Welfare Capitalism

[BlueStreak]

The basic History of Welfare Capitalism;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism

Henry Ford and Welfare Capitalism;

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~p...eDollarDay.htm

Interesting article concerning the current condition and fate of WC;

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...vacations.html

University of Chicago article relating to The Pullman Palace Car Company and Sear Roebuck.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...ages/1332.html

And, finally, a suggestion that we should return to the model of Welfare Capitalism;

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/...e-our-country/

Seems to me trying to convince modern day capitalists, steeped in the age of benefit slashing, outsourcing, downsizing and blatant Gordon Gekko-esque self-serving greed that generosity is the key to national success might be a tall order.

But, then again, the history also indicates that the control over workers lives that employers assumed in exchange for the capitalist welfare model led to some pretty ugly confrontations anyhow.

It would seem that whoever may hold the leash, no one really likes to be at the subordinate end, no matter what goodies are at stake. (Well, there may be some wierdos who do, but that's something else.)

So, how do we reconcile very real human needs without sacrificing human dignity in the process?

Also, I believe this kind of explodes the Randian notion, as history shows they did it to themselves................

Dave

[Charles]

I remember reading in "The Irreverent Guide to Corporate America" how Coca Cola announced that during WWII they would see that every American GI could get a bottle of Coca Cola, no matter where they were in the world.

The result being, Coca Cola had bottling plants, largely paid for by tax dollars, spread across the world at the end of the war, thus guaranteeing their global market share.

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

The basic History of Welfare Capitalism;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism

Henry Ford and Welfare Capitalism;

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~p...eDollarDay.htm

Interesting article concerning the current condition and fate of WC;

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...vacations.html

University of Chicago article relating to The Pullman Palace Car Company and Sear Roebuck.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...ages/1332.html

And, finally, a suggestion that we should return to the model of Welfare Capitalism;

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/...e-our-country/

Seems to me trying to convince modern day capitalists, steeped in the age of benefit slashing, outsourcing, downsizing and blatant Gordon Gekko-esque self-serving greed that generosity is the key to national success might be a tall order.

But, then again, the history also indicates that the control over workers lives that employers assumed in exchange for the capitalist welfare model led to some pretty ugly confrontations anyhow.

It would seem that whoever may hold the leash, no one really likes to be at the subordinate end, no matter what goodies are at stake. (Well, there may be some wierdos who do, but that's something else.)

So, how do we reconcile very real human needs without sacrificing human dignity in the process?

Also, I believe this kind of explodes the Randian notion, as history shows they did it to themselves................

Dave

Actually, my take on Randian philosophy was that she pointed out than when the elite, the powerful corporations, and the government develop a death grip on the means of production and run the economy in the ground, kind of like now...the best method of resistance was to take your fucking ball and go home.

They need us more than we need them. And every now and then, we figure that out.

Chas

[BlueStreak]

I see what you're saying. And, I kinda concur. I say "kinda" because I always thought Rand was saying that it's the corporations that take their fucking ball and go home. Not us. We just get left standing in the middle of the court wondering "Where did everyone go?".

So, what's with all of this, "Corporations are people too." stuff?
What's with "Citizens United"?
What's with wanting to hire a powerful corporate snake to put in the Whitehouse?
What's with all of the powerful corporate folks like the Brothers Greedy, manipulating rightwing think tanks and dumping millions (Billions?) into Superpacs?

Isn't handing the Whitehouse to a corporate goon solidifying the deathgrip the powerful corporations and the government have on the means of production?

If you want to break the "deathgrip" you must drive a wedge between government and the corporate world, not hold a fuckin' wedding.

Which is precisely what the GOP is doing. Whether that asshat Tea Party knows it, or not.

Dave

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

So, what's with all of this, "Corporations are people too." stuff?
What's with "Citizens United"?
What's with wanting to hire a powerful corporate snake to put in the Whitehouse?
What's with all of the powerful corporate folks like the Brothers Greedy, manipulating rightwing think tanks and dumping millions (Billions?) into Superpacs?

Isn't handing the Whitehouse to a corporate goon solidifying the deathgrip the powerful corporations and the government have on the means of production?

If you want to break the "deathgrip" you must drive a wedge between government and the corporate world, not hold a fuckin' wedding.

Which is precisely what the GOP is doing. Whether that asshat Tea Party knows it, or not.

Dave

Seem to me that the left is doing quite well in garnering corporate support. The Citizens United decision was correct IMHO. Political speech ought not be hindered by legislation. The right of people to assemble in groups and associations, which BTW is exactly what a corporation or union is, and put forth their political view ought be sacrosanct under our form of government. There is a big difference between a corporation's ability to compel and a government's. My trust is with the myriad of distinct and competing corporations over a monolithic central government.

[bobabode]

As I recall the Citizen's United was a blatant overreach by activist group masquerading as a precedence respecting court. The attorney's involved had reached an agreement and the chief justice kicked it back down and basically told the attorneys to expand the rights of their corporate sugardaddies.

