Corporations=Collectivism.....

[danberkeley]

I don't have a problem with people working together for a greater good, but when the seek to use the collectivist corporate capital (like I sated above with monsanto) to kill the individual organic farmer whose seed has been corrupted by someone else so everyone will use monsanto seed....that is the problem....

what is "collectivist corporate capital"? besides, your example sound like problem with trademark laws and the courts. the "individual organic farmer" should sue Monsato for property damage.

Monsanto seeks to use their collectivist capital to squelch out everyone who refuses their genetically modified seed, so they can have a monoply on seed....

so?

Even with a most cursorary search you cold literally funds hundreds of cases where they have done this....followed by many many thousands if you really research it.....

i recommend Dominick T. Armentino's Antitrust: The Case for Repeal

When corporations seek to stamp out individuals through collective capital....that is NOT free market capitalism.....

when laws prevent any company from "stamping out" competition with "superior capital", that IS NOT free market capitalism.

 

[danberkeley]

That's an interesting question you pose with Mises not having a problem with corporations......

But let those of us who don't know ask....did mises base his views on the founding fathers intent or what arose after him?

Mises based his views on the Austrian school of economics.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Berkeley: 1 Buffalo:0

 

[buffalokid777]

This is what makes me mad. Buffalokid has NO idea what he is talking about, yet he still continues to insist upon unsupported opinion. The reason some of the corrupt corporations (a small percentage of the many thousands might I mind you) get away with things is because of a corrupt, collectivist government. So please, shutup when you don't know what you are talking about, buffalo. Your argument will have some validity when you take a few economics classes.

"This is a stupid argument. Sure, there are some bad corporations that probably don't deserve to exist, but the idea that corporations are morally wrong is just stupid. Corporations only exist because the legal framework says they can. They rise up from the free market, generally because they can produce much better than your individual producer." EXACTLY! You could take the name "corporation" away, and they would still form. It's just nature for the free market...it's part of growth.

So here's a clever response to your catchy thread title, buffalo. Corporations=Collectivism? Buffalokid=Moron.

Call me names if you like, it seems to be your modus operandi....disagree with something call them a moron.....or a commy or collectivist......

I would have more respect for you if you would read J.A banks book the death of individual capatilasim other then expect me to break a whole book down for you....while you call me names...

But your intent is not learning or thinking about the current system and providing better solutions...it is about labeling anyone who doesn't agree with the status quo as moron, commy, or whatever......and defending the status quo tooth and nails

But it's allright...I really don't care what you think.....

What I hope is the ones who see thru your lack of intellectual honesty see thru your neocon style talking point rants.....most of us have seen them quite enough in the past years....

No my real quest is to have others who have intellectually honest souls read J.A. Banks book The Death of Individual Capitalism and maybe see some views other than what we are fed and to comment on the book.....

I know you won't because you seem to think the status quo is the way.....

But I'm not looking for the lost souls who like the status quo....I am hoping to turn others who are verry unhappy with the status quo on to a book that changed the way I had previously viewed things.....and added to my knowledge....I know your mind is closed....and we won't convince you no matter what....but most of the Ron Paul supporters who have been here the longest have open minds and are willing to learn and read new things and decide for themselves if the information is worth knowing no matter if I say it is or you say it it worthless....

So those of us who came here with open minds, a love of freedom and liberty, and no exterior motives....I urge you to read the book The Death Of Individual Capitalism by J.A. Banks and decide for yourself who's arguments hold weight on this thread....It is something I found that I think holds great weight when looking at what the current corporate structure has become vs what it used to be before the federal reserve system.......

 

[rockandrollsouls]

I wouldn't call you a moron if you had a clue about what you were talking about. Let me clarify; you're a moron, idiot, communist, etc. if you try to manipulate something and make decisions based on something you don't understand. You're the one throwing around terms that you don't have the slightest clue about. This is a complete spam/hate thread. Take a class on economics. Everyone here already tore you a new one, yet you persist. What's it going to take for you to shut up? You can be upset that I called you out, but it's your own fault. You brought it on yourself by your ignorance and clear lack of understand for the topic at hand. And now you're trying to link the Federal Reserve and corporations..I really just don't know what you're getting at here. Again, you're just throwing around a bunch of words and concepts you don't understand. I'd say quit while you're ahead, but you're not even ahead.

You're sounding like Obama/Obama supporter. Status quo, corporations are bad, blah blah. Don't know what I'm talking about, but these words are bad, and anything relating to them are bad. Give me a break. Can't you just admit you were wrong and move on, and maybe learn something from it? Stubborn, stubborn people. It's like an art teacher trying to diagnose and treat a problem like a doctor. You're way out of line here, buddy. It's just not your forte. DON'T PREACH ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

 

[buffalokid777]

FYI.....If you would like to see Rock and Roll souls debating technique.....let me offer you this morsel.....

