They can see the writing on the wall. They know that unions will cut into their wealth and their affluent lifestyle. They are the definition of greedy capitalism!
There are two things, at least, which drive these critters
1. Addiction. Acquiring money, and money is power, is an addiction, every bit as harmful as gambling. Interestingly it is harder to break the addiction to gambling than it is drugs, smoking and alcohol. I never had an addiction to drugs or gambling, but I found it easier to quit alcohol, than smoking.
2. Competition with peers, be it or old money or new money, and old money ostracizes new money from the elite social circle, or tries to. The plutocrats are in competition with their peers, each other, for status. Just as their are social classes of upper, middle, lower, within the social classes there are upper, middle, and lower.
And among the upper class, that is the entitled, privileged, wealthy, they strive to be at the top of the pyramid, and since it is a money oriented pyramid, they strive to attain that status at any cost and expense, except to themselves.
Workers, environment, posterity, the future be damned. The only thing that matters to them, is today and obstacles in front of them.
For these anti humans, Gaia is a resource from which to extract resources to produce money, which is used to produce wealth and gain power.
Humans are simply a source to be consumed in the production of their wealth and power.
Next time you hear about HR, remember that a resource is something to be consumed in production, and resources have no rights
Absolutely! I was just thinking the same thing. Bezos and Musk think what's fair is what THEY want. Read "Nomadland" by Jessica Bruder. She discusses Amazon's "camperforce" and how physically demanding working in an Amazon fulfillment center is.
If people weren't clamoring for jobs that will kill them, make them infirm, oppress and abuse them, Bezo's and his ilk would have no power.
Miners crawl into the earth to earn money, and die from black lung disease.
People work and live in or near oil refineries and died from cancer (my fathers family)
When they were building the Golden Gate bridge in SF. Men were camping on the shore of the bay, waiting for someone to fall to their death, so they could rush in and get the job.
People will slit throats for the opportunity to risk their life and health for money.
We at or near the bottom of the social pyramid risk our lives, just to live another day an fill our bellies
Those at the top risk our lives also, just to maintain their social status, fulfill their ego needs and feed their addiction.
If republicans would stop stripping away all regulations and if Democrats would reverse those decisions when they do it, we might not have so many problems. But, no. What's best for the elite is best for the politicians and SCROTUM judges, at least in their minds.
It's time everyone understand this and stop being naieve about what lengths they will go to. Musk and Bozo are enthralled by their power and feel no obligation to conform to normal societal constraints or values if it curbs their power.
They are not good guys and they are not about helping others or the country. They're all about themselves and only themselves. Forget Covid. We have a national pandemic that's been getting more widespread. They call it Narcissism Syndrome and it's spreading like wildfire.
Unless they heat their homes by burning cash, they could lose 90% of their fortunes and still live the lives of kings and leave fortunes to their heirs.
It isn't for them to have more purchasing power, it's for ordinary people to have less, so we have less autonomy and they have more power over us. They already have limitless ability to purchase items.
Correct. Most money is electronic and stored on servers in 0's and 1's, but money is not wealth. Wealth are things that make you happy, that fill a hole.
The hoarder whose house you can't walk through, thinks they are happy because they have things, which in their mind's eye is wealth.
J Leno hoards vehicles and makes is happy because he owns a huge stable of expensive and antique vehicles.
Tom Cruise and John Travolta hoard airplanes.
Some hoard mansions.
Money is just a tool to acquire things that make us happy or at the bottom of the pyramid, to be able to survive another day. However the acquisition of money can be an addiction, and that makes us susceptible to scams, and loss of our humanity.
People with that kind of money are called wealthy individuals wheteher they surround themselves with cars, planes, mansions, etc., or just want to land on Mars like Musk who sold all his mansions. The point I tried to make was that they could not heat their homes with burning their cash since the physical banknotes are not available for what they have to their name. To start with, they would need to liquidate all the shares they own.
Wealth is not money. Money is a tool by which to obtain wealth. Wealth are those things, material or immaterial, that make us happy. I am very happy, I am surrounded by things, a person and cats that make me happy and comfortable. And thus I consider myself wealthy indeed, wealthier than Musk, Bezo's, Gates because I have none of their worries, fears, obligations. Few are wealthier than I. It helps that I have 5 acres, with a barn, kennel, garage apartment, three vehicles and absolutely no mortgage, car payment or debts and the wife and I have a decent retirement income. My only concern if the health of my wife and myself.
People growing up in this insane world of rampant capitalism tend to ingest the assumptions that it forces on us. We should at least be aware that money and power are not joined at the hip. The connection comes about because of a particular legal system which allows money to be used to buy political and personal power. It doesn't have to be that way. A few smart legalists could easily design a political system which prohibits the use of money to buy power. It might allow the accumulation of money to buy more Oreos but not people and not laws. A convention lasting three days would be enough to sketch it all out, and turn existing law on its head. Of course there is no way existing power would allow such a change, but that is a different question from whether it is possible. It is!
in the end, the jury is still out. At least in Musk we can see that he seems to want to fuel his other dreams with his money, and the intentions may be good. But with that money, you pursue even crazy dreams (like buying Twitter). Fortunately the pursuit of crazy dreams that end in failure does not destroy the money, it just gets transferred to another pocket. The waste is the time and effort expended on the dream, not the actual cash. What I dislike is when they use their power to take advantage of others, like the thing with workers and unions. Then it is about just plain making money even at the expense of others.
It’s a shame that the government has let this get out of hand. That’s why the American workers need to do the government’ job! Unionize while they still can.
There is nothing - other than confiscating the whole of their personal wealth - that can cut into their lifestyle. They are richer than God. But their power can be checked, and I think they just don’t want anybody to put ANY restrictions on their GODLIKE power.
It all's startin' t' kind'a make me feel like a'goin' t' take a damn pill! Oh Wait, Wait! Then I'd be a'supportin' the damn big pharma! OY! Are we great again yet ‽
Agree with your though Keith, but even if minimum wage went to $40 an hour it couldn't cut into their affluent lifestyle. It's the rush that power gives them of being able to control other people
Nonsense. As Professor Reich has frequently pointed out, when unions were strong a few decades ago, they not only benefited the workers but companies and the economy as a whole. What ruins companies is management that focuses entirely on short-term gains for shareholders at the expense of employees, customers and the society at large. Boeing is an obvious example.
Good point. As an attorney (before my tbi), I worked with lots of companies who only cared about looking good for the next quarter. They would make contracts that on paper showed revenue, but in the long-term were terribly unfavorable to them. They literally only thought about the next quarter and all else was irrelevant. This was right before the tech bubble burst. Everything they were doing was short run; nothing was long run.
Giving some power to the groups that most care about the company's survival guarantees that somebody will be watching very carefully over what they are doing and what their plans are. Big investors like Vanguard do not police their investments very often. And the fall of one company is not of big concern as they do not have all their eggs in one basket ... They are diversified across the market A worker, on the other hand, has to commit to that one place for work, and unlike tech high paying jobs that are easily transferred, it is not so easy for an ordinary worker to just jump ship and expect to get better benefits. Seniority is lost, nobody pays for the move, the next job might be just like this one if they have no say, etc. They have a big interest in the company.
Also, companies make big promises to places they choose to locate at. Yet they are rarely held to their vague promises about the economic benefits of their presence v. the very real concessions they ask for. Generally, graft benefits the political powers who are solicited directly, but the general local populace rarely even knows what is going on beyond vague promises of jobs (likely for outsiders more than for the people already there but that is another issue).
We say that a corporation, a business entity, is like a person, but we allow corporations to exist without any of the restraints of a person. If I poison a river, I go to jail for murder. If a corporation poisons a river, well, did the regulations allow it? If you sue, the company can fight for years, nobody goes to jail, and in general, they will lobby to change the law. For example, class actions are harder to bring.
