>>SNIP
>>Corporations, as defined by Jim
>>1. All corporations are evil
>>3. If you disagree, see 1
>>
>>I'm convinced. Let's be rid of the monsters so we can open up every aspect of our own property, investments and savings to any individual with a lawyer who wants to take a piece.
>
>You passed the test, Jake. Scored 100%!
>

Woo Hoo!

>You don't see corporations taking any piece of anything they can get? One way or another? Mainly they just do it in different ways.

Can I safely assume that your definition of "corporation" is a publicly traded one or possibly a multi-national? You cannot possibly have the same belief about small LLCs and private partnerships. I hope.

>
>Their strongest method is to get their hands on your tax money.
>You don't think corporations are in agribusiness for basics "profits", do you? They're not! They got into agribusiness because of the subsidies. And they fight like hell to keep those subsidies.

I'm well aware of this. I have said before that I strongly dislike the farm bill. I know it will never go away due to the relationship between congress and the farm belt, namely that no congressional candidate from the farm belt can win office without supporting the farm bill. It is literally the only reason they are sent to DC. That being said, I also understand the problems that have arisen for the industry with the passage of NAFTA. All of the sudden the small profit margin has eroded. Without the subsidies, goodby industry.

>You don't think corporations might locate in your area because they like the people/neighbourhood/weather, do you? They locate wherever they can get the biggest tax breaks.

Of course I know this I live in California. :) Companies are still bolting for Nevada and Oregon due to tax considerations. I have no problem with this. The regulatory and tax atmosphere in this state is toxic to business.

>And keep in mind they only locate 'at home' at all when they can't ship the work offshore.

This is where we part company. There are many more American corporations doing work at home than abroad. Now if you're talking about big multi-nationals, then I'll agree with you, but again I'll state that I don't have a problem with this. I think the problem is the laws which make other countries workers more profitable to the company in question. There are solutions, we just don't implement them.

>Why do the airlines get so much tax $$$? Geez, I thought yours was a capitalist economy.

I agree. They shouldn't. Let the profitable ones continue and the others should be forced to fix their own problems.

>Why do the utilities get so much of your tax $$$? Geez, I thought yours was a capitalist economy.

I agree. See above.

>Why do the oil companies get so much of your tax $$$? Geez, I thought yours was a capitalist economy.

I agree. See above.

>
>Why do you have import duties on lots of goods when your country professes to be in favour of free trade?

Now wait a sec, you just went in a circle. If you don't want companies to leave then one of the things you can do is to impose tarrifs. :)
See example below.

>
>Isn't it a bit odd that your government professes that taxes are bad and the money better left in the hands of individuals yet hands out billions and billions to corporations.

No it is not funny. We agree on this more than you know.

>Funny that they wouldn't dream of handing that money out to people directly.

Tax refunds, welfare, unemployment...these are direct payments. I get your general point though.

>They profess 'when people are taxed less they spend more' yet they'd rather give the billions to corporations that to people.

We agree.

>Seems to me the people would do a far better job of spending it, benefitting a far wider audience, than any corporation would.

We agree. What is going on here?

>
>Corporations exist ONLY to improve the value of their shareholder's shares.

Not all corporations have shares. But I'll go with my assumption of your definition and say ok.

>This is a never-ending process. So they never have "enough". They always need more and more and more. And they have reached the point that they can only get more in a very few ways now.

The companies who get into these problems are not run well. Too rapid expansion, overleveraging, bloated workforce, deteriorating product...

>The first is to suck it from the government. The second is to suck it from their customers. The third is to suck it from their employees.

Your order is a bit mixed up, the first is usually the employees, then customers via price increase, product quality or product elimination, the third is looking for a bailout.

>So, for example, insurance companies happily collected premiums from all the folks in the Gulf Coast area, but when the claims came in they denied them. Screwed their customers and let the government take them off the hook.

That's an awful broad brush you are painting with. Not all were treated like this. I will agree with you in part. The premiums probably should've been higher in an area with the potention of being drowned by a lake. In the same vein I believe many areas around where I live should have higher premiums until our levee system is fixed. The same I believe is true for SF due to the coming earthquakes. Insurance companies need to be able to collect funds today for later use without needing government help. Of course if they do that they'll be sued for "gouging".

>So, for example, people are working longer hours with less pay and benefits are being cut back all the time.

We must part company I'm afraid. "People" have the choice to work wherever they wish. If they want more money then work harder or learn more or change industries or move to a better location or start your own business. There are so many choices out there with regards to making a living that I feel little sympathy for those without the ability to self-motivate.

>And companies with "pensions" (remeber those things) are defaulting and letting the government take over responsibility.

Pensions are a failed idea that need to be done away with. All workers with pensions should immediately start working with management to settle on a buyout. They, like social security are not going to last much longer.

>If tax payers spend more when they have more, why doesn't the government give these billions to tax payers rather than corporations?

We agree.

>Because the corporations spend millions cultivating insiders and decision-makers to get things their way. In other words, they get tax deductions for the lobbyists they hire to get (your) money from the government so they can eward their shareholders. Sound like a good deal to you?

We agree. Now we're back on track.

>
>We have witnessed, since western Communism failed, an absolutely disgraceful and abominable evolution of corporate power. Corporations are now lauded for climbing into bed with the former arch-enemy, the Republic of China. Corporations see their stock values increase when they lay off people. Corporations see their stock values increase when they close factories here and move them to China. The whole she-bang is topsy-turvy from what it should be.

This is unnerving but at the same time tarriffs could end this real quick.

>People who act like corporations are put in jail! As was quoted in the movie I watched : "They have no soul to save, and they have no body to incarcerate." remembering that corporations were endowed with personhood by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Example:
Before NAFTA was passed the farm industry in general and California farmers in particular were united against it. The concern was that foreign crops with their neglible labor costs would compete with California grown. The results have been varied depending on which perspective you wish to look from:

Lets look at avacados:
-Consumers have benefitted because now they can get fresh avacados all year round, with relatively stable prices
-California farmers who obeyed the labor laws either sold or planted other crops
-Some California farmers chose not to obey labor laws and illegal immagration continues to increase
-Chilean avacado farms benefited greatly due to the lack of import tarrifs

Without NAFTA but with import tarrifs to counter the labor costs, the consumers and farmers in both countries could have mutually benefitted. Instead the "giant sucking sound" has worked in both directions.