Big Business

[John Dibble]

- All anti-trust legislation should be abolished.  There is simply no excuse for the government to invade your natural rights.

I actually disagree on this. Some of these laws prevent price collaboration. Capitalism serves everyone best when it is competitive, and price collaboration(trusts, cartels) create artificial monopolies that are bad for the consumer - like what OPEC does, raise the price of oil whenever they feel like it, rather than base prices on supply and demand are. Some anti-trust legislation may be bad, but preventing price collaboration is good.

So you're willing to revoke someone's right to make a contract with someone else?

No, I'm not willing to revoke contract rights of individuals - but a corpoartion is not an individual. Do consider that corporations only exist because government sanctions them - they have powers no normal business can have because government grants it to them. Restricting that power a bit isn't a bad thing, nor is it wrong considering they only exist because of government. Ideally government wouldn't even recognize them as anything different than a regular business entity, but they do, so I'm willing to restrict the powers given to them. If two mom-and-pop shops want to price collaborate, not a big deal, the government doesn't give them unfair advantages over other businesses, so let them do as they please - in their case they wouldn't have the power to make it last in all likeliness, while corporations could.

Being an idealist is all fine and good, but if you can't work within the bounds of reality you will likely fail.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I have to by my oil from gas stations - I don't really get a choice in the matter, because I need it and I don't have the resources to make my own damn gas. I do wish the government wouldn't favor trading partners, and I work towards getting them not to, but for now I have to live with it.

[Bono]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

Walmart doens't get to invoke eminent domain. Only government can do that. You should be upset with government for misusing eminent domain. Under the constitution eminent domain is used to obtain land for public use, not for private business. So its government, not Walmart that acted improperly.

Also what type of business do you think we should have? Its fair enough to criticize big business, but what works better?

And why do you think Government doues those 'favor$' to Wal-Mart??

Fact is, big business all suck on the tits of the government, weather it's using it to crunch their competitors, be it by giving themselves corporate welfare, or by increasing relulations so that new competitors can't arise, vide what the Detroid cartel of auto industry does, be it by hiding behind limited liability, be it by saving from bankruptcy due to government contratcs, be it by escaping stock market failures because of insider trading çaws, or any other thing you might want to add. Those laws don't just appear, tehy are fed by corporate money being given to legislators.

[Richard]

Richius, you have very strong Libertarian views, at least on economic issues. I applaud that. Are there any more like you in Ontario?

Yes.  I have managed to convert a friend I've known since grade 10, who used to tell me how Canada had a good healthcare system, we should support the UN, ban guns, etc.  He now:

- has an American flag on his truck
- owns guns
- has a Confederate flag and Israeli flag in his room
- is in the Ayn Rand club at university with me
- believes in privatizing everything, and is dabbling with the idea of privatizing the police force


The only issue I haven't managed to convince him of is the death penalty.  He wants to put them to work producing stuff in order to compete with China, for the rest of their lives.  Sort of like slaves.

I think he may support voluntary slavery like me.  I also think he supports the rights of people to duel to the death if they so choose, without government interference.

Now we want to join a militia...


I'm working hard here in Ontario.  

[David S]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

Walmart doens't get to invoke eminent domain. Only government can do that. You should be upset with government for misusing eminent domain. Under the constitution eminent domain is used to obtain land for public use, not for private business. So its government, not Walmart that acted improperly.

Also what type of business do you think we should have? Its fair enough to criticize big business, but what works better?

And why do you think Government doues those 'favor$' to Wal-Mart??

Fact is, big business all suck on the tits of the government, weather it's using it to crunch their competitors, be it by giving themselves corporate welfare, or by increasing relulations so that new competitors can't arise, vide what the Detroid cartel of auto industry does, be it by hiding behind limited liability, be it by saving from bankruptcy due to government contratcs, be it by escaping stock market failures because of insider trading çaws, or any other thing you might want to add. Those laws don't just appear, tehy are fed by corporate money being given to legislators.

Wow. Where do you get your info? Have you noticed that there are Japanese cars, Korean cars and European cars on the road? Many years ago the big three may have been a cartel, but those days are long past. Foreign competition forced them to build better cars at lower prices. The auto industry is very competitive today. According to quicken.com GM made a profit of only 1.17% in the last year. Ford Made about 4% and DaimlerChrysler about 1.5%. That's just barely survival, and remember in some of the past years they lost money. Plus GM and Ford are carrying a mountain of debt. I'm told by friends at GM that they came close to going bellyup a few years ago. As far as liability goes there have been huge settlements against all automakers. GM got nailed for one in excess of a billion dollars a few years ago. Whether it was really their fault is not so clear.
Your complaints about payoff to government though not specific, are a greater criticism of government than business.
But you haven't answered the most important question; what would be better?

[Bono]

- is in the Ayn Rand club at university with me

That's a good thing?

[Bono]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

Walmart doens't get to invoke eminent domain. Only government can do that. You should be upset with government for misusing eminent domain. Under the constitution eminent domain is used to obtain land for public use, not for private business. So its government, not Walmart that acted improperly.

Also what type of business do you think we should have? Its fair enough to criticize big business, but what works better?

And why do you think Government doues those 'favor$' to Wal-Mart??

Fact is, big business all suck on the tits of the government, weather it's using it to crunch their competitors, be it by giving themselves corporate welfare, or by increasing relulations so that new competitors can't arise, vide what the Detroid cartel of auto industry does, be it by hiding behind limited liability, be it by saving from bankruptcy due to government contratcs, be it by escaping stock market failures because of insider trading çaws, or any other thing you might want to add. Those laws don't just appear, tehy are fed by corporate money being given to legislators.

Wow. Where do you get your info? Have you noticed that there are Japanese cars, Korean cars and European cars on the road? Many years ago the big three may have been a cartel, but those days are long past. Foreign competition forced them to build better cars at lower prices. The auto industry is very competitive today. According to quicken.com GM made a profit of only 1.17% in the last year. Ford Made about 4% and DaimlerChrysler about 1.5%. That's just barely survival, and remember in some of the past years they lost money. Plus GM and Ford are carrying a mountain of debt. I'm told by friends at GM that they came close to going bellyup a few years ago. As far as liability goes there have been huge settlements against all automakers. GM got nailed for one in excess of a billion dollars a few years ago. Whether it was really their fault is not so clear.
Your complaints about payoff to government though not specific, are a greater criticism of government than business.
But you haven't answered the most important question; what would be better?

If left naturally, big business don't hold on because they become inneficient. The ideal structure is a society of small/mid-sized business. An ocasional big business might emerge, but it wuld have to be exceptionally well-managed to be able to survive on a free market. Yes, nice, cars from brands with nice capitals and that were well-stablished on their origins before they hit America. Now tell me, how many new American car companies were able to sprung up on the last, say 50 years, that weren't driven by one of the 3 giants?

[David S]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

Walmart doens't get to invoke eminent domain. Only government can do that. You should be upset with government for misusing eminent domain. Under the constitution eminent domain is used to obtain land for public use, not for private business. So its government, not Walmart that acted improperly.

Also what type of business do you think we should have? Its fair enough to criticize big business, but what works better?

And why do you think Government doues those 'favor$' to Wal-Mart??

Fact is, big business all suck on the tits of the government, weather it's using it to crunch their competitors, be it by giving themselves corporate welfare, or by increasing relulations so that new competitors can't arise, vide what the Detroid cartel of auto industry does, be it by hiding behind limited liability, be it by saving from bankruptcy due to government contratcs, be it by escaping stock market failures because of insider trading çaws, or any other thing you might want to add. Those laws don't just appear, tehy are fed by corporate money being given to legislators.

Wow. Where do you get your info? Have you noticed that there are Japanese cars, Korean cars and European cars on the road? Many years ago the big three may have been a cartel, but those days are long past. Foreign competition forced them to build better cars at lower prices. The auto industry is very competitive today. According to quicken.com GM made a profit of only 1.17% in the last year. Ford Made about 4% and DaimlerChrysler about 1.5%. That's just barely survival, and remember in some of the past years they lost money. Plus GM and Ford are carrying a mountain of debt. I'm told by friends at GM that they came close to going bellyup a few years ago. As far as liability goes there have been huge settlements against all automakers. GM got nailed for one in excess of a billion dollars a few years ago. Whether it was really their fault is not so clear.
Your complaints about payoff to government though not specific, are a greater criticism of government than business.
But you haven't answered the most important question; what would be better?