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2176

Watch the video.....Is Kevin James much more different than Rockandrollsouls....

I say this to show the way he argues things is no different....he has a talking point, and he will seek to press it despite where the conversation goes.....you give the places where you gained your opinion from...but rather than research that source....they will continue on talking about something they refuse to research to have an informed opinion.....just to get the talking points across to anyone that will listen.....

Rockand roll souls.....u are a perfect neocon.....and if your not......im shocked they haven't given you a job yet.....you mirror their intellectual discourse which is intellectuly dishonest.....rather than seek to learn their way is to impose their point....and if they can't convince you, they seek to disqualify you by namecalling.....

Read the book....then come back....and I'll be happy to debate you.....my guess is you won't read it because you love the status quo so much........you will just continue to call me names like the neocon i suspect you to be......

 

[buffalokid777]

I wouldn't call you a moron if you had a clue about what you were talking about. Let me clarify; you're a moron, idiot, communist, etc. if you try to manipulate something and make decisions based on something you don't understand. You're the one throwing around terms that you don't have the slightest clue about. This is a complete spam/hate thread. Take a class on economics. Everyone here already tore you a new one, yet you persist. What's it going to take for you to shut up? You can be upset that I called you out, but it's your own fault. You brought it on yourself by your ignorance and clear lack of understand for the topic at hand. And now you're trying to link the Federal Reserve and corporations..I really just don't know what you're getting at here. Again, you're just throwing around a bunch of words and concepts you don't understand. I'd say quit while you're ahead, but you're not even ahead.

You're sounding like Obama/Obama supporter. Status quo, corporations are bad, blah blah. Don't know what I'm talking about, but these words are bad, and anything relating to them are bad. Give me a break. Can't you just admit you were wrong and move on, and maybe learn something from it? Stubborn, stubborn people. It's like an art teacher trying to diagnose and treat a problem like a doctor. You're way out of line here, buddy. It's just not your forte.

Believe me, I took macronomics in college....but it was long ago, before the colleges started a curriculim that supports the current system.....with SIV and mark to model computations.....FYI...these didn't exist until this decade Mr Know it all

Read the book....until you can do that....I refuse to waste time on you, you can't discuss intelligently the book and it's theorms unless you read it....

Oh and by the way...what makes you the GOD who Understands the financial system?

Are you so special to know how it works that no one else who might have a different opinion might be right?

Surely the sign shows you have a closed mind incapable of looking at new information and deciding objectively if it is worthy.....because if you did you would look at the info and then decide rather than dismissing it because you know everything.....so you can comment on it without looking at it because your status quo is perfect

 

[Kludge]

buffalo, do you object to the English usage of grammar?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Yea? Well I don't think you paid attention in that class because you do not know, for the life of you, what you are talking about. Just because some jerk-off wrote a book doesn't mean he's right. All you need to do is look at the data and trust in the free market. To try and prevent "corporations," which is an entity that would arise in the free market without that dreaded name, is socialism. I'm just going to stop ranting, but you should read a few books that aren't so absurd.

I think half the board should stop wasting its time on you...you're the one posting nonsensical spam threads to support your ridiculous theories based on nothing except your biased opinion and a stupid book you read!

 

[buffalokid777]

I'm just going to stop ranting, but you should read a few books that aren't so absurd.

When did you go to school? I went in the early 80's....what was taught in macroeconomics then is much different than now....

I recommended my book that I think you should read.....ala Ron Paul offering Neocon Giulianni his reading list.....

What books am I missing....I will actually read the books you suggest and come back here and discuss them.....

I am not seeking to impose my point only to say I found a book that I think is important and I think we should read and discuss it......

If there are books that are so diametrically opposed to the ones I think important, Please tell me an I will be happy to read them so I can discuss them intelligently.....I only hope you will have the same intectuall honesty to read the one I have quoted on this thread....

So give me your study list....I will be happy to read those books as I only seek to learn....and after I read them for myself, I will create my own opinions of the books you recommend......and be able to discuss them intelligently....

So give me your reading list.....Im Ready

 

[rockandrollsouls]

You can START with any of the books on this list http://www.mises.org/store/For-Beginners-C9.aspx You really can't go wrong with any of them. However, this is only a starting point. Once you have some of the concepts down from some of those books you can begin to piece together things and it makes a little more sense. Of course, none of them are going to directly address the issue we are talking about, but you'll begin to understand why things work, how they work, and what makes them work.

 

[buffalokid777]

You can START with any of the books on this list http://www.mises.org/store/For-Beginners-C9.aspx You really can't go wrong with any of them. However, this is only a starting point. Once you have some of the concepts down from some of those books you can begin to piece together things and it makes a little more sense. Of course, none of them are going to directly address the issue we are talking about, but you'll begin to understand why things work, how they work, and what makes them work.

Well I have read some of them.....

And of course they won't address everything as I am looking for previously undiscussed solutions which is why I offer up the book The death of Individual capitalism by J.A banks......

So tell me, out of the Mises websites books....which one do you think I need to read the most? I like mises theories, but that is NOT why I support Ron Paul......

Mises theories are much better than what we have now.....but could there be something better? I don't know but I'd like to find out.....Just because Ron Paul supports Mises theories, doesn't mean adjustments couldn't be made to bring us an even more non collectivist free market that what mises theorized.....and I think there is alot of wiggle room to discuss on corporations since most of the corporate law we currently have was made after Mises was dead.....

So if you ACTUALLY have read any of those books.....tell me which one is the MOST important for me to discuss with you and if by chance it is one of the ones I haven't read......I will......and be back here in no time.....

 

[efiniti]

After seeing on these various threads the defense of corporations......by people who supposedly hate collectivism....

Corporations are simply financial collectivism in my views.......

It is a group of investors stamping out individual proprietors......through superior capital

Prove me wrong.......

What about when two individuals, who happen to be suppliers, make a contract with each other and pool together their resources to be able to lower their prices below another competitor? Does that make them collectivist? Is this a bad thing? What's your point?

I think the key point you're missing is the voluntary interaction. It isn't about Collectivism, its about the use of force.

 

[buffalokid777]

What about when two individuals, who happen to be suppliers, make a contract with each other and pool together their resources to be able to lower their prices below another competitor? Does that make them collectivist? Is this a bad thing? What's your point?

I think the key point you're missing is the voluntary interaction. It isn't about Collectivism, its about the use of force.

No I do not have a problem with that.....

Because each were businessmen and pooled their resources......

My main problem is public stock offerings.......This allows mindless people who know nothing about business, who never would have entered into business, to allow their capital to be used by unknown parties......some of these corporations will use their capital wisely and give them a dividend.....others will siphon it off at the top through salaries and leave the investor broke.....Yet other corporations will use that capital for the most sinister of purposes to destroy their competition in the free market....it allows for corruption on a scale that can interfere with free markets......

Take wal mart for example.....yes the corporation was started by a voluntary action, the investors offered their investment by voluntary action....then the people who control wal mart took that voluntary capital.....

They opened up stores, they used the purchasing power of the capital to sell goods for below profit....why...so they could destroy the individual competition....once they did and they controlled market share they raised them prices.....

The problem with this model is it either forces all corporations to become public to remain competitive (Which is involuntary if you want to survive).....or be destroyed when a competitor can raise more capital to weather the hard times of no profits while they put the competition out of business.....that will be made up once the competition is put out of business....

In my eyes....

Private Corporations = Innovation
Public Corporations = Monopoly

If we would enforce anti trust laws to the letter of the law....Public corporations would not be the problem they are, but enforcement of anti trust laws is not the cause of the problem, it is rather a symptom of public corporations using their wealth to put their politicians into government so the anti trust laws arent really enforced....

This began with the standard oil monopoly and continues to this day.....

I am all for free markets....but time after time I see public corporations keeping markets from being truly free.....

 

[Kalifornia]

Corporations are collectivist. But where you are running into trouble is assuming that all collectivism is messed up. INVOLUNTARY collectivism is immoral. VOLUNTARY collectivism (which is what a normal non limited liability corporation is) is okay, in fact, there are many efficiencies of scale, etc, which can be gained from people banding together to specialize in certain tasks. Think of the ideal "good" corporation as a hippie commune. So long as they dont shit in other peoples sundaes, and dont force anyone to join, they are good to go.

The real evil associated with the modern corporate form has to do with a couple of factors.

1. Unlike a natural person, corporations dont die.
2. Corporate "personhood", which extends beyond the legal fiction necessary for them to be sued, is a HORRIBLE idea. Civil rights are for real bleeding dying people, not some freaking economic zombie that cant be killed.
3. Limited Liability. It creates a whole bunch perverse incentives which arent good for society. Mostly it has to do with being able to externalize risk, torts, and other negative costs onto society at large.

Get rid of those things, and perhaps a few others, and a corporation is no more threatening than a rock band or a small business partnership. With the special government granted privileges, they are a terrible force to be reckoned with.

 

[buffalokid777]

Corporations are collectivist. But where you are running into trouble is assuming that all collectivism is messed up. INVOLUNTARY collectivism is immoral. VOLUNTARY collectivism (which is what a normal non limited liability corporation is) is okay, in fact, there are many efficiencies of scale, etc, which can be gained from people banding together to specialize in certain tasks. Think of the ideal "good" corporation as a hippie commune. So long as they dont shit in other peoples sundaes, and dont force anyone to join, they are good to go.

