62 Replies to “The Lies Jack Layton Told Me”

  1. The entire premise of Socialists is based on BS.
    This is the equivalent of digging clams.
    You go to the beach where they are buried… stick a shovel in and turn it over.
    Every time you do it you get a bunch of clams!
    With the Dippers bits of BS it’s the beach of reality ….. and all the little lies they leave.
    Life IS a beeeaaach for the dippers.

  3. Finacial Post carried this story yesterday under the byline, ‘Exxon has no reason to apologize'(or something like that)
    Before the Exxon spokesman offered up the numbers, he tried to paint a picture of Exxon’s environment. For example, their daily operations worldwide clock in at @ $1B and Exxon’s performance boosts pension plans, mutuals etc. Not spoken of course, is the ever-imminent threat of a windfall tax. Hence the reason to put porifits in context then,
    Such is the nature of our society, that corporate North America has to apologize for profiting from its operations. IMO, profitable firms need not apologize.

  4. Taliban Jack is such a mindless moron . . he still struggles with his Marxian-Utopian upbringing.
    He can’t come to grips with the reality that “Corporations” are actually “hundreds of thousands of shareholders” and my (and his) pension plan stability is dependent on Corporations being profitable.
    Socialism . . what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine too.

  5. Exxon did not pay a dime in taxes – but a whole lot of gas consumers paid about $27billion. Corporate taxes are nothing but hidden consumption taxes, with the added benefit of often making local corporations less competitive against foreign entities, especially in the US context where US companies pay income tax on their worldwide income, vs most other coutries which tax on local revenues.

  6. People ultimately pay taxes, not corporations who pass them on in their price of goods. Most countries have figured this out and there is a race to cut corporate taxes in a global competition for capital. In theory it would make sense for Canada to eliminate corporate tax and win the race for the lowest cost of capital to improve our productivity. But there are too many Taliban Jack supporters for that logic to win.
    In 1980 the average tax on corporations in the Industrial West was 50%. That has now dropped to 30%. Even in Sweden it has dropped from 60% to 28%.
    Exxon paid at a rate of 41%, the Hildebeast hates oil companies plus she wants to raise corporate taxes generally. Could it be that the bumpy stock market is pricing these Democrat threats in as much as they are sub-prime?

  7. right, fred, Layton and the socialists think of corporations as some kind of Alien Thing, ignoring that a corporation is a collective of individual shareholders. And that their agenda is most certainly to make a profit because we live in a MARKET economy not a SUBSISTENCE economy.
    A market economy must sell its tomatoes at a profit so that it can take that profit to buy the things its doesn’t grow, such as corn and wheat. And bricks and cars and medicines..well, you get it. And, so that it can pay for the research and technology that goes to develop the bricks and cars and medicines and..
    A subsistence economy consumes only what it makes. No market. And no technological changes.
    holdfast – could you explain a bit further your regressive analysis? You declare that Exxon doesn’t pay any taxes, but the gas consumer pays the taxes. Regress a bit further, please. Who pays to extract the oil? Process it? Pay for the equipment to do all this? The research that developed the technology? The shareholders? Oh. Is a shareholder also a consumer? Oh.
    Does this consumer-shareholder want to see his money, which he has invested in energy development rather than in a Daily Interest Savings account – does this shareholder want to see his investment increase in value? Decrease? Stay more or less the same – eg, as in that DIS?
    Ahh – he wants it to increase. Why?
    So that he can purchase that new car? Send his kids to college? Fund the local Cancer Hospital? Ah.
    holdfast – did you know that corporations are really thousands of consumers? Bet you didn’t know that. Bet you think that Corporations are Things That Fly In The Night.

  8. ET – Are you an idiot or just reading my comment backwards? Exxon sells a product, has a bunch of costs and has shareholders that expect a return on investment. In order to achieve that ROI, Exxon has to price its costs into the product it sells, and one of those costs is its expected tax costs – so they are just passed along to the consumer. If Exxon paid no corporate tax and there was a sales tax, then the results would be the same. This is why Bin Layton, Hillabeast et al are idiots – they think that corporate taxes will hurt the corp and not the little guy. What they don’t understand is that since all (US) corps pay at more or less the same rate, it is a cost that will be fully passed on to the consumer, except that the corp is made into the bad guy as it does the gov’ts work in collecting the tax.

