Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Someone said here corporations are too greedy don't give to the poor or needy.

What on earth is this then?

http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top50giving.html

corporations are machines that are made to make money

they give money to charity if a) it's a PR thing, and someone convinced them that it would be good for business in the long run, or b) they have humans in high places within that corporation that believe in a specific type of charity and decide to use their sway in said corporation to divert corporate money to said charity, rather than deriving the funds from their own personal account, as that would typically require more of an actual sacrifice.

edit - in related news:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2014/07/09/the-coming-end-of-corporate-charity-and-how-companies-should-prepare/

For some reason the link does not work.

dunno... works for me.

ok now its working.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Someone said here corporations are too greedy don't give to the poor or needy.

Can you point out who said that so we can read about the context?

In a thread about the pope, I talked about how hypocritical republicans are for denouncing the pope as an anti-capitalist villain because he spoke out against income equality and corporate greed. I stated that people shouldn't have money to hoarde when there are people starving. He responded talking about charities and such, but at that point I was more invested in the Clock Kid thread and didn't respond. Then, in the Clock Kid thread, when I was pointing out his confirmation bias and absence of proof, he kept repeatedly trying to bring this topic up to deflect from the fact that he had no retort and was ignoring evidence, pretty much trying to childishly use ad hominem attacks to cover up his willful lack of logic regarding the Clock Kid incident.


So I think this thread is just a bait thread for me. But I don't take the bait of emotionally immature (and insecure ) little guys, although I am definitely amused. So I'll sit this one out, until he learns to debate properly without resorting to ad hominem attacks, topic shifting, or willful ignorance of evidence.

Again, you have a childish understanding of republicans and democrats. "Republicans are greedy while democrats just want to help people" isn't just asinine, it's ignorant.

Furthermore, you're not a dictator of people's funds. To state I shouldn't have money to horde if I have say a million dollars, is idiotic. You'd make a fine dictator. You can just take everyone's funds and allocate them, like a true Stalin

I don't think you are amused. Judging by your posts, you don't really understand what's going on in the political spectrum and only want to add your *republicans suck democrats rule" two cents in.

Well a lot of corporations are greedy. Is every single one on Earth greedy? Probably not. How do you tell which are which? Well, probably the ones that give to charity on the sly and don't make a big thing about it.

I'm not talking about forcing people to give up their funds. I'm talking about people having the internal empathy to not self indulge while knowing others are suffering, because a lack of such causes the selfishness, xenophobia, and tribalism that has led to pretty much all anthropogenic world problems.


It's an idealistic humanitarian concept, but it's alternative requires a sociopathic disregard for ones fellow man. As I stated in the other thread, a privatized health care system where material wealth determines who lives or dies is outright inhumane, especially when the money is just going towards a CEO's swimming pool. It's like that South Park episode in which the musicians were complaining piracy was preventing them from buying a new yacht, but unlike that episode, horrifyingly, we are talking about people's lives that are being monetized.

Well there is self indulgence and then SELF INDULGENCE. For instance there is a $1,000 ice cream out there with flakes of gold in it.

And at what point is it considered self indulgence? Are you the sole arbiter of that? You talk as if you live in a fairy tale.

The healthcare situation I used is a good example.

And I admitted it's an idealistic humanitarian concept.

What's wrong with privatized health care if you have an addition for low income families and basic healthcare needs?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Someone said here corporations are too greedy don't give to the poor or needy.

What on earth is this then?

http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top50giving.html Considering the profits those companies are making. Those numbers are just drops in the bucket. Also most corporations tend to do the charities because it makes them look good and the tax breaks they get.

Of course if you dig deeper you find that most the charities those companies are donating to are charities they themselves setup. So they pay their own not for profit tax exempt charity to get tax breaks. Of course these charities are doing good works but the greed is still there and still pretty prevalent in how those organizations work.

They are also still making record profits while the gap between the rich and poor continue to widen.

So the money they give means nothing and it's not their money to keep

Right

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So he money they give means nothing and it's not their money to keep

Right Where did I say that? I said that even in their charitable donations greed often plays a factor.

Tax exemptions and stuff like that.

I also mentioned that there are people who legitimately benefit from these charities.

But don't pretend this somehow negates what people are saying. The corporations are still making record profits. And the gap between the rich and poor continue to rise at levels that frankly should be unsettling to people. Of course there are some corporations that are better than others.