The real evil associated with the modern corporate form has to do with a couple of factors.

1. Unlike a natural person, corporations dont die.
2. Corporate "personhood", which extends beyond the legal fiction necessary for them to be sued, is a HORRIBLE idea. Civil rights are for real bleeding dying people, not some freaking economic zombie that cant be killed.
3. Limited Liability

Get rid of those things, and perhaps a few others, and a corporation is no more threatening than a rock band or a small business partnership. With the special government granted privileges, they are a terrible force to be reckoned with.

Actually no....my thesis is that when corporations use their resources to infringe on free markets.....they become a problem....corporations that use their capital for innovation are NOT a problem.....

Corporations that use their capital to infringe on the free market by creating Monopolies ARE a problem.....

That is my view in a nutshell......

 

[danberkeley]

Well I have read some of them.....

And of course they won't address everything as I am looking for previously undiscussed solutions which is why I offer up the book The death of Individual capitalism by J.A banks......

So tell me, out of the Mises websites books....which one do you think I need to read the most? I like mises theories, but that is NOT why I support Ron Paul......

I've offered you Dominick T. Armentano's Antitrust: The Case for Repeal. It deals with your problem about monopolistic practices. It's only 106 pages and the 2nd edition is published by the Mises Institute. There is another book by Armentano with goes further into antitrust called, Antitrust and Monopoly and is published by The Independent Institute.

 

[danberkeley]

No I do not have a problem with that.....

Because each were businessmen and pooled their resources......

My main problem is public stock offerings.......This allows mindless people who know nothing about business, who never would have entered into business, to allow their capital to be used by unknown parties......some of these corporations will use their capital wisely and give them a dividend.....others will siphon it off at the top through salaries and leave the investor broke.....Yet other corporations will use that capital for the most sinister of purposes to destroy their competition in the free market....it allows for corruption on a scale that can interfere with free markets......

People should take responsibility for their actions. Dont invest in a company if it is to risky for you. Businesses go bust for many reasons and owners should take the hit for any losses. It sounds like you are advocating for a nanny-state-like intervention in business, but we already have the SEC, FTC, et cetera and we've seen how bad of a job they have done.

Take wal mart for example.....yes the corporation was started by a voluntary action, the investors offered their investment by voluntary action....then the people who control wal mart took that voluntary capital.....

They opened up stores, they used the purchasing power of the capital to sell goods for below profit....why...so they could destroy the individual competition....once they did and they controlled market share they raised them prices.....

again, read the book i recommended.

The problem with this model is it either forces all corporations to become public to remain competitive (Which is involuntary if you want to survive).....or be destroyed when a competitor can raise more capital to weather the hard times of no profits while they put the competition out of business.....that will be made up once the competition is put out of business....

your asking for protectionism

In my eyes....

Private Corporations = Innovation
Public Corporations = Monopoly

If we would enforce anti trust laws to the letter of the law....Public corporations would not be the problem they are, but enforcement of anti trust laws is not the cause of the problem, it is rather a symptom of public corporations using their wealth to put their politicians into government so the anti trust laws arent really enforced....

This began with the standard oil monopoly and continues to this day.....

I am all for free markets....but time after time I see public corporations keeping markets from being truly free.....

read the book! read the book! read the book!

 

[danberkeley]

Actually no....my thesis is that when corporations use their resources to infringe on free markets.....they become a problem....corporations that use their capital for innovation are NOT a problem.....

Corporations that use their capital to infringe on the free market by creating Monopolies ARE a problem.....

That is my view in a nutshell......

name me a company that BECAME a monopoly and used it's capital to "infringe" on the free market and WAS NOT created or at least assisted by the government. the Monsato example does not qualify.

 

[buffalokid777]

People should take responsibility for their actions. Dont invest in a company if it is to risky for you. Businesses go bust for many reasons and owners should take the hit for any losses. It sounds like you are advocating for a nanny-state-like intervention in business, but we already have the SEC, FTC, et cetera and we've seen how bad of a job they have done.



again, read the book i recommended.



your asking for protectionism



read the book! read the book! read the book!

I will admit, I haven't read that book......but will return once I have.....your method is better than the lost RNRsoul.....if there is something you truly belive in....tell us about it so we can digest it and discuss it intelligently, I will purchase your recommended reading tommorow and be back here to discuss it monday.....I will only hope you will read the the book I have suggested J.A. Banks The death of Individual Capitalism....so you will be prepared to discuss the points I feel important, since I know I will be fully ready to discuss the points you feel important on monday.......