Are Corporations a Threat to Democracy?

[Beskar]

I think you might be making the corporations out to be more malicious then they really are.

They don't care about people, only their profits. They don't care about the well-being or the greater good. They would serve water only in bottles at $20 if they could get away with it. Luckily, we have regulation there to stop this from happening.

Take this however you want, whether it makes it seem that capitalism is a terrible plague of an economic system upon mankind for this lack of morals (which I can't really argue against, if we are talking about capitalism in its purest form)

It is an unfortunate truth.

or whether it enlightens you that there really is no grand conspiracy to keep all of us down, there is just incentives that all of us follow and that any economic situation can be solved if we just know the incentives perpetuating a problem and fix them.

Luckily, we have some control over corperations to stop this from happening. Get rid of that, then it wouldn't surprise me this will happen in the Western World. However, it already does happen in Latin America, Africa and off the coast of America and other locations.

I would like to finish by saying that in regards to the housing collapse we have experienced in America, that it was indeed caused by the free market, but what does that really mean? Congress in the early 90's deregulated the home loaning market in regards to high risk loans, this caused the free market to create a bubble that recently collapsed. People like to start pointing the finger at the banks for doing such a thing, but lets look at all participants of this bubble:
1. The banks did make irresponsible loans, but they just followed the new incentive for more profits.
2. The people applied for these irresponsible loans that were impossible to pay off, but they just followed the new incentive for a higher standard of living, including a nice house in a nice suburban neighborhood that exemplifies the American dream.

Well lets blame Congress for starting this in the first place! Well....all Congress did was follow the incentive in trying to make the economy better and grow so they can keep their jobs.

I put it this way. Why were the rules there in the first place? It was to stop this from happening because it was a foolish idea. Obviously, you would think "duh, even my uncles pet dog knows this is a stupid idea, why do we need all these stupid rules? No one is ever going to do it."

Lo' and behold.

Unfortunately, the world would be a better place without less rules if everyone had a brain cell and a had a moral fibre. Unfortunately, this isn't the case so these things have to be done.

There is another thing you American's like to discuss everytime 100 odd kids in a high school have been gunned down - Gun Regulation. Millions of people keep getting shot - FACT. Now, there is the obvious argument "Ban the guns, then no one can be shot" because you can't shoot some one without a gun. Then there is the argument "why punish us all because a big group of people with no moral fibre keep gunning people down.". etc.

The Free-market idea would be having no regulations on weapons or guns, so people with no morale fibre can run down the street with RPG's unchecked and having absolutely no responsiblity or restricts, then argue that the world would be a perfect place because no one will have a monopoly, do anything bad and won't exploit people! (except in every real life instance, returning to places like Africa again, it proves that they do)

[a completely inoffensive name]

They don't care about people, only their profits. They don't care about the well-being or the greater good. They would serve water only in bottles at $20 if they could get away with it. Luckily, we have regulation there to stop this from happening.

Yes, and if you read on i explain why this not malicious but amoral, but you seemed to skip over that. If we were to call anyone who puts their want of money over the well being of others "bad" people, then we shall all go to hell for our sins of buying cheaper Chinese products instead of good ole American products.

Luckily, we have some control over corperations to stop this from happening. Get rid of that, then it wouldn't surprise me this will happen in the Western World. However, it already does happen in Latin America, Africa and off the coast of America and other locations.

Clarify for me. Are you talking about a grand conspiracy or bad incentives?

I put it this way. Why were the rules there in the first place? It was to stop this from happening because it was a foolish idea. Obviously, you would think "duh, even my uncles pet dog knows this is a stupid idea, why do we need all these stupid rules? No one is ever going to do it."

Oversimplification. The meaning behind a rule is not recorded on a law along with the law itself. Did economists predict that it would lead to a bubble, yes but many did not. Again, you make it seem like people did this for a reason so they could screw us all over. They just want more money, and so do we. They thought this could be a way for all of us to live better, banks get more more money, we get higher approval ratings, and people get bigger houses. An economy can die by a bad regulation just as fast as by removing a good one.

Unfortunately, the world would be a better place without less rules if everyone had a brain cell and a had a moral fibre. Unfortunately, this isn't the case so these things have to be done.

Correct, you have discovered why regulation is needed.

