Are corporations evil? Is the establishment evil?

[auntpurl]

Corporations: if you tax big corporations into oblivion, they will leave the country in which they are based. They should pay more taxes than they are now (no argument here), but they cannot be taxed to the degree that Bernie would like to tax them. They will move their base to a country that is friendlier to business. If Amazon, for example, takes their base elsewhere (there's no reason Amazon needs to be based in America - they can have distribution centers wherever they want), they will contribute even less to the US economy than they already do. Increasing taxes on corporations has to be done slowly, pragmatically, and rationally.

Corporations aren't inherently evil. The 10 largest employers of the American people are all huge corporations. #1 is Wal-mart. Everyone knows Hillary is terrible for being on the board of Wal-mart, right? Except when she was there, she championed women's rights and environmental issues. She was the only woman on a board of 15 men. How far do you think she would have gotten trying to move them on anti-union issues? She fought for what she could accomplish.

She worked from INSIDE the system to make change. She didn't stand outside the building shouting about how evil they were. She didn't deliberately set herself apart. She knew the only way to make a difference was to walk inside and do what she could. This is a good article (NYT) about Hillary's time at Wal-mart. Mixed accomplishments, but pragmatic and ultimately fruitful in some areas. I believe no one else could have done better in her position, at that time, in Arkansas. The article shows the reality of what it's like to try to make change, ANYWHERE, with ANY group of people. It's hard. People don't want to change! Corporations, who are controlled by thousands of people and find consensus among them only rarely, offer an even bigger challenge to change.

If your premise is "corporations are evil", what is your ultimate goal? To not have any more corporations? Whole lotta people gonna be out of work if you get rid of corporations in America. To make corporations NOT evil? That has to start from within. Which leads me to my next point:

The "establishment": to be honest, I'm getting confused what the definition of "establishment" is on DU these days. But let's start with the idea that the "establishment" is defined as a person who believes the system (whatever system is being discussed) has value and so he/she is working from inside the system to make good on whatever promise he/she has made to his/her stakeholders. Whereas someone who is outside the establishment - anti-establishment - believes the system does NOT have value and needs to be fundamentally changed or even done away with entirely in order to deliver on whatever promises he/she has made to stakeholders.

Given this premise, Hillary is firmly establishment and Bernie is firmly anti-establishment. And it's terrible to be establishment, right?

Except American politics only WORK when people work from inside the system. Unless you have a grassroots groundswell that results in politicians being elected at ALL levels of the system, from local to state to national, an outsider coming in at the highest level will accomplish nothing. It's impossible. The executive office just doesn't have that much power. I've been waiting (honestly waiting, not snark) for Bernie to explain how he would be able to get ANY of his plans through Congress, and I haven't got an answer. There is supposed to be a revolution, but the revolution is only happening at the top (if it's happening at all). It's not supported by anything. There's no foundational structure. There's no support from below for your plans, your agenda.

Your thoughts? Would love to have a civil discussion.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Corporations are legal entities chartered by the state for a specific purpose

It is up to the state to decide which purposes merit chartering and which ones do not.

[auntpurl]

4. Sure, but in terms of making them less "evil"

aka, less likely to rip off American employees and consumers, they cannot be LEGISLATED into doing that to any significant degree. They can be prompted, nudged, or given advice, but the biggest thing an individual person could do if he/she wanted to change Wal-mart would not be to try to elect a candidate who wants to tax Wal-mart into oblivion. The biggest thing would be to get into a directorial position at Wal-mart.

[Xipe Totec]

26. They can have their charters revoked, and we can change the rules of incorporation. nt

[Human101948]

55. The founding Fathers believed in revoking charters but ...

that idea has been antiquated by the practices of states like Delaware that let anyone, even those who are demonstrably crooks, incorporate as long as they can collect a fee.

How Delaware Thrives as a Corporate Tax Haven

Big corporations, small­time businesses, rogues, scoundrels and worse —
all have turned up at Delaware addresses in hopes of minimizing taxes,
skirting regulations, plying friendly courts or, when needed, covering their
tracks. Federal authorities worry that, in addition to the legitimate businesses
flocking here, drug traffickers, embezzlers and money launderers are
increasingly heading to Delaware, too. It’s easy to set up shell companies here,
no questions asked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/business/how-delaware-thrives-as-a-corporate-tax-haven.html

[chervilant]

111. I bookmarked your OP

this morning, specifically to address your rather facile representation of Senator Sanders' position regarding the corporate oligarchs who've usurped our media, our politics, AND our global economy. (I see that you still have only five recs, which isn't surprising.)

Characterizing corporations and/or "the establishment" as evil seems like yet another effort to minimize, deride, or dismiss the concerns of a worthy candidate and the millions of people who support him. The corporate megalomaniacs who own most of the politicians in our nation have already worked out strategies to minimize or eliminate their tax burdens, which means they ALREADY do not contribute necessary resources to lubricate our economy. Historically, corporations paid significantly more in taxes, and they should do so now. Bernie gets this, as do most of the citizens who support him.

Frankly, I skimmed over the rest of your missive. If you are sincerely interested in expanding your knowledge of both candidates, I hope you will come to the conclusion many, many more of us have reached: Bernie is our best candidate for POTUS.

[tazkcmo]

2. "It's not supported by anything."

Because wins in primaries and caucuses don't show support. Because 5 million individual contributions to Sen Sanders' campaign don't show support. Because over 150 down ticket candidates publicly hitching their wagons to Sen Sanders doesn't show support. Because thousands and tens of thousands people at his rallies are all from the "top" and don't count.

O.K.

[Attorney in Texas]

3. Are corporations amoral? Yes. Is the establishment wedded to the status quo? Yes. Evil? That's

more subjective.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. Well when people die due to lack of health care and war while others get rich I would say that

is at the very least immoral.

[mmonk]

6. Creating a system where people's opinions, rights,

and welfare are subjugated to artificial rights of corporate legal entities through a system of monetary bribery is indeed evil or at the very least immoral.

[Svafa]

39. +1

[UglyGreed]

7. Corporations are people

my friend

[dana_b]

9. a friend who pays next to NOTHING in taxes

and makes billions (I' m thinking of Amazon) a year!

Yes, that IS evil.

[UglyGreed]

10. talk about

freeloaders........

