Corporations are not people
I wasn’t impressed with December’s car industry bail-outs in the US and I’m not any happier with the latest round. I have a fundamental issue with giving money to these corporations whose primary interest is collecting profit. The US Government may say they’re closely watching these companies but for what exactly? The Government isn’t going to be ensuring the money is spent on the workers (the people that are most vulnerable during this recession), they’ll just make sure there’s no more embarrassing CEO bonuses and that the “restructuring” puts the car businesses back in profit.
I don’t have enough faith in GM and Chrysler, or the US government, to restructure their business in a way that benefits all involved and not just the top 20%. Investing billions of dollars into a company just so people can keep their jobs is simply pathetic. Restructuring towards a better future should mean change that involves higher pay for workers and major cuts for the higher ups that get far too much for what they do. A system where problems hit the people that didn’t create it the hardest and the people who created it the least is unjust and not how businesses should be run. The “restructuring” that will take place is just going to restore this fragile relationship that will lead to more problems in the future. At least 400,000 people have already been laid off in the car industry because of the recession and I fear not enough is being done for them. This will only lead to future problems.
Where are the major Obama announcements declaring new social structure investments, new job initiatives, more protection for redundant and vulnerable workers, and help to individual people struggling to keep their homes (or to have a home at all)? This question goes not just to the US Government but to New Zealand’s and most other countries too. I’m tired of seeing all this money given to corporations with the expectation that the cash will trickle down and I’m tired of corporations being treated with higher priority than the people.
It’s all beginning to look like one giant scam, isn’t it!
illuminatedtiger
March 31, 2009 at 11:12 pm
A while age I commented elsewhere that a way should be created that allowed companies to operate with no regard to profit levels.
Then I read a nice little article (link below) that put people very much first. Companies could cut the hours of workers, but had to maintain their weekly wage. If they later went back to full production, they had to maintain the hourly rate. In other words, companies would be forced to take a hit on their profit levels and workers would benefit…stimulating demand, but leaving companies with permanently reduced profit margins.
Any attempt to close the company would result in a worker take over. Trying to shift operations overseas would result in the same.
Yes. The article was an exercise in wishful thinking. But it did put ideas on the table that aren’t bound by this bizarre idea that profits are crucial and correct. Well worth the read.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20982
Bill
April 1, 2009 at 9:47 am
Ah thanks for bring that to attention Bill. Profit-based economies and corporations certainly aren’t the only options.
Michael Albert over at ZNet has some really great ideas on a possible future system called Parecon. Anyone reading this should read more about this vision. I’m not fully convinced yet and, as you say Bill, it may be wishful thinking, but it’s surely a start.
Tim
April 1, 2009 at 8:47 pm
You would call it propping up the corporation, but many others (including Obama) would call it preserving the jobs of the workers. It doesn’t benefit the workers for their wages to go up and then the firm goes under. Keeping them running doesn’t just benefit their managers, it benefits everyone who works for them. There isn’t such a dichotomy between the interests of the corporation and the interests of its workers, I would say they are more aligned than you imply.
The reality is that firms need to make healthy profit to ensure access to capital, so they can keep growing, and yes, keep employing more people.
Tom Mathews
April 2, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Tim,
interesting title and I might add that neither is capitalism people..
that said capitalism as understood by most of the world has been used/abused.. though neither yourself nor anyone here has found the why and how of this.. and because I think you should at least try I’ve responded to the hat-tip article fyi..
given future opportunity and feeds mebbe I’ll take this up.. perhaps a tandem source.. myself.. regards..
ripp0
April 2, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Shades of classics here tim, and our circular flow arguments! The problem with this entire argument is that a resolution is almost certainly never going to occur, as the power players, i.e the “top 20%” will not allow for these changes of which you speak, and neither will a government as it would isolate 20% of their voters and cause unrest. And as we all know, corperations are no strangers to subversive tactics in the quest for profit. So in that sense i agree with “ripp0″ but agree that its not a good thing.
Bryn
April 6, 2009 at 6:48 pm
there’s certainly hope – i need only point to the many south american countries who have finally rid themselves (most notably venezuela and bolivia), democratically, of corporate leaders in favour of governments that want to redistribute wealth to work towards a more equal state.
This was done through 100% democratic means – going to show that drastic revolution isn’t needed to reform the system. (I only hope – and i do expect – that the socialist revolution in south america continues long into the future)
change has to start with somewhere otherwise nothing will ever change. change never happens if there’s no ideas in the first place. you also can’t claim that this wouldn’t happen because it would cause unrest. unrest is widespread BECAUSE of this power hierarchy. look at the g20 protests, the nato protests, or even the recent ‘kidnapping’ of bosses in france.
to claim that my argument has a problem because its ‘unfeasible’ just sounds like youve been believing right wingers who think inequality, poverty, and corporatocracy are facts of life that we have to deal with and can’t change
Tim
April 6, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Corporations may not be people, but they are legal “persons” in the commercial world, afforded all the legal rights of any other person. The problem is that most human individuals have unknowingly volunteered to also live their lives as “persons” (the term in the US is “juristic person”; I’m not sure about the language in NZ, but it comes hand-in-hand with any central bank). So while actual corporations can run immorally rampant because there is no human to be penalized, individuals who don’t know the difference get thrown in cages or worse. This is how we’ve all been economically enslaved in the west. So be careful about confusing state-regulated capitalism for a truly free market.
It’s a simple but effective deception, and it may feel so natural to us in this world of debt-credit that there’s no turning back, but here’s a forum where they’re working on a solution–and they’ve got a New Zealand chapter up and running (not yet for the sloths here in the US):
http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/forum/
And for a decent discussion of the “person” (which may lead you down some rabbit holes) visit:
http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=105.0
But watch your step here in particular because I can’t help but smell the trolls. Research and confirm everything yourself, that’s the point. Who else can you trust to tell you the truth and look out for your interests–surely not some corporate state?
I hope you don’t take what I’ve said here as a defense of any portion of the right-left (good cop, bad cop) paradigm, and the fact that I take flak from both sides suggests there’s some truth here. I sure understand where you’re coming from (left), but your accurate criticisms of Obama are evidence that you and he define the word “social” very differently. It may be worth pointing out that Mussolini called his fascism “the merger of state and corporate power”; Obama is simply picking up where Bush left off. There are options out there that no politician will ever suggests to you. It’s time we all stop following the leader–and try to think and do for ourselves. I think our human lives will prove much more social and abundant.
I’m god of my life, now who says I’m dead?
invisiblecontract
April 7, 2009 at 8:14 pm