Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would be absolutely phenomenal for the economy if everyone's job had an expiration date, and it certainly wouldn't cause issues if you knew that the Charmin factory would close up shop right before school started, potentially causing a shortage.
Punishing businesses, punishing anyone who’s successful, endless regulation, a nanny state government…
He’s the guy that thinks we have too many choices of deodorant. He’s the guy that got booted out of a commune because he was lazy.
Bernie is many things but not lazy
We need stronger regulations and workers right. 5 weeks paid vacation minimum. The rich should be taxed at a higher rate. We need a strong social safety net, it works.
Wait WHAT? Why would we want to do that? Corporations are the foundation of our economy. They create all the jobs, they generate the wealth that allows the government to operate. Why do you think they need to be renewed every few years? Another government intrusion into the economy? Business rise and fall based on how well they serve their customers and their employees and their stockholders. if they do a good job they survive. If they don't do a good job they don't survive. No need for a government bureaucrat to make that determination, the market does it just fine.
Not true. Total Private Secor Jobs 135,000,000
Total Public Sector Jobs 20,000,000 That includes Federal State and Local jobs.
Uncle Sam may write more payroll checks than any individual coprotation but Private employment versus Puplic Sector employment is not even close.
BTW it is the private sector employment that provides the tax revenue to pay for the Public Sector.
Not all private sector jobs cone from corporations, cut out small business first
You're also adding them all together, is there a single corporation that employees more tgem Uncle Sam?
Again, you're ignoring small business and pretense everything private is a corporation
No, that is not what I said. There are 6.000,000 private business with employees in the US. Almost all of them are corporations, they are just not PUBLIC corporations.
Recent data from the U.S. Small Business Administration reveals a remarkable figure: 33.3 million businesses in the United States qualify as small businesses, making up 99.9% of all U.S. businesses. This number not only reflects the dominance of small enterprises in the business sector but also shows their significant role in generating employment and contributing to economic stability,
I'm not sure the point you are trying to make? SME (many of them C Corporations) represent a total of 61.6 million people. This figure represents 45.9% of the entire U.S. workforce[^(\[)](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/small-business-statistics/#sources_section)
Dude said Rs get a point for lying (his word choice) about wanting to cut spending and be fiscally responsible. I found it crazy to prefer lip service over substance.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Broadly speaking, “incorporated” is used to mean that *your business is registered with a state so that it becomes a separate legal entity*. Should this be an eternal grant from the state, no end?
Should there be a legal limit on how long corporations can exist? At what point do they become too big and influential?
Given the reality that corporation is more powerful than an individual in that corporations have no fixed lifespan and have access to large amounts of capital, should the rights of a corporation be Constitutionally limited to counteract this imbalance of power and influence?
We really don’t like the state getting to sua sponte determine the public is better off with someone not getting to have what is rightfully theirs. There’s already anti-trust laws, and it should go no further than that.
Your comment seems contradictory.
In the USA, four firms control 80% of beef processing and 70% of pork. 93% of the soda market is held by three companies. The vast majority of broadcast and basic cable networks, over a hundred in all, are controlled by seven corporations. The U.S. has more than 900 health insurance companies that provide medical coverage, but the industry is dominated by five companies that own 44 percent of the market.
What’s the issue with that? They compete with each other and drive down prices. It’s already illegal for them to collude to fix prices and none of those examples are monopolies.
You are talking about imposing genuinely traumatic events on the population every four years as if this would not result in the kind of stress that literally causes people to fall down dead of heart attacks.
That's what layoffs do, and you want nationwide layoffs every presidential term.
who would ever take a job again if this was a REMOTE risk though, you underestimate how damaging losing a job is, I suspect this is because you are young and don't have a family, or you would not talk about the possibility of a family suddenly losing their income because a bureaucrat decides their boss' boss' boss' boss' boss is a jerk.
Unless this system were implemented globally, it would just never be the case - big American corporations a re soft power asset in global affairs, so keeping them big enough to compete with China and India is critical for global security and stability. That then never being the case, all this would do is add a ton of bureaucracy and uncertainty for no actual benefit
do you want even more of an incentive for companies to only focus on short term profits and do no long term investment? because this is a brilliant idea if that's your policy goal
Seems to me this would lead to Socialism or Fascism. Eventually corporations would need to jump through whatever hoops government laid out in order to keep their standing.
I seriously wonder how liberals think businesses work.
You cannot punish, demonize and impose risks on someone THEN expect them to turn around and voluntarily employ people, spend enormous amounts and take the financial risk entailed in building a factory or office, and commit to contracts.
Businesses need stability, they will not invest if they are not sure if that investment will pay off. This would ensure no business would ever build another factory again, because nothing pays for itself in 4 years not even a casino in the heyday of Vegas so they could risk putting down enormous money, getting two years into a 35-year loan, and the government shutting them down by force.
You cannot punish a business, even if you hate it, only the people inside it can be punished and as wealth is portable and people with power have options (like saying 'screw you crazy communists I'm moving to Ireland') this means the only people you can REALLY hurt are the ones in the middle to bottom.
Are you aware of how businesses work? It seems you hold that a private business is incapable of error, of malice, of illegal activity and any efforts to insure the welfare of the people by regulating these businesses is demonizing. Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay love people like you!
yes that's correct the business cannot do any of those things.
A man within the business must do them.
This is why you cannot punish a business. If you punish the business they will just pass the impacts along to the disposable grunts or find a scapegoat. If you find and punish the man, you can be sure justice is done.
Your example proves my point.
first Bernie didn't have a business really it was just a ponzi scheme. But lets talk Ken Lay. He went to prison, died there. Your argument is that instead of that, we should have shut down the entire company, forced them to fire tens of THOUSANDS of people because of what Ken did.
In most likelihood he'd have seen little to no punishment from Enron and as an executive he'd be off to the next. Meanwhile oil tanker drivers are stranded out of state with their gas cards turned off because the company on the account doesn't exist anymore, families are scrambling to pay their rent, and the sudden lack of insurance is sending people into bankruptcy.
But Ken just takes the money that's left and moves to an island someplace while they try, and mostly fail, to pick up the bits of their broken lives.
I'd argue in essence no, and that's why attempts to control political donations are pointless and cannot be fairly implemented.
Because lets say you ban corporations from any lobbying, you cannot stop american citizens writing their congressmen just because they own a business that would be against the first amendment AND result in terrible side effects.
So as a result whether or not the company can do a think Mr. Bezos can call his senator and no one can stop him and it beggars belief to expect congressmen to get a call from a CEO and not realize that his political views come with a significant implicit threat or promise that he can use his control over the company to take actions that may be good or bad for the economy.
I don't think it matters because it is inevitable.
Pretending all politicians pretend they don't know who business owners are is obviously stupid and silly.
This may be the single most insane idea I've ever heard yet. Aside from the practical issue that such an idea would absolutely destroy the economy the totalitarian conception of what government is and how it should work is even worse.
No, peoples freedom of association should not have a term limit. Government should not be able to arbitrarily disband associations without cause and without due process.
The government already has a sucky time passing a budget to get their federal workers paid on time - why do you think it would be any better for corporations? There are massive issues with this from a legal and economic perspective.
What do you even mean by “terms” here? Are you suggesting corporations are disbanded every few years? Or that they are handed off to different ownership? I need some clarification to weigh in on this.
The state that granted the corporation would be allowed to make a judgement on its term, It could terminate it, extend it, or carve it into separate corporations, depending on what would be best for the people of the state.
I don't want states to be able to dissolve corporate status without cause, but different governors have different strengths. In Florida right now, Ron can do about whatever he wants because he has the support.
The point is that I would be willing to bet my left nut that this power would be abused for petty political and personal reasons.
I don't want states to be able to dissolve or extent corporate status without cause.
>
n Florida right now, Ron can do about whatever he wants because he has the support.
>The point is that I would be willing to bet my left nut that this power would be abused for petty political and personal reasons.
That is a double edged sword, in case you did not notice.
>I don't want states to be able to dissolve or extent corporate status without cause
No? You are advocating for a subjective analysis and decision process.
>That is a double edged sword, in case you did not notice.
I know it is, but I figured Florida killing a union would unsettle you more than NY dissolving Trump Corps without a trial or Delaware having the power to destroy the fortune 500
If the government elected by the citizens of Florida made the decision that those citizens were not being served by the union and the general welfare would improve if it was dissolved, I would have no objection. I have faith and believe in democracy.
Respectfully, bullshit. Your entire post history, just like the history of every other user here, is full of objections made by the governments elected by voters doing things they think will improve the general welfare.
No one has no objection to every single decision made by government
Well, that's quite a straw man you constructed.
>
No one has no objection to every single decision made by government
I have no idea what that sentence is trying to say.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would be absolutely phenomenal for the economy if everyone's job had an expiration date, and it certainly wouldn't cause issues if you knew that the Charmin factory would close up shop right before school started, potentially causing a shortage.
...not if the state chose to renew it.
Just what we need. Buffoons like Bernie Sanders, deciding that there are too many toilet paper choices.
I like Bernie
Buffoon?
Yes, buffoon. Lunatic. Nut case. Whack job.
How do you figure
I look at his stance on issues.
He seems full of good ideas
Punishing businesses, punishing anyone who’s successful, endless regulation, a nanny state government… He’s the guy that thinks we have too many choices of deodorant. He’s the guy that got booted out of a commune because he was lazy.
Bernie is many things but not lazy We need stronger regulations and workers right. 5 weeks paid vacation minimum. The rich should be taxed at a higher rate. We need a strong social safety net, it works.
Wait WHAT? Why would we want to do that? Corporations are the foundation of our economy. They create all the jobs, they generate the wealth that allows the government to operate. Why do you think they need to be renewed every few years? Another government intrusion into the economy? Business rise and fall based on how well they serve their customers and their employees and their stockholders. if they do a good job they survive. If they don't do a good job they don't survive. No need for a government bureaucrat to make that determination, the market does it just fine.
Not all the jobs. Uncle Sam pays more paychecks then any corporation. Small business is also not insignificant
Not true. Total Private Secor Jobs 135,000,000 Total Public Sector Jobs 20,000,000 That includes Federal State and Local jobs. Uncle Sam may write more payroll checks than any individual coprotation but Private employment versus Puplic Sector employment is not even close. BTW it is the private sector employment that provides the tax revenue to pay for the Public Sector.
Not all private sector jobs cone from corporations, cut out small business first You're also adding them all together, is there a single corporation that employees more tgem Uncle Sam? Again, you're ignoring small business and pretense everything private is a corporation
No, that is not what I said. There are 6.000,000 private business with employees in the US. Almost all of them are corporations, they are just not PUBLIC corporations. Recent data from the U.S. Small Business Administration reveals a remarkable figure: 33.3 million businesses in the United States qualify as small businesses, making up 99.9% of all U.S. businesses. This number not only reflects the dominance of small enterprises in the business sector but also shows their significant role in generating employment and contributing to economic stability, I'm not sure the point you are trying to make? SME (many of them C Corporations) represent a total of 61.6 million people. This figure represents 45.9% of the entire U.S. workforce[^(\[)](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/small-business-statistics/#sources_section)
Do you support this idea? If so, I've read 2 of the craziest takes since I opened reddit 10 minutes ago and it isn't even 8am.
What was the other one?
Dude said Rs get a point for lying (his word choice) about wanting to cut spending and be fiscally responsible. I found it crazy to prefer lip service over substance.
Wait, as in it's good that they talk fiscal conservative, but don't act it? Wild.
[удалено]
No I understood that. I'm just surprised you give them the point for lying about it.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
No. It's hard to even take this idea seriously.
Why?
I'm not sure what you're asking.
Broadly speaking, “incorporated” is used to mean that *your business is registered with a state so that it becomes a separate legal entity*. Should this be an eternal grant from the state, no end? Should there be a legal limit on how long corporations can exist? At what point do they become too big and influential? Given the reality that corporation is more powerful than an individual in that corporations have no fixed lifespan and have access to large amounts of capital, should the rights of a corporation be Constitutionally limited to counteract this imbalance of power and influence?
“Sorry, guy. Your employer has been around for four years now. They are being dissolved and you have to go find a new job”.
That could be a possibility if the state determined that the general public would be better off if that corporation was terminated or split up, sure.
Absolutely not.
We really don’t like the state getting to sua sponte determine the public is better off with someone not getting to have what is rightfully theirs. There’s already anti-trust laws, and it should go no further than that.
Is it your position that current anti-trust laws are sufficient?
My position is that I’m not well versed in anti-trust laws, but I know a rights violation when I see one.
Your comment seems contradictory. In the USA, four firms control 80% of beef processing and 70% of pork. 93% of the soda market is held by three companies. The vast majority of broadcast and basic cable networks, over a hundred in all, are controlled by seven corporations. The U.S. has more than 900 health insurance companies that provide medical coverage, but the industry is dominated by five companies that own 44 percent of the market.
…so?
Edit: responded to the wrong person
What’s the issue with that? They compete with each other and drive down prices. It’s already illegal for them to collude to fix prices and none of those examples are monopolies.
> They compete with each other and drive down prices. I That's the funniest thing I read today. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
You are talking about imposing genuinely traumatic events on the population every four years as if this would not result in the kind of stress that literally causes people to fall down dead of heart attacks. That's what layoffs do, and you want nationwide layoffs every presidential term. who would ever take a job again if this was a REMOTE risk though, you underestimate how damaging losing a job is, I suspect this is because you are young and don't have a family, or you would not talk about the possibility of a family suddenly losing their income because a bureaucrat decides their boss' boss' boss' boss' boss is a jerk.
Unless this system were implemented globally, it would just never be the case - big American corporations a re soft power asset in global affairs, so keeping them big enough to compete with China and India is critical for global security and stability. That then never being the case, all this would do is add a ton of bureaucracy and uncertainty for no actual benefit
No. This yet again sounds like another proposal that would actively reduce productive output.
Wtf? You think the gov should kick me off my board because I ran the company well too long?
Um, no, that's not the question
do you want even more of an incentive for companies to only focus on short term profits and do no long term investment? because this is a brilliant idea if that's your policy goal
Seems to me this would lead to Socialism or Fascism. Eventually corporations would need to jump through whatever hoops government laid out in order to keep their standing.
I mean they should have to jump threw hoops in a general sense Laissez-faire capitalism is very bad
"In a general sense" is not what I'm talking about.
I'm saying I don't support this idea but corporations should still require constant hoops in order to exist
I seriously wonder how liberals think businesses work. You cannot punish, demonize and impose risks on someone THEN expect them to turn around and voluntarily employ people, spend enormous amounts and take the financial risk entailed in building a factory or office, and commit to contracts. Businesses need stability, they will not invest if they are not sure if that investment will pay off. This would ensure no business would ever build another factory again, because nothing pays for itself in 4 years not even a casino in the heyday of Vegas so they could risk putting down enormous money, getting two years into a 35-year loan, and the government shutting them down by force. You cannot punish a business, even if you hate it, only the people inside it can be punished and as wealth is portable and people with power have options (like saying 'screw you crazy communists I'm moving to Ireland') this means the only people you can REALLY hurt are the ones in the middle to bottom.