[dana_b]

17. yep! corporate welfare

and people think it's fine but heaven forbid we help a family eat by giving them food stamps.

[UglyGreed]

19. Hate thy neighbor

love thy corporate CEO

[aidbo]

102. Nearly immortal, amoral, sociopathic people if they are people.

[Mufaddal]

8. I would strongly recommend viewing the award-winning documentary, "The Corporation"

And then revisiting your the subject.

[auntpurl]

11. My point is not that corporations do not do evil things...

but rather that trying to legislate them or tax them into doing less evil things does not work. Change comes from within. As I said above, if you want to change Wal-mart, the biggest way to do it is to get on the board of Wal-mart, not elect someone who will tax them to Kingdom Come.

Thank you for the link - I will check out the documentary.

[Mufaddal]

16. I understood your point

But I think this may provide a slightly broader perspective.

At their heart, corporations are amoral entities tasked with one responsibility: maximizing shareholder profits (assuming we are talking about publicly traded businesses here, as are virtually all major corporations). That, of course, is where the problem lies. Well, that combined in a toxic mixture with the issue of corporate personhood following from the Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific RR ruling.

There were movements throughout the late 90s and early 2000s to do exactly what you are saying. Activist groups would buy shares so that they could get into meetings, challenge the boards, etc. It turned out to be a pretty failed strategy. Simply saying "change them from within" entirely glosses over how structures of power work in reflexively defensive ways, much in the way that the human body attacks a virus. I would say, incidentally, that the same is largely true for government, police forces, and so on. If the "change from within" theory was often very effective, we would not need things like the Supreme Court to achieve Roe v. Wade, for example.

So I would disagree with you on that point in particular. But as I said, I think this documentary might help provide a broader perspective about the actual nature and functioning of corporations as an institution, and the limitations of many basic reform-oriented strategies. It's a little long and a little dry, but if you're a nerd about this stuff, then I think you'll find it quite engaging.

[auntpurl]

23. Thank you for your reply.

I will definitely check it out.

Interesting what you are saying re: activist groups in the 90s and 00s. I wonder if there was enough groundswell to actually make change in order for them to be supported in their efforts. If many people don't want the change you're pushing, it's unlikely to happen. If most people are happy-ish with the status quo, then there is no impetus to push for more. It's one of the reasons pundits are saying Hillary is winning - most Democrats when polled say they're pretty happy with the way things are going and with their elected officials, so they want them to continue with small adjustments rather than pushing for a big change. It's hard to fight against that.

Corporate personhood is definitely a bad thing - we agree completely there.

Hand on heart - I will watch the documentary and if it changes my opinion of the fundamental points I've made here, I will come back and post about it. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Mufaddal]

35. You've nailed a key issue here

If most people are happy-ish with the status quo, then there is no impetus to push for more. It's one of the reasons pundits are saying Hillary is winning - most Democrats when polled say they're pretty happy with the way things are going and with their elected officials, so they want them to continue with small adjustments rather than pushing for a big change. It's hard to fight against that.

Hillary's campaign, in my view, is about tinkering around the edges of the system. A lot of people are pretty comfortable with that. It doesn't require much work from them, it doesn't require any increased engagement beyond going out and voting, and the current system is the Devil You Know. Now, if that's what a person is looking for, I can't fault them for supporting Hillary. If you think the status quo is basically okay, or at least good enough, then yeah, she's the right candidate. Now, I can't personally fathom that mindset, but I get that it's a real thing. Another related factor, which also explains the drastic age gap in supporters between candidates, is that aging is overwhelmingly (but not always, of course) a conservatizing force. This doesn't just mean that people drift rightward a bit, it means that they have less time and interest in getting actively involved in creating substantial change. They have kids. They have jobs. They have lives. On the whole, they aren't as interested in upsetting the apple cart as younger people, and to some extent they are more invested in the way things are now.

The reason that Sanders has suddenly caught on is, I believe, for a different reason: rising expectations. In sociology this is a key ingredient of both revolutions and major reformist overhauls. People often think, mistakenly, that revolutions or other big changes only happen when people have been crushed to the lowest point and can't take it anymore. History demonstrates time and again that this is false. Big change happens when people have not only been oppressed, but have come to expect more and better. The thing that separated the viability of a meaningful Bernie run in, say, 2008 as opposed to now, is precisely that with the Obama presidency (albeit in rhetoric more than policy) has come rising expectations.

If Hillary carries the nomination and wins in the general, and if she pursues even marginally progressive policy or continues to use marginally progressive language, one possible outcome is that we could expect to see a continuation in rising expectations. This, combined with the crushingly massive support for Sanders' ideas among younger people, may mean that this is the twighlight of not only the corporate Democrats, but of our current two-party system. Of course, that's just one possibility. Another possibility is that we have a repeat of the 60s, and that this generation of young voters begins to age, and that conservatizing influence of aging sets in, and the system continues with business as usual. To determine which outcome happens depends on how much Bernie can continue to generate momentum for a real grassroots movement after the election, whether he wins or not.

In the end, though, I think what you see in the Democratic electorate now is a rift between these two forces--the forces of the status quo and the forces of rising expectations.

[auntpurl]

38. Excellent post.

I really like what you have to say here about rising expectations, and age=becoming more conservative (I would use the word pragmatic though).

Certainly in my admittedly pretty useless anecdotal example of one, the latter has been true for me. I would definitely have supported Sanders at 20. I support Hillary now, at 43. But I don't think it's because I've become less involved or had less time - I don't have kids and I like following both politics and economics. Rather, I think it's because I'm MORE involved, or rather more informed, or at least I've seen more history pass and become aware of general trends and cycles of politics. I can't see how Bernie will get anything through Congress, for example. You only have to look back a few years to see how Obama was stonewalled in Congress for a historical example. I've accepted incrementalism as I've gotten older. I had no patience for that when I was 20.

The rising expectations thing is a really interesting take. What will happen if (as I believe and hope) Hillary wins the nomination and the GE? Will the Bernie groundswell continue? Will it engulf more people than he's managed to reach so far? Will there be a move to the left in the Dem party, or will another party have enough momentum to actually be able to make an imprint on our entrenched two-party system? I dunno. It's very interesting to watch, though.

Edited to add: I'd be very happy if the party moved left!

