I'll explain the objection to "corporatism" once and only once

[CC27]

AllentownJake  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Mon Dec-28-09 08:15 AM
Original message
I'll explain the objection to "corporatism" once and only once
   
As an auditor, I'm a big fan of the founding fathers. The men for all their faults were geniuses when it came to diluting power so that no party could become too powerful. They looked at the world they lived in, looked at the mother country, looked at history and came up with a solution to governance that while flawed, was the best system for preventing power to concentrate too much. In my world we call this is segregation of duties.

The government is supposed to be a control and regulating force on the business world. I've said it in the past, however I'll say it again, pure socialism devolves into communism and pure capitalism devolves into fascism either way it is a boot on the throat of humanity and free thinking.

The Founders knew this, corporations were limited. There was a mistrust in them. They had a limited lifespan and had to prove they were doing something good for the public. Their charters could be revoked by the state they were incorporated and their assets sold and the proceeds given to shareholders. If they wanted to renew their charter, they had to petition the state to do so. The founders had no problem with wealth or a wealthy class, they just had no taste for developing entities that allowed individuals to hide wealth and avoid liabilities. The only shame is they did not write this into the US Constitution as it was not a problem. Just a little historical perspective.

When the Government begins to "partner" with business instead of regulating it you have a problem. You have the ability of the government to pick winners and losers. What happened this past year with the TARP payments and the subsequent tax rule rewrites by Tim Geithner's crew to pay them back was an example of the government picking a winner and a loser. The winner being large banking firms that were enormously irresponsible and losers being smaller banks.

There are some services that the Government will have difficulty providing, however, I'm a proponent of when the Government does something, it uses Government employees. I do not like it when services are outsourced to a third party. If you need to know why, look at K-Street or contractors in Iraq. Allowing the government to transfer payments to corporate entities for services will always result in corruption. The loss you pay for slight inefficiency you more than make up for in money not flowing out the door. In addition, the people who are providing the services have one loyalty, their employer, their loyalties are not split to a client and the person who signs their checks. Third party service providers to the government, should be an exception, not a rule.

So, when you hear me ranting about corporatism, this is what I'm ranting about. I do not want to end corporations, I do not want to overturn capitalism, and I do not want to install a socialist utopia. I want the government to be regulating business free from conflict of interest, and I want business to be conducting business honorably instead of lobbying for tax dollar handouts in Washington D.C. and state capitals.

Thanks for clearing that up for us DUmmie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7338642

[TheSarge]

I'll explain the objection to "corporatism" once and only once

I think this might be the n00b that tried to tell us about the evils of "corporatism" in a thread here last week.

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,38296.0.html


Hmmm...IMHO AllenTownJake - ballantine

[NHSparky]

I think this might be the n00b that tried to tell us about the evils of "corporatism" in a thread here last week.

Damn--mole outed himself after only 3 posts here.  It's like they're not even trying anymore.

[USA4ME]

AllentownJake

I've said it in the past, however I'll say it again, pure socialism devolves into communism and pure capitalism devolves into fascism

Socialism (form of Marxism) devolves into Communism (form of Marxism), and pure capitalism (free market) devolves into fascism (form of Marxism).

OK. 

.

[Lord Undies]

The Little Goons and their ilk should, if consistent, love the concept of corporations.  After all, a corporation is collectivism on steroids.  Corporations exist because of like-minded people who come together as one for the good of all. 

Maybe we could get the Little Goons to fall in love with corporations if we simply change the name of the concept.  We could call corporations Individual Socialist Business Models. 

Liberals and their army of Satan's Soldiers love to rename things in order to mislead normal people into thinking differently about a variety of things.  I don't know why we can't use the practice on them.         

[JohnnyReb]

DUmmie saysI'll explain the objection to "corporatism" once and only once ......they don't give "free rides".....they expect me (DUmmie) to work for the money.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

He obviously has taken his distrust of massed power too far. I have one also. Just because corporations employ people and create economic activity does not mean they cannot become adversarial to human liberty. We hate politicians when they insinuate themselves into the economic sector, we should be just as wary of the economic sector insinuating itself into politics.

Case in point: General Electric. They are so large they can lobby the government to foot billions of dollars in subsidies for their idiotic "green energy" projects. They are helping drive the global warming mania for their own profit but in a way that will curtail OUR individual liberties.

However, when ATJ bemoans Geithner's dispensing of TARP funds it is because he probably wouldn't give a second thought to cheering GE's green energy initiatives even if it means a legislative regimen that reaches into every aspect of his life as a freeborn citizen.

