Is the USA uncivilised?

[rainbow]

Corporations are wealth-creators and are the lifeblood of any economy.

I disagree. Small companies are.
Corporations are leaches that suck the lifeblood out of the economy.

[Seth]

...when you subsidize a corporation you get jobs, products and economic growth.

Dream on. In the 2002 fiscal year the Australian government poured ten billion dollars of tax payers' money into the corporate trough (compared to 5.8 billion for unemployment and sickness benefits). Traditionally, most of the corporate dole went into the manufacturing industry. (The second biggest benefactor is agriculture.) Holden Australia announced in April 2013 that it alone has received $2.17 billion since 2000. Just one week after that, Holden (owned by General motors) announced 500 job cuts. At the end of the year it announced that it will be closing all of its manufacturing plants down by 2017. Similar story with Ford.

Australia is awash with corporations successfully holding their hands out for big dollops of no strings attached, tax payer funded money while simultaneously shedding huge swathes of their respective workforce.

And yet they still produce wealth and employ people.

[Seth]

When you pay welfare leeches to do nothing, you just pour the wealth of the nation down an endless rat-hole to no good end.

And they spend it in the private sector yo. It's not lost to the market or the tax system. It trickles back up.

Do they? No, they really don't. Even if they are circulating money, there is a net loss to society because the money they spend is not the product of their own wealth-generation, it's the product of somebody else's, somebody who was forced against their will to input labor that they will not enjoy the fruits of because it's being stolen from them by welfare leeches. That labor, turned to cash by the laborer would likewise be spent in the markets, but would benefit the one who labored to produce it rather than someone who has no just claim on that person's labor.

[Seth]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the dollar amount spent on the unemployed is only a fraction of that going to corporate welfare. I know that libertarians oppose both, but why, oh why are their fulminations almost exclusively focussed on the former?

Assuming arguendo that you're correct (which you're not), the case for "corporate welfare" is absolutely clear and compelling. Corporations are wealth-creators and are the lifeblood of any economy. Without corporations there would be no jobs for those who do want to work, there would be no taxes paid, without which there would be nothing available to fund government giveaways to welfare leeches . Therefore it is in the best interests of any government to support and advance commerce, and therefore the economy, by assisting businesses to flourish and expand, thereby expanding the opportunities for citizens to be employed and profit therefrom. Indeed, second to securing the liberty of its citizens, the most important function, and one of the few authorized functions of government, is to facilitate trade and commerce and assist business in creating wealth.

Yes but this then leads to a state of "give us subsidies or we'll take our jobs elsewhere."

Yes, it can, but that's just a matter of governmental discipline in spending, something few governments are good at precisely because liberals insist on spending taxpayer money pandering for votes by granting largess to the idle welfare leeches.

Which along with the extraction of wealth from the state from international concerns while they are being subsidised is also a rolling extortion con. Again you folk can tart up the behaviour with any sympathies you like. The fact is the behaviour is no different. Give us free money or else suffer. It's another form of financial terrorism by often non-state actors.

It is the responsibility of the government to use its subsidy powers wisely and to benefit the people rather than corruptly to benefit officeholders. That many governments are corrupt does not change the fact that subsidies can have economic value to the society and produce wealth, which welfare leeches do not. Therefore "corporate welfare" is not even a legitimate term, it's a loaded term invented by Marxists to try to demonize the free markets.

[Seth]

Corporations are wealth-creators and are the lifeblood of any economy.

I disagree. Small companies are.
Corporations are leaches that suck the lifeblood out of the economy.

Both are important to an economy. Corporations are nothing more than small companies grown large comprised of groups of people investing and working towards a common goal of creating wealth and profiting therefrom. Corporations are nothing more or less than a business management tool, not the spawn of Satan.

Which is not to say that PARTICULAR corporations may not be corrupt and unworthy of the public trust. But it's not the organizational model that's corrupt, it's the people who run the corporation who determine that.

[Hermit]

...when you subsidize a corporation you get jobs, products and economic growth.

Dream on. In the 2002 fiscal year the Australian government poured ten billion dollars of tax payers' money into the corporate trough (compared to 5.8 billion for unemployment and sickness benefits). Traditionally, most of the corporate dole went into the manufacturing industry. (The second biggest benefactor is agriculture.) Holden Australia announced in April 2013 that it alone has received $2.17 billion since 2000. Just one week after that, Holden (owned by General motors) announced 500 job cuts. At the end of the year it announced that it will be closing all of its manufacturing plants down by 2017. Similar story with Ford.

Australia is awash with corporations successfully holding their hands out for big dollops of no strings attached, tax payer funded money while simultaneously shedding huge swathes of their respective workforce.

And yet they still produce wealth and employ people.

The examples I mentioned actually have what is in quaint econospeak called "negative growth". There are plenty more too.

Not only that, but the economic activity of many major corporations - and this is by no means limited to those primarily engaged in the purely financial sector - has nothing to do with employment creation. It's to do with speculation in hedge funding, the share market, foreign exchange, takeover bids and so forth - gambling, in short. Some years ago the then CEO of Australia's biggest mining company, for example, lost $2 billion of the company's market capitalisation with some losing bets. For his efforts his five year contract was terminated after two. He cried all the way to the bank with a multi-million dollar golden parachute for his efforts. Businesspeople know how to take care of their comrades when they are down on their luck, don't they?

[Audley Strange]

It is the responsibility of the government to use its subsidy powers wisely and to benefit the people rather than corruptly to benefit officeholders.

I agree it is the responsibility of government to benefit the people I just see no issue with direct benefit for the people in times of need. However would not business subsidies be better given to small "mom & pop" local businesses which are privately owned by citizens of the united states rather than give vast levies to corrupted transnational behemoths which seemingly almost all politicians these days have a vested interest in? Surely you can see that there is no real difference in shelling out money to being siphoned into the pockets of individuals whether they are part of a global concern or a sister fucking meth-head.

[JimC]

The problem with capitalism is that it's a two edged sword. Enterprises for profit, companies of various sorts, are wealth creators, as Seth says. The competition intrinsic to a market economy does foster innovation, and prunes inefficient failures. So much is true...

But it also demands constant growth, just to survive; a little like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland... The drive to wealth, power and success consumes men, and it consumes groups of men, until any means is justified to increase the profit by a fraction of one percent. The power and wealth they accrue allows them access, legally or otherwise, to the instruments of government, and they ensure that the narrow-minded interests of profit, wealth and power subvert the rational needs of society overall.

Societies that have chosen a path of Marxist revolution (the real thing, not Seth's faux bogeyman) have typically failed, partially because they began with violent tyranny, and were compelled to continue, and partly because they stifled innovation and efficiency.

A middle way may simply be having an intelligent electorate elect a relatively rational government that can steer the ship of state between the pillars of excess state control on the one hand, and unfettered corporate freedom on the other...

The catch, of course, is the concept of an "intelligent electorate"...

[Seth]

...when you subsidize a corporation you get jobs, products and economic growth.

Dream on. In the 2002 fiscal year the Australian government poured ten billion dollars of tax payers' money into the corporate trough (compared to 5.8 billion for unemployment and sickness benefits). Traditionally, most of the corporate dole went into the manufacturing industry. (The second biggest benefactor is agriculture.) Holden Australia announced in April 2013 that it alone has received $2.17 billion since 2000. Just one week after that, Holden (owned by General motors) announced 500 job cuts. At the end of the year it announced that it will be closing all of its manufacturing plants down by 2017. Similar story with Ford.

Australia is awash with corporations successfully holding their hands out for big dollops of no strings attached, tax payer funded money while simultaneously shedding huge swathes of their respective workforce.

And yet they still produce wealth and employ people.

The examples I mentioned actually have what is in quaint econospeak called "negative growth". There are plenty more too.

Now compare the "negative growth" you speak of to the negative growth that results from those corporations going bankrupt and firing ALL their employees. Get back to me when you have the numbers figured out.

[Seth]

It is the responsibility of the government to use its subsidy powers wisely and to benefit the people rather than corruptly to benefit officeholders.

I agree it is the responsibility of government to benefit the people I just see no issue with direct benefit for the people in times of need.

The issue arises when the government decides what "need" is and who is to be enslaved to labor on behalf of those the government has decided are in need. The Libertarian system allows the individuals of the community to decide who is in need and to help them according to their altruistic and charitable instincts without enslaving anyone or allowing government bureaucrats and office-holders to manipulate things to their political benefit.

However would not business subsidies be better given to small "mom & pop" local businesses which are privately owned by citizens of the united states rather than give vast levies to corrupted transnational behemoths which seemingly almost all politicians these days have a vested interest in? Surely you can see that there is no real difference in shelling out money to being siphoned into the pockets of individuals whether they are part of a global concern or a sister fucking meth-head.

Probably. Then again assisting a corporation that employs tens of thousands of employees might provide more bang for the buck. I don't dispute that there is a lot of corruption in the subsidy system, including agricultural subsidies, the majority of which go to a tiny minority of extremely large agricultural operations rather than the family farmers of the country.

But that's a process error, not a flaw in the fundamental concept.

[Hermit]

...when you subsidize a corporation you get jobs, products and economic growth.

Dream on. In the 2002 fiscal year the Australian government poured ten billion dollars of tax payers' money into the corporate trough (compared to 5.8 billion for unemployment and sickness benefits). Traditionally, most of the corporate dole went into the manufacturing industry. (The second biggest benefactor is agriculture.) Holden Australia announced in April 2013 that it alone has received $2.17 billion since 2000. Just one week after that, Holden (owned by General motors) announced 500 job cuts. At the end of the year it announced that it will be closing all of its manufacturing plants down by 2017. Similar story with Ford.

Australia is awash with corporations successfully holding their hands out for big dollops of no strings attached, tax payer funded money while simultaneously shedding huge swathes of their respective workforce.

And yet they still produce wealth and employ people.