[liberal_at_heart]

46. If Hillary wins the General we will likely see more people leaving both parties. 40% of

Americans now consider themselves Independents and that number is growing. I used to be a Democrat. I am now an Independent. There is plenty of room for a third and maybe a fourth party in this country. It won't be easy. Those with power and money don't want to see a third or fourth party. They will fight it, but as we have seen in the 1960's change can happen. History repeats itself. The rich hoard the money until the people can't take it anymore. The people fight back and there is a redistribution of money back to the people. Of course that also means that at some point that too will cycle and at some point the rich will hoard the money all over again. But I do believe we are at a point in history where the people are fed up with the rich hoarding the money and I believe we will see the people fight back until there is a redistribution of money back to the people.

[auntpurl]

49. You are right, it won't be easy.

America is very entrenched in the two-party system. Not just the politicians and the people with power and money. Lots of people are just "born a Dem, die a Dem" or "born a Repub, die a Repub". I am like that, because the Democratic party aligns with enough of my beliefs and personal agenda that the rest doesn't move me enough to leave the party. You obviously feel differently. If there are enough people who feel differently, the party will either move to the left (which I would be happy about!) or split. The split will be a hard birth, to get enough groundswell that they have any power on the national stage. And then you have the same problem - the "outsiders" are now on the "inside" and will amass money and power, which is the root of the problem as you describe it. Cyclical is the word for it!

Thanks for your thoughts.

[liberal_at_heart]

52. Sorry but that born a Dem or born a Repub is just the older generation. The

Millennials are not born Dems or Repubs. I'm a GenXer and I first voted Democratic when I was 18 and have voted straight Democratic ticket for 20 years, but not anymore. So those of us in the GenXer group may have been born a Dem but are changing to unaffiliated or Independent. The demographics are changing and the parties will either have to change or die.

[CrispyQ]

61. How the hell does an average person get on the board of Walmart?

The way to get corporations to act responsibly is to regulate them. That takes legislation. And that takes politicians who will do the will of The People. And I mean real people, not those artificial entities that claim to be people.

[RiverLover]

25. +1

Years ago, a co-worker pestered me to watch this for months(he knew I was progressive, working on the Obama campaign). I'm sorry I waited so long. Its so engaging & informative. Really well done. And it shows just how badly we need change.

[GreatGazoo]

12. Strawman

Sanders doesn't say "corporations are evil" just as the saying is NOT "money is the root of all evil" but rather "the pursuit of money is..."

Actions can be evil and entities are defined by their actions which can help or hurt their communities. For example, shipping jobs overseas doesn't have to be "evil" to be bad for Americans.

How about an honest discussion without strawman fallacies?

[auntpurl]

15. I chose my topic as a reply to the prevailing sentiments I see on DU...

...where a lot of people do tend to talk about evil, soulless corporations. Even on this thread now, that is the sentiment I'm seeing.

And my point, as I said above, is not that corporations do not do evil things, but rather that they cannot be legislated or taxed into doing fewer evil things to any substantive degree. Change has to come from within. Become a member of the Board of Directors of Wal-mart if you want Wal-mart to change, don't elect a candidate who wants to tax them into oblivion. It doesn't work.

[GreatGazoo]

22. "they cannot be legislated or taxed into doing fewer evil things to any substantive degree"

WHAT? Of course they can -- the Clean Air Act, OSHA, EPA,.... (?)

It is their duty to shareholders to "maximize profits" so every "change from within" is by definition supposed to have that aim. In other words, they will do everything they legally can do to make more money.

Here is Sanders on NAFTA, note the absence of calling any corporations "evil" -- only as usual asking for justice and fairness for all:

[auntpurl]

32. You use good examples. Thank you for your reply.

I would argue that those entities (OSHA, etc) only came about because the groundswell of public opinion became impossible to ignore. As you say, corporations are in business to maximise profits. The government should not get involved in a corporation's ability to do that unless they are hurting people, and your examples are perfect examples of that. But basically everyone in the country agreed that cleaner air is a good thing, that people needed to be protected from getting hurt at work, etc. I don't see that kind of common-sense "we all agree" support for Bernie's more extreme proposals.

Thank you for your thoughts.

[liberal_at_heart]

50. Extreme proposals? The majority of the country does support Medicare for All. They also

support a $15/hr living wage. There is a groundswell of public opinion that is becoming impossible to ignore when it comes to income inequality. I am sorry but if you are going to use right wing talking points and using phrases like extreme proposals I am going to have to put you on ignore.

[auntpurl]

54. I'm sorry to hear that.

I used "extreme" in the sense of "much further left", which is only my opinion. I wasn't trying to use right wing talking points.

I believe I have read a lot of small business owners in less prosperous areas saying the $15/hr minimum wage would put them out of business. You can't be against huge corporations and also in favour of putting small businesses out of business. There has to be a balance. Hillary's $12 suggestion seems more attainable to me.

Living in the UK, I have mixed feelings about public health. Obviously, it is great to have free healthcare - I say that as a person who lived for many years in the States without health insurance, and has the (historical) phone calls from debt collectors to prove it! But the NHS is a mess, and there is so much waste and red tape. There are problems with care when a huge government entity cannot respond quickly to the needs of its customer base (patients). And that's only the UK, which is TINY compared to America. So as I say, I have mixed feelings.

[liberal_at_heart]

62. Seattle has proven that wrong. Seattle passed a $15/hr minimum wage and

businesses are doing fine. My credit is shot because of medical bills. I am trying desperately to keep that very thing from happening to my 21 year old daughter. She went to the doctor the other day. They told her she had a kidney infection. They were concerned about sepsis so they sent her to the ER. Now she will likely end up with a $1000 ER bill. A college student who does not have a job now has a $1000 medical bill. If this wrecks her credit I will be so freakin pissed off.

[auntpurl]

63. Thank you for your reply.

I'm glad you haven't put me on ignore.

Seattle is very different, though, from a poverty-stricken town in the middle of nowhere. Seattle is a wealthy area, with an extremely high cost of living. My husband and I make what would be considered very good money in other parts of the UK, but we live in London. It doesn't stretch as far here! And business owners in London can recoup their costs by charging more for their products/services. It'd be harder for a small business owner in a tiny town in West Virginia (just an example) to recoup costs than it is in Seattle.