Corporations are about making money only. The only time they'll donate a penny is for a tax write off or a power grab ala bribing the very people we entrust to govern us.

Trust assumes that there's a two way street but when dealing with corporations it is strictly their way or the highway. (and those highways are rapidly turning into tollroads, if you haven't noticed) They get you comin' and goin'....

I would sooner trust Genghis Khan than a bunch of corporations cause when they're done what ain't Hoovervilles is going to be Masseytown or some similar POS corporate entity like China.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bobabode

As I recall the Citizen's United was a blatant overreach by activist group masquerading as a precedence respecting court. The attorney's involved had reached an agreement and the chief justice kicked it back down and basically told the attorneys to expand the rights of their corporate sugardaddies.

Corporations are about making money only. The only time they'll donate a penny is for a tax write off or a power grab ala bribing the very people we entrust to govern us.

Trust assumes that there's a two way street but when dealing with corporations it is strictly their way or the highway. (and those highways are rapidly turning into tollroads, if you haven't noticed) They get you comin' and goin'....

I would sooner trust Genghis Khan than a bunch of corporations cause when they're done what ain't Hoovervilles is going to be Masseytown or some similar POS corporate entity like China.

Beautifully stated. Thanks, Bob.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Seem to me that the left is doing quite well in garnering corporate support. The Citizens United decision was correct IMHO. Political speech ought not be hindered by legislation. The right of people to assemble in groups and associations, which BTW is exactly what a corporation or union is, and put forth their political view ought be sacrosanct under our form of government. There is a big difference between a corporation's ability to compel and a government's. My trust is with the myriad of distinct and competing corporations over a monolithic central government.

If it is wrong for a union to use dues money to contribute to political campaigns, (Something the right has been whining about for decades.), then how is it right for my employer to take the fruit of my labor and use it to support political candidates? (In both cases, doing so without my concurrence. Just because the board of piglets supports a given candidate does NOT mean that I do.)

My trust is with people I at least have a chance to vote for (As imperfect as they may be.) and not some extremely small, autocratic group of unelected oligarchs. Because you know damn well there is some collusion at the top of the corporate world. The oil and auto industries have been perfect examples of this over the last century.

Corporate executives are not elected by the general populace, they are picked solely by their cronies.
And anyone who has EVER worked for a large, or even medium sized corporatioon knows this doesn't always have anything to do with competence. I know you will disagree, but the corporate structure is closer to dictatorship and top down rule than the U.S. Goverment has ever been. It in no way even closely resembles a Democracy, nor even Representative Republic.

That was the point of this entire thread. Those people once had what they now seek.

What happened?

Rebellion against corporate tyranny.

That's what.

Do we have to do it again?

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

...

If you want to break the "deathgrip" you must drive a wedge between government and the corporate world, not hold a fuckin' wedding.

....

This ship has sailed a LONG time ago, and news flash - your guy is a corporate goon too.

One thing I like about the United decision, that the political news/candidate/consultant machine encompassing both parties is no longer in total control. Whether it ends up being as entertaining as it should be remains to be seen.

Pete

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

This ship has sailed a LONG time ago, and news flash - your guy is a corporate goon too.

One thing I like about the United decision, that the political news/candidate/consultant machine encompassing both parties is no longer in total control. Whether it ends up being as entertaining as it should be remains to be seen.

Pete

If only they hadn't done it in such a smoke filled back room, underhanded and sleezy fashion. Trust me Pete, I don't need a set of crystal balls to say that their decision is going to be up for review when the composition of the court shifts as it always does. It'll be an easy one to set aside for many reasons. Too bad that so much coin will be wasted righting this perverse decision.

If someone wants to dramatically change the way the country is run they should take it to the people through the normal process of legislation. What the Roberts court has done is to water down (actually, pissed in the face of) the respect and confidence that we had in the court of last resort. (Well, what little was left after their crowning the Shrub in 2000, you know.)

Roberts, IIRC , at his confirmation had stated that he was against activism from the bench and the very next year pulled that Citizens United decision out of thin air. The two sides had already come to a compromise deal and it was narrowly focused on the issue before the court. Never in the 200+ years of the court has this kind of activism been seen. Law is a slowly built up succession of little steps but this one was a freaky gyration of convolutions and outright fables that I think everyone was left slackjawed and stunned by it. No one could believe much less mount any argument against this absolutely brazen power grab.

If ever there was a time for the Ol' Hickory response to a decision coming from the bench, this was it. (Actually, Old Hickory was wrong in his decision to ignore that one, BTW, and should've been impeached. IMO.) But war heroes being war heroes he got away with it.

I for one don't see any entertainment value in demeaning the relevance of the Supreme court but what the hell do I know? I'm just a hophead nail pounder like my esteemed colleague from Bugtussle, ya know?