Why Do We Worship Big Business?

[Madeline]

There may be no other generation of Americans who have so badly used by Big Business. Millions have been posioned by bad prescription drugs. An oil spill the size of the fucking Moon now covers the Gulf. The taxpayer who has had to pay to bail out the Mega-Banks is now paying again for their lagging profits through higher credit costs and bank fees, etc. I could go on and on about the Evils that have been let loose in this country lately by Big Business, and yet..........

Over and over on USMB I read posts that are written to defend, deny, excuse or protect Big Business. Very few are willing to see Walmarts for the predator it is. People are confused as to whether we ought to blame BP for the spill. Maybe it was Obama's fault, or just an accident they couldn't prevent. There are several posters on another thread who wish away liability for United after a passenger was imprisoned by a flight crew that failed to wake her to deplane. Almost no one wants to lay blame on Big Agriculture for its exploitation of illegal aliens and the resulting avalance of harm caused to our communities. I could go on and on about the vile actions of Big Business, and I think all of you reading this could as well.

I am assuming most of these folks are not themselves the Executive Managers of any Fortune 500 company. We used to have a distrust for and distaste for such people and a healthy regard for ourselves. We were all taught in school about the Big Trusts and the horrors they inflicted; why are we so complacent about the horrors let loose on us by the Fortune 500 today?

When exactly did this worshipful attitude towards Big Business come to be in this country? What accounts for it? Cause it just confuzzles the living shit out of me.

 

[candycorn]

There may be no other generation of Americans who have so badly used by Big Business. Millions have been posioned by bad prescription drugs. An oil spill the size of the fucking Moon now covers the Gulf. The taxpayer who has had to pay to bail out the Mega-Banks is now paying again for their lagging profits through higher credit costs and bank fees, etc. I could go on and on about the Evils that have been let loose in this country lately by Big Business, and yet..........

Over and over on USMB I read posts that are written to defend, deny, excuse or protect Big Business. Very few are willing to see Walmarts for the predator it is. People are confused as to whether we ought to blame BP for the spill. Maybe it was Obama's fault, or just an accident they couldn't prevent. There are several posters on another thread who wish away liability for United after a passenger was imprisoned by a flight crew that failed to wake her to deplane. Almost no one wants to lay blame on Big Agriculture for its exploitation of illegal aliens and the resulting avalance of harm caused to our communities. I could go on and on about the vile actions of Big Business, and I think all of you reading this could as well.

I am assuming most of these folks are not themselves the Executive Managers of any Fortune 500 company. We used to have a distrust for and distaste for such people and a healthy regard for ourselves. We were all taught in school about the Big Trusts and the horrors they inflicted; why are we so complacent about the horrors let loose on us by the Fortune 500 today?

When exactly did this worshipful attitude towards Big Business come to be in this country? What accounts for it? Cause it just confuzzles the living shit out of me.

I don't know of anyone who "worships" big business. People shop at Wal Mart because they get stuff cheaper than at the stores down the street. When you are operating a mile under sea-level and something goes wrong, you're going to have problems fixing it--duh. If Mom-and-Pop ran a Pfizer, they'd have just as many recalls as Pfizer had or Winthrop, or McNeil labs, etc.... I'm not sure what your point is but if you're asking why large businesses are favored; there isn't much mystery to it.

 

[Barb]

There is an assumption hard-wired into the American culture that the economic and social (they are connected) systems are inherently fair and equitable. This assumption leads people to believe that those favored by the system prosper because they are smarter, harder working, and more virtuous. This naturally leads to the assumption that those not so favored are less so.

 

[martybegan]

There may be no other generation of Americans who have so badly used by Big Business. Millions have been posioned by bad prescription drugs. An oil spill the size of the fucking Moon now covers the Gulf. The taxpayer who has had to pay to bail out the Mega-Banks is now paying again for their lagging profits through higher credit costs and bank fees, etc. I could go on and on about the Evils that have been let loose in this country lately by Big Business, and yet..........

Over and over on USMB I read posts that are written to defend, deny, excuse or protect Big Business. Very few are willing to see Walmarts for the predator it is. People are confused as to whether we ought to blame BP for the spill. Maybe it was Obama's fault, or just an accident they couldn't prevent. There are several posters on another thread who wish away liability for United after a passenger was imprisoned by a flight crew that failed to wake her to deplane. Almost no one wants to lay blame on Big Agriculture for its exploitation of illegal aliens and the resulting avalance of harm caused to our communities. I could go on and on about the vile actions of Big Business, and I think all of you reading this could as well.