Is your daughter no eligible for the ACA? I'm sorry to hear that has happened to her. I shot my credit for a decade with unpaid medical bills that I simply could not afford to pay. But having lived with a true government-controlled public health option since 2008 when I moved here, there are positives and negatives. And as I say, I think the negatives would be even more pronounced with the sheer volume of people living in the US.

[liberal_at_heart]

68. Wage increases mean more people can buy more things. Wages have been

stagnant for decades now while cost of living keeps increasing. Wage increases help businesses not hurt them. And if we are using the it will hurt businesses argument the same could be said about a $12/hr minimum wage. The fact is most CEOs of corporations make over 400% more than the average worker in their company. Not only is this unfair. It is unsustainable. Our country simply cannot keep doing what it is doing and function. This economic model will fail. And as far as negative in our medical system. There are already huge negatives the way it is. I have a genetic mutation that puts me at risk of breast and ovarian cancer. I am more afraid of the medical bills that would accompany cancer than I am the possibility of having cancer. I wouldn't want to leave the world knowing my family had hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. They would already be grieving my loss. Why the hell should they have to endure paying hundreds of thousands of medical bills on top of that.

[chervilant]

112. Yeah, me, too.

The post to which you responded is the final straw for me, as well. Doesn't seem to be a genuine effort to dialogue--just a "let me tell you why Bernie's ideas are extreme, how unlikely will be his efforts to get legislation passed (as though Hi11ary's efforts will meet with immediate and unfettered support), and how you must join a corporate board in order to effect change in that corporation."



I am so thankful for my IL...

[treestar]

13. Excellent post!

Standing outside the building shouting - good analogy. Gets nowhere.

[dana_b]

14. If they take their bases and go to other countries, then

fine the HELL out of them. Make their "imports" prohibitively expensive.

Listen, they WANT to sell to us. We have a lot more disposable income than most people in other countries. So they need to either pay their fair share in taxes (and oh no!! Their CEOs will only bring home 1 billion instead of 2!!) and contribute to the society that made them rich, or go to tanother country and face massive fines and import taxes and/or not sell to us and make a LOT less money.

I think the first option makes the most sense. And yes, I do think that most corporations are evil. I have to be hypocritical and buy from some because I need to eat and things like that, but I can make wise choices and try to limit my business with those that do not contribute to our society.

[auntpurl]

21. Thank you for your reply.

They're not countries, though. You can't fine a corporation just because they're based somewhere else. Their products aren't "imports" - most of them are made in China already. They're already being imported. Nothing substantive would really have to change for Jeff Bezos to move the whole base over to, say, Mexico, where the taxes are more friendly to business. I live in the UK - European countries are small, so corporations pull stuff like this all the time. They threaten to leave if the government makes the economic environment inhospitable for corporations.

Also, if you fine them, they will pass the costs onto the consumer.

There are a lot of reasons why legislation and tax doesn't work very well to control corporations. Change comes from within (your point about trying not to buy from companies that don't contribute to society is a perfect example of changing from within). If you want Amazon, or Wal-mart, or whoever to change and stop doing such terrible things (and they do do terrible things, no argument there), then get on the board of Amazon or Wal-mart. Don't elect a candidate who wants to tax them into oblivion, because it won't work.

Agree completely, by the way, that they need to pay MORE taxes - it's a matter of degree, pragmatism, and reality.

[dana_b]

33. "get on the board of Amazon or Wal-mart"

riiight... because they would welcome a Bernie Sanders or someone like him with open arms! No, Hillary did that for her own pocket book. If she did ANY good with Wal Mart, it sure as hell doesn't show now because they are one evil company.

[auntpurl]

36. If there were enough people (consumers) who thought like Bernie, they'd have to put him on the board

This is what I mean - you need a groundswell of support for your ideas - not just among the electorate, but among everyone.

I disagree about Hillary - I think she did the most good she could have done, in her position, in Arkansas, on a board with 14 men. But then, I think that comes down to character - if a person thinks Hillary is a greedy liar, then it looks opportunistic. If a person thinks she is a public servant who's had her ups and downs, it's a different picture. Both opinions are valid - that's why we all have a vote.

[dana_b]

51. thank you

and I apologize if I come across too strong - as you can see, I am riled up about this stuff. But I do respect your thoughtful post and ideas.

If i really knew what good she did while on the board of WalMart, then maybe I would feel differently. It's hard to see when all we ever hear is bad stuff about that company and frankly, about her,

[auntpurl]

60. She doesn't like to talk about it

because the results were very mixed. She couldn't get any traction on the union problem, and ended up having to compromise in ways that made her look, if not anti-union, at least complicit. But she did make some accomplishments on women's issues (women in management, for example) and environmental issues (for one of America's biggest corporations and their level of pollution and waste, that is an accomplishment indeed).

I linked the NYT article in the OP - it explains it in what I consider a very fair way. It doesn't sanctify Hillary, or demonise her. In my opinion, she's a dedicated public servant who is also a flawed human being, as are we all.

I feel the same way about Bernie. He's neither a saint nor a demon. The main difference between Bernie and Hillary in public perception (as I see it) is that Hillary has been in the VERY public eye for decades now. All her dirty laundry, mistakes, and missteps have been aired and gloated over by the RW. I actually think that's a positive when it comes to the GE. Bernie has not been nationally recognisable, except for political junkies, until this election cycle. I could have MAYBE named him, if pressed, but wouldn't have had much of an opinion on him either way. I think Bernie supporters will find, if he continues on the national stage, that he is no saint either. Nor is he a demon. But the RW is likely to find a way to make him look terrible if he is the nominee. Hillary, well, I think they have less leverage. Their irrational hatred of her dilutes their credibility.

I don't think you came across too strong - you have strong opinions, but you were never rude!

[Hortensis]

84. IMO, you are sensible and balanced observer, AuntPurl.

And decent. Are you by any chance a knitter also?

[auntpurl]

86. Thank you. I strive to be civil in all exchanges, RL and online. And yes I am!

Knitter, crocheter, embroiderer. Basically anything crafty, I love. Are you?

[Gwhittey]

18. I saw

Corporations need American more than America needs Corporations. People in American can start new business but lets see a Corporations go and start a new country.

[auntpurl]

24. Well...

they could move to Mexico.

[Teamster Jeff]

20. Under regulated corporations can to evil things

Also when the establishment is in the pocket of these corporations they can do evil things. It's called corruption.

