Corporate imperialism

[forsmant]

What are your thoughts on corporate imperialism?

Wal Mart
McDonalds
Burger King ect

[hazek]

Nothing bad with it if they offer goods and services cheap and in good quality as long as they don't abuse laws and regulations to weed out their competition.

[akforme]

Corporations are not the problem. The problem is there is more of a return on your investment to lobby government for customers than to build a product that people will choose through free will.

Every company you mentioned gets an advantage because of government, not in spite of them. I can't even name one corp that is big and accomplished it through free will of the people, can you?

[forsmant]

I think corporatism can be a problem. When a corporation uses quantity over quality it can corner a whole market. Thus giving the customers mediocre products at a price that will out compete small quality business. If company A produces 100 chickens of high quality can it compete with a company B that produces 1 million low quality, bordering on the criminal, chickens?

Is it ok for a company to buy several other company names and deliver those chickens to the markets under the guise of diversity? What if all the chickens came from the same company? Or eggs?

No, I cannot name a company that large that doesn't rent seek.

[akforme]

Companies buy other companies because a bank can print up the money to do it. If they had to buy it with their own money, and couldn't use regulation to make it harder to get into the game, they would go broke fast.

The only big corp I worked for was Princess Tours and I realized how impersonal and profit driven it was and that's not for me. However, between the two years I worked they spent over 75K to make the place more handicapped accessible and they spent the money, not because of a law, but because of the bottom line. Now what happens (figuratively) is princess, who's spent the money, lobbies congress and makes it mandatory that all places do what they have done. The result is anyone starting out has to spend even more money to even be in the game which means only the rich, or those who have a good banker can even play.

Why don't we have a bunch of car companies? Because to even start selling a car you have to get so much MPG's. Well who does that help, the big guys who already have decades of experience and the factories built, or the new guy who's starting out? But the regulation is supposed to make it better for us right? It's like saying i don't know how to figure MPG's and buy cars that fit my needs.

[dannno]

I am against it, therefore I try to avoid buying products from them.

[ChaosControl]

I dislike corporations as much as I dislike the government. Of course considering the corporations effectively control government, that would only make sense.
Corporate person hood and limited liability need to be abolished. The only form of business there should be is a partnership or sole proprietorship, there is no need for any other.

[akforme]

Corporate person hood and limited liability need to be abolished.

Both are a creation of the state, enforced by power of the state. Stefan Molyneu has a great podcast on this subject.

Click on economy, then find the one called "corporations" (it's a java menu so I can't supply those links)
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Podcasts.aspx

[StilesBC]

Corporatism = Socialism for the rich.

Libertarians oppose both equally. Fake libertarians (Greenspan, Friedman [ie. monetarists]) prefer corporatism to socialism. It is a hypocrisy that we MUST avoid in order to maintain any legitimacy whatsoever.

[Anti Federalist]

I dislike corporations as much as I dislike the government. Of course considering the corporations effectively control government, that would only make sense.
Corporate person hood and limited liability need to be abolished. The only form of business there should be is a partnership or sole proprietorship, there is no need for any other.


I think corporatism can be a problem. When a corporation uses quantity over quality it can corner a whole market. Thus giving the customers mediocre products at a price that will out compete small quality business. If company A produces 100 chickens of high quality can it compete with a company B that produces 1 million low quality, bordering on the criminal, chickens?

Is it ok for a company to buy several other company names and deliver those chickens to the markets under the guise of diversity? What if all the chickens came from the same company? Or eggs?

No, I cannot name a company that large that doesn't rent seek.


Corporatism = Socialism for the rich.

Libertarians oppose both equally. Fake libertarians (Greenspan, Friedman [ie. monetarists]) prefer corporatism to socialism. It is a hypocrisy that we MUST avoid in order to maintain any legitimacy whatsoever.

All of the above.

Corporate tyranny can be just as bad, if not worse, than government tyranny.

Almost all the evil and suffering in mankind's history can be traced back to three things:

Big Government
Big Business
Big Religion.

[Fox McCloud]

I think corporatism can be a problem. When a corporation uses quantity over quality it can corner a whole market. Thus giving the customers mediocre products at a price that will out compete small quality business. If company A produces 100 chickens of high quality can it compete with a company B that produces 1 million low quality, bordering on the criminal, chickens?

Is it ok for a company to buy several other company names and deliver those chickens to the markets under the guise of diversity? What if all the chickens came from the same company? Or eggs?

No, I cannot name a company that large that doesn't rent seek.

It doesn't matter what you want, it matters what the most individuals want--these companies have to appeal to what those individuals want...they can't just force a product down their collective throats and they'll take it (unless they have government backing in some form); consumers have to like/want it.

Second off, getting down to the finer details of it, there will still be varying qualities of chickens...some might not care if it's not of a very high quality...others? They may be extremely picky as to the quality of their food, thus they buy from another location (niche market). Overall, if there's a general demand for a product, it will be met, in some way, by the market-place.

So, can the 100 chicken company compete with the 1 million chicken company? Not over the same customers---for those who want inexpensive chicken meat, the 1 million chicken company will win...but for those who want high quality, the 100 chicken company will win.

Of course, there's also the possibility that the 1 million chicken company could also have better quality chicken as well...quantity, quality, and a decent price are not mutually exclusive in a free market.

[forsmant]

In practice the low quality chickens are raised in factory conditions that spread disease. People have become divorced from the reality of what it takes to create the current luxuries they have. People don't want to know where the chickens come from or how many antibodies are injected into them. It is not possible for a factory farm to have a quality product. But capitalism, I mean corporatism, strives for profits over quality. That fact has led to the big corporate run government we have now. Average people have no idea the amount of work it takes to bring them water, electricity, food, shelter, ect. This system thrives on ignorance.

I believe that supply alone can create demand. If the company can produce a low quality product on a massive scale and wall street backs it with investment money the company will succeed. So long as the product is somewhat viable.

So what corporatism has really brought us is cheap mediocre crap and a disincentive to start up a quality business. This creates a cheap mediocre labor force only interested in self gratification and willing to settle for low quality because its there.

[amy31416]

In practice the low quality chickens are raised in factory conditions that spread disease. People have become divorced from the reality of what it takes to create the current luxuries they have. People don't want to know where the chickens come from or how many antibodies are injected into them. It is not possible for a factory farm to have a quality product. But capitalism, I mean corporatism, strives for profits over quality. That fact has led to the big corporate run government we have now. Average people have no idea the amount of work it takes to bring them water, electricity, food, shelter, ect. This system thrives on ignorance.

I believe that supply alone can create demand. If the company can produce a low quality product on a massive scale and wall street backs it with investment money the company will succeed. So long as the product is somewhat viable.

So what corporatism has really brought us is cheap mediocre crap and a disincentive to start up a quality business. This creates a cheap mediocre labor force only interested in self gratification and willing to settle for low quality because its there.

+rep

[Fox McCloud]

In practice the low quality chickens are raised in factory conditions that spread disease. People have become divorced from the reality of what it takes to create the current luxuries they have. People don't want to know where the chickens come from or how many antibodies are injected into them. It is not possible for a factory farm to have a quality product. But capitalism, I mean corporatism, strives for profits over quality. That fact has led to the big corporate run government we have now. Average people have no idea the amount of work it takes to bring them water, electricity, food, shelter, ect. This system thrives on ignorance.

it's of no use to know how our water, electricity, food, and shelter all got here within a detailed context---that would be a step back, wealth wise, from where we currently are--the reason we are so "ignorant" as you call it, is because of the division of labor and specialization. We're able to more efficiently work by focusing on only one task/skill as opposed to being the "jack of all trades, master of none" (which is a recipe for a poor, miserable life).

Yes, the chicken are injected with lots of antibiotics, yes some die, yes it's a disgusting, filthy process (you do realize most farm jobs, regardless of how big or large they are...are, frankly, disgusting). What does that matter? As long as it doesn't harm people (or it does and the people know+don't care, which, in this case...I don't think is accurate) who gives a crap? That's what people want--they wouldn't buy it, otherwise.

Secondly, Corporatism is about using the power of the State to get an advantage over your competitors and earn profit that way; Capitalism, on the other hand, is about getting ahead and providing consumers with what they want and producing it cheaper, faster, better, and more efficiently than your rival competitor (or yourself to prevent a competitor coming in).



I believe that supply alone can create demand. If the company can produce a low quality product on a massive scale and wall street backs it with investment money the company will succeed. So long as the product is somewhat viable.

You're horrendously twisting Say's law here; yes, "supply creates its own demand" (to quote Keynes), but this isn't in the typical "supply and demand" model...it means you must supply a product before you can demand one. It doesn't mean you can create millions of a product, dump it on the market, and people will buy it up because it's cheaper; they have to want your product because they believe it personally benefits them.

