quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I disagree. A corporation's sole purpose is to generate a profit. It doesn't matter where they are incorporated. Stakeholder's in the community? BULLSHIT. Tell that to all the workers who've lost their jobs to foreign outsourcing! Ohhhh, I don't think you thought about that huh? What about the numerous multinational corporations whose earnings come from mostly FOREIGN MARKETS! Coca-cola? Yea? They have no loyalty to the nation. If they don't like the government policy, they can pack up and move to China at any time! They don't care! Corporations are amoral. Profit is their sole purpose for existence. Not love of country.

You forget that a company's profit is based on its ability to get people to buy its products/services, if they behave like complete shit they won't make a good profit.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew You forget that a company's profit is based on its ability to get people to buy its products/services, if they behave like complete shit they won't make a good profit.

Customer's yea, their own people, hell no. If they have the choice of cheap labor in Vietnam to keeping people in America, they don't care. The bottom line is all that matters in that case. They don't care about the "Made in America" label.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Customer's yea, their own people, hell no. If they have the choice of cheap labor in Vietnam to keeping people in America, they don't care. The bottom line is all that matters in that case. They don't care about the "Made in America" label.

while profits are number one, in a service economy a company's product (or generator) is normally its talent. without treating its employees well, the company will not succeed.

as for your other comments, you have a lot to learn. a company that doesn't lay off workers may not survive, in which case everyone loses. while layoffs hurt individuals the greater good is served by layoffs.

also, a company can't just pick up and leave a country. if coca cola decided it wanted to pick up and leave atlanta, georgia for vietnam it would be hit with a 10 year inversion tax. many other countries have exit taxes to prevent the companies from moving overseas.

lastly, a corporation is an amalgamation of its people. therefore, if a corporation acts in a way contrary to your morals, it is really the executives that are being objectionable. a corporation is not a person, therefore, it can't take actions. only the people who run the corporation can take actions. stop talking about corporations as if they act because they don't, the people who run the corporation act.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Customer's yea, their own people, hell no. If they have the choice of cheap labor in Vietnam to keeping people in America, they don't care. The bottom line is all that matters in that case. They don't care about the "Made in America" label.

Well, to be honest, if all American companies were making all their products in America, the American consumers would be the worst off. Everything would be really expensive and the purchasing power would go down significantly (so you would have a well paid manufacturing job which would make you afford nothing). Really, there's a lot to earn from trading and outsourcing, but that doesn't mean companies don't care shit about the country they come from (the best jobs are mostly kept in the country they come from, while the "bad ones" are shipped abroad).

How much did Halliburton pay in "inversion taxes"? Jez, you basically enforced my premise that corporations are amoral, since they are not people, and also, their sole purpose of existence is for profit. This is why many corporations would rather America be in a perpetual state of war. We can call this the military-industrial complex, or we can call them military contractors. Either way, they don't care how many people die or become refugees. As long as they get that $1 billion no-bid contract, who cares!? I stand by my conclusion that corporations are amoral, and hold no loyalty to their country. Sure, the executives might have a personal national loyalty, and they usually have morals, but when it comes down to it, the company's profits come first, no matter nation or morality.

___________________

a

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How much did Halliburton pay in "inversion taxes"? Jez, you basically enforced my premise that corporations are amoral, since they are not people, and also, their sole purpose of existence is for profit. This is why many corporations would rather America be in a perpetual state of war. We can call this the military-industrial complex, or we can call them military contractors. Either way, they don't care how many people die or become refugees. As long as they get that $1 billion no-bid contract, who cares!? I stand by my conclusion that corporations are amoral, and hold no loyalty to their country. Sure, the executives might have a personal national loyalty, and they usually have morals, but when it comes down to it, the company's profits come first, no matter nation or morality.

halliburton didn't actually enter into an inversion transaction. the top management actually picked up and moved to UAE. Most executives aren't willing to move to the UAE to avoid corporate taxes. but that wasn't a decision by 'the corporation' rather it was a decision of the corporate executives to uproot their lives and make a start in the UAE. In most cases, executives are people who are grounded in an area like other people, most of whom are unwilling to upend their lives to 'screw' the little people.

as for your amoral comment, corporations aren't immoral, amoral, or moral. since a corporation is a legal fiction, it is just an extension of those who run the show. corporations don't do anything but exist on paper!

