backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by senecarr.. on Mar 14 at 8:11 PM

Tesla said Governor Christie’s administration has "gone back on its word"

Tesla Motors has been trying to push its direct sales model into various U.S. states, and while it saw a bit of success with New Jersey, a new state rule could destroy Tesla's plans. 

According to Tesla, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s administration recently proposed a new rule that requires that a person have a franchise agreement with an auto manufacturer in order to be granted a license to sell. 

This is a problem for Tesla, considering it already operates two stores in New Jersey and had plans to open more. It's possible that Tesla could have to stop selling its all-electric Model S and any future vehicles in these stores and instead use them as showrooms where customers can look, but not buy. 

"Unfortunately, Monday we received news that Governor Christie’s administration has gone back on its word to delay a proposed anti-Tesla regulation so that the matter could be handled through a fair process in the Legislature," said Tesla in a statement. "The Administration has decided to go outside the legislative process by expediting a rule proposal that would completely change the law in New Jersey. This new rule, if adopted, would curtail Tesla’s sales operations and jeopardize our existing retail licenses in the state.

"Having previously issued two dealer licenses to Tesla, this regulation would be a complete reversal to the long standing position of NJMVC on Tesla’s stores. Indeed, the Administration and the NJMVC are thwarting the Legislature and going beyond their authority to implement the state’s laws at the behest of a special interest group looking to protect its monopoly at the expense of New Jersey consumers. This is an affront to the very concept of a free market."


Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Barack Obama

Tesla has been in a battle with many states regarding its direct sales model. The issue is that auto dealerships feel Tesla's new sales model threatens their network, which many other automakers rely on. If other automakers were to follow Tesla's example, it would put the dealerships in a bad spot. The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) said that dealerships are necessary to ensure competitive prices for customers, and that it will continue to defend franchise and consumer laws in the states.
 
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, on the other hand, believes that auto dealerships don't do a very good job at selling specialty cars like Tesla's high-end electric vehicles (Roadster, Model S). Hence, he's looking to run his own Tesla stores around the U.S. where he believes his cars will get a fair shot at being sold. 
 
However, the problem for Tesla is that auto dealerships have much deeper pockets -- meaning that they have a lot more to spend on lobbying, and lawmakers will surely side with them when money is involved. 
 
In fact, auto dealers spent $86.8 million on state election races across the U.S. between 2003 and 2012. They also spent $53.7 million on federal campaigns. Tesla, on the other hand, has spent less than $500,000 on both state and federal politics. 
 
Tesla has gone head-to-head with many other states that are protecting auto dealerships, such as Massachusetts, Ohio and New York. 
 
Just last month, it was reported that Ohio Sen. Tom Patton (R-Strongsville) backed a new bill called Senate Bill 260, which aims to prevent Tesla and any other automaker from "applying for a license to sell or lease new or used motor vehicles at retail." Tesla opened its own stores in both Cincinnati and Columbus, as Ohio's current laws allow the automaker to do so. However, Senate Bill 260 would certainly put a stop to it, unless existing stores opened before the bill are deemed safe. 
 
What's interesting is that Patton received at least $42,825 between 2002 and 2013 from state and national auto dealership owners, employees, and political action committees. 

Source: Tesla Motors



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Show me the money!
By Solandri on 3/11/2014 1:13:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
WHY we still have this ability of a "lobbyist" to give money to an elected official so that he might vote in the lobbyists interest is crazy!!

It's legal bribery, no matter how you look at it!

I think the problem is deeper than that. I think it all stems back to a fundamental incompatibility between two things most people believe should be true.

- Most people believe corporations should be taxed.
- Most people also believe in no taxation without representation.

Corporations can't vote. Since they're taxed, they need some other means of representation if you want the above two tenets to remain true. Ergo - they can lobby.

My usual suggestion is to stop taxing corporations AND prohibit them from any direct influence in politics. If legislation will direly affect a company, they can tell their employees, who will tell their families and friends, who will call/write their representatives. But people are so resistant to the idea of not taxing corporations that my idea gets dismissed as pro-corporate looney fringe. (Even though in the grand scheme of things it makes no difference whether you extract taxes from corporations or individuals. All taxing corporations does is lower wages and increase the cost of goods, so the individual's spending power is the same as if he were taxed directly.)