If left naturally, big business don't hold on because they become inneficient. The ideal structure is a society of small/mid-sized business. An ocasional big business might emerge, but it wuld have to be exceptionally well-managed to be able to survive on a free market. Yes, nice, cars from brands with nice capitals and that were well-stablished on their origins before they hit America. Now tell me, how many new American car companies were able to sprung up on the last, say 50 years, that weren't driven by one of the 3 giants?

As far as big business becomming inefficient goes, that's a trend that happens to companies of any size. So what? If their competitors are better, the inefficient company will go out of business. That happens all the time. Small and medium compaines go out of buusiness too.

The investment required to start a new car company in the US would be staggering, in part because of government mandated standards for safety, fuel economy, and emissions. Beyond that, to make cost competitive cars you need mass production methods that require a huge financial outlay. There are few companies other than the existing automakers that have the expertise or the money to do it. Delorean tried it a few years back, but he didn't stay in business long.

[Bono]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

Walmart doens't get to invoke eminent domain. Only government can do that. You should be upset with government for misusing eminent domain. Under the constitution eminent domain is used to obtain land for public use, not for private business. So its government, not Walmart that acted improperly.

Also what type of business do you think we should have? Its fair enough to criticize big business, but what works better?

And why do you think Government doues those 'favor$' to Wal-Mart??

Fact is, big business all suck on the tits of the government, weather it's using it to crunch their competitors, be it by giving themselves corporate welfare, or by increasing relulations so that new competitors can't arise, vide what the Detroid cartel of auto industry does, be it by hiding behind limited liability, be it by saving from bankruptcy due to government contratcs, be it by escaping stock market failures because of insider trading çaws, or any other thing you might want to add. Those laws don't just appear, tehy are fed by corporate money being given to legislators.

Wow. Where do you get your info? Have you noticed that there are Japanese cars, Korean cars and European cars on the road? Many years ago the big three may have been a cartel, but those days are long past. Foreign competition forced them to build better cars at lower prices. The auto industry is very competitive today. According to quicken.com GM made a profit of only 1.17% in the last year. Ford Made about 4% and DaimlerChrysler about 1.5%. That's just barely survival, and remember in some of the past years they lost money. Plus GM and Ford are carrying a mountain of debt. I'm told by friends at GM that they came close to going bellyup a few years ago. As far as liability goes there have been huge settlements against all automakers. GM got nailed for one in excess of a billion dollars a few years ago. Whether it was really their fault is not so clear.
Your complaints about payoff to government though not specific, are a greater criticism of government than business.
But you haven't answered the most important question; what would be better?

If left naturally, big business don't hold on because they become inneficient. The ideal structure is a society of small/mid-sized business. An ocasional big business might emerge, but it wuld have to be exceptionally well-managed to be able to survive on a free market. Yes, nice, cars from brands with nice capitals and that were well-stablished on their origins before they hit America. Now tell me, how many new American car companies were able to sprung up on the last, say 50 years, that weren't driven by one of the 3 giants?

As far as big business becomming inefficient goes, that's a trend that happens to companies of any size. So what? If their competitors are better, the inefficient company will go out of business. That happens all the time. Small and medium compaines go out of buusiness too.

The investment required to start a new car company in the US would be staggering, in part because of government mandated standards for safety, fuel economy, and emissions. Beyond that, to make cost competitive cars you need mass production methods that require a huge financial outlay. There are few companies other than the existing automakers that have the expertise or the money to do it. Delorean tried it a few years back, but he didn't stay in business long.

The point is, thanks to showering money on law makers, the inneficient companies can stay in business.

[Josh/Devilman88]

I hate big business.. all they do is take the workers money for them self. So they can be rich and there workers wont, so they have to work....

[David S]

I hate big business.. all they do is take the workers money for them self. So they can be rich and there workers wont, so they have to work....

Maybe some do but many big business' pay their employees very well. Unskilled workers on the automotive assembly lines make great pay and their benefits are terrific. Do you think small companies pay better? If so which ones?

[John Dibble]

I hate big business.. all they do is take the workers money for them self. So they can be rich and there workers wont, so they have to work....

Maybe some do but many big business' pay their employees very well. Unskilled workers on the automotive assembly lines make great pay and their benefits are terrific. Do you think small companies pay better? If so which ones?

I think he was being sarcastic.

[David S]

I hate big business.. all they do is take the workers money for them self. So they can be rich and there workers wont, so they have to work....