You imply a lot with your posts and you know you do, then when I see it and call it out you always claim "not what I said."

Unless a corporation is breaking laws by operating a non profit for money. They are allowed to make profit.

That's our system.

Is this not a system that could be conceivably challenged, though? No-one is accusing (in this particular case) companies of not following the rules, merely that there is a wider perspective and hence the potential for rules change.

What system is better then what we have now?

Capitalism creates competition and ingenuity of the people.

If you take that away, what will happen to our future of greater concepts and ideas then what we have now. If you take away for profit you take away drive to do your best.

Well, people like newjak are arguing that this method is creating problems far in excess of its benefits, like the rich/poor gap, and intervention is needed to change this.

Corporations make the poverty gap smaller because they can employ more people and give them jobs. While the CEO's do make a lot of money, there are very few CEO's vs how many people one corporation can employ. Life isn't fair, and most of those CEO's started at the bottom and worked their way up. I don't know of anyone who was just handed a CEO position.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Corporations make the poverty gap smaller because they can employ more people and give them jobs. While the CEO's do make a lot of money, there are very few CEO's vs how many people one corporation can employ. Life isn't fair, and most of those CEO's started at the bottom and worked their way up. I don't know of anyone who was just handed a CEO position. We can argue the merits of capitalism in certain situations. I'm not going to say capitalism is bad. please do not throw out things that are not true.

The income inequality gap has been raising despite record profits for corporations. And the top 1% hold close to 20% of the wealth. A statistic that has been going up in years. Also not all or most CEOs started at the 'bottom'. The actual likely hood of moving from one income bracket to another from to parent to child is extremely low. Most likely those CEOs started from families of wealth and resources before hand.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What system is better then what we have now?

Capitalism creates competition and ingenuity of the people.

If you take that away, what will happen to our future of greater concepts and ideas then what we have now. If you take away for profit you take away drive to do your best.



Indeed. Capitalism is the greatest vanquisher of poverty in the world.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/amazing-chart-shows-thanks-to-capitalism-global-poverty-is-at-its-lowest-rate-in-history/article/2562224


Socialism, otoh, leads to nothing but misery and that's what people like HIllary and Sanders want for America.


Oh, and LMAO@ Lestov proclaiming that wealthy people should have to redistribute their wealth among those less fortunate. What a crock of ####.

Obama said the wealth needs to be redistributed so Lestov is just a willing parrot to his master.

Originally posted by Newjak
We can argue the merits of capitalism in certain situations. I'm not going to say capitalism is bad. please do not throw out things that are not true.

The income inequality gap has been raising despite record profits for corporations. And the top 1% hold close to 20% of the wealth. A statistic that has been going up in years. Also not all or most CEOs started at the 'bottom'. The actual likely hood of moving from one income bracket to another from to parent to child is extremely low. Most likely those CEOs started from families of wealth and resources before hand.

I'll reply about this in a bit.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama said the wealth needs to be redistributed so Lestov is just a willing parrot to his master.



I think wealthy people should sometimes give to the extremely poor but they should never be forced to and they should be able to choose themselves how much they want to give not someone else (like the government).

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm not talking about forcing people to give up their funds. I'm talking about people having the internal empathy to not self indulge while knowing others are suffering, because a lack of such causes the selfishness, xenophobia, and tribalism that has led to pretty much all anthropogenic world problems.


It's an idealistic humanitarian concept, but it's alternative requires a sociopathic disregard for ones fellow man. As I stated in the other thread, a privatized health care system where material wealth determines who lives or dies is outright inhumane, especially when the money is just going towards a CEO's swimming pool. It's like that South Park episode in which the musicians were complaining piracy was preventing them from buying a new yacht, but unlike that episode, horrifyingly, we are talking about people's lives that are being monetized.

Excellent post.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Corporations make the poverty gap smaller because they can employ more people and give them jobs. dunno about that... since the trend is currently the wealth gap is increasing not decreasing

and there's certainly more corporations around than ever before

on the other hand... in terms of actual material wealth today's poor live better than yesterday's rich

Originally posted by red g jacks

on the other hand... in terms of actual material wealth today's poor live better than yesterday's rich
You sure about that?

