[mrnn]

Though the Jobs Report released Friday was generally looked at as lacking in good news, there actually was some great news. For the first time since the recession started, the number of private sector jobs is in the black. In other words, every private sector job lost from the recession has now been replaced! This is a pretty big milestone, really.

Of course you're likely wondering why we're still at 8.2% unemployment and still not reaching the jobs numbers we'd like to see on a regular basis. Well, since the recession ended, we've lost 600,000 public sector jobs....these are our teachers, fire, police, city/county/state administrators, etc throughout the country. 12,000 of these jobs were eliminated just last month!

The next time you hear someone tell you that government must shrink or that government doesn't create jobs, remember this post. It's not the private sector which is a drag on this recovery, it's the loss of public jobs....the loss of public jobs encouraged strongly by some of our politicians.


mrnn

[The Postman]

You are right, mmm, but coming from me it hardly speak for the critical side of the issue.

I am surrounded by imbecil's in this state, which has a report card from the Center for Public Integrity saying Georgia is at the bottom of the 50 state list, and received the worse score of all.

Public corruption runs rampant in Georgia. I worry about Georgian's who do have a job in this state.

[PastNFront]

mrnn, on 05 May 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

Though the Jobs Report released Friday was generally looked at as lacking in good news, there actually was some great news. For the first time since the recession started, the number of private sector jobs is in the black. In other words, every private sector job lost from the recession has now been replaced! This is a pretty big milestone, really.

Of course you're likely wondering why we're still at 8.2% unemployment and still not reaching the jobs numbers we'd like to see on a regular basis. Well, since the recession ended, we've lost 600,000 public sector jobs....these are our teachers, fire, police, city/county/state administrators, etc throughout the country. 12,000 of these jobs were eliminated just last month!

The next time you hear someone tell you that government must shrink or that government doesn't create jobs, remember this post. It's not the private sector which is a drag on this recovery, it's the loss of public jobs....the loss of public jobs encouraged strongly by some of our politicians.


mrnn

That is interesting. If it were true. But to somehow spin that every private sector job is back is the biggest bullcheeze story yet.

[The Postman]

PastNFront, on 05 May 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

That is interesting. If it were true. But to somehow spin that every private sector job is back is the biggest bullcheeze story yet.

Do you live in Georgia, PNF?

[PastNFront]

The Postman, on 05 May 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Do you live in Georgia, PNF?

Born and bred

[zoocrew]

mrnn, on 05 May 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

Though the Jobs Report released Friday was generally looked at as lacking in good news, there actually was some great news. For the first time since the recession started, the number of private sector jobs is in the black. In other words, every private sector job lost from the recession has now been replaced! This is a pretty big milestone, really.

Of course you're likely wondering why we're still at 8.2% unemployment and still not reaching the jobs numbers we'd like to see on a regular basis. Well, since the recession ended, we've lost 600,000 public sector jobs....these are our teachers, fire, police, city/county/state administrators, etc throughout the country. 12,000 of these jobs were eliminated just last month!

The next time you hear someone tell you that government must shrink or that government doesn't create jobs, remember this post. It's not the private sector which is a drag on this recovery, it's the loss of public jobs....the loss of public jobs encouraged strongly by some of our politicians.


mrnn

Don't forget government spending slowed down and that produces a negative on GDP. Private sector spending INCREASED and that has a positive effect on GDP. I linked to that very thing this morning.

My link

Quote

And while overall industrial production was flat in February/March, that's largely due to a slowdown in the volatile mining sector. But manufacturing alone increased at a solid 3.9% annual rate in those two months. Like last year, the Empire, Philly, and Chicago reports showing slower growth also show faster hiring, which suggests any slowdown is likely temporary. We are not saying the negative data is meaningless. It's not. But some of the reaction is, once again, overdone. For example, in Q1, real GDP was pulled down by significant weakness in government spending. Excluding purchases by government, "private" real GDP expanded at a solid 3.4% annual rate. Meanwhile, housing is clearly starting to rebound, with sales and construction up from a year ago and prices up in February, while private wages and salaries are up 5.3% YOY. Debating the worry-warts has become a full-time job and we can't prove them wrong until the future becomes the present. So, let's look back to last year when we said "in a few months we will be looking back at recent reports as just statistical noise." Sounded good then, so let's not mess with success. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[mrnn]

PastNFront, on 05 May 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

That is interesting. If it were true. But to somehow spin that every private sector job is back is the biggest bullcheeze story yet.

