Ralph Nader was recently interviewed by NBC and said that the US is living under “corporate fascism.” The timing is perfect if you consider these two events.
First, Fox is simply refusing to pay a sanction imposed against it by the FCC.
With the Supreme Court already agreeing to review how the FCC determines indecency in a case involving Fox, it appears that Fox has taken a rather aggressive stance concerning a different case where it was fined: it’s simply refusing to pay the fine.
The next comes from Starbucks which again is simply refusing to pay a sanction imposed against it.
In the state of California it is illegal for supervisors to share in employee tips. Starbucks recently lost a lawsuit brought by an employee who said he was forced to share a portion of his tips with his supervisor. The judgment awarded over $100 million in back tips and interest to the Starbucks baristas of California, and now several similar lawsuits are pending in other states.
Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, however, is more concerned about how the media is portraying Starbucks than he is about paying the back tips. Why? According to a spokesperson, Starbucks won’t be changing their practice and they won’t be paying up.
The company had this to say:
“Contrary to some reports, Starbucks has not taken money from any of its partners, and nor is there money to be refunded or returned from Starbucks.” A spokeswoman said Thursday that Starbucks Corp. has no intention of ending the practice of sharing tips among baristas and shift supervisors in California while it seeks an injunction.
I’m not saying that either of these sanctions are right. I think there should be boobies on TV. And maybe under some circumstances your supervisor should be able to partake in the bounty of your tips.
My point is that when the little guy is faced with a sanction, such as removing our hats or using our cell phones, cops taser us or shoot us into compliance. Isn’t the fact that corporations feel they’re above the law and get away with it proof enough that they are above the law and that we are living under corporate fascism?
Yes.
And government sanctioned, at that.
Corporations have become magical entities with many rights and no responsibilities.
Now let me clarify the “no responsibilities” part …
Yes, corporations can be held “accountable” but consider a crime that would normally involve jail time committed by the company. An individual would be put on trial and jailed, but companies usually have no accountability and therefore it would be a fine or a legal action in most cases, because there isn’t anyone to hold accountable.
And corporations are the government’s best friend.
Notice how many processes in government depend on the citizen (“the controlled”) having an employer (“the master’s many servants”) to exercise the government’s will.
Add unlimited corporate contributions to campaigns via schemes like $2000 per head and the 527 organizations and you have a self-feeding system.
Very good signs that we are: Most of the Federal Reserve actions to stave off recession and credit crunch have favored the corporations… at the expense of the consumers I might add.
Most of the budget cuts under Bush have been to federal programs that benefit average people, welfare recipients, disability, etc. And yet, Corporate Welfare (subsidies, special tax breaks, contract favoritism, corporate bailouts, etc.) have not been cut at all and have actually gone up.
Virtually none of the fortune 500 pay corporate taxes. And yet, adjusted wages for workers in this country are down… way down… going back even to Reagan.
Supply side (aka trickle down) economics don’t work, neither does globalism or deregulation. These three hallmarks of neo-con/neo-lib philosophy are the three primary cases of the economic collapse we are facing.
BTW Corporate Fascism is a redundant phrase. There is no form of fascism that isn’t corporate.
yes.
Nader has a few good points in this video, like better financial education and holding individuals within a corporation responsible for corporate behavior. This is all good.
But… I do have a few problems with some of what he said.
According to this video, you should not be held accountable for not reading the fine print. I do believe that contracts should be written in plain English, but even Nader acknowledged this would not have helped the housing crisis because people were desperate to get into a home. You can’t legislate against bad decisions.
Yes, some corporations do try to hide bad behavior, but most do not. Most corporations stay in business by providing competitive services which are fair and wanted. This is called Capitalism, and overall it works very well.
He is arguing that to reduce corporate fascism, increase government fascism. That’s a dangerous and stupid argument. Think about this, do we really want MORE government intervention in our lives? What qualifies our usually dim government drones to make far reaching business decisions?
Whereas a corporation which acts fascist affects those who work under them (while providing jobs, food, etc.) government fascism affects EVERYONE under them, the entire populace.
What Nader is also refusing to address is that we are in a global economy wherein the US is already working at a severe corporate disadvantage. Other countries supplement their corporations with vast public aid. Japan and China have made this an art.
If you think the trade deficit, job loss, and overseas outsourcing is bad now, just follow Nader, tie the corporate hands even further, and see how much worse it can get.
