Showing posts with label corporations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporations. Show all posts

7.09.2011

Government vs Private Sector

This [Why is reducing government jobs considered a free lunch?] at [Richard's Real Estate and Urban Economics Blog] touches one of my gripes about the current crop of big government haters, they hate things the government does but accept those same things when the private sector does them. a cut..

Is there waste in the public sector? Sure. But for those working in the private sector, particularly large institutions, ask yourself whether everyone you work with is productive. I have no idea what the "correct" level of public sector employment is. I also have no idea how much public sector employment crowds out the private sector, but if the crowding out effect is less than one (and with unemployment above nine percent, I am guessing the effect must be less than one), then reducing government employment reduces total employment. But to think that cutting government employment is a magic pill for economic recovery makes no sense

Sure, waiting at the license branch pisses me off and maybe the post office isn't as efficient as Fedex or UPS but these systems do work and they do create jobs for local people who then spend that money in the local economy. With unemployment over 9% we need jobs and economic activity even at the cost of some efficiency.

But you know, I see a lot of inefficiency in the private sector too.

Many of those state highway departments that used to have one guy working and five guys leaning on shovels wasting my tax dollars have been replaced with private contractors whose crews now have one guy working, four guys leaning on shovels, a CEO drawing a huge salary, extra profits for the investors and lobby money for the politicians. All of this coming out of my tax dollars. Is this really more efficient than a government run highway department?

Dealing with a big corporation doesn't seem any more efficient to me than dealing with big government. Think about headaches you've had with your cable or cell phone company. Are big banks and finance companies easy to deal with? How was you last call to your television or computer's customer service line? Most likely you spent hours on the phone talking to someone on the other side of the planet that didn't really help you much. How did that customer service job help the US economy? How is that any better than dealing with a government office?

I think government programs have a better, more productive, more local, internal economic focus than corporate industry and this may make up for some inefficiencies.

Think about the highway department. A local government highway department may cost a little more to run than a large private contractor covering many localities, (there are some economies of scale but really, to do the work at the same level they'll need about the same number of worker-bees, maybe a few less management types) but, a local, government run department would employ more local people who are more apt to spend their earnings locally, while the contractor will employ more out-of-town employees who won't spend locally and then send a large portion of the profits to the investor class, effectively sucking cash out of the local economy. Would you rather spend a few more tax dollars and have them spent locally or spend a few less and send them out of your area?

Big corporations also suck dollars from the community that locally owned business would preserve.

Think about an old-time, privately owned, local business, maybe a hardware store or restaurant. The owner would employ local people, spend his money in the area, deposit and keep it in the local bank, his profits were poured into the local community. He cared about his business and would generally take care of the place. It was his, he owned it and cared for it. He might pass it along to his family or one of his workers some day.

In today's corporate world, out of town investors own the company. Sure, hey hire local people to work and manage the place but I don't think these hired-guns care as much about the business as an owner would, it's a landlord-tenant relationship, where neither care as much for the place as an owner-operator would. The profits are sucked out of the local economy and shipped out to investors around the world, never to return to the area. They are in-effect mining the local area for dollars, sucking out all they can then leaving when the well runs dry. How can this be better for a local economy? Sure, the consumer may save a few dollars on purchases but at what cost to the local community?

On a larger scale, is letting an illegal alien take a job in the US and then spend his earnings in the US, worse than letting a corporation, just to gain efficiency, ship that job over-seas where the only money that returns to the US is a dividend check to a rich guy?

Government is the wrong enemy here. The true bad-guy is the large corporation. The people are the government and with our local, state, and federal forms, some government is always going to be focused on our localities, on us. That's not the case with the large corporation, they only care for themselves, their profits. Your community is just a resource to be mined for profits, until it's depleted then they move on.

Government is needed to protect us from this but it's losing the battle because the corporations control the message. They own the media. Hell, they are the media and they set the tone they want. They fear and hate the government and to continue to make the profits they require, they need the people to hate it too. So, the message from them is that government is inefficient, evil, stealing your tax dollars and we, the giant corporation can do it better". That is the Corporate message. I don't believe it.

tnb

6.22.2011

Capitalist - Socialist - Managerialist

[Mark Roe] argues that the US is managerialist. It's a pretty good argument.

tnb

Corporate Profits

A couple of links on Corporate profits.
Steve Sailer - Why are corporate profits so high compared to a generation ago?

You might think that regional monopolies and oligopolies that allowed higher profits than the risk adjusted cost of capital would have been worn down over the decades by increased competition caused by the huge improvements in shipping, communications, data processing, and globalization. But I don't see much evidence for that.

I'm not surprised that Apple has very high profit margins on innovative products, but why does, say, P&G do so well these days on toothpaste and detergent?

I mean, sure, we all know that corporate executives have been winning in the struggle with workers over pay. But why hasn't increased competition between corporations competed away the profits won away from employees?
Well,... my best guess is that it's because,... those monopolies and oligopolies own our government. They pay for laws that protect their interests over consumer and working class interests and for laws that add barriers to, or limit real competition. Both of which feed their profits.

Another on Corporate profits.

32 Corporations Spent More On Compensation For Top Executives In 2010 Than They Paid In Income Taxes

tnb

6.11.2011

Another War

Our politicians are just the foot soldiers of the corporate wars.

"We the people, don't have much of a chance.

[Beer wars in Wisconsin 1] - [Beer wars in Wisconsin 2]

tnb

4.27.2011

Business - Government - The People

Our government seems to always side with big, rich business rather than the little guy. I want a government that protects the people from big business. A few recent finds.

[Using regulation to raise rivals costs « Knowledge Problem]

The Bankers got rich. The people got screwed. [Arrogance and Authority - Simon Johnson]

The supreme court allows corporations to restrict consumers ability to join class action lawsuits. [Political Irony - No Class Action Suits]

We don't need centrists. We need a party that stands up for people rather than corporate interests. [Radical Centists]

tnb

4.17.2011

Borders Books

Found here: Political Irony › Crossing the Borders

Quote below from Politicusa.com

On February 16, Borders Group Inc. (BGP) filed for Chapter 11 protection and announced it would close about 30% of its stores nationwide in the coming weeks (In re Borders Group Inc., 11-10614, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York). Borders is/was currently the second-largest book chain after Barnes & Noble Inc. (BKS),

Six thousand people – 6,000 – out of work.

As the New York Times reported,

The troubles of Borders are rooted in a series of strategic missteps, executive turnover and a failure to understand the digital revolution — problems in many ways of Borders’ own making.

So it may surprise you to learn that Borders has the same belief as Wall Street with regards to rewarding incompetence. Rather than fix the problem, or punish those responsible, it punished its innocent employees, and the book-hungry public, by closing hundreds of stores. Meanwhile, the President and CEO is asking for $8.3 million in executive bonuses (including nearly $1.7 million for himself).

CEO Mike Edwards currently has a salary of $750,000. The bonus plan would give other top executives bonuses equal to as much as 90% to 150% of their base pay.

Doesn’t seem fair. But then, that’s corporate America. That’s the America Republicans love.

Borders is in debt to the tune of $1 billion, folks. As the Times reports,

In its filing in United States Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, Borders listed $1.29 billion in debt and $1.27 billion in assets. As of the filing, Borders owed $272 million to its 30 largest unsecured creditors — including $41.1 million to the Penguin Group USA.


Of course, if we didn't allow CEOs to make that kind of money, we wouldn't be able to get good people to run our companies,.... into the ground.

tnb

4.03.2011

Drugs

Naked capitalism: Wachovia drug money

A company can process billions in drug money but someone selling 50$ worth of pot on the street would be in jail.

Our laws should focus more on actually sending someone to jail when corporations break the law. If this had been a private business or individual, the owner would be in jail and the business would be gone but a big corporation just pays a fine and goes back to business as usual.

tnb

3.26.2011

Meet the New Boss,..

Even More on [Evan]

I think this hits on one of the biggest problems with our political system.

Our government is "of the corporation" not "of the people".

As voters we have two parties, Rs and Ds. Over time we split about evenly among them. We'll elect Ds for a while, then Rs for while, yet nothing seems to really change. Jobs keep disappearing, wages stagnate, the elected seem as corrupt and disconnected from the people as ever. R or D, doesn't really matter, it's "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Why can't the voters force change in a democracy? Why don't our votes work? I think, as this article points out, is that the power, the real ruling power that can effect change, is determined by two different parties, corporatists, and for lack of a better term, populists. We're not allow to vote between these parties. Both of the voters parties, the Rs and Ds, are dominated by corporatists, so regardless of whether we vote R or D, we elect Corporatists. We think we voted for change but we really left the same party in power, just juggled it around a little between competing corporate interests. We're left with a government not "of the people" but "of the corpration".

Look at some of our current issues, the disappearing jobs, wage stagnation, the relaxed regulation, the bailouts, the push to smaller government which will mean more business/profits for the corporate world, all of these highlight the preference of our government for corproate interests over those of the people. Corporate interests dominate.

I don't have a clue about what to do about it. It looks to me like it's only going to get worse as corporations consolidate around the globe. The people of individual nations don't stand a chance. Corps, and their owners, will rule the world, if they don't already.

tnb

Corporate Tax

Hullabaloo: Corporations don't have Skin

I still don't see why we would have to tax corporations? They are good to have around with the jobs and all and eliminating the tax seems like a good incentive to move here. Why not eliminate corporate taxes and tax breaks and just tax the income at the personal level. Just raise the tax rates across the board on the corporate owner-investor class. It looks like a cleaner, easier way to collect it anyway.

but,.... I doubt our corporate owner-investor overlords would allow that.

12.23.2010

Net Neutrality

For those of you that listened to Bill Cunningham and Brian Anderson discuss Net Neutrality on WLW on December 22, 2010. Here is a very simple diagram that explains what "Net Neutrality" is really about.

The Open Internet

Basically, if the internet is left neutral or open, an ISP must allow access to all of the internet thru your ISP connection BUT,.. if we allow corporations to defeat Net Neutrality then the ISP will become like the cable company, charging you for each piece of the internet just like cable tv packages of today. YouTube might be 20$ a month, Facebook 10$, The Blogger Channel another 5$, a News and Weather package 10$, etc. The ISP and Big Media corporations will carve up the Internet, charge you for each portion you receive and have complete control over what is available. You'll pay more and you'll never see another Wikileaks.

Cunninngham and Anderson support the "Cable TV - Big Media" model but did want to admit that so they turned it into a "fairness doctrine" tirade that really made no sense. They were feeding their listeners a bunch of crap to support the very people that are the most dangerous to a free, open internet. The show was corporate propaganda at its finest.

I've said for years that it won't be government that kills the freedom of the Internet in America, it will be capitalism/greed.

tnb

12.13.2010

Our Corporate Overlords

How recently elected officials are bought.

ThinkProgress » Banks Gave Heavily To Scott Brown As He Watered Down Financial Reform

From mid-June until the Fourth of July, according to a Globe analysis of his campaign finance reports, the Massachusetts senator took in $140,000 from banks and investment firms and their executives, including companies based in the state, such as MassMutual and State Street Corp. That is 400 percent more than the $28,000 received on average by all Republican senators during the same three weeks.

As the money poured in, Brown and his Senate staff were working both publicly and behind the scenes to scuttle $19 billion in fees on the financial industry that would have paid for part of the regulatory overhaul, and to weaken a provision intended to curb certain types of investment activities by banks and insurance companies.


Government of the Corporation, by the Corporation, for the Corporation.

tnb

12.11.2010

Wikileaks - Today

Three related commentaries on our Corporate Media vs Wikileaks.

Gleen Greenwald takes on TIME

Jay Rosen - Links the NY Times Iraq War propaganda from 2002 to Wikileaks.

EmptyWheel comments on the Corporate Media's ability to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.

And a couple on the MASTERCARD - VISA attacks

The Guardian see the Anonymous attacks on our corporate overlords as ...the cyber equivalent of non-violent action or civil disobedience.

... The hacktivists of Anonymous may be accused of many things – such as immaturity or being run by a herd instinct. But theirs is the cyber equivalent of non-violent action or civil disobedience. It disrupts rather than damages. In challenging the credit card companies and the web hosts in this way, they are reminding these businesses that their brand reputation relies not only on how the state department sees them, but also on how they maintain their independence in the eyes of their users. ...

And sees it as damned important

... In times when big business and governments attempt to monitor and control everything, there is a need as never before for an internet that remains a free and universal form of communication. WikiLeaks chief crime has been to speak truth to power. What is at stake is nothing less than the freedom of the internet. All the rest is a sideshow distracting attention from the real battle that is being fought. We should all keep focus on the true target.

Political Irony has another take on Mastercard and Visa

The Real Enemy

I’ve got confirmed today that I am capable of supporting Al-Qaeda, Ku Klux Klan, buy weapons, drugs and all sorts of pornography with a VISA card. But that’s not being investigated. Instead I can not support a humanitarian organisation fighting for the freedom of speech.

This quote from the founder of Datacell, the Icelandic company that processes credit and debit card donations to WikiLeaks, points out the absolutely stunning hypocrisy of companies like Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, and Amazon.com who suddenly stopped doing business with WikiLeaks, while continuing to do business with other organizations that clearly violate their sacred terms of service.

Interestingly, after WikiLeaks’ website got kicked off of Amazon they moved to French hosting provider OVH. But when the French government demanded that OVH stop hosting WikiLeaks, instead of meekly complying, the company asked the courts what to do. The courts ruled that the French government has to actually, you know, prove that WikiLeaks broke the law before trying to intimidate private companies into dropping them.

I guess this means that Muslims can stop hating us because because of our freedoms!

I do have to mention that Twitter and Facebook have so far continued to keep WikiLeaks as members. And if you still want to donate money to WikiLeaks, at least one US company will process donations to them, saying “While people may or may not agree with WikiLeaks, we at XIPWIRE believe that anyone who wishes to support the organization through a donation should be able to do so. We’re fully aware that not everyone likes what Wikileaks is. But we are prepared to accept the consequences.”

The story, in the US at least, has become about Wikileaks, the Media, transparency, and corporate-government oppression rather than the leaks themselves.

tnb

11.30.2010

Obama Killing the Internet?

Press Release - Level 3 Communications

On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content. By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation’s largest cable provider.

On November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment was ‘take it or leave it,’ Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions.

… With this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from ever being delivered to Comcast’s subscribers at all, unless Comcast’s unilaterally-determined toll is paid – even though Comcast’s subscribers requested the content. With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content.

I've said for years that it's not going to be an oppressive government that kills the Internet as we've known it, it'll be good old-fashioned capitalism that finally slays the beast. There's just no way the greedy bastards can allow all that free access to happen, they have to get their cut. I'm sure the Senators and Congressmen who represent them will make sure it happens.

tnb

11.28.2010

Ireland

Ireland is Bankrupt...a letter from an Irish citizen | Angry Bear

A good read on Ireland. I couldn't stop thinking about our (the US) China financed spending spree of the last decade and the recent bank bailouts.

tnb

10.31.2010

Freedom - What Kind do you want?

A couple of lines from a good post by Maxine Udal (Girl Economist).

Freedom Is Not Just Another Word for Nothing Left to Lose - Maxine Udall (girl economist)

..."But, wait," you say, "this can't be right. The Republicans stand for freedom, liberty, and the American way." To which I say, "Well, you've got a funny idea of freedom." You see, the last time I checked, the US Constitution protects me from the US government. As far as I can tell, there is nothing that protects me from large corporations, except the US government and the court system. And these days, the US government and the courts, largely thanks the dominant Republican economic philosophy, aided and abetted by the bipartisan repeal of Glass-Stegall in 1999, aren't doing such a great job of this.
...Markets, free or otherwise, will not automatically fix all harms or yield all benefits. That's why, to be successful, capitalism requires regulation and fine tuning.

Hell, corporations rule the land. With corporate cash and the corporate-media propaganda machines, the government of the people, by the people and for the people has ceased to exist.

tnb

10.25.2010

Funnies

Brand Image Survey

Brand Image survey finds Fox News top brand amongst Republicans | Media Matters for America


This explains a lot. The Democrat's top brand, Google, is a company that allows the individual to find information so they can make informed decisions. The Republican's top brand, Fox News, invents or slants information to influence people to make the decision that Fox News wants.

tnb

10.19.2010

Robert Reich: The Perfect Storm

Robert Reich: The Perfect Storm

It’s a perfect storm. And I’m not talking about the impending dangers facing Democrats. I’m talking about the dangers facing our democracy.

First, income in America is now more concentrated in fewer hands than it’s been in 80 years. Almost a quarter of total income generated in the United States is going to the top 1 percent of Americans.

The top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now earn as much as the bottom 120 million of us.

Who are these people? With the exception of a few entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, they’re top executives of big corporations and Wall Street, hedge-fund managers, and private equity managers. They include the Koch brothers, whose wealth increased by billions last year, and who are now funding tea party candidates across the nation.

Which gets us to the second part of the perfect storm. A relatively few Americans are buying our democracy as never before. And they’re doing it completely in secret.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are pouring into advertisements for and against candidates — without a trace of where the dollars are coming from. They’re laundered through a handful of groups. Fred Maleck, whom you may remember as deputy director of Richard Nixon’s notorious Committee to Reelect the President (dubbed Creep in the Watergate scandal), is running one of them. Republican operative Karl Rove runs another. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a third.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission made it possible. The Federal Election Commission says only 32 percent of groups paying for election ads are disclosing the names of their donors. By comparison, in the 2006 midterm, 97 percent disclosed; in 2008, almost half disclosed.

We’re back to the late 19th century when the lackeys of robber barons literally deposited sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators. The public never knew who was bribing whom.

Just before it recessed the House passed a bill that would require that the names of all such donors be publicly disclosed. But it couldn’t get through the Senate. Every Republican voted against it. (To see how far the GOP has come, nearly ten years ago campaign disclosure was supported by 48 of 54 Republican senators.)

Here’s the third part of the perfect storm. Most Americans are in trouble. Their jobs, incomes, savings, and even homes are on the line. They need a government that’s working for them, not for the privileged and the powerful.

Yet their state and local taxes are rising. And their services are being cut. Teachers and firefighters are being laid off. The roads and bridges they count on are crumbling, pipelines are leaking, schools are dilapidated, and public libraries are being shut.

There’s no jobs bill to speak of. No WPA to hire those who can’t find jobs in the private sector. Unemployment insurance doesn’t reach half of the unemployed.

Washington says nothing can be done. There’s no money left.

No money? The marginal income tax rate on the very rich is the lowest it’s been in more than 80 years. Under President Dwight Eisenhower (who no one would have accused of being a radical) it was 91 percent. Now it’s 36 percent. Congress is even fighting over whether to end the temporary Bush tax cut for the rich and return them to the Clinton top tax of 39 percent.

Much of the income of the highest earners is treated as capital gains, anyway — subject to a 15 percent tax. The typical hedge-fund and private-equity manager paid only 17 percent last year. Their earnings were not exactly modest. The top 15 hedge-fund managers earned an average of $1 billion.

Congress won’t even return to the estate tax in place during the Clinton administration – which applied only to those in the top 2 percent of incomes.

It won’t limit the tax deductions of the very rich, which include interest payments on multi-million dollar mortgages. (Yet Wall Street refuses to allow homeowners who can’t meet mortgage payments to include their primary residence in personal bankruptcy.)

There’s plenty of money to help stranded Americans, just not the political will to raise it. And at the rate secret money is flooding our political system, even less political will in the future.

The perfect storm: An unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top; a record amount of secret money flooding our democracy; and a public becoming increasingly angry and cynical about a government that’s raising its taxes, reducing its services, and unable to get it back to work.

We’re losing our democracy to a different system. It’s called plutocracy.

It's unbelievable to me that huge portions of the population can be convinced that we should reduce what we spend on the people, things that affect millions of people,.. like education, health-care, taking care our old or poor, or rebuilding our infrastructure just so we can let multi-millionaires keep a few extra thousands.

tnb