Re: "Other Economies Are Possible!"

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 21:45:42 -0800, Dan Clore <clore@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>* US * wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:21:58 -0800, Dan Clore
<clore@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Bob Kolker wrote:
>>>> * US * wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:10:32 -0500, Nospam <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>>>>> Bob Kolker wrote:
>
>>>> Not really. If one does not do business with the companies that hire 
>>>> these people then their compensation should not affect you at all. If

>>>> enough people do not do business with these companies then the CEO-s 
>>>> won't be working there long.
>
>>> Not really good enough. Cor****ations use this thing called the State
to 
>>> ensure that one has no choice but to sup****t, regardless of whether
one 
>>> does business with them or not. This is obvious enough in cases like 
>>> Halliburton, but also true of cor****ations in general. See _The 
>>> Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay 
>>> Rich and Get Richer_ [online free at 
>>> http://www.conservativenannystate.org/
]. Wal-Mart alone has garnered
at 
>>> least $1 billion in cor****ate welfare 
>>> [http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/cor****ate_subsidy/walmart.cfm
]. One 
>>> should also note that in a market economy, unequal concentration of 
>>> wealth itself distorts market forces in favor of the wealthy. Kevin 
>>> Carson refers to the confusion between a truly free market and really 
>>> existing, state-guided markets, with government interference in favor
of 
>>> cor****ations, as Vulgar Libertarianism. He has a blog that often
covers 
>>> this and related subjects [http://mutualist.blogspot.com/
].
>> 
>> Thanks for posting this.
>
>No doubt, it would make a great deal of difference if sup****ters of 
>solidarity economics would boycott cor****ations and ****ft purchasing to 
>the sort of institutions described in the article (workers cooperatives, 
>etc.), a type of selective purchasing sometimes referred to as a 
>buycott. Also, cor****ations often sell products as loss leaders, losing 
>money on their sale, but more than making up for it with the increase in 
>business from customers drawn in by the loss leaders. (Wal-Mart uses 
>this strategy extensively.) Activists can selectively purchase only the 
>loss leaders, thus costing these cor****ations money in a way that the 
>cor****ations can hardly complain about it.
>
>However, relying on these strategies alone will not likely do the job: 
>we need to end the constant state interference in the market on behalf 
>of cor****ations.

Excellent points.