Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Early laws regulating corporations in America
Do you just vomit out any thought that comes into your head?
Fine, if you want to go back to early laws on corporations, then let's restore society back to how it was in that time. Women lose voting rights, we deport all non-Europeans, only property owners can vote, the income tax is abolished, all welfare is abolished, etc.
In the days before the revolution a corporation was a license to run a monopoly in a given geographical area granted by the king. These entities were far more than businesses. They were virtually governments unto themselves answerable only to the crown. The British East India Company is a classic example. This is what the Founding fathers were thinking of when the referred to "corporations."
Over time the corporation evolved into a means of establishing common ownership in a business. Corporations aren't granted monopolies any longer so there's no justification for applying the rules listed.
As always, the libturd is presenting only half the facts and thereby lying.
My point is that I'm tiring of their game of selectively appealing to aspects of the past because they fail to recognize that features of a time are a product of the time. High marginal tax rates in the 1950s coincided with a plethora of tax deductions. When Reagan lowered tax rates he also cut out thousands of deductions. Pointing to 90% top marginal tax rates and wanting to bring them back but now without corresponding deductions is just simply a rude liberal masturbating in public.
Same with this inanity on corporation law back in 1776. It's a product of its time. If he thinks its relevant, then let's bring back the entire social structure which anchored that corporate law.
Notice that so far there has been no answer to my question of how liberals imagine a corporation can give charitable donations when they believe that corporations can't have a religious viewpoint.
Early laws regulating corporations in America
Do you just vomit out any thought that comes into your head?
Fine, if you want to go back to early laws on corporations, then let's restore society back to how it was in that time. Women lose voting rights, we deport all non-Europeans, only property owners can vote, the income tax is abolished, all welfare is abolished, etc.
And just as TRUE, as a pure economic system, laissez-faire is a lousy way to run a large scale economy.
Just as Friedrich August von Hayek states:
"Conservatism is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism"
SO true...
The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government non-intervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'
Blind Faith
For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).
The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.
The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.
It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarcks Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.
The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.
But despite laissez faires mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.
One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.
As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.
Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.
Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)
Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.
Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.
Myths Of The Free Market
The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie deliberate, contrived and dishonest but the myth persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy
And just as TRUE, as a pure economic system, laissez-faire is a lousy way to run a large scale economy.
Just as Friedrich August von Hayek states:
"Conservatism is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism"
SO true...
The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government non-intervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'
Blind Faith
For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).
The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.
The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.
It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarcks Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.
The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.
But despite laissez faires mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.
One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.
As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.
Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.
Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)
Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.
Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.
Myths Of The Free Market
The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie deliberate, contrived and dishonest but the myth persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy
Please place thoughts that are not your own in quotation blocks.
You don't have thoughts, you have propaganda.My thoughts preface the excerpt, which begins with a TITLE and ends with a link.
You don't have thoughts, you have propaganda.My thoughts preface the excerpt, which begins with a TITLE and ends with a link.
If that's all you've seen it explains why you are so ill informed.Compared to what? Your constant 'blurts' from the peanut gallery??
Two points.
First of all, I don't think anyone seriously believed that was a real photo, unlike the doctored photos that conservatives have tried to pawn off as real. In that sense, there was no attempt to deceive anyone.
Secondly, the photo serves to encapsulate much of the conservative male support I've heard over the years about Palin because their comments invariably refer to her great looks, sometimes in ways that clearly reveal their sexist attitudes in general.
And just as TRUE, as a pure economic system, laissez-faire is a lousy way to run a large scale economy.
Just as Friedrich August von Hayek states:
"Conservatism is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism"
SO true...
Please place thoughts that are not your own in quotation blocks.
Why do you support state-enforced involuntary servitude?The fallacy in American beliefs is in that they have been brain-washed into believing that the U.S. has been capitalist country and that there is only pure capitalism vs. ure socialism.
The fact is that the U.S. has not been a pure capitalism (or even close) since the beginning of the twentieth century. In fact there has never been a pure capitalist society and almost certainly, there never will be.
Secondly, the U.S.S.R was not a true socialist country. It was more of a military dictatorship that pretended to be socialist.
The U.S. has been a highly-regulated socialist-capitalist hybrid, so when most Americans are asked whether they'd prefer capitalism or socialism, they tend to think in terms of the U.S. vs. the U.S.S.R. This is plainly inaccurate.
