Out of whack?

[ZoWie]

Money, today, is rarely backed by anything of substance like gold or silver but it's backed by the faith of the country which issues it. Money is only worth what someone will give you for it.

Cryptocurrency is backed by some number someone found in a hidden record in an unknown computer, subject to change by software which is by design hidden. It's basically worthless except as a mutual agreement to pretend that it's money.

Next up is NFTs, where we pretend it's art. You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Number6]

Corporations have no right to free speech. They are not endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Corporations are chartered entities entitled to conduct business in a certain manner, and if they lie or cheat and someone can prove it in a court of law, they should get their charters yanked -- the death penalty. Corporations are created to facilitate business, not monopolize it. They have no right to keep growing, forever, eating other ones, getting bigger and bigger with no limits or even mortality. We have de facto given them the privilege to do that, within ever-shrinking legal limits of course, like there still have to be three of them to eat us alive instead of one or two doing it.

Right now, a lot of it seems to come down to who can afford the biggest legal walls of flesh. That's wrong.

Corporations are artificial constructs, are not living organism, and are not sentient. They shouldn't have any more rights than a mannequin which is also an artificial construct, not living organisms, nor sentient. Corporations should not have the same rights as humans just as mannequins should not have the same rights as humans.

[gounion]

Money, today, is rarely backed by anything of substance like gold or silver but it's backed by the faith of the country which issues it. Money is only worth what someone will give you for it.

The idea that you back money with gold or anything else is also a fiction.

It's just all made up. We're all just clapping to keep Tinkerbell alive.

[ZoWie]

Not all economists agree. So let's start there.

Yes, there are neoliberal Chicago School Friedmanites.
Then there are the "U.S. liberal"/"freshwater" neo-Keynesians like Piketty, Reich, Krugman, etc.

These are the two major schools of economic thought in the U.S. and many university departments lean one way or the other.

Monetarists are the Federal Reserve on steroids. Everything expands or contracts depending on the "money supply," which depends at least partially on interest rates, and also how much is taken out in taxes. Something to do with taking partial derivatives. It's been too long.

The first thing you do to avoid jump cuts is to match the directions actors are looking in their medium shots, over-the-shoulders, and closeups to their positions in the master scene. You did shoot a master scene, I hope.

[JoeMemphis]

Corporations have no right to free speech. They are not endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Corporations are chartered entities entitled to conduct business in a certain manner, and if they lie or cheat they should get their charters yanked -- the death penalty. Corporations are created to facilitate business, not monopolize it. They have no right to keep growing, forever, eating other ones, getting bigger and bigger with no limits or even mortality. We have de facto given them the privilege to do that, within ever-shrinking legal limits of course, like there still have to be three of them to eat us alive instead of one or two doing it.

Right now, a lot of it seems to come down to who can afford the biggest legal walls of flesh. That's wrong.

Corporations, in my view, are groups of people organized to accomplish a common goal. By groups of people I refer to ownership primarily, and employees and other ancillary groups of people. I have a right to allow someone to speak on my behalf. If I allow a corporation to represent my interest, that corporation derives its right to speak from me. They have a right to act on my behalf.

Now I understand this rubs people the wrong way. I get it. But we all have representatives we elect to represent our interests. On the whole, if all business were run as sole proprietorships or small partnerships, we would all have to adjust our standard of living downward. Until I see an alternative that replaces the corporate structure, I want those businesses to be able to speak and operate on behalf of their owners, employees and other stakeholders.

[Number6]

Cryptocurrency is backed by some number someone found in a hidden record in an unknown computer, subject to change by software which is by design hidden. It's basically worthless except as a mutual agreement to pretend that it's money.

Next up is NFTs, where we pretend it's art. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Cryptocurrency and NFTs are the Beanie Babies from the 90s. People spent money buying them thinking they would make money from others who would buy from them but the only ones who make money was the manufacturer and the retailers. Reminds me of Holland and the Tulip Mania in the 1600s.

[carmenjonze]

... But we all have representatives we elect to represent our interests. ...

