^&*entary film to all those who are interested in capitalism and its flaws. I saw it recently and thought it was insperational and shocking to see just how cold and reckless the coperate machine really is. For those who have seen it let us begin this debate which i was involved in after the screening. Is the cooperation a problem and if so what is the solution?
AstroProdigy Posted March 30, 2006 Report Posted March 30, 2006 where can i see the do!@#$%^&*entary?
Aileron Posted March 30, 2006 Report Posted March 30, 2006 Capitalism (with appropriate industries regulated) has no flaws. However, corporations by their presence puts flaws in our economic system. They basically are financial !@#$%^&*ans that can take the free out of free market by blowing away the compe!@#$%^&*ion with a variety of unfinacial tactics. An old fashioned example would be selling products for a loss for a short turn period of time. Smaller establishments cannot compete and hold a profit because there is no physical profitable way to sell that product at that price. Thus, the small business goes out of business. The corporation suffers a loss of income, but once all the compe!@#$%^&*ors are gone they raise their prices again to ridiculous levels. This particular practice was outlawed decades ago, but generally corporations find loopholes in anti-trust laws and can exploit them faster than legislatures have been plugging them up. One of the biggest problems with corporations is that they are considered en!@#$%^&*ies of themselves. Their owners are not personally accountable for the corporation. If a corporation commits a crime, it is the corporation, not the owners, that are accountable (though there are hundreds of things the owners can be charged with). If a coorporation goes into bankruptcy, the owners do not have to pay off the debt. Also, there needs to be some limitations on how much fixed income executives can earn. The way capitalism is supposed to work is that the caveat of beng in charge and making a lot of money by owning a successfull company is that if the company you are in charge of fails, you lose money or at very least you stop getting paid. Today executives that are in command of disasterous failures still make 7 figure incomes. Still, I didn't watch that do!@#$%^&*entary and I don't have the time to.
MonteZuma Posted March 30, 2006 Report Posted March 30, 2006 Capitalism (with appropriate industries regulated) has no flaws.Are you serious? Of course it has flaws. That is why it needs to be regulated. However, corporations by their presence puts flaws in our economic system.Corporations are a fundamental part of capitalism and economic growth in capitalist societies. They basically are financial !@#$%^&*ans that can take the free out of free market by blowing away the compe!@#$%^&*ion with a variety of unfinacial tactics.Large corporations are a product of capitalism. If large corporations are flawed then so is capitalism. This particular practice was outlawed decades ago, but generally corporations find loopholes in anti-trust laws and can exploit them faster than legislatures have been plugging them up.Therefore capitalism is flawed. One of the biggest problems with corporations is that they are considered en!@#$%^&*ies of themselves. Their owners are not personally accountable for the corporation. If a corporation commits a crime, it is the corporation, not the owners, that are accountable (though there are hundreds of things the owners can be charged with). If a coorporation goes into bankruptcy, the owners do not have to pay off the debt.Are you suggesting that capitalism would be more 'successful' without corporations? If so, I disagree. Also, there needs to be some limitations on how much fixed income executives can earn.Therefore capitalism is flawed. The way capitalism is supposed to work is that the caveat of beng in charge and making a lot of money by owning a successfull company is that if the company you are in charge of fails, you lose money or at very least you stop getting paid. Today executives that are in command of disasterous failures still make 7 figure incomes.No. capitalism is about the private ownership of capital. The way capitalism is supposed to work is that the market decides how much capital (including labour) is worth. Not you or the government. That is yet another reason why capitalism is flawed. The nurse getting $13 per hour for wiping your grandmothers butt in the nursing home should be paid much more than the fat cats that trade stocks in New York and make $1,000 per hour.
Yoink Posted March 30, 2006 Report Posted March 30, 2006 Capitalism (with appropriate industries regulated) has no flaws.Are you serious? Of course it has flaws. That is why it needs to be regulated.And why does it need to be regulated? Because of the people who use it, not because of the system they're using.
