"evil corporations"??????

[northfarmer]

that corporate enterprises are the closest thing we have to centrally planned economic activity?

based on these statements you should keep your ideas to yourself when it comes to commenting on economics

do not know frisco, but have read enough from him to know his context if he used the term was far different from yours....

as for Ritz circumventing democarcy, I do think he is the Federal Minister in charge oif the CWB, his party leader is the Prime Minister of Canada, and he is acting on the platform of which his party was elected, the plebicite results of last year also support his moves.....

[Jay-mo]

Evil corporations don't know economics and are greedy???
The reason alot of people talk smack about big businesses using names like "evil corporation", "big money" or "big oil" is this. They are envious, the jealousy of others enjoying success and money drives them to hatred and the rationalization that they are all evil and breaking the law.
I hear it even between farmers, where a fella I know with a fairly unsuccessful farming operation talks to me about how the successful neighbor across the road must be "farming the government" and cheating on his taxes.
Most of those "evil corporations" started with one or two people, some business smarts and alot of hard work, made money, expanded and created a pile of jobs.

[TOM4CWB]

Tower,


What is this?

"...my monologue about Ritz and his use of backstabbing tactics to circumvent the law and democratic rule."

Please explain how Minister Ritz broke the law, and circumvented democratic rule.

Exactly what kind of 'Democracy' do you advocate?

[tower]

Northfarmer I said the closest thing to central planning we have in our economy. There is a difference. I wouldn't call what a lot of those corporations do economic activity. I believe it is very un-economic activity, and until there is recognition in the way they behave towards environmental, social, and economic sustainability I think we should stay as far out of their clutches as we can.

Jay-mo I hope that answers a few of your concerns as well. You are quite right, all of them did start out small, and have through hard work, and over time, research and development, consumer studies, service, lobbying, and eventually social irresponsibility towards the environment, labour, democracy, the law, and economic development they have achieved their present status. Am I envious? no. Perhaps I feel a small amount of pity for the people involved in them now.

Tom, this is the thread that I was commenting on. Perhaps if you go back and try reading it this time you will understand the comments I made.

As to the kind of democracy I support I guess it would have to be one where the majority has the rule, kind of like the one we live in now. I understand that it is really tough to bear when the majority rule is against your specific interest. I do. However the alternative is going to be worse.

My marketing philosophy could best be summed up as the Gordon Lightfoot school of keeping your eyes open.

Never hit seventeen when you're playin against the dealer for you know the odds won't ride with you. Never leave your woman alone when your friends are out to steal her. Years are gambled and lost like summer wages.

https://www.agriville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1202419038

[parsley]

tower,

The people/corporations/companies/partnerships are supposed to hopefullt create wealth. Farmers sure do.

The Government job is supposedly to regulate that wealth.

In the case of the CWB, THEY want to ALSO be the player/the kingmaker.

They want to have all the wheat and barley wealth at their disposal, to toy with as they see fit.

The CWB does not want to be just a regulator. The CWB ALSO wants to be the SOLE PLAYER.

That is not democracy.

Democracy? You wouldn,t recognize it if you fell over it.

Parsley

[northfarmer]

Tower, I give up, it is sad to think you cancel out my vote in the democratic process...good thing I keep voting

[FarmRanger]

Tower on corporations:
“I think that they and their shareholders are misinformed about the nature of economics, and greedy, and the closest thing we have to central planning in our economy.”

Definition of a corporation: The most common form of business organization, and one which is chartered by a state and given many legal rights as an entity separate from its owners. This form of business is characterized by the limited liability of its owners, the issuance of shares of easily transferable stock, and existence as a going concern.

In other words, a group of individuals can get together and accomplish something together (and usually with economies of scale) that they couldn’t easily do individually. Shares are transferable, and any monies taken out of a corporation are fully taxable by those individuals who own the shares. We have a plethora of goods available and much larger economies here in the western world because of what the corporate structure has made possible.
In no way shape or form does this even remotely resemble central planning.

[parsley]

"the way they behave towards environmental, social, and economic sustainability"


If they are environmentally irresponsible, for instance, isn't regulation the job of Government?

Do you want the Corps to regulate themselves? Is that your notion?

Parsley

[tower]

farmranger, I read your definition of corporation, and I read your last line about in no way is a corporation a centrally planned enterprise. perhaps I missed it but what was the corelation between the definition and the final phrase?

[FarmRanger]

Hi Tower,
I just provided a definition of a corporation because a lot of people just don’t realize that corporations are not individuals themselves, but owned and ultimately run by shareholders who are individuals. Individuals make better decisions if they have a vested interest in the outcome of those decisions. This is the main reason why western economies with corporate structures have a huge edge over any centrally planned economy.

Corporations will try to fill existing consumer demand and anticipate demand for the least cost in order to compete successfully with others who provide similar goods and services. If they are successful, consumers get cheaper goods and services. If not, they will change, or perish. There is a very real financial risk to not providing value to consumers. Improvements and efficiencies are rewarded. Poor decisions are also borne by the shareholders.

Central planners will supply what they deem your needs to be and don’t have to worry about a competitor providing something better and/or at a lower cost. What financial risk is there, and where will the consumer go if the central planner doesn’t provide good value?
Do a bad job as a central planner and what are the repercussions? Consumers can’t simply buy from the competition. What about civil unrest? Why do you think that central planned economies are usually in countries that have repressive governments? Higher cost goods and/or lower wages and/or suppression of access to information are inevitably the result.

That’s why economies with free market corporate structures are vastly different (and superior IMHO) from central planned economies.