In other words, Nader’s arguments would lead to devastating consequences if followed.
Here is the Scenario.
Are you following all this? There will be a test after class.
For more evidence of corporate facism, I highly recommend “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”. Find it on Amazon.
I don’t know that it is corporate “fascism” but we are certainly under the thumb of corporations. Look at the recent Bear bailout. The government “loaned” $30 billion to JP Morgan. The people who got screwed by Bear? nothing.
Look at how many people got screwed by Enron and how little the heads of Enron suffered. Then look at people who get long jail terms for things like drug possession.
#6 The Cause and effect don’t follow.
1 hasnt happened yet, and if 2 is happening, it is because corporate mergers, which the government is looking the other way, are killing competition.
And yet 3 and 4 are already happening, and 5, 6, and 7 are soon to follow.
“Isn’t the fact that corporations feel they’re above the law and get away with it proof enough that we’re living under corporate fascism?”
Using these examples? No. They should tell the gov’t to STFU. Gov’t shouldn’t be telling companies how to structure their comp plans. The FCC thing is just nuts. Sounds more like gov’t fascism. If the gov’t wants to say how a bus is run internally then they should be held accountable for a failure.
For many companies, like collection agencies and telemarketers, paying fines is just part of the costs of doing business. The fines do nothing towards altering and controlling behavior, as they are intended.
#10. You’re wrong. In the global economics, US corporations are already working at a de-facto disadvantage.
Let me explain. I’ve been working with a company in China, and this is how they make US corporations uncompetitive.
China has numerous, fairly autonomous, “Special Economic Districts”. These districts have been set up by the central government to crush the competition.
This is how they do it:
So, 1 and 2 definitely do apply because much of the overhead is taken off the corporate shoulders. A tax break by any other name…
Bad Corporate business is so yesterday..
Cummon folks, the enemy today is the media taken over by the Murdock type corporations.
The sheep sit glued to their made in someplace else TV sets being told how to behave by the talking heads. Even the American election of it’s government has been turned into just another media spectacular where the candidates are selected for the sheep based upon their shock and awe factor. How well will they keep the eyeballs glued to the TV sets. Eyeballs of people being fed advertisements sold by the media to keep them watching while they see products to buy made by people in other countries spending down their common wealth buying all that crap instead of out creating a better world for their children.
That is the corporate fascism that is destroying America for it’s sheep.
This is my big beef with Libertarians… they are fighting against enemy that is no longer our biggest threat: big government.
These days, unregulated corporations are the biggest threat to our personal liberty.
Yet, the Libertarians still want to sell off our government to the corporations for pennies on the dollar.
Man, that’s messed up.
As has been said, fines are just part of doing business. They’re factored into the price charged, so in the long run corporations do not pay fines, consumers do.
So, in a nutshell, Nader is still living in the “Unsafe at any speed” 60’s.
Time to enter the 21st century Ralph!
#3
All corporations pay corporate taxes even the Fortune 500. However, as #18 said, no corporation really pays taxes. They simply pass those higher costs along to the consumer. What discourages behavior which merits a fine is increased fines for repeat offenses. At some point, the cost of the fine outweighs the benefit gain by continuing the activity and a change in behavior occurs.
Yes, I think, however the two examples are not indicative of that.
Corporations do seem to control, or have undue influence, on two major factors in American daily life; government and media. Politicians and media get the vast majority of their income from corporations. While the government may get it’s operating budget from taxes, individuals in government benefit immensely from ties to corporations. It’s a situation that’s ripe for corruption.
Using China for an example of good government/corporate relations is not without problems. It may be true that in China they can get things done quicker and cheaper, but there are huge problems with worker and environmental abuses.
Companies don’t move production overseas only because of high taxes, they move to increase profits. If lower labor and production costs can be had in some other country, any company that only cares for profit would consider it. Fewer restrictions and regulations contribute to the decision to move and taxes are only a small part of the total savings they might incur from the relocation.
After watching the video I would say Ralph makes some good points. However he seems to have some sort of bias against computers.
Yea, what’s this thing he’s got against computers? Computers came on the scene so people stopped learning financial responsibility.