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the spanish american war the US claimed the phillipines, cuba, and puerto rico. In the mexican-american war the US took from mexico practically the entire western US including arguably our most important state - california. the US is not much different than western europe in that territorial colonialism effectively stopped at the beginning of the 20th century.

I mentioned this earlier (yet it was ignored) and let's not forget how the Americans basically murdered their way across the western frontier in the conquest of the Indians.

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Dude, the Dems get more of their funding in corporate donations now than the Republicans. This isn't 1984. You keep blasting out these comments that have no validity, like "unemployment is at its highest level in US history, Iraq is completely unwinable, nobody can afford their mortgages anymore (because of Bush), backdoor drafts are the only way to keep people in the military..." ALL of which can easily be refuted. LOL.. and you question other people on here where they get THEIR news from? I know they get Al Jazeera in Canada but you can check out other sources too Donation link below. I already debunked your other falsehoods earlier but if you want links for those too, I'll provide. http://liberalpro.blogspot.com/2007...w-favoring.html

Some of your points have been contested by myself and others already though and you just ignore them. I don't watch Al Jazeera and it's not broadcast on our news networks as far as I know (CBC, CTV, printed press, etc).

Are you really trying to suggest to me that the Democrats get more funding from the oil and energy private sector than Bush or McCain?

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 a halliburton didn't actually enter into an inversion transaction. the top management actually picked up and moved to UAE. Most executives aren't willing to move to the UAE to avoid corporate taxes. but that wasn't a decision by 'the corporation' rather it was a decision of the corporate executives to uproot their lives and make a start in the UAE. In most cases, executives are people who are grounded in an area like other people, most of whom are unwilling to upend their lives to 'screw' the little people. as for your amoral comment, corporations aren't immoral, amoral, or moral. since a corporation is a legal fiction, it is just an extension of those who run the show. corporations don't do anything but exist on paper!

I'm amused that you find sympathy with corporate executives who have no trouble moving to UAE. They can fly back any time they want...hint...private jet...vacation home... Corporations are completely amoral because morality is not their primary concern. Profit is. At anyone's expense. Corporations are wrongly humanized, by government, by you... They are given the status of a human, yet, these "humans" have more resources at their disposal than most countries in the world! That is a blatant imbalance of power because they have billions at their disposal for lobbying and influence in government. I don't have that kind of power. Why does an amoral corporation have more influence than I do on government? Corporations are not people, and shouldn't be treated as a person. If it were up to me, I'de strip all corporations of their "personhood" status.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 Some of your points have been contested by myself and others already though and you just ignore them. Are you really trying to suggest to me that the Democrats get more funding from the oil and energy private sector than Bush or McCain?

I stated facts to you. For example, that there were months in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 with higher unemployment than we have now, which you say are at the highest levels ever... (totally untrue). A couple of months percentages do not reflect an entire year's trends. Not sure if you realize, but stats existed before Bush became president. Under Jimmy Carter, this was the yearly average unemployment:
1977: 6.9%
1978: 6.0%
1978: 5.8%
1980: 7.0% (and inflation at a whopping 13%... to go against your claim that the dollar is weaker than ever).

Under Bush it has remained in the 4% and low 5% average range for the past 4 years, and only in the last few months did it jump to over 5% for those specific months. Clinton was handed an expanding economy during peace time, and with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, defense spending could come down, which encouraged Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to cut interest rates. Then Clinton got a Republican Congress in 1995 that was also eager to bring the budget into balance.

So, when I give the facts, you argue a perspective unrelated to the facts I present, and call that a win... and wonder why I ignore you?

And, I'm not suggesting the Dems get more contributions from oil and energy, I'm saying that OVERALL, from all corporations combined, the Dems get more funding than Republicans now and all the data from the last couple of years point to that trend continuing to grow in the Dem's favor.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 I mentioned this earlier (yet it was ignored) and let's not forget how the Americans basically murdered their way across the western frontier in the conquest of the Indians.

im still waiting for you to provide examples of american imperialism since WW2.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Under Bush it has remained in the 4% and low 5% average range for the past 4 years, and only in the last few months did it jump to over 5% for those specific months. Clinton was handed an expanding economy during peace time, and with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, defense spending could come down, which encouraged Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to cut interest rates. Then Clinton got a Republican Congress in 1995 that was also eager to bring the budget into balance.

Ha! That's because they calculate inflation differently than in the 1970's. They don't include fuel and food! The most important commodities in all of the economy. Is it no wonder they can say inflation is just 2-3%? They're cooking the books man...

___________________