  9. “Exxon’s tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion(that’s $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.”
    2006. 2007. Taxes booked.
    “Exxon did not pay a dime in taxes”….holdfast.
    holdfast, is there some kind of parallel universe of alternate facts and economic definitions that perhaps you could share with us? I don’t want your explanations, just the links.

  10. The NDP could do a TV Ad using USSR footage from the 80’s that show how much cleaner grocery store shelves would be under their careful and controlled leadership. All we have to do is hold hands and take another “Great Leap Forward”.

  11. holdfast – no, believe it or not, I’m not an idiot.
    But for you to state that Exxon does not pay taxes, because the money for those taxes comes from the consumer of its products, is as regressive an analysis as to state that Joe Average doesn’t pay taxes because the money for those taxes comes from his employer. And the money of the employer might just come from the government..and the gov’t gets its money from Joe Blow’s himself and neighbour…and so on and so on.
    The fact is, that Exxon does pay taxes. Whether the money comes from the consumer-producer, and after all, ALL MONEY comes from the consumer-producer, isn’t the point. Your regressive outline is ignoring the ‘holding sites’ of money; that is – who has the authority to do whatever, at these holding sites?
    The taxes paid by Exxon means that it has less to return to its shareholders. And less to invest in long term structural and research development.
    Long term structural and research can only be done by collectives. Not individuals. The capital costs, long term periods of no-return on investment, and high risks, are outside of the capacity of individuals.

  12. holdfast says “Exxon did not pay a dime in taxes – but a whole lot of gas consumers paid about $27 billion.” So in actual fact, Exxon is merely the vehicle that is forced by government edict to take money from individuals and give it to the government to buy votes. Exxon takes the heat and the government takes the credit. Is that pretty much the situation?

  13. I sometimes think the leftist obsession with the “obscene” profits made by corporations has little to do with socialist ideology.
    It looks a lot more like good old-fashioned middle-class annoyance and envy at those they perceive as having more money and power than themselves.

  14. Sorry, ET, the points you raise are valid and important; nevertheless holdfast is more right than wrong, and you more wrong than right.
    The original function of the proto-corporation — the so-called “Companies”, of which Hudson’s Bay is the best example near you — was to extend the reach of the King’s revenue generation. The monarch (or the Parliament) couldn’t tax Russian peasants or Inuit, or Canadian settlers, but the Companies could sell them products, and the King could tax the revenue, and did. Modern corporations are much more complex, because the basic structure, the so-called “limited liability principle”, turned out to be useful far beyond the original concept. The original function is alive and well, though.
    In the long run, every penny a corporation has came from its customers. Investors contribute capital, and expect in return a share of that revenue stream; most of them nowadays take it as shares in the increased value of the company rather than directly as dividends, but that doesn’t change the principle.
    John Luft’s summary is precisely correct from the point of view of Government. The Company has other functions in the market, but from the Government’s point of view it’s a way to tax people whose pocketbooks it can’t otherwise reach, either because they can’t get there from here or because they have some reason to pretend they aren’t doing it. A corporate income tax is a “flat” (and therefore regressive) tax on consumption, precisely like a sales tax or VAT, which gathers the bulk of the revenue in bits and drabs from the lower and middle classes, who have most of the money — no large amount each, but in the aggregate it dwarfs the resources of “the rich” — while preserving plausible deniability.
    Regards,
    Ric

  15. ET – I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but apparently you ARE an idiot. The point is that there are various kinds of taxes – sales, excise and income, among others. Within the sphere of income taxes, government creates a false dichotomy between personal and corporate income taxes. Lefty class warriors like Bin Layton, the Obamasiah and the Hillabeast then demonize the corporations and try to impose “windfall” taxes on them. They try to pretend that they are just hurting those big evil corporations when all they are really doing is taxing consumers – and in the case of Exxon, taxing them on a very basic and necessary commodity, which makes the tax extremely regressive (hurts poor and midddle class people a lot). Throw in the fact that high corporate taxes tend to help foreign corps (esp in the US, where companies are taxed on their worldwide income) and you are now regressively taxing ordinary consumers AND potentially exporting some of those same folks’ jobs overseas.
    Are you keeping up now, or do I need to use even smaller words?