HUH?
in case of Fox, they are appealing to the supreme court cause the fine imposed, they felt is unfair. To point out their case, they can’t stop Bono from U2 saying “fuck” on live tv. as for the starbucks problem, it seems fucked up, but i have on several occasions seen supervisors work the service area. I guess what starbucks should do is separate the tips jars to one for sups and one for regular employee’s.
Oh, and the point of the China example is that not only does China, Japan, and a host of other countries not tax Corporations like we do, but they actually subsidize them.
We have to get used to the fact that we either have to get behind our corporations or get left behind while other corporations put us out of business.
As so many have said (except for Ah Yea who lost track of the question and needs to read it again before he makes his usually insightful posts) the answer is YES–but not as shown by these two cases.
The two cases show CEO’s who have gone crazy with power and think they can flout the very government that supports, protects, and nutures them. Once you have a court judgment==easy to attach assets.
Now AhYea–the question is “Is the US living under corporate fascism?” What you responded with is Nations with strong corporate fascist states compete very effectively. See the difference?
Nader is the ONLY CANDIDATE I have seen in years that would try to bring a real change to America. All the rest (Ron Paul, Kusinich come to mind, are members of the freaking congress and already completely co-opted to the degree they aren’t nuts to begin with.)
If ever elected, Nader would serve no more than 2 months in office before being rear-ended and blown up. The only thing to be reported on would be how ironic it was.
For years, America’s military has been the police force that opens new opportunities and makes the world as safe as possible for our beloved multinational corporations to do business. Of course, American history textbooks don’t describe it quite like that, because young minds are more receptive to the notion that Americans are the good guys who like to spread democracy and vanquish villains.
They say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to.
#27
Proof that tin foil hats will never go out of style.
#26, Thank you for your praise about my usually insightful comments. I hope to make another here.
My previous posts jumped over the question of corporate fascism because the question itself is irrelevant. I went straight to the deeper issue, which was to Nader’s proposed cure, which “cure” for corporate fascism is far worse than the disease.
The question of corporate fascism is irrelevant because corporations are inherently “fascist” by virtue of their corporate nature. I believed this to be understood by such intelligent individuals such as yourself.
By the way, using the term “Fascist” to describe a corporation is technically incorrect. The proper term would be “Authoritarian”. If you don’t understand why, go to wikipedia and read the real definition of fascism. In short, “Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes.”
Nader uses the term “fascist” for the sole purpose of being inflammatory.
He also alludes to corporate fascism contributing to societal ills, but then proposes the solution to corporate fascism by increasing government fascism.
This is ludicrous.
So my comments relate to Nader’s proposed solutions which would, at best, actually exacerbate the problem, and at worse, lead to economic collapse.
#28, proof that ignorance gives comfort to the masses. What exclusive company you keep.
#29==Ah Yeah==you are so wrong==only because you simply cannot predict the future, you don’t know Nader or what he would do, the ONLY correction for excessive corporate fascism is government control, and its simple minded to equate government curbs on excess with fascism, as it in fact ELEVATES the needs/desires/equities of “the people” over the corporation.
Nader says often that he is not against corportions–just their excesses. Do we need a list? Excessive involvement in politics essentially funding/electing our government, getting tax breaks to offshore businesses, isolated from common sense individual criminal activity ((think of the Tobacco CEO’s all testifying falsly and what happens?)), and all kinds of stock crimes and manipulations while defaulting on employee benefit plans and so forth.
Your position advocates unrestrained capitalism because capitalism is “the best system.” That is foolish. If USA based corportions were more regulated you think they would lose business to china and other foreign corps?? Well maybe so==but I’d rather be screwed by a foreigner I could hate, than set up one of my own to do the same thing.
I’ll just say again that corporate america has lost its way and needs a different philosophical approach. I’d start with nationalizing healthcare to make them more competitive, take away tax breaks and incentives so they actually were playing at capitalism rather than bribing government for welfare, and I would tie compensation and stock returns to employee benefits.
Then, on the 7th day, I would rest.
For those who threathen corporate displeasure I suggest we make it illegal to offshore. That execs that do so be collected to spend life in prison, that executive pay be fixed, that individual spending represent only 33% of the economy and corporate responsibility the remainder. Who wants to go first !
Bobbo, I don’t agree with all your points as presented above, but I agree entirely with your conclusion about nationalizing healthcare and linking stock returns to employee benefits. I assume by employee you are particularly targeting overpaid executives. Executives should get paid the same as the underlings, and when they actually do their job right they get a reasonable percentage of the increase. We are on the same page here.