Special rights for on-paper "people." Limited, curtailed rights for actual persons.

Congratulations; that's precisely the legacy of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Leave it to a white con to conflate political representation with rights with munny-making interests.

This is why your slavedriver lifestyle was rejected in the Reconstruction era and subsequent Civil Rights eras.

[bradman]

Money, today, is rarely backed by anything of substance like gold or silver but it's backed by the faith of the country which issues it. Money is only worth what someone will give you for it.

Faith and faith alone.

When i walk into a candy store and buy a 99 cent treat.........i have faith that it'll be a penny in change.

That, and the faith there will be a smooth transition of power is what has made it work so far.

[ZoWie]

Exactly. NFTs are a great scam to get a pittance of money from your bad digital art, essentially electronic bubble gum cards without the bubble gum, but after that it's all electrons.

[gounion]

Corporations, in my view, are groups of people organized to accomplish a common goal. By groups of people I refer to ownership primarily, and employees and other ancillary groups of people. I have a right to allow someone to speak on my behalf. If I allow a corporation to represent my interest, that corporation derives its right to speak from me. They have a right to act on my behalf.

Now I understand this rubs people the wrong way. I get it. But we all have representatives we elect to represent our interests. On the whole, if all business were run as sole proprietorships or small partnerships, we would all have to adjust our standard of living downward. Until I see an alternative that replaces the corporate structure, I want those businesses to be able to speak and operate on behalf of their owners, employees and other stakeholders.

It allows groups to do things with no personal responsibility. There's no reason for that.

And saying that a company has rights under the Bill of Rights is wrong. That's only for flesh and blood people. The company shouldn't have any rights under the Constitution, no more than a wheelbarrow does.

Of course, as always, you'll run from an actual debate on the subject. But a man's gotta know his limitations, and you sure know yours.

[Number6]

Corporations, in my view, are groups of people organized to accomplish a common goal. By groups of people I refer to ownership primarily, and employees and other ancillary groups of people. I have a right to allow someone to speak on my behalf. If I allow a corporation to represent my interest, that corporation derives its right to speak from me. They have a right to act on my behalf.

While this sounds sensible the problem is the corporation are still an artificial construct, are not a living organism, and it are not sentient. Only humans in the corporation are sentient and it is the humans you've given the power to speak on your behalf. The humans speaking for you are representing an artificial construct acting on your behalf but the corporation shouldn't be considered or actually have any human rights.

Now I understand this rubs people the wrong way. I get it. But we all have representatives we elect to represent our interests. On the whole, if all business were run as sole proprietorships or small partnerships, we would all have to adjust our standard of living downward. Until I see an alternative that replaces the corporate structure, I want those businesses to be able to speak and operate on behalf of their owners, employees and other stakeholders.

The point isn't to do away with corporations but not to give them the same rights as a human. If you believe a corporation should have the same rights as a human then if a corporation kills someone then that corporation should be executed.

[Number6]

Duplicate post.

[ProfX]

Until I see an alternative that replaces the corporate structure, I want those businesses to be able to speak and operate on behalf of their owners, employees and other stakeholders.

But let's be honest about a fundamental reality, no? Most corporate lobbies do not speak and operate equally on behalf of labor and management. They usually lobby politically for the views of owners and management.

This is precisely WHY labor unions exist, including why they do political lobbying, often for diametrically opposed interests or programs to the ownership.

No shock: the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have very diametrically opposed positions on the minimum wage.

Then we get to another question: many corporations lobby for the right to pollute more, but the people living downwind or downriver from their factories want them to pollute less. They might want to lobby for the right not to have to label their products, but consumers will lobby to have the right to be told. We could keep going. Diametrically opposed interests.

Thus, these debates enter the political arena, but I just want to point out that when it comes to corporate lobbying, it would be somewhat disingenuous to say it's on behalf of the employees or labor of the corporation. Or all interests that intersect with the activity of the corporation.

[gounion]

But let's be honest about a fundamental reality, no? Most corporate lobbies do not speak and operate equally on behalf of labor and management. They usually lobby politically for the views of owners and management.

