Hello all. In another forum a poster was accusing GWB of favoring Big Business in nearly everything. I have a question, what is so bad about that? What is wrong with Big Business?

CP

If big business doesn't try to "buy" our politicians, and if they can be mindful of the responsiblility they have to the public good, then probably nothing. But when they misuse their power and position for excess personal gain at the expense of the share holders, manipulate the law makers to get unfair advantage and/or get exemption from taxes, and cook the books to a point that all of Wall Street gets affected, then they are not big business, they are just criminals.

Do you think that all big business behaves that way? Come on, just because there have been businessmen that have manipulated money, but that doesn't mean BB is evil.

CP

Did I say all of them do it? Did I use the word evil? Do you want to debate, or start an argument?
It appears that you have a bias FOR big business. I have no bias for or against, just a bias for a fair and even playing field so that more of us can have the opportunity to participate in the game.
If you have to hurt others to get to the top, you are not a success. You are just a selfish individual who will have a very lonely life in your old age. Oh, wait, I keep forgetting that while money can't buy happiness, it can buy friends.
BTW, to make my position clear, I despise neo-cons, Rush, his dittohead followers, the religious "right", and many others that have become an embarrassment to real conservatives, whether they be Dems or Repubs.

Whoa there. I am just saying that because I thought that you were anti-Big business.

Competition doesn't nessesarily mean cutthroat tactics. I'm not saying that being immoral to make money is good.

Hi, my name is Conservpat and I'm a neo-Conservative. I'm not sure what that attack on Neo-Cons has anything to do with this thread, if you want to start one pertaining to Neo-Conservatism, go nuts, I'll debate you there.

CP

I don't like it when "big business" ends up having more say in any level of government than ordinary citizens. Why is it right for a major corporation to use its money and influence to outweigh the concerns of people whose very quality of life can be affected by Congressional legislation? I think the point that Bill55AZ makes about the uneven playing field is legitimate.

Corporations are primarily concerned with profit. This is amoral. It becomes immoral when corporations successfully lobby for relaxed pollution standards in a community when the leadership knows that the result is increased incidence of asthma and other respiratory illnesses in the residents there.

Corporations have the ear of the President on down in our government. It was that way before Bush entered office, but it appears to the casual or not-so-casual observer that it is getting worse. Case in point: In the news this past week the White House told the press that it will be harder from now on to e-mail them thanks to some recent measures that have been taken to accomplish exactly that. Are we supposed to be happy about this?

We of the peanut gallery cannot schmooze with the President. Attending $1,000+ per plate dinners are out of the question. In another thread it has been reported that the lobbyists are being hired in a very organized effort according to their politics:
If you are a Republican you get the job (See the K Street thread).

The result is that the President gets decreasing input from John Q. Citizen. Corporate lobbyists paint a very rosy picture for politicians when they get what they want. You end up with a scenario like that of Marie Antoinette who, when she was told that the French people could not afford bread, said, "Let them eat cake." What was interpreted as a very callous statement was probably an innocent remark from a person who was obviously out of touch.

Most large businesses have no code of ethics or any moral responsibility. Some are monopolies that hurt the economy like Microsoft. Some don't intend to have good service or low prices, just cheat. Some don't even have the intention of making a profit. What is so bad about that is cheating and lying hurts the economy.
For example HMO's control medicine in many places. The company deals with making money and cheating their consumers but they don't get in trouble because they pay off the regulators. Individual doctors don't do that and if they did they would be violating their code of ethics. The HMO has no code of ethics.

PE: If a gov't official doesn't listen to the people, he doesn't get re-elected, so letting big business sway him is suicide.

RU: Microsoft employs how many thousands of employees? Isn't that a good thing. Also, maybe if other corporations worked harder they would become as successful as Microsoft.

CP

I recently contacted all my state and federal elected officials about an emissions testing issue, and all the federal ones about an IRA rules change that would probably help the economy, using email for all of them.
It has been almost 2 months, and except for one of the state officials, no replies.
Got an automated response from the President, but that doesn't count.
Heck, I even offered to help 2 of them during the next election since I am now retired and have time on my hands. No response to that either.
Perhaps I should incorporate myself, call myself CEO of Bill55AZ, and see what kind of response I get then.

How do you know that they haven't just already heard all of your ideas, or maybe they don't need any help?

CP

If someone is talking to me and I just walk away without responding, they probably wouldn't consider that listening.

Not when the big corporations finance campaign ads where it is suggested that Candidate Big Bucks represents the good life, well-dressed families with perfect teeth and family values and jobs vs. Candidate Anti-Establishment, who is for criminals and socialists, tree huggers and government handouts of YOUR hard-earned money.

People see it on television, so it must be true.

(What is not mentioned is that corporate welfare accounts for a large portion of our tax dollars that ultimately perpetuates the entrenchment of the politicians beholden to big business.)

My basic concern is this:

Corporations spend money (even charity) in such a way to increase their short and long term profits. All of the money poured into political campaigns (on both sides of the aisle) is poured their for a reason.