  17. ric – what you and holdfast are ignoring is the ‘holding sites’ or nodes, in the economic network, which have authority to both collect and use profits/money.
    You are ignoring the difference between the developmental powers of a free market versus a redistribution economic mode. After all, it’s a basic truism that all profit, whether defined as buckets of grapes or their evaluation in money, comes from the work of individuals. The point, however, is who is able to do what..with the profit.
    Your example of the King not being able to tax the settlers (and why not?) and instead taxing the corporations is an example of a development policy based on redistribution. One site gathers all the profits and redistributes that money to others – whether it be the king’s relatives or funding exploration in the arctic. This, quite frankly, has a limited capacity to engender development and innovation. Eg, communist socialist style economies.
    But a market capitalist mode of operation doesn’t operate within such a linear mode. It has multiple ‘holding sites’ or nodes, which each compete with others to gather profits (grapes or money). Each site will then decide how best to allocate these profits. Further investment into more factories, or different industries, or land, or research or 1,000 shoes or whatever.
    This diverse network of multiple ‘holding sites’ each with different authority over what they hold, produces a far more robust economy than the redistribution mode.
    And, as I said, long term development can’t be done by individuals; it’s always carried out by collectives. I think that the market network of multiple nodes or holding sites is more robust than the redistribution network of only one node or holding site.

  18. I had an NDP candidate come to my door wearing a “People, not Profits” badge.
    My initial impulse was to show him my office renovation. This renovation had provided jobs for carpenters, plumbers, electricians, building supply companies, etc., who, last time I checked, qualified as “people”. This renovation was made entirely possible by “profits”.
    Profitable corporations have nothing to apologize for. Collectively, they do more good, in providing products, services, jobs, and tax income to society, than almost any other entity or organization on the planet.
    It baffles me that, after doing all this good, they feel compelled to give to charity in order to enhance their image.

  19. Not sure what the point of that what – looks to be generally correct, but not sure how it is germane to a discussion on the effects of different national corporate tax rates, or how lefty politicians try to con voters into thinking that corporate taxes don’t come out of their hides. It makes a lot of sense for government to let someone else do their dirty work – unfortunately it leads to over-taxation and bad public policy.

  21. Actually the fact that corporations are simply vehicles to collect taxes from consumers is a fairly basic economic principle. They of course do other things but the tax thing is one of them.
    Consumers are the end of the line when it comes to paying the costs, including taxes.
    Remove the taxes and it follows that the cost of the good or service being consumed will also be reduced.
    Of course there is elasticity and all that stuff but that would just complicate a subject that seems to causing no little amount of confusion.

  22. Yea — I hear the same type of comments (about the evil Exxon) from low income seniors in HUD (subsidized) housing complexes. Then in the same conversation they say they have more money now (with their social security checks and US government subsidies) than they had when they were working and having to pay for kids, housing, cars, insurance etc etc. It’s that evil Bush that did it — don’t ya know…Kind of sad, isn’t it! At any rate, the article was informative…thanks!

  23. I would disagree with you on that Jeff. Companies set their prices based on many factors, but corporate taxes based on profit is not one of them. Why? Because they don’t know what their year end profit will be, and thus won’t know what the taxes that need to be factored in would be. They price their product to make a profit based on the cost of doing business. You’ll note that many companies have years where they post big profits, followed by big losses, followed by big profits. Yet the cost of their goods remains fairly consistent. Why? Supply and demand dictates what they can sell their product for, and it is up to them to make the business work based on the price they can get.

  24. I’m less appalled that one company pays 27MMM than I am that 65MM people pay less than that!
    That’s 415 per! Why in hell am I paying that number with 2 more zero’s on it and then some!!!

  25. Why is it that, whenever someone (in this instance holdfast and nomdeblog) makes ET look silly, she will never graciously say something like, “Well, I’m sorry, I’m a little slow at picking up on nuance”, and just move on instead of dragging the conversation on – interminably?

  27. Seems to me that if Exxon failed to make a profit they would pay no corporate tax. Are the corporate taxes on profits only or on revenues? If they are on profits then in this scenario consumers would be availing themselves of Exxon’s product without contributing to the payment of Exxon’s corporate tax. So the tax on profit is really a tax on the efforts of Exxon to produce and distribute their product for less than they can sell it.

  28. The NDP is the party for people who are bad at math.
    Also, in regard to the above discussion on corporate taxes: When you tax a corporation’s profits, what you are really doing is taxing the shareholders twice. Once when the company makes income, and once when the shareholder makes income from the corporations payout of -after tax profit- in their dividend. (That’s the rip-off that income trusts were designed to avoid, and watching the Conservative Party of Canada kill that golden goose was very unpleasant.)
    GST nails you when you spend after-tax personal income, which has already been taxed, so they are getting you three times on the same corporately earned dollar.
    Tax cut now please. Faster faster faster please.

  29. Yes Pete that is called elasticity, however that is not a concept that is easy to communicate without complicating the heck out of the conversation.
    I assume your argument is since they have been charging these prices all these years why reduce prices because consumers are used to them. Well barring collusion between producers, sellers and the likes competition would take care of that pretty fast.
    As for prices being constant over time well I just bought a 22″ monitor for $250 the first 18″ monitor I bought cost over a $1000. A more seasoned consumer good, cars back in the 50’s ran for about $2000 today they run about $35000 and you get a heck of a lot more car. If they held prices staight line from then to now I am guessing your average automobile would cost about $75000.
    You can make this conversation as complex as You like and I would be more than happy to accommadate you if you like.
    Inflation, productivity cost of employment, is there an abundance of jobs or labour are just some of the influences on pricing.

  30. As Ronald Reagan was fond of saying: “Corporations don’t pay taxes, they collect them.” A company is a coalition of owners, customers and employees and all of them bear the tax burden. In a monopoly, the customers carry most of the load and as competition ratchets up, employees (wages and salaries lower than otherwise) and owners (lower returns) get increasingly hit.

  31. Profit is great! I love it, but I do not endanger Canada in several ways to maximize it.
    Exxon does. Has no social responsibility.
    I will avoid getting into oil spills and chemical poisonings of water tables.
    *Canada has no emergency oil reserves!*
    Ontario. Quebec and the Maritimes are net importers of oil.
    The industry suggests under-sea oil is enough. Hogwash!
    It*s a looong way from the ocean to the clean end of a refinery and a Katrina or terrorist event can snip the crude supply in an instant.
    All other developed countries have an emergency refined reserve.
    Alberta production is a lifeline to the Western USA and cannot be directed Eastward.
    ** Shhh, let the Canucks sleep on ** = TG

  32. Ok guys, calm down.
    HF made a pretty dumb statement, which ET rightly picked up on.
    In subsequent posts, HF revealed that his brain is in the right place.
    The fact is that leftist supporters pay no tax and expect the productive to support them in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
    In Quebec, 45% of the population pays no taxes at all. 10% of population pays 50% of total revenue.
    Probably not a lot different in ROC.

  33. Do corporations pay taxes??
    I was in a government office to straighten out some minor tax matter when I happened to see a tax payment cheque face up on the in-box.
    It was an insurance company tax payment.
    The cheque, written to the Reciever General of Canada had an amount that looked like the annual GDP of a small country. So many zeros, I could hardly believe it.
    One firm! Canada*s tax income would boggle one*s imagination. = TG

  34. Jeff, you can’t compare different products from different eras/generations. Here’s a simplified example: When Ford sets out to sell a new model car, they do a market evaluation, and decide that to be competitive they have to price it below $35,000, and to make a profit they have to price it above $30,000. Lets say they decide on $34,000 and end up with a loss on the year. Do they raise the price? No. When they say they need to price it above $30,000 there is no factoring in taxes on profit. Remember, if there’s no profit, there’s no tax, which makes it impossible to factor taxes into your pricing.

  35. Only somebody who has never run a business would think that as a business you can compensate for taxes by overcharging for goods or services!!
    On a related note: The New Deal was far less of boon than leftards like Naomi Klein would like you to believe.

  36. ET, you are adding unnecessary complications. I can’t speak for your personal motives, but the usual reason for doing that is to run a shell game.
    Draw each node as a circle. It will have inputs (arrows pointing in) and outputs (arrows pointing out). One of the arrows pointing out will be “taxes”. Another will be “salaries”, and another “dividends”. There will be many more. Try as you might, you will only find one arrow pointing IN: “customers”.
    If the flow from the IN arrow exceeds the total flow from the sum of the OUT arrows, the node gets bigger — the company grows. If the flow from the IN arrow is less than total outflows the node gets smaller, and if that keeps up indefinitely it eventually disappears.
    Connecting up the individual node diagrams to form a picture of the flows within the economy is very complex, and produces no data germane to this discussion. Continuing to pretend that it is useful to do so is an attempt to hide something, conscious or otherwise.
    Regards,
    Ric

  37. Greedy corporatism or greedy socialism what’s the diff?
    …the really scary thing is that in the modern political era they have discovered their greed and power agendas converge and they have hooked up as transnational progressives.