As far as companies moving out of the country, charge them to sell their offshored goods in this country. Problem solved.

[auntpurl]

28. How would that work?

Honestly asking, not snark. These aren't countries, you can't charge them import tax. So Amazon as an example - their distribution centers are already in America. How hard would it be for Jeff Bezos to move the head offices to Mexico, for example? Corporations incorporate in different states all the time for this reason. They don't get penalised for it.

You'd need brand-new legislation, as far as I'm aware, to start charging companies some sort of fine for not being based in the US.

[dana_b]

31. "You'd need brand-new legislation"

Yes! And that's what we want!!! Fine the hell out of them. If they pass the buck onto us, we will just have to learn to live with less. I'm serious. We buy too much crap as it is.

[auntpurl]

34. I agree with you there! Too much crap.

I have a LOT less stuff since I moved to the UK. Houses are way smaller here!

How far should we go before the economic landscape because inhospitable to business? They are an important part of American economics. And obviously, they create much-needed jobs.

Hillary is in favour of more tax on corporations too. Just less, and slower, and in my opinion more pragmatically. I think we CAN make progress, I just don't think it's going to happen the way Bernie says he can make it happen. Only my opinion.

Thank you for your thoughts.

[Teamster Jeff]

89. I mean manufacturing facilities

Where communities are crippled when good paying jobs are sent overseas. The products end up shipped back on containers warehoused here and sold here

[Jitter65]

27. May your fine work on this be shared elsewhere? Thanks for the post.

[auntpurl]

30. Sure, you can share it wherever you want.

I'm no expert, though, just posting my opinion based on what I've read and understood about how economics and politics work. I'm always willing to be educated!

[MaggieD]

29. Agreed

Last night I was starting to wonder if Bernie believed $15 per hour should be the MAXIMUM wage.

[Agnosticsherbet]

37. "Corporations" and "The Establishment" are not evil.

They are not conscious entities that make the choice to do bad things. They are organizing tools by groups banded together by choice or law. A tool is never evil, but it can be used to harm others.

"The establishment" is too broad to be meaningful. It is generally use here to refer to the leading elements of the; (1) administration in power, (2) the Democratic Party, (3) The Republican party. It can equally apply to the principal and teachers of a school, the Pope, the leaders of any organization.

As much as anything can be evil, it must be conscious individual capable of making an informed choice and always choosing to do bad things.

So, neither corporations nor establishments are evil. Members of those organizations may be evil.



The Gross and ridiculous use of the word "evil" bugs me, and I consider it one of the great evils of the English language.

(That last sentence as spoken, tongue and cheek.)

[auntpurl]

40. Your last sentence made me laugh.

Thank you for your reply.

[Agnosticsherbet]

41. I think we need to laugh more in this forum...

And I don't mean the last laugh type of laughter.
We all need to laugh at ourselves more.

[auntpurl]

42. I entirely agree.

GDP gives me anxiety some days. I am always searching through it for substantive posts, or light-hearted posts that don't take themselves too seriously, or data-based posts. It's hard to find sometimes.

[Zorra]

43. It depends on your value system. If conscienceless global imperialism, utter

disregard for human beings and the value of human life, major global exploitation of labor, unfettered destruction of the environment, the mass slaughter and maiming of millions of people in the name of profit, corporate establishment control of mainstream media for the purpose of brainwashing cultures, control of governments by wealthy private interests, etc, ad nauseum, are not evil in your estimation, then I reckon that corporations and their establishment culture and systems are not evil from your point of view.

However, many of us, myself included, consider the aforementioned, and incomplete, list of unspeakably wicked crimes committed by the corporate establishment to unquestionably constitute evil, and no amount of pleading the case for the corporate establishment is going to change that POV.

[auntpurl]

45. You're obviously very passionate in your opinions.

I respect your right to have them, and to vote your conscience.

Thank you for your reply.

[Zorra]

47. You are very welcome! It is a passion born of long experience,

beginning with the corporate establishment imperialist genocide and dispossession of many of my ancestors.

[bigwillq]

44. Most are. Same answer for both questions (nt)

[hobbit709]

48. More like uncaring about anything except their bottom line.

And many are run by out and out sociopaths.

[LouisvilleDem]

53. No, just banks

[liberal_at_heart]

56. People seem to forget business was not always conducted this way.

Before Reagan we had living wages, affordable college, pension plans and mortgage companies that didn't gamble on your mortgage. People worked, went to the doctor when they needed to, bought houses, sent their kids to college, retired on their pension. You know how we got there? The Labor Movement and Unions. It was not a nice easy shift in mentality. It was a knock down drag out fight between businesses and the people.

[Fast Walker 52]

71. exactly-- and a big problem is greed and "financial strip mining"

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/06/its_shameless_financial_strip_mining_les_leopold_explains_how_the_1_percent_killed_the_middle_class/

[RufusTFirefly]

57. Are sharks evil?

Sharks are eating machines. That's what they do.
Corporations are profit machines. That's what they do.

They are profoundly amoral. And that's by design.
As long as we have a system where corporations are mandated to make a profit, we will continue to have corporations that brazenly disregard humanity. And corporations will continue to attract callous, amoral individuals as their leaders. As the movie The Corporation explains, if corporations are people, the people they most closely resemble (according to the DSM criteria) are psychopaths.

[Orsino]

58. We would be better off without corporations that won't pull their weight.

And if we had the guts to c'ose the door behind them, more patriotic Americans can incorporate as needed.

[ibegurpard]

59. Is cancer evil?

[gollygee]

64. The way the economy is currently structured, corporations are evil

That's the whole point of voting for Bernie. We want the economy to be structured differently.

[auntpurl]

65. No problem from me there

But how we he pass any kind of brand-new economic model through Congress? As I said in my OP, I don't get how he expects to do that when Congress is so entrenched they would not compromise on Obama's much more moderate policies.

[gollygee]

66. There is no chance of any movement toward change unless we start stepping in that direction

The fact that it won't happen instantly, easily, or even soon, is not a reason to not move toward it.

[auntpurl]

74. That is exactly why I support Hillary.

She is for change too, but it is a slower, smaller change. I think that's both more feasible and more sustainable (and more electable a platform). The other option is Bernie - who I think would lose the GE (only my opinion! We all have a vote). Then instead of incremental change (Hillary), we get terrifyingly quick movement in the other direction (Trump, Cruz).

