Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And in places where it has killed the small businesses, has it increased prices? And if it does increase prices, what will stop Target from moving in and taking their business?
    Wow, what choices corporatism provides! Wal-Mart or (possibly) Target! Thank God that I, a self-actualized consumer, will have the choice to buy the same shoddily constructed apparel, recreational, and electronics garbage under either a white sign or a red one! God bless America.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Suppose an orphanage invests money in Microsoft. The money will eventually be used to provide a college education to the orphans. Meanwhile, Microsoft decides to go out and give away their profits to charity. The price of Microsoft stock falls (or doesn't increase by as much as it otherwise would), thereby depriving these orphans of an education. Would it not make more sense for Microsoft to maximize its profit and allow its shareholders to donate to charity if they so wish?

    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Wow, what choices corporatism provides! Wal-Mart or (possibly) Target! Thank God that I, a self-actualized consumer, will have the choice to buy the same shoddily constructed apparel, recreational, and electronics garbage under either a white sign or a red one! God bless America.
    If enough people agreed with you, Wal-Mart and Target would both be out of business. It's called consumer democracy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    If enough people agreed with you, Wal-Mart and Target would both be out of business. It's called consumer democracy.
    I know, but not enough people agree with me. The fact remains that I'm tired of corporate cheerleaders telling me how many choices I have.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    I know, but not enough people agree with me. The fact remains that I'm tired of corporate cheerleaders telling me how many choices I have.
    Why do you want to impose your economic views on the rest of the population? I like shrimp, therefore only shrimp should be sold in all stores from now on. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    I know, but not enough people agree with me. The fact remains that I'm tired of corporate cheerleaders telling me how many choices I have.
    We get more choices each day, we can watch Mexican tv, eat Sushi, wear Itallain clothes and drive German cars. How much choice do you want?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Why do you want to impose your economic views on the rest of the population?
    Who says I do?

    I just don't want to hear another word about the freedom and individuality nurtured by corporate capitalism. It's the opposite of the truth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    We get more choices each day, we can watch Mexican tv, eat Sushi, wear Itallain clothes and drive German cars. How much choice do you want?
    All these things have been true for decades. And they are just as true in countries with less market capitalism than we have.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Iz the Wiz]All these things have been true for decades.

    No they are not. 30 yrs ago you could not buy sushi in a supermarket, Gucci was only for the superrich likewise for German cars. Go out on the street and count how many BMWs and mercs you can see. Decades ago people never had 300 plus international channels.


    And they are just as true in countries with less market capitalism than we have.

    Really? I don't remember seeing many BMWs in China. Certainly none in N Korea i dare say. Look at Cuba they still have cars from the 1950s. Russia is filled with larders not rovers, mercs, nissan etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Who says I do?

    I just don't want to hear another word about the freedom and individuality nurtured by corporate capitalism. It's the opposite of the truth.
    You want to have small and expensive stores instead of large cheap stores, and are willing to harm the latter in order to benefit the former. This despite most Americans disagreeing with you. Why not move somewhere where people prefer to pay higher prices for their goods and services?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    With the free market, the consumer is king. I don't see why some people have such problems with it.
    The anti-tesco protests piss me off more than anything else.
    Sorry, but is there really much choice? Someone said we would go elsewhere for our goods if we were dissatisfied.Where exactly?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    You want to have small and expensive stores instead of large cheap stores, and are willing to harm the latter in order to benefit the former. This despite most Americans disagreeing with you. Why not move somewhere where people prefer to pay higher prices for their goods and services?
    "Despite most Americans disagreeing with me"? So what?

    I don't want small expensive stores. I'm not "willing to harm" anyone---where are you getting this garbage?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    In the UK your are wrong.
    The details differ, but the conditions which led to mad cow in the UK are still the operation of profit motive. From the UK government's BSE (i.e., mad cow) Inquiry:

    "The slaughtering industry is central to the BSE story ... Slaughterhouses seek to maximise profits by maximising their throughput (the number of animals killed). This results in an emphasis on processing animals quickly, which can conflict with the interests of hygiene. The slaughterhouse depends crucially on those downstream of it, particularly the renderers, to handle the by-products and waste it produces ... compound feed production for cattle increased between 1974 and 1983. This increase was influenced by the financial incentives for dairy farmers to produce as much milk as possible, thereby requiring large volumes of feed for their cattle." (http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume13/toc.htm)



    What experiences? Perhaps these 'experiences' are not the norm thus other people don;t have such an anti-corp mentality. I think you are in the minority toherwise others would be finding out about these things.
    I am in the minority. (Briefly, my experiences include falling ass-backwards into the field of legal proofreading, and one day a friend told me Morgan Stanley, the financial firm, was hiring proofreaders. So I stumbled into a job at Morgan Stanley's investment banking division. I've signed more confidentiality agreements than you've ever seen---and with good reason. At Morgan Stanley, reading presentation after presentation, I became aware of the immensity (and tremendous recent growth) of corporate power. It was there that I read sentences like this: "The carefully orchestrated 'discovery' [of our product] by select top-tier media will ensure strong sales out of the gate." It was there that I saw charts comparing leading corporations' revenues with the GDP of nations like Portugal, and celebrating the growing superiority of the corporations. And it was there that I learned that an MBA from Harvard or Columbia is no guarantee of intelligence or even any conspicuous knowledge.)

    Anyway, by the time I finally left I was convinced of who was running the world, and I had some idea what they were like. If that job hadn't come along I'd probably be much more vague about the nature of the modern world, and would never have begun seeking out the relevant info (for lack of knowing where to start).

    By offering an analysis of a novel and its implications for certain readers?
    No, that was a separate point ... but it was still only a critique of actual Capitalism, not an attack on Rand. Hey, I like Francisco too. Who wouldn't like Francisco? Who wouldn't like Dagny, and all the rest of those brilliant, resourceful, inventive, good-looking and horny heroes and heroines? They're attractive characters. Vital characters. But I was saying that in real life, they're not in charge of capitalist enterprise, and they weren't in the 19th century, either.

    I never said people who receive investment must not give to chairty, rather they must not do it if that money was invested on the basis of making profits. This is about defending people's wealth and investments. Many people invest their savings, i want the law to protect them from MDs with a 'conscience' who are happy to give others money for others benefit, like Ford attempted. If people want to give money away, they can give it to chairites.
    Well, then why can't charities be granted "personhood" and all the attendant priveleges thereof? Why should the corporation, alone among organizations, have such exclusive privelege?

    There is no reason a firm couldn't offer its shareholders a contract upon their investment: "We will operate with your profits as our foremost priority," or the like---to show that it was a for-profit concern. And then the government could enforce that, as it enforces the validity of all binding contracts.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    "Despite most Americans disagreeing with me"? So what?

    I don't want small expensive stores. I'm not "willing to harm" anyone---where are you getting this garbage?
    If the small stores weren't expensive, they wouldn't be driven out of business by Wal-Mart and Target, would they?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    If the small stores weren't expensive, they wouldn't be driven out of business by Wal-Mart and Target, would they?
    Just because Wal-Mart can afford to sell the small store's $10.99 slacks for $9.99, doesn't make the small store "expensive."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I like corporations, such as Tesco, on the whole. They provide jobs and a high quality, good value product/service. I am in support of relatively high taxation and regulation on such corporations to protect consumers/employees, and also to ensure they make the maximum contribution to society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Around here, it isn't the corporations that put small firms out of business so much, more a mixture of high taxes and the knock-on rising rent. Markets are very popular.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Objectivism)
    No they are not. 30 yrs ago you could not buy sushi in a supermarket, Gucci was only for the superrich likewise for German cars. Go out on the street and count how many BMWs and mercs you can see. Decades ago people never had 300 plus international channels.
    30 years ago you couldn't buy sushi in a supermarket, but you could hear quality new rock or jazz on the radio. You could go to a (non-multiplex) theater to see a Hollywood movie & experience a masterful work of art. You could get high-quality clothes at JC Penney. (I've worn some from that era---they hold up better than new clothes!) You could find an excellent cheap bagel or slice of pizza without needing to hunt for it. At best, the options have changed. (But they have changed in a a strange way. All our new choices involve debt these days: our BMWs, Gucci suits, cable channels, cellphones, etc., translate into big monthly payments. I think the idea behind pushing them is to normalize the treadmill of debt.)