The examples I mentioned actually have what is in quaint econospeak called "negative growth". There are plenty more too.

Now compare the "negative growth" you speak of to the negative growth that results from those corporations going bankrupt and firing ALL their employees. Get back to me when you have the numbers figured out.

When companies fold, they don't normally leave a total vacuum. Typically, their remains are bought by investors for a song, and production restarts under different management - hopefully less mismanagement - or other companies ramp up production and therefore employment numbers to fill the gap in production volume created by the defunct enterprise. Exceptions are deemed to be corporations that are "too big to be allowed to fail". At any rate, Ford and GM in Australia were subsidised to the tune of billions of dollars per year, yet both those companies still decided to fire all of their employees. Go figure yourself.

[Seth]

At any rate, Ford and GM in Australia were subsidised to the tune of billions of dollars per year, yet both those companies still decided to fire all of their employees. Go figure yourself.

Just the ones down under. They still employ tens of thousands of people worldwide. Just because your ox got gored doesn't make the corporations evil.

Perhaps Aussies are just lazy fucks who can't do a fair day's work for a fair day's wage, what with all the beer-drinking and all.

[Hermit]

At any rate, Ford and GM in Australia were subsidised to the tune of billions of dollars per year, yet both those companies still decided to fire all of their employees. Go figure yourself.

Just the ones down under. They still employ tens of thousands of people worldwide.

Yes, but I am speaking of corporate welfare. Both Ford and General Motors got billions of dollars of it, funded by Australian tax dollars in order to keep going. Both subsidiaries gleefully took the money and are now running away. Individuals on social welfare who do that get prosecuted, and rightly so.

Perhaps Aussies are just lazy fucks who can't do a fair day's work for a fair day's wage, what with all the beer-drinking and all.

Or Ford (with its Falcon) and General Motors (with its Commodore) chose the wrong product to manufacture in Australia. Sales of those (relatively) big sedans have been dropping for years, but management never got the hint when they looked at the figures. Instead of retooling their production line to cater for the huge and still growing local market for smaller, more economical vehicles, they persisted in offering massive, big-engined monsters that any fool could see will meet the same fate as other dinosaurs before them.

[Seth]

At any rate, Ford and GM in Australia were subsidised to the tune of billions of dollars per year, yet both those companies still decided to fire all of their employees. Go figure yourself.

Just the ones down under. They still employ tens of thousands of people worldwide.

Yes, but I am speaking of corporate welfare. Both Ford and General Motors got billions of dollars of it, funded by Australian tax dollars in order to keep going. Both subsidiaries gleefully took the money and are now running away.

Evidently the economic conditions for them down there were so bad that even subsidies couldn't keep them profitable. Not their fault, nor their problem. Aussies didn't have to give them subsidies. Clearly they did so thinking that the economic benefits to be gained by doing so outweighed the costs of the subsidies. Seems the bureaucrats miscalculated. Oops! Blame them, not the companies.

Individuals on social welfare who do that get prosecuted, and rightly so.

No they don't. They get their money without the slightest expectation that the government will ever see a thin dime in return. That's the difference.

Perhaps Aussies are just lazy fucks who can't do a fair day's work for a fair day's wage, what with all the beer-drinking and all.

Or Ford (with its Falcon) and General Motors (with its Commodore) chose the wrong product to manufacture in Australia. Sales of those (relatively) big sedans have been dropping for years, but management never got the hint when they looked at the figures. Instead of retooling their production line to cater for the huge and still growing local market for smaller, more economical vehicles, they persisted in offering massive, big-engined monsters that any fool could see will meet the same fate as other dinosaurs before them.

Well, that's business for you. Sometimes you make the wrong product, sometimes you don't. If Aussies were concerned about the subsides, I guess they should have either sucked it up and bought what was offered or not granted the subsidies in the first place.

It's good Socialist policy for anyone who is offered money by the socialist government to take it, is it not? After all, it's "free money" so why shouldn't they?

[piscator]

When you pay welfare leeches to do nothing, you just pour the wealth of the nation down an endless rat-hole to no good end.

And they spend it in the private sector yo. It's not lost to the market or the tax system. It trickles back up.

Do they? No, they really don't. Even if they are circulating money, there is a net loss to society because the money they spend is not the product of their own wealth-generation, it's the product of somebody else's, somebody who was forced against their will to input labor that they will not enjoy the fruits of because it's being stolen from them by welfare leeches. That labor, turned to cash by the laborer would likewise be spent in the markets, but would benefit the one who labored to produce it rather than someone who has no just claim on that person's labor.

Welfare checks go right back into the private sector because welfare recipients spend them.
Unlike 30mm rounds punching holes in the ground in Afghanistan @ $11 ea, food stamps get spent in grocery stores, and HUD loans buy private homes. Welfare dollars go right back into the private sector, usually minus state sales taxes.

And nine times out of ten, "Wealth Creation" is more like, "Wealth Extraction". Every dollar I ever made in the stock markets came out of someone else's pocket.