[gollygee]

75. I like both Bernie and Hillary

I like Bernie better, and I think either of them will easily beat either Trump or Cruz. There is unlikely to be another election with such horrible Republican candidates and that any Democratic candidate will easily win. I think we should get the most progressive candidate we can in there when we have the chance.

[auntpurl]

77. You make a good point.

But when it comes to riling up idiots, the RW has the market cornered. I believe Hillary can easily beat whichever of the lunatics from the clown car the Repubs end up nominating, because Hillary has had all her dirty laundry aired for decades now, and their irrational hatred of her dilutes their arguments against her. Whereas Bernie is an unknown, and the RW can paint him with all NEW smears that most certainly won't be true but might stick. That is my concern. I sort of feel the opposite of you. When the RW candidates are so terrifyingly bad, we should choose the most ELECTABLE candidate to ensure the other side don't get within 1000 miles of the WH.

As an aside, EITHER Bernie or Hillary would make a ten THOUSAND times better president than anyone from the Repubs, this election cycle or any election cycle.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. They are both amoral and self interested

"Evil"? In practice, it's hard to tell the difference.

[senz]

69. When corporations appropriate political power at the expense of the American people

then they are most certainly evil.

[liberal_at_heart]

73. Corporations have taken our democracy away from us.

I would say that is at the very least immoral. Much of what they do is immoral.

[senz]

90. Specifically, UNREGULATED corporate power. It has many layers, all of them bad.

Democracy means rule of the people. That means the many, not the few. Corporations destroy this fundamental principle of our Constitution. They take away our Constitutional power over OUR government.

Then you get down to what corporate power has done to the people. They eliminate regulations that protect the interests of the American people - for instance, environmental regulations, fair business practices, workplace safety regulations, TRADE regulations, consumer safety regulations, tax codes, and many more.

Corporations used to be time-limited and tightly regulated. This kept them from achieving ascendancy over the people of this country.

[liberal_at_heart]

94. good points. They used to be regulated and they still made plenty of money.

[apnu]

70. "f you tax big corporations into oblivion, they will leave the country" Huh? What?

Remind me again what the taxation rate is on Corporations and the number of loopholes they lobbied for and got. GE pays, what, 0% tax right?

Me, middle class American, I'm paying a lot more income tax on my earnings than most Corporations.

Anybody who believes Corporations are being taxed to death is a rube.

[auntpurl]

76. No, they're not now being taxed to death.

And I agree there needs to be an INCREASE on corporate tax. Hillary is for an increase. But there is a balance that has to be struck - between making corporations pay their fair share and making the economic landscape inhospitable to business.

[liberal_at_heart]

79. CEOs make over 400% more than the average worker in their company and they pay

almost nothing in taxes. We are far, far, far, far from being anywhere inhospitable to business. They just like to whine about it because they still want more. What is the purpose of business? To make as much profit as possible while paying as little in overhead as possible. They won't be happy until they don't have to pay any overhead at all. They hate that they have to pay wages at all. They would love nothing more than to pay no wages. They already pay no taxes in some cases. And when their corporation fails we the tax payers have to bail them out. Privatize profits and socialize loses. It won't be long before we the taxpayers are paying our own wages with our own taxes because corporations will have socialized those as well. When you look at Walmart that exact scenario is already playing out. Most of its employees get some sort of financial help from the government because Walmart won't pay a living wage. So we the tax payers are in fact paying Walmart's wages for them. Corporate welfare.

[auntpurl]

80. As I say, there NEEDS to be change.

I just think an incrementalist approach is more likely to pass Congress and more likely to be sustainable. Ergo, I support Hillary. You want faster change. I hear you. This is why we all have a vote.

[liberal_at_heart]

82. We have tried incrementalism for over 30 years. It has been proven a failed tactic.

We need another Labor Movement is what we need, and if businesses and the government keep doing what they are doing we will.

[auntpurl]

85. So what happens?

So let's say Bernie gets the nomination, Bernie wins the general. Then what? The problems as I see them are:

1. Passing anything like a brand-new economic approach through Congress
2. Making this brand-new economic approach feasible, both financially and in implementation
3. Making it not so shocking to the economy that the Dems don't get voted out next cycle, and all the new legislation is immediately repealed.

So how does it work?

Edited to add: I am not being snarky, I am honestly asking. It's the same question I've been asking of the Bernie campaign since the beginning. I am always willing to be educated!

[liberal_at_heart]

92. How did it work when we did it the first time with the Labor Movement?

People act as if this has never been done before. Like it is impossible. It is not impossible. We have done it before, and it will happen again. History repeats itself. The rich hoard the money until the people can't take it anymore. They revolt and demand change. They get out in the street in the millions. They vote the corrupt politicians out of office. They vote new ones in. Change can and does happen. It will happen.

[auntpurl]

95. There was an enormous groundswell of popular support for labor

While it was initially born in the Northeast, the west, heartland (miners, farmers) and the South all supported the movement in the end. Everyone was on board. Edited to add: I am not seeing that kind of broad, country-wide support for Bernie's message.

The labor movement declined because there was a period of economic prosperity. We are in a fairly stable period at the moment. The people who are struggling are naturally more receptive to the idea of big change. The people who are more or less comfortable are happy to see things change at a slower, more sustainable pace. Thus has it ever been so.

[liberal_at_heart]

101. We are not in a stable period right now. Maybe those making over $250,000 a year are and maybe that

explains why those who make that much support Hillary, but for the majority of the country we are not in a stable period right now and there are millions of pissed off people. That is exactly why Trump and Sanders are doing so well. There is a groundswell of support. Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it isn't there.

[apnu]

113. +1 for balance. (nt)

[Avalux]

72. The definition of insanity - keep doing the same things expecting a different outcome.

Are we an insane country? Maybe. The current system isn't working anymore, yet we're too afraid to blow it up.

I'm not willing to make a blanket statement for all corporations or whatever you want to label the vehicles of money making to attain wealth and power - some work for the people to improve our lives but most do not. The bigger they are, the more ability they have to inflict harm and pay no consequences. When the Supreme Court gives them an unreasonable amount of power by calling then individuals, and then allowing them to buy politicians, there is no accountability. Those who should be holding them accountable - the majority of our elected officials, are suckling from them instead.

They view the American people as a commodity; they slice and dice us into categories and do risk assessments to determine what they can get away with before crossing the line to get in trouble. The figure out ways to manipulate us through advertising and the media. The bottom line - the profitability of the corporation, and the payout to their political friends, is what matters.

When corporations influence politicians with their money and power to create legislation detrimental to the people, then we have a dystopian establishment - a group of individuals and institutions in control who are only in it for themselves and to hell with everyone else.

It's right before our eyes, we see it every day. Yet - we continue to think that we must work within the system. There is no balance, there's no representation of the people, except for a few. Bernie is one of those few.

Your criticism of Bernie tells me that you are afraid to go a different direction. You are stuck in the mind loop that you've been fed, you believe that the current established system (that's bad for you, btw, unless you're wealthy) is the only option.

I am hoping people like you will wake the hell up and join us in stopping the insanity.

[auntpurl]

83. "The current system isn't working anymore, yet we're too afraid to blow it up."

Yes. I am too afraid to blow it up, or rather, I don't want to blow up the system. I want to make change, slow incremental change in the right direction. Because I think that is a rational approach (only my opinion). It's what makes sense to me based on the history of politics and economics that I know (I am always willing to be educated). Hillary is for increasing tax on corporations, just not to the level Bernie is. I just don't see how he could pass an entirely new economic approach through Congress (and no one has answered that question on this thread or anywhere else) or make it feasible to implement and sustainable to keep.

[cantbeserious]

78. Severely Misplaced Faith

eom

[Bread and Circus]

81. I think corporate and establishment GREED hurts people and even kills them

Is that evil? not sure

But is the effect the same as an intentional evil act? I think so

[My Good Babushka]

87. It's not a question of good or evil

Is the way we use the tax code to subsidize the already wealthy working?
Is the way we choose not to regulate the financial industry even though they are in a bubble and bust cycle working?
Is the way we over-regulate and over-incarcerate the working and the working poor for minor offenses working?
Is the way we disregard and do not invest in our crumbling infrastructure until people are drinking poison swill working?
Is our health care system that bankrupts the seriously ill working?
Is our endless, costly, destabilizing military adventurism working?
Are we going to pretend these things just need some small changes, or do we need to end our continuity altogether with these policies? Any continuation becomes something we condone, and it never ends. And I don't condone them.

[auntpurl]

88. Thank you for your reply.

I am copy-pasting a reply I gave above, not because I am trying to be flip or dismiss your concerns, but because I honestly don't understand:


So let's say Bernie gets the nomination, Bernie wins the general. Then what? The problems as I see them are:

1. Passing anything like a brand-new economic approach through Congress
2. Making this brand-new economic approach feasible, both financially and in implementation
3. Making it not so shocking to the economy that the Dems don't get voted out next cycle, and all the new legislation is immediately repealed.

So how does it work?

Edited to add: I am not being snarky, I am honestly asking. It's the same question I've been asking of the Bernie campaign since the beginning. I am always willing to be educated!

[My Good Babushka]

91. It's not brand new

we have made regulations in the past, we have changed the tax code in the past, we have implemented infrastructure upgrades and expanded health care in the past. None of this is, like, uncharted, here there be monsters, territory.
You write the legislation, you get the people to call their representatives, whether they are democratic or republican or independent or socialists, or whigs, to support it, and it passes, and it becomes law. It works the same way it has always worked.

[auntpurl]

93. Thank you for your answer.

No, I agree, what you're describing is not new, or unfeasible. Hillary is for all of what you're suggesting, as I read it in her platform. What Bernie is suggesting is a much stronger version of it - not just increasing tax on corporations, but taxing them hard, making it hurt. Not expanding and improving the ACA, but trashing it and somehow making single-payer happen with a Congress so entrenched even Obama's much more moderate policies were shot down time and again.

I don't feel like Bernie's approach, his past political affiliations, or his lack of political infrastructure will help him get the kind of broad, cross-aisle support he would need to make even Hillary's incremental changes, much less the kind I mentioned above.

Of course, that's only my opinion. That's why we all have a vote.

[liberal_at_heart]

99. They make tens of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars. I think they will be fine.

And by the way expanding Medicare for All is not trashing ACA. Are Medicare and the ACA in competition with each other? Should we get rid of Medicare to make sure that it doesn't compete with ACA? We need Medicare for All. I currently have a $4000 copay bill for the hospital that I cannot pay. My husband had a heart attack almost a year ago. He has Medicare because of a disability. He also has a secondary private plan. He has received absolutely no medical bills. And having a heart attack is not cheap here in the US. My husband's father had a heart attack and receive a bill for over $100,000 and then dies less than a year after his heart attack. ACA is not good enough. We must have Medicare for All and by they way the majority of the country supports Medicare for All.

[My Good Babushka]

110. off the record

I'm not super-excited about any of the candidates this time around. But I particularly resent being told that I have to go a little more to the right if I want to go left.

[liberal_at_heart]

103. You are right. We are not reinventing the wheel here. All of this has been

done before and will be done again.

[retrowire]

96. Firstly, money is inherently evil. That's my belief. It corrupts.

Secondly, your idea that corporations will just up and leave is a little bit naive. You think it's cheap for them to completely cut off all employment here, and set up shop over seas? Sure they can offshore jobs and such. But to up and leave with everything? You think they would rather pay THAT PRICE? OR, would they just pay the higher taxes they can clearly afford?

Thirdly, even if they DID get up and leave, necessity is the mother of invention. So, in the vacuum they create, we would create new things that are just as good if not better.

Not all corporations are "evil". In fact, it's not the corporations, it's the establishment that ties them together. The establishment is made up of a collection of elitists and people that do not operate on the level of you or I. Their connections afford them great control at the detriment of millions of people. They often use that power for their own wants and do not share the wealth, so to speak.

Because of the inherent evil of money, and the entrenched establishment already set in their ways, NO, I don't believe the establishment will ever turn heel and work for the betterment of us all.

[auntpurl]

97. They don't have to up and leave completely.

They can up their base (headquarters) and leave. Companies do it all the time, state to state. That's why so many companies are incorporated in Delaware.

I live in Europe - corporations are very conscious of the fact that they can up sticks and move their headquarters to a more tax friendly country and they make no bones about the fact that they will, if the economic landscape becomes inhospitable to business.