Additionally, I would also introduce significant campaign finance reforms which would specifically limit what contributions can be made to any political entity. Oddly enough, the only candidate who has even attempted such a thing is John McCain with McCain-Feingold. McCain hasn’t yet gone far enough, but he has gone leagues further than anyone else.
I disagree adamantly about the “I’d rather be screwed by a foreigner I could hate, than set up one of my own to do the same thing.”
That may be easy enough for you to say, but what about the 25 year old graduate who discovers that all the good jobs have gone overseas? He would say “I’d rather be employed by company I could hate, than be screwed by a foreigner who took my job.”
Believe me, after having seen how it is done in other countries, I have realized we are in a fight for our lives, AND WE ARE LOOSING! We need to get in the fight or we will be left wondering “What happened?”
#33–Ah Yeah==so, maybe we agree on a few broadly stated points turned on their heads to honor the already overpaid, but the sticking point may be “How best should we compete in a global market?” I don’t think that axiomatically means we compete the same way our competition does or we necessarily lose.
I sense from you a bit of loser fatalism. We are facing competititon from overseas, we can’t win, so we better give up? Certainly that has been the way our leaders have acted from Clinton on, and its only getting worse.
I say, when you are in a fight–you fight. Blah, blah, blah, but what it certainly means is you don’t give tax incentives to corporations that offshore, nor tax credits to corps producing heavy vehicles that scream environmental/efficiency waste. When the USA outsources the manufacturing of military armaments to Europeans and Asians, I’d say basically the fight has been lost. Maybe Phase III in the new energy economy will give us a second grasp at the apple.
Only thing that surpises me is how many people, including yourself, think there is no choice. There are always choices, with good and bad consequences to be balanced. USA should not support globalization as if it were a good thing. It is a bad thing for the USA that should have been contended against. Stupid politicians. Stupid people.
And so it goes.
Bobbo, every time someone walks into Wal-Mart and buys that kitchen plate because it was 12 cents less, we loose. Every time we buy a computer made in China from Japanese parts, we loose. Every time someone enters a Toyota dealership and drives off the lot, we loose.
You are displaying a frightening lack of understanding of the global reality we now live in.
It’s nice to say that “USA should not support globalization as if it were a good thing. It is a bad thing for the USA that should have been contended against.”
I would be more than happy to jump with you into the time machine you must have sitting in your garage so we can undo the past, otherwise… we need to deal with what is happening in the here and now.
The (ir)rationalization for adoption of our current global trade policy was that we would be able to sell our products more freely overseas, and that by opening our markets we could raise our standard of living. This entire concept depended on an equal amount of trade coming and going.
That was a nice dream, but as it turned out US corporations were uncompetitive. Saddled down by burdensome union contracts, health care costs, excessive government legislation, and yes, taxation, the US companies, big and small, are fighting for their lives. Or should I say, our lives.
Here is a sobering reality. Over the last 30 years (since the introduction of cheap foreign imports – Toyota Camry anyone?), the UAW has lost over ONE MILLION jobs. That’s just for the UAW and doesn’t include the myriad industries which supply and support the automotive manufactures. Increase the above one million by a factor of 10, and you start to see the real extent of the damage.
Economic Darwinism, and if we are not careful, we will continue to be the small fish.
So what do we do? Our companies need help or they may go under. That’s not what you want, is it? I didn’t think so.
Again, what do we do? Restrict foreign imports? Sure we could do that – although each country we do this too would retaliate in like measure. I personally wouldn’t mind this in the least, but is retreating into economic isolationism the right answer or is the cure being worse than the disease?
What else can we do? Maybe we should:
A) Insure a level playing field (this is where trade restrictions play an important role), and
B) Get out of the radical 60’s and start to realize that we need efficient, competitive corporations to maintain our livelihoods. (This, by the way, is why a weaker dollar benefits us.)
If we back our corporations with the might of the American system, we can not only be competitive but dominate while maintaining our standard of living. There is nothing “fatalistic” about this. In fact it is just the opposite.
This sounds a lot more fatalistic.
“Maybe Phase III in the new energy economy will give us a second grasp at the apple.”
Specifically, how is this “new energy economy” going to help?
What specifically is going to drive the economic engine of this “new economy’?
CORPORATIONS! DUH!