I'm flooding the zone, because I'm sick of you idiots pointing at each other with blame.
All Y'all don't point at corporations cause mah401k.
@scottdhansen youse guise too.
@Sirpantangelini Give me a starter definition in your words what corporatism is.
In the mean time
I'm gonna go to the Piggly Wiggly part of the IGA (Independent Grocers Association™️ ) have I sold out to the man yet?
@scottdhansen I'm not blaming any individual, nor am I denying that it's impossible at this point not to be at some degree beholden to corporations.
Definition to follow.
@scottdhansen corporatism in a strictly political sense, is separating the population into corporate groups. Ie, dajews, dablacks, dajeets, datoddlers.
Which holds true to my position of corporations as their own business entities within our government.
@Sirpantangelini Does this differ greatly from identity politics?
@scottdhansen while that isnt helpful, 'see current freakout'.
Faceless organizations where the public can invest, but not control. the decision makers hold little to no liability for the decisions they make, beyond the 'capital' they produce, which is an imaginary value traded on markets they often show no bearing to a genuine value produced, see gamestonks.
These entities and the markets that allow them to destroy honest value for effort, are the modern expansion of corporatism imo.
@scottdhansen no, identity politics are corporatism in a purely political sense.
@scottdhansen although these corporations predate the ideas of corporatism that led mussolini to his concept of fascism.
However, when you think about Italy, the idea that a town would be a corporation, that produced one main product for Italy, and is controlled through that entity, isn't far off from how one corporation can rule over a town's entire economy through sheer girth of finance and nothing else.
@scottdhansen I've had many commie leftists friends, and here I have many libertarian leaning race baited frens.
The one consistent enemy none of them identify is the corporations themselves.
Look at this dumb guy who shot that ceo for getting rich on the policy the dumb kid and all his fans support.
Look at Cargill, Ukraine, dajews.
Look at big tech.
Look at the housing markets.
There is but one common denominator that allows the ugliest human behavior.
@scottdhansen and whether dajeet, dajew, chink or whitey.
Everyone has sold out their family and history to invest in their little slice of their own jail cell.
@Sirpantangelini Can you define the smallest unit of corporatism these are some pretty large buckets.
@scottdhansen my point is we need to end the legal entity of a corporation and end all public trading of businesses.
Place legal liability back on individuals. Make individuals aware of the labor and business agreements they engage in.
Stopping tards from calling themselves a monolith based on their skin color isn't an easy change
@scottdhansen sorry, not sure how to answer your actual question.
Everyone wants to blame the corporations, not the votards wanting safety and free shit.
Are the corporations not what provide them that safety blanket and their irresponsibility?
No, it's that there is zero responsibility in voting. It's anonymous and you can always blame the other guy.
@Sirpantangelini For purose of scoping when the line is crossed.
I'm a three man team running a family farm with decent acreage. I play the market build corn cribs and store grain for higher prices. When do I cross the line and become corporatism?
I'm a privately held manufacturer with footprint in Watford UK, Aurora US, and Monterrey MX. Am I corporatizing enough?
And like anything else, corruption is on a bell curve. Some are far more reliable than others.
But everyone is looking for a scapegoat, which is TruthBait's point. Humans cannot look in the mirror, so instead they look at the Rich, Whites, Jews, corporations, Satan, etc. and blame that.
The other side of the scapegoat mentality is the talisman.
People want to believe in Saviors, so they find liberalism, religion, the military, money, sex, etc and figure that as long as they have that, they are good.
@scottdhansen no, you are what things would be like. You are doing it right.
While I'm sure you are technically a corporation, ending the larger system publically traded corporations exist upon would not likely change your life much.
@Sirpantangelini OK, I wanted to see where we were going with this. I think I am getting a better picture of the problem.
I'll also need to research some history to understand some of the other models of industry before the markets came in. This will help me ask decent questions.
I have to get to doing some errands around town and such.
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
I have no disagreements with any of these point. my position is that corporations as publically traded entitys allow these negative behaviors to grow exponentially and we needs systems that minimize these behaviors or make more positive than negative. you'll see i rail against insurance, and right of way laws that excuse poedestrians and cyclists by place sole responsibility on cars.
"corporations as publically traded entitys allow these negative behaviors to grow"
Because the shareholders, or because they are subsidies?
The problem with capitalism/corporations is always the government policies that force rent-seeking behavior.
I have serious beef with traffic right of way laws and the insurance industry too. its all consistent in a world view.
i think humanity went wrong with capitalism as we went further and further down the hole of less responsibilty while chasing the dream of endless growth
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
corporations are not an inherent part of capitalism. don't be a commie and equate them as the same thing
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
rent seeking behavior is the corporatist desire for endless growth. becuase they must continue to grow even if its imaginary.
They only need constant growth because of the taxes. Why are you letting government and the voters off the hook here?
I disagree: when you have free markets, you will have shareholder-owned companies.
This was created by law as well.
Affirmative Action has been on the books since Kennedy.
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
unless you make that illegal, which is my position.
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
I'm not at all,
Political parties are corporations.
most voters have their lives tied to corporations as wage slaves, including their retirement.
@truthbait @amerika @scottdhansen
And this is their only option because its squeezed all other options out of the market. not becuase its the best but because endless financial backing. look how many giant companies are essentially zombie companies that only continue to exist because of stock growth and for no other reason.
@truthbait @amerika @scottdhansen
i'd suggest that in my arguement linux wins, not microsuck or apple.
@truthbait
Smaller, slower growth.
Regional businesses.
Less middle management, less corporate structure.
The arguement would be single point ownership of everything, but those single point owners would need to both maintain the loyalty of their workers and have the capacity to manage all the activities of those businesses they are legally liable to.
Not sure how to really game this out in limited text blocs
Corporations arose for a reason: the need to have capital.
This notion of yours seems to me on par with banning usury: at first, it sounds good, but then you realize that it is working against what markets will naturally create.
Cut taxes and regulatons and you will get what you want.
Of course, it helps to have culture.
@truthbait
Ownership of personal property would grow, because giant entities of collective state funds wouldn't exist to manipulate markets to drive individuals with personal interests out.
Yes, the super wealthy exist, but they would need to be personally invested in things to maintain that wealth and couldn't spread themselves around to all aspects of life. Unless they somehow managed to have an army of loyal servants working solely for their benefit.
Lunix has never won because:
1. It lacks the software support
2. Speaking of support, there is no support except "put your life on hold and do it yourself"
I grant you that Nadella MSFT is awful and Apple is a sick cult.
But there's a reason they have the position that they have.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 2
I gotta somewhat agree, but you're letting the culprit off the hook: unions, affirmative action, taxes, progressive taxes, regulations, lawsuits.
These make jobs horrible.
Otherwise, you'd work a couple hours a day and then go home, like people used to.
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
Explain how this entrenched oligarchs.
How do they maintain their dominance when the liability of their tower comes to one single point.
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
Unions. Yea, the whole government mandated monopolies unions have needs to go too.
Jobs are jails. We agree heartily there.
What is the solution?
Stop the wealth redistribution, and suddenly jobs are less onerous.
Corporations are limited-liability, which is necessary to protect people so that they can make some hard decisions.
I think if you take a moment, you will see that your disagreement is with (1) the socialization of losses like insurance, unions, affirmative action, taxes, etc and (2) the democracy of the shareholders, who have no "skin in the game" beyond wanting their stonks to go up.
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
Taxes.
I'm a proponent of the fair tax system federally, that being only a tax on new products.
I would argue states only can levy an income tax and municipalities can only levy a property tax.
Stocks arise as a way for people to invest in businesses without direct contracts.
Ban stocks/shareholders, and soon you will have more expensive corporations where people are simply direct investors, and they will buy and sell those positions like stocks.
These things evolved from free markets themselves.
Yes, many times. Usually from a subscription plan -or- salesperson relationship.
Keep in mind also that MSFT handles drivers, documentation, etc.
All volunteer stuff with Lunix.
Volunteers are... I've spent a lot of my life volunteering, and fuck volunteers, generally. The exceptions are beloved.
@amerika
You are missing my most fundamental point.
Liability.
People must be liable for their decisions.
Must.
This is my fundamental point across many topics.
From insurance to right of way.
You complain about diversity.
I put the onus on liability
Good points, and who is going to start a company doing something previously unknown, because if it backfires they will personally end up in the poorhouse or jail for a century?
@amerika
Voluntaryism is still much better than nonprofit corporations.
IMHO Trump just solved this question on the federal level with his tariffs idea. Less paperwork, more economic stimulus.
At a local level? Property taxes are devastating because we pay for tons of stuff we do not need, like public schooling.
I would rather that cities charge a yearly citizenship fee.
Good point: remove legal protection for unions, and they naturally lose power.
@truthbait
Yes, you would certainly need to change patent laws and copyright laws
The more regulations, the more they can hide behind.
The more taxes, the more the market depends on them.
Imagine corporations with no taxes: there would be zero actual cost to local communities to eject one.
Upward mobility should probably be lessened anyway. The people who are moving up are incompetents, as we see from the current wrecked state of the West.
