I so badly want a someone – preferably a Republican member of congress – to tell millionaire former reality tv star Donald Trump (using their own words) to blow it out his ass. Go fuck yourself will also suffice. Also blow me. Or cram it with walnuts.
4 Likes
I would very much like to see 45 sit down with Ryan or anyone really, start to say something only to be shouted down with…
SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!
7 Likes
There’s an economic analysis which treats charitable foundations, governments, and non-profit organizations as producers of public goods.
Though, the “logic” of capitalism often militates against such distinctions.
The whole argument that
Trump representatives could not be reach for comment. But in a statement responding to Tuesday’s release of Trump’s 2005 tax documents, a White House official said that Trump had a responsibility to “his company, his family and his employees” to pay no more tax than he was legally obligated."
comes from a argument that businesses, particularly shareholder owned businesses lack social responsibilities– which is only meaningful in the context of publicly traded organizations. I.e people buy into the stock for a financial return; they don’t buy for reasons of social welfare. If you treat corporations as a soulless machine for making profits, this makes sense. If a profit making scheme works, and it’s not against the law, and it doesn’t divert resources from the rest of the company, the corporation is, at least in some small way obligated to take advantage of the opportunity
But, people have souls. They have morals. They have ethics. They feel emotions. They aren’t obligated to live their lives for the purposes of reducing their tax burden.
The idea of reducing an individual to a economic imperative bothers me.The idea of reducing government to an economic imperative bothers me.
1 Like
Yeah, that statement that Trump was obligated to reduce his tax burden is 100% bullshit. People who run corporations could argue they have an imperative to reduce the corporate tax burden, it makes no sense for individuals.
But even the corporate argument is perverse. Corporations are formed for the public good. That’s why corporations are allowed to exist by a democratic society. At some point, people agreed that private profit served the public good, and so a corporation could incorporate for no reason other than to make profit. Then that was taken a step further to the idea that the only proper purpose for a corporation was to make profit, and the notion that they should serve the public good at all was forgotten.
But in a democracy, if corporations don’t serve the public, we should vote in representatives who will revoke whatever legislation allows incorporation.
9 Likes
Perhaps this tension could be resolved by making shareholders liable for anti-social corporate behavior and corporate debts. One could even go further and prohibit public bailouts of private coroporations with failed private companies being nationalised and the existing shareholders wiped.
Too radical? Interestingly the power of these “corporate citizens” over ordinary people used to be minimised in the U.S. by laws:
- prohibiting corporations owning stock in other corporations.
- prohibiting corporations from being able to choose when they dissolve.
- prohibiting corporations from any participation in any democratic process.
- prohibiting corporations from any civic, charitable or educational donations.
Anyway, the lumping of what is essentially an imaginary construct around a piece of paper in a lawyers office into the same category as a human being is kind of perverse. It seems like a rort to diffuse people’s unlimited liability for their actions into limited liability and unaccountability.
Of course there maybe some institutions using corporate personhood that might be interpreted by some to have some social responsibilities; universities, churches, nonprofits, political parties etc. But if the general idea of corporate personhood is for such institutions to be able be recognised by courts, to have a bank account, buy land, pay salaries etc then they need separate courts and a separate status IMO.
Me too. All moral and ethical considerations aside, we know that formula and modelling are only as good as their data. Unfortunately the current economic model assumes that:
- people are completely informed of all products and prices.
- people always to act with impartial rationale.
- people are lazy and only work for money.
- people are selfish and don’t value others welfare.
- people are amoral and have no other values or motivations.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