RE: Show me the money!
By spamreader1 on 3/11/2014 1:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is they can vote, not as a single owner votes, but through the population that works for or purchases from said company. Stock holders also get votes, the union workers (if there are any) also get votes.

The core issue comes down to the businesses financial vote outweighs the votes of the general public. The only way the general public could possible get around this would to create something like a "peoples super-PAC" and then play the same game. Which of course for the general public this would never really make sense and would be excruciatingly difficult for any non-profit group to do without being crushed in some form by the government or other legal war of attrition by the company bent on getting their way.


RE: Show me the money!
By Solandri on 3/11/2014 1:49:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The problem is they can vote, not as a single owner votes, but through the population that works for or purchases from said company. Stock holders also get votes, the union workers (if there are any) also get votes.

That's basically what I'm saying. Corporations can't vote, but the individuals who work at or own it can vote. Likewise, corporations shouldn't be taxed, but the individuals who work at or own it should be taxed instead.

The whole mess starts when you get it into your head that the corporation should be taxed as if it were an individual. (Actually the whole mess started when we decided to treat corporations as fictitious persons. That may have been convenient from the standpoint of saving us from having to duplicate a bunch of laws. But it leads to the conceptual problem I'm describing.)


RE: Show me the money!
By aharris02 on 3/11/2014 3:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you believe corporations shouldn't be taxed?


RE: Show me the money!
By Rukkian on 3/11/2014 3:30:36 PM , Rating: 5
I cant speak for the other poster, but the main reason would be that you take away taxation, and also take away any form of lobbying by them. You can't really keep taxing them and then turn around and say they do not get have a right to representation (taxation without representation).

On top of that, any money that comes out of the corporations ultimately get paid by the people anyways. If you got rid of corporate taxes, pretty much every single company would want to build in the us, and there would be more jobs all the time. Goods would be cheaper, as they are no longer bribing (I mean lobbying) or paying taxes.

I know that some would say that they will not lower prices, but in almost all markets there is somebody else that would sell for less if some corp were trying to charge too much. It would also help to even out the playing field so that smaller companies would be on an equal footing (from a tax and regulation standpoint) with large corps, whereas right now, the benefits all go to larger corps since they can put out the most bribes.


RE: Show me the money!
By aharris02 on 3/11/2014 3:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
That makes sense, but I don't see how we'll get out of the current economic mess and deficit if corporations aren't required to contribute to the fix. The financial services sector in particular did, after all, have a significant hand in causing the situation to begin with.

That said, I think corporations should still be taxed, just at a lower flat rate. I also think there's a an easy solution (see my comment below) to the representation issue, though I doubt it'd ever be adopted by corporations since it drastically reduces their current influence. It'd be up to Congress (good luck) and The People (perhaps, if they decided to care enough) to make it happen.


RE: Show me the money!
By SeeManRun on 3/11/2014 4:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
The reason it won't work is because income made from investing is taxed at a lower rate than income. Also, companies can currently horde their money for the future. If a company is not taxed, then it might make sense for them to not be able to hold money, since that money comes out of the economy. Perhaps all profits every year must go to the share holders unless it will be used in the very near future to re-invest..

Not sure how it would all work, but it would be tough to get done. And I imagine people would get upset when they were told corporations are going to be taxed at 0%, but your sales taxes are going up to 21%. But good news, your wages SHOULD go up.

Also, I think there would have to be some rules regarding subsidiaries in other countries and how income earned elsewhere impacts people here. Right now a company gets a tax break on creating jobs here, but if there were no taxes, why not move your company to Canada and sell the product in the US (if there are some expenses in Canada that are cheaper than the US).


RE: Show me the money!
By Solandri on 3/12/2014 4:21:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The reason it won't work is because income made from investing is taxed at a lower rate than income.

That's a common misconception caused by people misunderstanding graduated income taxes. Say your income is around the national average - $50k/yr. That puts you in the 25% tax bracket, but that doesn't mean you pay 25% of your income in taxes.

For 2014 you get the first $6200 tax-free.
The next $9075 is taxed at 10%.
The next $27825 is taxed at 15%.
The remaining $6900 is taxed at 25%.

Your total taxes are then $6806.25, or 13.6%. You pay less than the minimum 15% capital gains tax on investment income.

The IRS publishes tax stats for each year. If you click on the 2011 stats (upper left corner):
http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-...

