Class Debate

The topic is should we let corporations or the common workers control things. I’m on the side of corporations as far as taxing and such goes. A few of my points are:

  1. most capable people rise to the top, they know how to run buisnesses the best.

  2. To hold a monopoly in a truly free marker you need to maintain quality and resonable pricing in both the end product and how you treat your employee. Or you could hold a limited resource, which is going to be a monopoly in any system.

  3. There would still be no infringement on human rights.

  4. More would be produced with lower taxes, more goods means more people having goods.

  5. Most corporations will never reach their maximum production potential without a lower tax rate preferably a flat tax. gov’t revenue won’t be lost and will probably be gained through the laffer curve

  6. excess govt revenue could be reinvested through building roads and military spending(which creates jobs) and giving it back to the coorporations if it means increasing avaiable jobs or increasing wages/benefits for workers or lowering prices.

Does anyone have any good reading or opinions they have?

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
The topic is should we let corporations or the common workers control things. I’m on the side of corporations as far as taxing and such goes. A few of my points are:

  1. most capable people rise to the top, they know how to run buisnesses the best.

  2. To hold a monopoly in a truly free marker you need to maintain quality and resonable pricing in both the end product and how you treat your employee. Or you could hold a limited resource, which is going to be a monopoly in any system.

  3. There would still be no infringement on human rights.

  4. More would be produced with lower taxes, more goods means more people having goods.

  5. Most corporations will never reach their maximum production potential without a lower tax rate preferably a flat tax. gov’t revenue won’t be lost and will probably be gained through the laffer curve

  6. excess govt revenue could be reinvested through building roads and military spending(which creates jobs) and giving it back to the coorporations if it means increasing avaiable jobs or increasing wages/benefits for workers or lowering prices.

Does anyone have any good reading or opinions they have?[/quote]

I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

  • Thomas Jefferson

Corporations hold more power in America than Jefferson ever dreamed of.

Corporations are not people. They do not grow old, die in Iraq, or have children. They should not have the constitutional rights guaranteed to people. When corporations control government, all civic, social, and environmental values are subverted to profiteering motives.

Corporate control of government means that there will be no more enforcement of laws protecting people from corporate fraud, breach of contract, environmental violations, and other crimes. It means that the end of rule of law.

If unchecked by the government, the profiteering motive stops at nothing and is not adequately restrained by the marketplace. Scroll through history if you do not believe this. 19th century land and coal companies with high degrees of influence over Washington illegitimately seized most of the land in Appalachia, allowing locals to keep living on “company land” if they subjected themselves to horrific labor conditions, 16 hour work days, and pay so measly that most workers fell into severe debt to the company store. Company towns were set up beneath slurry dams that illegally tampered with rivers and streams, and when these dams broke, killing hundreds, companies controlled local government and got away with a slap on the wrist or no punishment at all.

Meanwhile, corporate lobbyists and corporate lawyers in Washington were hard at work in the courts reinterpreting the constitution so that corporations could be entitled constitutional rights granted to persons.

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. When this country was founded, corporate charters – rights to exist – were granted and could be revoked for violation of the law. Corporations could only engage in a very specific set activities for their chartered purpose. They could not own stock in other companies, and could not make political contributions are attempt to influence law-making.

Corporate control of government does not result in free market capitalism. It brings about a state subsidized capitalism where corporations are lavished with subsidies, bailouts, special favors, lax or nonexistent enforcement of law, all at the expense of the American taxpayer. In fact, it is not capitalism at all when huge corporations are not allowed to fail and are always bailed out.

Your suggestion that the poor should have no voice in government sounds like a great way for public roads, services, libraries, the police force, etc to deteriorate in low income neighborhoods, while the city decides to run an noisy elevated track through the heart of a residential area which farther erodes property value. Sounds like a great way to end up with liberal usage of eminent domain to relocate the poor out of entire neighborhoods to make way for a shopping mall.

Meanwhile, your gasp welfare state won’t disappear at all. Walmart will try to get the government to give some kind of welfare to its workers so that it can get away with paying even lower wages.

And say goodbye to start up companies and other competitive threats.

Oh, and if you were hoping that something would be done about illegal immigration, your little idea of surrendering our country to corporations is the best way to ensure that illegal immigration will grow to be an even greater problem.

Such a fucking biased debate it’s insane.

No offense, but your teacher is a complete dick, and most likely a socialist (I mean seriously, corps vs common workers?!).

Corporations should run BUSINESS, and common citizens should run the government VIA ELECTIONS.

Period.