Well no sheeze, sherlock. I'm not saying that Company A, who laid off 5,000 employees in 2009, has hired back 5,000 people. I'm saying that Company B has come in and hired more than they ever let go which offsets Company A. Again, we're now, finally, IN THE BLACK in the private sector. Private sector employment is now able to look at the recession as history and every job added from this day forward is growth, not recovery.


mrnn

[zoocrew]

mrnn, on 05 May 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Well no sheeze, sherlock. I'm not saying that Company A, who laid off 5,000 employees in 2009, has hired back 5,000 people. I'm saying that Company B has come in and hired more than they ever let go which offsets Company A. Again, we're now, finally, IN THE BLACK in the private sector. Private sector employment is now able to look at the recession as history and every job added from this day forward is growth, not recovery.


mrnn

You're doing (A - B ) + C = D and that is blowing them away.

This post has been edited by zoocrew: 05 May 2012 - 06:29 PM

[PastNFront]

zoocrew, on 05 May 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

You're doing (A - B ) + C = D and that is blowing them away.

Blown away how you two are so full of sheeze.

[zoocrew]

PastNFront, on 05 May 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Blown away how you two are so full of sheeze.

Could you please provide a link and quote that disproves government spending was down and private spending was up? Thank you.

[Mr.Dis]

mrnn, on 05 May 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Well no sheeze, sherlock. I'm not saying that Company A, who laid off 5,000 employees in 2009, has hired back 5,000 people. I'm saying that Company B has come in and hired more than they ever let go which offsets Company A. Again, we're now, finally, IN THE BLACK in the private sector. Private sector employment is now able to look at the recession as history and every job added from this day forward is growth, not recovery.


mrnn

I may have missed something mrnn. the stats that I saw were saying that we are at negative 2 million jobs NET since Jan 2009. You are saying we are not only above that but positive as well?

[icare]

I don't give a rip how many ways you spin unemployment, national debt, heathcare, housing, fuel, etc., etc. I WILL NOT vote for Obama! Okay, I feel better now.......

[rockysmom]

icare, on 05 May 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

I don't give a rip how many ways you spin unemployment, national debt, heathcare, housing, fuel, etc., etc. I WILL NOT vote for Obama! Okay, I feel better now.......

Why are you under the impression that anyone cares how you vote? Perhaps people want to give another side of the gloom and doom because they care about their country not because they are rooting for the President.

[icare]

rockysmom, on 05 May 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Why are you under the impression that anyone cares how you vote? Perhaps people want to give another side of the gloom and doom because they care about their country not because they are rooting for the President.

Because I get the impression that some folks on P.com believe that their spin will convince me to vote for their candidate and no amount of spin will convince me to do that. Believe me, I have persevered and survived my own gloom and doom over the past several years and watched people close to me suffer as well. The gloom and doom is very real, however, I will not depend on the government to bail me out. I love my country more than you will ever know and will not stand idly by and watch it deteriorate any further.

[NavyEagle#1]

I can say my private company has hired 30+ and is looking to hire 30+ more....

Senior IT tech,

PM me is seriously interested.

Based out of Virginia, no remote support positions

This post has been edited by NavyEagle#1: 05 May 2012 - 08:48 PM

[rockysmom]

icare, on 05 May 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

Because I get the impression that some folks on P.com believe that their spin will convince me to vote for their candidate and no amount of spin will convince me to do that. Believe me, I have persevered and survived my own gloom and doom over the past several years and watched people close to me suffer as well. The gloom and doom is very real, however, I will not depend on the government to bail me out. I love my country more than you will ever know and will not stand idly by and watch it deteriorate any further.

Fair enough and believe me there are also some p.com posters who spin such nonsense that by the time you do some research to confirm what they have posted......you have a bucket of mud and a bunch of wasted time. To be honest, I've seen this come from right leaners much more than left leaners.

Deteriorate any further? We are in much better shape than we were when the prior president left office. Of course, no one wants to admit it but we were in a mess and while it's not all rainbows and butterflies, at least we see some improvement.

[icare]

rockysmom, on 05 May 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Fair enough and believe me there are also some p.com posters who spin such nonsense that by the time you do some research to confirm what they have posted......you have a bucket of mud and a bunch of wasted time. To be honest, I've seen this come from right leaners much more than left leaners.

Deteriorate any further? We are in much better shape than we were when the prior president left office. Of course, no one wants to admit it but we were in a mess and while it's not all rainbows and butterflies, at least we see some improvement.