This is precisely WHY labor unions exist, including why they do political lobbying, often for diametrically opposed interests or programs to the ownership.

No shock: the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have very diametrically opposed positions on the minimum wage.

Then we get to another question: many corporations lobby for the right to pollute more, but the people living downwind or downriver from their factories want them to pollute less. They might want to lobby for the right not to have to label their products, but consumers will lobby to have the right to be told. We could keep going. Diametrically opposed interests.

Thus, these debates enter the political arena, but I just want to point out that when it comes to corporate lobbying, it would be somewhat disingenuous to say it's on behalf of the employees or labor of the corporation. Or all interests that intersect with the activity of the corporation.

I've known more corporate big shots than Joe has. I can tell you right now corporations do NOT speak for the best interests of their employees. That's a joke, and Joe knows it.

[gounion]

While this sounds sensible the problem is the corporation are still an artificial construct, are not a living organism, and it are not sentient. Only humans in the corporation are sentient and it is the humans you've given the power to speak on your behalf. The humans speaking for you are representing an artificial construct acting on your behalf but the corporation shouldn't be considered or actually have any human rights.


The point isn't to do away with corporations but not to give them the same rights as a human. If you believe a corporation should have the same rights as a human then if a corporation kills someone then that corporation should be executed.

No one spent a night in jail for the the mass murder of people in Bhopal. That's what is wrong with our system of corporations. That's why corporations ignore the law. The worst that can happy is that the corporation are fines, which they figure is a cost of doing business. And the leaders know nothing can happen to them, either legal or financial.

[Number6]

I've known more corporate big shots than Joe has. I can tell you right now corporations do NOT speak for the best interests of their employees. That's a joke, and Joe knows it.

Corporations speak only for what is in it's or upper management's best interests.

[Bludogdem]

I’m not sure how this all relates to a document error without knowing the document or error. Not saying you are wrong. Just saying it’s hard to know without context.

The thing I always ask when this comes up is what individual rights do you think corporations have that they shouldn’t have and why? I know the term “corporate personhood” but that means different things to different people. It’s a conversation about “individual” rights being extended to an organization. I’m just curious which rights should be limited or taken away.

There are those who claim this headnote “ The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does. " in the case “ Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)” is the reason there is corporate personhood. The headnote (AKA Syllabus) is not part of the decision but has been cited in subsequent corporate personhood cases. Few of those who raise this issue understand the corporate personhood was a well established principle and at issue in the Santa Clara case was was did the 14th amendment apply to already established corporate personhood.

This is what preceded The Santa Clara case.

“ Wayne’s assertion about Marshall’s ideas on this matter in Letson are confirmed by a private letter from Justice Story to
James Kent, celebrating the 1844 decision. Justice Story wrote:
I equally rejoice, that the Supreme Court has at last come to the conclusion, that a corporation is a citizen, an artificial cit‐ izen, I agree, but still a citizen. It gets rid of a great anomaly in our jurisprudence. This was always [Justice Bushrod] Washington’s opinion. I have held the same opinion for many years, and Mr. Chief Justice Marshall had, before his death, arrived at the conclusion, that our early decisions
were very wrong.
Marshall may have considered his early opinions on the stand‐
ing of corporations in federal court such as Deveaux to be wrong, but on the whole his jurisprudence consistently defended corpo‐ rate persons’ rights. His statement about corporations not being citizens in Deveaux was qualified by a proviso, and was followed ten years later by a strong assertion that corporations were per‐ sons in Dartmouth College. Marshall was a great supporter, at the
end of the day, of corporate persons and their rights.”

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/ ... _FINAL.pdf

[JoeMemphis]

Dupl

[JoeMemphis]

While this sounds sensible the problem is the corporation are still an artificial construct, are not a living organism, and it are not sentient. Only humans in the corporation are sentient and it is the humans you've given the power to speak on your behalf. The humans speaking for you are representing an artificial construct acting on your behalf but the corporation shouldn't be considered or actually have any human rights.


The point isn't to do away with corporations but not to give them the same rights as a human. If you believe a corporation should have the same rights as a human then if a corporation kills someone then that corporation should be executed.