Originally posted by red g jacks
dunno about that... since the trend is currently the wealth gap is increasing not decreasing

and there's certainly more corporations around than ever before

on the other hand... in terms of actual material wealth today's poor live better than yesterday's rich

Corporations are made up of working people, so the idea that they widen the poverty gap is false.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You sure about that? well they aren't dying of pox...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You sure about that? depending on how far back you consider yesterday... yea i think so. you disagree?

You can't lump all corporations in one bracket or the other. Some use unethical practices to make money and others don't some not only give charitible donations but also invest in impoverished areas and others don't.

Look up the Royal Bank of Scotland's Global Restructuring Group as an example. Their purpose changed when RBS started having problems and viable small and medium businesses were moved to the GSG who would deliberately cause the businesses to fail so RBS could take ownership of them, asset strip them and sell them on to help stem their losses.
http://www.channel4.com/news/rbs-whistleblower-grg-business-destroy-video

Anyway

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/440073
Then on the other hand you've got
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2015/03/19/the-worlds-most-ethical-companies-2015/

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Corporations are made up of working people, so the idea that they widen the poverty gap is false. meaningless words thrown together for the sake of appearance.

Originally posted by red g jacks
meaningless words thrown together for the sake of appearance.

Prove me wrong.

alright... i have an idea... the increasing wealth gap is a fact. it's a well known fact, actually. so why is the wealth gap increasing in your opinion?

Originally posted by red g jacks
alright... i have an idea... the increasing wealth gap is a fact. it's a well known fact, actually. so why is the wealth gap increasing in your opinion?

Less jobs are being created because corporations don't want to bring their money home because it will be taxed extremely high. Then what will the government do with all that money? Well we know they just wasted $500,000,000 in Syria and another $600m on the way. So why would anyone want to bring home more money to create jobs when the government will take half of it and waste it on useless endeavors and welfare distribution?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Less jobs are being created because corporations don't want to bring their money home because it will be taxed extremely high. Then what will the government do with all that money? Well we know they just wasted $500,000,000 in Syria and another $600m on the way. So why would anyone want to bring home more money to create jobs when the government will take half of it and waste it on useless endeavors and welfare distribution? so if you had to sum it up... who or what is to blame for the wealth gap in your eyes?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Less jobs are being created because corporations don't want to bring their money home because it will be taxed extremely high. Then what will the government do with all that money? Well we know they just wasted $500,000,000 in Syria and another $600m on the way. So why would anyone want to bring home more money to create jobs when the government will take half of it and waste it on useless endeavors and welfare distribution?

Yet in countries where unemployment is going down, the wealth gap is still increasing.

Between 2009 and 2012 95% of all recovery growth was captured by the top 1%. This year the top 1% is expected to own more wealth than the 99% and thus have over 50% of the world's wealth for the first time. Perhaps the scariest statistic is that the richest 300 people have more wealth than the poorest 3,000,000,000

How is this corporations faults that supply jobs, income, and benefits to its people and goods and services to the world?

Have you thought about the worlds population and how fast it is growing, more people are being born into poverty because there are few places left in the world that are viable for living, like Africa, the middle east, N Korea, Mymar, and other impoverished places.

The USA is one of the last places that still works because if capitalism.

Obviously there is a better system than our own, but who am I to point out the obvious?

Originally posted by Bentley
Obviously there is a better system than our own, but who am I to point out the obvious?

What is your system?


Besides getting bent yall never win the Tour de France?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How is this corporations faults that supply jobs, income, and benefits to its people and goods and services to the world?

Have you thought about the worlds population and how fast it is growing, more people are being born into poverty because there are few places left in the world that are viable for living, like Africa, the middle east, N Korea, Mymar, and other impoverished places.

The USA is one of the last places that still works because if capitalism.

Is that capitalism or liberal democracy? The two do not necessarily directly connect, though obviously economic freedom is associated with the latter.

Outright capitalism causes many of the US' problems as well, like the outrageous rich/poor gap and the social problems with minorities, universal health care etc.

Don't get me wrong, I am generally pro-capitalist, but it's a system with a lot of issues. At the very least, it requires hefty guidance and intervention, and long-term I do think we'll probably need to move beyond it.

Pure profit as motivation is not, I think, sustainable for the type of future we need to build.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What is your system?


Besides getting bent yall never win the Tour de France?