Maybe some do but many big business' pay their employees very well. Unskilled workers on the automotive assembly lines make great pay and their benefits are terrific. Do you think small companies pay better? If so which ones?

I think he was being sarcastic.

I don't know Josh's philosophic base so I can't tell. Personally I just thought he was high. If hes kidding I'm glad.
BTW congratulations on your promotion to magistrate.

[2952-0-0]

The only problem? I think corporate contributions to political parties and organizations should be BANNED. We're living under the tyranny of politics and money being intertwined.

[Richard]

The only problem? I think corporate contributions to political parties and organizations should be BANNED. We're living under the tyranny of politics and money being intertwined.

So much for the Democratic platform of protecting civil rights.  Now you want to tell me who I can donate to?

[John Dibble]

The only problem? I think corporate contributions to political parties and organizations should be BANNED. We're living under the tyranny of politics and money being intertwined.

So much for the Democratic platform of protecting civil rights.  Now you want to tell me who I can donate to?

I somewhat agree with the idea of limiting or stopping corporate contributions. Remember, a corporation is NOT AN INDIVIDUAL. However, at the same time, we need to stop limiting individual contributions.

[Richard]

The only problem? I think corporate contributions to political parties and organizations should be BANNED. We're living under the tyranny of politics and money being intertwined.

So much for the Democratic platform of protecting civil rights.  Now you want to tell me who I can donate to?

I somewhat agree with the idea of limiting or stopping corporate contributions. Remember, a corporation is NOT AN INDIVIDUAL. However, at the same time, we need to stop limiting individual contributions.

Right...  but all my multi-billion dollar company needs to do is make a huge gift of $20 million to a director living in Puerto Rico, which in turn will make a personal donation of $20 million to whomever.

[Dr. Cynic]

Neutral. We need business (Not monopoly), but they must treat employees fairly.

[John Dibble]

The only problem? I think corporate contributions to political parties and organizations should be BANNED. We're living under the tyranny of politics and money being intertwined.

So much for the Democratic platform of protecting civil rights.  Now you want to tell me who I can donate to?

I somewhat agree with the idea of limiting or stopping corporate contributions. Remember, a corporation is NOT AN INDIVIDUAL. However, at the same time, we need to stop limiting individual contributions.

Right...  but all my multi-billion dollar company needs to do is make a huge gift of $20 million to a director living in Puerto Rico, which in turn will make a personal donation of $20 million to whomever.

True. No matter what the system people will find a way around it. However, I believe there could be a legal case prohibiting that. There's no such thing as a perfect system.

And besides, you wouldn't go through some director in Puerto Rico - you'd just give it to the CEO as a payraise.

The real solution to this would be prohibiting corporate welfare - then they'll have little reason to bribe politicians.

[2952-0-0]

I'm talking about the Axis of Evil: Corporations, Parties, and Government. It's 10000000000000000X more dangerous than NK, Iran and Iraq.

[Richard]

I'm talking about the Axis of Evil: Corporations, Parties, and Government. It's 10000000000000000X more dangerous than NK, Iran and Iraq.

agreed.  That is why we need a minimalist government and to abolish corporations.  I have no idea what to do about parties.

[A18]

What's wrong with corporations?

[John Dibble]

What's wrong with corporations?

Corporations do have advantages for consumers, but the main problem with them is that the government gives them extra powers that normal businesses can't ever have. It makes them less likely to die out if there is superior competition.

[2952-0-0]

I mean when corps get muddying in politics, that is bad. Corps donate to parties, and when the parties get in to power they dish out special favours to corps. And the cycle goes on and on and on.

[Richard]

What's wrong with corporations?

Corporations are artificial entities created by government.  This is the government interfering with society, once again.  Corporations are immoral because they shield owners and management from responsibility for their actions.  I believe that if you choose a course of action that wipes our hundreds of people's savings, you have to be held personally accountable and your personal assets should be touchable.

Right now, corporations cause management to be reckless in some cases while providing an immunity shield.

All non-voting owners should have limited liability (for the amount they invested).  Voting owners should have unlimited liablility, and top level management likewise.

Criminal acts committed by the corporation will be charged against the person(s) responsible.


The reason why people trust big business is because they're protected by these laws and circumstances.

Luckily, professional organizations can't incorporate.  Accountants, lawyers, and the like, are always liable.