The other way corporations harm communities is by competing with other communities to build a plant there if they get tax breaks and the community affords roads and infrastructure for them, or they will go to another community that will give them a better deal. Do the jobs they create offset the expense to the community?
WAY too often, communities don’t ever do the math. They forfeit much in community benefit, in perpetuity.
This is one of the ways business can raid the public purse instead of contributing to public well-being. For a while, maybe twenty or twenty-five years ago, we talked about companies functioning as good citizens, meaning serving the needs of their communities in their business practices — being environmentally responsible, paying a fair wage, establishing equitable hours and holiday-vacation for workers, paying fair taxes, participating in the life of their communities, etc. We don’t hear much about good citizenship in business these days. Why not?
I often say that starting and owning a business is an aspect of participating in and benefitting an economy, which exists to facilitate living on a small planet with 8 billion other people.
Business is not an end in itself.
An economy is how human societies manage the resources of life for humans to live on a small planet together. People are not a resource for business to exploit. The people are the only reason for business to exist in the first place. And there should be symbiosis, not exploitation in either direction.
The city of Redmond, WA was sold on a pitch by a company that sells red light cameras, they rubbed their hands together with dreams of fines filling the city cofffers.
However traffic cases are brought before King County Superior Courts, which skims the lion share of fines, leaving the city with bumpkiss.
The city council did receive the heated epithets and opprobrium of the citizens and finally after wasting millions, took them down.
When they do not offest the expenses, there is little the communities can do, There is a good "the Problem With Jon StewartL episode abkut this exact issue. I remember when the Dallas Cowboys wanted a new stadium. Cities right next to each other in the metro area kf Dallas fell over themselves competing for the "economic benefits" of having the stadium located in their "town." Now if you were a neighboring town you could get most of those benefits for free (there was no way to see when you went from one town to another as it is a dense metro area). But nobody seemed to say let our neighbor host the stadium and its burden while we reap free benefits. Instead they all fell over by offering every inducement they could, even though there was no doubt that the team would still be nearby in the area. Lucky for most of them, only one city could hold the stadium, so only one had to lay. The others got the benefit for free.
Yes Gloria, they can only do this because the politicians of communities, people elected by the people, jump in the fray and compete for favor.
The most ridiculous thing in America is public financing of sports stadiums.
The public is sold that they will produce jobs. Outside of the laborers, who find themselves out of work, once the job is done, maybe a hundred or so get laborer jobs for maintenance.
The real benefactors are the developers, contractors, the suppliers of materials to build the stadium, and food vendors and suppliers, meanwhile the tax payer is on the hook for decades to pay off the bonds.
Professional sports are just that. Teams owned by a single person, or a conglomerate, who purchase gladiators at ridiculous prices and charge ridiculous prices to see these modern gladiators fight against each other.
And people get all emotionally involved in the activity, called a sport, because one side wears on it's jacket the name of a city or state.
Meanwhile the modern gladiators, get sold and traded by and between owners as though they were property.
You can do anything to a person with their consent (or not) so long as The Price is Right.
The name for a contract, in the 17th and 18th century was an indenture.
If you owned an indenture you could sell it. The south was built on the backs of indentured servants and slaves. Indentures were like sports contracts they had a limited life, and at expiration the indentured servant was free. Same with athletes, so long as the indenture/contract was in force, you belonged to the person that held the indenture/contract.
It is all about power. Money to get the power, power to keep the money.
We, laborers, shop owners, athletes, are just pieces on a chessboard.
In the final analysis we are the instruments of our destruction. We support and finance those who use and abuse us., and do so of our own free will.
Think of the things that you (first person plural,not personal) spend money on. How many of them are really needed,or are impulse buys because you saw some ad on TV, Facebook, social media, or because of it's packaging.
We are all guilty. I abhor Bezos and Amazon, but because I live rather isolated, with no franchise or big box store, and my local supermarket can't keep the products I want or need on the shelf, I am forced to use Amazon and it has been a life saver.
Cell phone providers are the very worst. In France, you can buy a cell phone cheap, then buy a sim card, from which provider has the best price and service. In America you are faced with regional and local monopolies.
Before I moved the only TV services available was either ComCast or Satellite. The only ISP available was Verizon, and they charged by the traffic.
Where I live now, I can get Verizon if I step outside on the porch, otherwise it is T Mobile (I don't use it, the wife does, she is addicted to games and her tablet).
As far as an ISP, the only provider is a local, and he charges what he can. I can go Hughes net or some satellite, but reception is iffy and again at the mercy of Musk or someone like him., also much more expensive and if I have a problem I can't talk to a local representative after I endure 5 minutes of listening to a machine .
I live in Reno Nevada and our politicians have given Musk everything he’s asked for. Millions in subsidies. Pays no sales tax. The burden his Tesla plant has placed on this town is enormous.
That is the problem eh? We bail them out if they suck at their business but are too large. We make it so people have a hard time suing them. And although we used to roll back corporations to the extent that we would break them up (like Ma Bell when it was big), we no longer have the will to do that. All of this is because we do not see them as a threat to our freedoms--only the government gets that.
We cannot and should not do away with corporations. Combining resources is the only way to great things, and a corp is a vehicle for doing so. However, we can and have treated them differently, Politicians put them on a pedestal, and allow them rights beyond what is reasonable. That impacts us in our daily lives in countless little ways.
Why allow only capital assets to be combined. What tenet of economics says that the combination of capital assets rather than labor assets in a negotiation is more fair or proper? Legally forbidding unions is just another interference in the economy by a government. Any asset should be able to be combined too (and remember the sophisticated professional lawyer or architect already combines their labor and expertise without the blink of an eye. It is when the "unsophisticated" "working class" people want to do the same thing that there is an objection. Capital interests demand the right to combine but refuse the same right to other kinds if assets m like the time of one laborer v, the time of several laborers.
So we could go back to old systems or start new laws, but the first step is to not think of these corporations as inviolate. They are just a means by which we combine capital assets owned by lots of different people. That is it, They should garner no special treatment beyond that they are possible. They should not be a shield to allow the unscrupulous to do what they would never be allowed to do as individuals.
Part of that is because of these obscene contracts they give to CEOs. Instead of doing that, they should just make the CEO an employee like everyone else, sans contract. Then they can be rewarded based on their performance and not based on bonuses that they have have whether they do well or not.
Raymond, Vanguard has ownership in America Inc, along with Black Rock, Jp Morgan and a few others. I spent a day last week doing google for Who owns whom and I saw the same names, Vanguard, Black Rock, JP Morgan and a couple others show up on everything from media to medical centers, and when not on the list, they own subsidaries that are on the list.
A handful of foundations, family trusts and private equity funds own the country, along with sovereign Funds.
The major shareholder in Exxon is the Saudi's, who also own most of the refineries in cancer alley, and that is why we export oil products, and import oil to refine so the Saudis can export it.
Two things are responsible for the corporate short term interest in the next quarterly profit and earnings statement.
1. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in the early 20th Century that the corporation has only one duty and that is to make a profit for the investors.
That ruling has been adopted as the justification for corporations, especially Milton Friedmans Chicago School of Economics.
2. The Charter wars of the late 19th and early 20th Century.
Corporate charters use to have an expiration date of about 50 years, and the corporation had to show that it operated in the public interest (see the above ruling) never the less the states held on to the public interest and expiration date.
John Davidson Rockefeller, who famously said competition is a sin, let out the word that he would move his company to the state that came up with the most favorable charter law.
NJ won the war, and he moved to NJ, Standard oilof NJ, followed by other states that "learned their lesson" like SOHIO (Standard Oil of Ohio)
Delaware saw what NJ had done, and upped the ante, and came up with an even more favorable law, result Delaware is home to over 600 Corporations, and it's Senators are known as the Senators from Wall Street.
There are no state charter laws that have an expiration date, not a requitement to act in the public interests. The only thing that matters is producing a positive rate of return for investors, and that is the sole function of the Board of Directors, all corporations including media have one, and they hire whip wielding overseers called CEO, CFO, COO to ensure just that,if they do they are rewarded with bonuses worth millions in the form of shares and perks,if not they are replaced.
That is how corporations and business works, including media corporations.
According to my reading over several years, this is not all entirely so, Lee
<<In 2014, the United States Supreme Court voiced its position in no uncertain terms. In Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the Supreme Court stated that “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”.>>
For decades, corporations were run for the benefit of stakeholders {shareholders, clients and customers, employees, municipalities …}, and NOT ONLY shareholders. As a matter of history, a corporation could not even get a charter without some public benefit accruing to the allowance of the charter, given the power a charter confers. But we’ve been told since the Reagan years the great big ol’ fib that corporations MUST maximize profit by all legal means, stakeholders be damned, and we’ve swallowed that bilge.
Public benefit, too, has gone the way of the Dodo. Corporations got out from under THAT one {except supposedly for non-profits, but I think even they are trying to wiggle out of showing a legitimate public benefit for the boon of NOT paying taxes}.
Letting corporations be “people,” and letting money be “speech” has delivered our culture into the hands of the financial sector…lock, stock, and barrel…and real honest-to-goodness people have a devil of a time competing on the cockeyed, skewed playing field of corporate America.
We COULD change it, we more people knew what is going on and how we got here … but they don’t. We do still have the vote as a tool that could be used by our side, if we could rally voters to put the bounders out, but maybe not for a lot longer …
Hobby lobby case was about discriminating against gays. SCOTUS under the trad rad six, use any rhetorical device they can devise to justify their rulings. Just like the court ruled for Bush v Gore, and said that it was a one time ruling, no precedent.
Yet it remains, the only purpose of a corporation is to produce a positive return for the investors. I do not hold that opinion, of course, but that is what is taught in universities, and what is upheld by the media and the courts.
1919 Supreme court of Michigan declared that “a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders.”
That ruling has not been challenged at any level, and remains if not the common law, then the raison d'existe for corporations. That SCOTUS said different for Hobby Lobby, is an exception created for purposes of discrimination on religious grounds.
When they take a case challenging that idea, and rule that corporations exist for the public weal, then I will agree with you, until then, we must agree to disagree.
bjarnason, p. , Anti Trust laws -- if they are enforced by the government-- will solve the "complexity" problem for the corporate fat cats....but the taxpayers, We the People, do not have the power to sue under those laws, if Im not greatly mistaken. Only the government can enforce Anti Trust laws.
They are constantly and successfully fighting against those restrictions for the large part despite the horrible financial failures, burst bubbles, bailouts and fiascoes that prompt lawmakers to feel the need to address the problems. Much like gun laws, much is said, little is done to change anything, and the cycle repeats,
Enforcement of anti-trust law has been very lax in the last few decades with a slight resurgence just recently. Again, though, efforts to enforce properly come from Congressional funding, and despite the law, there is not much enforcement.
So yes, on paper, we have some laws but in reality, they are toothless thanks to the exertion of corporate political power in both the lawmaking process and execution.
Always, despite the existence of regulations or not, they oppose any limits on them. The idea is that if they had their way they would have no limits. As it is, they have numerous tools to fend off the law in ways that no individual is close to enjoying, and are allowed to do things that would be criminal for a person to such an extent that they would be imprisoned. Example: Knowing that x number of people will die if I do not maintain certain railway crossings and the financial liability possibly accrued will not outweigh the costs allows them to make that choice if not maintaining the crossings. People die, as predicted by the railroad. Nobody goes to jail. They just pay a judgement or settlement as a cost of doing business. If an individual person made the same calculation knowing that their actions would lead to the death of some people and went ahead anyway because of the cost to people with every right to be where they are, the life of that person as they know it would end in jail. Yet like a zombie, a corp will continue on despite what would be debilitating blow for any normal person.
And how do corporations justify such calculations anyway? Well, as much as the individuals in the corp might dislike it, they are the servants of the shareholders whose only wish is to maximize profits. So they can set aside their morality and make a choice under the cover of a large corp that would be completely unthinkable for an individual.
There are just so many examples of things like this. Generally, where they are thwarted, like by punitive damage laws to change the "costs" of doing business that kills people in favor of not killing people, the corps lobby and often are able to change the laws. Normal people are misinformed about the exact nature of the issues, and politicians get the thanks of a big political donor. That is graft and corruption.
No lover of free markets on either side of our political spectrum should welcome that kind of activity. Insurance corps, when they lose money, will attempt to renege on their contractual obligations all the time. In Texas, for example, there was a duty of good faith and fair dealing when dealing with a claimant. You violated that duty if you intentionally tried to deny a claim that you knew was valid as it was recognized that an insurance company was in a superior position in terms of information about costs and such, Well they started losing cases against them which basically said they had to try to follow their contractual obligations and pay up. The insurance companies then championed tort reform to "unclog" the courts (even though at any given time fpthe vast majority of court cases are corps suing corps). They got rid if the duty of fair dealing, among other things, They started denying all claims because they felt rather invincible and the courts were clogged like never before as a side note. The main effect was that they were free to attempt in every way possible behind the scenes to not fulfill their contractual duties. So if there was an email saying, "Why did you tell the guy x was a possible treatment. It might be more effective but cost more than y." All of a sudden that was OK to do and no longer a loaded gun pointing to a violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
Basically, we have even come to the point where we will forgive large corporations for even their contractual obligations to individuals if they are small enough, disorganized, or the exploitation is widespread but not profitable enough for an individual to bring action (rememeber the laws about class actions). Out of an overlarge respect for the job creating powers of corporations, we have given them a free pass to do things no mere human could even think of doing legally.
That’s what has happened in medicine. Small private practices in any specialty are very difficult to sustain because of government rules and unfunded mandates.
"Look for the union label, when you are buying that coat, dress or blouse. Remember somewhere, our unions sewing, our wages going to feed the kids, and run the house, but whose complaining? Thanks to the I.L.G. we are paying our way! So always look for, the union label. It says we're able to make it in the U.S.A. !"
Sometime in the 90's I couldn't find the union label anymore, even in second hand stores. Incredibly sad.
I learned what happened in Robert Reich's class on wealth and poverty. Intentional government policy that I believe was intended to break the unions.
Unions need to function according to rules, too, just like companies. Labor’s well-being is every bit as wedded to survival of a business as the business owners’ well-being is. Successful businesses are the source of the money for owner and worker alike. Seriously. Unions run with integrity do NOT ruin companies, anymore than companies run with integrity ruin their employees lives. Unions enable labor to have a say in the economy, instead of being serfs working for lords.
RR was correct, but the problem is we the people. People permit and enable this behavior. Right to work laws have reduced the lives, the security, the well being of people who live in those states, but they exist because the people voted for the laws and/or the people who passed those laws.
While Biden was speaking to the union members in an autoplant, Trump was having a rally in a non union plant. Wanna bet how many of those non or anti union workers were Trump humpers.
Truck drivers are notorious right wing Trump humpers, they sit hours at a time in the cab listening to hate radio, and almost all belong to the Teamsters Union 30-40% of the Teamsters voted for Trump, though the Union endorsed Biden.
This defies the belief that people act in their own best interests, unless their perception of their own best interest is not their pocket book, but their ego and identity.
I don't understand the desire to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth, money eats at a person's soul like an out-of-control disease. It infects a person's inner spirit and renders up a zombie like replacement which stands in their place. I watched a beloved member of my family give in to the effects of greed. It's a vicious circle, power begets more of the same and people sadly lose the essence of who they once were. Why would these two American versions of Russian oligarchs be so opposed to organized labor? Especially considering the amount of wealth Musk and Bezos have amassed in their lifetimes. How much is too much? The rich are obsessed with things that shine, it's just a shame, as men, these two have lost their luster.
The other day a 93-year-old retied doctor gifted a Billion dollars to a medical school so its students could educate themselves free from the worry of how they would ever afford the required expense of their education. The obscenely wealthy in this country could do so much to help those who can't see a way into their own future. I've said this before, I would make a terrible rich person because I'd give it all away. When those kids heard the words that came from Dr. Ruth Gottesman's lips, they jumped from their seats with an inner joy that could have righted the Lunar lander that recently fell upon its side. If Musk and Bezos would trickle a little wealth from their oversized piggy banks down to the people in need, how could they help but feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Pay a kindness forward, pass that along.
If I suddenly had a great fortune, I would buy politicians and Supreme Court Justices to tax the wealthy and direct our country toward economic equality.
Gloria--Did you hear of the offer John Oliver made to Clarence Thomas? It seems on live television Mr. Oliver offered Mr. Thomas $1,000,000.00 per year for the rest of his life if he would step down from the SCOTUS. Too sweeten the deal Mr. Oliver offered to throw in a $2.4 million dollar motor home. Interesting proposal.
I can explain why the likes of the billionaires don't care.
When you drive past a stockyard or a farm with cows and sheep, or a chicken coop, what thoughts do you have towards those that are being fed to slaughter.
To those at the top of the social pyramid, those down below are mere tools, to be used to improve and protect their position.
Take Putin, for example, to him people are no more than the bullets, rockets, shells and missiles which he hurls at Ukraine to be wasted to achieve his desires.
The same with HAMAS, the citizens of Gaza are simply tools to be sacrificed to achieve its goals.
Lee--There has always been those who are used and those who do the using. It's the nature of our society. I agree that what has been happening all around the world is a poor example of who we are as people.
Every once in a while, we make the users accountable for their abuse ... And sometimes we find an easier target for our ire instead I guess. As a mere individual, I always hope for eventual accountability, but the pendulum seems a little stuck lately and has delayed that accountability.
That was so accurate, Donald!! I have known wealthy people and to be honest, they had the personality of a wet sponge!! They always acted bored with everything!! I use to think to myself, if I had their money I could.......and then list all the things I wanted to do. The truth is, I'm glad I didn't have their money because now I absolutely love the normal everyday things like watching the sun rise, admiring beautiful flowers, laughing at my pets' antics. It is sad that the richy rich miss out on what should lift their soul and bring them happiness. I don't think Bezos or Musk are happy and I don't think they ever will be. As far as luster, I don't think they ever shone enough to have any luster.
Peggy--I went deer hunting with one of my rich family members and would you believe this individual took a stack of legal briefs to study while he sat in the blind. He had so much money he forgot how to enjoy life.
You know what, Donald? They are the ones missing out on the absolute joy in the little things in life. It is so sad they will never know how much beauty and fantastic creatures are on this planet. While life goes on all around them, they have blinders on trying to make more money. If I were to win the lottery tomorrow, I will never forget how to enjoy my life. It really is the simple things that bring me joy.
Peggy--This person purchased 3/4 of a mile of shoreline on Old Mission Peninsula in Michigan just North of Traverse City at a $1,000 a front foot. The individual wanted a place to picnic where they wouldn't be bothered. Do the math.
Lee--In my world it puts meat on the table. My father's family never purchased meat of any kind, they just went out and shot it. I was raised with the hunting spirit burned within me. Besides, seeing how we slaughtered the natural predators in their eco system the only means left for humans to control herd size and overall health of the population is by hunting.
I have known SOME wealthy people who retain their humanity, and some less wealthy who don’t. I hate to just too often characterize “the rich” as monolithic, especially when lobbing a criticism.
Not that becoming obsessed with things that shine is not a common characteristic among those who amass wealth. It’s all too common.
Oddly, sometimes the bigger the pot of money, the more those who own it worry about adding to it constantly more than about using it well. Somewhere along the line, simply “having it” becomes the reason for getting it. [I picture a person gleefully rolling around in piles of money.]
I thought, naively, when Bill Gates decided to use his wealth for the common good (fighting disease, homelessness, etc) that it was an idea whose time had come. No such luck. But wouldn’t it be wonderful if Bezos and Musk could copy Gates:
According to its website, the goal of the BMGF is to “reduce inequities and improve lives around the world.” To achieve this, the Foundation concentrates on three main areas: global health, global development, and the US program that includes education and access to technology for low-income communities in the USA.
I'm not offering any oligarch lifetime immunity (LOL) for deciding to suddenly discover generosity. But once they are rich, it's a good thing. I'm still naively hopeful!
Gates isn’t a perfect person — who is??? — but I agree with you, Marge. I hoped his and his wife’s example would help us reach a time of more caring. But there has been a huge push-back. Even farther back, during the Reagan years, it was a time of deep striving to get people away from working for the common good and into the Rand camp where altruism and caring-and-sharing are considered grievous faults. Demonizing government and selling “greed is good” was not frivolous. They meant to change attitudes about who “deserves” wealth {or even decency, I think sometimes}.
They can see the writing on the wall. They know that unions will cut into their wealth and their affluent lifestyle. They are the definition of greedy capitalism!
No, what they really fear is that the unions will cut into their power, which they intend to be absolute.
Yes, and maybe the power will be owned by the majority of US as it should be.
YES, Maureen!
It just HAS to be about the POWER... the wealth they
have already accumulated is TOTALLY UNFATHOMABLE!!!
Unfathomable is one thing, but to have more that the others is to be the winner.
But, we all end up in the same place eventually, dead. I do believe they think that would not happen to them.
They're probably funding research into how to make them immortal. That must be why they need even more money.
It's all about hoarder syndrome Mentally ill.
There are two things, at least, which drive these critters
1. Addiction. Acquiring money, and money is power, is an addiction, every bit as harmful as gambling. Interestingly it is harder to break the addiction to gambling than it is drugs, smoking and alcohol. I never had an addiction to drugs or gambling, but I found it easier to quit alcohol, than smoking.
2. Competition with peers, be it or old money or new money, and old money ostracizes new money from the elite social circle, or tries to. The plutocrats are in competition with their peers, each other, for status. Just as their are social classes of upper, middle, lower, within the social classes there are upper, middle, and lower.
And among the upper class, that is the entitled, privileged, wealthy, they strive to be at the top of the pyramid, and since it is a money oriented pyramid, they strive to attain that status at any cost and expense, except to themselves.
Workers, environment, posterity, the future be damned. The only thing that matters to them, is today and obstacles in front of them.
For these anti humans, Gaia is a resource from which to extract resources to produce money, which is used to produce wealth and gain power.
Humans are simply a source to be consumed in the production of their wealth and power.
Next time you hear about HR, remember that a resource is something to be consumed in production, and resources have no rights
“For these anti humans, Gaia is a resource from which to extract resources to produce money, which is used to produce wealth and gain power.
“Humans are simply a source to be consumed in the production of their wealth and power.”
WELL-SAID!
Until the humans say We Don’t Consent.
That takes democracy, but in our bastardized version moneyed interests makes for minority rule.
So, you're saying we're already "Soylent Green"? These corporations and rich effs are eating human beings.
