I can see that you don't like capitalism Jim :o) I wonder, do you agree with this:

http://skeptically.org/socialism/id5.html





>>It's difficult to say really which is the lesser of two evils. If North Carolina had not given the tax breaks to Dell, then Dell would not have brought the 1500 jobs to North Carolina recently. After the mills closed down North Carolina was in a sorry state for jobs. Add to it that most factories now employ illegals here and avoid the cost of benefits and somehow manage to bus them in from Mexico directly and not pay fines or get shut down. Go figure! Dell would have located somewhere else. In essence, NC would not have received the taxes anyway and on top of that, would have lost the 1500 jobs to another state. The debate comes when you figure in the public costs of Dell moving here. Who pays for the water, sewer, electricity, etc costs in the building of the site? The roads? Possibly the smaller companies who don't employ many but do pay taxes. The mom and pop shops are in essence funding Dell. Some of whom may actually go out of business if they are in anyway in direct
>>competition with Dell although I doubt that. Now in the situation where it is a large retailer that is entirely possible. Mom and pop companies foot the public bill of Walmarts, Home Depots, et al all the time and end up losing their customers to the new larger retailer and going out of business.
>
>Dell brought 1500 jobs to NC as long as it's good for Dell. As soon as Dell finds a better situation those 1500 jobs will either vapourize or become the hammer for additional concessions by NC, the municipality, etc. The people with those 1500 jobs live in NC, but Dell doesn't live in NC. Dell doesn't 'live' anywhere in particular and is beholden only to shareholders.
>The big corporations (like Dell) are no doubt easier to administer in terms of tax concessions and such. But big corporations have only 1 consideration - the bottom line. That is their ONLY "moral" compass.
>Compare this to the 'moms and pops'. Sure, they want to make a nice fat profit too but usually accept that they just 'get by'. But they do live in the community, their children go to schools in the community, the know their customers as neighbours and friends. As long as they can get by they're HIGHLY unlikely to pull up roots and move elsewhere, much less move to China.
>
>It's generally acknowledged that it is the moms-and-pops who are the job MAKERS in our current societies. Yet these folks get virtually nothing from governments at any level and have neither the time nor the clout to make it otherwise. They can't afford lobbyists. They can't afford membership in associations (that are lobbyists in disguise). They can't afford to send their representatives on lavish trips. I would be much happier seeing programs that give the small shops help to employ more, make more, sell more, etc. While it would be much harder to run well, my guess is that such programs would do far far more for any local economy that any large corporation ever would, and for far longer too.
>I just bought some luggage with a Canadian "brand". I asked the shopkeeper (a mom and pop) if it was indeed made in Canada and he showed me the "Made in China" tags hidden inside each piece. He said it was designed in Canada but made in China. I told him I was no longer that keen to buy it, and he agreed, citing that he gets fewer customers as jobs move from Canada to China (fewer people have money to spend). But then he showed me the made in China tags on 5 other different-branded sets and said there's basically no other source. So I decided to buy them anyway.
>
>Corporations - by law - cannot bother themselves with issues of morality. To a corporation the motto "do the right thing" means only one thing - improve shareholder value. The societal consequences are NOT their problem.
>
>You mentioned the costs of roads, police, water, sewage, etc. One thing corporations all always strive for is to "externalize" costs. That is, they want to reap the benefits of things while having their costs paid for by some other entity. And in Canada there are lots of programs designed with this objective in mind. For example, a corporation may be interested in a parcel of land but it is known that there are toxins buried there or polluting the surface. Removing the bad stuff becomes a givernment cost, ostensibly to get them to move in anyways. It's a rare occurrence that a private homeowner gets the same treatment. Homeowners are (sometimes) ofered some token price to move off the land. Then it is re-zoned. Then it is sold to some corpration, possibly even one that builds homes. Then the corporation has the land cleaned up for it, then they do whatever it is they plan to do. Maybe even build big fancy million-dollar homes!
>
>Corporations are riding on the coattails of the past, when they used to bring something tangible and longer-term for the concessions offered. That is no longer the case except we haven't changed our mind-set yet to realize it.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Because the primary purpose of government is the well-being and comfort of the people governed.
>>>>
>>>>Not necessarily true, unless you perform your own liberal interpretation of the text. It depends on your government. In the U.S., our constitution clearly states that the purpose of government is to:
>>>>
>>>>"establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." In order to achieve this purpose the Founding Fathers established three main principles on which our Government is based:
>>>>
>>>>Inherent rights: Rights that anyone living in America has;
>>>>Self Government: Government by the people; and
>>>>Separation of Powers: Branches of government with different powers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hmmmm. Seems to me that I could put emphasis on the "promote the general welfare" and "blessings of liberty" parts to support my statement.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is our individual responsible to chose our path in life. That path cannot be determined by government and should not be. When there is no incentive to study, learn, excel, or even be a good citizen, many fail to take the initiative themselves to do so. That is the individual's choice and he has the freedom to make that choice. In most cases, the government should not step in and fix the economic problems a citizen has created. No where does it state that 'promoting the general welfare' is to guarantee welfare via entitlements. It does not state 'guarantee' or 'ensure' but only promote.
>>>>
>>>>Now, realistically I have no problem with my tax dollars paying for medical care, food, housing, et al (the basic necessities) for those citizens who cannot work for medical reasons. Especially our elderly and the infirm of all ages. Primarily those individuals whose medical problems (in this case citizen or not) are due to service in our armed forces, the peace corps, or civic support or service. However, I believe confirmed medical diagnosis in writing (from more than one source) are required to substantiate such benefits. I also think they are benefits and NOT entitlements.
>>>
>>>Seems to me we are in agreement. I think the word "entitlements" is a loaded one. I'd bet that none of the legislations creating any of the programs now called entitlements actually use the word "entitlement". In fact it is far more likely that the word "benefits" is used in their connection.
>>>We (Canada) and you (the U.S.) have several programs that are now called "entitlements", but you can bet your bottom dollar that none of them include the corporate handouts that cost us billions of $$$ each year. Handouts that rarely, NOW, involve job creation AT HOME. Handouts that now basically increase corporate profits while doing little or nothing for the average Joe.
>>>Let's see the corporate handouts enumerated and ended before "entitlements" are put under the microscope.
>>>There have always been problems with freeloaders taking advantage of the system, and we do need ways to ferret them out. But again the biggest freeloaders are the corporations who spend lavishly on officials and get all kinds of perks as a result. End that stuff before attacking (personal) entitlements.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The problem becomes one of serious debate when children are involved. Each child deserves the basic necessities of life because they are not legally responsible nor normally capable of providing it themselves. It is up to their parents to provide for them, to make good decisions, and to train them to provide for themselves in the future and be a good citizen. When parents fail to take care of their children, then what? Do you support the parent in order to take care of the child? Do you remove the children from the household? Do you support the child while teaching the parent? It is a serious issue that has not been resolved well in any of our states. We train for free those who have committed crimes and reside in our prison system but we invest so much less in our free citizens who make poor (but not illegal) choices. It is a conundrum.