Scroll over to cell T10. That's the average percent paid in income tax relative to gross income (S10, percent of taxable income, excludes any deductions from your income). It's 13.6% for the country overall. That is, the average (mean) taxpayer pays 13.6% of their income in federal income taxes, which is less than the minimum 15% capital gains tax.

If you scroll down column T, you can see the average income tax rate does not exceed 15% until T23 (19.7%). Row 23 is the $200k-$500k tax bracket. That is, on average (mean), everyone earning less than $200k/yr pays a smaller percentage in income taxes than the capital gains tax. The median (50th percentile - about $50k) is even lower. They pay on average between 7.4% to 8.6% of their income in federal taxes. (My $50k example above came out higher because he didn't have kids, didn't take a mortgage deduction, and didn't contribute to any charities.)

So the tax rate on investment income is twice what the 50th percentile taxpayer pays.

quote:
Perhaps all profits every year must go to the share holders unless it will be used in the very near future to re-invest..

That is the way it works right now. Profits are distributed to shareholders, unless declared retained earnings and kept for future growth and expansion (i.e. future expenses).

quote:
Also, I think there would have to be some rules regarding subsidiaries in other countries and how income earned elsewhere impacts people here.

That's actually what first got me thinking along those lines. The bottom line is you (as a U.S. citizen) have no say in how Antigua or the Bahamas or Ireland structures their taxes. If they don't want to tax corporations or tax them at a very low rate, that's their right.

Successful owners and accountants of companies became successful by being very good at maximizing revenue while minimizing expenses. That's how they see the differing tax rates in different companies - an accounting optimization problem. Eliminate corporate taxes here and you eliminate their incentive to shift funds to shell corporations in those countries. If you read my post below, you can see how it doesn't really matter whether you tax corporations or individuals. Since you're taxing the employees instead, and their employees are in this country, you're still getting the bulk of (if not more) tax revenue than in the current situation.
quote:
Right now a company gets a tax break on creating jobs here, but if there were no taxes, why not move your company to Canada and sell the product in the US (if there are some expenses in Canada that are cheaper than the US).

Well, they wouldn't do that because Canada taxes corporations and the U.S. would not under my proposal.

The main problem I see is actually the opposite. A corporation sets up factories in China to take advantage of the cheap labor there. Then they cook the accounting books to shift most of the profit back to the U.S. (if it had no corporate taxes). That's great for the U.S., but unfairly deprives China of taxes on revenue its workers are responsible for. Basically the situation with Ireland and the EU.


RE: Show me the money!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 4:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
This would be much simpler if we just abolished the income tax altogether. The Government was much better behaved, smaller, and Constitutional without it.

The concept of the income tax is immoral, and was entirely Unconstitutional before they amended it. To take a cut of someones earned pay, before they can even see it, is monstrously evil and it's sad that it is something we've just come to accept.

Abolish income taxes. Use tariffs, sales taxes, and other use taxes instead. Return the power to the States.

End the tyranny.


RE: Show me the money!
By Solandri on 3/12/2014 3:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That makes sense, but I don't see how we'll get out of the current economic mess and deficit if corporations aren't required to contribute to the fix.

Because it doesn't really make a difference whether you tax corporations or tax individuals.

Say 100% of our government's revenue were individual income taxes. Say there are 100 people in the country earning an average of $50k per year, and paying the government an average of $15k/yr. That is, the government takes in $1.5 million/yr in taxes. And the average guy has $35k/yr in left over spending money.

One day the people get the clever idea of taxing corporations. So they pass a law eliminating the individual income tax, and now 100% of tax revenue comes from corporations. The government is still looking to take in $1.5 million/yr. How do you think the corporations are going to pay for it? That's right - they'll either raise prices or cut wages.

If they cut wages, they have to spread the $1.5 million across the 100 people. That works out to $15k per person. So now nobody pays individual income taxes, but their average pay has been cut to $50k - $15k = $35k per person. Exactly the same as when everyone paid income taxes.

If the companies raise prices, they have to raise them enough to pay $1.5 million. Spread across 100 people, that's an average of $15k per person in price hikes. So the average person now takes home $50k, but it buys the same amount of stuff as $35k used to buy. Exactly the same as when everyone paid individual income taxes.