You can’t kill something that doesn’t live. Corporations are not human beings or living beings in the flesh and blood sense of the word. Never said they were. Neither is government or unions or law firms or partnerships or trusts or PACs or any other organization that represents groups of people.

I didn’t say I believe corporations are human beings. They like any organization be it public or private are “constructs” or things. I never said corporations have human rights. Corporations like government represent the interest of their members, their stakeholders. Those stakeholders ultimately are people or groups of people. It’s impossible and impractical for each of those individuals to press their case individually.

We have all kinds of organizations both public and private that represent one or more people at a time. Government isn’t unique in this regard nor should it be. That right to deny the ability of people to organize for their mutual benefit and to choose a representative is not found in the Constitution. That’s why corporations are chartered in states. The Feds don’t have the right under the US Constitution to dictate to citizens who can and cannot speak on their behalf or represent their personal or business interests.

[Glennfs]

Corporations speak only for what is in it's or upper management's best interests.

No they answer to the stock holders

[JoeMemphis]

But let's be honest about a fundamental reality, no? Most corporate lobbies do not speak and operate equally on behalf of labor and management. They usually lobby politically for the views of owners and management.

This is precisely WHY labor unions exist, including why they do political lobbying, often for diametrically opposed interests or programs to the ownership.

No shock: the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have very diametrically opposed positions on the minimum wage.

Then we get to another question: many corporations lobby for the right to pollute more, but the people living downwind or downriver from their factories want them to pollute less. They might want to lobby for the right not to have to label their products, but consumers will lobby to have the right to be told. We could keep going. Diametrically opposed interests.

Thus, these debates enter the political arena, but I just want to point out that when it comes to corporate lobbying, it would be somewhat disingenuous to say it's on behalf of the employees or labor of the corporation. Or all interests that intersect with the activity of the corporation.

That’s a fair point. Corporations have a duty to their owners. Notice I included the word primarily in my post on this. But that doesn’t mean they also don’t have concerns about their employees or their vendors or their lenders or the public as a whole.

Where and how all those line up as a priority varies from business to business and owner to owner. We all have different priorities. That’s why we organize. Be it a business, a government, a union, etc, etc, etc.

[JoeMemphis]

No they answer to the stock holders

True. That’s who they report to. But it doesn’t mean they don’t represent the interest of non ownership stakeholders. I can guarantee you that the bank cares. I can guarantee you that their employees care. I can guarantee you their vendors and customers care.

[Number6]

You can’t kill something that doesn’t live. Corporations are not human beings or living beings in the flesh and blood sense of the word. Never said they were. Neither is government or unions or law firms or partnerships or trusts or PACs or any other organization that represents groups of people.

I didn’t say I believe corporations are human beings. They like any organization be it public or private are “constructs” or things. I never said corporations have human rights. Corporations like government represent the interest of their members, their stakeholders. Those stakeholders ultimately are people or groups of people. It’s impossible and impractical for each of those individuals to press their case individually.

We have all kinds of organizations both public and private that represent one or more people at a time. Government isn’t unique in this regard nor should it be. That right to deny the ability of people to organize for their mutual benefit and to choose a representative is not found in the Constitution. That’s why corporations are chartered in states. The Feds don’t have the right under the US Constitution to dictate to citizens who can and cannot speak on their behalf or represent their personal or business interests.

The point I've been making aren't "people" like Mitt Romney says and therefore they shouldn't have the same rights as people.

[Number6]

No they answer to the stock holders

Oh, it's so cute how naive you are. Rarely do corporations do what the stock holders want them to do unless you get one person or a group of people to pool their shares together to have a 50% plus on share of the stock.

[Number6]

True. That’s who they report to. But it doesn’t mean they don’t represent the interest of non ownership stakeholders. I can guarantee you that the bank cares. '/quote]
Because the bank loans them money and/or have the corporation's money deposited with them meaning the bank will make money from it.
Because that's where their paychecks come from.
Because vendors and customers buy/sell the products/services the corporation provides.