Corps shouldn’t control our government or our taxes. The common people (IE: the government) shouldn’t have a say in how a corp runs its business.

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
The topic is should we let corporations or the common workers control things. I’m on the side of corporations as far as taxing and such goes. A few of my points are:

  1. most capable people rise to the top, they know how to run buisnesses the best.

  2. To hold a monopoly in a truly free marker you need to maintain quality and resonable pricing in both the end product and how you treat your employee. Or you could hold a limited resource, which is going to be a monopoly in any system.

  3. There would still be no infringement on human rights.

  4. More would be produced with lower taxes, more goods means more people having goods.

  5. Most corporations will never reach their maximum production potential without a lower tax rate preferably a flat tax. gov’t revenue won’t be lost and will probably be gained through the laffer curve

  6. excess govt revenue could be reinvested through building roads and military spending(which creates jobs) and giving it back to the coorporations if it means increasing avaiable jobs or increasing wages/benefits for workers or lowering prices.

Does anyone have any good reading or opinions they have?[/quote]

Well, if it has to be a dictatorship I am going with the corporations.

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
The topic is should we let corporations or the common workers control things. I’m on the side of corporations as far as taxing and such goes. A few of my points are:

  1. most capable people rise to the top, they know how to run buisnesses the best.

  2. To hold a monopoly in a truly free marker you need to maintain quality and resonable pricing in both the end product and how you treat your employee. Or you could hold a limited resource, which is going to be a monopoly in any system.

  3. There would still be no infringement on human rights.

  4. More would be produced with lower taxes, more goods means more people having goods.

  5. Most corporations will never reach their maximum production potential without a lower tax rate preferably a flat tax. gov’t revenue won’t be lost and will probably be gained through the laffer curve

  6. excess govt revenue could be reinvested through building roads and military spending(which creates jobs) and giving it back to the coorporations if it means increasing avaiable jobs or increasing wages/benefits for workers or lowering prices.

Does anyone have any good reading or opinions they have?[/quote]

I think you are right to the point that #3 is where your hypothesis goes wrong. Most companies view labor as a commodity to be exploited, If left to the free market you are leaving the labor force vulnerable to unreasonable wages and unreasonable conditions

Also to have a truly free market you would have to can the patent.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
The topic is should we let corporations or the common workers control things. I’m on the side of corporations as far as taxing and such goes. A few of my points are:

  1. most capable people rise to the top, they know how to run buisnesses the best.

  2. To hold a monopoly in a truly free marker you need to maintain quality and resonable pricing in both the end product and how you treat your employee. Or you could hold a limited resource, which is going to be a monopoly in any system.

  3. There would still be no infringement on human rights.

  4. More would be produced with lower taxes, more goods means more people having goods.

  5. Most corporations will never reach their maximum production potential without a lower tax rate preferably a flat tax. gov’t revenue won’t be lost and will probably be gained through the laffer curve

  6. excess govt revenue could be reinvested through building roads and military spending(which creates jobs) and giving it back to the coorporations if it means increasing avaiable jobs or increasing wages/benefits for workers or lowering prices.

Does anyone have any good reading or opinions they have?

I think you are right to the point that #3 is where your hypothesis goes wrong. Most companies view labor as a commodity to be exploited, If left to the free market you are leaving the labor force vulnerable to unreasonable wages and unreasonable conditions

[/quote]

Do you also doubt gravity?

You might as well.

Think about how many people are paid the minimum wage?

What?

Less than 5%?

How is that possible, given that companies see labor “as a commodity to be exploited”?

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
The topic is should we let corporations or the common workers control things. I’m on the side of corporations as far as taxing and such goes. A few of my points are:

  1. most capable people rise to the top, they know how to run buisnesses the best.

  2. To hold a monopoly in a truly free marker you need to maintain quality and resonable pricing in both the end product and how you treat your employee. Or you could hold a limited resource, which is going to be a monopoly in any system.

  3. There would still be no infringement on human rights.

  4. More would be produced with lower taxes, more goods means more people having goods.

  5. Most corporations will never reach their maximum production potential without a lower tax rate preferably a flat tax. gov’t revenue won’t be lost and will probably be gained through the laffer curve

  6. excess govt revenue could be reinvested through building roads and military spending(which creates jobs) and giving it back to the coorporations if it means increasing avaiable jobs or increasing wages/benefits for workers or lowering prices.

Does anyone have any good reading or opinions they have?

I think you are right to the point that #3 is where your hypothesis goes wrong. Most companies view labor as a commodity to be exploited, If left to the free market you are leaving the labor force vulnerable to unreasonable wages and unreasonable conditions

Do you also doubt gravity?

