"Somebody from CHB asked me to watch a DVD called The Corporation."

Guilty as charged!!

"But what the film did not show were the jobs made by these corporations that employed millions of people."

True.

"As their products were bought they were able to pay their investors profits which was the purpose of being investors."

And, there is nothing wrong with that. Profit is a completely legitimate motive to go into business.

Problems occur when ever-growing profits are demanded by the stockholders. The corporation is bound by law to seek maximum profit. But for profits to continuously grow, markets must continuously expand, and populations need to continuously grow. Obviously this taxes natural resources. Where does it all end? What would be wrong with a consistent profit from year to year, paying a constant dividend year to year? Because of the constant need to expand under the current paradigm, oil, coal and water will be rapidly depleted.

"The industrial revolution is what built America."

Agreed.

"Our products won the wars for us and when sold to other nations won their wars as well."

Who promotes wars? Follow the money. One side of the coin is "our war industries enable us and our friends to win wars". But the other side is "because so much of our economy is war-oriented, there will be constant urging for more war by those who may profit from war." Sandra, I honestly think you have a much more altruistic view of human beings than I do. You may think that no patriotic CEO would lead the company to profiteer during war. I'm not so sure. I think examples can be found today regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The whole world looked at America and our Capitalism that allowed the unskilled laborers to work for good pay and even to invest for their futures."

Absolutely true. Where I think we went wrong was continuing interventionist militarism after World War II, much of this undeniably for the purpose of "opening markets" or "protecting American interests abroad" meaning American business searching for cheaper labor and raw materials than they could find domestically. Why should taxpayers provide military support to private businesses outside our country in this manner? Protect American businesses domestically from foreign military attack? Absolutely.

I remember when all the unionized knitting mills moved out of the unionized northern mills to the South for much cheaper unorganized labor. They were simply seeking greater profits but they left the devastation of mass unemployment in their wake. Corporations DO provide a large number of jobs, but they show no loyalty to people who worked for them for many years. Now the same thing is happening on a massive scale worldwide as corporations leave the U.S. for overseas lands, seeking cheaper labor, and benefitting from a massive U.S. garrison with 700 bases in 130 countries.

Corporations since the late 1800's have enjoyed the status of "personhood". Under the law, a corporation is a person. With personhood comes a certain amount of social responsibility. Not socialism! Social Responsibility. Just as under the informal "social contract" I would never dump a load of manure in your front yard, just as I would not dump left over fertilizer into a creek, corporations need to be more socially responsible than many of them are. They have no right to pollute air and water in seeking higher profit. But because some of the do, regulatory guidelines are required. And as for loyalty to employees, they often show none. Small business still provides more jobs in America than giant corporations, and I believe you'll find many small businessmen who are willing to take less profit for themselves during slow times in order to keep a couple loyal employees working. This is probably social responsibility beyond the call of duty but it happens. Corporate CEO's could learn a lot from American small business. For the longest time IBM made it a company policy to never lay off. Changing business conditions altered this policy. Kodak has been non-union since forever. But they treat their employees so well that union organization was never felt necessary by the workers. So I'm not saying "all corporations are bad".

"The producers want a government control on profits which will bring all the Corporations down and cause our unemployment lines to be long enough to start another civil war."

I'd have to re-watch the film myself to verify that claim, but I'll assume you are correct. I disagree with profit controls. I want to see more social responsibility. And, as I pointed out earlier, I believe it is the demand for continuously increasing profits that leads to rapid depletion of natural resources and if nothing changes, eventually mass starvation. The law requires corporations to maximize profit, but that is not the same as continuously increasing profit. Must massive areas of Appalachia be devastated by methods of coal mining, removal of mountain tops and pushing the debris into valleys and streams, instead of construction of shafts into the mountains, that maximize profits? Because of the actions of some, regulation (not profit regulation) is required. And yes, sometimes over-regulation results when some overzealous bureaucrat decides to flex and flaunt his authority. An effort to find an efficient balance must be made.