Another case in point: Unions. They were political bodies who sought to improve their members' lot but have since evolved into economic entities seeking their own profit but they retain their political ties that distort the market to the detriment of all concerned including themselves and even personal liberty.

Historically he has one major oversight when he wrote:

The founders had no problem with wealth or a wealthy class, they just had no taste for developing entities that allowed individuals to hide wealth and avoid liabilities. The only shame is they did not write this into the US Constitution as it was not a problem. Just a little historical perspective.

He should read about the East India Trading Company. They made the fictitious Halliburton-Blackwater-Carlyle Group triumvirate look like pikers. In fact, during the age of the privateers most nations did not have their own navies. Naval military force was comprised of armed commercial concerns. To say the founders were unaware of private entities that could effect and affect foreign policy for a nation is a rather huge omission on the part of someone extolling a grasp of history in such pedantic terms.

[Oceander]

He obviously has taken his distrust of massed power too far. I have one also. Just because corporations employ people and create economic activity does not mean they cannot become adversarial to human liberty. We hate politicians when they insinuate themselves into the economic sector, we should be just as wary of the economic sector insinuating itself into politics.

Case in point: General Electric. They are so large they can lobby the government to foot billions of dollars in subsidies for their idiotic "green energy" projects. They are helping drive the global warming mania for their own profit but in a way that will curtail OUR individual liberties.

However, when ATJ bemoans Geithner's dispensing of TARP funds it is because he probably wouldn't give a second thought to cheering GE's green energy initiatives even if it means a legislative regimen that reaches into every aspect of his life as a freeborn citizen.

Another case in point: Unions. They were political bodies who sought to improve their members' lot but have since evolved into economic entities seeking their own profit but they retain their political ties that distort the market to the detriment of all concerned including themselves and even personal liberty.

Historically he has one major oversight when he wrote:

He should read about the East India Trading Company. They made the fictitious Halliburton-Blackwater-Carlyle Group triumvirate look like pikers. In fact, during the age of the privateers most nations did not have their own navies. Naval military force was comprised of armed commercial concerns. To say the founders were unaware of private entities that could effect and affect foreign policy for a nation is a rather huge omission on the part of someone extolling a grasp of history in such pedantic terms.

In either case, the primary fault lies, precisely, in government interference in private affairs.  This goes even to the fact that corporations do not exist but for statutes granting them certain powers and rights, and providing for the relationships between the shareholders, the corporation qua entity, and the rest of the world.  Absent the State's creation of the corporate form, along with limited liability for the actual owners/shareholders, groups of people banding together to pursue a common goal would have been subject to the mostly common-law court-created rules of partnerships, which would have left a lot more transparency and accountability than there is in the corporate form (the original US partnership statutes are all based on a UK partnership statute that more or less merely codified existing common-law caselaw regarding "associations of two or more individuals for the purpose of carrying on an activity for profit."

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The concept of common law long intrigued me...until juries started punishing tobacco companies and awarding millions of dollars in contingency fees to lawyers like John Edwards for channeling the spirits of little children that died of natural causes during birth.

Still, I suppose it would be better than the lobbyist-inspired legislative train wrecks coming out of DC these days.

[Oceander]

The concept of common law long intrigued me...until juries started punishing tobacco companies and awarding millions of dollars in contingency fees to lawyers like John Edwards for channeling the spirits of little children that died of natural causes during birth.

Still, I suppose it would be better than the lobbyist-inspired legislative train wrecks coming out of DC these days.

Again, you'd do better in that area to consider how badly the State has interfered with common-law precedents by enacting legislation that tipped the scales too far one way or the other.  Common-law tort was a well-developed, reasonably stable body of law.

[DumbAss Tanker]

AllentownJake  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Mon Dec-28-09 08:15 AM
Original message
I'll explain the objection to "corporatism" once and only once

Did we have a great big bowl of Self-ios this morning and get all full, you big douchebag?

[The Village Idiot]

I've said it in the past, however I'll say it again, pure socialism devolves into communism and pure capitalism devolves into fascism either way it is a boot on the throat of humanity and free thinking

pure capitalism devolves into fascism? Now that is BOGUS. First there has never been pure capitalism. Mussolini and Hitler were a lot more Communist than free market oriented. By a LOT.

[BlueStateSaint]

Did we have a great big bowl of Self-ios this morning and get all full, you big douchebag?

He probably got his ass handed to him at the Christmas dinner table over "corporatism," and is just now summoning up the 'nads to post about it.