A good analogy

[KLATTU]

That's right, and one could maximize profits by poisoning the environment, shifting the costs from the polluter to the public at large, which is what happens with air and water pollution for example. So government's role in those cases is to put a cost to the polluter on the pollution it generates, either directly or through regulation that prevents that cost -shifting. See, negative externalities.

They also maximize profits by letting others pay for road, ports, airports, police, fire, public education including colleges, etc. so we levy corporate income taxes on them so they pay an appropriate share of those costs of the commons.

...........and this has what to do with anything??

 

[KLATTU]

Another bad analogy.

You can't vote to make a certain person pay at a restaurant.



But I guess y'all can just make up weird scenarios that are not even possible and claim analogies. :lol:

Yes-it's a hypothetical, but the point is brilliantly made.
Would you be happier if I said " It would be as if ....

 

[Integrityrespec]

If there was a vote at the pig pen, the pigs would always vote for the person that feeds them. That is true because they dont understand that person will slaughter them the next day. That is the way socialism works also.

Nice! That's also the way democrat politics works. Ask the DACA kids when the last time the democrats even talked about doing something with them? Ask black americans why the economic conditions for black americans have improved so much in just the 2 years Trump has been President and not much in years prior?

 

[Deuce]

you know what most assuredly does NOT solve poverty?

Big Govt.,central planning, and redistribution.

No. Vague right wing catchphrases do not solve poverty.

Dumping dangerous chemicals in the nearest river is the most profitable route for a company to take. Naturally, people like you back this behavior. Stopping them requires regulation, and regulation is the worst thing in the world.

 

[Deuce]

Nice! That's also the way democrat politics works. Ask the DACA kids when the last time the democrats even talked about doing something with them? Ask black americans why the economic conditions for black americans have improved so much in just the 2 years Trump has been President and not much in years prior?

Do you think black people aren't smart enough to understand what benefits them?

 

[Thingfish]

becomes



and eventually



Orwell, by the way, was a Democratic Socialist. It never ceases to amaze me that a man who saw the progression of Socialism into Stalinism so clearly never quite wrapped his head around the fact that the transition is inevitable.

ah yes, the animal farm. On Easter I intend to consume honey glazed spiral swine and think about the crap they were shoving down my throat way back when. Thanks for the reminder, I might not sleep tonight in anticipation of my big day.

 

[JasperL]

who said it did???

I don't know why people insist on clipping comments, especially very short ones....

"If you want to create a false either/or propositions, then you have to examine both sides of this false dichotomy."

I thought the point was obvious - "big government" and "capitalism" work together to produce prosperity. It's not an either/or deal, it's both.

 

[JasperL]

...........and this has what to do with anything??

It has to do with responsibilities of businesses, in addition to maximizing profits, and society's role in ensuring those responsibilities are met. If you're not able to grasp this simple concept, that's fine. We'll leave it here.

 

[ichinglady]

you know what most assuredly does NOT solve poverty?

Big Govt.,central planning, and redistribution.

It depends on how they distribute the money.

In Social Democracies, like in Europe, they use the money to give the poor, (temporary)unemployed, elderly and disabled a decent way of living, housing, schooling and healthcare. This is established in social laws.

 

[KLATTU]

I don't know why people insist on clipping comments, especially very short ones....

"If you want to create a false either/or propositions, then you have to examine both sides of this false dichotomy."

I thought the point was obvious - "big government" and "capitalism" work together to produce prosperity. It's not an either/or deal, it's both.

It's a fair point. But .....it's always..ALWAYS....capitalism that has primacy.All the first world countries have gotten there because of capitalism. Big Govt then follows. Always.

 

[snakestretcher]

If there was a vote at the pig pen, the pigs would always vote for the person that feeds them. That is true because they dont understand that person will slaughter them the next day. That is the way socialism works also.

So, how how's that 10% tax cut Trump promised you last October; nice to have all that extra cash, right? Has Mexico's first instalment for the wall arrived yet? How about the ("from day one"), repeal and replacement of the ACA? You have been royally shafted by Trump but you are so numb with adoration that you can't feel it. Once that numbness wears off, however...Anusol Cream | LifeandLooks.com - Be Beautiful

 

[Lesh]

If there was a vote at the pig pen, the pigs would always vote for the person that feeds them. That is true because they dont understand that person will slaughter them the next day. That is the way socialism works also.

What you don't get is that you have been fed lies by Fox and Rush for years...and you eat it up just like those pigs

 

[Stealers Wheel]

This is the fundamental limitation of capitalism. The horrible oversight of American conservatives, missing this. Business seeks only profit. That isn't inherently evil or good, but it does have consequences.

Actually, that is only true of Wall Street driven corporate businesses. There are many example of "mom and pop" main street businesses that see more than profit as their sole responsibility.

When there is a business downturn, corporate America will layoff thousands of employees at the drop of a hat if it will appear to improve the next quarter's earnings. When the employee is someone you have to look in the eye each morning, knowing that their job is what feeds their children, pays their rent, provides their healthcare, you are less likely to turn to layoffs as the first strategy to improve the bottom line.