@amerika
If you reduce the complexity of the overall system, and repeal the 17th, people will look more into local governance.
My ideas all come back to forcing people to exist in their locality.
Get me going on the electric grid, public water and sewage systems.
People will do anything to dodge the diversity question.
It's a nice thought that people have liability for whatever they do, instead of socializing cost.
It's also mostly unenforceable and cuts out the utility of having people invest in corporations.
Culture of course restrains the speculators.
Voluntarism is something else, I think, and it never struck me as realistic or good.
@truthbait
Everything is compulsory licensed.
Once you sell an idea, others can sell it for a nominal fee.
Make it so that people cannot profit from their inventions, and you will get less of those.
Contrast Europe and the USA during the last century.
@amerika
Fair enough.
I agree on repealing the 17th, but so far, I have seen zero reason not to repeal everything past the Bill of Rights.
It's a good point and you are talking classic supply-side economics there: put the money back into production as part of a cycle, and you get more production, instead of relying on speculation to drive the economy (which is what Sir Pantangelini is talking about in his rant about corpos, most likely).
It's an interesting idea. I think this would apply most in court cases about IP law, i.e. instead of regular damages, you just charge a licensing fee and legal costs.
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
Somewhere in here it was asked how does a poor person start a business.
This becomes easier imho.
You enter into a contract with a local business, , now you are a business of your own, with a customer, you hone your skills and get more customers.
@truthbait
Once you sell the idea.
Without going that far, I think it might discourage inovation because people will find it hard to profit from their ideas when a larger firm swoops in, gets the compulsory licenses, and sells it more cheaply.
Economies of scale are great but can work against us.
I think the point is start-up funding.
Say I invent a new type of nuclear reactor; it will take a billion dollars to get it going.
I need a way to raise that, and selling stock/futures is the best way anyone knows of so far.
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
Remind me again how this is different from Elon buying all sorts of people's ideas.
Again, you lose that monster entity that can simply buy whatever they want.
Interesting. I didn't know this but I know very little of entertainment law, and am very skeptical of most of the rock song court cases for the same reason that the "Stairway" case was decided: arguably rock is so simple that unless you clone the vocal melody or the song entirely, all these cases should be thrown out.
HOWEVER (big point is) I think a lot of law is going in this direction simply because damages can be so wild, and those costs get passed on to the consumer. Lawyers generally know little of economics but that is changing.
@amerika
Who owns nuclear reactors again?
Who are they liable to if they fuck up?
Why do we want a huge energy system as opposed to many locally or individually run systems connected to each other?
I'm a big fan of failure.
I agree there: Google buying companies to kill them is not a good thing.
However, short of having an antitrust judge look over the process, there's no real solution.
My solution here is to stop using lawyers on crap cases, and to focus on actual damages to consumers.
Right now only antitrust law and class action suits deal with damages to consumers as a group. These are sub-optimal (LOL).
@amerika
Google wouldn't exist tho...
YouTube would just be YouTube, and Twitter would never have had thousands of useless employees to fire.
Big point here is "new type of nuclear reactor" that needs funding.
I think you have added another issue here which relates to regulation of utilities.
Arguably, we needed Google to exist. For a few years, they provided something that no one else could.
It turned out to be based on bullshit -- PageRank -- but now no one can compete with their indexing and engineer corps.
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
Think about the shit too man...
It's an interesting question. I favor minimal government involvement, but utilities evolved to be exclusive for a reason.
Exams world? What did I miss?
I wish we had stuck with AltaVista, but I think there were going to be problems at scale.
Now THAT'S a flashback.
Holy shit the acid I took in high school just kicked in.
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
I appreciate you three contemplating this.
My position is not as crazy or frivolous as is first sounds.
Its just way outside the box.
I am a flat moon theorist tho.
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
As different religions can make for better or worse societies, so does the commerce system and legal system.
Christianity has the biggest W on religion,(can be tweaked as better or worse) representative republic for law, and capitalism with commerce, however I see the corporate mentality of forever growth and liability shields as toxic to capitalism.
And that's a hard one to budget folks on.
@amerika @scottdhansen @truthbait
To note.
Part of my extreme stance is the understanding that the world is in turmoil, and a unified foe is the best option for this.
Corporations being this foil is the healthiest/most functional option.
Specifically it supplies commies with an offramp that doesn't wholly include capitalism, only a plugin for capitalism.
@truthbait
We have that already.
Why not focus their mindless hate on the structure and not other human cogs.
Egalitarianism/individualism/narcissism is the enemy.
It's not tangible but it's a pathology.