> Why would anybody think that? Why do some people seem to think
> "Corporations" are generally bad? Such thinking makes no sense.
> Incorporating is what makes it possible for a company to grow, generally buy
> issuing stock, bought mostly by insurance companies, trusts, pension plans,
> and individuals who "own" the Corporation.
Corporations are owned by stockholders. They are responsible first to
their stockholders, not their costumers.
Look at the way drug companies give gifts to doctors, so they will
prescribe their drugs. And the way drug companies don't release negative
clinical studies or negative information about their drugs that could
help patients and doctors make better decisions. There is a good reason
why drug companies and insurance companies are almost always for-profit
companies and not non-profit organizations: so they can make money for
their stockholders.
Look at the way companies blow off mountain tops in West Virgina to get
at the coal. They aren't doing it this way because it is good for the
environment!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6462-2004Aug16.html
(And please don't tell us that coal is found only in the valleys. That
may be true in Eastern PA, but the geology is different in WV and other
places where they do mountaintop mining.)
> Were we better off when only the "rich" owned big companies?
The rich own most of the companies. The richest 1% of the people own
about 1/3 of the wealth of this country. The poorest 50% of the country
own 3% of the wealth of this country.
> Did we forget
> the "Robber Barons" of old? Henry Ford realized if people were going to be
> able to purchase his cars they need money. That is why he started his "Five
> dollar day" to raise the wag standard for all Americans.
From wikipedia:
"Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage, which
more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. The move proved
extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the
best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing in their human
capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training
costs. Ford called it "wage motive." The company's use of vertical
integration also proved successful when Ford built a gigantic factory
that shipped in raw materials and shipped out finished automobiles."
Ford didn't increase the wage to increase the income of Americans. He
did it because he thought it would decrease worker turnover. Decreasing
worker turnover improves profitability.
http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-17451_18670_18793-53441--,00.html
> More importantly
> today Corporations employ more people at higher wages than the average small
> business they sell to and employ people of all races. Why would they want
> to hold down the customer's ability to obtain wealth?
Gee, that's why Wal-Mart pays it workers $100 per hour, and pays its
suppliers twice the going rate for their goods and services. That's why
US companies never outsource call centers and software engineering jobs
to India, too. ;-)
> Jackie Robinson proved that whites would pay money to see a good "performer"
> albeit an athlete, actor, musician etc.
Actually, the Harlem Globe Trotters did that before Robinson. Although
they are original from the midwest, they called themselves the Harlem
Globe Trotters so people would know that their local team would be
playing a black team.
> Where would our black performer be
> if whites and corporations did not purchase their services?
McDonalds?
Unfortunately, most famous black people are athletes or other
performers. Most black kids won't go on to become professional athletes.
Maybe one in 10,000 will. That means of the 600,000 black kids in NYC
schools today, only 60 or so will become black athletes. There are some
good role models in science, like Ben Carson, who was the youngest ever
division chief at Johns Hopkins (pediatric neurosurgery) and Erich
Jarvis of Duke university (brain research), but not enough.
When I used to go to national science meetings, I noticed that the rooms
were awfully white.
> We hear politicians so often telling us they will not bow to the "special
> Interests." Which "special interest?" Your employer or your Union. , Move
> On, Green Peace, NBC or Fox, GM or a foreign corporation, the environuts of
> those that want reasonable environmental laws that do not force your
> employer off shore or out of business? Those that want you to pay the
> "costs" of your special interest or somebody else's?
Protecting the land the gives us oxygen and food does not make one a nut.
> If so may white Americans are willing to "employ" a black man as their
> President can NASCAR be far behind? LOL
NASCAR has Bill Lester in the truck series. However, the France family,
which controls NASCAR is white, as is Mike Helton, the president of NASCAR.
Unfortunately, there are not many senior executives in large companies
that are minorities or females. In addition, in science and engineering,
there are relatively few blacks, as well.
When Minnie Lee Jones was growing up, it never occurred to her that she
can become a female black doctor because she had never heard of one (it
never occurred to me that I could become a female black doctor either,
but that's because I am not female or black). She became the first black
Surgeon General.
Jeff
>> On Feb 25, 12:02 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>>>> the corporate oligarchy in America. Doesn't matter what race he is.
>>>>> JFK & RFK were white, MLK was black. | 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage