#Occupy

[Saint DH]

Reminds me of this

Tim Robbins on Team America - YouTube

Tim Robbins on Team America - YouTube

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

It's not an anti capitalist movement, dumb dumb.

Not universally, but a majority of the protesters are, see the "Capitalism is Crisis" at the London one.

It is certainly a weaker property rights movement.

[Mr. Blonde]

Personally my biggest attachment to the OWS movement is to get money out of politics. Obviously that's a catchphrase but the greed and degree our politicans can be influenced by large sums of money is preposterous. Corporate personhood is absolutely ridiculous. If somebody is okay with these things, that is your opinion, but if that's the case we should just call ourselves an oligarchy up front.

[Saint DH]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Corporate personhood is absolutely ridiculous. If somebody is okay with these things, that is your opinion

Ok good, because it's certainly not ridiculous. Frankly, I think the term "corporate personhood" is extremely misleading. All it really means is that a corporation is a separate legal entity apart from the owners. This allows owners to have a limited legal liability to the corporation, meaning that if the business is sued the owners cannot lose more than what they've invested in the company. Other forms of business that are not separate from owners do not have this quality, and the owners have unlimited liability and can loose everything they have in a lawsuit. For example, if the company goes out of business and cannot pay all debts after liquidation, creditors can place claims on the owner's personal property (ie house, car, investments, etc).

Corporations as a separate legal entity also allows the government to tax the income twice. The corporation is taxed, and then the owners are taxed. If the business were not separate from the owners, they could not levy the same tax on the same income twice as they can do presently.

Finally, corporations as a separate legal entity allows the business to continue on past the original owner's death. Other forms of business, sole proprietorship, etc, typically die when the owner dies. Imagine how much it would suck if Wal-Mart died when Sam Walton did, or if Apple died when Steve Jobs died.

[Beebs]

I think there is an inherent flaw in the people already elected making laws on how much money somebody can spend to displace them.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

Ok good, because it's certainly not ridiculous. Frankly, I think the term "corporate personhood" is extremely misleading. All it really means is that a corporation is a separate legal entity apart from the owners. This allows owners to have a limited legal liability to the corporation, meaning that if the business is sued the owners cannot lose more than what they've invested in the company. Other forms of business that are not separate from owners do not have this quality, and the owners have unlimited liability and can loose everything they have in a lawsuit. For example, if the company goes out of business and cannot pay all debts after liquidation, creditors can place claims on the owner's personal property (ie house, car, investments, etc).

Corporations as a separate legal entity also allows the government to tax the income twice. The corporation is taxed, and then the owners are taxed. If the business were not separate from the owners, they could not levy the same tax on the same income twice as they can do presently.

Finally, corporations as a separate legal entity allows the business to continue on past the original owner's death. Other forms of business, sole proprietorship, etc, typically die when the owner dies. Imagine how much it would suck if Wal-Mart died when Sam Walton did, or if Apple died when Steve Jobs died.

And the political implications of all this? You seem to have forgot to mention those.

Also I'm surprised you seem to be for corporate personhood given the double-tax.

[Ugly Bastard]

If corporations are people, then they are sociopaths as their only objective is profit any way they can get it.

[Beebs]

Corporations aren't treated as people , it's simply treating many people acting together as one entity, it applies to all sorts of groups, not just corporations.

Going totally without corporate personhood means that a corporation can't sign contracts, be sued, etc. It's not really about corporate personhood, it's about one specific question in it's application, "can corporations donate to political campaigns?"

[Repugnant Abomination]

It's skewed though, isn't it? Since corporations are composed of people (who know doubt have divergent views), how is it that corporations can vote and or lobby with one voice? That's my main problem with it. It goes from the top down. It's fine for corporations to act in their own best interest business wise, in terms of profits and what not, but when they deliberately get involved in politics you have a small number of people wielding too much power and influence, because they have the entire corporation behind them - when a lot of times a large number of people who make up that corporation don't agree with its policies.

[Saint DH]

Labor unions, not-for-profits, political activist groups and many other organizations do the exact same thing. Why does nobody complain about them?

[Repugnant Abomination]

Because as a general rule they don't have nearly as many resources. But you're blind if you don't think people don't complain about labor unions - people and politicians and business leaders bitch about them all the time.

It's a pendulum - when corporations get too powerful the unions make a come back, and then once the unions get too big for their britches business rises back up. It's a never ending re-balancing. The reason is because when business is good people get comfortable and start demanding more social services and collective bargaining rights, etc....Then those things get out of hand and the country has to scale back. After the scale back, we get more competitive because our people aren't as fat and happy. Then the people see the corporations and businesses lining their pockets and want a larger slice of the pie, so they start getting more benefits...And on and on and on.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

It's skewed though, isn't it? Since corporations are composed of people (who know doubt have divergent views), how is it that corporations can vote and or lobby with one voice? That's my main problem with it. It goes from the top down. It's fine for corporations to act in their own best interest business wise, in terms of profits and what not, but when they deliberately get involved in politics you have a small number of people wielding too much power and influence, because they have the entire corporation behind them - when a lot of times a large number of people who make up that corporation don't agree with its policies.

I was more just clearing up the debate, but since you asked; I don't think it's much of an agency dilemma because there is sort of an implied consent when you take ownership of a corporation. You also have a vote within the corporation, and the ultimate option to sell your stake.

I can certainly see the argument that it makes a donating corporation powerful, but I think a corporation shouldn't be less able to contribute than other types of groups of people.

Also an issue comes up when there is a majority shareholder, especially of a small corporation, although obviously he can donate as a single person.

While people might not like all of the side effects that came with the Citizens United ruling, the root of the issue of campaign as free speech is a very real one, and limits on how much money people can spend in that speech are incredibly dangerous.

I think the effort should, and would be more effectively, be placed at the feet of the elected politicians; hold them accountable to make sure they are not a puppet. In the end, a vote is the only actual vote, although money spent is undeniable a huge part of getting votes.

[Beebs]

Harvard’s Walkout Students Misunderstand Economics: Amity Shlaes - Businessweek

Read this last week, forgot to post.

Basically a bunch of idiot freshman walked out of a basic econ course because it was "too conservative," which in this case means was not "intro to centrally planned econ." They actually went so far as to write an open letter to the prof, a PhD from Harvard, and say since he was an adviser to W, he is basically responsible for the recession.

I've read this guys work since we used his textbooks in intro micro and macro, there is absolutely nothing in them that is extreme or really even that theoretical; this isn't some Austrian school guy, it's basics.

This is just such an absurdity and was of course led by a freshman. A freshman student, yet to even finish the course, without any academic or real world experience with the subject, is writing open letters to PhDs in Economics because he isn't a communist.

I had European History course that was 100% about how bad capitalism is and made life hell during the industrial revolution, and had a US history prof who ran for Governor of some New England state on the Communist party ticket. It's not bad enough that every other department is communist on most college campuses, now the Occupy crowd wants to turn the econ department into communism 101 too.

Also, did they even read the syllabus? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1080236.html

On his blog, Mankiw notes that the students' actions are ironic because the class topic for the day was income distribution and the growing gap between the top one percent and the bottom 99 percent.

I am getting more and more frustrated with shit like this, any good points being made are being completely obscured by this type of utter nonsense.

[DDTempest]

I was just reading an article in Rolling Stone last night talking about how Bush ignored his advisers and Cheney railroaded all the policy through them with threats - NEATO!

[Saint DH]

Yeah, Rolling Stone is the first place I look for reputable political reporting.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

Yeah, Rolling Stone is the first place I look for reputable political reporting.

While clearly coming from the left, one would be a fool to call Rolling Stone disreputable. It's been one of the most influential sources of of journalism in the last like 50 years.

[Repugnant Abomination]

DH is an old soul.

[Saint DH]

If I want to read an article about music, I'll open a Rolling Stone.

[Mr. Blonde]

[Ugly Bastard]

What is that a picture of (aside from the obvious, "a cop arresting a cop")?

[DJ FC]

I love Mankiw.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

If I want to read an article about music, I'll open a Rolling Stone.

I thought the same thing, then I read a couple articles. (I read every non-women's magazine at work weekly) Rolling Stone regularly has thorough, in depth, and fantastic articles about relevant topics. I honestly gain as much genuine world knowledge from a monthly issue of Rolling Stone as I do reading a month's worth of weekly Time magazine issues.

[Mr. Blonde]

Holy shit, this is the angriest I have been at anything in the OWS movement in a LONG time.

Police pepper spraying and arresting students at UC Davis - YouTube

Police pepper spraying and arresting students at UC Davis - YouTube

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

What is that a picture of (aside from the obvious, "a cop arresting a cop")?

Retired police chief arrested in full uniform at Occupy Wall Street demo after branding fellow officers 'obnoxious, arrogant and ignorant' | Mail Online

[ninjaface]