  38. “HF made a pretty dumb statement, which ET rightly picked up on.”
    – Or maybe you just didn’t understand the point, which was to point out the false dichotomy between personal income taxes and corporate income taxes, and the way that governments use this to mislead the proles. I assumed that the folks here were intelligent to understand that, though corporations have legal personality, in certain important policy respects, they are not really the same as natural persons. That $27billion is money that was not invested in future exploration and was not returned to shareholders (which include many middle class folks, as well as major pension funds).

  39. I just found another ’cause’ for Layton and the Dippy Dippers to put in their election platform (along with ATM fees).BAN Q-TIPS !! Quebec man dies after improperly using q-tip,punctured his ear drum.Dr.in Quebec calling for pictures of correct usage to be put on pkgs.Didn’t we learn in 4th grade health class not to put anything but our elbows in our ears? I’m sure Layton,Duceppe,and Dion will find some way to blame this on PMSH.

  40. ric – suggesting hidden agendas, whether pyschological or otherwise, doesn’t help the argument. It’s a diversion.
    As you point out, the number of arrows in/out is also not relevant. What matters is the value of the input/output. But this isn’t relevant to my argument.
    My argument was over who has the authority over the content/value of those nodes. If it’s primarily a central redistribution site (aka the govt/king), ..who bleeds the value via taxes..my point is that this economic mode isn’t as robust a system as one where more of the authority over what happens to the content/value of the nodes rests within a market rather than redistributive economy.
    That’s all. It was in reaction to your example of the Reason For Taxation of Companies (Kingly Greed).
    I’d also disagree with you that the only input value is ‘customers’. You are ignoring that to move from input value to output value, requires a transformative process. The output value of taxes, salaries, dividends doesn’t come solely from ‘customers’ but from the added value of the production process/corporation.
    That is, the corporation must input knowledge, skill, technology to transform input raw goods and material to products (another output value).
    I disagreed with holdfast’s claim that Exxon didn’t pay taxes because all the money was input from consumer purchases. My claim is that corporations are adding value because they can do things, as a collective, that an individual cannot do. (Knowledge, technology).
    However, I agree with his claim that corportation taxes reduces the capacity of local corporations to be economically robust. Nomdeblog’s suggestion to reduce or eliminate corporate taxes therefore makes sense.

  41. NB:
    “In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion)annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people!”
    This is taxes paid in the USA to the IRS. Exxon’s tax rate in the USA is 41%, 65 million taxpayers (in the USA at 3% tax rate). The population of Canada is considerably less than 65 million, and the tax rate is considerably more than 3% for individuals, and less than 41% for corporations.

  42. WL Mackenzie Redux asks “Greedy corporatism or greedy socialism what’s the diff?”
    Well, corporatism tends to operate on the principle of efficiencies to increase profits. Socialism doesn’t give a rats about efficiencies. Just look at unionized environments.

  43. One of my favourite capitalists is Larry Kudlow .. always an optimist. He says on his blog about his MSNBC program tonight at 7PM EST that:
    “Mac is back. Sen. McCain is moving right along toward securing the GOP nomination. He is also developing some solid pro-growth tax reforms. This includes slashing the onerously high corporate tax rate and extending the Bush investor tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. This is good.”
    Also here
    http://tinyurl.com/25ft6z
    you will see a neat graph that shows how cutting corporate taxes actually increases tax revenues to government. However, I confess it seems to imply that that the optimum tax rate might be around 28% and doesn’t seem to support my zero theory. Jack Mintz at C D Howe Canada has similar findings.
    Arthur Laffer, who is a frequent guest on Kudlow and CO, came up with the Laffer-curve concept which is central to supply side economics. The term was reportedly coined after a 1974 meeting between Laffer and Dick Cheney under the Ford transition. In this meeting, Laffer reportedly sketched the curve on a napkin to illustrate the concept.
    Remarkably , now we have Sarkozy in France ( who obviously buys into the Laffer curve) talking about dropping corporate tax to 25% and we have the Hildebeast talking about raising corporate tax in the USA which along with Japan is already the highest in the world. I still think the stock market is more worried about the Hildebeast and its junkyard dog than sub-prime.

  44. Hillary is all over TV today talking freezing interest rates on sub-prime home loans. I can’t even imagine what that will do to the world banking system and the stock market. 1929 anyone?
    People are starting to talk about banks on the business channels. I view this with some alarm.

  45. It baffles me that, after doing all this good, they feel compelled to give to charity in order to enhance their image.
    Ah, yes CSR – Corporate Social Responsibility. One of my pet peeves; whereas, big profits are the ultimate corporate responsbility, poor profits/losses, the ultiimate corporate irresponsibility [i.e., capital entrusted to entrepreneurs has has been misallocated].
    My other pet peeve is the Fair Trade label. It contains a subtle message that trade not so certified by a central-planning overseer, cannot be fair. [I see a lot of this in Vancouver]; that the encumbered free market is not naturally fair; that all uncertified exchange is zero-sum; John’s gain is Joe’s loss. As I say, I live in Vancouver!
    Was held up at “socially responsbile” grocery checkout a while back: the earnest lady in front of me was freaking not being able to find the “fair trade” chocolate bars. No really!
    It’s hard being Me No Dhimmi in Vancouver (which is why I’m so fond of sda).

  46. Maybe I’m missing something, but isn’t Holdfast making a valid point – that corporations are not people and taxing them is ludicrous – costs like taxes are simply passed through between zero and one hundred per cent, depending on the competitive position of the firm. So, corporate taxes are essentially sales taxes on the consumers of the corporation’s product or service.
    As for Jack Layton, he thinks ALL corporations are Exxon – he continually ignores that the vast majority of corporations are small business (and only they qualify for SBD), and even the large ones have shareholders from all over the map, who own mutual funds and pension plans.
    Every time the socialists come for the rich, the middle class finds out they are the rich they came for.

  47. Corporations are similar in some way to individuals. They pay taxes for use of public utilities like roads, water and waste disposal.
    Create an efficient corporation by operating from one server complex online, and save a fortune in a a variety of taxes.
    The circles analogy above about one arrow pointing inward profit flow, = *The Customer*.
    Other inward arrows exist like periodic $450 Million$ government grants to Bombardier, the Quebec softwood industry, the auto-parts plants, [Stronach-Magna?] and others. = TG

  48. TG said
    “”””Other inward arrows exist like periodic $450 Million$ government grants to Bombardier, the Quebec softwood industry, the auto-parts plants, [Stronach-Magna?] and others. = TG
    “””
    and these are, non other than already furnished consumer funds, thus part OF the single in pointing arrow

  49. Corporations are needed not so much as a source of taxation but as a means of taxation. What would happen if the taxes were not taken off the individual’s paycheque and instead the individual had to come up with a lump sum payment? What would the tax rates be if every year every individual had to come up a lump sum of the thousands of dollars that come from the average household’s $60,000? Now to keep the people placated the government takes the tax money at source and every year it goes through the sham of ‘rebating’ a tiny bit of what they took too much of to begin with.
    Imagine if at the end of every year all the corporations are dissolved and their profits and growth are calculated as shareholder’s income. Then imagine the shareholders having to remit the taxes from monies of the dissolution of their corporation at the personal income tax rate.
    I think the taxes would be much lower.

  50. Yes, shamrock, I think that’s holdfast’s point, but, can’t that argument be made for every cost?
    A union ‘negotiates’ (heh) to increase wages in X-company. The company then raises prices to pay those wages – so that customers are paying for the wages of the guys working in X-company. So, it’s not ‘really’ the company paying those wages; it’s the consumer.
    I think holdfast’s point is that there’s no such thing as a ‘corporation’ because it’s made up of individuals who are, eventually, somewhere, consumers.
    I agree, in part, but I think that a collective, like a biological organism operates as a complex system and is different from the simpler individual. A corporation must transform input to output by adding something: knowledge, expertise, whatever. So, a corporation can’t be reduced to being either a collection of individuals, or a sieve for the transmission of money.
    Enough argued.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation