Corporations are persons? Someone said that you know a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.
How did we get to this situation that corporations have “freedom of speech” and many other freedoms granted to actual living individual persons?
Corporations were originally created to give monarchs and other nobility a piece of the economic action. As the merchant class rose in the cities, the monarch couldn’t tax them because they had no land. By creating a corporation of a given business, the monarch could insist on a few shares of a corporation and rake in more in profits than he would have in taxes. Also, by giving a monopoly to a corporation, he protected it from competition.
These monopolies soon expanded far outside the monarch’s country with colonization of other parts of the world. An example is how British law forbade the American colonies from producing a long list of items or importing goods through any other organization than the British East India Company. Was the British East India Company composed of Adam Smith’s “order of men” who “were not to be trusted” with proposing legislation? The Boston Tea Party was an act of defiance against the corporate monopoly enjoyed by the British East India Company.
Is today’s Tea Party a tool of corporations who want to extract minerals without paying the full cost of such extraction? These corporations are waging legislative, administrative, and public relations campaigns to allow them to operate on corporate terms. Are these corporations composed of Adam Smith’s “order of men” who “were not to be trusted” with proposing legislation? Also as the British East India Company was a “foreign” entity, many of the extractors of today are entities from out of state or even out of the country.
Does “Open for Business” or “Business-friendly” apply to locally-owned companies or to large corporations that will move elsewhere whenever they think an area is not bending to their wishes? Does it mean that large corporations will be given subsidies, including reduced taxes, that aren’t given to locally-owned businesses? If we want truth in government, maybe we should insist that states and localities that claim to be “Business-friendly” should admit being “Corporation-friendly”.
Can you find “corporation” in the U.S. Constitution? That was deliberate. Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention remembered well the dominance of a corporation over Colonial affairs and did not want a repeat of that stranglehold. Many of the national politicians of the time had a vision of craftsman and farmers plying their goods in local markets.
But with advances in transportation, the economic situation changed drastically. To build canals required capital. To gather capital, groups of people had to organize to buy shares and/or borrow money. If the enterprise failed, the shareholders didn’t want to be held individually responsible for the losses of the company beyond their own financial contribution. Wouldn’t you? Thus, the limited liability corporation came to the United States.
With the coming of the railroads came ever larger corporations. The Illinois Central Railroad hired a lawyer to get special privileges for it like breaking unions, hiring foreign workers, and gaining privileges not held by people. Yep, that lawyer was the “of the people, by the people, and for the people” guy. Apparently, the Civil War opened his eyes to many things. This excerpt from one of his letters shows this rather strongly:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
My, how political parties morph over the generations! I think only two Republican Presidents have had similar misgivings.
Many decades later another war-time leader worried about the “military-industrial” complex. But one of his predecessors pulled a corporate branding trick on the American people. The Department of War was now to be called the Department of Defense. Now corporations weren’t in the business of selling war machines but were fulfilling “defense contracts”.
One of the political ironies is the political party the claims the federal government can’t do anything right bends over backward to lavish more money on the military-industrial complex. Do they not know that snafu and fubar are terms coined by the guys in the foxholes?
So, are corporations the tools of the people or are the people the tools of corporations? If we let the latter happen then we are the fools.
For a lot more about the abuse of and by corporations, see “Life, Inc., How the World Became a Corporation and How to Take It Back” by Douglas Rushkoff.
Mel owns shares in a few corporations and almost always votes against their overpaid executives and boards.
Showing posts with label railroads. Show all posts
Showing posts with label railroads. Show all posts
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Thursday, August 25, 2011
"The people" want town meetings?
"Duluth gets its wish…a meeting with [Rep.] Cravaack" - headline in today's Duluth News Tribune
Wait a minute! I'm in Duluth and I didn't really want a meeting with Rep. Chip Cravaack. OK! OK! I might have gone to yesterday's "Town Meeting" at the Duluth Airport if I hadn't had other things I wanted to do and other places I wanted to be. But even then, would I have gotten one of the 200 seats or would I have been one of the 12 speakers selected? In retrospect, why bother?
I don't understand this mania for having "Town Meetings" with constituents when such a small minority would be interested and be able to attend. Duluth has over 80,000 residents and only 200 attended the meeting yesterday. Granted, it was arranged on short notice after many complaints of Cravaack meeting with business groups but not the general citizenry. See Rep. Cravaack is in touch with his constituents?
http://magree.blogspot.com/2011/08/rep-cravaack-is-in-touch-with-his.html Even then, what would it been like if over 1,000 had showed up? How much true conversation will be going on between each attendee and the Representative.
Given all the communication means available to reach a politician, many better ways exist to express a view. The postal service is still working for those who want to write letters. Phone calls are cheap for those who want to leave a message or speak to a staffer. And every politician can be reached on the internet, either by email or by a web form.
What is missing? In a town meeting, those who do get to speak get an instant audience and may even get their question printed in the newspaper. They also get the politician to address their question in front of many other people.
I think the best way for a politician to communicate is through a newsletter to every household. The best of these I've seen is from Bill Frenzel, R., 3rd District, Minnesota in the 70s and 80s. He didn't tout what he voted for or what groups he had appeared before; he told what Congress was doing, sometimes in a straight-forward manner, sometimes in a bit of befuddlement as in "What were they thinking?" Bill Frenzel is one of a kind threatened with extinction, an independently-minded Republican.
OK, Mel, you really wanted to be one of the speakers, right? What would you have said that was so important?
Did Abraham Lincoln tax and spend to build the transcontinental railroad? Or did he tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? Good paying jobs were created and fortunes were made in the new economic environment.
Did Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman tax and spend for the G.I Bill of Rights? Or did they tax and borrow to invest in increasing opportunities for veterans who got higher paying jobs and paid more taxes.
Did Dwight Eisenhower tax and spend for the interstate highway system? Or did he tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? Good paying jobs were created and fortunes were made in the new economic environment.
Did John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon tax and spend to put man on the moon? Or did they tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? New technologies were created, good paying jobs were created, and fortunes were made.
Now it seems we have a hard-nosed political culture that wants to cut taxes, eliminate regulations, and let Ponzi schemes destroy the investments of President Lincoln, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, President Eisenhower, and Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.
Wait a minute! I'm in Duluth and I didn't really want a meeting with Rep. Chip Cravaack. OK! OK! I might have gone to yesterday's "Town Meeting" at the Duluth Airport if I hadn't had other things I wanted to do and other places I wanted to be. But even then, would I have gotten one of the 200 seats or would I have been one of the 12 speakers selected? In retrospect, why bother?
I don't understand this mania for having "Town Meetings" with constituents when such a small minority would be interested and be able to attend. Duluth has over 80,000 residents and only 200 attended the meeting yesterday. Granted, it was arranged on short notice after many complaints of Cravaack meeting with business groups but not the general citizenry. See Rep. Cravaack is in touch with his constituents?
http://magree.blogspot.com/2011/08/rep-cravaack-is-in-touch-with-his.html Even then, what would it been like if over 1,000 had showed up? How much true conversation will be going on between each attendee and the Representative.
Given all the communication means available to reach a politician, many better ways exist to express a view. The postal service is still working for those who want to write letters. Phone calls are cheap for those who want to leave a message or speak to a staffer. And every politician can be reached on the internet, either by email or by a web form.
What is missing? In a town meeting, those who do get to speak get an instant audience and may even get their question printed in the newspaper. They also get the politician to address their question in front of many other people.
I think the best way for a politician to communicate is through a newsletter to every household. The best of these I've seen is from Bill Frenzel, R., 3rd District, Minnesota in the 70s and 80s. He didn't tout what he voted for or what groups he had appeared before; he told what Congress was doing, sometimes in a straight-forward manner, sometimes in a bit of befuddlement as in "What were they thinking?" Bill Frenzel is one of a kind threatened with extinction, an independently-minded Republican.
OK, Mel, you really wanted to be one of the speakers, right? What would you have said that was so important?
Did Abraham Lincoln tax and spend to build the transcontinental railroad? Or did he tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? Good paying jobs were created and fortunes were made in the new economic environment.
Did Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman tax and spend for the G.I Bill of Rights? Or did they tax and borrow to invest in increasing opportunities for veterans who got higher paying jobs and paid more taxes.
Did Dwight Eisenhower tax and spend for the interstate highway system? Or did he tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? Good paying jobs were created and fortunes were made in the new economic environment.
Did John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon tax and spend to put man on the moon? Or did they tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? New technologies were created, good paying jobs were created, and fortunes were made.
Now it seems we have a hard-nosed political culture that wants to cut taxes, eliminate regulations, and let Ponzi schemes destroy the investments of President Lincoln, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, President Eisenhower, and Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Are there any monopolies left?
I've been thinking about writing this blog for some time because I think most monopolies have met competition. I was spurred to write such a blog on seeing an appeals court action in favor of Comcast over an FCC rule -- "Court rejects cap on cable market share – again".
Oops, I can't give you the URL because Yahoo Finance has some block from using it other than a Yahoo Finance page. So to read rejection article, first go to http://finance.yahoo.com and then copy and paste all of
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Court-rejects-cap-on-cable-apf-4283410271.html;_ylt=ApfFZ31U4vvHDv99Cs8DBwC7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1M2NpMDZkBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNjb3VydHJlamVjdHM-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=
into the URL box of your browser.
I'm sorry about past Yahoo Finance references I've given you that may not have worked. Nobody I know complained.
Back to what I wanted to write.
Essentially the FCC had been directed by Congress to set a limit on how much national coverage any cable company can have. The appeals court ruled that the FCC did not consider all possible issues in determining what would compose a monopoly.
These include the competition for TV subscription service from satellite companies and telephone companies.
This same but not exactly the same competition exists in other fields.
An airline might have a monopoly on an air route between two cities, but flying is not the only way to get there. Many people can drive or take a bus, especially when the cities are close. Given the hassle of airport security, they may even arrive more quickly than flying. For some routes, like the Boston-Washington corridor, rail travel may be preferable, if for nothing more than being able to walk around frequently.
About the only routes that air travel has no meaningful competitors is across oceans. Few want to take the many, many days that a ship would take. Even then, most major routes have multiple airlines serving them.
All transportation modes have another major competitor – telecommunications. Why make an expensive, time-consuming trip when you can just make a cheap phone call or send email.
The Bell companies once had a monopoly on telephone service in most parts of the company. A court broke them up to give other telephone companies a better chance. The decision had its up sides and its down sides. But I bet the judge did not forsee the free-for-all in telephony competition that exists now.
You can have a cell phone from several carriers, or you can use your computer and Skype. For the latter, you don't have to use a telephone; see above about cable companies.
Electricity is still mostly a monopoly, but you can take many steps to reduce your reliance on the power company, other than conservation. You can install solar panels or wind turbines to augment or replace grid electricity; the extent you can do so depends on your location and your wallet.
Natural gas has not been a monopoly for a long time. Propane and electricity have been alternative cooking fuels. These plus oil and wood are alternative heating fuels.
Railroads were once monopolies. If you wanted to ship something to another city, you generally had once choice of railroad. Then highways got better and small loads could be shipped anywhere in the nation by truck. And a shipper didn't need access to a rail spur.
As time goes on, we will see more and more alternatives to monopolistic services. TV replaced newspapers for many people, the internet is replacing both newspapers and TV for more and more. What's next to fall?
Oops, I can't give you the URL because Yahoo Finance has some block from using it other than a Yahoo Finance page. So to read rejection article, first go to http://finance.yahoo.com and then copy and paste all of
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Court-rejects-cap-on-cable-apf-4283410271.html;_ylt=ApfFZ31U4vvHDv99Cs8DBwC7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1M2NpMDZkBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNjb3VydHJlamVjdHM-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=
into the URL box of your browser.
I'm sorry about past Yahoo Finance references I've given you that may not have worked. Nobody I know complained.
Back to what I wanted to write.
Essentially the FCC had been directed by Congress to set a limit on how much national coverage any cable company can have. The appeals court ruled that the FCC did not consider all possible issues in determining what would compose a monopoly.
These include the competition for TV subscription service from satellite companies and telephone companies.
This same but not exactly the same competition exists in other fields.
An airline might have a monopoly on an air route between two cities, but flying is not the only way to get there. Many people can drive or take a bus, especially when the cities are close. Given the hassle of airport security, they may even arrive more quickly than flying. For some routes, like the Boston-Washington corridor, rail travel may be preferable, if for nothing more than being able to walk around frequently.
About the only routes that air travel has no meaningful competitors is across oceans. Few want to take the many, many days that a ship would take. Even then, most major routes have multiple airlines serving them.
All transportation modes have another major competitor – telecommunications. Why make an expensive, time-consuming trip when you can just make a cheap phone call or send email.
The Bell companies once had a monopoly on telephone service in most parts of the company. A court broke them up to give other telephone companies a better chance. The decision had its up sides and its down sides. But I bet the judge did not forsee the free-for-all in telephony competition that exists now.
You can have a cell phone from several carriers, or you can use your computer and Skype. For the latter, you don't have to use a telephone; see above about cable companies.
Electricity is still mostly a monopoly, but you can take many steps to reduce your reliance on the power company, other than conservation. You can install solar panels or wind turbines to augment or replace grid electricity; the extent you can do so depends on your location and your wallet.
Natural gas has not been a monopoly for a long time. Propane and electricity have been alternative cooking fuels. These plus oil and wood are alternative heating fuels.
Railroads were once monopolies. If you wanted to ship something to another city, you generally had once choice of railroad. Then highways got better and small loads could be shipped anywhere in the nation by truck. And a shipper didn't need access to a rail spur.
As time goes on, we will see more and more alternatives to monopolistic services. TV replaced newspapers for many people, the internet is replacing both newspapers and TV for more and more. What's next to fall?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)