Publicly traded companies must meet their quarterly earnings projections every quarter or the investors will abandon them. Private companies, on the other hand, are free to forego profits and earnings if they deem it to be in the best-long term interests of the company, the employees, and their communities.

It used to be that businesses were your neighbors, your friends, your family. Today, mega-corporations chew up employees and spit them out as so much used garbage.

 

[JasperL]

It's a fair point. But .....it's always..ALWAYS....capitalism that has primacy.All the first world countries have gotten there because of capitalism. Big Govt then follows. Always.

It's kind of a chicken or egg question - what came first? Doesn't matter for my purposes, which was just to note that as you suggest all first world countries HAVE a "big government" and it's because modern "capitalism" and "big government" are both necessary for the prosperity that flows from market economies.

 

[Rogue Valley]

if there was a vote at the pig pen, the pigs would always vote for the person that feeds them. That is true because they dont understand that person will slaughter them the next day. That is the way socialism works also.

spin zone!!!

 

[justabubba]

Actually, that is only true of Wall Street driven corporate businesses. There are many example of "mom and pop" main street businesses that see more than profit as their sole responsibility.

and for those mom & pop shops that place the public benefit as a higher priority than not operating at a loss, they are the ones who will more likely go out of business when compared to those less inclined to operate in the public's best interest
with rare exception, in good times most businesses thrive; but, in hard times, those which are focused on surviving are the most likely survival candidates

When there is a business downturn, corporate America will layoff thousands of employees at the drop of a hat if it will appear to improve the next quarter's earnings. When the employee is someone you have to look in the eye each morning, knowing that their job is what feeds their children, pays their rent, provides their healthcare, you are less likely to turn to layoffs as the first strategy to improve the bottom line.

you are probably right, unless that person's eyes are members of your family and friends, and then someone else is going to have to go. it's the nature of the nepotism within small/family run operations

Publicly traded companies must meet their quarterly earnings projections every quarter or the investors will abandon them.

by abandon them, you mean sell their corporate stock for the present market value
if the alternative is where those net investment monies would be better placed, causing such "abandonment", that is a good thing. it demonstrates to the corporate ownership and management that the operations are underperforming the market
this "abandonment" promotes efficient markets

Private companies, on the other hand, are free to forego profits and earnings if they deem it to be in the best-long term interests of the company, the employees, and their communities.

there are often times when it is a wise owner and/or manager who refuses to make inappropriate knee-jerk responses, but sometimes there IS a need for urgency in order to survive. many of those small businesses which were not inclined to make immediate corrections "if they deem it to be in the best-long term interests of the company" did not survive the great recession of '08/'09

It used to be that businesses were your neighbors, your friends, your family. Today, mega-corporations chew up employees and spit them out as so much used garbage.

there used to be strong unionism, and government advocacy of it, preventing corporations from "chew[ing] up employees and spit[ing] them out as so much used garbage"

 

[poweRob]

then your point is the one fellow will give up the life of being rich because he contributes disproportionally just as he benefits disproportionally
that rich guy must have inherited his wealth because with such 'logic' he was too profoundly stupid to have earned it

:lol:

 

[Stealers Wheel]

and for those mom & pop shops that place the public benefit as a higher priority than not operating at a loss, they are the ones who will more likely go out of business when compared to those less inclined to operate in the public's best interest
with rare exception, in good times most businesses thrive; but, in hard times, those which are focused on surviving are the most likely survival candidates

you are probably right, unless that person's eyes are members of your family and friends, and then someone else is going to have to go. it's the nature of the nepotism within small/family run operations


by abandon them, you mean sell their corporate stock for the present market value
if the alternative is where those net investment monies would be better placed, causing such "abandonment", that is a good thing. it demonstrates to the corporate ownership and management that the operations are underperforming the market
this "abandonment" promotes efficient markets


there are often times when it is a wise owner and/or manager who refuses to make inappropriate knee-jerk responses, but sometimes there IS a need for urgency in order to survive. many of those small businesses which were not inclined to make immediate corrections "if they deem it to be in the best-long term interests of the company" did not survive the great recession of '08/'09

there used to be strong unionism, and government advocacy of it, preventing corporations from "chew[ing] up employees and spit[ing] them out as so much used garbage"

The difference is that publicly traded companies must always maximize earnings regardless of anything else, whereas a privately owned company can forego maximum profits in the short term if it means keeping people working. You make it sound as though a company who holds their employees' well-being as a high value is virtually doomed in a down market. This simply isn't true.

An excellent example is In-n-Out Burger. It is a privately held family owned business. They don't have to answer to Wall Street investors every quarter. Profits rise and fall as they will, but the owners look at a pimply-faced teenager and see a potential store manager making 6 figures. They invest in their people, pay wages well above the industry standard. They have no unions. There is no need for unions when the employer does right by the employees.

When a corporation sees employees as simply cogs in a machine and the community as simply resources to be exploited, this is what brings on union activity.

