11-26-2011, 09:53 AM
|
#22
|
|
All Pro Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,061
|
Re: Liberal idiots urge you to boycott corporations
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotsReign
Because at some point, competitors will no longer exist.
Look at what happened to the Mass Merch channel of trade. 30 years ago, we had dozens of Mass retailers.
Mammouth Mart
Zayres
Sears
Woolworths
Caldor's
kresces
And many, many more
Today, we have WalMart, Target and KMart(kinda). WalMart has about 75% of all Mass Merch business and KMart will probably go out of business soon. So the long-term effects have been fewer and fewer jobs for society.
Any business that continues to consolidate will have fewer and fewer jobs available. That is the corporate influence in a nutshell. Keeping in mind that corporations are only allowed to exist for their benefit to society, we have to ask ourselves, "how do we benefit from this process?"
The only benefit I can think of is "lower prices". But that only lasts while there is suffucient competition.....
|
That's what anti-trust regulations are for, rather than outright banning of public ownership.
You've also selected a channel that is focused almost entirely on price. So is the problem public ownership or the consumer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotsReign
....Yes, I believe not having to please Wall Street and share holders would be a vast improvement and more benefit to society. For one, private corp's never lay workers off on a quarterly basis to placate Wall Street.
Private companies are historically the best places to work from an employee perspective. I'll use Wegmans as a prime example. Wegmans is perhaps the single best grocery retailer in the US and people love working for them. Wegmans consistently ranks among the top places to work in America every year.
And our society is all about the employee, not the employer. Why? Because our society is all about maximizing the number of people working.
|
I don't think our society is all about the employee or the employer. When you talk about private corporations, for example, you also refer to the little guy -- the company that is about providing a living for the owner.
But look at the criticism of private equity firms and buyouts, for taking on debt and laying off employees. They're not laying employees off because they don't like the people, it's because they see it as a way of improving profitability. Private owners want to make $, too.
Now, I'll agree with you that many management teams act short-sightedly due to "wall street" pressures. But those management teams likely would act short-sightedly in response to any pressures.
And since you may want to ban public ownership, why do you think those pressures wouldn't exist from whatever funding sources take the place of the public markets? If no such sources take their place, you're going to see a new drag on the economy because companies have less access to capital.
Last edited by chicowalker; 11-26-2011 at 09:55 AM..
|
|
|
1Likes
Linear Mode
