You vs. Corporations

[hardnox604008]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/you-vs-corporations/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_...

"Keynes vs Hayek? Friedman vs Krugman? Those are the wrong intellectual debates. Its you vs. Tony Hayward, BP CEO, You vs. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO. And you are losing . . ."

[Samnospam]

Right but wrong.   The state rewards the patronage of large corporations, but the power resides within the state.   The left/right debate is false because the scale is false.   If we imagine the political scale as being freedom on one side and state control on the other, both political parties fall on the side of state control.   The state works with corporations to expand that control, but it is not Blue Cross/ Blue Shield that enforces the law that requires me to buy their product.  It is the state.     The corporations wanted to shift their losses to the backs of the taxpayers, but it was the state that made it happen.   Every successful bribe has two sides.

[bruce MN]

Yes, right...and unfortunate. Unfortunate being because "we", the citizen custmers have demaded that of the state apparatus.

We can all summon up some purity over how this has gotten out of hand, but had people accepted or demanded out of government what they do out of companies governement would be more efficient, and likely smaller. Companies are secular in nearly every way....yet minority movments demand that governement not be. So the govt. has no alternatives but to walk the corporate plank...short of some unforeseen demands from an informed, democracy aided populace.

The govt. may enable, but only on demand from the customer as well as the retailer. And it's much less the poor and unfortunate or misfortunate customer than the more fortunate who sees himself as in the same boat as the companies. A phenomenon that has become starkly clear with the growth and consolidation of comercial farms.

[r3020]

Just another reason to keep the government out of the health care business, it corrupts every thing it is involved in. The best argument I have seem for shrinking government back to where the founding fathers, along with the Constitution, put it. The government only roll in the financial mess should have been to see to it that every one was treated equally under the law.

[hardnox604008]

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/09/for-corporations-whole-of-law-is-do.html

Apparently Justice Scalia beleived that the original intent of the founders was that corporations are due all the rights of citizenship.

However, in this opinion, not the accountability for crimes.

[bruce MN]

No, that is a reason to keep it deeply in the area of heatlh care...just as it is in every other civilized nation in the world, and some not so civilized.

Retry the math...you can't agree with me that fascism is not the way to go on health care, and then turn around in the next breath and say that you want the fascists to cotinue to run it.

[Samnospam]

This seems a bit nonsensical to me.  Anyone can sue a corporation in civil court, but exactly how do you put a corporation in jail?  The night watchman does the time?   No, some individual had to be involved for there to be a crime, yes?  It's happened before that a person via a corporation committed a crime, the person went to jail and the corporation was rendered non existent in civil court.   What more are you asking for?

As far as corporations having rights, they only have the rights of the individual owners of the corporation the same as a union has the rights of its members.    People don't want corporations involved in politics, but tell me under our constitution how do you say that people can not collectively exercise free speech?

[r3020]

The government got involved with poverty and destroyed the family unit. Poverty is worse and children that come from broken homes are more likely to grow up living a life of crime. To bring down the cost of health care we need a doctor to provide a service and a patient to pay for that service. The fascist need to go the way of the RINO.

[Canuck_2]

---

@r3020 wrote:

The government got involved with poverty and destroyed the family unit. Poverty is worse and children that come from broken homes are more likely to grow up living a life of crime. To bring down the cost of health care we need a doctor to provide a service and a patient to pay for that service. The fascist need to go the way of the RINO.

---

So you do not think any help should be given to those in need?

Many homes are better 'broken' than 2 people who can not live together trying to raise children.

I have seen the results from the past when it was just not acceptable by society for a marriage to 'fail'. Was not good for the children and in many cases it was not good for the wife.

Funny the man usually seemed to fare OK and had everyone's sympathy if anything ever became public about the families troubles.

I think the 'broken home' is the lesser evil.