 

[justabubba]

The difference is that publicly traded companies must always maximize earnings regardless of anything else, whereas a privately owned company can forego maximum profits in the short term if it means keeping people working.

let's look at berkshire-hathaway. maybe you have heard of the name. it is an example of a corporation which invests for the long-term play, with its focus on building share value. it is a corporation which successfully does what you insist corporations do not do

You make it sound as though a company who holds their employees' well-being as a high value is virtually doomed in a down market. This simply isn't true.

in an expanding economy, there is going to be an environment of pervasive financial business success. there is usually additional income to cover what you view as benevolent personnel costs associated with business operations and activities. that surplus revenue conceals the inherent inefficiencies of such perks, and they may be essential to a growing operation which wants to hire and retain the better available employees
in good times
in recession, those practices may cause the company to continue to expend for these staff benefits while the entity is no longer generating surplus revenues. much like downsizing one's job/income plays havoc with one's financial wherewithal if credit card spending does not also get downsized to match income. only if a company has significant retained earnings can it weather such a financial storm. the size (and liquidity) of those retained earnings' burn rate determine how long that company can remain viable
under such a scenario, which was often the case during the great recession, those companies that spent their limited capital for unnecessary, inessential purposes, were the ones that went out of business or into bankruptcy court
i suspect we can both agree that such an outcome is not a pleasant experience for the employee, despite the employer's effort to be employee-centric

An excellent example is In-n-Out Burger. It is a privately held family owned business. They don't have to answer to Wall Street investors every quarter. Profits rise and fall as they will, but the owners look at a pimply-faced teenager and see a potential store manager making 6 figures. They invest in their people, pay wages well above the industry standard.

from the limited information publicly available on the closely held company, it does appear to be an industry leader. fortunately, the founder's granddaughter is widely recognized as a very capable executive (and a billionairess)
while you make a good case that its treatment of employees is an industry leader, you present this as an example of how nimble a small business can be compared to a corporate entity. a 16,000 employee operation is not a small business
and there is a certain irony about this employer known to look after its staff. the company was the first to dispense with car hops, which employees dominated the fast food industry at the time of in-n-out's inception. it could be said the company was responsible for eliminating that segment of the working population thru its innovation

They have no unions. There is no need for unions when the employer does right by the employees.

When a corporation sees employees as simply cogs in a machine and the community as simply resources to be exploited, this is what brings on union activity.

good companies, the ones treating their employees fairly, do not need unions
unfortunately, government is no longer an advocate for unions, which are quite essential to compelling equitable treatment where the employer is not otherwise inclined to do so

 

[JackA]

If there was a vote at the pig pen, the pigs would always vote for the person that feeds them. That is true because they dont understand that person will slaughter them the next day. That is the way socialism works also.

The above is this forum’s right wing intellect at its tippy top height. Congratulations.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

let's look at berkshire-hathaway. maybe you have heard of the name. it is an example of a corporation which invests for the long-term play, with its focus on building share value. it is a corporation which successfully does what you insist corporations do not do


in an expanding economy, there is going to be an environment of pervasive financial business success. there is usually additional income to cover what you view as benevolent personnel costs associated with business operations and activities. that surplus revenue conceals the inherent inefficiencies of such perks, and they may be essential to a growing operation which wants to hire and retain the better available employees
in good times
in recession, those practices may cause the company to continue to expend for these staff benefits while the entity is no longer generating surplus revenues. much like downsizing one's job/income plays havoc with one's financial wherewithal if credit card spending does not also get downsized to match income. only if a company has significant retained earnings can it weather such a financial storm. the size (and liquidity) of those retained earnings' burn rate determine how long that company can remain viable
under such a scenario, which was often the case during the great recession, those companies that spent their limited capital for unnecessary, inessential purposes, were the ones that went out of business or into bankruptcy court
i suspect we can both agree that such an outcome is not a pleasant experience for the employee, despite the employer's effort to be employee-centric


from the limited information publicly available on the closely held company, it does appear to be an industry leader. fortunately, the founder's granddaughter is widely recognized as a very capable executive (and a billionairess)
while you make a good case that its treatment of employees is an industry leader, you present this as an example of how nimble a small business can be compared to a corporate entity. a 16,000 employee operation is not a small business
and there is a certain irony about this employer known to look after its staff. the company was the first to dispense with car hops, which employees dominated the fast food industry at the time of in-n-out's inception. it could be said the company was responsible for eliminating that segment of the working population thru its innovation


good companies, the ones treating their employees fairly, do not need unions
unfortunately, government is no longer an advocate for unions, which are quite essential to compelling equitable treatment where the employer is not otherwise inclined to do so

The point is, In-n-Out did not start out as a 16,000 employee company. Further, it can looked at as not one company, but as 300+ companies, each employing a handful of employees. Each 'small company' simply follows the principles and practices that make the mother company successful. Valuing the employees, seeking to provide job satisfaction and upward mobility for them is one reason this company is thriving while others find themselves having to constantly re-invent themselves, constantly changing their menus to accommodate an allegedly 'fickle customer base.'