"The people selling their products in all our stores know more about supply and demand and keeping prices down so they can sell the products and make a profit."

Wal-Mart is a good example. Most of their goods are made in China by people literally making slave wages under horrible working conditions in factories totally environmentally unregulated. Air and water pollution is massive in China. Maybe these employees are better off than they have ever been, but their lives are still misearble. And we enjoy the efforts of their labor in the form of low low prices. Again, a balance could be struck. I as a consumer would not mind paying a higher price for goods produced here in order to keep Americans employed. Would the stockholders mind taking a little smaller profit to keep their neighbors employed? I think in a perfectly altruistic world they might. But let me know when that occurs.

"Capitalism is now an evil word at CHB ... "

I don't think so, at least not with me.

" ... and a federal government control is the only way they can see a future for themselves."

Some control over obviously occurring abuse is necessary. We don't want lead paint on toys. We don't want arsenic in our water. I would agree that today there are in some areas too much regulation. A balance must be struck.

"Well there is always China to manufacture what we need and sell."

No comment. See above.

"If we throw out the baby with the garbage America will lose our jobs, and nobody will make a profit that only Capitalism allowed them to make."

All I want is a level playing field. Capitalism is not inherently bad. But it can if totally unchecked, in the laissez faire mode, lead to things like unacceptable working conditions, environmental abuse and even fraud against shareholders. You, yourself, mentioned the perfect example of Enron and the SEC apparently looking the other way. In this particular case there was not enough regulation. And I can give you a great example of OVER regulation. Here in Pennsylvania the building codes for new construction have become so oppressive that they require government specs for the most minutely detailed tasks. Like how far apart nails should be while installing flooring. This is nonsense, and yes, this type of over regulation is too widespread. Its all about trying to strike a balance.

"The Corporation" definitely carries its own slant. If you can suggest a "counter" documentary, I'll watch it. Thank you for watching, and thank you for your commentary.

-- Kent Shaw

I have one question. You want the government to put a balance of profits made by the Corporations? This will limit the R and D part of the corporation to discontinue looking for more products or better ways of making their secure products.

The corruption came from D.C. and the SEC not minding their jobs. They knew what was happening and they were totally corrupt. Here is where I follow the money. I have no doubts that both Bush and Clinton were paid off to stay away from a number of corporations who knew damn well they were going to fail at the cost of the investors.

Get a copy of the book called "The Smartest boys in the Room" and you will see how Enron manipulated the government into staying out of their actions. It will also show how Enron early destroyed California.

I was living in California when I got a call from a man who had made some money in his own business but came up with a plan (that needed investors)to promote the laying of smaller more secure and safer lines across the Pacific. These would be used for the internet and telehones. I was driven down to Avila Beach and shown how simple this would be. I backed out and many of those people invested heavily into the scam of the year.

It is the people who need education to stop these scam artists as Capitalism is often mentioned as the cause of these scams.

I have no counter to the DVD but can only suggest that we all become more familiar with free enterprise Capitalism that is indeed the future of our economincs without the government involved.

One of the best books that I have given out to people is by Gene Calahan's "Economics for Real People." This form of economics was how most of us were raised to respect.

I have a couple of people on another forum who agree but their dislike of me personally will never allow them to take up the subject. When I tell you I am one of the most disliked people on the internet it is because I gave warnings about Bush 41 and 43 back in the early 1990s. If they now realize I was right they will never admit it.

There are geedy bastards all over America and most of them represent the government that others want to control our economics. Greed is exploding in both the Republicans and the Democrats and it will take 20 years for the American people to raise their kids knowing the right from the wrong and greed will fade.

I'm glad this subject did not attract a lot of attention. It is a simple look at two points of view that really are not all that different when both sides are explained. I am pleased with CHB who gave me a chance to discuss this with others. It is time to drop the Blog and go to another attempt to solve something else through discussion.