Psycho-Babble Politics | about politics | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: The top 1%

Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 22:03:26

In reply to Re: The top 1% » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 21:33:22

Corporations, even the largest, aren't really people themselves. Corporations, even the largest, have people as shareholders (perhaps through mutual funds these days, but still) who are affected by the wellbeing of their investments, people as management, people as employees who depend on them, etc. They just have more people than a family corporation.

If there's behavior that needs addressing, then the behavior should be addressed.

So is it true that when Romney said corporations are people, and meant that corporations aren't separate entities but are made up of people, the people who objected to his statement objected because they actually do see corporations as separate entities - quasi people? So they accuse him of saying corporations *are* people, rather than corporations are (made up of) people? While those of us who feel that corporations are entities only in the strictest legal sense, understood in the same way he did? That's... hmmm... ironic isn't the right word, I don't think. But something along those lines.

I think some corporate practices, such as golden parachutes and outsourcing, are not truly in the best interests of the corporation any more than they are in the best interests of the country. Some management and board of directors are rather short sighted in their goals. But I'm happy enough to address those issues without condemning all large corporations as bad. Corporations do try to make a profit, certainly. But I think many corporations learned long ago that squeezing every last cent isn't the best way to have an innovative and progressive workplace.

As far as the corporate model goes, I don't think it's inherently worse than the governmental model. For entities that serve the public good, a corporate model with governmental oversight might, in fact, yield better results than either model alone. But then I live in Louisiana, where we have an indifferent impression of the governmental model. I think we see the enemy as inefficiency and corruption, rather than a desire to run things efficiently. We see money misspent and misdirected. Perhaps it is different elsewhere.

Is it possible to object to the behaviors of certain corporations, or certain corporate practices, without condemning large corporations as a whole? And I will endeavor to object to behaviors involving waste and corruption, without condemning government spending as a whole.

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Politics | Framed

poster:Dinah thread:1002133
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20110926/msgs/1002228.html