Ralph Nader was recently interviewed by NBC and said that the US is living under “corporate fascism.” The timing is perfect if you consider these two events.
First, Fox is simply refusing to pay a sanction imposed against it by the FCC.
With the Supreme Court already agreeing to review how the FCC determines indecency in a case involving Fox, it appears that Fox has taken a rather aggressive stance concerning a different case where it was fined: it’s simply refusing to pay the fine.
The next comes from Starbucks which again is simply refusing to pay a sanction imposed against it.
In the state of California it is illegal for supervisors to share in employee tips. Starbucks recently lost a lawsuit brought by an employee who said he was forced to share a portion of his tips with his supervisor. The judgment awarded over $100 million in back tips and interest to the Starbucks baristas of California, and now several similar lawsuits are pending in other states.
Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, however, is more concerned about how the media is portraying Starbucks than he is about paying the back tips. Why? According to a spokesperson, Starbucks won’t be changing their practice and they won’t be paying up.
The company had this to say:
“Contrary to some reports, Starbucks has not taken money from any of its partners, and nor is there money to be refunded or returned from Starbucks.” A spokeswoman said Thursday that Starbucks Corp. has no intention of ending the practice of sharing tips among baristas and shift supervisors in California while it seeks an injunction.
I’m not saying that either of these sanctions are right. I think there should be boobies on TV. And maybe under some circumstances your supervisor should be able to partake in the bounty of your tips.
My point is that when the little guy is faced with a sanction, such as removing our hats or using our cell phones, cops taser us or shoot us into compliance. Isn’t the fact that corporations feel they’re above the law and get away with it proof enough that they are above the law and that we are living under corporate fascism?
#3
All corporations pay corporate taxes even the Fortune 500. However, as #18 said, no corporation really pays taxes. They simply pass those higher costs along to the consumer. What discourages behavior which merits a fine is increased fines for repeat offenses. At some point, the cost of the fine outweighs the benefit gain by continuing the activity and a change in behavior occurs.
Yes, I think, however the two examples are not indicative of that.
Corporations do seem to control, or have undue influence, on two major factors in American daily life; government and media. Politicians and media get the vast majority of their income from corporations. While the government may get it’s operating budget from taxes, individuals in government benefit immensely from ties to corporations. It’s a situation that’s ripe for corruption.
Using China for an example of good government/corporate relations is not without problems. It may be true that in China they can get things done quicker and cheaper, but there are huge problems with worker and environmental abuses.
Companies don’t move production overseas only because of high taxes, they move to increase profits. If lower labor and production costs can be had in some other country, any company that only cares for profit would consider it. Fewer restrictions and regulations contribute to the decision to move and taxes are only a small part of the total savings they might incur from the relocation.
After watching the video I would say Ralph makes some good points. However he seems to have some sort of bias against computers.
Yea, what’s this thing he’s got against computers? Computers came on the scene so people stopped learning financial responsibility.
HUH?
in case of Fox, they are appealing to the supreme court cause the fine imposed, they felt is unfair. To point out their case, they can’t stop Bono from U2 saying “fuck” on live tv. as for the starbucks problem, it seems fucked up, but i have on several occasions seen supervisors work the service area. I guess what starbucks should do is separate the tips jars to one for sups and one for regular employee’s.
Oh, and the point of the China example is that not only does China, Japan, and a host of other countries not tax Corporations like we do, but they actually subsidize them.
We have to get used to the fact that we either have to get behind our corporations or get left behind while other corporations put us out of business.
As so many have said (except for Ah Yea who lost track of the question and needs to read it again before he makes his usually insightful posts) the answer is YES–but not as shown by these two cases.
The two cases show CEO’s who have gone crazy with power and think they can flout the very government that supports, protects, and nutures them. Once you have a court judgment==easy to attach assets.
Now AhYea–the question is “Is the US living under corporate fascism?” What you responded with is Nations with strong corporate fascist states compete very effectively. See the difference?
Nader is the ONLY CANDIDATE I have seen in years that would try to bring a real change to America. All the rest (Ron Paul, Kusinich come to mind, are members of the freaking congress and already completely co-opted to the degree they aren’t nuts to begin with.)
If ever elected, Nader would serve no more than 2 months in office before being rear-ended and blown up. The only thing to be reported on would be how ironic it was.
For years, America’s military has been the police force that opens new opportunities and makes the world as safe as possible for our beloved multinational corporations to do business. Of course, American history textbooks don’t describe it quite like that, because young minds are more receptive to the notion that Americans are the good guys who like to spread democracy and vanquish villains.
They say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to.
#27
Proof that tin foil hats will never go out of style.
#26, Thank you for your praise about my usually insightful comments. I hope to make another here.
My previous posts jumped over the question of corporate fascism because the question itself is irrelevant. I went straight to the deeper issue, which was to Nader’s proposed cure, which “cure” for corporate fascism is far worse than the disease.
The question of corporate fascism is irrelevant because corporations are inherently “fascist” by virtue of their corporate nature. I believed this to be understood by such intelligent individuals such as yourself.
By the way, using the term “Fascist” to describe a corporation is technically incorrect. The proper term would be “Authoritarian”. If you don’t understand why, go to wikipedia and read the real definition of fascism. In short, “Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes.”
Nader uses the term “fascist” for the sole purpose of being inflammatory.
He also alludes to corporate fascism contributing to societal ills, but then proposes the solution to corporate fascism by increasing government fascism.
This is ludicrous.
So my comments relate to Nader’s proposed solutions which would, at best, actually exacerbate the problem, and at worse, lead to economic collapse.
#28, proof that ignorance gives comfort to the masses. What exclusive company you keep.
#29==Ah Yeah==you are so wrong==only because you simply cannot predict the future, you don’t know Nader or what he would do, the ONLY correction for excessive corporate fascism is government control, and its simple minded to equate government curbs on excess with fascism, as it in fact ELEVATES the needs/desires/equities of “the people” over the corporation.
Nader says often that he is not against corportions–just their excesses. Do we need a list? Excessive involvement in politics essentially funding/electing our government, getting tax breaks to offshore businesses, isolated from common sense individual criminal activity ((think of the Tobacco CEO’s all testifying falsly and what happens?)), and all kinds of stock crimes and manipulations while defaulting on employee benefit plans and so forth.
Your position advocates unrestrained capitalism because capitalism is “the best system.” That is foolish. If USA based corportions were more regulated you think they would lose business to china and other foreign corps?? Well maybe so==but I’d rather be screwed by a foreigner I could hate, than set up one of my own to do the same thing.
I’ll just say again that corporate america has lost its way and needs a different philosophical approach. I’d start with nationalizing healthcare to make them more competitive, take away tax breaks and incentives so they actually were playing at capitalism rather than bribing government for welfare, and I would tie compensation and stock returns to employee benefits.
Then, on the 7th day, I would rest.
For those who threathen corporate displeasure I suggest we make it illegal to offshore. That execs that do so be collected to spend life in prison, that executive pay be fixed, that individual spending represent only 33% of the economy and corporate responsibility the remainder. Who wants to go first !
Bobbo, I don’t agree with all your points as presented above, but I agree entirely with your conclusion about nationalizing healthcare and linking stock returns to employee benefits. I assume by employee you are particularly targeting overpaid executives. Executives should get paid the same as the underlings, and when they actually do their job right they get a reasonable percentage of the increase. We are on the same page here.
Additionally, I would also introduce significant campaign finance reforms which would specifically limit what contributions can be made to any political entity. Oddly enough, the only candidate who has even attempted such a thing is John McCain with McCain-Feingold. McCain hasn’t yet gone far enough, but he has gone leagues further than anyone else.
I disagree adamantly about the “I’d rather be screwed by a foreigner I could hate, than set up one of my own to do the same thing.”
That may be easy enough for you to say, but what about the 25 year old graduate who discovers that all the good jobs have gone overseas? He would say “I’d rather be employed by company I could hate, than be screwed by a foreigner who took my job.”
Believe me, after having seen how it is done in other countries, I have realized we are in a fight for our lives, AND WE ARE LOOSING! We need to get in the fight or we will be left wondering “What happened?”
#33–Ah Yeah==so, maybe we agree on a few broadly stated points turned on their heads to honor the already overpaid, but the sticking point may be “How best should we compete in a global market?” I don’t think that axiomatically means we compete the same way our competition does or we necessarily lose.
I sense from you a bit of loser fatalism. We are facing competititon from overseas, we can’t win, so we better give up? Certainly that has been the way our leaders have acted from Clinton on, and its only getting worse.
I say, when you are in a fight–you fight. Blah, blah, blah, but what it certainly means is you don’t give tax incentives to corporations that offshore, nor tax credits to corps producing heavy vehicles that scream environmental/efficiency waste. When the USA outsources the manufacturing of military armaments to Europeans and Asians, I’d say basically the fight has been lost. Maybe Phase III in the new energy economy will give us a second grasp at the apple.
Only thing that surpises me is how many people, including yourself, think there is no choice. There are always choices, with good and bad consequences to be balanced. USA should not support globalization as if it were a good thing. It is a bad thing for the USA that should have been contended against. Stupid politicians. Stupid people.
And so it goes.
Bobbo, every time someone walks into Wal-Mart and buys that kitchen plate because it was 12 cents less, we loose. Every time we buy a computer made in China from Japanese parts, we loose. Every time someone enters a Toyota dealership and drives off the lot, we loose.
You are displaying a frightening lack of understanding of the global reality we now live in.
It’s nice to say that “USA should not support globalization as if it were a good thing. It is a bad thing for the USA that should have been contended against.”
I would be more than happy to jump with you into the time machine you must have sitting in your garage so we can undo the past, otherwise… we need to deal with what is happening in the here and now.
The (ir)rationalization for adoption of our current global trade policy was that we would be able to sell our products more freely overseas, and that by opening our markets we could raise our standard of living. This entire concept depended on an equal amount of trade coming and going.
That was a nice dream, but as it turned out US corporations were uncompetitive. Saddled down by burdensome union contracts, health care costs, excessive government legislation, and yes, taxation, the US companies, big and small, are fighting for their lives. Or should I say, our lives.
Here is a sobering reality. Over the last 30 years (since the introduction of cheap foreign imports – Toyota Camry anyone?), the UAW has lost over ONE MILLION jobs. That’s just for the UAW and doesn’t include the myriad industries which supply and support the automotive manufactures. Increase the above one million by a factor of 10, and you start to see the real extent of the damage.
Economic Darwinism, and if we are not careful, we will continue to be the small fish.
So what do we do? Our companies need help or they may go under. That’s not what you want, is it? I didn’t think so.
Again, what do we do? Restrict foreign imports? Sure we could do that – although each country we do this too would retaliate in like measure. I personally wouldn’t mind this in the least, but is retreating into economic isolationism the right answer or is the cure being worse than the disease?
What else can we do? Maybe we should:
A) Insure a level playing field (this is where trade restrictions play an important role), and
B) Get out of the radical 60′s and start to realize that we need efficient, competitive corporations to maintain our livelihoods. (This, by the way, is why a weaker dollar benefits us.)
If we back our corporations with the might of the American system, we can not only be competitive but dominate while maintaining our standard of living. There is nothing “fatalistic” about this. In fact it is just the opposite.
This sounds a lot more fatalistic.
“Maybe Phase III in the new energy economy will give us a second grasp at the apple.”
Specifically, how is this “new energy economy” going to help?
What specifically is going to drive the economic engine of this “new economy’?
CORPORATIONS! DUH!
#35–Ah Yeah==you keep equating regulating the corporations with not understanding they are a part of the economy.
What does your final sentence mean–beyond the totally obvious==”What specifically is going to drive the economic engine of this “new economy’?–Corportions, Duh!” So?
Does making the CFO criminally liable for falsified financial statements disregard the importance of corporations, or actually just the opposite? ( Duh, indeed! )
So==similar problem with no think neocon dogma of “got to be a part of the world economy or they will retaliate? HAR!! Like Mexico will sell its cantaloupes where? Like china will sell its toxic laden barbie dolls where?
I think some trade protectionism might still not be too late. We still have the worlds largest economy by gnp==lets fight with it. In any scenario, when “someone” gets hurt, its only a subset of everyone that gets hurt so who actually gets hurt if USA erects trade barriers? The investment class? the consumer? all of them?==ok, now 20 years down the road who has an economy that can actually employ them?
I don’t know if I’m “right” but my uncertainty is secure in the knowledge that what has been done so far hasn’t worked and I’m willing to try something new/old. Certain international trade arrangements also just look silly on their face, etc.
AH Yeah–who knows?
Ok, I’m back.
I couldn’t agree more about using trade sanctions against countries that engage in unfair trading practices. Like what we did to Japan and Korea when they were caught dumping computer ram a few years back. This is where “Insure a level playing field” comes in.
So some trade protectionism is not only a good thing, it’s needed. China in particular should get hit hard.
There is an easier and better solution. Make our US based companies more competitive. So when we are presented with a level playing field, our corporations deliver the best value.
We touched on some of the steps which should be taken already, like Universal Health Care, etc. These will help, but they are not the full answer.
Right in this thread we have suggested ways to remove burdens from corporations to help them become more competitive. If we continue down this road of assisting our corporations, then we will see less outsourcing because it will be financially better to keep the jobs at home.
In other words, we need to fix what is broken right now, and we can do it.
Don’t wait for any “new energy economy”. If our corporations are not competitive in the “old energy economy”, then they won’t be any more competitive in the new energy economy either.
So we are still stuck with the same conundrum. The way out is to get behind our industrial might and make it work again, not bring it to it’s knees.
It’s no fun being the one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.
Gotta go for tonight. Good as always talking to you. I’ll catch up with you mañana.
#31
It should be noted that in many cases, the elimination of tax breaks and incentives would push many companies over the tipping point in terms of moving production offshore.
How exactly would one tie compensation and stock returns to employee “benefits”? Which benefits did you have in mind?
#32
That is a ridiculous sentiment. You might as well ban corporations from selling products overseas or foreign companies from selling products in this country. In a global economy, countries must compete just as corporations do. Should we penalize corporations that move their production to a different State? What about all of the jobs lost in the origin State?
#33
How is it that the person that buys a plate for 12 cents less loses? If their competition want that sale, they should either lower their price or produce a better plate. If you go up to two lemonade stands, why should you feel obligated to pay for the higher priced lemonade? Let’s look at your UAW example. How many Americans are better off by getting cheaper, better quality vehicles? How much money has been saved in gasoline by the Prius alone? Economics is not a zero sum game. For every transaction, both people gain or else the transaction would not take place.
#34
Protectionism breeds protectionism. If we put up trade barriers, then other countries will do the same. That plate that was 12 cents cheaper will now be 12 dollars more. Sure, “only” the plate consumers are hurt, and the retail store which generates lower revenue, and the wholesaler, and the transportation companies…. In the end, restricting free trade hurts us more than it helps.
As the standard of living in the US has gone up, so has the cost of labor. The effect is that some labor intensive industries simply do not make sense in the US unless you can eliminate labor costs through automation. Look at the UK and coal. Even though one of the largest coal deposits in the world is under the British Isles, almost all coal in the UK is imported from places like the Ukraine. What happened to all those British coal miners? Think of the lost labor by importing all their coal! Instead, people that were miners had to move into other industries to get jobs. Cheap labor industries are doomed to fail in the countries with high standards of living unless they find a way of reducing labor costs. In addition, if you tie compensation to employee “benefits” you further the incentive to reduce jobs.
#38–Thomas==thanks for joining. Ah Yeah and I are so used to being “reasonable” with one another, we need a new challenging perspective. And by challenging, I mean you are just as wrong as he is. I’ll take your points in seratim.
If a company can’t exist except by tax breaks, then they don’t deserve to exist==or, their dividends should be turned over to the government? Who “owns” a business that survives on tax breaks? Certain busnesses (like many sports teams and stadiums) only make a profit based on the amount of tax breaks they get. Good deal for tax payers?? – - No.
Over and over again you here company exec’s thanking the employees for jobs well done==its all BS. Seems to me if a company is successful it is because of 15-20 happy things, one of which is good employee resource. The law should require they participate in the success of a company. Why the law? Because it won’t be done otherwise, and its only fair. So, once again, government steps in to balance the field and promote the interests of people over corporations.
You say===Protectionism breeds protectionism. /// Yes it does and that is simply another “model” on which country to country competitition can take place. USA has a huge market. THAT’S AN ADVANTAGE!!!!! Why should we give it away for nothing in this contest of “systems?” Letting other countries sell into our market without controls has resulted in a decimation of our economy. IT DOESN’T WORK!!!!!! Lets try something different and tweak it as experience recommends?
You say===In the end, restricting free trade hurts us more than it helps. /// In reality—you don’t know that and the statement stands only as an article of faith.
You say===Re Coalminers===of course either side of any issue can show horribles. The issue is how they all add up 20 years down the road. I’ve seen the LAST 20 YEARS and it hasn’t added up too well.
You say===In addition, if you tie compensation to employee “benefits” you further the incentive to reduce jobs. //// Why would that be exactly? If the reduced number of jobs increase productivity, then reduce jobs. Just the opposite might be the case however. Again, you take one specific experience and try to apply it across the board. That is dogma–not thinking.
WHATS WRONG WITH YOU REPUGNICKS???Q
WHATS WRONG WITH YOU REPUGNICKS?===you argue like gun advocates. The American economy hasn’t worked “big time” for at least 10 years and the only thing you can suggest is more of the same.
Now, why is that?