The free ride comes from the larger sales they enjoy.

Post #70,052 by a6l6e6x 12/19/02 9:58:26 PM Reply	The free ride comes from the larger sales they enjoy. The consumption of oil/gasoline would be considerably reduced if it was properly taxed. And there is also the possibility of competition from alternative energy sources that might be taxed (if at all) differently. But you are right, ultimately it is we the consumers that pay. The problem is that, at present, we do not pay in proportion to the harm we cause. Alex "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."\t-- Mark Twain
Post #70,056 by bepatient 12/19/02 10:18:20 PM Reply	Thats it all over The problem is that, at present, we do not pay in proportion to the harm we cause. That may be one of the most sensible things I've seen posted in a while. The problem that I have is that, instead of us recognizing this..we spend all of our time blaming the businesses that give us the fix... And when we talk about the failed "war on drugs"...we say it can never be successful because where there is demand there will always be supply...so attacking supply is destined to fail...yet here it seems to be the easy solution...blame the corp...make them pay. We...the people...are the #1 polluters. Corporations get the press...and the movie coverage...but we are vastly more dangerous to ourselves than those "greedy corporate bastards". But what do I know...I'm in bed with big bizness---dontcha know ;-) Right Ash? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,072 by Ashton 12/20/02 12:49:30 AM Reply	Wow, Beep - in non-Market mode, eh? I mean - here's a whole thread in which you aren't just poseuring as the Corp/Devils advocate! Ackshully - I can't think of much to argue about in this thread :-) [Admin: Move thread to Sane Forum, please] I think I'll reserve my area of disagreement to the same old one, and for another venue. Will agree that 'blaming the Corp for providing what We were conditioned to Want' is as lame as you say. Pogo Lives: we have met the enemy and - Another time: Obv my perennial rant concerns the naive laissez faire of the most basic and expected kinds of scams ever perpetrated by the terminally greedy - demanding accountability and appropriate enforced punishment of offenders. (Corporate? throw in AMA too, re nonaccountability, non-protection from repeat butchers in the club) The 'accountability' can never occur until there is reform of the basic rules, er Charter: removing the clause bestowing 'Individual Citizenship' upon a complex collection of devious homo-saps (like the rest of us). "Free Speech via bribing congressfolk" indeed.. So along with Corp Charter revision must come campaign reform, the taking-back of the citizens' airwaves to the extent that: those who profit massively from these: release at low cost, suitable [=debated] air time as befits our paranoid style of political blab. Take the bribery $$ out of the Speech-dope selling. Both of these are Political / Governmental problems: should Corporate be blamed for behaving as outrageously as they can almost-legally get away with? Legally perhaps No. Actually: Yes, of course. Nasty manipulation is still nasty manipulation. (Let's not do Fred Rodell's immortal description of 'the law' right here, too. Either.) Somewhere in the New practical rules must also lie some disincentives to pay anyone 1000x the wage of the new-hire, obviously - presumably via Tax Rules, a part of the other reforms -- you know, like pre-Ronnie days? We can do the .. How does Corporate suck? It sucks beyond the ends of being and ideal grace .. to the depth and breadth and height A CIEIO can manipulate .. another time. Cheers, I. er.. watch that Slippery rung, just after the key to the exec john :-\ufffd When the rich assemble to concern themselves with the business of the poor, it is called Charity. When the poor assemble to concern themselves with the business of the rich, it is called Anarchy. -Paul Richards
Post #70,083 by bepatient 12/20/02 9:51:47 AM Reply	Damn...that was close ;-) I almost was forced to agree with you 100%. :-) It needs to be an exersize of >freedom< that changes this system. IMO, it is up to "we the people" to take back what is rightfully ours. I do not blame the CIEIO for acting in the best interest of his/her constituents. (congresscritter, however...there is another story...because by allowing CIEIO to influence...he is generally >not< acting in the best interest of his/hers) If we deem CEO pay unacceptable, ensure that it is lowered by acting upon it. Same with Hollywood. Same with Sports. Won't ever be able to fix CEO pay with ARod making 120 gazillion and a share of the team. Won't have it when you pay Denzel and John T 20+ million a film. I personally don't have any problem with high pay...as long as it has a basis in value (something that was severely lacking in the dot-bomb era). Jack Welch, on the other hand, turned GE from light bulb failure to manufacturing powerhouse...in the end...to the stockholders..he was probably worth every penny. I >really< don't like it when you decide what your own pay scale should be (Congress)...pay raises to Congress should be >voted< into place. Taking away the ability to get stinky rich is to tarnish the American Dream (tm). You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Still trying to aquire that key ;-p

Welcome to IWETHEY!