Only people of a certain age, like me, know about soylent green.
My kids know. But, then, they have me as their mother, so.......
Absolutely! I was just thinking the same thing. Bezos and Musk think what's fair is what THEY want. Read "Nomadland" by Jessica Bruder. She discusses Amazon's "camperforce" and how physically demanding working in an Amazon fulfillment center is.
If people weren't clamoring for jobs that will kill them, make them infirm, oppress and abuse them, Bezo's and his ilk would have no power.
Miners crawl into the earth to earn money, and die from black lung disease.
People work and live in or near oil refineries and died from cancer (my fathers family)
When they were building the Golden Gate bridge in SF. Men were camping on the shore of the bay, waiting for someone to fall to their death, so they could rush in and get the job.
People will slit throats for the opportunity to risk their life and health for money.
We at or near the bottom of the social pyramid risk our lives, just to live another day an fill our bellies
Those at the top risk our lives also, just to maintain their social status, fulfill their ego needs and feed their addiction.
The actual power Musk has via his communication satellites and X, rocketry, etc. should scare the crap out of everyone. And he is an antisemite.
It IS an illness. They can NEVER have enough (which means they're never happy).
They have to be continually stopped and managed by government laws. If we had permanent workers' rights, it would help.
Will Smith talked about this illness in his book. He felt it when he was very successful in movies. Interesting to read.
If republicans would stop stripping away all regulations and if Democrats would reverse those decisions when they do it, we might not have so many problems. But, no. What's best for the elite is best for the politicians and SCROTUM judges, at least in their minds.
It's time everyone understand this and stop being naieve about what lengths they will go to. Musk and Bozo are enthralled by their power and feel no obligation to conform to normal societal constraints or values if it curbs their power.
They are not good guys and they are not about helping others or the country. They're all about themselves and only themselves. Forget Covid. We have a national pandemic that's been getting more widespread. They call it Narcissism Syndrome and it's spreading like wildfire.
Geez. Reminds me of a renegade president we once endured.
No noblisse oblige for Bezos and Musk.
Imo, wealth IS power in a capitalistic society.
Unless they heat their homes by burning cash, they could lose 90% of their fortunes and still live the lives of kings and leave fortunes to their heirs.
Musk probably heats his home with his own hot air.
Ha. Yeah
The hot air coming out of both ends. Of course, he's apparently the King of Farts. He has a strange obsession about them.
They could lose 99%, which is the amount they should be taxed, and still live like kings and leave fortunes to their heirs.
It isn't for them to have more purchasing power, it's for ordinary people to have less, so we have less autonomy and they have more power over us. They already have limitless ability to purchase items.
What they seem to forget is, that without ordinary people being able to buy their crap, they make no money. Funny how that works.
They couldn't do that, there isn't the cash in circulation for the wealth they own!
Correct. Most money is electronic and stored on servers in 0's and 1's, but money is not wealth. Wealth are things that make you happy, that fill a hole.
The hoarder whose house you can't walk through, thinks they are happy because they have things, which in their mind's eye is wealth.
J Leno hoards vehicles and makes is happy because he owns a huge stable of expensive and antique vehicles.
Tom Cruise and John Travolta hoard airplanes.
Some hoard mansions.
Money is just a tool to acquire things that make us happy or at the bottom of the pyramid, to be able to survive another day. However the acquisition of money can be an addiction, and that makes us susceptible to scams, and loss of our humanity.
People with that kind of money are called wealthy individuals wheteher they surround themselves with cars, planes, mansions, etc., or just want to land on Mars like Musk who sold all his mansions. The point I tried to make was that they could not heat their homes with burning their cash since the physical banknotes are not available for what they have to their name. To start with, they would need to liquidate all the shares they own.
Wealth is not money. Money is a tool by which to obtain wealth. Wealth are those things, material or immaterial, that make us happy. I am very happy, I am surrounded by things, a person and cats that make me happy and comfortable. And thus I consider myself wealthy indeed, wealthier than Musk, Bezo's, Gates because I have none of their worries, fears, obligations. Few are wealthier than I. It helps that I have 5 acres, with a barn, kennel, garage apartment, three vehicles and absolutely no mortgage, car payment or debts and the wife and I have a decent retirement income. My only concern if the health of my wife and myself.
People growing up in this insane world of rampant capitalism tend to ingest the assumptions that it forces on us. We should at least be aware that money and power are not joined at the hip. The connection comes about because of a particular legal system which allows money to be used to buy political and personal power. It doesn't have to be that way. A few smart legalists could easily design a political system which prohibits the use of money to buy power. It might allow the accumulation of money to buy more Oreos but not people and not laws. A convention lasting three days would be enough to sketch it all out, and turn existing law on its head. Of course there is no way existing power would allow such a change, but that is a different question from whether it is possible. It is!
That would be hysterically funny, if it were not so obscene.
There are many who are leaving a legacy of hope for others. I fear these two and many like them, leave a legacy of greed.
in the end, the jury is still out. At least in Musk we can see that he seems to want to fuel his other dreams with his money, and the intentions may be good. But with that money, you pursue even crazy dreams (like buying Twitter). Fortunately the pursuit of crazy dreams that end in failure does not destroy the money, it just gets transferred to another pocket. The waste is the time and effort expended on the dream, not the actual cash. What I dislike is when they use their power to take advantage of others, like the thing with workers and unions. Then it is about just plain making money even at the expense of others.
It’s a shame that the government has let this get out of hand. That’s why the American workers need to do the government’ job! Unionize while they still can.
Yes, they have a plethora of humongous mansions to heat.
There is nothing - other than confiscating the whole of their personal wealth - that can cut into their lifestyle. They are richer than God. But their power can be checked, and I think they just don’t want anybody to put ANY restrictions on their GODLIKE power.
It all's startin' t' kind'a make me feel like a'goin' t' take a damn pill! Oh Wait, Wait! Then I'd be a'supportin' the damn big pharma! OY! Are we great again yet ‽
Agree with your though Keith, but even if minimum wage went to $40 an hour it couldn't cut into their affluent lifestyle. It's the rush that power gives them of being able to control other people
Cut into their wealth? Just how many billions does one want. The wealth disparity in this country is embarrassing. To have as many homeless, un
These people have so much wealth, paying their employees a decent wage will certainly not impinge on their lifestyle.
Unions will have little affect on their wealth (already accumulated) or the lifestyle (how much more do you need to maintain their current lifestyle?)
You’re correct that it will have little effect on their wealth but it will have a big effect on their worker's lives.
agreed 100%
Nonsense. As Professor Reich has frequently pointed out, when unions were strong a few decades ago, they not only benefited the workers but companies and the economy as a whole. What ruins companies is management that focuses entirely on short-term gains for shareholders at the expense of employees, customers and the society at large. Boeing is an obvious example.
Good point. As an attorney (before my tbi), I worked with lots of companies who only cared about looking good for the next quarter. They would make contracts that on paper showed revenue, but in the long-term were terribly unfavorable to them. They literally only thought about the next quarter and all else was irrelevant. This was right before the tech bubble burst. Everything they were doing was short run; nothing was long run.
Giving some power to the groups that most care about the company's survival guarantees that somebody will be watching very carefully over what they are doing and what their plans are. Big investors like Vanguard do not police their investments very often. And the fall of one company is not of big concern as they do not have all their eggs in one basket ... They are diversified across the market A worker, on the other hand, has to commit to that one place for work, and unlike tech high paying jobs that are easily transferred, it is not so easy for an ordinary worker to just jump ship and expect to get better benefits. Seniority is lost, nobody pays for the move, the next job might be just like this one if they have no say, etc. They have a big interest in the company.