Now I recognize that we live in a system that is democratics capitalism and I know that capital plays an important function in our society, BUT . . .

I think we are in one of those dangerous periods (Gilded Age, 1920s, 1950s "What's good for GM is good for the country) when capital is over-represented in the system.

Corporations will exploit the system to get government help and protection when they can. Lobbyists and politicians are too interchangeable today and the $ gets more of a voice than the individual. I do recognize that the two ($ v. individual) have interests that are definitely not mutually exclusive, BUT one of the vital roles of big government is to provide a check on the power of big business. This was the principle laid down by TR and elaborated on by FDR that I think was the solution for an american no longer peopled by Jefferson's ideal citizen, the yeoman farmer.

Conservpat: 7:15 If a gov't official doesn't listen to the people, he doesn't get re-elected, so letting big business sway him is suicide.

7:39 How do you know that they haven't just already heard all of your ideas, or maybe they don't need any help?

C'mon Conservpat! What's it gonna be? Either a politician is responsive to the constituents or they aren't. Bill55AZ said he wrote his representatives and the president and only got one direct response. That seems to me to indicate it's not an issue whether they've heard all of his ideas or don't need any help. They just don't care what John Q. Citizen has to say---not unless it's an election year.

To the issue at hand, I don't think liberals are "anti-business" at all. Corporations in and of themselves are not good or bad. How they conduct themselves in their communities, in their dealing with consumers, other businessess and what their philosophy is will determine whether they are "good" or "bad."

Conservatives are not by default, "pro-business" either.

You're asking two radically different questions with two very different answers.

To answer your second question first: What is wrong with Big Business? In theory, nothing at all. In practice, quite a lot, in fact. Before he wrote The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Ethics should precede economics, but in our society, it does not. Market forces have no intrinsically moral direction and Big Business in the United States is, by its very definition, amoral. It is motivated by profit - at the expense of everything else: fair labor practices, the public good, the law, basic ethics.

As an employee, I am concerned about fair employment procedures, fair treatment of workers, health and safety standards, and decent "benefits". I have had the luxury of choosing my employers carefully. For most of my life, I have either been self-employed or contracted as a free-lancer. Only twice have I worked full-time for a major corporation (one private, one semi-state) - and each time I have done so on my own terms. Many others do not have that option - and most employers do the absolute minimum for their employees in all these areas.

As an employer, our workers - and the product - always came first. When my partner and I were running our own theater company, for example, we always made sure we met all of our expenses and paid every last employee in full before even thinking about paying ourselves. For the first year or so, as combined producers, fund-raisers, directors, designers, publicists, and accountants, we were often taking home less than our stagehands - and some weeks nothing at all. Even when, a few years later, the company was turning over six figures, our wages came last - after every bill was paid and every paycheck issued. And, if it meant a better production, we would even then pay for additional goods and services out of our own pockets. How many American CEOs could say the same?

As a consumer, I am concerned about the lack of competition, about merger-mania, about monopolies, franchises, and cartels. Big Business profits, as it must, at the expense of the consumer. Since the Reagan era, we have seen a drastic decrease in competition and, it could be argued, free enterprise. It is the consumer who has suffered the most.

As a citizen, I am concerned about public safety, pollution, the endangerment of workers, and the sale of dangerous products - from toys to food to cars to drugs. This is why, even though they may cut into profits, our government does intervene in attempting to guarantee basic, minimum standards.

Breaches of all of these things are to be expected from companies who are motivated solely and exclusively by greed - and that, again by definition, is what drives Big Business. Given the structure of our economic system as it is, I'd be surprised if major corporations didn't try to circumvent industry standards and regulations, tax and accounting laws, and consumer protection.

To me, criticizing Big Business for flouting the law, ripping off shareholders and consumers, and producing substandard products is about as effective as criticizing a Siberian tiger for being a carnivore. To me, the problem is in the answer to your first question: In another forum a poster was accusing GWB of favoring Big Business in nearly everything. I have a question, what is so bad about that?

What is so bad about that is that the man who should be the chief watchdog for the public good has become the most obedient lapdog to the worst corporate predators in our history. And it is not just George W Bush. An overwhelming majority of our politicians and public servants are instead the servants of CEOs, lobbyists, Wall Street bankers, accountants, and financial analysts - and have been for a few decades now. White collar criminals have been bilking the public - and their shareholders - out of trillions of dollars, making 401(k)s and pensions disappear, and setting new low standards in both business practices and public safety. And they have been doing so with the collusion of our most powerful politicians, who have been profiting right along with them.

The quaint notion that "if a gov't official doesn't listen to the people, he doesn't get re-elected, so letting big business sway him is suicide" is kinda cute, but ridiculously naive. How many voters even bother to find out how many bribes their "representatives" accept on a daily basis? How many know the extent to which they are responsible for not only allowing corruption to flourish, but also for creating the environment in which it can flourish? And, even if they did know, what alternatives would they have? Elect the guy who has not yet taken quite so much blood money because he has not yet had as much opportunity? Allowing big business to sway a politician has never been "suicide" - but it has been extremely profitable.

Tyco, Adelphia, WorldCom, ImClone, AOL, Xerox, Merrill Lynch, Homestore, Morgan Stanley, Enron, Rite Aid, Saloman Smith Barney, Tyson Foods, Sotheby's, and Arthur Anderson are not just "the tip of the iceberg" as many describe them, they are the tip of Antarctica. And our elected officials - George Bush prominent among them - are their enablers, their facilitators, their partners in crime. Thanks to brutally unscrupulous business execs, finance officers, investment bankers, Wall Street analysts, and lobbyists, our economic game is now rigged - and America's Chief Executive Officers - from Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush to Bill Clinton and Bush the Lesser - have been helping them do it. They have been helping them do it at our expense. They have been costing us money and they have been costing us lives.

That is what's "so bad" with "favoring Big Business in nearly everything" - and I would like to think that this is more than just some maudlin liberal concern. I would like to think that some day, both liberals and conservatives will say "We have had enough. Our government has been hijacked by corporate criminals; special interests have triumphed over the public interest; this is not what 'capitalism' means." I would like to think that, maybe, someday, the amount of "sway" which white collar criminals have over our public servants would be "political suicide". As long as this coopting of our political life continues to be dismissed as some trivial liberal preoccupation, though, I don't see it happening. It looks like the worst and greediest - businessmen and politicians - will continue to run American business - and our government - into the ground.

Good post Wertz, but I sense that you are holding back, and not really telling us how you feel.
I am thinking that the next election is going to be very interesting, and it won't just be the liberals/democrats throwing rocks at GWB, there will be some conservatives/republicans doing it as well. Only about a year to go and the fireworks will be in full bloom.
Any elected official who has too close ties to the list of big business bad boys in Wertz's post (or any of the others who have had to admit wrongdoing) will find an opponent willing to take advantage of the situation.

This is just my opinion, but I think the fact that we do not hold CEOs personally responsible for the actions of their corporations is ridiculous. Of course CEOs and other higher-ups are going to do whatever they can to maximize their personal gain when there is virtually no consequence for unethical conduct.
If an executive steals from the company, there are criminal charges he must face, but when a group of executives steal from the American public, they can avoid punishment. That ain't right.

Excellent reply, Wertz. My own concerns with big business are similar to yours, and basically break down into two areas.

1. Corporations are being given the best of both worlds. On the one hand, they are often given the rights of people - to hold property (including intellectual property), to sue, etc. On the other hand, they have none of the responsibilities of people. They are not taxed like people, they are not held liable in the same way as people (which is not to say they're not held liable at all), and so on. Corporations are inherently amoral. Not immoral; amoral. The only accountability a corporation has is to its shareholders, to make a profit. Not only is that not balanced against the interests of others they affect - which would be required of real people - but that one goal is explicitly placed above all other interests. Shareholders can sue if other concerns are allowed to interfere with profit. There are just too many costs which corporations incur but are not required to pay.

2. I'm pro-competition. Big business is anti-competition. Sure, they compete half-heartedly among themselves (do airlines or oil companies really compete as hard as they could) but they collude to drive out smaller competitors. They create barriers to entry, or have their pet congresspeople do it via regulation. They engage in predatory pricing, pressure on suppliers, and so on - whatever it takes to ensure that the club remains closed. Only in the most extreme cases are they held to account for these actions, in a scenario much like not bothering to prosecute theft of less than a million dollars.

Most of the job growth in this country is and has always been in small business. The American Dream is based on small business. Big business needs to be broken down to small business, not out of some sense of punishing the winners (they can still take their money home) but because it's the only way to preserve what works about our economy and our society.

These regulations are almost always done in the name of the consumer. The DOT and FDA are prime examples of regulatory agencies that set up barriers to entry. Be real careful whenever someone claims they are trying to protect you.

Big business is a natural result driven by economies of scale. Government should be neither pro or anti big-business. These big businesses often provide better benefits and working conditions than smaller organizations.

One of the biggest government imposed barriers to competition is the self-employment tax.

Just because something is a natural result of a system doesn't mean that it's good for the continued health of that system. Active measures must be taken to prevent stagnation.

Not so "Often" anymore.
Retirement systems are changing, in some ways good, in other ways bad. The cash balance method that my employer (and many others) is moving to is not good for older employees and they don't have to participate, they can keep the old system.
It is good in that supposedly you can carry it from company to company, much like the 401K voluntary savings program.
And that is no coincidence. Retirement plans, especially in the corporate world, are going away. They have become too expensive to fund and maintain. They will likely continue in the public sector as there it can be supported by taxpayers.

If a business does not benefit society than what good is the business? Say we eliminated all pollution laws, regulations, and liability. That would be great for business but would it be good for us? The Regulations governing the accounting industry and practices were stripped away during the 80's and 90's allowing the Enron’s to grow and flourish. This was great for them but was it good for us?

This country, the government, and the economy exists for our benefit it is reasonable to require that the businesses that exist therein are for that same benefit.