Larry Dighera wrote:
pported by my statements.

I believe that _large_, soulless corporations, for which profit is the
_sole_ criterion for decision making, are using their wealth to wrest
power from our government (which was created for and by the _people_,
not corporations), and bend it into benefiting them at the expense of
our nation's people. There are at least two reasons for that
behavior.


And I believe that _large_ soulless governments, for which power and
priveledge is the _sole_ criterion for decision making, are using
their legislative and political muscle to wrest power from individuals
and businesses (which were created for and _by_ the _people_, not
GOVERNMENT), and bend it into benefiting THEM and their re-election
campaigns at the expense of the people that actually work and pay
the bills. There are two reasons for this type of behavior :
Arrogance and greed for ever more Power.

The obvious one is greed, but it's not quite that simple.

Politicians are as greedy as they come. I long list of
people found with their hands in cookie jar come to mind...
an obvious and blatant breach of their oaths of office.

The other reason for basing all corporate decisions on profit, is
competition in the marketplace. If a corporation is able to produce
its product at a reduced cost, it may be able to drive its competitors
out of the marketplace by pricing its products below that of the
competition while continuing to make a profit on them, and ultimately
enjoy the goal of all _large_ corporations: a market monopoly. Then
that corporation is free to charge any price it likes that the public
will bear. If the corporation's method of reducing the cost of
producing its product or service involves exploitation of workers
and/or the environment, all the competing companies in that market
segment will be forced to do the same sort of reprehensible
exploiting, or face bankruptcy due to their becoming uncompetitive.

To you Larry, profit is bad. That is because you are an irrational
socialist. On the other hand Government is good and can do no wrong
and is comprised of hard working servants full of honesty and integrity.

... right.

So the much ballyhooed laissez-faire capitalism of the US is
double-edged sward, that is fundamentally flawed.

All socialists feel that way, and you Larry, are a socialist,
you just won't admit it. I ADMIT to being a capitialist...
at least I am honest about my passion.

By its vary nature,
corporate competition fosters ever lower prices, perceived as a
good-thing by the buying public, until it drives its competition out
of the marketplace, and the survivor starts gouging. The other edge
is the implicit mandate to engage in unscrupulous exploitation and
fraud in order to dominate, or indeed survive, in the marketplace.
That needs to change.

It may need to change... but I submit that there is no such mandate
in the Constitution or otherwise for Government to get involved in
these changes. Who in government has the experience and integrity
anyway? Most are in fact LIFELONG politicians with preciousl little
real business experience. They are also horribly beholden to the
many speacial interest groups that paid big money to get them
elected... you then they are going to render a fair shack to joe
sixpack???

In fact, if you had a bit more intellectual honesty
you would agree (and even willingly identify) quite a number of
areas where government intervention has caused inequities, high
prices, shortages, business slowdowns due to ignorant and
worthless legislation. Since they always pander to and show
preference to layers and their lawsuits they make out like
bandits (and they are) while joe six-pack pays the bill.
So much for Government "fairness".


I see at least two methods of accomplishing corporate responsibility
under a capitalistic system:

1. The buying public can refuse to purchase from those firms who
are less than responsible in the production of their products.
This is beginning to take hold today. You can choose to
purchase your electrical power from "green" generating utility
companies, for example. The trend toward organically produced
food is another example, in which consumers are willing to pay
a premium for a superior product. And you used to be able to
choose to shun foreign goods produced by coolie labor in
unhealthy sweatshops devoid of environmental concerns in favor
of domestically produced products produced in compliance with
US labor, quality, and environmental law. But that options
has become clouded over the last few decades as domestic
corporations have increasingly pursued outsourcing to remain
competitive.

2. The government can reward those companies who voluntarily
choose not to exploit their workers and the environment, to
help them meet their competitions' prices and remain in
business. And those corporations that voluntarily develop
innovative means of responsibly reducing costs should also
receive a government incentive.

I'm still deliberating on how this might be effected.

So while it is obvious that large corporations are fraught with
supporting unscrupulous political influence paddling, exploiting
workers, and defiling the environment, such reprehensible conduct is
not wholly their fault; it is the capitalistic market system that
virtually demands it.


I see ONE method of Government responsibility and accountability:

T E R M L I M I T S

..