You might as well.

Think about how many people are paid the minimum wage?

What?

Less than 5%?

How is that possible, given that companies see labor “as a commodity to be exploited”?[/quote]

no he means people that aren’t actually productive to the company. you the ones that the whole law suite happy nation has made a mandatory part of the company, as well as unions.

we need those people and they would fired or underpaid.

seriously most big companies realize workers are a commidity so you want to invest in the ones that help your company and keep them productive.

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
The topic is should we let corporations or the common workers control things. I’m on the side of corporations as far as taxing and such goes. A few of my points are:

  1. most capable people rise to the top, they know how to run buisnesses the best.

  2. To hold a monopoly in a truly free marker you need to maintain quality and resonable pricing in both the end product and how you treat your employee. Or you could hold a limited resource, which is going to be a monopoly in any system.

  3. There would still be no infringement on human rights.

  4. More would be produced with lower taxes, more goods means more people having goods.

  5. Most corporations will never reach their maximum production potential without a lower tax rate preferably a flat tax. gov’t revenue won’t be lost and will probably be gained through the laffer curve

  6. excess govt revenue could be reinvested through building roads and military spending(which creates jobs) and giving it back to the coorporations if it means increasing avaiable jobs or increasing wages/benefits for workers or lowering prices.

Does anyone have any good reading or opinions they have?

I think you are right to the point that #3 is where your hypothesis goes wrong. Most companies view labor as a commodity to be exploited, If left to the free market you are leaving the labor force vulnerable to unreasonable wages and unreasonable conditions

Do you also doubt gravity?

You might as well.

Think about how many people are paid the minimum wage?

What?

Less than 5%?

How is that possible, given that companies see labor “as a commodity to be exploited”?[/quote]

How does gravity figure into this thread? Or are you saying your opinion carries the same validity as gravity? Lets forget about minimum wage let?s go to a livable wage. How many people are working for a below a livable wage?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

How does gravity figure into this thread? Or are you saying your opinion carries the same validity as gravity? Lets forget about minimum wage let?s go to a livable wage. How many people are working for a below a livable wage?

[/quote]

The term livable wage is a crock of shit.

It assumes you only work 40 hour weeks.
If you can’t survive working 40 hours… work MORE. Not too hard to figure out, is it?

Most people work above the minimum wage, the and min wage only HURTS teenagers and other highly unskilled workers by reducing the demand for cheap labor via and artificial price floor.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Corps shouldn’t control our government or our taxes.
[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

The common people (IE: the government) shouldn’t have a say in how a corp runs its business.[/quote]

I Disagree. It’s the people who determine what business practices are ethical/moral and enshrine those restrictions in the law via government intervention–i…e regulatory legislation.

In addition it’s often in a nation’s interest to restrict free trade (see tariffs, govt subsidies for example) or regulate business practices so as to achieve more optimal outcomes. It is only through adequate regulation that we can have a free market.

Monopolies and negative externalities can only be compensated for by regulation–and in their presence a truly free market is impossible.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Such a fucking biased debate it’s insane.

No offense, but your teacher is a complete dick, and most likely a socialist (I mean seriously, corps vs common workers?!).

Corporations should run BUSINESS, and common citizens should run the government VIA ELECTIONS.

Period.

Corps shouldn’t control our government or our taxes. The common people (IE: the government) shouldn’t have a say in how a corp runs its business.[/quote]

well the debate is mostly centered on taxes and such. Should buisnessses be set free with lower taxes or should we increase taxes to ensure people get a certain amount of $, is my understanding.

Most people here, are socialist. We are in fact, a socialist nation. However we do have a disporportionate amount of people that are libertarian and/or even have heard of austrian economics.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

How does gravity figure into this thread? Or are you saying your opinion carries the same validity as gravity? Lets forget about minimum wage let?s go to a livable wage. How many people are working for a below a livable wage?

The term livable wage is a crock of shit.

It assumes you only work 40 hour weeks.
If you can’t survive working 40 hours… work MORE. Not too hard to figure out, is it?

Most people work above the minimum wage, the and min wage only HURTS teenagers and other highly unskilled workers by reducing the demand for cheap labor via and artificial price floor.[/quote]

Thanks for your opinion

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
The topic is should we let corporations or the common workers control things. I’m on the side of corporations as far as taxing and such goes. A few of my points are:

  1. most capable people rise to the top, they know how to run buisnesses the best.

