Keyboard Warrior Hits The Road....

Butterfly_Brain

IronWolf wrote: »

Who are the "rich" who seem to get referred to by socialists as benefitting from the profits of corporations? I'm struggling to find them, is there just one group of people that can somehow siphon off profits from companies without anyone being the wiser?

Apart from board members, of which there are maybe 500 out of 70 billion people, noone can take profits out of companies at their own will unless they own them. And the biggest companies in the world are publicly listed, so anyone can own them and share in the profits.

The beauty of capitalism and the free market, is that anyone can share in the profits of corporation. If some "greedy" corporation was ripping off customers and making huge profits, then the beauty of capitalism is that someone else can come along and set up a company, and undercut their price, to the benefit of the customer. OR you can just buy shares in said company and take your slice of the profits.

For all those that complain about corporate greed and profits, why dont you just get off your behind and buy some shares? If enough of you do this, then you can actively influence how a company is run, the shareholders choose the board.

That's so easy to say if you have any money left at the end of the month to buy them :mad: A lot of people on low wages are lucky if they have enough to pay utility bills and put food on the table.

FTBFun

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

There is no such thing as free speech, everyone on that protest has had their photos taken and will most likey be marked as dissidents on MI5's data bank.

Err...and? They're still allowed to have their free speech.

Even the bit about insulin containing mercury.

neverdespairgirl

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

Firstly it seems that all the hoo ha is that the camp is outside St Paul's instead of the financial district, this is because the Metropolitan Stazi who take their orders from a bunch of Corporate millionaires who sit in parliament, have been ordered to stop them entering.

I think "butterfly brain" just about sums it all up. St. Paul's is in the City.

The group calls itself Occupy London Stock Exchange. And the road the camp is on has St. Paul's on one side and the London Stock Exchange on the other!

Ilya_Ilyich

Road_Hog wrote: »

Some people seem confused. We no longer have a capitalist system, we now have a corporatist system and that is where it has gone wrong.

Capitalism is what we had in the 50, 60, 70, 80 and '90s. Capitalism made everyone better off, it meant house ownership for many, rising wages, better standard of living, new cars, holidays, company pension schemes.

Yes, the people at the top always were better off, but there was a trickle down effect and the majority of people were happy because there were sharing in the wealth created.

Corporatism doesn't do trickle down, it keeps everything, in fact it wants more. Shift factories abroad and make more money, do it, bring in third world and cheap Eastern European labour, do it, drive down wages and conditions. No attachment to the country or the surrounding community that many of the national firms used to have. Because of this, people are now becoming worse off, poorer in real terms.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

"Right now, there is a lot of talk about the evils of "capitalism". But it is not really accurate to say that we live in a capitalist system. Rather, what we have in the United States today, and what most of the world is living under, is much more accurately described as "corporatism". Under corporatism, most wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of giant corporations and big government is used as a tool by these corporations to consolidate wealth and power even further. In a corporatist system, the wealth and power of individuals and small businesses is dwarfed by the overwhelming dominance of the corporations. Eventually, the corporations end up owning almost everything and they end up dominating nearly every aspect of society. As you will see below, this very accurately describes the United States of America today. Corporatism is killing this country, and it is not what our founding fathers intended.

Corporatism is actually not too different from socialism or communism. They are all "collectivist" economic systems. Under corporatism, wealth and power are even more highly concentrated than they are under socialism or communism, and the truth is that none of them are "egalitarian" economic systems. Under all collectivist systems, a small elite almost always enjoys most of the benefits while most of the rest of the population suffers.

The Occupy Wall Street protesters realize that our economic system is fundamentally unjust in many ways, but the problem is that most of them want to trade one form of collectivism for another."

I suspect these aren't your own words as this is pretty much a UK-based site but it's important to note that on what's ostensibly an economic discussion board one should use economic terms correctly. 'Corporatism' refers to the economic system in place in a number of mid-century fascist states and is pretty darn dissimilar to what we have today.

Generali

Road_Hog wrote: »

Some people seem confused. We no longer have a capitalist system, we now have a corporatist system and that is where it has gone wrong.

Capitalism is what we had in the 50, 60, 70, 80 and '90s. Capitalism made everyone better off, it meant house ownership for many, rising wages, better standard of living, new cars, holidays, company pension schemes.

Yes, the people at the top always were better off, but there was a trickle down effect and the majority of people were happy because there were sharing in the wealth created.

Corporatism doesn't do trickle down, it keeps everything, in fact it wants more. Shift factories abroad and make more money, do it, bring in third world and cheap Eastern European labour, do it, drive down wages and conditions. No attachment to the country or the surrounding community that many of the national firms used to have. Because of this, people are now becoming worse off, poorer in real terms.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

"Right now, there is a lot of talk about the evils of "capitalism". But it is not really accurate to say that we live in a capitalist system. Rather, what we have in the United States today, and what most of the world is living under, is much more accurately described as "corporatism". Under corporatism, most wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of giant corporations and big government is used as a tool by these corporations to consolidate wealth and power even further. In a corporatist system, the wealth and power of individuals and small businesses is dwarfed by the overwhelming dominance of the corporations. Eventually, the corporations end up owning almost everything and they end up dominating nearly every aspect of society. As you will see below, this very accurately describes the United States of America today. Corporatism is killing this country, and it is not what our founding fathers intended.

Corporatism is actually not too different from socialism or communism. They are all "collectivist" economic systems. Under corporatism, wealth and power are even more highly concentrated than they are under socialism or communism, and the truth is that none of them are "egalitarian" economic systems. Under all collectivist systems, a small elite almost always enjoys most of the benefits while most of the rest of the population suffers.

The Occupy Wall Street protesters realize that our economic system is fundamentally unjust in many ways, but the problem is that most of them want to trade one form of collectivism for another."

I agree 100%. Try opening a bank or a supermarket to compete with the established players and it's impossible because large companies help Government push through regulations that need expensive compliance that only they can afford.

A._Badger

Generali wrote: »

I agree 100%. Try opening a bank or a supermarket to compete with the established players and it's impossible because large companies help Government push through regulations that need expensive compliance that only they can afford.

Agreed. And one of the worst offenders here is the EU.

Generali

A._Badger wrote: »

Agreed. And one of the worst offenders here is the EU.

Yes they are. The previous Labour Government too.

For me, the great achievement of the Thatcher Government was that they took on entrenched Corporate interests. They got rid of self-regulation in the financial sector, allowed professionals to advertise and ended the closed shop.

TruckerT

Generali wrote: »

For me, the great achievement of the Thatcher Government was that they took on entrenched Corporate interests. They got rid of self-regulation in the financial sector, allowed professionals to advertise and ended the closed shop.

Although I am genetically disabled from voting for the Tories, I have some sneaking sympathies for Mrs Thatcher's ideas

I bought the only house which I have ever owned in the 1980s on a shortlived scheme called 'Rents-to-Mortgage', which was piloted in a very small number of UK towns and cities

I did extemely well out of the deal, because interest rates fell soon after completion, and rents began to increase

The only eligibility criterion was that I had a squeaky-clean history of rental payments - that was to say, I was not in urgent need of financial assistance

My neighbours, who were in dire financial straits and soon to face large rent increases, did not qualify for the scheme

My choice was to spend my government giveaway on an extravagant lifestyle, which is now over...

Others chose to enter into a period of property speculation (using their ex-council house as cut-price entry-level gambling chips)...

I believe that, quite accidentally, the Thatcher 'Right-to-Buy' schemes led directly to the property-based Casino Banking scene which failed so spectacularly in 2007/8

TruckerT