I'm a biological system that consists in cells organized to keep me alive by living mechanical lives.

Other than that are you talking about? ahah

Obama has given everyone universal health care so we can really stop talking about that right?

In fact, I heard in the UK, that dental care and health care are pretty bad, is that correct?

Originally posted by Bentley
I'm a biological system that consists in cells organized to keep me alive by living mechanical lives.

Other than that are you talking about? ahah

You have not won a tour in 30 years

No, they're both great.

In fact, NHS frontline care- which, I will remind you, is free at the point of service for everyone- is a candidate for best in the world.

The bigger challenge is long-term care after treatment, because the problem with keeping people healthy is that they live longer, and old people require constant expensive programmes of care. It's the fundamental puzzle of general health care.

Obama has taken a step towards universal health care- but it's really not the same thing yet. For a start,people are paying a fortune.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You have not won a tour in 30 years

I blame the ones that dope themselves to become famous with charities. Phuck charity.

Originally posted by Bentley
I blame the ones that dope themselves to become famous with charities. Phuck charity.

Lance told me you were the mastermind behind the doping empire.

France has had 36 Tour de France wins divided over 21 cyclists, while the US has had 3 wins, all by Greg LeMond, who is of French descent. His last win was 25 years ago. Looks like y'all haven't been doing so well recently either. Unless you want to count the cheaters as winners.

There is always one idiot around who can butt into others cross exchanges of joking and humor around into a facts finding mission while being an asshat.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, they're both great.

In fact, NHS frontline care- which, I will remind you, is free at the point of service for everyone- is a candidate for best in the world.

The bigger challenge is long-term care after treatment, because the problem with keeping people healthy is that they live longer, and old people require constant expensive programmes of care. It's the fundamental puzzle of general health care.

Obama has taken a step towards universal health care- but it's really not the same thing yet. For a start,people are paying a fortune.

Interesting to here that about your health care, I didn't know it was that great. What are the average premiums and deductibles.

Also that system of wealth care runs off a capitalist revenue stream.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
There is always one idiot around who can butt into others cross exchanges of joking and humor around into a facts finding mission while being an asshat.
I thought you had me on ignore, sugar?

Also, you're finally admitting that you're not a delusional right-wing nutjob, you're just joking?

Sorry what? Can't read it right now, get back to you later when I have time.

Great, we agree then.

Whatever it was couldn't be that important from an troll from off topic.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Whatever it was couldn't be that important from an troll from off topic.

You're still crying about it though, so it must be important to you.

Huh?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Huh?
Stick to your delusional rants, hoss.

Can't hear ya. Say it a little louder and use your big boy voice

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Interesting to here that about your health care, I didn't know it was that great. What are the average premiums and deductibles.

Also that system of wealth care runs off a capitalist revenue stream.

There aren't any premiums and deductibles- that's the point. Everyone is covered.

And that's in theory true- though the stream need not be capitalist- but a universal system like that is not capitalist in origin. It's a definite moderation of pure capitalism.

Even the US' capitalism is not completely pure of course.

Well Obama care failed hard then, people still have to pay for it and PAY THROUGH the ROOF for it.

Hence me saying it's not really what is meant by universal health care- but by reducing the number of uninsured people, it's moving in the right direction.

The problem is, capitalism has left the US health system absurdly over-priced. Look at that recent drug hike issue with Daraprim. Two sides to that insanity- first, the plan to raise the price of the pill from $13.50 to $750 each. The reasoning given? Pure profit motive- this was the market price they could get. This is a life saving pill. Pure profit motive here is not appropriate. Capitalism was not driving down prices here; the owners had a monopoly position.

But the other side is price in the first place- even the $13.50 is an insane markup for a pill that costs less than one tenth of that. The price per pill in the UK is under a dollar.

With profit motive infesting the US system like that, no wonder Obamacare costs so much, The culture has to be challenged.

Again, this is not sheer anti-capitalism. I would point to mobile phones as a capitalist success story- market forces here turned a luxury good into a widely accessible miracle of the modern world. But you can't apply these principles universally.

Raising the price on a drug like that is insane. I don't see how they have an excuse to do that. Do you know how long that product has been on the market, and do you know if there is a generic?