See, the idea that a corporation is an entity like an individual leads people to make a fundamental logical error. They start to think of it as us (the people) vs them (the corporations). There is no us vs them. There is only us. Corporations are just people who've decided to work together instead of individually. The only contribution to the economy is productivity, and the only source of productivity is people. So whether you tax corporations or individuals doesn't really matter. In the end, you're still diverting 30% of the fruits of your productivity to the government.

(There are certain taxes which have other functions that simple revenue generation. Property taxes discourage people from "sitting" on a property instead of putting it to good use. Sin taxes discourage activity harmful to the overall economy. VATs discourage flipping. etc. So an economy based solely on individual income taxes is probably a bad idea. But whenever possible we should be consolidating taxes to simplify calculation and reduce the cost of collection. The current "tax corporations but allow them to lobby" structure unfairly concentrates power in the hands of the people running the corporations IMHO.)


RE: Show me the money!
By aharris02 on 3/12/2014 5:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
The problem I see with that system is that retained earnings get by scot-free without taxation. This could hinder dividend issuance, but I guarantee it will lead to widespread abuse of corporations by people simply trying to avoid taxation of their income.

What would be done to address that?


RE: Show me the money!
By Solandri on 3/12/2014 5:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
Retained earnings have to be spent at some point to be useful, so I don't see it as a problem. Either it'll pay for new equipment and services, or it'll go into wage increases and new staff, or the company will decide to distribute it to stockholders and it'll become income for them. All that's happened is it gets time-shifted. i.e. if you changed your accounting scale from FY2013 to 2013-2023, it's like it wasn't ever retained - it was all spent in the same time period that you made the revenue (though now you have different revenue which is retained). So in that respect, retained earnings are just an artifact of us deciding an account period for tax purposes should be one year, and the fact that business payments lag revenue receipts.

The main problem I see (and one which I still haven't figured out a clear or easy solution to) is people having the company pay their personal expenses. If you own a company which pays no taxes, and you get the company to lease a personal vehicle for you, pay for your food as a meals expense, and pay for your gas, airline tickets, and hotel in Cancun as a business travel expense, then you're essentially getting those things as "income" without having paid income tax on them. This already goes on, and there are already laws in the books to prevent or discourage it. But it's tough to enforce without having significant insight into the internal operations of the company.


RE: Show me the money!
By crimson117 on 3/11/2014 1:48:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
- Most people believe corporations should be taxed.
- Most people also believe in no taxation without representation.

"No taxation without representation" refers to being an individual who is governed but has no say in who governs them. Every american corporation has american employees and relatives who can vote, and american customers who may want to see the corporation do well.


RE: Show me the money!
By Solandri on 3/11/2014 1:57:22 PM , Rating: 1
You're not seeing the duplicity in your statement? For representation purposes, you're saying the corporation isn't an individual. For taxation purposes, you're saying the corporation is an individual.

Either it is an individual or it isn't. Pick one. You can't have it both ways. Your reasoning was used by the South pre-Civil War. They didn't want to give blacks the right to vote, but they wanted to count blacks as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of determining proportional representation in the House.


RE: Show me the money!
By Etsp on 3/11/2014 2:26:29 PM , Rating: 5
Corporations, or "Limited Liability Corporations" are entities that have their own income, and their own assets, and these assets are not tied to individual human beings.

If it has income, it gets taxed. Individuals within that corporation are able to leverage these assets to lobby the government (or the people) for the sake of the corporation, but the corporation itself is not an individual, and cannot make its own decisions.

Decartes said, "I think, therefore I am." He didn't say, "I pay taxes, therefore I am."


RE: Show me the money!
By Solandri on 3/12/2014 3:00:34 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Corporations, or "Limited Liability Corporations" are entities that have their own income, and their own assets, and these assets are not tied to individual human beings.

As has been adroitly pointed out, those assets are indeed tied to individual human beings. They're called owners and employees. All a corporation is is a shell for legal protection purposes.

quote:
If it has income, it gets taxed.

Income is an insufficient measure upon which to base taxes. Say I own a brick. My friend buys it from me for $1. I buy it back from him for $1. He buys it back from me for $1. We repeat this a million times. Congratulations - he and I have both generated $1 million in income.

