Are there any economic beneffits from global corporations ?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you said you agreed with Madison who along with Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1793. Why do you prefer very very tiny govt and individual liberty??

why do you build straw carriages before straw horses carrying straw man arguments?

i said we needed to quibble what you meant by big government; pumkin.

you said you agreed with Madison who along with Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1793. Why do you prefer very very tiny govt and individual liberty??

I said I agreed with Madison the federalist, not Madison the republican. What did Madison the republican really do for the US.

he and Jefferson called it the second American Revolution. The first revolutioon was about freedom from England while their second was about freedom from liberal govt
in general.

5)"The revolution of 1800... was as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776 was in its form; not effected indeed by the sword, as that, but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

No, it wasn't pumkin; it was about an less efficacious chief magistrate of the Union not listening to Albert Gallatin, his Secretary of the Treasury.

the Romanian idiot forgot to say what "it" was again. You'll find that if know the subject of your sentences they will then make sense. remember that.

 

[danielpalos]

why do you build straw carriages before straw horses carrying straw man arguments?

i said we needed to quibble what you meant by big government; pumkin.

you said you agreed with Madison who along with Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1793. Why do you prefer very very tiny govt and individual liberty??

I said I agreed with Madison the federalist, not Madison the republican. What did Madison the republican really do for the US.

he and Jefferson called it the second American Revolution. The first revolutioon was about freedom from England while their second was about freedom from liberal govt
in general.

5)"The revolution of 1800... was as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776 was in its form; not effected indeed by the sword, as that, but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

No, it wasn't pumkin; it was about an less efficacious chief magistrate of the Union not listening to Albert Gallatin, his Secretary of the Treasury.

the Romanian idiot forgot to say what "it" was again. You'll find that if know the subject of your sentences they will then make sense. remember that.

dear, i know how short your attention span is and how little clue and how little Cause you even care to have; so, i put it afterward for explanation and Your ease and Your convenience. It is after it.

it was about an less efficacious chief magistrate of the Union not listening to Albert Gallatin, his Secretary of the Treasury.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear Persons on the right,

here is what Jefferson claimed to want to accomplish with his republican doctrine:

Thomas Jefferson envisioned a peaceful, agrarian society that used diplomacy, rather than military might, to execute America’s foreign policy. Jefferson believed that a large standing army was an invitation to dictatorship, and he drastically reduced the size of both the American Army and Navy. However, events in the Mediterranean quickly challenged Jefferson’s decision and forced him to re-evaluate his philosophy about the use of force. ...

Here is what he actually accomplished with his republican doctrine:

Jefferson reassessed his decision to scale back the military and ordered several small gunboats that critics nicknamed “Jeffs” or the “mosquito fleet.” The undersized boats were fast but featured just one gun. Jefferson believed that the boats could effectively guard the American coastline but were not intimidating enough to lure the country into international incidents on the high seas.

In 1803, American shipping became entangled in European hostilities when Napoleon revived his war with Britain. The American Navy, which was no match for the heavily armed British and French, could offer only limited protection for American merchants. While both Britain and France captured American ships, it was the British who forced the detained American sailors to fight for the Royal Navy. For the next several years, Britain impressed more than one thousand Americans each year. The actions of the British angered United States citizens, and calls for retaliation intensified.

Jefferson set in motion his idea of “peaceable coercion” by encouraging Congress to pass the Embargo Act of 1807, which stopped all exports of American goods. Jefferson reasoned that both Britain and France relied heavily on American products and would be forced to work with the United States. Lax enforcement of the act along with alternate sources of products provided by Latin America ruined Jefferson’s plan. The embargo actually did more harm than good because American farmers and manufacturers had no outlets to sell their goods.

Jefferson’s popularity plunged and the Federalist Party began to make a resurgence as voters eyed the upcoming election. Critics shouted that Jefferson’s decisions damaged the economy and left America unprotected. The president finally conceded defeat and repealed the embargo during his last days in office. Congress then passed the Non-Intercourse Act, which reopened trade with all countries except France and Britain.

Source: War of 1812 - AP U.S. History Topic Outlines - Study Notes

 

[ralfy]

Global corporations require Big Government and Big Military to support them.

 

[bripat9643]

Global corporations require Big Government and Big Military to support them.

What is the basis for that claim?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Global corporations require Big Government and Big Military to support them.

Of course they do..........if it wasn't for big Government, they wouldn't be able to pass their goods for free on the infrastructure.

If it wasn't for big Military, they wouldn't be able to feel safe in a global economy, meaning they wouldn't be able to exploit workers in 3rd world countries safely.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Of course they do..........if it wasn't for big Government, they wouldn't be able to pass their goods for free on the infrastructure.

for free?? usually we pay in proportion to how much we use the infrastructure. Do you understand that paying for something means its not free???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If it wasn't for big Military, they wouldn't be able to feel safe in a global economy,.

thats true but so what?? There is no point in having a great country if you're not going to defend it? It would be lilke building a great house and not putting a roof on it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

they wouldn't be able to exploit workers in 3rd world countries safely.

dear, offering them a new job and higher wage than they had is not exploiting them. Exploiting them would mean forcing them to take a worse job at lower pay or no pay.