Also, companies make big promises to places they choose to locate at. Yet they are rarely held to their vague promises about the economic benefits of their presence v. the very real concessions they ask for. Generally, graft benefits the political powers who are solicited directly, but the general local populace rarely even knows what is going on beyond vague promises of jobs (likely for outsiders more than for the people already there but that is another issue).
We say that a corporation, a business entity, is like a person, but we allow corporations to exist without any of the restraints of a person. If I poison a river, I go to jail for murder. If a corporation poisons a river, well, did the regulations allow it? If you sue, the company can fight for years, nobody goes to jail, and in general, they will lobby to change the law. For example, class actions are harder to bring.
The other way corporations harm communities is by competing with other communities to build a plant there if they get tax breaks and the community affords roads and infrastructure for them, or they will go to another community that will give them a better deal. Do the jobs they create offset the expense to the community?
WAY too often, communities don’t ever do the math. They forfeit much in community benefit, in perpetuity.
This is one of the ways business can raid the public purse instead of contributing to public well-being. For a while, maybe twenty or twenty-five years ago, we talked about companies functioning as good citizens, meaning serving the needs of their communities in their business practices — being environmentally responsible, paying a fair wage, establishing equitable hours and holiday-vacation for workers, paying fair taxes, participating in the life of their communities, etc. We don’t hear much about good citizenship in business these days. Why not?
I often say that starting and owning a business is an aspect of participating in and benefitting an economy, which exists to facilitate living on a small planet with 8 billion other people.
Business is not an end in itself.
An economy is how human societies manage the resources of life for humans to live on a small planet together. People are not a resource for business to exploit. The people are the only reason for business to exist in the first place. And there should be symbiosis, not exploitation in either direction.
I’m such a dreamer.
Positive action begins with the dream.
The city of Redmond, WA was sold on a pitch by a company that sells red light cameras, they rubbed their hands together with dreams of fines filling the city cofffers.
However traffic cases are brought before King County Superior Courts, which skims the lion share of fines, leaving the city with bumpkiss.
The city council did receive the heated epithets and opprobrium of the citizens and finally after wasting millions, took them down.
When they do not offest the expenses, there is little the communities can do, There is a good "the Problem With Jon StewartL episode abkut this exact issue. I remember when the Dallas Cowboys wanted a new stadium. Cities right next to each other in the metro area kf Dallas fell over themselves competing for the "economic benefits" of having the stadium located in their "town." Now if you were a neighboring town you could get most of those benefits for free (there was no way to see when you went from one town to another as it is a dense metro area). But nobody seemed to say let our neighbor host the stadium and its burden while we reap free benefits. Instead they all fell over by offering every inducement they could, even though there was no doubt that the team would still be nearby in the area. Lucky for most of them, only one city could hold the stadium, so only one had to lay. The others got the benefit for free.
Yes Gloria, they can only do this because the politicians of communities, people elected by the people, jump in the fray and compete for favor.
The most ridiculous thing in America is public financing of sports stadiums.
The public is sold that they will produce jobs. Outside of the laborers, who find themselves out of work, once the job is done, maybe a hundred or so get laborer jobs for maintenance.
The real benefactors are the developers, contractors, the suppliers of materials to build the stadium, and food vendors and suppliers, meanwhile the tax payer is on the hook for decades to pay off the bonds.
Professional sports are just that. Teams owned by a single person, or a conglomerate, who purchase gladiators at ridiculous prices and charge ridiculous prices to see these modern gladiators fight against each other.
And people get all emotionally involved in the activity, called a sport, because one side wears on it's jacket the name of a city or state.
Meanwhile the modern gladiators, get sold and traded by and between owners as though they were property.
You can do anything to a person with their consent (or not) so long as The Price is Right.
The name for a contract, in the 17th and 18th century was an indenture.
If you owned an indenture you could sell it. The south was built on the backs of indentured servants and slaves. Indentures were like sports contracts they had a limited life, and at expiration the indentured servant was free. Same with athletes, so long as the indenture/contract was in force, you belonged to the person that held the indenture/contract.
It is all about power. Money to get the power, power to keep the money.
We, laborers, shop owners, athletes, are just pieces on a chessboard.
In the final analysis we are the instruments of our destruction. We support and finance those who use and abuse us., and do so of our own free will.
Think of the things that you (first person plural,not personal) spend money on. How many of them are really needed,or are impulse buys because you saw some ad on TV, Facebook, social media, or because of it's packaging.
We are all guilty. I abhor Bezos and Amazon, but because I live rather isolated, with no franchise or big box store, and my local supermarket can't keep the products I want or need on the shelf, I am forced to use Amazon and it has been a life saver.
Cell phone providers are the very worst. In France, you can buy a cell phone cheap, then buy a sim card, from which provider has the best price and service. In America you are faced with regional and local monopolies.
Before I moved the only TV services available was either ComCast or Satellite. The only ISP available was Verizon, and they charged by the traffic.
Where I live now, I can get Verizon if I step outside on the porch, otherwise it is T Mobile (I don't use it, the wife does, she is addicted to games and her tablet).
As far as an ISP, the only provider is a local, and he charges what he can. I can go Hughes net or some satellite, but reception is iffy and again at the mercy of Musk or someone like him., also much more expensive and if I have a problem I can't talk to a local representative after I endure 5 minutes of listening to a machine .
You're right.
There are some restraints. As a corporate lawyer, have to list all "contingent liabilities" in annual SEC audit reports.
I heard Sarbanes Oxley/ Dodd Frank whistleblower cases. https://www.whistleblowers.gov/statutes/sox_amended
In short, they have the privledges and rights of people without the accountability. Sounds like a great gig.
I live in Reno Nevada and our politicians have given Musk everything he’s asked for. Millions in subsidies. Pays no sales tax. The burden his Tesla plant has placed on this town is enormous.
R. Gilsoul, people can complain till the cows come home but people dont have any way to roll back corporations -
That is the problem eh? We bail them out if they suck at their business but are too large. We make it so people have a hard time suing them. And although we used to roll back corporations to the extent that we would break them up (like Ma Bell when it was big), we no longer have the will to do that. All of this is because we do not see them as a threat to our freedoms--only the government gets that.
We cannot and should not do away with corporations. Combining resources is the only way to great things, and a corp is a vehicle for doing so. However, we can and have treated them differently, Politicians put them on a pedestal, and allow them rights beyond what is reasonable. That impacts us in our daily lives in countless little ways.
Why allow only capital assets to be combined. What tenet of economics says that the combination of capital assets rather than labor assets in a negotiation is more fair or proper? Legally forbidding unions is just another interference in the economy by a government. Any asset should be able to be combined too (and remember the sophisticated professional lawyer or architect already combines their labor and expertise without the blink of an eye. It is when the "unsophisticated" "working class" people want to do the same thing that there is an objection. Capital interests demand the right to combine but refuse the same right to other kinds if assets m like the time of one laborer v, the time of several laborers.
So we could go back to old systems or start new laws, but the first step is to not think of these corporations as inviolate. They are just a means by which we combine capital assets owned by lots of different people. That is it, They should garner no special treatment beyond that they are possible. They should not be a shield to allow the unscrupulous to do what they would never be allowed to do as individuals.
Part of that is because of these obscene contracts they give to CEOs. Instead of doing that, they should just make the CEO an employee like everyone else, sans contract. Then they can be rewarded based on their performance and not based on bonuses that they have have whether they do well or not.
Raymond, Vanguard has ownership in America Inc, along with Black Rock, Jp Morgan and a few others. I spent a day last week doing google for Who owns whom and I saw the same names, Vanguard, Black Rock, JP Morgan and a couple others show up on everything from media to medical centers, and when not on the list, they own subsidaries that are on the list.
