Forum Post: Capitalism on parade; the triumph of the corporation
Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 1, 2012, 11:26 a.m. EST by TitusMoans
(2451)
from Boulder City, NV
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"Caterpillar capitalism." The company wins; the workers get screwed... once again.
Back when Caterpillar faced a terrible market and heavy losses, company workers gave in; surrendered benefits and pay raises. Now when Caterpillar is logging record profits, the workers are doing the same at the Joliet, Illinois, plant and at others as well.
"...the strike-weary workers relented to the company's demands: wage and pension freeze, double the health care costs, replacing current pension plan with 401-K and seniority rights curbed..." while the company raked in an astonishing $5 billion profit. http://peoplesworld.org/caterpillar-capitalism-triumphs/
Let's hear it again about how the wealthy few want to give back and create more and better jobs. As Ross Perot said decades ago, soon we'll have a nation of people all working at Taco Bell, if anyone is left that can afford to eat there.
companies hire employees as a last resort
Nick Hanauer
Yes, they prefer slaves, but have to settle for wage slavery.
if there is profit to be made
The name of the game.
shareholders invest for profit
Agree. Also, they fire them as a first resort.
if it is economic
Workers get screwed? With those profits, new jobs will be created, old jobs saved, the tax base will expand, the entitlements will be expanded, the military will be funded preserving us from fanatics in the caves of Pakistan. We'll all be much better off with lower wages.
Lower wages actually means higher wages. That's obvious to anyone who hasn't swallowed your communist kool-aid. You communists, with your liberal media are pushing a very devious propaganda message: You think 'Lower wages means lower wages." How simplistic!
If the union had any foresight, they would demand more drastic cuts, so we can benefit even more. The rich are working hard at increasing consumption. Let's give them credit by doing our part.
Of course you're right. In fact workers should pay to work. In that way the capitalists could create even more jobs, but charge more so the men and women of American could have the privilege of no-wage slavery.
Exactly, I'm looking to explore this paradox. The right's entire philosophy. if you can call it that, is a massive simple contradiction. Less for us means more for us. So many words are wasted to no effect analyzing the Fed, credit/default swaps, short selling, etc. It all amounts to obscuring and complicating a very simple lie.
Why is the right staking so much on such obvious nonsense? What happened to their other lies (our race is best, one sex is better, crime, drugs)? Those other lies were more difficult to expose. Even God, the invisible man in the sky, seems far more believable than Less is More. What does it mean that we have reached this ideological juncture?
You misunderstand the right; no paradox exists: the few take more, so the many share less. And what's even better is that a good percentage go along with idea believing they still have a chance to be Clint Eastwood or maybe his daughter, Francesca, who burned a $100,000 purse for the fun of it. http://theclicker.today.com/_news/2012/05/29/11936639-clint-eastwoods-daughter-burns-100000-handbag?lite
Maybe Eastwood should be talking to the empty head of his daughter rather than to an empty chair.
This is one of the main barriers to change. The fact that they've convinced the American people that being "free" to become wealthy a. is important in and of itself, which it really isn't, and b. that it is possible on a grand scale, when it really isn't.
Yes, the propaganda machine rolls on: the poverty-stricken steal from the rich, so the "welfare queens" can sit at home watching soaps, smoking dope, and making babies.
Too much, isn't it?
If so many people didn't buy that line, I'd laugh.
no purse is worth $100,000
I won't argue that point, but some people actually pay that and more for a purse. That while homeless people beg on the streets.
the rich put money back into the economy that way
however, it does debase any real value price a product may cost
I'd rather they put food into the mouths of the hungry.
if the hungry had money , they could buy food
the market would have to comply to their demands
That's true, and if the hungry weren't so shiftless, they'd have money.
err...
You must be young enough to be surrounded by college kids who all think they'll be wealthy. I do believe that most conservatives think everyone benefits from the prosperity of the wealthy, including those of us who have accepted our humble stations in the lower orders.
Personally, I didn't see Eastwood's speech, but it sounds a hell of a lot more palatable than standard American political rhetoric. I know he's a rightist but he earned a little respect, IMO, when he made a WWII movie from the Japanese perspective. I forget the movie's name, but it took a really anti-racist imagination to see the island hopping Americans as invaders, and to humanize the Japanese soldiers.
Eastwood's movie was called, Letters from Iwo Jima. I don't criticize his ability as an actor or a director, regardless of his political position. I simply believe that, perhaps, he should turn his castigation homeward rather than toward the sitting President.
It's frightning. Even though you're kidding, it actually takes a little discerning to realize that due to how individuals of the Right actually support such a position.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/drink-less-work-more-billionaire-tells-non-rich/
I've been tinkering with different formulations of the paradox. Give me all your money and you'll have more money', etc.
During the primaries, I watched with amazement as the right rejected, one by one, the candidates for its other ideologies, settling on complete commitment to 'you'll be richer if you're poorer.'
It seems like a losing strategy for them, and I'm really wondering where the right goes after defeat in November.
Titus you are so right. Besides the Constitution says "We the People".I'm pretty sure if they wanted corporations to have priority, they would have said "We the Corporations". We must support the 99%! Stop all the corruption!
But corporations are like people, at least according to the government. We can soon all join Jean Valjean in flight after stealing bread to feed our families.
Big banks steal trillions, launder drug money, and nothing happens. Some little guy gets caught stealing bread, and would be in real trouble-----More business for corporate prison.
Good Post
Good post Titus. The more corporations get, the more they expect.
Unfortunately, the government keeps giving them more. The sad part is so many Americans buy the corporate propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Agree. Incorporation, is a disaster. Better world without corporations.
I wonder if there's a disincorporation expert handy.
Good idea. Is there a mechanism to disincorporate, when the corporation becomes a menace to the public?
Well, there used to be this thing called the American government that was supposed to protect its citizens. LOL.
This story makes me so angry but you know what makes me angrier? The fact that it is almost a non story to the MSM. A story like this should have been front page news for the past 3 months.I believe most of these MSM outlets are in collusion with these corporate s@umbags to basically be silent while the coop occurs
here is a good rant on this story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MKfqEzALZg
Thanks for the link.