For taxes to make sense, there needs to be productivity. Some value generated with the transaction. This is generally classified as profit (a worker's "income" is actually their profit from working). But profit in a corporation is either paid to employees as wages, or distributed to owners as distributions. You can have retained earnings for reinvestment in the company, but that just increases the potential for future wages or distributions. i.e. - it's all going to individuals anyway.
quote:
Individuals within that corporation are able to leverage these assets to lobby the government (or the people) for the sake of the corporation, but the corporation itself is not an individual, and cannot make its own decisions.

Right. Which is why you and I agree it makes no sense to allow corporations to vote. Which is why it makes no sense to tax corporations if you believe in no taxation without representation.


RE: Show me the money!
By aharris02 on 3/11/2014 3:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
I've never put those two together. Thanks for pointing out that connection.

I think a better approach is to drastically restrict lobbying, maintain corporate taxation via a flat rate, then give the corporation the ability to cast a number of votes equivalent to the number of jobs INSIDE THE US that it creates. Votes could be cast as decided by the stakeholders or whatever makes the most sense for the corporation.


RE: Show me the money!
By Rukkian on 3/11/2014 3:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
If you were going to go that route, you may need to base it on FTE (Full time equivalent) or something of that sort, or corps would have some incentive to just go make everybody 20hour a week half timer and hire twice as many people.


RE: Show me the money!
By aharris02 on 3/11/2014 3:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Is there anything tragically flawed about taking this approach to representation, besides large, politically-active corporations hating it?


RE: Show me the money!
By Solandri on 3/12/2014 5:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
You need to adjust your expectations. It's been mathematically proven that there are no flawless representation systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibili...

They are all flawed in some way in certain situations. You just have to sift through them and pick one which fails in cases which you think are least likely, and in ways you could live with when they do fail. Our current plurality wins voting system actually turns out to be pretty bad.

In the greater scheme of things, a better interpretation of the above is "Just because you find a flaw in a representation system isn't cause for immediate rejection." Unfortunately, this is one aspect of life where we have to resign ourselves to live with imperfection. Just try to minimize the impact of those imperfections.


RE: Show me the money!
By BifurcatedBoat on 3/11/2014 4:43:17 PM , Rating: 3
I think that would bother people even more - especially if their own political views were diametrically opposed to those of the company ownership. You can imagine a scenario where a presidential candidate received only 40% of the popular vote, but 90% of the corporate vote to eke out a win.


RE: Show me the money!
By Solandri on 3/12/2014 5:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, don't misunderstand the second option I listed. I don't seriously think corporations should be allowed to vote. We've already got a system clearly established on one person, one vote. A corporation is just a bunch of people deciding to work together. There is no justifiable reason why that should entitle members of the corporation to 1.1 or 1.2 votes per person. (Worse yet, the additional voting power wouldn't be equally distributed, with the ownership taking the bulk of it just because they can.)

That's why I started exploring the "don't tax corporations" option.


RE: Show me the money!
By kickoff on 3/11/2014 5:07:19 PM , Rating: 5
You say the problem is that corporations can't be taxed without representation.

But I'm not sure I agree with that. The "no taxation without representation" is for people, not for companies. You're anthropomorphizing them as a base assumption and I'm not sure you even realize you're doing it. Why then wouldn't I say that it's illegal to tax dog food...because dogs need to eat yet they have no representation to fight this tax?
That may seem like an extreme example, but only because we are used to thinking of corporations as people but that may simply be a bad assumption that we've taken as "fact" for too long.


RE: Show me the money!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/11/14, Rating: -1
RE: Show me the money!
By TSS on 3/11/2014 8:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
That's some high grade doublespeak you're employing there. If a company is "just a group of people", how the hell would the company not be represented if the company itself wasn't considered a person? It's made up entirely of persons! it's already represented!

Not only that but you cannot even see that you're agueing for taxation WITHOUT representation! (You thickheaded buffoon! usually i hate namecalling but goddamn you're so indoctrinated it's not even funny).

Because the corperations are able to exert such power in the democratic process, the vast majority of the US's population ISN'T represented right now! Because the politicians are bought off by corperate sponsored lobbyists what chance does a single voter have? What representation do all millions of voters combined even have if they cannot even compete with only ~10,000 lobbyists?!

It just blows my mind you can look that post and see nothing wrong with it. What drugs are you on? Stop doing them. If you're not on any, start. This includes legal/prescribed drugs by the way.


