Except the government is the one giving the money away, not benefiting from it. The welfare recipients are fairly weak. Corporations and unions have both considerable power and the ability to use that power to enrich themselves. I still wouldn't use the term evil, as I am judging based on who causes the most damage not on moral intent.
True, and unions sometimes can cause more harm than corporations. However, for the most part guns can cause more destruction than knives and corporations can cause more harm than unions.
The unions. They are thugs who try to suck power and money away in the name of "standing up for the working class." They care about power, not about workers and the economy. Look at the American Auto Worker's Union. They are destroying America's Auto companies and refusing to compromise on benefits and pay (as it is, their pay and benefits is crazy). Also, look at the New Jersey teachers union, during economic times they refuse to take a temporary pay freeze and give around 1% of their salary to their benefits. Unions are the greatest economic evil among the 3.
Corporations are the worst, not because they are actually more evil, but simply because they have more power and can cause more damage. Sort of like how a violent sociopath with a gun is worse than a violent sociopath with a knife.
You think that corporations have more power than the government?
I think some people trust the government with as much faith as they hate corporations. usually those who don't have investments or corporate jobs and envy those who do and want the government "to get even" for them.
Do you think that corporations can be detrimental to the growth of small businesses? My father owns a local electrical contracting company, earns on avg. $300,000 per year, has not invested a dime in the stock market, and obviously does not have a corporate job, yet he harbors a great deal of anamocity toward Corporate America. His views stem from his own experiences with them, mainly, Lockheed-Martin, Johnson Controls, and Northrop Grummond, all of which have done a great deal (at least in our geographic area) to "lock out" competition by smaller contractors. Do you believe that government should not have the capacity to "level the playing field" for smaller businesses in some instances?
yeah the populist angle. I think the government should be limited to what powers were given it in the US constitution. leveling the playing field tends to drop it way down for everyone
in the long run economies of scale favor bigger corporations or bigger law firms etc. its nature. and while it might cause some evil, its not nearly as evil as people claiming they want to make things fair as a ploy to use the government to punish some and reward themselves.
TR was pandering for votesWould you, then, disagree with Theodore Roosevelt's approach to dealing with corporations? Roosevelt believed (witnessed) that many corporations, if left to grow/expand unchecked often worked to undermine the overall growth of business in America. in an optimal scenario (all things being equal sort of set-up) the markets would set their own limits on production by major corporations, however: in today's world (the GLOBAL economy) I believe, as did Roosevelt, that corporations often make decisions which supercede the demand curves of the strictly American markets. You must not forget, our corporations no longer operate in a "closed economy" and the "little guy" still has to be protected. Corporations, for the most part, still have the capital, to just "pick up" and move their assets into another market, the "little guys" don't always have that option.
TR was pandering for votes
No, he honestly wanted to keep corporations in check, because he saw what they could do when they were unregulated. For example, his inaugural speech, after taking over for Mckinley, was to deliver a speech against corporations.
with politicians its hard to tell what motivates them-a desire to do good or a desire to do something that alot of voters think is good.
With Theodore Roosevelt, who was thrust into the Presidency, I think most people would agree with the former. Now, there really isn't much doubt politicians adhere to the latter, but thats another issue.
TR was pandering for votes
have you ever seen two female mantises placed in a jar? well I sort of see TR and corporations the same way. those who have a large amount of power tend to attack other holders of much power
Thats a real pessimistic view of one of our most memorable, and beloved presidents.
Yeah, I don't tend to be much into worshipping politicians and TR, while a brave man set some precedents that continue to screw this country up to this day-like causing the election of the horrid Woodrow Wilson. But as presidents go he was one of the better ones. Any man who likes to hunt I can appreciate
Of all those, corporate powers are the worst because they are sucking up all the money into their coffers, thus reducing the spending power of the lower classes; and then they throw their weight around with our government representatives too.
Are you speaking in general or are you implying that corporations never reinvest their profits into expanding businesses which thus translates into expanded hiring and more consumer choice? Just wondering.
I only asked be cause you posted that corporations "suck up ALL the money into their coffers." I was wondeing if you actually believed that?If supply is not balanced with demand, than it does no good.