I am assuming most of these folks are not themselves the Executive Managers of any Fortune 500 company. We used to have a distrust for and distaste for such people and a healthy regard for ourselves. We were all taught in school about the Big Trusts and the horrors they inflicted; why are we so complacent about the horrors let loose on us by the Fortune 500 today?

When exactly did this worshipful attitude towards Big Business come to be in this country? What accounts for it? Cause it just confuzzles the living shit out of me.

I disagree with the "millions" being posioned by drugs, but hundred of millions have had thier lives saved or extended by the same drugs. And yes there is a huge spill now, but we have been pumping oil out of the ground for 150 years now and the major spills have been few compared to the amount of rigs drilled. I do think the bank bailout was questionable, but those banks are paying back the money with interest.

Big business was actually far more harmful in the early 1900's due to trusts and lax regulations. This period just seems worse because you are living in it.

This is far from worship of big business. This is the economic system we have. There are others, but they have an even worse track record with regards to rights and the environment. Look at state-communism, where the regulator and the factory were both owned by the goverment.

On a side note the plane thing isnt really in the scope of the other items you bring up. Yes, they should have checked the plane, but how much damage can be done to a person being stuck on an airplane, on the ground, at an airport? its not like they were being stalked by bengali tigers or something like that.

 

[Granny]

I'm not so sure people in general worship big business. One of my biggest bitches is the damned automated voice-mail trees. The piss me off - the only tell me that they "value our business" .... very little. There should be two choices:

If you want to use our automated system, press 1.
If you want to speak to a representative, press 2.

The big companies have gotten out of hand at this point. They're so massive in size that they're really not manageable anymore - things "fall in the cracks" so to speak. Smaller banks give better customer service. The telephone companies should be broken back down to what they used to be - regionally owned/operated. Sure, we can get things cheaper at WalMart - but WalMart bullies it's way into towns that don't want their stores and WalMart is not that great an employer. They have tons of lawsuits going on all the time - from employees and customers alike.

I'm not sure when "bigger is better" got started, but I do know that I thought the '80s would never come to an end - huge buy-outs, takeovers, were a constant - and "He who has the most toys wins" was the mantra of the day.

 

[Christophera]

Values and principles have been altered by the intentional uses of semiotics on television and in films to manipulate the thinking of populations. Instincts have been manipulated over 2 generations. Fears and desires exploited.

As the family was broken down in its ability to meet its needs, the corporations were empowered to replace the human capacity to directly meet needs. Big money, social power became a fantasy that Americans witnessed from their couches then strove to conform.

The mentioned assumption of fairness results from the belief that courts will make it fair if there are abuses. The populations are distracted from noticing that courts are not often fair and just while acting in a capacity to provide the rightful and lawful authority they represent under the US Constitution.

 

[trailertrash]

There may be no other generation of Americans who have so badly used by Big Business. Millions have been posioned by bad prescription drugs. An oil spill the size of the fucking Moon now covers the Gulf. The taxpayer who has had to pay to bail out the Mega-Banks is now paying again for their lagging profits through higher credit costs and bank fees, etc. I could go on and on about the Evils that have been let loose in this country lately by Big Business, and yet..........

Over and over on USMB I read posts that are written to defend, deny, excuse or protect Big Business. Very few are willing to see Walmarts for the predator it is. People are confused as to whether we ought to blame BP for the spill. Maybe it was Obama's fault, or just an accident they couldn't prevent. There are several posters on another thread who wish away liability for United after a passenger was imprisoned by a flight crew that failed to wake her to deplane. Almost no one wants to lay blame on Big Agriculture for its exploitation of illegal aliens and the resulting avalance of harm caused to our communities. I could go on and on about the vile actions of Big Business, and I think all of you reading this could as well.

I am assuming most of these folks are not themselves the Executive Managers of any Fortune 500 company. We used to have a distrust for and distaste for such people and a healthy regard for ourselves. We were all taught in school about the Big Trusts and the horrors they inflicted; why are we so complacent about the horrors let loose on us by the Fortune 500 today?

When exactly did this worshipful attitude towards Big Business come to be in this country? What accounts for it? Cause it just confuzzles the living shit out of me.

It's not hard to figure out friend. Big business means big money with which to buy influence. That's all there is to that. Before long we will be living in:

The Corporate States of America

where "we the people" is now "we the consumers" or "we the suckers" or "we the peasants who serve the corporate land owners".

It will change after the next revolution to restore 1776 democracy gets here. And guess what? Just like in 1776 the conservatives will be the neo-torys and it will be the forward thinking liberals that make it happen. It was the liberals that declared independence from England then and it will be they who declares independence from Corporations in the near future.

 

[Christophera]

Hmmm, I think it already is a corporation, and can show how and when it became a corporation.

The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation!

The original full title of the Constitution. Notice a difference?

"The Constitution for the united states of America".

 

[Si modo]

"We"?

Pa-leeze do NOT include me in much of anything even remotely related to you, Madeline.

 

[California Girl]

"We"?

Pa-leeze do NOT include me in much of anything even remotely related to you, Madeline.

Good point. Lucky we're on the (very, very long) ignore list, huh?

 

[Si modo]

"We"?

Pa-leeze do NOT include me in much of anything even remotely related to you, Madeline.

Good point. Lucky we're on the (very, very long) ignore list, huh?

You are, too?

Good job, CG!

Cue her to bitch about us not ignoring her, though.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

There may be no other generation of Americans who have so badly used by Big Business. Millions have been posioned by bad prescription drugs. An oil spill the size of the fucking Moon now covers the Gulf. The taxpayer who has had to pay to bail out the Mega-Banks is now paying again for their lagging profits through higher credit costs and bank fees, etc. I could go on and on about the Evils that have been let loose in this country lately by Big Business, and yet..........

Over and over on USMB I read posts that are written to defend, deny, excuse or protect Big Business. Very few are willing to see Walmarts for the predator it is. People are confused as to whether we ought to blame BP for the spill. Maybe it was Obama's fault, or just an accident they couldn't prevent. There are several posters on another thread who wish away liability for United after a passenger was imprisoned by a flight crew that failed to wake her to deplane. Almost no one wants to lay blame on Big Agriculture for its exploitation of illegal aliens and the resulting avalance of harm caused to our communities. I could go on and on about the vile actions of Big Business, and I think all of you reading this could as well.

I am assuming most of these folks are not themselves the Executive Managers of any Fortune 500 company. We used to have a distrust for and distaste for such people and a healthy regard for ourselves. We were all taught in school about the Big Trusts and the horrors they inflicted; why are we so complacent about the horrors let loose on us by the Fortune 500 today?

When exactly did this worshipful attitude towards Big Business come to be in this country? What accounts for it? Cause it just confuzzles the living shit out of me.

so very true Madeline.Like you said,so many posters here at USMB worship Big business and Big Corporations to know end its unreal how naive they are and how they are so much in denial that they do.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hmmm, I think it already is a corporation, and can show how and when it became a corporation.

The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation!

The original full title of the Constitution. Notice a difference?

"The Constitution for the united states of America".

great stuff there Chris.Thanks for posting that link.Thats a lot of great material in there that people need to read and wake the hell up to.Many people here unfortunately are so much in denial and only see what they want to see though that they will never bother reading through that link.Well I for one am grateful you posted it and plan on emailing it to everyone I know.thanks again for posting it.You should post more in threads with these kinds of issues,how come you never do?

 

[candycorn]

There may be no other generation of Americans who have so badly used by Big Business. Millions have been posioned by bad prescription drugs. An oil spill the size of the fucking Moon now covers the Gulf. The taxpayer who has had to pay to bail out the Mega-Banks is now paying again for their lagging profits through higher credit costs and bank fees, etc. I could go on and on about the Evils that have been let loose in this country lately by Big Business, and yet..........

Over and over on USMB I read posts that are written to defend, deny, excuse or protect Big Business. Very few are willing to see Walmarts for the predator it is. People are confused as to whether we ought to blame BP for the spill. Maybe it was Obama's fault, or just an accident they couldn't prevent. There are several posters on another thread who wish away liability for United after a passenger was imprisoned by a flight crew that failed to wake her to deplane. Almost no one wants to lay blame on Big Agriculture for its exploitation of illegal aliens and the resulting avalance of harm caused to our communities. I could go on and on about the vile actions of Big Business, and I think all of you reading this could as well.

I am assuming most of these folks are not themselves the Executive Managers of any Fortune 500 company. We used to have a distrust for and distaste for such people and a healthy regard for ourselves. We were all taught in school about the Big Trusts and the horrors they inflicted; why are we so complacent about the horrors let loose on us by the Fortune 500 today?

When exactly did this worshipful attitude towards Big Business come to be in this country? What accounts for it? Cause it just confuzzles the living shit out of me.

so very true Madeline.Like you said,so many posters here at USMB worship Big business and Big Corporations to know end its unreal how naive they are and how they are so much in denial that they do.

You'll have to forgive rimjob, he's incredibly jealous of anybody who has more money and power than he does. As you may imagine, the population that qualifies is enormous.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is an assumption hard-wired into the American culture that the economic and social (they are connected) systems are inherently fair and equitable. This assumption leads people to believe that those favored by the system prosper because they are smarter, harder working, and more virtuous. This naturally leads to the assumption that those not so favored are less so.

Not necessarily more virtuous, no.

 

[Barb]

There is an assumption hard-wired into the American culture that the economic and social (they are connected) systems are inherently fair and equitable. This assumption leads people to believe that those favored by the system prosper because they are smarter, harder working, and more virtuous. This naturally leads to the assumption that those not so favored are less so.

Not necessarily more virtuous, no.

Not necessarily, but the assumption exists, and history shows the root:

The English Poor Law of 1601 was the first systematic codification of English ideas about the responsibility of the state to provide for the welfare of its citizens. It provided for taxation to fund relief activities; it distinguished between the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor; relief was local and community controlled; and almshouses were eventually established to house those on relief. The law was at once both generous and harsh. Generous in that it acknowledged the government's duty to provide for the welfare of the poor, but harsh in that it viewed the poor as highly undesirable characters and treated them accordingly.

There were a series of changes and "reforms" of the "Poor Laws" over the years, but this essential structure was the tradition the pilgrims brought with them when they journeyed to the New World.


Economic Security in America

When the English-speaking colonists arrived in the New World they brought with them the ideas and customs they knew in England, including the "Poor Laws." The first colonial poor laws were fashioned after those of the Poor Law of 1601. They featured local taxation to support the destitute; they discriminated between the "worthy" and the "unworthy" poor; and all relief was a local responsibility. No public institutions for the poor or standardized eligibility criteria would exist for nearly a century. It was up to local town elders to decide who was worthy of support and how that support would be provided.

As colonial America grew more complex, diverse and mobile, the localized systems of poor relief were strained. The result was some limited movement to state financing and the creation of almshouses and poorhouses to "contain" the problem. For much of the 18th and 19th centuries most poverty relief was provided in the almshouses and poorhouses. Relief was made as unpleasant as possible in order to "discourage" dependency. Those receiving relief could lose their personal property, the right to vote, the right to move, and in some cases were required to wear a large "P" on their clothing to announce their status.

Support outside the institutions was called "outdoor relief" and was looked upon with distrust by most citizens. It was felt that "outdoor relief" made things too easy on the poor who should be discouraged from the habit of poverty in every way possible. Nevertheless, since it was expensive to build and operate the poorhouses, and since it was relatively easy to dispense cash or in-kind support, some outdoor relief did emerge. Even so, prevailing American attitudes toward poverty relief were always skeptical and the role of government was kept to the minimum. So much so that by as late as 1915 at most only 25% of the money spent on outdoor relief was from public funds.

Social Security Online

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is an assumption hard-wired into the American culture that the economic and social (they are connected) systems are inherently fair and equitable. This assumption leads people to believe that those favored by the system prosper because they are smarter, harder working, and more virtuous. This naturally leads to the assumption that those not so favored are less so.

Not necessarily more virtuous, no.

Not necessarily, but the assumption exists, and history shows the root:

The English Poor Law of 1601 was the first systematic codification of English ideas about the responsibility of the state to provide for the welfare of its citizens. It provided for taxation to fund relief activities; it distinguished between the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor; relief was local and community controlled; and almshouses were eventually established to house those on relief. The law was at once both generous and harsh. Generous in that it acknowledged the government's duty to provide for the welfare of the poor, but harsh in that it viewed the poor as highly undesirable characters and treated them accordingly.

There were a series of changes and "reforms" of the "Poor Laws" over the years, but this essential structure was the tradition the pilgrims brought with them when they journeyed to the New World.


Economic Security in America

When the English-speaking colonists arrived in the New World they brought with them the ideas and customs they knew in England, including the "Poor Laws." The first colonial poor laws were fashioned after those of the Poor Law of 1601. They featured local taxation to support the destitute; they discriminated between the "worthy" and the "unworthy" poor; and all relief was a local responsibility. No public institutions for the poor or standardized eligibility criteria would exist for nearly a century. It was up to local town elders to decide who was worthy of support and how that support would be provided.

As colonial America grew more complex, diverse and mobile, the localized systems of poor relief were strained. The result was some limited movement to state financing and the creation of almshouses and poorhouses to "contain" the problem. For much of the 18th and 19th centuries most poverty relief was provided in the almshouses and poorhouses. Relief was made as unpleasant as possible in order to "discourage" dependency. Those receiving relief could lose their personal property, the right to vote, the right to move, and in some cases were required to wear a large "P" on their clothing to announce their status.

Support outside the institutions was called "outdoor relief" and was looked upon with distrust by most citizens. It was felt that "outdoor relief" made things too easy on the poor who should be discouraged from the habit of poverty in every way possible. Nevertheless, since it was expensive to build and operate the poorhouses, and since it was relatively easy to dispense cash or in-kind support, some outdoor relief did emerge. Even so, prevailing American attitudes toward poverty relief were always skeptical and the role of government was kept to the minimum. So much so that by as late as 1915 at most only 25% of the money spent on outdoor relief was from public funds.

Social Security Online

I'd call that rather more an assumption that hard work is virtuous, and that despair (the acceptance of poverty and being a charity case) was undesirable, neither of which is a bad assumption in my book. Note that they made a distinction between "worthy" and "unworthy" poor.

 

[Christophera]

Hmmm, I think it already is a corporation, and can show how and when it became a corporation.

The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation!

The original full title of the Constitution. Notice a difference?

"The Constitution for the united states of America".

great stuff there Chris.Thanks for posting that link.Thats a lot of great material in there that people need to read and wake the hell up to.Many people here unfortunately are so much in denial and only see what they want to see though that they will never bother reading through that link.Well I for one am grateful you posted it and plan on emailing it to everyone I know.thanks again for posting it.You should post more in threads with these kinds of issues,how come you never do?

It's true, I don't often post outside of my own threads, but then again there are not often really quality threads with issues as fundamental as the one Madeline has posted. The dynamics of the question she posed are deep and things I've been examining for decades.

When I say "fundamental" I mean threads that escape the misleading of corporate media and address a basic element of human behavior. Dynamics between our intincts, or how they are exploited and the principles of our Constitution and the historical awareness which is correct in how we might work to gether to protect our futures are things I pursue with a passion. Watering down that pursuit with comment on related but less fundamental aspects can't serve my purposes as well as holding back and waiting for thread that are as basic as what Madeline posted. Then, when I post, sombody, like yourself notices that I can contribute perspective that is relevant, useful and comments upon it.

Our language has been corrupted. I'm not sure how badly, but fairly bad. I've become familiar with the extent of that partially by studying some of what David-Wynn: Miller has done.

http://dwmlc.com/

His works seems an extreme, but then someone must go there so the extent of what is possible is explored, So it is a very good thing to at least understand. I have a feeling he is quite a bit more correct that many realize and that the uses of grammer he indicates can actually change our psychology as a group if we use just a small amount of what he exposes in our daily speech.

At any rate their is a major class division in America that is somewhat invisible. Those that control the judicial/legal aspects expect the populations to conform to their precepts and sway with their trends. However, now, it has gotten so far from anything we might call "American" that it is fairly obvious to many people.

When women start noticing that money is controlling our society with the many serious problems it has, it is time for me to bring up some fundments that might show the origins and depth of our dysfunction.

The fact is that money is not what life is about. Women know this as they give birth, risking their lives to create our future. Of course later on as they work to fit into our society they often convienently forget this and go along with the social flow the male dominated society creates. Then, later on, after they see what this does to the society their children inhabit, they seek to expose the sordid truth of how money is used to manipulate. We really do not need it in any material way. At the same time because of corporate media, we've become seriously confused as to what our needs are and certainly lost the skills to directly meet them. I'm a big advocate of women that hold any part of that perspective and work to share it. Madeline has gotten closer than many to voicing that.

 

[midcan5]

Damned if I know. Thinking tends to be bipolar and if government is bad, business must then be good, after all the assumption is they create jobs and thus wealth. That always amazes me as in truth business is for profit and wal-mart is representative of that in their treatment of employees, and yet to watch their ads you'd think they just loved making people happy. I've always thought money is the number one gawd in America, so wealth from business is good. Add Ayn Rand and others and soon you have a new gawd.

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

"Popular economic proselytising in the US. American corporate capitalism has, since shortly after the turn of the century, directly intervened with vast, popular proselytising programs on behalf of its values and institutions, whenever and wherever popular sentiment was judged to be taking uncongenial forms. 11 These programs have had much of the temper of secular Billy Graham crusades, though with a greater reach and pervasiveness. The first among them was the pre-World War 1 Americanisation program."

The Ideological Management Industry

 

[Christophera]

Not sure I would label it bipolar. I would say thinking can be easily led with cognitive distortions, meaning,

government is bad, business must then be good​

is a set of generalizations. Not that I think you subscribe to those distortions. For reference here is my list of cognitive distortions that are used by cognitive therapists.

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.
2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.
3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.
4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.
6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established fact.
7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.
8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation.
9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.
10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.
11. Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.
12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.

This is a good quote. Very true.

"the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

And that is what media is all about.