I will agree to disagree....have a great evening.

[PastNFront]

zoocrew, on 05 May 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Could you please provide a link and quote that disproves government spending was down and private spending was up? Thank you.

Why? You are incapable of independent thinking. That is obvious.

[zoocrew]

icare, on 05 May 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

I don't give a rip how many ways you spin unemployment, national debt, heathcare, housing, fuel, etc., etc. I WILL NOT vote for Obama! Okay, I feel better now.......

icare, on 05 May 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

Because I get the impression that some folks on P.com believe that their spin will convince me to vote for their candidate and no amount of spin will convince me to do that. Believe me, I have persevered and survived my own gloom and doom over the past several years and watched people close to me suffer as well. The gloom and doom is very real, however, I will not depend on the government to bail me out. I love my country more than you will ever know and will not stand idly by and watch it deteriorate any further.

See, that is a MAJOR problem right there. No one is saying that anyone should vote for Obama, In fact, I'm not voting for Obama. Didn't last time and won't this time either. I don't think anyone is trying to spin anything to get anyone to vote for Obama. I'm only pointing out that the Doom and Gloom is not nearly as bad as everyone says it is. Blaming things on Obama when it is not his fault is just lying about the guy. Saying things are in really bad shape and things are not improving is simply a falsehood. That doesn't mean Obama is making things better. All he did was do the last-ditch-Hail-Mary-Emergency bailout just like Bush did. No one liked it but it was the only option to prevent complete economic collapse. And then to blame Obama for making things worse when he and Bush saved us from complete collapse?

No one is painting a great picture to get you to vote for Obama. I'm only pointing out that there are people trying to spin good news to make Obama look bad to vote for their guy.

[icare]

zoocrew, on 05 May 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

See, that is a MAJOR problem right there. No one is saying that anyone should vote for Obama, In fact, I'm not voting for Obama. Didn't last time and won't this time either. I don't think anyone is trying to spin anything to get anyone to vote for Obama. I'm only pointing out that the Doom and Gloom is not nearly as bad as everyone says it is. Blaming things on Obama when it is not his fault is just lying about the guy. Saying things are in really bad shape and things are not improving is simply a falsehood. That doesn't mean Obama is making things better. All he did was do the last-ditch-Hail-Mary-Emergency bailout just like Bush did. No one liked it but it was the only option to prevent complete economic collapse. And then to blame Obama for making things worse when he and Bush saved us from complete collapse?

No one is painting a great picture to get you to vote for Obama. I'm only pointing out that there are people trying to spin good news to make Obama look bad to vote for their guy.

Maybe it's not doom and gloom for you but I lost a hell of a lot in the past few years and so have those close to me. Sell your rose colored glasses to my son and BIL that are out of work. My husband lost two jobs and we lost our home and are trying to rebuild. Don't tell me things are so much better....I really don't like any politicians but pray God will help us out of this mess!

[zoocrew]

icare, on 06 May 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Maybe it's not doom and gloom for you but I lost a hell of a lot in the past few years and so have those close to me. Sell your rose colored glasses to my son and BIL that are out of work. My husband lost two jobs and we lost our home and are trying to rebuild. Don't tell me things are so much better....I really don't like any politicians but pray God will help us out of this mess!

From where we were in March 2009 when the entire world's economy was on the brink of collapse? We are MUCH better. It will take a long time to fix this mess but we are slowly improving. I'm sorry for your situation but the economy itself is improving.

[feelip]

Man! Wished I was as smart as some of you guys so I didn't know the difference in a good economy and a cheezety economy. You guys are freakin brilliant! I would just like to hang out with you to see if some of that brilliance would rub off on me.

You know, there is a bright side to profit margins shrinking to 25% of what they were 4 years ago. I don't have to pay nearly as much tax. And with work being off 45% my insurance cost is down, labor is way down, materials are down.......

Hey, I think I'm learning how to be a liberal. So when does the government start feeding me?

[Steven Lang]

Wow! Talk about an ideological morass...

We are 15 trillion in debt folks. This is not a Republican, Democratic, or 'Independent' based problem. It is a fiscal problem that has it's roots in the majority of Americans towing the line of collective ignorance.

Here's the long and short of it. Neither party as a whole gives a flip about anything except the interests that fund them. Period. End of story.

You want the problems solved? It won't. The system as it stands is designed to aggregate debt and pass it forward.

As for the reduction in state government funding... it's long overdue. But not nearly as dire as the spending that currently takes place on the federal level.

We don't need to create more jobs by printing money, encouraging inflation, and leaving debt to numerous future generations via expanding the public sector workforce. We do need to continue to provide employed folks, public and private, with the freedom to manage their work in a productive manner.

A little less regulation and procedural nonsense would likely go a lot further in that regard.

All the best!

[icare]

zoocrew, on 06 May 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

From where we were in March 2009 when the entire world's economy was on the brink of collapse? We are MUCH better. It will take a long time to fix this mess but we are slowly improving. I'm sorry for your situation but the economy itself is improving.

Blah, blah, blah......

[The Postman]

feelip, on 06 May 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Man! Wished I was as smart as some of you guys so I didn't know the difference in a good economy and a cheezety economy. You guys are freakin brilliant! I would just like to hang out with you to see if some of that brilliance would rub off on me.

You know, there is a bright side to profit margins shrinking to 25% of what they were 4 years ago. I don't have to pay nearly as much tax. And with work being off 45% my insurance cost is down, labor is way down, materials are down.......

Hey, I think I'm learning how to be a liberal. So when does the government start feeding me?

If you live in Georgia, feelip, it's the politicians who get feed by the government. But, not through regular channels.. It's called public corruption.
Here's Georgia's report card on public corruption. The state of Georgia is the lowest of the low.

Under the formula used by CPI (Center for Public Integrity), no states received an A grade; New Jersey's received the only B+. Joining the Garden State in the top five are Connecticut, Washington, California and Nebraska. Nineteen states received Cs and 18 received Ds. Eight states -- North Dakota, Michigan, South Carolina, Maine, Virginia, Wyoming, South Dakota and Georgia -- received Fs.


Georgia's Report Card

[Georgia Dawg]

Let's see.. You loose 50,000 jobs making $80K a year, replaced by 50,000 jobs making $45K a year. Yep, sounds equal to me.

[PastNFront]

For the "it could be worse" crowd and the "it's getting better" sheeples...

[PUBBY]

You know what I'm hearing?

The corporations responsible for the majority of economic activity have discovered they don't need to hire any more people. They discovered after they culled millions of jobs, they scared the people they didn't fire so much that they got extra work out of them.

Bottom line, our corporate masters have discovered they can be just as productive - generate the same amount in gross domestic product - with today's workforce as they were when they had 5 million more people on the payroll. So, if you can do the job with 5 million fewer labor units you have to pay, then productivity has gone up.

Second, because you have the workforce scared as they are now, you don't have to pay them any more for this increased productivity which means that labor costs don't rise that way either.

One of the economists pundits openly wondered why the corporations would even consider hiring more people since the profits they're getting from the increased productivity are 'free.'

The answer is they won't. Indeed, higher unemployment rates - lots of qualified folks looking for a job - helps them in the creation of negative incentives - i.e. you better work your ass off for the same money or less or we'll fire you and replace you with someone who will.

Unions are not a factor. Heck, the Republican Congress in 2006 put a bomb in the postal service budget forcing them to front load the costs of retirement health care knowing that would cripple the service and force it to downsize dramatically ... to the benefit of the private carriers like fedex and UPS. Figure their lobbyists fingerprints are all over that one and, of course, it was union busting.

To me, it is clear, that the changes that are coming are of no benefit to main street or the vast majority of people because it takes out the government as an obstacle to corporate power and influence. Those who aren't in corporate management - the new 'nobility' - will be left to fend on their own.

While I'm pretty certain that a vote for Romney will head us down this road the sad thing is that the influence of corporate money on politics is such that I'm not at all certain a vote for Obama would make one iota of difference in regard the destination.

pubby

[PastNFront]

You know what I'm hearing?

Liberals are panicked, scared, and scared.

As well they should be.

[eym_sirius]

I think that one of the problems lies in the statement that Romney made - "Corporations are people". Because the inverse isn't true (people aren't corporations), "We, the people" in Romney-speak, are now "We, the Corporations".
In other words citizenry-that-matters has been morphed into a money battle for power. Interestingly, nowadays corporations are worldwide and have interests that may not coincide with those interests that are uniquely American. Those uniquely American interests have already started diminishing to the point that Congressmen are openly taking payoffs from foreign corporations and countries in exchange for their votes on critical issues.

The answer isn't just the Obama election. It is the scourge of America called "partisan politics" as depicted in "red or blue states" It is also the way-wrong opinion of the Supreme Court that money equals free speech. While we should believe that free speech should be a fundamental right, that right should not be a license for politicians to accept bribes, whether there is a smoking gun quid pro quo or not.