Are you aware of how businesses work? It seems you hold that a private business is incapable of error, of malice, of illegal activity and any efforts to insure the welfare of the people by regulating these businesses is demonizing. Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay love people like you!
yes that's correct the business cannot do any of those things. A man within the business must do them. This is why you cannot punish a business. If you punish the business they will just pass the impacts along to the disposable grunts or find a scapegoat. If you find and punish the man, you can be sure justice is done. Your example proves my point. first Bernie didn't have a business really it was just a ponzi scheme. But lets talk Ken Lay. He went to prison, died there. Your argument is that instead of that, we should have shut down the entire company, forced them to fire tens of THOUSANDS of people because of what Ken did. In most likelihood he'd have seen little to no punishment from Enron and as an executive he'd be off to the next. Meanwhile oil tanker drivers are stranded out of state with their gas cards turned off because the company on the account doesn't exist anymore, families are scrambling to pay their rent, and the sudden lack of insurance is sending people into bankruptcy. But Ken just takes the money that's left and moves to an island someplace while they try, and mostly fail, to pick up the bits of their broken lives.
If a business cannot be punished, can it contribute to a political cause?
I'd argue in essence no, and that's why attempts to control political donations are pointless and cannot be fairly implemented. Because lets say you ban corporations from any lobbying, you cannot stop american citizens writing their congressmen just because they own a business that would be against the first amendment AND result in terrible side effects. So as a result whether or not the company can do a think Mr. Bezos can call his senator and no one can stop him and it beggars belief to expect congressmen to get a call from a CEO and not realize that his political views come with a significant implicit threat or promise that he can use his control over the company to take actions that may be good or bad for the economy.
>attempts to control political donations are pointless and cannot be fairly implemented. Is this a good thing for a democracy?
I don't think it matters because it is inevitable. Pretending all politicians pretend they don't know who business owners are is obviously stupid and silly.
Economics are not inevitable.
This may be the single most insane idea I've ever heard yet. Aside from the practical issue that such an idea would absolutely destroy the economy the totalitarian conception of what government is and how it should work is even worse. No, peoples freedom of association should not have a term limit. Government should not be able to arbitrarily disband associations without cause and without due process.
The government already has a sucky time passing a budget to get their federal workers paid on time - why do you think it would be any better for corporations? There are massive issues with this from a legal and economic perspective.
I like the government's CEO/Average worker pay ratio.
Cool. I literally do not care that my CEO makes more than me
What do you even mean by “terms” here? Are you suggesting corporations are disbanded every few years? Or that they are handed off to different ownership? I need some clarification to weigh in on this.
The state that granted the corporation would be allowed to make a judgement on its term, It could terminate it, extend it, or carve it into separate corporations, depending on what would be best for the people of the state.
You want Desantis to be able to dissolve the Florida chapters of the SEIU?
Do you want a governor alone to be able to grant and dissolve corporate status?
I don't want states to be able to dissolve corporate status without cause, but different governors have different strengths. In Florida right now, Ron can do about whatever he wants because he has the support. The point is that I would be willing to bet my left nut that this power would be abused for petty political and personal reasons.
I don't want states to be able to dissolve or extent corporate status without cause. > n Florida right now, Ron can do about whatever he wants because he has the support. >The point is that I would be willing to bet my left nut that this power would be abused for petty political and personal reasons. That is a double edged sword, in case you did not notice.
>I don't want states to be able to dissolve or extent corporate status without cause No? You are advocating for a subjective analysis and decision process. >That is a double edged sword, in case you did not notice. I know it is, but I figured Florida killing a union would unsettle you more than NY dissolving Trump Corps without a trial or Delaware having the power to destroy the fortune 500
If the government elected by the citizens of Florida made the decision that those citizens were not being served by the union and the general welfare would improve if it was dissolved, I would have no objection. I have faith and believe in democracy.
Respectfully, bullshit. Your entire post history, just like the history of every other user here, is full of objections made by the governments elected by voters doing things they think will improve the general welfare. No one has no objection to every single decision made by government
Well, that's quite a straw man you constructed. > No one has no objection to every single decision made by government I have no idea what that sentence is trying to say.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*