What they should be asked is whether they'd prefer to live in a pure free liberation society - no regulation and no government social programs - or if they'd prefer to live in a European style social-democracy:
Would you rather live in the Congo or in Denmark?
That should be the question.
Your answer fails in not every tax based service is an example of socialism; to believe that they are, you must not have a working understanding on what socialism really is.I thought you might have had an actual rebuff of my answer rather than you usual bloviating.Oh. I thought you might have had an actual answer.What benefits of socialist ideals do we all enjoy? All tax based services.(chuckle)More accurately, 'socialist ideals' should have been the question. Since everyone enjoys the benefits, you can see the uneducated percentage by the negative answers.
What benefits of socialism do we all enjoy?
Silly me.
Why are you a brainwashed hater dupe with nothing but a couple of talking points? Tell some poor schnook who Pubs put out of work your stupid theories and get your ass kicked, Rushbot.Why do you support state-enforced involuntary servitude?The fallacy in American beliefs is in that they have been brain-washed into believing that the U.S. has been capitalist country and that there is only pure capitalism vs. ure socialism.
The fact is that the U.S. has not been a pure capitalism (or even close) since the beginning of the twentieth century. In fact there has never been a pure capitalist society and almost certainly, there never will be.
Secondly, the U.S.S.R was not a true socialist country. It was more of a military dictatorship that pretended to be socialist.
The U.S. has been a highly-regulated socialist-capitalist hybrid, so when most Americans are asked whether they'd prefer capitalism or socialism, they tend to think in terms of the U.S. vs. the U.S.S.R. This is plainly inaccurate.
What they should be asked is whether they'd prefer to live in a pure free liberation society - no regulation and no government social programs - or if they'd prefer to live in a European style social-democracy:
Would you rather live in the Congo or in Denmark?
That should be the question.
That's a lovely cut & paste and all, but you didn't answer my question.
In your own words, please walk me through what you posted:
In socialism, "more people have some say in how the economy works"
If you're not going to do this, or if you can't, just say so, and I won't burn any more time on this.
.
What is so hard to understand? Socialism means EVERYONE has an equal say in how goods and services are distributed.
Come on.
In socialism, HOW does everyone have an equal say in how goods and services are distributed? Precisely?
And your affection for socialism is clear. Fair enough to say you would join Franco and MikeK and proclaiming you're a socialist?
Two very clear questions, easy to answer.
.
In pure socialism, there is no private ownership. Pure socialism calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.
I am not a socialist. I am a liberal and a capitalist. What I strongly believe in is democracy; everyone has a say in how their government works. I believe in free and open elections. I believe our founding fathers understood that a pure democracy was not the best model. That is why the form of democracy they chose was a representative republic. Beliefs I have that could be called 'socialist' has to do with our environment. They are beliefs that go all the way back to the Magna Carta...the rule of the commons; the air we breath, the water we drink, the soil we seed. The 'commons' are owned by all of us.
The most insightful and in depth understanding of a true free market comes from one of my favorite liberals, an environmental lawyer who is a member of my favorite liberal family.
I urge you to read the whole speech.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
"I want to say this: There is no stronger advocate for free-market capitalism than myself. I believe that the free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free-market capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.
But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter; I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is. It's always a subsidy. It's always a guy trying to cheat the free market.
Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature. One of the best ways to do that, and the most common way for a polluter, is through pollution. When those coal-burning power plants put mercury into the atmosphere that comes down from the Ohio Valley to my state of New York, I buy a fishing license for $30 every year, but I can't go fishing and eat the fish anymore because they stole the fish from me. They liquidated a public asset, my asset.
The rule is the commons are owned by all of us. They're not owned by the governor or the legislator or the coal companies and the utility. Everybody has a right to use them. Nobody has a right to abuse them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others. But they've stolen that entire resource from the people of New York State. When they put the acid rain in the air, it destroys our forest, and it destroys the lakes that we use for recreation or outfitting or tourism or wealth generation. When they put the mercury in the air, the mercury poisons our children's brains, and that imposes a cost on us. The ozone in particular has caused a million asthma attacks a year, kills 18,000 people, causes hundreds of thousands of lost work days. All of those impacts impose costs on the rest of us that in a true free-market economy should be reflected in the price of that company's product when it makes it to the marketplace.
What those companies and all polluters do is use political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay their costs. All of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.
At Riverkeeper, we don't even consider ourselves environmentalists anymore. We're free marketers. We go out into the marketplace, we catch the cheaters, the polluters, and we say to them, "We're going to force you to internalize your costs the same way that you internalize your profits, because as long as somebody is cheating the free market, none of us get the advantages of the efficiency and the democracy and the prosperity that the free market otherwise promises our country. What we have to understand as a nation is that there is a huge difference between free-market capitalism, which democratizes a country, which makes us more prosperous and efficient, and the kind of corporate-crony capitalism which has been embraced by this (Bush) White House, which is as antithetical to democracy, to prosperity, and efficiency in America as it is in Nigeria.
There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.
And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. Let them do their thing, but they should not be participating in our political process, because a corporation cannot do something genuinely philanthropic. It's against the law in this country, because their shareholders can sue them for wasting corporate resources. They cannot legally do anything that will not increase their profit margins. That's the way the law works, and we have to recognize that and understand that they are toxic for the political process, and they have to be fenced off and kept out of the political process. This is why throughout our history our most visionary political leaders -- Republican and Democrat -- have been warning the American public against domination by corporate power.
And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.
In order to do that, we need an informed public and an activist public. And we need a vigorous and an independent press that is willing to speak truth to power. And we no longer have that in the United States of America. And that's something that puts all the values we care about in jeopardy, because you cannot have a clean environment if you do not have a functioning democracy. They are intertwined; they go together. There is a direct correlation around the planet between the level of tyranny and the level of environmental destruction.
The only way you can protect the environment is through a true, locally based democracy. You can protect it for a short term under a tyranny, where there is some kind of beneficent dictator but, over the long term, the only way we can protect the environment is by ensuring our democracy. That has got to be the number-one issue for all of us: to try to restore American democracy, because without that we lose all of the other things that we value."
Kennedy is such a BIG frigging hypocrite he would be a nobody if his last name was not Kennedy.
"A corporation cannot do anything philanthropic." Says Kennedy. Just discount him right there. How about donations to breast cancer, donations to scholarships, donations to preserve our heritage, on and on and on. It is BS and people that want to debate honestly have to recognize that or be considered charlatans. The amount of money donated just to hospitals and medical research is astounding. Kennedy spouts this bile only to keep his political bona fides current.
I have been a member of the Apalachicola Bay and river keepers. They needed a token fisherman and I was one of the few with a full set of teeth and an education. Trust me, they are happy to receive monies from corporations as well as donations from people whose wealth was accrued by working or investing in corporations.
But what really set me against Robert Kennedy was when this chapter wanted him to come speak at a fundraiser. This guy had the gall to say that it would cost us 15,000 dollars to get him to come to speak in support of the environmental organization he created and is promoting. So it is all about the money not the cause for this piece of dung. Our organization was very poor and his demands were out of the question. Kennedy is as bad or worse than any corporation.
Reality always busts the academic bubble.
Corporate Charity Accounted for Only 5% of Giving in 2011
Not a fair analogy really. At least in the sense that the Congo suffered colonial oppression, then incompetent governments and corruption.What they should be asked is whether they'd prefer to live in a pure free liberation society - no regulation and no government social programs - or if they'd prefer to live in a European style social-democracy:
Would you rather live in the Congo or in Denmark?
And just as TRUE, as a pure economic system, laissez-faire is a lousy way to run a large scale economy.
Just as Friedrich August von Hayek states:
"Conservatism is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism"
SO true...
Could you be any more dishonest?
Look, I know you cut and paste moronic shit from the hate sites, that you don't really grasp what the idiocy you post means..
Still, what sort of economic system do you think Hayek promoted? While he rightly condemned the religious, social conservatism of the 1930's - you dishonestly attempting to claim this was a criticism of Laissez Faire Capitalism is a level of dishonesty far beyond the pale.
And just as TRUE, as a pure economic system, laissez-faire is a lousy way to run a large scale economy.
Just as Friedrich August von Hayek states:
"Conservatism is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism"
SO true...
Could you be any more dishonest?
Look, I know you cut and paste moronic shit from the hate sites, that you don't really grasp what the idiocy you post means..
Still, what sort of economic system do you think Hayek promoted? While he rightly condemned the religious, social conservatism of the 1930's - you dishonestly attempting to claim this was a criticism of Laissez Faire Capitalism is a level of dishonesty far beyond the pale.
I said as a PURE economic system, laissez-faire is a lousy way to run an economic system. And I am aware of what Hayek promoted, are YOU?
Hayek also said this.
"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom
