Posted on 10/11/2004 1:14:10 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
It is the regular discussion of the days precedent to 1886. When "fiduciary duty" and "agency" where far more respected in the courts and by the public.
The "tax reform" bill now almost on the desk of the President has been called the "General Electric Welfare Bill" for the number of tax goodies inserted which benefit GE--almost exclusively GE.
Sounds good on the outside, of course--lots of folks here will be just delighted (!!!) to hear that there's a lessening of the tax burden for corporations in the US.
But it ain't necessarily so.
No, they loved having government having complete authority over corporations, just as the author is proposing.
Corporations are necessary in a modern society. They provide the organization, capital, efficiencies of scale and infrastructure necessary for production, R&D etc. etc. etc.
Is capitalism ideal? No. But nothing is ideal. And, when combined with democracy, there's the opportunity to smooth out the bumps and the humps.
Really?
ARe you trying to tell us that Jefferson was a "Fringie" or a Nazi?
Read the editorial. Comment based on what you read, not what boogeymen you IMAGINE.
Yet the courts have created and the legislatures have allowed our, We the People's, mastery to be mooted and we are made peons and vassals before a corporation.
You want me to play Hamilton to your Jefferson?
For otherwise your comments to mark are like those of an unlearned and rude child speaking to group of experienced scholars. They don't do you well.
JimRob's concept of Free Republic allows for debate. GWB's domestic economic policies are subject to intelligent and well-informed debate on these boards.
For that matter, so is GWB's foreign policy.
GWB is not infallible, nor is he God's gift to the USA. He's a decent man with solid morals; but some of the morons he hired need to get a real life--Mankiw comes to mind.
Apologies for Corporate Success at Any Cost are not going to play well with the majority of Americans, especially conservatives who have read and understood Edmund Burke.
I'm well aware of the nature of corporations, as well as their history and current role in society and global economics.
Depending on the by-laws, most likely the Executive Board.
That is anarchy! You argue that coporate charters are not instruments that make them subservient to a state, and to do so is to say that no mere nation may dictate what a corporation may do -- a coporation, in that line of thought -- is a god to itself!
You might want to update your reading list a bit, say at least into the 20th century.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/052165629X/104-5332190-7685562?v=glance
I get to stuff like this and I can't evade the feeling that somebody's putting me on.
Time to ask the invisible question. None of these economic triple geniuses have ever seen it, let alone answer it.
How is it possible that the arguably greatest generation, postwar, managed to survive (never mind thrive) without medicare and universal health care, the EPA and dozens of government supported NGOs?
This suggests the author considers the US government as entirely alienated from the people, and, therefore, subject to righteous overthrow. I say, wait just a minute. Whenever an institution is taxed, regulated, constrained, controlled by government policy, it will seek to influence that policy for its benefit. There is nothing sinister about this. The problem is the over-reach of government, not the reaction of corporations to the yoke.
The author does not present an alternative form of relationship by which people may unite their resources to provide social goods and services in the pursuit of a return on their investment. This seems like infantile rebellion, much like Michael Moore.
There was a booming economy. Age expectancy was lower. And industry wasn't playing around with as many toxins.
As for healthcare -- even discounting what happened in 1918, we're dealing with some nasty bugs now, HepA to HepZ, etc. Do you want the guy making your salad in the kitchen not to have access to an emergency room?
PRIOR -- coporations and capitalism both did more-or-less happily exist together. That we should bring tham back from the wilds of self-sovereignity, reign them in and tame them as they once were -- or at least back towards that direction -- that is the argument.
Thanks! I knew there was some mechanism, but wasn't familiar with what it was -- was it a part of the tender offer for shares, or part of the case law, or part of the legislated law governing the formation and dissolution of coporations. You say its the by-laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.