RE: Show me the money!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/11/2014 10:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
Dude I'm not the one who invented "Corporate Person-hood". I'm just speaking facts. I know it doesn't jive with the populist opinion, but what are you gonna do?

The problem is that there are some very sound practical and Constitutional reasons for the doctrine of corporate personhood.

You're using a straw man to say I must obviously support out of control lobbying if I support corporate personhood.

Actually "support" is too strong of a word. I'm simply informing you of the pragmatic realities of the situation. I happen to the think the First Amendment and the Constitution is a big deal, if you don't..okay.

Do you really care about seeing both sides of this? Let me quote you something, and honestly think about how it would be without Corporate Personhood.

"When individuals pool their resources and speak under the legal fiction of a corporation, they do not lose their rights. It cannot be any other way; in a world where corporations are not entitled to constitutional protections, the police would be free to storm office buildings and seize computers or documents. The mayor of New York City could exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he'd like to move his office there. Moreover, the government would be able to censor all corporate speech, including that of so-called media corporations. In short, rights-bearing individuals do not forfeit those rights when they associate in groups."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id...


RE: Show me the money!
By kickoff on 3/12/2014 1:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point, but I have to agree to disagree.

Not granting corporations person-hood does not mean we have to by default go to some extreme where the corporation has no right to have a place of business. Saying that a corporation (or Union, etc) should not have the right to lobby or otherwise act as a PERSON in the political process does not automatically imply the Mayor of NYC can walk in and take over a building he wants.
If we're not intelligent enough to right laws that should pertain to a business as opposed to a person, then we're not capable of governing ourselves in the first place.

There has to be a reasonable middle ground.


RE: Show me the money!
By senecarr on 3/13/2014 9:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
But none of that follows from denying corporations personhood.
A corporation is a type of legal charter owned by people. Those people are still free to act as individuals even if their corporation isn't.
It is like saying, if my house isn't a legal person, that means the mayor of my town could take over my basement because it is part of my house, and I just own the house, while the house itself owns the basement.

Also, if you think the constitution as intended meant to protect corporations in anyway, you don't know the founders. The Boston Tea Party, for example, was not simply about anger with the government, it was anger at corporatism - the participants hated the East India trading company and its tea monopoly just as much as the government giving it to them.
Initial laws on corporations limited their existence - their charters forcibly expired so they couldn't run forever. Individuals running the corporation could face criminal prosecution for actions of the corporation. Corporations were usually required to work in only one sector / commodity to limit their influence.


RE: Show me the money!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2014 12:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
Corporate Personhood has been upheld by nearly every Supreme Court for over a hundred years.

You're going to have to do more to outweigh that than a poor interpretation of the Boston Tea Party.

I've often heard Progressives make the argument that the Founders were against Corporations so we should be too. But that's clearly not based in any researchable facts.

If you can find me a first world nation with a thriving economy that's banned Corporations, I would like to see how they did it.


RE: Show me the money!
By senecarr on 3/14/2014 8:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Corporate Personhood has been upheld by nearly every Supreme Court for over a hundred years.

You'll note I said founder's intent. Court decisions are different from founder's intent, some judges view constitutions as living and founder's intent not necessary. Others require strict intent, and others rely on founder's intent in modern context. Usually each of these interpretations ends up amounting whatever the heck the judge feels anyway.

quote:
You're going to have to do more to outweigh that than a poor interpretation of the Boston Tea Party. I've often heard Progressives make the argument that the Founders were against Corporations so we should be too. But that's clearly not based in any researchable facts.

I've listed several facts that showed anti-corporate laws - corporations had limited "life" spans, they had laws requiring the to operate in specific areas, can you provide anything more concrete saying those things didn't exist?

quote:
If you can find me a first world nation with a thriving economy that's banned Corporations, I would like to see how they did it.

I don't have to find you any such thing because that's a strawman. We're discussing limits on corporate power and corporate personhood, not the efficacy of having laws allowing corporations. I know it is hard to think in grey areas instead of black-white like corporations must be allowed the same rights as people, or corporations cannot exist in any form.
And even if it was what we are arguing, you're now arguing from popularity, which is equally fallacious. No current economy operates on fusion power, but if tomorrow someone developed virtually free nuclear fusion power, would that mean no country should adopt it?


RE: Show me the money!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/14, Rating: 0
"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki