Well there is an actual history of corporations, with a first corporation, etc, that can be studied, and i was speaking from that historical perspective.

Corporations get special rights because of their place in society, such as limited liability and they're taxed weirdly for being persons.




First corporation is older than US.

East India Company.

Even now Target has to do some philanthropy. Its expected for the special rights.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 27 2020 02:07pm

I'm not arguing the point that corporations predate the US.

However, if you're speaking of the history of corporations in the US, it's a history of abusing the American worker, landlocking them, and paying them in fake currency that could only be spent in the company store.

Corporate Scrip was outlawed long ago, sure. But the basis of corporation creation in the US was exploitation, 100%. There was never any "great public good". Never. Not in the US.

So, it might be best that you specify WHICH corporate history you're referring to.

Don't forget the Pinkertons.

I was discussing the history of the corporation. Yes Andrew Carnegie has workers massacred and forced them to work at gun point but look at all the stuff his foundations have done. I think that's the point, you can have Homestead, commit what are basically war crimes, and gift a university to a state and be a hero.

The robber barons definitely gave back. And as corporations they were allowed to commit crimes and not be liable.

All those lawful evil bastards were huge philanthropists to get what they wanted.

There are expected to give back because they had a special position in society.

The East India Company was pure evil too, but they had to prove to provide for the good of the english public.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 27 2020 02:16pm

You've failed to express your point. I'm still waiting to understand what "Great public good" corporations were required to prove prior to incorporation, and which nations and what years this was a thing. Perhaps I simply wasn't paying attention.

Boil it down more simply. Pretend that the American School System puts more emphasis on learning the multiple French Revolutions and why the Guillotine is the ultimate evil than the corporate past of Europe.

I'm honestly all ears. You give me the base point to work from, I'd be happy to do the research. ♥

The suicide rate in japan is higher than china though.

Those are some pretty shit solutions that I don't advocate for. You need to respond to what I'm actually saying instead of this fantasy strawman that you built up. I'm pretty conservative (pro-business, strongly anti-protectionist) when it comes to economic issues yet you seem to think I'm a liberal or something along those lines.

I'll ask again because it's pretty explicit...what do you think I'm advocating? Don't try to infer anything from what I wrote since you're clearly very bad at it.

The funny bit is, non-government unions died in 95% of fields not due to any government pressure or laws. It died because people WANTED right to work. Union reps stopped caring to negotiate workable contracts, they stopped caring about anything other than guaranteeing "Hey, you work at least 5 years, you're set for life, even if you're not productive" and when they'd get that contract, they'd pocket 10% of the dues. They'd promptly retire with 3 homes 5 boats and 10 cars, and a gaggle of pussy that bankrupted them within a year. Meanwhile, the businesses that were employing the union labor would either file a bankruptcy and reorganize to get out of the restrictive contract, nullifying all the guarantees, or simply go out of business, ALSO nullifying all the guarantees. It turned out that people would guarantee anything to get the work they needed, regardless of whether they could secure the pay.

Right to work said, "Hey, you're going to pay me for hours worked, and I can invest my own shit. I don't trust you, you need me, and I can look to my own future." Right to work is literal liberty. Unions are rather the opposite.



The largest problem with your misquotes is that you're specifically doing it so that nobody can see context. You're utilizing the most flagrant version of "only my words matter" that could possibly exist. You're nothing but a narcissist. Which is fine, but it doesn't help your argument. Moving on:

You aren't saying anything. What you've shown you seem to advocate is pro-globalism. I've shown where that leads. What's your response? Forget putting words in my mouth. Quote the assumption and either acknowledge or correct it. Stop being a pussy.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on May 27 2020 02:43pm

What you posted is verbose and not particularly relevant IMO. If people want to read it, they can easily find it by scrolling up but I have a feeling people don't want to read your walls of text.

Yes, I am advocating globalist policies because it benefits American consumers overall. A vast majority (almost 90%) of economists agree that free trade has a net benefit for society and that's a major tenet of economic globalism. Yes, there are losers when we outsource but is that really different than production increases due to technology? There are certain skill sets that are obsolete and there's no reason to keep those jobs because it's inefficient and there's no demand for it. I'm not saying we abandon the "economic losers" though and I would advocate policies that have a high probability of helping them but it depends on the industry. There is no one-size fits all solution for this.

So, you advocate short term benefits for consumers and stock holders that cause long term economic ruin and the inability to be consumers. Sweet.

Anything else?

Edit: Note that I did not even snip your snide and inconsequential remark on my post lengths? It doesn't matter. I was responding to your point. So I included your point, which was half in regards to the fact that you can't read. So, good job not being too much of a pussy to include the words you were responding to for once.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on May 27 2020 03:06pm

No because the benefits are NOT short term and the economic ruin is NOT long term IF there are policies such as retraining programs, low-cost education, etc.

I never pegged you as a bleeding heart liberal but I suppose you learn something new every day.