Einstein on Corporations

[peach174]

So, that brings my point up (1st pg) about getting money out of the hands of lobbyists and electing more and more congressmen and women who will do this.

 

[grunt11b]

If you listen to all or part of the 6:29 video in my link, you'll discover Republicans in the Tennessee state government are alleged to be writing new law that will allow corporations to contribute directly to politicians.

If Tennessee or any other state enacts such law, other states will have to follow or face the corporate consequences of being labeled "unfriendly to business."

SCOTUS is dominated by corporate lawyers with John Roberts being the prime example.

It's not a "perfect example" of Left Wing bias to point out how corporations are the most perfect example of central planning yet devised.

"Unequal Protection": The People's Masters | Truthout

States can write there own laws, as long as they don't supersede Federal law. Just like Arizona did with immigration, all they did was copy the immigration law to allow for state enforcement, The Obama justice department was out of pocket for challenging it.

 

[peach174]

And Federal law prohibits corporations from contributing to politicians

 

[grunt11b]

And Federal law prohibits corporations from contributing to politicians

In my opinion it should also prohibit Unions from doing the same, anymore they are nothing more than corporations themselves. I belonged to one for many years, and one day I woke up and realized what they where doing with my money and I got out of it.

 

[georgephillip]

Corporations have stocks but Corporations sell products.
The rich do not control our votes nor does advertising

The rich and advertising completely control which candidates you are allowed to "choose" between.

The latest corporate bail out on Wall Street should convince you of which side of the class war elected Republicans AND Democrats choose.

I don't think that Herman Cain is controlled by the rich or advertisers. Do you?
The corporate bail out is completly unconstitutional and voters need to vote in candidates that are running on a constitutional form of goverment, like the last 80 who have been elected. This is why the dems are so angry at them, because each of the bills they are trying to get support for, the newly elected republicans are telling them that their bills are unconstitutional.

If Cain is among the richest 1% of Americans he's part of an economic class that have seen their share of national wealth increase by two percent during the last two years.

One big reason the rich have seen that increase has been the recovery of the stock market which only occurred because of a $13 trillion bail out that nearly doubled the richest Americans' share of returns to wealth(rent, interest, dividends and capital gains) while keeping the debt overhead in place for the remaining 98% of their countrymen.

"Cain hosted The Herman Cain Show on Atlanta talk radio station News Talk 750 WSB, a CNN radio affiliate until February 2011 and serves as a commentator for Fox News Business and a syndicated columnist distributed by the North Star Writers Group. In 2009, Cain founded 'Hermanator's Intelligent Thinkers Movement' (HITM), aimed at organizing 100,000 activists in every congressional district in the United States in support of a strong national defense, the FairTax, tax cuts, energy independence, capping government spending, and dismantling Social Security.[5]"

If he's serious about dismantling Social Security, his chances for moving into the White House are about the same as yours or mine.

Herman Cain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[code1211]

"The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.

"This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature.

"The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population.

"Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the intelligent use of his political rights. — Albert Einstein, Monthly Review, May 1949."

"Unequal Protection": The People's Masters | Truthout

If Einstein thought the situation was grim in 1949, what would he have to say about Citizens United or the state of Tennessee's current plot to allow corporations to contribute directly to politicians?

Einstein could see the writing on the wall.

He quite correctly understood where CORPORATISM (AKA FACSIM) was leading Germany, and he had the good sense (and good fortune, too) to be able to get out of Germany when the getting was still good.

If he lived here now?

I suspect he'd been seeking accomodations in some other nation.

Hell I doubt he'd still be here, today, really.

The man was nobody's fool.

Over half-a-century ago, Einstein and Bertrand Russell asked all humanity to put aside their strong feelings about many issues and think of themselves "only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire."

They then asked the question "...shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"

Corporations answer this question every day by placing their quest for profits over the welfare of humanity.
Failed States copyright 2006 by Noam Chomsky p.3

What an perfectly incoherant thing to say. Corporations, by definition, exist to create profits. That is the only reason they exist. They don't "place their quest for profits above" anything. Their quest for profits is the only thing.

Do you also condemn water because it places being wet above everything.

If a corporation creates a product and that product has an ulterior good or evil, that is of no consequence to a corporation. If that product, good, bad or indifferent, creates a profit, the corporation is doing what it does.

A stripper takes her clothes off and men throw money at her. Her motivation is the money. Observers may condemn or commend her for her nudity when it's all over, but without the cash, she's fully clothed and the bar tender has an empty tip jar.

Of course, if you can find a job you love, you'll never work another day in your life.

 

[georgephillip]

Give me some examples where Corporations control Schools & Universities and the Supreme Court

"The Center for American Progress released a comprehensive analysis and independent expert review examining the implications of the confirmed $833 million in corporate funding from Big Oil to energy research at universities over the last decade. The report examines 10 recent university-industry agreements involving as many as 43 companies, 13 leading universities, and two federal research labs."

If you have walked across any college campus lately, it is hard to miss the corporate influence. The Financial sector in particular tries to ensnare as many undergrads as possible, turning their life'swork into revenue streams for the benefit of the investor class.

Corporate Control

With regard to SCOTUS, you only have to look at the number of years of corporate law practiced by the majority, with special credit for John Roberts, to see the control big business exerts over that branch of government.

 

[sparky]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates".[40] Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".[41] On January 27, 2010, Obama further condemned the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stating that, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law[42] to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Democratic senator Russ Feingold, a lead sponsor of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, stated "This decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president."[43] Representative Alan Grayson, a Democrat, stated that it was "the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case, and that the court had opened the door to political bribery and corruption in elections to come.[44] Democratic congresswoman Donna Edwards, along with constitutional law professor and Maryland Democratic State Senator Jamie Raskin, have advocated petitions to reverse the decision by means of constitutional amendment.[45] Rep. Leonard Boswell introduced legislation to amend the constitution.[46] Senator John Kerry also called for an Amendment to overrule the decision.[47]

Republican presidential candidate and Senator John McCain, co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns".[48] McCain was "disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions" but not surprised by the decision, saying that "It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA."[43] He pointed out that "Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor, who had taken a different position on this issue, both had significant political experience, while Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia have none."[48] (In fact, Rehnquist had joined Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy in dissenting in McConnell v. FEC). Republican Senator Olympia Snowe opined that "Today's decision was a serious disservice to our country."[49]

Sanda Everette, co-chair of the Green Party, stated that "The ruling especially hurts the ability of parties that don't accept corporate contributions, like the Green Party, to compete." (In fact, 2 U.S.C. 441i, which was not altered by the decision in Citizens United, prohibits all parties from accepting corporate contributions). Another Green Party officer, Rich Whitney, stated "In a transparently political decision, a majority of the US Supreme Court overturned its own recent precedent and paid tribute to the giant corporate interests that already wield tremendous power over our political process and political speech."

Ralph Nader, a lawyer who placed third in the popular vote in the last three presidential elections, condemned the ruling,[50] saying that "With this decision, corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars." He called for shareholder resolutions asking company directors to pledge not to use company money to favor or oppose electoral candidates.[51] Pat Choate, Reform Party candidate stated, "The court has, in effect, legalized foreign governments and foreign corporations to participate in our electoral politics."[52]

 

[georgephillip]

Einstein could see the writing on the wall.

He quite correctly understood where CORPORATISM (AKA FACSIM) was leading Germany, and he had the good sense (and good fortune, too) to be able to get out of Germany when the getting was still good.

If he lived here now?

I suspect he'd been seeking accomodations in some other nation.

Hell I doubt he'd still be here, today, really.

The man was nobody's fool.

Over half-a-century ago, Einstein and Bertrand Russell asked all humanity to put aside their strong feelings about many issues and think of themselves "only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire."

They then asked the question "...shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"

Corporations answer this question every day by placing their quest for profits over the welfare of humanity.
Failed States copyright 2006 by Noam Chomsky p.3

What an perfectly incoherant thing to say. Corporations, by definition, exist to create profits. That is the only reason they exist. They don't "place their quest for profits above" anything. Their quest for profits is the only thing.

Do you also condemn water because it places being wet above everything.

If a corporation creates a product and that product has an ulterior good or evil, that is of no consequence to a corporation. If that product, good, bad or indifferent, creates a profit, the corporation is doing what it does.

A stripper takes her clothes off and men throw money at her. Her motivation is the money. Observers may condemn or commend her for her nudity when it's all over, but without the cash, she's fully clothed and the bar tender has an empty tip jar.

Of course, if you can find a job you love, you'll never work another day in your life.

Do you find it orderly, logical and consistent to say an organization that exists only to manufacture profits places their quest for profits above everything else including humanity's continued existence?

Perhaps "psychotic" better captures the corporate world view?

 

[georgephillip]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates".[40] Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".[41] On January 27, 2010, Obama further condemned the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stating that, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law[42] to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Democratic senator Russ Feingold, a lead sponsor of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, stated "This decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president."[43] Representative Alan Grayson, a Democrat, stated that it was "the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case, and that the court had opened the door to political bribery and corruption in elections to come.[44] Democratic congresswoman Donna Edwards, along with constitutional law professor and Maryland Democratic State Senator Jamie Raskin, have advocated petitions to reverse the decision by means of constitutional amendment.[45] Rep. Leonard Boswell introduced legislation to amend the constitution.[46] Senator John Kerry also called for an Amendment to overrule the decision.[47]

Republican presidential candidate and Senator John McCain, co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns".[48] McCain was "disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions" but not surprised by the decision, saying that "It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA."[43] He pointed out that "Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor, who had taken a different position on this issue, both had significant political experience, while Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia have none."[48] (In fact, Rehnquist had joined Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy in dissenting in McConnell v. FEC). Republican Senator Olympia Snowe opined that "Today's decision was a serious disservice to our country."[49]

Sanda Everette, co-chair of the Green Party, stated that "The ruling especially hurts the ability of parties that don't accept corporate contributions, like the Green Party, to compete." (In fact, 2 U.S.C. 441i, which was not altered by the decision in Citizens United, prohibits all parties from accepting corporate contributions). Another Green Party officer, Rich Whitney, stated "In a transparently political decision, a majority of the US Supreme Court overturned its own recent precedent and paid tribute to the giant corporate interests that already wield tremendous power over our political process and political speech."

Ralph Nader, a lawyer who placed third in the popular vote in the last three presidential elections, condemned the ruling,[50] saying that "With this decision, corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars." He called for shareholder resolutions asking company directors to pledge not to use company money to favor or oppose electoral candidates.[51] Pat Choate, Reform Party candidate stated, "The court has, in effect, legalized foreign governments and foreign corporations to participate in our electoral politics."[52]

FLUSH enough Republicans AND Democrats from the US Congress and impeachment of SCOTUS' corporate justices becomes a real possibility.

Corporations will continue to dominate US politics at all levels until American voters stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth.

 

[bripat9643]

When it comes to social commentary, Einstein was a great physicist.

"The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.

"This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature.

"The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population.

"Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the intelligent use of his political rights. — Albert Einstein, Monthly Review, May 1949."

"Unequal Protection": The People's Masters | Truthout

If Einstein thought the situation was grim in 1949, what would he have to say about Citizens United or the state of Tennessee's current plot to allow corporations to contribute directly to politicians?

 

[georgephillip]

Do you agree with the great physicist when he says that "members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists"?

Does that pose any threat to Democracy?

"Unequal Protection": The People's Masters | Truthout

 

[code1211]

Over half-a-century ago, Einstein and Bertrand Russell asked all humanity to put aside their strong feelings about many issues and think of themselves "only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire."

They then asked the question "...shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?"

Corporations answer this question every day by placing their quest for profits over the welfare of humanity.
Failed States copyright 2006 by Noam Chomsky p.3

What an perfectly incoherant thing to say. Corporations, by definition, exist to create profits. That is the only reason they exist. They don't "place their quest for profits above" anything. Their quest for profits is the only thing.

Do you also condemn water because it places being wet above everything.

If a corporation creates a product and that product has an ulterior good or evil, that is of no consequence to a corporation. If that product, good, bad or indifferent, creates a profit, the corporation is doing what it does.

A stripper takes her clothes off and men throw money at her. Her motivation is the money. Observers may condemn or commend her for her nudity when it's all over, but without the cash, she's fully clothed and the bar tender has an empty tip jar.

Of course, if you can find a job you love, you'll never work another day in your life.

Do you find it orderly, logical and consistent to say an organization that exists only to manufacture profits places their quest for profits above everything else including humanity's continued existence?

Perhaps "psychotic" better captures the corporate world view?

By saying anything places anything above anything, you make it sound as if there is a choice being made.

A corporation is either profitable or out of business.

If a thing is a corporation, it exists to create profits. If it ceases creating profits, it ceases to exist. Unless it has a big union that contributes heavily to the the Democrat Party and there is a Democrat in the White House. In that case the Corporation continues to survive while the investors and bond holders get screwed and the union takes control of the "profits".

Psychotic? Maybe Sociopathic. There is no good or evil when it comes to profits. The motivations of the profiteers can be evil or the use of the manufactured products could be hurtful, but profits are only profits. They are like water.

Water can be a gentle rain, a violent storm, a peaceful lake or a raging flood. It's not what it is. It's what it does.

If there is no water or there is no profits, we all suffer.

 

[code1211]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reviewing your picture, you seem to be implying that the Justices usually seen as Conservative are sponsored (and I infer, controlled) and those usually seen as Liberal are not.

Is this an accident of application or are you just a completely moronic idiot who sees everything only as his party boss tells him to see it?

 

[bripat9643]

Do you agree with the great physicist when he says that "members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists"?

If that were true, then we wouldn't have welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or 10,000 other government programs.

Does that pose any threat to Democracy?

Democracy is a threat to itself. It's a self limiting disease. Every Democracy ever conceived has imploded within a few generations.

 

[georgephillip]

What an perfectly incoherant thing to say. Corporations, by definition, exist to create profits. That is the only reason they exist. They don't "place their quest for profits above" anything. Their quest for profits is the only thing.

Do you also condemn water because it places being wet above everything.

If a corporation creates a product and that product has an ulterior good or evil, that is of no consequence to a corporation. If that product, good, bad or indifferent, creates a profit, the corporation is doing what it does.

A stripper takes her clothes off and men throw money at her. Her motivation is the money. Observers may condemn or commend her for her nudity when it's all over, but without the cash, she's fully clothed and the bar tender has an empty tip jar.

Of course, if you can find a job you love, you'll never work another day in your life.

Do you find it orderly, logical and consistent to say an organization that exists only to manufacture profits places their quest for profits above everything else including humanity's continued existence?

Perhaps "psychotic" better captures the corporate world view?

By saying anything places anything above anything, you make it sound as if there is a choice being made.

A corporation is either profitable or out of business.

If a thing is a corporation, it exists to create profits. If it ceases creating profits, it ceases to exist. Unless it has a big union that contributes heavily to the the Democrat Party and there is a Democrat in the White House. In that case the Corporation continues to survive while the investors and bond holders get screwed and the union takes control of the "profits".

Psychotic? Maybe Sociopathic. There is no good or evil when it comes to profits. The motivations of the profiteers can be evil or the use of the manufactured products could be hurtful, but profits are only profits. They are like water.

Water can be a gentle rain, a violent storm, a peaceful lake or a raging flood. It's not what it is. It's what it does.

If there is no water or there is no profits, we all suffer.

This specie survived for millions of years without profits.
We would join the dinosaurs in a matter of days without water.

Corporations were created to amass huge private fortunes for a few individuals. It's not a question of profits v no profits, but, rather, a question of maximizing profits. While many companies maximize profits by working hard to earn their customers' continued support, others take the East India Company's approach and deal with competition by bribing the government to grant a monopoly or special tax favors or by simply crushing or buying out one's competitor.

"Considering the role the East India Company played in the American Revolution, it's not hard to see which side of Evil corporate power tends to favor.

Finally, while there's no shortage of corrupt union officials and Democrats working to enhance the "money power" in the US today, even a superficial reading of American History shows Republicans have always served the rich first:

"Through the Roaring Twenties, little was done to enforce these various (anti-corporate) acts by the corporate-friendly administrations of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge ('the business of America is business'), and Herbert Hoover.

"Seven years after the onset of the Republican Great Depression, however, Franklin D. Roosevelt again began to enforce the Sherman Act, and it was pretty much the law of the land from that time until Ronald Reagan was elected president, and he stopped enforcing it in 1981."

"Unequal Protection": The People's Masters | Truthout

 

[editec]

What corporations started out to be, and what they have become are wildly different things.

The link below might be a good place for those interested in this debate to start reading.


history of corporations - Google Search

 

[georgephillip]

What corporations started out to be, and what they have become are wildly different things.

The link below might be a good place for those interested in this debate to start reading.


history of corporations - Google Search

"Eliminating Competition

"More than two thousand corporations had been chartered between 1790 and 1860. They helped protect themselves from economic disasters by keeping tight control over the economy and the markets within which they operated.

"In this they echoed the Federalist ideas of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams."

Thom Hartman makes the point that after Jefferson's generation died off, Americans quickly forgot about the East India Company's monopoly and other corporate excesses. It wasn't until the Great Depression that a majority of Americans noticed there was a class war going on.

At that time most elected Democrats were solidly on the side of workers.

That doesn't seem to be the case today.

"Unequal Protection": The People's Masters | Truthout

 

[code1211]

This specie survived for millions of years without profits.
We would join the dinosaurs in a matter of days without water.

Corporations were created to amass huge private fortunes for a few individuals. It's not a question of profits v no profits, but, rather, a question of maximizing profits. While many companies maximize profits by working hard to earn their customers' continued support, others take the East India Company's approach and deal with competition by bribing the government to grant a monopoly or special tax favors or by simply crushing or buying out one's competitor.

"Considering the role the East India Company played in the American Revolution, it's not hard to see which side of Evil corporate power tends to favor.

Finally, while there's no shortage of corrupt union officials and Democrats working to enhance the "money power" in the US today, even a superficial reading of American History shows Republicans have always served the rich first:

"Through the Roaring Twenties, little was done to enforce these various (anti-corporate) acts by the corporate-friendly administrations of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge ('the business of America is business'), and Herbert Hoover.

"Seven years after the onset of the Republican Great Depression, however, Franklin D. Roosevelt again began to enforce the Sherman Act, and it was pretty much the law of the land from that time until Ronald Reagan was elected president, and he stopped enforcing it in 1981."

"Unequal Protection": The People's Masters | Truthout

Our specie is a component of the societies in which we as individuals live. An individual trekking across the plains of Africa 100,000 years ago and a Housewife shopping for food in the frozen food aisle of the local mega mart today are as similar in activity and world view as a fish and a meteor.

Profits mean nothing to Lucy of Africa and without them, Lucy Ricardo dies. The modern world is based on profits earned and reinvested by corporations of every stripe. Corporations build the vehicles that use the fuel that move the vehicles to grow, transport and retrieve the food that we live on. Most of us work for corporations, if we are lucky enough to still have a job, and we use the incomes generated by the profits to contibute to the society, raise our children and build our homes, communities and lives.

Without profits, and this is absolutely literal, we are all dead. Period. Our society today is a symbiotic web of interrelationships of all people organized in a cooperative and interdependent confederation of corporations.

Today corporations bribe governments to get things done. Does this more about corporations or more about governments? One group is trying to accomplish something and the other is actively and arbitrarily standing in the way. Bribes clear the way.

Serve the rich? What does this mean? How does this differ between the two major parties? It seems to me that there is plenty of corruption to be found. Corporations donate plenty to all political powers.

A Conservative approach to government leans more toward a lessening of government control while a Liberal approach leans more toward increasing government control. Some control is needed and the amount is dictated by the times and the conditions.

The current strangulation of the economy may produce a tsunami of Conservative wins in 2012 and it may produce the panicked fear that makes otherwise able folks deny the possibility of success and trade it for government control of their lives.

If the collective spirit of the national voter is sufficiently shattered, there will be no hope and the Liberals with the promise of excessive control will win.

If there is an inner belief in enough left that hard work is what will win the day and we only need to be given the opportunity to make things better, the Conservatives will win.

We'll see what we see.

 

[gekaap]

Einstein's opinions about corporations are about as useful as Michael Jordan's opinions on underwear.