    Really? I don't remember seeing many BMWs in China. Certainly none in N Korea i dare say. Look at Cuba they still have cars from the 1950s. Russia is filled with larders not rovers, mercs, nissan etc.
    When I said "countries with less market capitalism than us," I did not intend to confine the list to Russia, China, Cuba, and North Korea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The details differ, but the conditions which led to mad cow in the UK are still the operation of profit motive. From the UK government's BSE (i.e., mad cow) Inquiry:

    "The slaughtering industry is central to the BSE story ... Slaughterhouses seek to maximise profits by maximising their throughput (the number of animals killed). This results in an emphasis on processing animals quickly, which can conflict with the interests of hygiene. The slaughterhouse depends crucially on those downstream of it, particularly the renderers, to handle the by-products and waste it produces ... compound feed production for cattle increased between 1974 and 1983. This increase was influenced by the financial incentives for dairy farmers to produce as much milk as possible, thereby requiring large volumes of feed for their cattle." (http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume13/toc.htm)
    If they weren't taxed so much they wouldn't be so inclined to cut corners and in so doing break the law.



    I am in the minority. (Briefly, my experiences include falling ass-backwards into the field of legal proofreading, and one day a friend told me Morgan Stanley, the financial firm, was hiring proofreaders. So I stumbled into a job at Morgan Stanley's investment banking division. I've signed more confidentiality agreements than you've ever seen---and with good reason. At Morgan Stanley, reading presentation after presentation, I became aware of the immensity (and tremendous recent growth) of corporate power. It was there that I read sentences like this: "The carefully orchestrated 'discovery' [of our product] by select top-tier media will ensure strong sales out of the gate." It was there that I saw charts comparing leading corporations' revenues with the GDP of nations like Portugal, and celebrating the growing superiority of the corporations.
    Actually its a misconcpetion that corporations are 51 of the largest 100 economies. These statements and the above Portugal point are arrived at by comparing companies sales and states gdp's. This is wrong. Imagine a market trder who sells 1000 sterling pounds of fruit pw, is he icher than a lawyer who earns 900 pw. Yes according to people who side with point you made.

    Corporations surely can't be as bad as you make out if you have to go deep inside them to see wha they are doing is so bad.

    Anyway whats wrong with growth? Making money? You make it sound as if there's something intrinscially bad about them being happy with their progress. The richer the get the better, the more people the employ, the more tax they pay, the more products they offer etc. They are producing something, unlike government.

    And it was there that I learned that an MBA from Harvard or Columbia is no guarantee of intelligence or even any conspicuous knowledge.)
    Sour grapes?


    Anyway, by the time I finally left I was convinced of who was running the world,
    The idea that corps are running the world is nonsence. We have increased taxes, increased state powers for example in the UK it looks like we will all have to have id cards, there is more cctv everyday. Corps need states as they maintain property law, thats why you don't see many going to Africa as its not worth the risk but you see them locating to East Asia, Europe etc because the states can protect them.

    and I had some idea what they were like. If that job hadn't come along I'd probably be much more vague about the nature of the modern world, and would never have begun seeking out the relevant info (for lack of knowing where to start).
    We can all point to random examples but to be honest if the problem was bad as you say people against corps would not be in the minority as you recognise.



    No, that was a separate point ... but it was still only a critique of actual Capitalism, not an attack on Rand. Hey, I like Francisco too. Who wouldn't like Francisco? Who wouldn't like Dagny, and all the rest of those brilliant, resourceful, inventive, good-looking and horny heroes and heroines? They're attractive characters. Vital characters. But I was saying that in real life, they're not in charge of capitalist enterprise, and they weren't in the 19th century, either.
    True they weren't in charge, if they were they would not have let welfaism to emerge. Thats why i said that era was not pure capitalist.


    Well, then why can't charities be granted "personhood" and all the attendant priveleges thereof? Why should the corporation, alone among organizations, have such exclusive privelege?
    If thats what they want and its not violating the rights of another i see no problem. You have to remember that the entity which gives corps its position which you condemn is ultimately the state. If anything blame government


    There is no reason a firm couldn't offer its shareholders a contract upon their investment: "We will operate with your profits as our foremost priority," or the like---to show that it was a for-profit concern. And then the government could enforce that, as it enforces the validity of all binding contracts.
    Such a contrct should be agreed before any money is given. If thats whta they wanted to do fine, but if they started blowing peoples money on chairty they'd sharp lose money and investment. The resuts would be unemployment, less products, less choice, no progress and no way out for third world countries
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    30 years ago you couldn't buy sushi in a supermarket, but you could hear quality new rock or jazz on the radio.
    You can still do it. In fact i was watching a progamme about jazz last night. If you want something its out there, go to a record store, listen to the music on the internet or just look around for a good radio channel you'll find one as there is a market for it. Of course not as big as40-50 yrs ago when jazz was the craze but you can't blame corporations for people developing tastes.

    You could go to a (non-multiplex) theater to see a Hollywood movie & experience a masterful work of art. You could get high-quality clothes at JC Penney. (I've worn some from that era---they hold up better than new clothes!) You could find an excellent cheap bagel or slice of pizza without needing to hunt for it.
    You can do this as well. Perhaps your just too picky. How do you know you could find good pizza 20 yrs ago - that is a value judgement, but can you remember eating pizza 20 yrs ago? Thus what are you comparing it to? An idea that 'things were better in the good old days'. Nothing more than a cliche. Clothes hold up fine if you buy well. Also people these days don't want the same trousers for years and years, they don;t want them to last long, they want to buy new trousers soon thus they don't want to pay extra for a 'stirdy' pair. They' d prefer to keep that money so they can buy some better and more modern and fasionable trousers later on.

    At best, the options have changed. (But they have changed in a a strange way. All our new choices involve debt these days: our BMWs, Gucci suits, cable channels, cellphones, etc., translate into big monthly payments. I think the idea behind pushing them is to normalize the treadmill of debt.)
    If you think people weren;t in debt 20 yrs ago your in a dream world. People choose to get in debt, its up to them what they buy. It is an expression of their freedom and corporations allow them to express this. It may not be wise but its their money. I wouldn't want to enforce my morals on them, they can buy what they want with their money.


    When I said "countries with less market capitalism than us," I did not intend to confine the list to Russia, China, Cuba, and North Korea.
    Ok, how about India - not many mercs there but plenty of those dreadful cars from the days when their car industry was closed off from competition. Fortunately this is changing. There arn't many people wearing Gucci in Venezuala. In Vietnam you need 60,000 dollars for a Japanese car, in Japan you need 20,000 for the same car. Why? Because the Vietnamese gov puts massive taxes on imported cars thus reducing choices for people. Ghana who rejected capitalism in te post war period for protectionsim dosen't have many mercs or sushi restaurants or mcdonaolds. Go to South Korea and see their vairiety - French food, german food, Thai food, pizzas, mcdonalds etc. Its all there if you want it.The trend is clear - those with less capitalism have less choice in their products.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Hehe! Spot on about who the corporate chipmunks are!

    Bizzy, retail isn't one of the sectors I mentioned, and Wal-Mart is a monopoly rather than one of an oligop. Innovation? Where? I notice that the US still struggles to send people to space, when a few decades ago it had no trouble sending people to the moon. I'm reading 'Human Accomplishment' by neocon Charles Murray, the decline in innovation seems a more proven trend.

    Objectif, even for other corps cracking new markets is almost impossible. New developments and technology in energy say, are soon controlled by the corps. In the car industry corps actually come together and make near identical models together, sometimes the corps also merge, either way choice is not increased.

    I'm not arguing that this is a bad thing except for the groups I mentioned, poorer people (because prices are fixed), non-union workers, poorer countries, and smaller businesses who suffer more from the excessive burdens which corps can soak up. For most of us, it's happy days. Aren't we selfish.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 22, 2005

2,704

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.