<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Scorpion and The Frog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nonpersons.com/2009/10/18/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nonpersons.com/2009/10/18/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:35:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. Repose</title>
		<link>http://www.nonpersons.com/2009/10/18/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/comment-page-1/#comment-207</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. Repose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:28:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nonpersons.com/?p=1028#comment-207</guid>
		<description>Forgive the lengthiness again, but you&#039;re right I didn&#039;t really say what I feel would &#039;fix&#039; the problem, so I&#039;ll go into that a little.

Well there&#039;s a few major problems when you look at a corporation, one is the legal protections they have which is generally stemmed from the fact that they are considered for all intents and purposes as a legal &#039;person.&#039;  That, I feel needs to go, because it&#039;s absolutely ridiculous and gives them too much room to maneuver out of being held accountable when they do damage to society.  Another is the fact that they used to have a limit for how long they would operate, a corporation would exist for only a set duration and only be around to preform a specific goal and was given this power by the citizens of the town, city, state, whatever, that that corporation started in.  Therefore, a business of that size that impacts society that greatly should probably be given those mandates again, and be subject to public review.  If a corporation is viewed as dangerous by the public or does major harm to them, they can vote to have it disbanded.

The other problem is the legal mandate to consider only the shareholder&#039;s interests above anything else.  Which, I think, was put in law in order to give them an excuse to totally disregard the general well-being of the communities they impact and the workers that, as I see it, are being increasingly exploited.  I&#039;m a big proponent of socialism, because it&#039;s more fair for everyone involved.  Of course, I don&#039;t expect it to ever happen because It&#039;s been turned into a demon word in this country by people who are ignorant and confuse it for communism.   Rather than a company taking the bulk of it&#039;s profits and giving it to the executives, I think that the workers deserve a much bigger cut.   No one can live on 7 to 12 bucks an hour and have much savings let alone own a home or raise a family on those wages, and without the rank and file workers, the company couldn&#039;t operate.  There, however, seems to be this strange contempt held by many for anyone who thinks that workers deserve more, so that remains a pipe dream.

An overhaul of the lobbying system is a good start, the marriage between power and money is very dangerous, and the erosion of federal regulations for big business seems to go hand-in-hand with the amount of money spent on lobbying efforts, and the amount of money that is needed to win an election.   Politicians who need money to run for office have to get corporate sponsorship to get into office.  The result is that no politician, or very few, are not pro-business.  Even if they say they aren&#039;t the things they do in office don&#039;t do all that much to fix anything because they are so beholden to the very thing they try to convince the public they are against.   A good example of this is the democrats, who voted down the bailouts and after some back room deals with the very people who screwed up the economy in the first place, turn around and vote to give them total access to the federal reserve with no oversight and no way of asking them where the money is going.   Or again, with healthcare, they talk about how bad the insurance companies are, then when they go to have a public option that the majority of the public supports, then they gut it, make it insignificant, and even give states a choice to opt out of it.   Which is great if you&#039;re stuck in a red state like me because you know we&#039;ll opt-out.

Also, they need to start taxing these people more.  The taxes were lifted based on trickle down economics, which obviously hasn&#039;t worked.  The more money they let these people keep, the more they seem to horde it.   It&#039;s almost like an addiction, a whole class of people obsessed with having gobs of money.  

Those things I feel would significantly reduce the power of businesses and restore a balance.   If things keep going the way they are, which I feel they will continue to do so, then I&#039;m fairly sure the other 99% of the country is going to become increasingly more miserable.  I&#039;m also fairly realistic in the knowledge that a lot of these things are becoming increasingly unlikely to occur.  Still, that doesn&#039;t mean we should all just bend over and take it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Forgive the lengthiness again, but you&#8217;re right I didn&#8217;t really say what I feel would &#8216;fix&#8217; the problem, so I&#8217;ll go into that a little.</p>
<p>Well there&#8217;s a few major problems when you look at a corporation, one is the legal protections they have which is generally stemmed from the fact that they are considered for all intents and purposes as a legal &#8216;person.&#8217;  That, I feel needs to go, because it&#8217;s absolutely ridiculous and gives them too much room to maneuver out of being held accountable when they do damage to society.  Another is the fact that they used to have a limit for how long they would operate, a corporation would exist for only a set duration and only be around to preform a specific goal and was given this power by the citizens of the town, city, state, whatever, that that corporation started in.  Therefore, a business of that size that impacts society that greatly should probably be given those mandates again, and be subject to public review.  If a corporation is viewed as dangerous by the public or does major harm to them, they can vote to have it disbanded.</p>
<p>The other problem is the legal mandate to consider only the shareholder&#8217;s interests above anything else.  Which, I think, was put in law in order to give them an excuse to totally disregard the general well-being of the communities they impact and the workers that, as I see it, are being increasingly exploited.  I&#8217;m a big proponent of socialism, because it&#8217;s more fair for everyone involved.  Of course, I don&#8217;t expect it to ever happen because It&#8217;s been turned into a demon word in this country by people who are ignorant and confuse it for communism.   Rather than a company taking the bulk of it&#8217;s profits and giving it to the executives, I think that the workers deserve a much bigger cut.   No one can live on 7 to 12 bucks an hour and have much savings let alone own a home or raise a family on those wages, and without the rank and file workers, the company couldn&#8217;t operate.  There, however, seems to be this strange contempt held by many for anyone who thinks that workers deserve more, so that remains a pipe dream.</p>
<p>An overhaul of the lobbying system is a good start, the marriage between power and money is very dangerous, and the erosion of federal regulations for big business seems to go hand-in-hand with the amount of money spent on lobbying efforts, and the amount of money that is needed to win an election.   Politicians who need money to run for office have to get corporate sponsorship to get into office.  The result is that no politician, or very few, are not pro-business.  Even if they say they aren&#8217;t the things they do in office don&#8217;t do all that much to fix anything because they are so beholden to the very thing they try to convince the public they are against.   A good example of this is the democrats, who voted down the bailouts and after some back room deals with the very people who screwed up the economy in the first place, turn around and vote to give them total access to the federal reserve with no oversight and no way of asking them where the money is going.   Or again, with healthcare, they talk about how bad the insurance companies are, then when they go to have a public option that the majority of the public supports, then they gut it, make it insignificant, and even give states a choice to opt out of it.   Which is great if you&#8217;re stuck in a red state like me because you know we&#8217;ll opt-out.</p>
<p>Also, they need to start taxing these people more.  The taxes were lifted based on trickle down economics, which obviously hasn&#8217;t worked.  The more money they let these people keep, the more they seem to horde it.   It&#8217;s almost like an addiction, a whole class of people obsessed with having gobs of money.  </p>
<p>Those things I feel would significantly reduce the power of businesses and restore a balance.   If things keep going the way they are, which I feel they will continue to do so, then I&#8217;m fairly sure the other 99% of the country is going to become increasingly more miserable.  I&#8217;m also fairly realistic in the knowledge that a lot of these things are becoming increasingly unlikely to occur.  Still, that doesn&#8217;t mean we should all just bend over and take it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tyger</title>
		<link>http://www.nonpersons.com/2009/10/18/the-scorpion-and-the-frog/comment-page-1/#comment-206</link>
		<dc:creator>Tyger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:38:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nonpersons.com/?p=1028#comment-206</guid>
		<description>Very thorough article and well written, even if a bit lengthy. I don&#039;t agree with your views on Michael Moore, but you have a good grip on corporate reality.
You do not offer any concrete solutions, but I think you want to encourage more oversight and better laws to protect consumers and workers and to force corporations to be more responsible. Perhaps an overhaul of the lobbying system?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very thorough article and well written, even if a bit lengthy. I don&#8217;t agree with your views on Michael Moore, but you have a good grip on corporate reality.<br />
You do not offer any concrete solutions, but I think you want to encourage more oversight and better laws to protect consumers and workers and to force corporations to be more responsible. Perhaps an overhaul of the lobbying system?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
