Are Corporations a Threat to Democracy?

[Strike For The South]

It's a catch-22. Corporations usually do a much better job than the goverenment and as was mentioned early in the thread big ones can fianance products that would otherwise be unfianancable.

Now of course they sink there greedy paws into goverenment but that's been going on for centuries.

Where's the "We've been getting screwed for awhile but at least have some cool stuff to show for it" option?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Where's the "We've been getting screwed for awhile but at least have some cool stuff to show for it" option?

That option is in the Monastery, in the thread 'The world before neo-liberalism'.

[jabarto]

Really? Why? It's not the most profitable approach. There seems to be an unfounded fear that without strict regulation we'll return to the worst excesses of the late 1800s.

Well, yeah. The 1800's pretty much proved that if they can possbily squeeze another dime out of someone without consequence, they're more than likely to try.

Just curious, what *is* the most profitable approach if not this?

A few simple rules (not polluting, etc.) are good.

CR

Maybe I gave you too little credit before. You're leagues above most libertarians if you're willing to admit that.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, yeah. The 1800's pretty much proved that if they can possbily squeeze another dime out of someone without consequence, they're more than likely to try.

Just curious, what *is* the most profitable approach if not this?

If your workers cannot buy your products, you are losing their business and therefore their money. It is more profitable to pay workers a living wage and to have them buy your products. That is why we are no longer in the 1800s, not because of government regulation. I would argue that the 1800s are not an example of pure, unfettered capitalism at all, but that is another point altogether.

[Idaho]

A corporation is going to do everything legal, and will push the boundaries of the law, in order to get more money. This effect is amplified the larger it gets. A massive corporation has no other reason to exist but to make more money. And that money is used to directly challenge or reinforce decisions that make the corporation richer or poorer. The larger corporation often has so many offshoots in so many different markets that it has no overall 'trade' or 'industry sector'. It simply deals in the business of business. Money. And when money gets big enough that a small change in the law here, tax percentage there, or foreign policy decision elsewhere makes billions of dollars difference to the corporation's profits - that corporation will take measure to influence that decision.

Corporate interests control the political campaign's of politicians and the access to those politicians - the democratic value of a citizen's vote is hence greatly diminished.

[Ironside]

If your workers cannot buy your products, you are losing their business and therefore their money. It is more profitable to pay workers a living wage and to have them buy your products. That is why we are no longer in the 1800s, not because of government regulation. I would argue that the 1800s are not an example of pure, unfettered capitalism at all, but that is another point altogether.

First: That's Fordism, the capitalistic counter to socialism (yes I agree that the middle class and the western world is built on that idea).

Second: That's not true for the induvidal company. They profit from low wages if the ones with high wages are plentyful enough compared to your own employees. Otherwise we wouldn't have production export to low salary countries. And it's certainly not a fundamental idea amongst prominent supporters of capitalism. Why would they otherwise fight against minimun salaries? Or proposing a general salary decrease as a whole or for large speciffic groups?

[Meneldil]

If your workers cannot buy your products, you are losing their business and therefore their money. It is more profitable to pay workers a living wage and to have them buy your products. That is why we are no longer in the 1800s, not because of government regulation. I would argue that the 1800s are not an example of pure, unfettered capitalism at all, but that is another point altogether.

That would be true, if:
- it weren't possible to export your goods to other places where people might be able to buy them
- corporations made plans based on the long-term.

As it is now, they are only driven by short term profit, and are willing to do anything to increase these profits. Even if it means destroying the system that gave birth to them.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Too big to fail = Too big to exist.

[rvg]

Too big to fail = Too big to exist.

amen to that. Chop-chop-chop.

[Beskar]

I would argue Worker Councils and certain types of Cooperative's are the changes that need to occur in the economy. It is socialist ideas such as these which are the best.

Also, just to make this clear, Socialist doesn't mean = nationalised. These Worker Councils and Cooperatives can operative privately/independently.