There is another thing you American's like to discuss everytime 100 odd kids in a high school have been gunned down - Gun Regulation. Millions of people keep getting shot - FACT. Now, there is the obvious argument "Ban the guns, then no one can be shot" because you can't shoot some one without a gun. Then there is the argument "why punish us all because a big group of people with no moral fibre keep gunning people down.". etc.

1. There are holes in your gun control argument, but that is way off topic.
2. You are attempting to compare an economic dilemma with a social one. They are incompatible because with the first every action "good" or "bad" is driven by incentives, in social problems such as gun control there is no incentive to go out and shoot people, or we would all be doing it. It is the random cruelty of a human causing one while the former is the unrelenting pursuit of a goal by an entity.

The Free-market idea would be having no regulations on weapons or guns, so people with no morale fibre can run down the street with RPG's unchecked and having absolutely no responsiblity or restricts, then argue that the world would be a perfect place because no one will have a monopoly, do anything bad and won't exploit people! (except in every real life instance, returning to places like Africa again, it proves that they do)

There is no "free market" idea to social situations. When we are not talking about economics (i.e. social situations) to advocate for no government is an anarchist position. Your paragraph here is meaningless.

[Beskar]

2. You are attempting to compare an economic dilemma with a social one. They are incompatible because with the first every action "good" or "bad" is driven by incentives, in social problems such as gun control there is no incentive to go out and shoot people, or we would all be doing it. It is the random cruelty of a human causing one while the former is the unrelenting pursuit of a goal by an entity.

There are reasons and incentives to go out and shoot people, or it simply would be done. Maybe it be for oppression over others, exploitation and a range and magnitude of things. Also, random cruelty is selfishness, while the latter is also seelfishness. They are the same.

There is no "free market" idea to social situations. When we are not talking about economics (i.e. social situations) to advocate for no government is an anarchist position. Your paragraph here is meaningless.

There is, the 'Social' plays a big aspect in everything, except staying completely isolated. The social inside of corporates, the social affect of corperates, the social conquences, etc.

Clarify for me. Are you talking about a grand conspiracy or bad incentives?

It's both, but this is surely, is this where we go "Grand Conspiracy = dark room with blinds closed mwahaha Dr. Evil style," or actual common known facts that they do actively fund wars in the name of profit, they do exploit people to make trainers for $3 per day for a wage in remote coastal island?

[a completely inoffensive name]

There are reasons and incentives to go out and shoot people, or it simply would be done. Maybe it be for oppression over others, exploitation and a range and magnitude of things. Also, random cruelty is selfishness, while the latter is also seelfishness. They are the same.

There is no widespread incentive for everyone to kill each other, all the reasons you listed are dependent on each individual and apply toward on certain situations for people, there is no widespread, universal incentive to kill each other.
As for your second sentence, you are again over simplifying things by disregarding context. From your white and black view we might as well put Adidas on the same level as Charles Manson. Companies do unfavorable things because they want money, murderers kill because they enjoy the act of murdering someone. Everyone wants money, and we have done or will do things we are not proud of for money, but the vast majority of us don't murder because we enjoy it.

There is, the 'Social' plays a big aspect in everything, except staying completely isolated. The social inside of corporates, the social affect of corperates, the social conquences, etc.

The social effects of corporations are side effects of their economic impact, which come from incentives that promote such economic activity. If you remove the incentive to make cheap sweatshops, they will not make cheap sweatshops.

It's both, but this is surely, is this where we go "Grand Conspiracy = dark room with blinds closed mwahaha Dr. Evil style," or actual common known facts that they do actively fund wars in the name of profit, they do exploit people to make trainers for $3 per day for a wage in remote coastal island?

There is a difference between promote/fund and capitalize. Did companies push the country into war, or did they just take advantage of it? I don't see anywhere your "commonly known facts" are written down as if they were the Ten Commandments. Let me ask you something, what were those people in this remote coastal island making before the sweatshop came? What we are seeing with these overseas factories is the process of industrialization with the same risks and dangers that the U.S. went through for a hundred years before we began to demand for more government regulation.

[Idaho]

Incorrect, as the government often implements monopolies. Monopolies are not prevented specifically by the free market or government, but they can be prevented by a properly implemented free market or by properly implemented government rules, or both. It depends what is preferred.

I think you might be making the corporations out to be more malicious then they really are.

Corporations are not malicious. They are merely single-purpose entities with the sole aim of making as much money as possible. They are the equivalent of sociopaths. They have no morals or conscience. They just make money. And a key part of that strategy is that they strive to become monopolies.