Congressional ethics is an oxymoron. How did it get like this? How can it ever be resolved?

What I've always said - "It can't be fixed" Congress will NEVER behave in the best interests of the country, which means that our government is doomed to collapse. No government has ever lasted and the reason is "human nature", selfish and greedy and corrupt.

If "Corporations are people" meaning that corporations ARE our government, ask yourself -- How many corporations are out there that have been around for 300 years? How about 200? When you use a strictly business model for government and don't truly involve HUMANITY through improving society, you doom the government to the same fate as corporations. That's where we are headed.

[Starr & Dru's Nana]

you, my friend, understand business. That is EXACTLY what's going on. Why hire more people when you're as productive, if not more productive, with fewer people. And what extra you need, you either outsource or use employee leasing companies to provide the labor. The company my hubby used to work for, a HUMONGOUS international corporation, did just that--increased profits by cutting out some departments and outsourcing those jobs. It was very, very, VERY good for us because we made more by doing the work for his former employer than he would have ever made working FOR them.

See, Pubby, you and I can agree on things.

PUBBY, on 07 May 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

You know what I'm hearing?

The corporations responsible for the majority of economic activity have discovered they don't need to hire any more people. They discovered after they culled millions of jobs, they scared the people they didn't fire so much that they got extra work out of them.

Bottom line, our corporate masters have discovered they can be just as productive - generate the same amount in gross domestic product - with today's workforce as they were when they had 5 million more people on the payroll. So, if you can do the job with 5 million fewer labor units you have to pay, then productivity has gone up.

Second, because you have the workforce scared as they are now, you don't have to pay them any more for this increased productivity which means that labor costs don't rise that way either.

One of the economists pundits openly wondered why the corporations would even consider hiring more people since the profits they're getting from the increased productivity are 'free.'

The answer is they won't. Indeed, higher unemployment rates - lots of qualified folks looking for a job - helps them in the creation of negative incentives - i.e. you better work your ass off for the same money or less or we'll fire you and replace you with someone who will.

Unions are not a factor. Heck, the Republican Congress in 2006 put a bomb in the postal service budget forcing them to front load the costs of retirement health care knowing that would cripple the service and force it to downsize dramatically ... to the benefit of the private carriers like fedex and UPS. Figure their lobbyists fingerprints are all over that one and, of course, it was union busting.

To me, it is clear, that the changes that are coming are of no benefit to main street or the vast majority of people because it takes out the government as an obstacle to corporate power and influence. Those who aren't in corporate management - the new 'nobility' - will be left to fend on their own.

While I'm pretty certain that a vote for Romney will head us down this road the sad thing is that the influence of corporate money on politics is such that I'm not at all certain a vote for Obama would make one iota of difference in regard the destination.

pubby

[PUBBY]

Starr & Dru, on 07 May 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

you, my friend, understand business. That is EXACTLY what's going on. Why hire more people when you're as productive, if not more productive, with fewer people. And what extra you need, you either outsource or use employee leasing companies to provide the labor. The company my hubby used to work for, a HUMONGOUS international corporation, did just that--increased profits by cutting out some departments and outsourcing those jobs. It was very, very, VERY good for us because we made more by doing the work for his former employer than he would have ever made working FOR them.

See, Pubby, you and I can agree on things.

But ask yourself what happens when each person basically 'manages fourty robots' and we only need, say 1 million people to do all the work, instead of a workforce of 120 million.

In that world, corporations make even greater profits but everyone else is out of work and on the dole... oh, wait, there is no dole, there is no welfare, there is nothing because government has been taken to the shed, stuck in an old bathtub and drowned.

And what does that mean? Well, you can bet that if there are sex robots as already predicted, there will be defense robots - fighting machines - designed to protect corporate assets from the great unwashed. They are ruthless and inhuman; everything our nightmares are made of. They have to be to kill the hungry serfs attacking the corporate outposts. With the immortal corporations in control, the odds are that terminators are in our future?

The real disconnect here is that corporations could care less about the starvation of masses, poisoning the air and water, filling the atmosphere with increasing amounts and various greenhouse gases because under the laws we created, they are required to care only about profit for their investors.

The legal fact is that notions like love for our fellow man, if it costs a corporation one penny in profit, could open the corporation to a lawsuit for malfeasance. The notion that corporations should care for their fellow man is, after all, an absurdity given corporations are not, as some proclaim, people too.

Indeed, as the law reads now, a corporate management would be wrong and could be sued if they chose to spend $100,000,000 to stop polluting and harming a watershed if, instead, they could lobby Congress (spending any amount, even a penny less, than $100 million in the process) giving them immunity from law suit for the deaths and damages that would result.

Consider this passage from the bible to assess the impact of it on corporations?:

Quote

When Jesus was questioned by the crowds as to what commandment was the greatest he replied, " To LOVE GOD with all your heart soul and mind; the second is to LOVE OTHERS as yourself, on these 2 commands hang all the law and the prophets."
MATTHEW 22:36-40

The only problem is that corporations, as souless immortals, are not part of that Law. Their law is the one we wrote for them ... that they are to make a profit (i.e. for profit corporations) and the stockholders can hold them accountable if they do things that interfere with that purpose.

Don't believe me? Ask Ben and Jerry.

pubby

PS: eym: You should know that there are numerous corporate and chartered entities that have survived a long, long time ... some are documented to be well over 800 years (Power Inc.) I bought this on kindle ... but I don't have a kindle and could probably pass it along. (Ive read it).

[converse]

PUBBY, on 07 May 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

But ask yourself what happens when each person basically 'manages fourty robots' and we only need, say 1 million people to do all the work, instead of a workforce of 120 million.

Very nearsighted view…

Who designs the robots?
Who builds the robots?
Who sells the robots?
Who installs the robots?
Who manages the install of the robots?
Who repairs the robots?
Who upgrades the robots?

It sounds like you'd argue against the light bulb since it puts the torch makers out of business. Or something a little closer to home.. Argue against the internet because it puts the post office out of business.

[Starr & Dru's Nana]

I never said it was a good thing for all. It's just a financial fact of life. Bigger profit with fewer workers (and therefore lower production cost) IS what most corporations with stockholders will choose to do. The stockholders these days seem to care more about dividends than anything else. Or at least, the corporations would have you THINK that is what the stockholders care about.

And please, let's not lump ALL corporations together because there are a few that do care about their employees. The one my hubby worked for was, and to my knowledge still is, quite caring toward their employees. For instance, when my hubby had to go to Oregon twice for sale meeting, his supervisor sent me flowers. Not just once, but both times because the "corporation" cared about the employees and their families.

FYI, I was employed by a "corporation" prior to starting my own business. I gotta say, the "corporation" certainly cared for me. Not just every corporate head who would push a key employee around in a wheelchair in downtown Dallas.

PUBBY, on 07 May 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

But ask yourself what happens when each person basically 'manages fourty robots' and we only need, say 1 million people to do all the work, instead of a workforce of 120 million.

In that world, corporations make even greater profits but everyone else is out of work and on the dole... oh, wait, there is no dole, there is no welfare, there is nothing because government has been taken to the shed, stuck in an old bathtub and drowned.

And what does that mean? Well, you can bet that if there are sex robots as already predicted, there will be defense robots - fighting machines - designed to protect corporate assets from the great unwashed. They are ruthless and inhuman; everything our nightmares are made of. They have to be to kill the hungry serfs attacking the corporate outposts. With the immortal corporations in control, the odds are that terminators are in our future?

The real disconnect here is that corporations could care less about the starvation of masses, poisoning the air and water, filling the atmosphere with increasing amounts and various greenhouse gases because under the laws we created, they are required to care only about profit for their investors.

The legal fact is that notions like love for our fellow man, if it costs a corporation one penny in profit, could open the corporation to a lawsuit for malfeasance. The notion that corporations should care for their fellow man is, after all, an absurdity given corporations are not, as some proclaim, people too.

Indeed, as the law reads now, a corporate management would be wrong and could be sued if they chose to spend $100,000,000 to stop polluting and harming a watershed if, instead, they could lobby Congress (spending any amount, even a penny less, than $100 million in the process) giving them immunity from law suit for the deaths and damages that would result.

Consider this passage from the bible to assess the impact of it on corporations?:



The only problem is that corporations, as souless immortals, are not part of that Law. Their law is the one we wrote for them ... that they are to make a profit (i.e. for profit corporations) and the stockholders can hold them accountable if they do things that interfere with that purpose.

Don't believe me? Ask Ben and Jerry.

pubby

PS: eym: You should know that there are numerous corporate and chartered entities that have survived a long, long time ... some are documented to be well over 800 years (Power Inc.) I bought this on kindle ... but I don't have a kindle and could probably pass it along. (Ive read it).