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Of course they do..........if it wasn't for big Government, they wouldn't be able to pass their goods for free on the infrastructure.

for free?? usually we pay in proportion to how much we use the infrastructure. Do you understand that paying for something means its not free???

Quick question.............why is it that GE pays nothing in taxes, and yet manages to get a healthy refund?

Tell ya what....................show me a positive way that GE manages to improve the infrastructure, rather than just using it up.

 

[CultureCitizen]

If it wasn't for big Military, they wouldn't be able to feel safe in a global economy,.

thats true but so what?? There is no point in having a great country if you're not going to defend it? It would be lilke building a great house and not putting a roof on it.

Arguably it would be better if there were no countries to defend. Just one world.

 

[Unkotare]

If it wasn't for big Military, they wouldn't be able to feel safe in a global economy,.

thats true but so what?? There is no point in having a great country if you're not going to defend it? It would be lilke building a great house and not putting a roof on it.

Arguably it would be better if there were no countries to defend. Just one world.

That would not be better.

 

[CultureCitizen]

If it wasn't for big Military, they wouldn't be able to feel safe in a global economy,.

thats true but so what?? There is no point in having a great country if you're not going to defend it? It would be lilke building a great house and not putting a roof on it.

Arguably it would be better if there were no countries to defend. Just one world.

That would not be better.

Of course it would : there would be no military spending.

 

[georgephillip]

I am arriving to the conclusion that global corporations do not beneffit the economy at all.
They actually harm it because they tend create cross country monopolies, evade taxes and practice dumping.
But I would like to hear if someone thinks global corporations have some beneffit.

I must underscore the word global . Please notice corporations are an absolute must for every healthy economy, specially medium and small corporations.

Global capitalism may be about to receive another bipartisan shot-in-the-arm from the US Congress.
"Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules."
TPP could be a done deal by football season. If so, will capitalism or democracy be the primary beneficiary in the US?
Trans-Pacific Partnership

 

[Unkotare]

If it wasn't for big Military, they wouldn't be able to feel safe in a global economy,.

thats true but so what?? There is no point in having a great country if you're not going to defend it? It would be lilke building a great house and not putting a roof on it.

Arguably it would be better if there were no countries to defend. Just one world.

That would not be better.

Of course it would : there would be no military spending.

Yes there would, and there would be even more killing.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I am arriving to the conclusion that global corporations do not beneffit the economy at all.
They actually harm it because they tend create cross country monopolies, evade taxes and practice dumping.
But I would like to hear if someone thinks global corporations have some beneffit.

I must underscore the word global . Please notice corporations are an absolute must for every healthy economy, specially medium and small corporations.

Global capitalism may be about to receive another bipartisan shot-in-the-arm from the US Congress.
"Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules."
TPP could be a done deal by football season. If so, will capitalism or democracy be the primary beneficiary in the US?
Trans-Pacific Partnership

I've heard about TPP before , most of the negotiations seem to be made with the secrecy of a covert operation.
That should be more than enough reason to be suspicious about the true motives for the agreement.
Employment and wealth distribution ? Hah , I don't think so.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Yes there would, and there would be even more killing.

Europe seems to be a lot more pacific as a union than in during the first half of XX century.
The Euro has been faltering, but as war waging goes such union has proved ( so far ) to create a much more pacific outcome.
They probably see each other more as fellow nations than as competing enemies.

If you would fancy support your argument with a counter-example , by all means , go ahead.

 

[Unkotare]

With Little Notice Globalization Reduced Poverty

 

[CultureCitizen]

With Little Notice Globalization Reduced Poverty

You can still have globalization without global corporations.
One of the early global corporations , the Dutch east india company created quite an amount of mayhem in its time.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I am arriving to the conclusion that global corporations do not beneffit the economy at all.
They actually harm it because they tend create cross country monopolies, evade taxes and practice dumping.
But I would like to hear if someone thinks global corporations have some beneffit.

I must underscore the word global . Please notice corporations are an absolute must for every healthy economy, specially medium and small corporations.

Global capitalism may be about to receive another bipartisan shot-in-the-arm from the US Congress.
"Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules."
TPP could be a done deal by football season. If so, will capitalism or democracy be the primary beneficiary in the US?
Trans-Pacific Partnership

I've heard about TPP before , most of the negotiations seem to be made with the secrecy of a covert operation.
That should be more than enough reason to be suspicious about the true motives for the agreement.
Employment and wealth distribution ? Hah , I don't think so.

TTP is free trade so intelligent people support it. Liberals lack the IQ to understand free trade capitalism so of course stupidily want to regulate or sovietize trade.