It's an old drug, but I think the lack of any kind of generic was what allowed Shkreli to hike the prices to such a degree. There was literally NOTHING anyone could do about it after he bought the patent. That's the danger of unbridled capitalism when someone corners the market on something vital.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Raising the price on a drug like that is insane. I don't see how they have an excuse to do that. Do you know how long that product has been on the market, and do you know if there is a generic?

It's been available for about 70 years but has no generic counterpart because it's for treating a relatively rare thing.

They're not the 1st to do this kind of obscene price hike though. Rodelis done the same when they hiked Cycloserine from $500 per 30 tablets to over $10,000.

I still don't understand why anyone thinks life saving healthcare should be a for-profit thing.

I can understand something like plastic surgery or even eye-care and orthodontia, but heart surgery, cancer treatment, and life saving medicines shouldn't be something that cost an arm and a leg.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's an old drug, but I think the lack of any kind of generic was what allowed Shkreli to hike the prices to such a degree. There was literally NOTHING anyone could do about it after he bought the patent. That's the danger of unbridled capitalism when someone corners the market on something vital.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I still don't understand why anyone thinks life saving healthcare should be a for-profit thing.

I can understand something like plastic surgery or even eye-care and orthodontia, but heart surgery, cancer treatment, and life saving medicines shouldn't be something that cost an arm and a leg. Originally posted by jaden101
It's been available for about 70 years but has no generic counterpart because it's for treating a relatively rare thing.

They're not the 1st to do this kind of obscene price hike though. Rodelis done the same when they hiked Cycloserine from $500 per 30 tablets to over $10,000.

There has to be a way to prevent that from happening through the FDA, vs full blown socialism. Why use a nuke to capitalism like (socialism)to blow up system that works up, when you can use a smaller tool, to tune certain things.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
There has to be a way to prevent that from happening through the FDA, vs full blown socialism. Why use a nuke to capitalism like (socialism)to blow up system that works up, when you can use a smaller tool, to tune certain things.

I completely agree, it just needs to be fixed. Either way is fine just let it be done right now, not argue about it for years while people die...

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
There has to be a way to prevent that from happening through the FDA, vs full blown socialism. Why use a nuke to capitalism like (socialism)to blow up system that works up, when you can use a smaller tool, to tune certain things.

Well absolutely (though I am still wary of the way you use 'socialism' to mean something reprehensible), but that is the whole reason I brought up the healthcare argument. You said earlier "That's the system", and my point was that it is a system open to challenge. When parts of the system bring negative results, it needs to be challenged. It's obvious in healthcare, but it extends to abusive practice in general business as well.

We cannot see the profit motive as the pure driver for society- it causes too many problems.

The problem with the profit motive is that it is meant to correlate with things that bring general good to society. And in many cases that is indeed the case- like I said about mobile phones, and indeed the computing industry in general.

But it is far from a perfect correlation and time and again people will chase the profit when it is against the public good, because of this culture that says that chasing profit is the main goal all around.

It's the same problem with target culture in public services. Enforcing targets (either rewarding meeting them or punishing failing them) is meant to motivate people to do the best in their jobs. But it is impossible to guarantee that arbitrary targets actually represent a job well done. With ticking the boxes on the targets being the main goal, people will do whatever they can to get the box ticked, even if the method used brings no benefit to the public at all.

At some point in society- indeed, at many points- an intervention into a free-market approach is needed.

I think the PBC (Public Benefit Corporation) construct is a good way to improve the current state of capitalism. Kickstarter is one of the more famous companies to have recently become a PBC:

https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-now-a-benefit-corporation

https://www.kickstarter.com/charter

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
There has to be a way to prevent that from happening through the FDA, vs full blown socialism. Why use a nuke to capitalism like (socialism)to blow up system that works up, when you can use a smaller tool, to tune certain things.

Your problem is you view everyone who wants to change the system in however slight a manner as a full blown leftie socialist.

The polarisation of US politics doesn't help in formulating balanced opinions though and it's almost at crisis point.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/04/journal.pone_.0123507.g002.png&w=480

That image shows just how ridiculous the situation has gotten.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
There has to be a way to prevent that from happening through the FDA, vs full blown socialism. Why use a nuke to capitalism like (socialism)to blow up system that works up, when you can use a smaller tool, to tune certain things.
No arguments there. I think we need price controls on life saving medicines.