Financial News

[StrangeSox]

big government is good, then?

[Jenksismyhero]

big government is good, then?

 

What does one have to do with the other?

[StrangeSox]

Corporate entities are a legal fiction that cannot exist without a government. Giving these fictional, government-created entities limited-liability protection is using the power of government to shield liability. Modern corporations are masters of this, as evidenced by Apple, and create shells and subsidiaries and firewalls all the time to get around actually being held accountable and responsible.

[Jenksismyhero]

Corporate entities are a legal fiction that cannot exist without a government. Giving these fictional, government-created entities limited-liability protection is using the power of government to shield liability. Modern corporations are masters of this, as evidenced by Apple, and create shells and subsidiaries and firewalls all the time to get around actually being held accountable and responsible.

 

I've never said government is bad. I just said I prefer the perspective to be that government intervention is a last resort.

 

And LLC's have nothing to do with tax "accountability/responsibility." It's a vehicle to shield owners/managers from liability from their businesses. You can set up the same shells via partnerships and corporations.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Because I can choose to be involved with those corporations? Obviously i'm not talking about getting rid of regulations or oversight or things like that totally, but as a general rule, i'd rather be able to pick and choose the private entities I do business with, even if they are corrupt, instead of being FORCED to deal with corrupt governments (hello Illinois citizens and Chicago residents!)

But they're not actually democratically accountable to anyone, and if they're big enough, you're pretty much forced to do business with one of a handful if you want to live in the modern world.

 

Why are governments corrupt? Do corporations and the wealthy people that own and run them intentionally try to corrupt them in their favor as much as possible? How can we push back against this?

[Jenksismyhero]

But they're not actually democratically accountable to anyone, and if they're big enough, you're pretty much forced to do business with one of a handful if you want to live in the modern world.

 

Why are governments corrupt? Do corporations and the wealthy people that own and run them intentionally try to corrupt them in their favor as much as possible? How can we push back against this?

 

As if the current set of politicians is democratically accountable. You have two parties that for all intents and purposes play the game the exact same way. The names in front of the letter might change here and there, but generally the same people stay in elected positions for the long term and the same policies get enacted. It's a completely broken system due in large part to factions and self-interest that some of the founding fathers recognized from day one. You have to sell your soul to become a politician. They're all corrupt, both morally and financially.

 

What company is big enough that you can't choose to do business with it? Energy companies would be about the only one I can think of and yet most of them are heavily regulated but still "private" to some degree.

[StrangeSox]

I've never said government is bad. I just said I prefer the perspective to be that government intervention is a last resort.

 

Well I was originally responding to ss2k5!

 

When it comes to corporations, government intervention is literally the first step. They do not exist without government intervention. That's more or less my broad point here. If we're going to talk about government power and meddling in free markets, why not start with these fictional entities they create that run the world's modern economy?

 

And LLC's have nothing to do with tax "accountability/responsibility." It's a vehicle to shield owners/managers from liability from their businesses. You can set up the same shells via partnerships and corporations.

 

The liability part wasn't necessary, but my post was a response to ss2k5's question about giving government the power to decide things, not specifically about taxes. If we're anti-corruption-of-government-power, we need to ask what the biggest corrupter is: corporate lobbying and campaign bribes. As long as our campaign system is what it is and as long as the wealthiest corporations and individuals can buy the most speech and access, they will work to expand government in their favor and contract it in their favor as necessary.

 

I don't actually believe that we need to or should abolish all corporate entities, but I do see the focus on government power while ignoring private power and the nature of corporations themselves as a contradiction.

[StrangeSox]

As if the current set of politicians is democratically accountable. You have two parties that for all intents and purposes play the game the exact same way. The names in front of the letter might change here and there, but generally the same people stay in elected positions for the long term and the same policies get enacted. It's a completely broken system due in large part to factions and self-interest that some of the founding fathers recognized from day one. You have to sell your soul to become a politician. They're all corrupt, both morally and financially.

 

Pretty much, yeah. I still greatly prefer public regimes of power and accountability over private ones, though.

 

What company is big enough that you can't choose to do business with it? Energy companies would be about the only one I can think of and yet most of them are heavily regulated but still "private" to some degree.

 

How many realistic choices of operating systems are there? Mobile carriers? Food suppliers? Airlines? TV/Internet providers? Media sources and reliable journalism and investigation? Banks? We've got a zillion choices in the toothpaste aisle, but they're all from just a handful of manufacturers.

 

And we're still not really left with any real amount of democratic control over what these companies do and how they do it. This would be analogous to every state having an unelected government but arguing that it's just as good because we can always just move to another state that we like better.

 

e.g. banks:

 

Edited May 22, 2013 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

SS,

Do you think the loopholes Apple is taking advantage of were deliberately left that way because of their lobbying efforts?

[iamshack]

Pretty much, yeah. I still greatly prefer public regimes of power and accountability over private ones, though.

 

 

 

How many realistic choices of operating systems are there? Mobile carriers? Food suppliers? Airlines? TV/Internet providers? Media sources and reliable journalism and investigation? Banks? We've got a zillion choices in the toothpaste aisle, but they're all from just a handful of manufacturers.

 

And we're still not really left with any real amount of democratic control over what these companies do and how they do it. This would be analogous to every state having an unelected government but arguing that it's just as good because we can always just move to another state that we like better.

 

e.g. banks:

 

Right, because the public sector has proven to get things done so much more efficiently than the private sector...

[StrangeSox]

Specifically Apple? No, they and plenty of other corporations enjoy these sort of loopholes. GE's gotten press over the last few years for their similarly low tax rates.

 

But big corporations in general? Yes, for the most part, but absolutely there's unintended consequences and loopholes. But then there's pressure on the legislators not to close those inadvertent loopholes.

[iamshack]

Specifically Apple? No, they and plenty of other corporations enjoy these sort of loopholes. GE's gotten press over the last few years for their similarly low tax rates.

 

But big corporations in general? Yes, for the most part, but absolutely there's unintended consequences and loopholes. But then there's pressure on the legislators not to close those inadvertent loopholes.

Interesting...without being an economist, it's difficult to get much further into the discussion.

[Jenksismyhero]

Pretty much, yeah. I still greatly prefer public regimes of power and accountability over private ones, though.

 

 

 

How many realistic choices of operating systems are there? Mobile carriers? Food suppliers? Airlines? TV/Internet providers? Media sources and reliable journalism and investigation? Banks? We've got a zillion choices in the toothpaste aisle, but they're all from just a handful of manufacturers.

 

And we're still not really left with any real amount of democratic control over what these companies do and how they do it. This would be analogous to every state having an unelected government but arguing that it's just as good because we can always just move to another state that we like better.

 

e.g. banks:

 

 

At the end of the day you still have a choice. And there are still hundreds if not thousands of local banks you can do business with.

[StrangeSox]

Right, because the public sector has proven to get things done so much more efficiently than the private sector...

I'm sort of just thinking out loud in this thread, but I'm not advocating for nationalization of everything here, just for the usefulness and morality of democratic control in general.

 

The public sector gets some things done much better (in that they serve the most number of people with adequate service) due to the nature of those goods. Private entities might do those same things more efficiently, but then some citizens will be cut off because they can't afford them. Private entities can also do things much less efficiently while also cutting off many citizens (health care!)

 

In the Dem thread I posted an article discussing some Republicans' reactions to Obama floating the idea of privatizing TVA. They claim that the fully privatized TVA would be less efficient and not serve the citizens of Tennessee and Alabama (and maybe Georgia?) nearly as well.

[southsider2k5]

Corporate entities are a legal fiction that cannot exist without a government. Giving these fictional, government-created entities limited-liability protection is using the power of government to shield liability. Modern corporations are masters of this, as evidenced by Apple, and create shells and subsidiaries and firewalls all the time to get around actually being held accountable and responsible.

 

By that definition the federal government is a legal fiction.

[Balta1701]

By that definition the federal government is a legal fiction.

You're right. Corporations cannot exist if the Federal Government does not exist, just as a Federal Government cannot exist if the Federal Government does not exist.

[southsider2k5]

You're right. Corporations cannot exist if the Federal Government does not exist, just as a Federal Government cannot exist if the Federal Government does not exist.

 

The general public enables any government to exist.

[StrangeSox]

By that definition the federal government is a legal fiction.

Yeah, more or less. The Constitution of our government creates our government. Social contract etc. etc.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

all aboard the market roller coaster

[iamshack]

Announced today that my company is being acquired by MidAmerican Energy Holdings...oh boy...

[greg775]

I'm thinking this is going to be another trying economic year or two. The government has made massive budget cuts for U of Kansas with 40 faculty to be laid off, etc.

Can't be good news.

[Balta1701]

Apparently there are 3 tiers of importance for the release of the "Consumer confidence" index numbers. Normal proles get the numbers at 10:00 a.m., people who pay enough money to Reuters get the numbers at 9:55, and a select group of those can actually get the numbers even earlier: 9:54:58.

 

Thankfully it's not possible to conduct several thousand trades in those 2 seconds or in those 5 minutes, otherwise this would be legalized insider trading.

[StrangeSox]

several thousand? I think you're off by an order of magnitude there

Edited June 12, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

several thousand? I think you're off by an of magnitude there

Don't worry, it's not possible. Otherwise it's just be another case of the financial system being a form of legalized theft from average investors.

[Cknolls]

Apparently there are 3 tiers of importance for the release of the "Consumer confidence" index numbers. Normal proles get the numbers at 10:00 a.m., people who pay enough money to Reuters get the numbers at 9:55, and a select group of those can actually get the numbers even earlier: 9:54:58.

 

Thankfully it's not possible to conduct several thousand trades in those 2 seconds or in those 5 minutes, otherwise this would be legalized insider trading.

 

What advantage does this give someone? You assume these people will make the right trade with the number. But markets are not rational, especially now with the Fed intervening. There is no guarantee that the market will move one way or the other if the corresponding number is +/-. There is / was nothing illegal here.

 

Oil inventories came out last week and were worse than expected and the market was up. So if you had the number and you put on a bearish position and the number was bearish and the market went against you by going up, having the number did not benefit you.