The reason it hasn't happened much in America is because we have made the landscape TOO hospitable. I am in favour of tax increases on corporations. I just prefer a slower, more feasible, passable-through-congress, and rational approach. Ergo, I support Hillary. She is in favour of tax increases too. Just not to the level Bernie is suggesting.

I do not believe money is inherently evil. I've had periods of extreme economic hardship in my life, and periods of prosperity. I believe I have always held on to my ethical system, my belief in what is right and wrong.

I don't believe the establishment will turn heel either. But I believe Obama made some progress, and Hillary will continue that progress. That's what I'm looking for, not "blowing up the system" as someone put it on this thread.

[retrowire]

100. I'm happy to receive a reasoned response from you.

This truly is the battle of intellectuals in our camp. I stated as such in my psychological analysis thread the other day.

It's our intelligence that divides us. We've got informed angry optimists and pragmatic skeptics on our side.

Either way, to address 2 of your points. Money is inherently evil because of exposure. You say that you've suffered hardships as well, meaning you KNOW THE VALUE OF A DOLLAR. You know what it's like to do without. You have learned inherent responsibility and you're conditioned to be safe, and not reckless.

Now think about all the wealthy families, and those born into the establishment that have never suffered that fate. They aren't likely conditioned with the same empathy and wisdom.

And regarding the last point about the establishment turning heel. It is my belief that Hillary has been entrenched in the establishment much longer, and much more deeply than even Obama. Obama has made progress sure, but Hillary is too friendly with some of the WORST groups in that establishment that I don't see her moving that needle after Obama, I really don't.

That and, I don't want to elect another leader for incremental, pick the low hanging fruit change. I believe we can shake the whole tree because much of it HAS been done before, and for whatever hasn't been done? There's a first time for everything, especially if you actually believe in it and work towards it. And this is something I believe all Bernie supporters are willing to do. They call us idealists and we are, but we are more pragmatic than people think. We don't think any of these changes are happening overnight. We DO understand however, that Bernie is the seed to plant that will really get the ball rolling.

From there, we vote downticket and change the congress for him to have a better constituency to work with and there you have it, the Political Revolution he's always talking about.

[auntpurl]

105. I agree, this is the true discussion amongst thinking people on this forum and in the Dem party

Ignoring all the "HILLARY IS A GREEDY LIAR" and "BERNIE IS A COMMUNIST" nonsense, much of what I see argued boils down to "some sustainable change now is good" vs "incrementalism hasn't worked, we need big change now". Both arguments are valid, and neither camp is trying to attack the other. They just sincerely believe what they believe. It's one of those arguments where, not only do you disagree, you find it hard to understand why the other person feels the way they do. I am grateful we all have a vote.

I believe Hillary when she says she will implement her platform, which calls for continuing Obama's progress and making some more of her own. Whether you believe her or not comes down to character - is she telling the truth that that is the platform she will fight for? I believe her. Many don't, of course. But so far, the Democratic electorate seems to believe her. That may change.

The potential downside of shaking the tree is losing the GE, or if Bernie can win the GE, getting NOTHING accomplished because he can't get anything through Congress. What you're suggesting is possible. But I don't think it's probable. Hence, I vote Hillary. But, unlike some in my camp, I DO understand why you feel the way you do. If enough of you feel that way, well, I'll vote Bernie in November without a qualm. And we'll see what he can accomplish.

By the way, either Bernie or Hillary is MILES better than whichever clown from the clown car the Repubs nominate. And I'd be very happy to see the party move left! I'm just a realist, and I don't think it's gonna happen. I'm going for my best chance to keep the office, not big exciting (also scary and risky) change. But I get it, I really do.

[retrowire]

109. You're awesome.

I see you understand my point completely and empathize.

The shaking the tree thing I'm talking about isn't just about the GE. It's mostly referring to a radical change of our party to begin with. The long term Political Revolution is what I'm talking about. Basically, the plan is.. Get Bernie in the White House with the amazing energy and enthusiasm he has injected into the party. If he wins, that energy will be expanded and will likely earn many more people to follow along.

Then, of course while he's there in his first months, it'll be hard to get much done, but that's what the midterms are about, we replace the congress that has strongarmed Obama all these years with a more progressive one, and then his mission is suddenly ALOT more doable.

To me, if Hillary wins, she won't carry that movement with her and she'll again, be just like Obama. Strong armed by the right.

It's my belief that Obama won because of the youth vote majorly. And the problem is, many of them were first time voters, they were likely under the impression that all they had to do was get Obama in the White House and they're done. They didn't understand the importance of the midterms. I know I didn't. And then, since the Republicans didn't get the president they wanted, they knew what to do next, vote in the midterms (where dem turnout was low) and BAM, Republican controlled House and Senate.

This time I think is different. The generation that was inspired by Obama's message has grown older, and witnessed what happens when you ignore the midterms. I think with Bernie winning, they are MUCH LESS LIKELY to make that mistake. With a Hillary win though, they are only less likely to make that mistake if you know what I mean?

This is just my perspective. And yes, I agree, we've got them much better than the Republicans.

[Nanjeanne]

98. Corporations aren't people so no - they aren't inherently evil. However

corporations have one goal - and that goal is to make a profit. The individuals that place profit over people can (and many do) things that maximize their profit over their workers. Some CEOs and corporations do not. But we have seen over the last 40 years an increasingly wide margin between CEO/senior management and worker pay - and corporations doing more and more to increase the size of their profit at the expense of workers. Evil? Well perhaps that's a stretch. But greedy, short-sighted and wrong - Yup!

I have much more trust in government than corporations. I do not want this country run like a corporation. Profit is not the goal of a country.

As for "establishment" - when holding on to power is more important than the job of representing people - then the "establishment" becomes . . . well evil might be a strong word - so I'll go with greedy, short-sighted and wrong again!

[redstateblues]

104. Next car I buy will not be made by a corporation.

I'm sure there are some good home made cars out there.

[auntpurl]

107. lol!

Funny!

[auntpurl]

106. Thank you everyone for a civil discussion!

I really appreciate it. I don't want to post and run, but if I don't get dinner into the oven, we'll never eat.

I've learned a lot on this thread, and even have a documentary to watch tonight. Good day on DU for me. Thanks again.

[johnnyrocket]

108. Not evil, just have too much power. And certainly don't need the gov. help...

...to attain even MORE power.