Manus Celer Dei Posted March 31, 2006 Report Posted March 31, 2006 And why does it need to be regulated? Because of the people who use it, not because of the system they're using. People are an integral part of the system, indeed of any societal system. This is why communism fails. [edit]I cnt spel[/edit]
MonteZuma Posted March 31, 2006 Report Posted March 31, 2006 Capitalism (with appropriate industries regulated) has no flaws.Are you serious? Of course it has flaws. That is why it needs to be regulated.And why does it need to be regulated? Because of the people who use it, not because of the system they're using.What Manus said. Capitalism isn't a natural order created by God or mother nature. Capitalism is a people-made way of structuring human society. If people can abuse it then the system is flawed - by definition.
Synister Posted March 31, 2006 Report Posted March 31, 2006 where can i see the do!@#$%^&*entary?Yea, if I knew where to see it, I'd watch it and take part in this debate but I didn't.
AstroProdigy Posted April 1, 2006 Report Posted April 1, 2006 I think everyone has just been commenting on capitalism in general, not on the do!@#$%^&*entary.
MonteZuma Posted April 1, 2006 Report Posted April 1, 2006 Well yeah. The only person that has seen it is Dav.
Manus Celer Dei Posted April 2, 2006 Report Posted April 2, 2006 When money stops existing. And people are magically replaced with machines.
Aileron Posted April 5, 2006 Report Posted April 5, 2006 Communism isn't a future economic system, its an ancient economic system that got replaced when mankind started farming for food instead of smashing food on the head with a club. I guess there are certain industries that need to be regulated, such as electricity and transportation. However, I disagree with you Monte. Corporations are a relatively recent development in capitalism. Before the industrial revolution, there was capitalism but no corporations. However, that was the 1800s, this is today. There are certain industries that probably need major corporations to function. However, there are others that there really is no need for. There's no reason the world needs large international fast food chains or supermarkets. I'm not a believer in the whole "Walmart is evil" philosophy, but at the same time I can see no reason why having a large number of local businesses instead would fail to get the products to the consumers. And I don't think that corporations are an integral part of capitalism. Yes, some businesses are bigger than others, but a corporation isn't merely a big business. They are en!@#$%^&*ies with simultaneously many and no owners. Instead of ownership, corporations are run by what can only be described as a miniature government, complete with official policies, legal workings, and buerocracies. Invariably, most corporations have administrations that are not even in the in the same state as their industrial facilities, let alone in the same building, as what should be necessary. Generally the people calling the shots are accountants who crunch numbers in headquarters instead of managing production of the product at the factory. I guess the best way to describe the problem is to cite the Discovery Channel's "American Chopper". If you compair Orange County Choppers with Honda corporation, there are many differences other than the mere size of the company. For instance, look at the guy running the place. He's a motorcycle nut. He probably used to do the grunt work, and knows more about how his business runs than his workers. He fits the finances of the business to what he wishes the buisiness to become; he doesn't fit the company to the financial situation he wants. This business is a life achievement for him, as well as his long-term future. The guy who runs Honda on the other hand is probably some suit who wouldn't know how to !@#$%^&*emble a Honda motorcycle. He probably lives and works far away from any place where motorcycles are built, and to him personelle, products, and finances are all just stats on a powerpoint presentation. This isn't his company, its his stockholder's company. It was around long before he showed up. The point is, a CEO views their company as a job and the shareholders as bosses, but the single business owner, whether its large or small, views his business as his or her whole life.
MonteZuma Posted April 6, 2006 Report Posted April 6, 2006 If you don't have large corporations you don't have large economies of scale. Things like banks, insurance companies, shipping companies, airlines, mining companies, supermarkets, shopping malls. I like to use large chain supermarkets because they have a larger range and bigger aisles. I don't have to trot off to the butcher and the fruiterer and the baker. I like very large shopping malls because they are convenient. I like buying cars from large m!@#$%^&*-producers because they are cheaper and have a larger service network. Sure there are serious problems that need to be managed with respect to large companies (#1 I think is rampant consumerism), but it is kinda necessary if we want a high standard of living in a capitalist system. Unless you can think of a better idea? Fwiw, there are things about theoretical communism that appeal to me. The fact that it is not based on class, but based on ability and need. But by the same token, I'm glad I live in a capitalist society. I just wish it was better regulated.