  2. To hold a monopoly in a truly free marker you need to maintain quality and resonable pricing in both the end product and how you treat your employee. Or you could hold a limited resource, which is going to be a monopoly in any system.

  3. There would still be no infringement on human rights.

  4. More would be produced with lower taxes, more goods means more people having goods.

  5. Most corporations will never reach their maximum production potential without a lower tax rate preferably a flat tax. gov’t revenue won’t be lost and will probably be gained through the laffer curve

  6. excess govt revenue could be reinvested through building roads and military spending(which creates jobs) and giving it back to the coorporations if it means increasing avaiable jobs or increasing wages/benefits for workers or lowering prices.

Does anyone have any good reading or opinions they have?

I think you are right to the point that #3 is where your hypothesis goes wrong. Most companies view labor as a commodity to be exploited, If left to the free market you are leaving the labor force vulnerable to unreasonable wages and unreasonable conditions

Do you also doubt gravity?

You might as well.

Think about how many people are paid the minimum wage?

What?

Less than 5%?

How is that possible, given that companies see labor “as a commodity to be exploited”?

How does gravity figure into this thread? Or are you saying your opinion carries the same validity as gravity? Lets forget about minimum wage let?s go to a livable wage. How many people are working for a below a livable wage?

[/quote]

No one.

Or are you suggesting that there are working people in the US that starve?

Anything beyond that is not an observable fact but a value judgment.

And I am saying that the argument that I put forth indeed does carry the same validity unless you can find a flaw, which would be quite an accomplishment.

[quote]valiance. wrote:

In addition it’s often in a nation’s interest to restrict free trade (see tariffs, govt subsidies for example) [/quote]

Never happened.

Of course tariffs and subsidies do happen, they just never have a favorable outcome for “the people”, only for some interest groups that have highjacked the government.

Again, it cannot be any other way, because if people had spent their money any other way, had the government not intervened, the outcome is suboptimal.

Because, left alone, people tend to spend their money exactly the way they think is best for them, thereby maximizing utility.

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Such a fucking biased debate it’s insane.

No offense, but your teacher is a complete dick, and most likely a socialist (I mean seriously, corps vs common workers?!).

Corporations should run BUSINESS, and common citizens should run the government VIA ELECTIONS.

Period.

Corps shouldn’t control our government or our taxes. The common people (IE: the government) shouldn’t have a say in how a corp runs its business.

well the debate is mostly centered on taxes and such. Should buisnessses be set free with lower taxes or should we increase taxes to ensure people get a certain amount of $, is my understanding.

Most people here, are socialist. We are in fact, a socialist nation. However we do have a disporportionate amount of people that are libertarian and/or even have heard of austrian economics.[/quote]

try focusing on the negative history of union involement in corporate affairs: General Motors, the Post Office, the textile industry…

[quote]orion wrote:
valiance. wrote:

In addition it’s often in a nation’s interest to restrict free trade (see tariffs, govt subsidies for example)

Never happened.

Of course tariffs and subsidies do happen, they just never have a favorable outcome for “the people”, only for some interest groups that have highjacked the government.

Again, it cannot be any other way, because if people had spent their money any other way, had the government not intervened, the outcome is suboptimal.

Because, left alone, people tend to spend their money exactly the way they think is best for them, thereby maximizing utility.
[/quote]

If everyone was perfectly informed this would be true. If there were no history this would be true. If there were no power structure. Basically, your theory is right, but the reality doesn’t always fit.

Basically, given “other factors” a reasonable govt can use those tools to promote what they consider to be the common good. For example, should we remove trade barriers for manufactured goods from certain nations and agricultural good from other? Of course… but should one be done independently of the other? Depends on if you’re producing manufactured goods or agricultural products, doesn’t it?

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
valiance. wrote:

In addition it’s often in a nation’s interest to restrict free trade (see tariffs, govt subsidies for example)

Never happened.

Of course tariffs and subsidies do happen, they just never have a favorable outcome for “the people”, only for some interest groups that have highjacked the government.

Again, it cannot be any other way, because if people had spent their money any other way, had the government not intervened, the outcome is suboptimal.

Because, left alone, people tend to spend their money exactly the way they think is best for them, thereby maximizing utility.

If everyone was perfectly informed this would be true. If there were no history this would be true. If there were no power structure. Basically, your theory is right, but the reality doesn’t always fit.

Basically, given “other factors” a reasonable govt can use those tools to promote what they consider to be the common good. For example, should we remove trade barriers for manufactured goods from certain nations and agricultural good from other? Of course… but should one be done independently of the other? Depends on if you’re producing manufactured goods or agricultural products, doesn’t it?
[/quote]

That is what I posted above, isn´t it?