A handful of foundations, family trusts and private equity funds own the country, along with sovereign Funds.
The major shareholder in Exxon is the Saudi's, who also own most of the refineries in cancer alley, and that is why we export oil products, and import oil to refine so the Saudis can export it.
Two things are responsible for the corporate short term interest in the next quarterly profit and earnings statement.
1. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in the early 20th Century that the corporation has only one duty and that is to make a profit for the investors.
That ruling has been adopted as the justification for corporations, especially Milton Friedmans Chicago School of Economics.
2. The Charter wars of the late 19th and early 20th Century.
Corporate charters use to have an expiration date of about 50 years, and the corporation had to show that it operated in the public interest (see the above ruling) never the less the states held on to the public interest and expiration date.
John Davidson Rockefeller, who famously said competition is a sin, let out the word that he would move his company to the state that came up with the most favorable charter law.
NJ won the war, and he moved to NJ, Standard oilof NJ, followed by other states that "learned their lesson" like SOHIO (Standard Oil of Ohio)
Delaware saw what NJ had done, and upped the ante, and came up with an even more favorable law, result Delaware is home to over 600 Corporations, and it's Senators are known as the Senators from Wall Street.
There are no state charter laws that have an expiration date, not a requitement to act in the public interests. The only thing that matters is producing a positive rate of return for investors, and that is the sole function of the Board of Directors, all corporations including media have one, and they hire whip wielding overseers called CEO, CFO, COO to ensure just that,if they do they are rewarded with bonuses worth millions in the form of shares and perks,if not they are replaced.
That is how corporations and business works, including media corporations.
According to my reading over several years, this is not all entirely so, Lee
<<In 2014, the United States Supreme Court voiced its position in no uncertain terms. In Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the Supreme Court stated that “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”.>>
For decades, corporations were run for the benefit of stakeholders {shareholders, clients and customers, employees, municipalities …}, and NOT ONLY shareholders. As a matter of history, a corporation could not even get a charter without some public benefit accruing to the allowance of the charter, given the power a charter confers. But we’ve been told since the Reagan years the great big ol’ fib that corporations MUST maximize profit by all legal means, stakeholders be damned, and we’ve swallowed that bilge.
Public benefit, too, has gone the way of the Dodo. Corporations got out from under THAT one {except supposedly for non-profits, but I think even they are trying to wiggle out of showing a legitimate public benefit for the boon of NOT paying taxes}.
Letting corporations be “people,” and letting money be “speech” has delivered our culture into the hands of the financial sector…lock, stock, and barrel…and real honest-to-goodness people have a devil of a time competing on the cockeyed, skewed playing field of corporate America.
We COULD change it, we more people knew what is going on and how we got here … but they don’t. We do still have the vote as a tool that could be used by our side, if we could rally voters to put the bounders out, but maybe not for a lot longer …
Hobby lobby case was about discriminating against gays. SCOTUS under the trad rad six, use any rhetorical device they can devise to justify their rulings. Just like the court ruled for Bush v Gore, and said that it was a one time ruling, no precedent.
Yet it remains, the only purpose of a corporation is to produce a positive return for the investors. I do not hold that opinion, of course, but that is what is taught in universities, and what is upheld by the media and the courts.
1919 Supreme court of Michigan declared that “a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders.”
That ruling has not been challenged at any level, and remains if not the common law, then the raison d'existe for corporations. That SCOTUS said different for Hobby Lobby, is an exception created for purposes of discrimination on religious grounds.
When they take a case challenging that idea, and rule that corporations exist for the public weal, then I will agree with you, until then, we must agree to disagree.
https://www2.law.temple.edu/10q/purpose-corporation-brief-history/#:~:text=Readers%20may%20recall%20being%20assigned,era%20that%20now%20appears%20an
When in a position of power, one can justify anything, just ask a parent ;)
Raymond - A superb summing-up of the situation. Thank you!
bjarnason, p. , Anti Trust laws -- if they are enforced by the government-- will solve the "complexity" problem for the corporate fat cats....but the taxpayers, We the People, do not have the power to sue under those laws, if Im not greatly mistaken. Only the government can enforce Anti Trust laws.
They are constantly and successfully fighting against those restrictions for the large part despite the horrible financial failures, burst bubbles, bailouts and fiascoes that prompt lawmakers to feel the need to address the problems. Much like gun laws, much is said, little is done to change anything, and the cycle repeats,
Enforcement of anti-trust law has been very lax in the last few decades with a slight resurgence just recently. Again, though, efforts to enforce properly come from Congressional funding, and despite the law, there is not much enforcement.
So yes, on paper, we have some laws but in reality, they are toothless thanks to the exertion of corporate political power in both the lawmaking process and execution.
Always, despite the existence of regulations or not, they oppose any limits on them. The idea is that if they had their way they would have no limits. As it is, they have numerous tools to fend off the law in ways that no individual is close to enjoying, and are allowed to do things that would be criminal for a person to such an extent that they would be imprisoned. Example: Knowing that x number of people will die if I do not maintain certain railway crossings and the financial liability possibly accrued will not outweigh the costs allows them to make that choice if not maintaining the crossings. People die, as predicted by the railroad. Nobody goes to jail. They just pay a judgement or settlement as a cost of doing business. If an individual person made the same calculation knowing that their actions would lead to the death of some people and went ahead anyway because of the cost to people with every right to be where they are, the life of that person as they know it would end in jail. Yet like a zombie, a corp will continue on despite what would be debilitating blow for any normal person.
And how do corporations justify such calculations anyway? Well, as much as the individuals in the corp might dislike it, they are the servants of the shareholders whose only wish is to maximize profits. So they can set aside their morality and make a choice under the cover of a large corp that would be completely unthinkable for an individual.
There are just so many examples of things like this. Generally, where they are thwarted, like by punitive damage laws to change the "costs" of doing business that kills people in favor of not killing people, the corps lobby and often are able to change the laws. Normal people are misinformed about the exact nature of the issues, and politicians get the thanks of a big political donor. That is graft and corruption.
No lover of free markets on either side of our political spectrum should welcome that kind of activity. Insurance corps, when they lose money, will attempt to renege on their contractual obligations all the time. In Texas, for example, there was a duty of good faith and fair dealing when dealing with a claimant. You violated that duty if you intentionally tried to deny a claim that you knew was valid as it was recognized that an insurance company was in a superior position in terms of information about costs and such, Well they started losing cases against them which basically said they had to try to follow their contractual obligations and pay up. The insurance companies then championed tort reform to "unclog" the courts (even though at any given time fpthe vast majority of court cases are corps suing corps). They got rid if the duty of fair dealing, among other things, They started denying all claims because they felt rather invincible and the courts were clogged like never before as a side note. The main effect was that they were free to attempt in every way possible behind the scenes to not fulfill their contractual duties. So if there was an email saying, "Why did you tell the guy x was a possible treatment. It might be more effective but cost more than y." All of a sudden that was OK to do and no longer a loaded gun pointing to a violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
Basically, we have even come to the point where we will forgive large corporations for even their contractual obligations to individuals if they are small enough, disorganized, or the exploitation is widespread but not profitable enough for an individual to bring action (rememeber the laws about class actions). Out of an overlarge respect for the job creating powers of corporations, we have given them a free pass to do things no mere human could even think of doing legally.
That’s what has happened in medicine. Small private practices in any specialty are very difficult to sustain because of government rules and unfunded mandates.
Unions helped supported the growth of the middle class.
There was a time when one was proud to wear clothing with a tag that said "union made". I believe it was blue
"Look for the union label, when you are buying that coat, dress or blouse. Remember somewhere, our unions sewing, our wages going to feed the kids, and run the house, but whose complaining? Thanks to the I.L.G. we are paying our way! So always look for, the union label. It says we're able to make it in the U.S.A. !"