Secondly, Wall Street isn't going to back something just to be backing it...they'll back it because they believe consumers will want that product---remember, if you're after money, you don't care if they're selling cheap green automobiles or pink leather leotards--you're concerned about how well the the product will sell to consumers and what the payoff will be...if the payoff will be high, there will be quite a bit of investment...if the payoff is low, then there will be far less of it....Wall Street won't go around willy,nilly investing willy nilly in Big Box market X, Y, and Z because they're some established company---they'll go after where the money is....which can vary on any specific day.


So what corporatism has really brought us is cheap mediocre crap and a disincentive to start up a quality business. This creates a cheap mediocre labor force only interested in self gratification and willing to settle for low quality because its there.

No, we'd still have "cheap, mediocre crap" in Capitalism too; what we wouldn't have is patents, IP, the Fed, FDA, etc....as those are examples of Corporatism and rent-seeking behavior by Corporations...producing stuff cheaply and efficiently is merely entrepreneurs supply what consumers want.

[forsmant]

it's of no use to know how our water, electricity, food, and shelter all got here within a detailed context---that would be a step back, wealth wise, from where we currently are--the reason we are so "ignorant" as you call it, is because of the division of labor and specialization. We're able to more efficiently work by focusing on only one task/skill as opposed to being the "jack of all trades, master of none" (which is a recipe for a poor, miserable life).

Yes, the chicken are injected with lots of antibiotics, yes some die, yes it's a disgusting, filthy process (you do realize most farm jobs, regardless of how big or large they are...are, frankly, disgusting). What does that matter? As long as it doesn't harm people (or it does and the people know+don't care, which, in this case...I don't think is accurate) who gives a crap? That's what people want--they wouldn't buy it, otherwise.

Secondly, Corporatism is about using the power of the State to get an advantage over your competitors and earn profit that way; Capitalism, on the other hand, is about getting ahead and providing consumers with what they want and producing it cheaper, faster, better, and more efficiently than your rival competitor (or yourself to prevent a competitor coming in).




You're horrendously twisting Say's law here; yes, "supply creates its own demand" (to quote Keynes), but this isn't in the typical "supply and demand" model...it means you must supply a product before you can demand one. It doesn't mean you can create millions of a product, dump it on the market, and people will buy it up because it's cheaper; they have to want your product because they believe it personally benefits them.

Secondly, Wall Street isn't going to back something just to be backing it...they'll back it because they believe consumers will want that product---remember, if you're after money, you don't care if they're selling cheap green automobiles or pink leather leotards--you're concerned about how well the the product will sell to consumers and what the payoff will be...if the payoff will be high, there will be quite a bit of investment...if the payoff is low, then there will be far less of it....Wall Street won't go around willy,nilly investing willy nilly in Big Box market X, Y, and Z because they're some established company---they'll go after where the money is....which can vary on any specific day.



No, we'd still have "cheap, mediocre crap" in Capitalism too; what we wouldn't have is patents, IP, the Fed, FDA, etc....as those are examples of Corporatism and rent-seeking behavior by Corporations...producing stuff cheaply and efficiently is merely entrepreneurs supply what consumers want.


I did say the product had to be viable, which meant in demand however limited. And I am certain that there are products that came about that people didn't even know they wanted.

Efficiency does not equate to quality. Are we richer because we have a Mcdonald's every other mile?

And in the chicken case, as well as factory farming in general, it is harming people. The government subsidized corn industry has created an anomaly of biomass that the market would not have produced on its own. In order for food corporations to be profitable they need a cheap base product to build from. Corn is that product. It is in practically everything. And corns by products are the leading cause of obesity. If the food industry has become so profit motivated as to not be concerned of the effects of its products on its costumers can we be certain that other industries are concerned?

If it is of no use to know how our products are made and packaged then how will we know if we are being taken for a fool? Have we traded a material wealth for a mundane existence of repetition and self gratification? When I traveled to Kansas City last weekend I felt at home even though I was 3 hours away. All the familiar signs or retail and fast food places have remade our landscape in the image of the shopping mall. It's lack of diversity disguised by 30 or so corporate names leaves something to be desired. Frankly I'm tired of shopping at the same place with the same layout with the same products as everywhere else in the world. Corporatism of today has led to conformity, ignorance, and complacency. People just don't expect things to be better. At work I overhear people arguing about best power tool brands when in fact the two brands are owned by the same parent company made in the same factory in china.

No one out there has a remote chance in hell to start up a power tool company without being bought out or going under in the first year. Companies cannot be born today, they have to come out fully grown in order to succeed.

I guess I'm just complaining but I do believe the food industry is the most vulnerable to corporatism because innovation is inherently lacking. After all we aren't creating new species of animals...yet.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Corporations are not the problem. The problem is there is more of a return on your investment to lobby government for customers than to build a product that people will choose through free will.

Every company you mentioned gets an advantage because of government, not in spite of them. I can't even name one corp that is big and accomplished it through free will of the people, can you?

REI
Starbucks
Ben and Jerries
Caraboo coffee
Zippo

-t

[RedStripe]

All of the above.

Corporate tyranny can be just as bad, if not worse, than government tyranny.

Almost all the evil and suffering in mankind's history can be traced back to three things:

Big Government
Big Business
Big Religion.

Exactly.

They are inseparable.

[RedStripe]

quantity, quality, and a decent price are not mutually exclusive in a free market.

See how he concludes his rationalization for the operations and dominance of Big Business with this implied assertion that the "free market" is in effect?

What free market? When corporations do something outright evil, he'll blame the fact that there's no free market and that the government interventions created the disastrous result. When they make tons of money and dominate a market, driving out small businesses, treating their employees like shit, giving huge bonuses to the CEO - his response will be "hey, that's just how the free market works!"

God I am so sick of corporate apologists speaking out of both sides of their mouths. If you think that these authoritarian, bumbling corporate bureaucracies are really any different than the government you simply don't get the big picture. They are PARTNERS IN CRIME. It's just one big revolving door and it's been that way since the rise of the first governments 10,000 years ago! Politics is just an extension of economics, and political power is simply an extension of economic power. Which came first: a ruling economic class or a ruling political class? Put another way: the chicken or the egg? Answer: they evolved together simultaneously. They are one and the same.

Apologists for big business, a stratified class society, and an absurd distribution of wealth in society intentionally turn a blind eye to the history of modern industrialized state-capitalism and the state's structural supports which are essential to the dominance of large hierarchical organizations. They can't face the truth that big business isn't the product of voluntary social evolution, but is rather no different than the feudal economic order which was a byproduct of tyranny and oppression of many forms.

If they were living in 1400 they would be attempting to rationalize why 5% of the population owned all the land and the rest were peasants, on the grounds that the feudal lords were just so much more "efficient" and that the "market" had decided through "voluntary" transactions that feudalism was the best system. Ugh.

[RedStripe]

We're able to more efficiently work by focusing on only one task/skill as opposed to being the "jack of all trades, master of none" (which is a recipe for a poor, miserable life).

Haha, yea, having a variety of interests and skills really is the key to a "poor, miserable life." Just ask the hunter-gatherers who were more free, self-sufficient, and skilled in a variety of tasks than you will ever be.

The idea that mastery of some tiny and and obscure task of production leads to a more meaningful life than one which includes well-rounded abilities and knowledge in a variety of trades is insane.

You're so obsessed with so-called capitalist ideology that you take for granted the most absurd assumptions about what is preferable. It's quite possible to be jack of all trades and still be productive enough to provide a comfortable living for yourself and your family (we did so quite successfully for nearly 100,000 years, and many continue to do so today - people who grow their own food and goods individually or in small social groups). What it doesn't allow is for you to be productive enough to provide a comfortable living for yourself and your family and a parasitic economic/ruling class at the same time through taxes, rents, interest, etc (the last 10,000 years). That's where a lot of the pressure of specialization comes from.

It's why people are forced by the modern system of industrialized production to specialize or starve, and it has nothing to do with the "free market" because the free market does. not. exist.

[romacox]

As a business owner since 1984, I am all for the free market.

I have not heard it called corporate imperialism and not clear if you are referring to the following or not:

Ron Paul calls it Corporatism (Stossel calls it corporate welfare) when a select few companies receive subsidies and bailouts form the government, and falsely call it free trade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqJyvn1Iz0o

[akforme]

REI
Starbucks
Ben and Jerries
Caraboo coffee
Zippo

-t

All of those get advantages from this not being a free market, national chains get them because product regulation is cheaper when you sell nationally instead of locally because of higher volume which lowers the percentage of the regulation cost per item. And I believe the government used to buy Zippo's for the soldiers.

[RedStripe]

All of those get advantages from this not being a free market, national chains get them because product regulation is cheaper when you sell nationally instead of locally because of higher volume which lowers the percentage of the regulation cost per item. And I believe the government used to buy Zippo's for the soldiers.

On top of that, the government CREATED the national market. It simply would not exist were it not for the enormous sums of money that the government has spent over the last two centuries creating the transportation and communication infrastructure that enables a national market, which, in turn, makes concentrated, high-overhead mass machine production of goods "efficient." Oh, and the national legal system which has encouraged long-distance transactions by subsidizing the ability for companies to enforce their agreements.

And patents, which have protected companies which rely on specific types of production machinery. And a tariff. And massive amounts of government spending to develop military -> industrial technologies. Or war contracting. Or government spending to "open up" foreign markets for surplus corporate goods to be dumped (because their production methods are burdened with high overhead, and they must produce at maximum capacity at all times to stay profitable, unlike the neighborhood/household production technologies which are flexible and cost essentially nothing to maintain).

Oh, and taxpayer funded "training" (schools) to increase the number of capable workers and shift the costs of training away from the businesses themselves. Very conveniently, this training included the teaching of obedience to corporate and government masters.

And impediments to self-employment and self-sufficiency, which increases reliance on employment and lowers labor costs. And the use of federal troops to quell labor unrest. Regulations which help to create industry cartels. Handouts which reduce demands on employers to provide unemployment insurance, etc.

The state has been and always will be the executive committee of the economic ruling class. It's how they design the system in a way that suits them. Sure, some business fail, but one thing is never allowed to change - the few rich rule the poor masses. Welcome to to history of what some have called "capitalism," but which has very little to do with "free markets."

[fisharmor]

What are your thoughts on corporate imperialism?

Wal Mart
McDonalds
Burger King ect

I was already anti-federal government.
My analysis of these has also turned me anti-local government.
Therefore, corporate imperialism is probably most responsible for me turning anarchist.

Best Bed, WalMarget & Things: Hey, local government, we want to put in a store.
Local governemnt: What do you need?
Best Bed, WalMarget & Things: A brand new strip mall.
Local government: That's going to require rezoning, clearing out a bunch of 150 year old woodland, roads, water, electricity, sewer service, rethinking the whole police and fire department coverage...
Best Bed, WalMarget & Things: ....And? What's your point?
Local government: Oh, sorry, sir, there I go talking again instead of what I usually do for you with my mouth. Sorry!
Best Bed, WalMarget & Things: Yeah, don't let it happen again. And while you're doing all that stuff, there are two old couples living in retirement there, I want them kicked out before the end of the year.
Local government: Hsss-guhhhhhr!

[Anti Federalist]

We're able to more efficiently work by focusing on only one task/skill as opposed to being the "jack of all trades, master of none" (which is a recipe for a poor, miserable life).

Which explains why there is a real unemployment rate of about 18-20 percent.

You spend a lifetime learning a specialized skill in order to make a living, business lobbies government to change the trade and tariff rules, your "highly specialized" job gets shipped off to China, India or Mexico and now you're sitting on your ass, with no other skills, unemployable and on the dole.

[RedStripe]

Which explains why there is a real unemployment rate of about 18-20 percent.

You spend a lifetime learning a specialized skill in order to make a living, business lobbies government to change the trade and tariff rules, your "highly specialized" job gets shipped off to China, India or Mexico and now you're sitting on your ass, with no other skills, unemployable and on the dole.

Meanwhile, people who know a lot of different trade skills can not only get by, but also have a more meaningful life (imo). Knowledge is power, and knowledge of a variety of skills gives you autonomy and control over your own life. Who would choose a life of constant fear of unemployment? The more you can provide for yourself, the less you need to rely on the system. That's part of what "liberty" means. It's not just "deregulation" of some fucking oil company - it's having enough control over your own life that you don't have to give a fuck about what happens to the oil company.

Human beings are probably genetically designed to seek the reward of being proficient in a wide variety of productive activities. We have a drive to be creative and express ourselves in a variety of formats. Hyper-specialization of labor is closely related to the unnecessary "job vs. hobby" and "work vs. life" paradigm that is suffocating the life out of millions of Americans every day.

It's sad to think of how people people hate what they *have* to do 40+ hours a week, while our ancestors who possessed only stone tools and fire literally had no concept of "work." They simply lived life; a life shared with a small group of family and friends; a life where they enjoyed full control over their productive activities; a life with far more free time and "leisure" activities than we have today (although it's hard to distinguish "leisure" activities for hunter-gatherers, what they did for enjoyment was also productive and they didn't really).