Aileron Posted April 10, 2006 Report Posted April 10, 2006 Personally I don't think Karl Marx ever wanted Communism to succeed on the sub-concious level...he never really tried to see beyond the "revolution" stage. He envisioned a communist revolution, but only made a half hearted attempt at the communist government to replace the ousted one. He wrote about abolishing this and abolishing that, but never about setting up something. His ideas were flawed not on the real-world but on the theorhetical level. To use a literary example, its the difference between Robin Hood and Zorro. Both fought against the establishment, but the difference between them is that Robin Hood thought that King Richard should rule England. Without hard ideas about what the new society should be like, a revolution is doomed to only replace a slightly flawed system with a completely corrupt one. But Monte, those of the benefits of a big company vs a small one. There's not really a problem with big companies. The problem is corporations vs. private enterprise. They are structured differently. Admittingly the problem with private companies is that there's no way for one person to am!@#$%^&* enough money to start a major business, and inheritence is determined by whoever the previous owner wants it to go to, rather than who is the most qualified. I think that despite these flaws there needs to be legal changes in corporate definition to make it more like a private company. These are not "regulations" because of what corporations are. Corporations have a strange status of quasi-personhood. They are considered to be their own en!@#$%^&*y and not a collection of property that somebody owns. Stocks in corporations are bought daily, leaving ownership and thus accountability very fluid. This needs to be slowed down by changing the legal definition of corporation to something that puts more responsability on the owners.
MonteZuma Posted April 10, 2006 Report Posted April 10, 2006 Personally I don't think Karl Marx ever wanted Communism to succeed on the sub-concious level...he never really tried to see beyond the "revolution" stage. He envisioned a communist revolution, but only made a half hearted attempt at the communist government to replace the ousted one. He wrote about abolishing this and abolishing that, but never about setting up something. His ideas were flawed not on the real-world but on the theorhetical level. To use a literary example, its the difference between Robin Hood and Zorro. Both fought against the establishment, but the difference between them is that Robin Hood thought that King Richard should rule England. Without hard ideas about what the new society should be like, a revolution is doomed to only replace a slightly flawed system with a completely corrupt one.I think most revolutions are like that. Few revolutionaries have a detailed plan for the future, they are just reacting to something they perceive as wrong in the present. I think that despite these flaws there needs to be legal changes in corporate definition to make it more like a private company. These are not "regulations" because of what corporations are. Corporations have a strange status of quasi-personhood. They are considered to be their own en!@#$%^&*y and not a collection of property that somebody owns. Stocks in corporations are bought daily, leaving ownership and thus accountability very fluid.I see your point. I don't think mom and dad stockholders should be responsible for corporate mismanagement or illegal dealings, except to the value of their holding. Perhaps Directors should be held more accountable? If that is your point, I might agree with you.
Aileron Posted April 23, 2006 Report Posted April 23, 2006 Yeah, I guess there's little difference between us. You say regulate them, I say that we need to remove some of the legal perks they get due to how the laws are written. My other personal opinion is that there should be a maximum wage, which no one's fixed income can exceed. If this was proposed the lobbyists would come out in full force to stop it. The way to get it passed is to tack on a proposal to increase congress' wages to this maximum and then no lobbyist in the world could stop the bill. Not only would this bring about minor corporate reform, but it would bring about major political reform since business leaders will make just as much money running for office. The next term all the good business leaders would run for congress, and many would be voted in. Business leaders are just as greedy and full of $#!7 as congressmen, but atleast business leaders know how to balance a budget, make profit, and make the shareholders happy. Also I think that stock options should just flat out be eliminated...employees should be paid in CASH. Admittingly upper executives can make a killing off stock options, but the difference is it is their job to watch the stocks, within their power to affect how the stock prices change, and they have money to invest in the first place. In the meantime and barring any major legal reform, what needs to happen is for student just out of college to apply for CEO positions at the bid of $40,000 a year, pointing out that while they aren't as smart as the CEO with the billion dollar salary, all they have to do is make sure their mistakes cost less than a billion dollars and the company would profit.
Recommended Posts