Sometime in the 90's I couldn't find the union label anymore, even in second hand stores. Incredibly sad.
I learned what happened in Robert Reich's class on wealth and poverty. Intentional government policy that I believe was intended to break the unions.
Correct me if I got the lyrics wrong. It's been a long time.
Unions created the middle class as it is, before unions the middle class was doctors, lawyers, merchants.
Unions need to function according to rules, too, just like companies. Labor’s well-being is every bit as wedded to survival of a business as the business owners’ well-being is. Successful businesses are the source of the money for owner and worker alike. Seriously. Unions run with integrity do NOT ruin companies, anymore than companies run with integrity ruin their employees lives. Unions enable labor to have a say in the economy, instead of being serfs working for lords.
Well said, Eric!!
RR was correct, but the problem is we the people. People permit and enable this behavior. Right to work laws have reduced the lives, the security, the well being of people who live in those states, but they exist because the people voted for the laws and/or the people who passed those laws.
While Biden was speaking to the union members in an autoplant, Trump was having a rally in a non union plant. Wanna bet how many of those non or anti union workers were Trump humpers.
Truck drivers are notorious right wing Trump humpers, they sit hours at a time in the cab listening to hate radio, and almost all belong to the Teamsters Union 30-40% of the Teamsters voted for Trump, though the Union endorsed Biden.
This defies the belief that people act in their own best interests, unless their perception of their own best interest is not their pocket book, but their ego and identity.
I don't understand the desire to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth, money eats at a person's soul like an out-of-control disease. It infects a person's inner spirit and renders up a zombie like replacement which stands in their place. I watched a beloved member of my family give in to the effects of greed. It's a vicious circle, power begets more of the same and people sadly lose the essence of who they once were. Why would these two American versions of Russian oligarchs be so opposed to organized labor? Especially considering the amount of wealth Musk and Bezos have amassed in their lifetimes. How much is too much? The rich are obsessed with things that shine, it's just a shame, as men, these two have lost their luster.
The other day a 93-year-old retied doctor gifted a Billion dollars to a medical school so its students could educate themselves free from the worry of how they would ever afford the required expense of their education. The obscenely wealthy in this country could do so much to help those who can't see a way into their own future. I've said this before, I would make a terrible rich person because I'd give it all away. When those kids heard the words that came from Dr. Ruth Gottesman's lips, they jumped from their seats with an inner joy that could have righted the Lunar lander that recently fell upon its side. If Musk and Bezos would trickle a little wealth from their oversized piggy banks down to the people in need, how could they help but feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Pay a kindness forward, pass that along.
If I suddenly had a great fortune, I would buy politicians and Supreme Court Justices to tax the wealthy and direct our country toward economic equality.
Gloria--Did you hear of the offer John Oliver made to Clarence Thomas? It seems on live television Mr. Oliver offered Mr. Thomas $1,000,000.00 per year for the rest of his life if he would step down from the SCOTUS. Too sweeten the deal Mr. Oliver offered to throw in a $2.4 million dollar motor home. Interesting proposal.
THAT was awesome. John Oliver makes me laugh, but he comes up with such VIVID ways to help us see our real world.
Love that doctor’s contribution to the medical school in the Bronx, too. AWESOME use of a couple billion dollars.
start a gofundme for Thomas to step down.
Yes! But it's only good for 30 days. Oliver made his point while being entertaining at the same time.
Ha. Gloria — Oy, vey. Love that humor, but — oy — what a world.
I can explain why the likes of the billionaires don't care.
When you drive past a stockyard or a farm with cows and sheep, or a chicken coop, what thoughts do you have towards those that are being fed to slaughter.
To those at the top of the social pyramid, those down below are mere tools, to be used to improve and protect their position.
Take Putin, for example, to him people are no more than the bullets, rockets, shells and missiles which he hurls at Ukraine to be wasted to achieve his desires.
The same with HAMAS, the citizens of Gaza are simply tools to be sacrificed to achieve its goals.
Lee--There has always been those who are used and those who do the using. It's the nature of our society. I agree that what has been happening all around the world is a poor example of who we are as people.
Every once in a while, we make the users accountable for their abuse ... And sometimes we find an easier target for our ire instead I guess. As a mere individual, I always hope for eventual accountability, but the pendulum seems a little stuck lately and has delayed that accountability.
That was so accurate, Donald!! I have known wealthy people and to be honest, they had the personality of a wet sponge!! They always acted bored with everything!! I use to think to myself, if I had their money I could.......and then list all the things I wanted to do. The truth is, I'm glad I didn't have their money because now I absolutely love the normal everyday things like watching the sun rise, admiring beautiful flowers, laughing at my pets' antics. It is sad that the richy rich miss out on what should lift their soul and bring them happiness. I don't think Bezos or Musk are happy and I don't think they ever will be. As far as luster, I don't think they ever shone enough to have any luster.
Peggy--I went deer hunting with one of my rich family members and would you believe this individual took a stack of legal briefs to study while he sat in the blind. He had so much money he forgot how to enjoy life.
You know what, Donald? They are the ones missing out on the absolute joy in the little things in life. It is so sad they will never know how much beauty and fantastic creatures are on this planet. While life goes on all around them, they have blinders on trying to make more money. If I were to win the lottery tomorrow, I will never forget how to enjoy my life. It really is the simple things that bring me joy.
Peggy--This person purchased 3/4 of a mile of shoreline on Old Mission Peninsula in Michigan just North of Traverse City at a $1,000 a front foot. The individual wanted a place to picnic where they wouldn't be bothered. Do the math.
Sorry Donald, but shooting deer is enjoying life?
Lee--In my world it puts meat on the table. My father's family never purchased meat of any kind, they just went out and shot it. I was raised with the hunting spirit burned within me. Besides, seeing how we slaughtered the natural predators in their eco system the only means left for humans to control herd size and overall health of the population is by hunting.
I have known SOME wealthy people who retain their humanity, and some less wealthy who don’t. I hate to just too often characterize “the rich” as monolithic, especially when lobbing a criticism.
Not that becoming obsessed with things that shine is not a common characteristic among those who amass wealth. It’s all too common.
Oddly, sometimes the bigger the pot of money, the more those who own it worry about adding to it constantly more than about using it well. Somewhere along the line, simply “having it” becomes the reason for getting it. [I picture a person gleefully rolling around in piles of money.]
I thought, naively, when Bill Gates decided to use his wealth for the common good (fighting disease, homelessness, etc) that it was an idea whose time had come. No such luck. But wouldn’t it be wonderful if Bezos and Musk could copy Gates:
According to its website, the goal of the BMGF is to “reduce inequities and improve lives around the world.” To achieve this, the Foundation concentrates on three main areas: global health, global development, and the US program that includes education and access to technology for low-income communities in the USA.
All of those goals, in the long run, produce more customers for Microsoft and it's products.
I'm not offering any oligarch lifetime immunity (LOL) for deciding to suddenly discover generosity. But once they are rich, it's a good thing. I'm still naively hopeful!
Gates isn’t a perfect person — who is??? — but I agree with you, Marge. I hoped his and his wife’s example would help us reach a time of more caring. But there has been a huge push-back. Even farther back, during the Reagan years, it was a time of deep striving to get people away from working for the common good and into the Rand camp where altruism and caring-and-sharing are considered grievous faults. Demonizing government and selling “greed is good” was not frivolous. They meant to change attitudes about who “deserves” wealth {or even decency, I think sometimes}.
Just like Scrooge McDuck in the Donald Duck cartoons!!!