Yes, some people make a buck, but other people pay for it.

Since a very small percentage of people are corn or steel producers the overwhelming majority is worse off.

So, unless there is a “nation” that is somehow separate from its “people”, I see no way how a nation can be better off through the use of subsidies and tariffs.

And, even if there was such a case, is it not inevitable that all other well financed groups will lobby for a part of the pie?

Has that not always been the case?

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
valiance. wrote:

In addition it’s often in a nation’s interest to restrict free trade (see tariffs, govt subsidies for example)

Never happened.

Of course tariffs and subsidies do happen, they just never have a favorable outcome for “the people”, only for some interest groups that have highjacked the government.

Again, it cannot be any other way, because if people had spent their money any other way, had the government not intervened, the outcome is suboptimal.

Because, left alone, people tend to spend their money exactly the way they think is best for them, thereby maximizing utility.

If everyone was perfectly informed this would be true. If there were no history this would be true. If there were no power structure. Basically, your theory is right, but the reality doesn’t always fit.

Basically, given “other factors” a reasonable govt can use those tools to promote what they consider to be the common good. For example, should we remove trade barriers for manufactured goods from certain nations and agricultural good from other? Of course… but should one be done independently of the other? Depends on if you’re producing manufactured goods or agricultural products, doesn’t it?
[/quote]

You can also see it another way.

You say the existing power structure is abused and yet you want to build an even bigger power structure and hope that it will somehow not be abused?

How likely is that?

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
The topic is should we let corporations or the common workers control things. [/quote]

This is a very flawed question to debate if, indeed, it is the question posed by your teacher. Individuals should control their own lives – i.e., make their own decisions about what best suits their own satisfaction, not corporations that are incapable of acting or some arbitrary notion of the “exploited” worker.

By using the the terms “corporations” and “common workers” the choice you are given seems either to be corporatism or communism, neither of which work toward making people more free. The use of the term “control” is also very misleading. No one person or group of persons (the government) can control anything. Rather, it is the chaotic behavior of individuals acting in their own best interests, cooperating toward common goals that results in a spontaneous order called society. In this regard there can be no control.

If one believes in the tenants of liberty then one should always work to maximize the possible choices free people can make. In terms of taxation this means less taxes are always better than more taxes because it means one has more of his own money to spend on his own want satisfaction. This goes for businesses as well as individuals.

If I were to debate this topic I would start by stating my beliefs in the tenants of libertarianism so I would have an ethical framework from which to pose a thesis. For example: Theft is wrong. Taxation is theft. Etc.

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
valiance. wrote:

In addition it’s often in a nation’s interest to restrict free trade (see tariffs, govt subsidies for example)

Never happened.

Of course tariffs and subsidies do happen, they just never have a favorable outcome for “the people”, only for some interest groups that have highjacked the government.

Again, it cannot be any other way, because if people had spent their money any other way, had the government not intervened, the outcome is suboptimal.

Because, left alone, people tend to spend their money exactly the way they think is best for them, thereby maximizing utility.

If everyone was perfectly informed this would be true. If there were no history this would be true. If there were no power structure. Basically, your theory is right, but the reality doesn’t always fit.

Basically, given “other factors” a reasonable govt can use those tools to promote what they consider to be the common good. For example, should we remove trade barriers for manufactured goods from certain nations and agricultural good from other? Of course… but should one be done independently of the other? Depends on if you’re producing manufactured goods or agricultural products, doesn’t it?

That is what I posted above, isn´t it?

Yes, some people make a buck, but other people pay for it.

Since a very small percentage of people are corn or steel producers the overwhelming majority is worse off.

So, unless there is a “nation” that is somehow separate from its “people”, I see no way how a nation can be better off through the use of subsidies and tariffs.

And, even if there was such a case, is it not inevitable that all other well financed groups will lobby for a part of the pie?

Has that not always been the case?
[/quote]

Your right theoretically, I’ve never argued against that. In practice I think there are examples where tariffs should be kept more as bargaining chips than for the greater good. The greater good is for them to be removed, no doubt. But if you’re an impoverished country who primarily produces “agriculture X,” and there are currently farm subsidies and/or tarriffs against “agriculture X” in the first world, you may wish to keep your tariff against “manufactured Y” as a barganing chip.

Yes, it’s better for those tariffs and subsidies to be removed, but if you remove the tariff on “manufacture Y” but not on “agriculture X” then you’re putting yourself at a greater disadvantage. See what I’m getting at?