 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 11, 2008 at 11:39:39
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 11/11/08: by Dave Lindorff Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
By Dave Lindorff The one thing we are not hearing from Congress or from incoming president Barack Obama in the current economic crisis facing the country are the words “anti-trust” and “public ownership.” From the moment the crisis first struck, with the near collapse of AIG, the mantra has been that companies like AIG, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Citibank, etc.--and more recently General Motors Corp. and Ford--are “too big to fail.” That is, it is argued that these companies are so huge that if they were to collapse into the rubble they deserve to be, it would damage the nation irreparably. The question is, if that is genuinely the case, why were they allowed to be that big in the first place, and why aren’t we rethinking that policy?
It’s not as though they got that way through organic growth by being successful at what they did. Hardly. GM was the quintessential result of a merger of smaller automakers. Ford grew too, by acquiring the competition, most recently Volvo. Most, if not all of those acquisitions were first vetted and approved by the Federal Trade Commission and found to be acceptable as a matter of economics and public policy.
In the banking industry, which is regulated, the picture is even worse, with the government first opening the door to the creation of national banking companies, and then routinely approving the gobbling up of one after another regional or even national bank by another. At some point we reached the point where the giants in the industry—Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.—were able to say, when they ran into trouble, that allowing them to fail would have dire consequences for the national economy. This kind of extortion should never have been allowed to happen.
First of all, the argument for national banks never made sense for ordinary people, and wasn’t necessary for large customers either. Large corporate fundings have always been done by bank consortia, and this could have been accomplished with the nation’s banking industry fragmented into small state-chartered institutions. Meanwhile, small businesses and individuals always lose when a bank is national in scale. It is much more costly to handle the banking business of small enterprises and individual families than it is to handle the business of huge corporate clients, with the result that the major banks have made it costlier and costlier for small customers to do business with them.
The answer is clear. Bigness is fundamentally bad when it comes to capitalism. There is a point where any company in any industry becomes too big for it to be socially acceptable. Big companies not only attempt to behave in a monopolistic fashion by destroying or buying up the competition, both nationally or, as in the case of a retailer like WalMart or a bank like Citibank, locally, using their huge financial power to locally underprice the competition and drive them out of business (after which they are free to gouge the local customer base). They also ride roughshod over local political interests, demanding tax breaks, zoning waivers, etc. This being the case, the government should simply not be allowing corporations to achieve such scale and market dominance.
Companies, whether banks, car makers, or media companies, should never be allowed to grow to a point that they become “too big to fail.” If that can be said about any company, whether because of the assets it holds, or because of the number of people it employs, it is time to break it up.
Think of GM. If GM were ripped up into six or seven competing companies, it is certain that at least one of those smaller entities would be producing electric cars by next year. The Saturn plant already made one, the Impact, that was wildly popular (see the excellent documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car”), and if left to its own devices to sink or swim, could probably be cranking those out in volume for the 2010 model year.
Some companies would certainly fail. But that’s what is supposed to happen in a capitalist system.
This piece is not meant to be a paen to capitalism. But having said that, if you’re going to have capitalism, which is the ruling ideology here in the US of A, you have to let it function as intended. As soon as the government comes in and starts encouraging the establishment of monopolies or quasi-monopolies, and preventing the failure of poorly managed enterprises or dying industries, as it is doing in the case of the banking and automotive sectors, it is no longer true capitalism.
That could work, too. Many democratic countries, including Japan, Sweden, France and Germany, have the concept of shared governance of corporations, in which large corporate entities are partially owned and run by government, and of planned economies, in which certain sectors are deliberately protected and promoted by government policy. The US has moved in that direction with the investment by the government in nine of the country’s largest banks, and in discussions to provide $25-50 billion in financial assistance to the major US auto companies. But in the US case, the government is studiously avoiding demanding a role in running those companies. It is by design only a “passive” investor.
This is the triumph of ideology over rationality and the public interest. I recently interviewed a number of investment strategists in the course of working on an article for an investment magazine. They all had the same advice for worried investors: invest in shares of the “magic nine” banks that are recipients of tens of billions of dollars in bail-out money from the federal government. As they all point out, the government’s stake in these banks means that they will not be allowed to fail, and moreover, they are in a unique position to use their flush capital reserves to acquire, at fire sale prices, the assets of smaller banks that are being left to sink or swim in the current credit crisis and recession. That is not a free market. It’s a government program to reduce the competition in the banking sector and hand all the business over to a favored few giant banks.
Now that would be okay if the government, in return for its investment, were taking a management role in those favored banks. But it is not. Congress, the Bush administration, and, so far at least, the incoming administration of Barack Obama, have not been demanding a management stake in any of the companies that are getting bail-out funding. If the government takes ownership positions at all, it is taking non-voting shares in those companies, solely in the hope of someday getting some of the invested money back by selling those shares.
This is not just a rip-off of the taxpayer. It is a craven program to enrich big investors in the bailed-out enterprises, while putting control of the nation’s economic destiny increasingly into a smaller number of hands of people whose interests are not even aligned with the national intereest (these are, after all, all transnational corporations only nominally headquartered in the US).
1 | 2
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 21 comments |
|
Giving Back To The Community
Community service workers are needed in America. We all have an obligation to help others. It might be cleaning out some busy persons attic or teaching a recent immigrant how to read and write. Each American should be required to give at least 8 hours of their time. It is not morally right to only be concerned with your own needs. Giving back to the community is proof that you appreciate living in the greatest nation on Earth. by melpol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments) on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:24:48 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: WHAT!!!!
the hell does this comment have to do with the article to which it was posted? Are we to now have thousands of Obamamaniacs pushing his agenda wherever and whenever they can, regardless of its relevance? I have hope for Obama, and hope that this comment does not portend evils to come. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:36:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Giving Back to the Community
I see your point, melpol, but we should "give back" to the community because we want to and believe it is the right thing to do, not because the government requires it. Some of us already give a lot more than eight hours. Others are unable to give at all. Still others feel no obligation to serve and support their fellow man at all -- reprehensible but true. Whatever the case, monitoring or (worse) enforcing laws requiring community service is is not a proper function of government. by Richard Wise (35 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:27:58 AM (0+)
|
|
Break em all up into bits
Break them all up into bits. We don't have "free" trade when we allow monopolies or controlled markets. We only have "free" trade when there is competition. We should break up the consolidating Health Care Industry, the banks, media, accounting firms, Energy Conglomerates, Big Box stores, Super grocery stores that put small businesses out of business. Break up everything and allow more people to become their own entrepreneurs. by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 585 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:40:08 PM (0+)
|
|
break em up, abolish the Fed, nationalize the money system
too big to fail is too big to exist. And besides that, money belongs to the People and should not be controlled by private interests, certainly secretive and corrupt ones, the people that caused the economic meltdown; the ones that Obama is tapping for advisors. Money is part of the commons, like air, water and the electoral process (ban DREs and opscan machines, too) by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:31:26 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: seems...
pretty much correct. Not Obama's ambiguous 'change'. Real and positive change. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:28:53 PM (0+)
|
|
TWO VIEWS DEPENDING UPON WHERE YOU STAND
The question of the centralization of economic power in the various industries in fewer and fewer hands is analyzed in two distinct ways, depending upon one's political ideology. A person grounded in a basic, capitalistic outlook will seek to employ methods of breaking up the monopolies to defeat price fixing and to promote greater competition within a particular industry. That person, however, will have failed to learn from history that greater competition leads also to lower wages, union busting, accelerated assembly lines, decreased worker safety standards, and similar policies injurious to the working class. A person grounded in a Marxist outlook of capitalism will see the increasing concentration of power in the various industries as the natural evolution of capitalism leading to the easiest transistion to socialism. Socialism, in its true form, is merely an extension of democracy from the political sphere to include also the economic life of the society. Hence, in addition to voting for political representatives, the citizens will vote for, in essence, the CEO's of the banking industry, the auto industry, the power generating industry, the farming industry, etc.. And on these issues, one does not need in depth research. A citizen knows that he or she is paying too much for milk or power without studying anything. Thus, the economic vote is the purest of votes. Produce cheaply or you're fired. And since every member of the public is in some way an employee, there can be no mistreatment of employees, or workers, as that would result in a tit for tat degeneration of the welfare of the nation. Thus, centralization of economic power to the Marxist simply presages the next step in the economic evolution of the human race. There is no need to regress, but, rather, an urgent need to demand that the government either take ownership positions when it bails out these economic giants, or that it takes up the conservative gauntlet that government cannot do anything right and actually enter the market place as a competitor to the failing giants of commerce. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:06:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: This is the worst kind of pseudo-Marxist BS
The concentration of industries may have looked like a progressive development to Karl Marx in the mid 19th Century, but we have seen in the 20th how such concentration, in Germany and Italy, led to fascism, not socialism. Concentrated corporations in the US too, have undermined democracy, perhaps fatally, because a limited number of elite capitalists are able to align their goals completely or almost completely and buy the political class lock stock and barrel. You'd have to be completely ignorant of history or wilfully blind to what has happened over the last 50 or so years not to have noticed how a few large corporations have so dominated the media that most Americans are now sleepwalking. Nor is it true that unions have a harder time against more smaller companies than against large national or worse, transnational, corporations. If you were really involved in the labor movement trenches, you'd know it is a hell of a lot easier to organize a regional chain of markets than a national mega chain like WalMart, which can simply close a whole location if it succeeds in organizing its workers. In fact, I cannot think of a single national corporation that has been organized from the ground up,though I can think of national corporations that have broken long-established unions, and that break the unions in smaller companies after they acquire them. Marx would be disgusted by this kind of "analysis." He was first and foremost a scientist of revolution, and had no patience with the repitition of such ideological cant. Sciene is the process of looking at the evidence and, without preconceptions and bias, analyzing what that evidence tells you. If you do that in terms of the power of mega corporations, you can only conclude that they are a bad idea. That isn't to say that breaking them up leads to socialism, only to say that condiditions are better if you break them up. by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:20:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: WOULD LOVE TO
debate this topic with you in a more appropriate forum. I have read all of Marx, including Vol. III of Das Kapital, and all of Lenin, not to mention most of the social democrats, Trotsky, Burke, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hitler, the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (3 times), and I could go on and on. You can live in a dream world where somehow magically American anti-trust laws will be applied to break up multi-national corporations. Or, you can understand exactly what Marx predicted: the increasing concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands and the increasing impoverisation of the masses until through revolution or evolution control of those few great engines of production passes to the working population. I see great things happening all over the world as power is being transferred from the multi-nationals to the people. You must be blind to not see the same thing. And if my analysis is pseudo-Marxist BS, having graduated summa cum laude in Marxist studies, please give me your real Marxist analysis of the multinationals, paying particular attention to why they would pay any heed to an American court's ruling on an antitrust matter. What you, like most, fail to understand, is that Marx thought in terms of centuries, not decades. Yes, he was a member of the International, and wanted socialism as soon as possible. But his entire theory of history was based upon the different types of societies: primitive, slave based, feudal, capitalist, socialistic, communistic; lasting for hundreds, if not thousands of years. No one can know exactly what socialism will look like as it grows out of a fully developed capitalistic system, because that has never happened. Every effort to socialize a country has come from a country that fought its way out of imperialism, and then attempted to skip from an agrarian society directly to a socialist society, skipping the capitalist stage. Fascism has been the final stage of a declining capitalist state because the socialist movement in that state has always lost to the fascists, primarily due to people of limited vision, such as yourself. Multinationals have brought a true multinational working class for the first time in history. Therefore, for the first time in history, there is a chance for socialists to actually gain control of the means of production in one great movement. But it will take people of vision, not name-callers, to organize that movement. As a final thought, I have put my life on the line more times for the progressive cause than years you have probably lived. I not only know labor organizing from the street perspective, but I have carried guns, lunches, ball bats, and charcoal to and from strike lines since I was as young as I have a memory. My father called the first multi-state strike in this country to force the hiring of a black man in a factory in Ohio, and that man hid in my basement during that strike, and men with shotguns guarded my house night and day until that strike was over. So go call other people names. When I write, I know about what I write. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:39:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I've read pretty much all of Marx too
Including Vol. III. I don't question your reading, or your dedication to the cause. I question your understanding of the basic concept of "scientific" socialism, which involves integrating the evidence of the century and a half that has elapsed since old Karl kicked the bucket. And that evidence, none of which Marx had available, suggests that, contrary to your rigid doctrinaire claim, that big multinational corporations a) are harder to organize than decentralized capitalist enterprises and b) pose a real threat of fascism, friendly or otherwise, which should be prevented if possible. This means that seeking to break up such mega-entities, the size of which goes beyond anything Marx could have imagined, is a progressive and even necessary strategy. Marx, by the way, also failed to realize the importance of stressing the value of democracy as an absolute essential part of revolutionary struggle, an oversight which led ultimately to the Leninist and Maoist perversions of Communism into a totalitarian movement in the 20th Century. My point is that Marxism as a doctrine and Capital as a bible is about as useful as Christianity as a doctrine and the Bible as a bible. Marx as a conceptual way of analyzing current reality, and as a methodology for thinking politically is as valuable as ever. by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:40:28 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: LOOKED AT YOUR POLITICS
so I couldn't resist this. Before you can have any credibility with me, find the typographical error in the mathematics in Volume III of Das Kapital, English Translation, Soviet Edition. I doubt you can google it, because very few people understand Volume III, and even fewer caught the typo. But if you can demonstrate that you understand that volume and can find that typo, then I will think you are more than just another pro-capitalist propagandist, hurling smears instead of thoughtful critiques like a drone Republican. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:51:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Dictator Bush
Maybe Bush can stay in past Jan 20 and taxpayers can bolster his failed presidency ... http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ending-the-Reign-of-the-De-by-Steven-Erickson-081108-421.html by Steven G. Erickson (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 57 diaries, 218 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:48:36 PM (0+)
|
|
"Too big to fail"
Size alone should not be a reason to break up a company. Let’s not confuse sheer size with relative size or scale within a company’s market space, or its degree of corruption and poor management. Those are separate issues and should be handled separately. In a September 23 letter to my senators (Dodd and Lieberman) and representative (Larson), I listed 18 “tests” I thought the Congress should apply to any bailout plan. Two of those tests were: “#3. Does it give the government (i.e., the public) an ownership stake in return for relieving certain publicly-traded firms of their impaired mortgage-related assets? A preferred stock position plus a proportionate number of Board seats seems reasonable. “#18. Does it address the longer-term question, ‘How big is too big?’ Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG are so big that allowing them to fail would have had adverse effects on the whole economy. Arguably, when any company gets that big the public at large becomes a stakeholder. Perhaps companies with assets over $1.0 trillion should be subject to separate oversight and regulation.” As I see it, any company whose size, however measured, exceeds some threshold (I suggested $1.0 trillion in assets), would receive a higher level of scrutiny from a separate agency. That agency would continuously monitor the company’s financial and business operations to ensure that the firm was operating in the public’s, as well as the shareholders’, interests. The agency might be a division within the SEC or it might be a new regulatory body. Then, if it became necessary for a capital infusion from the government, the company would be required to issue a senior class of preferred stock to the government. That stock would have liquidation preference ahead of all the common shareholders. Then, as the government investment is repaid over time, the number of outstanding preferred shares is reduced accordingly. In addition, the government would claim a number of board seats proportional to the amount of capital infused. For example, AIG has 10 seats on its board and, as of June 30, it had $78.1 billion of shareholder capital. Since September, the government has contributed another $150 billion of fresh capital. Thus, the government has provided 66% of total capital and should therefore control 66% of the board seats. This could be done either by claiming six of the ten existing board seats or by expanding the board to 29 seats. The decision of whether to replace existing directors could be made on an individual basis, depending on a director’s past performance on the board. The new directors would not have to be government employees; they could be highly qualified people from the academic and private sectors as well. But they would sit on the board as representatives of the public. With this approach, no new laws would be needed regarding issues like payment of dividends or executive compensation. The new board could simply vote to limit executive compensation, bonuses, options, golden parachutes, etc., and to reduce or suspend dividend payments as a matter of normal corporate governance. This approach would let the capitalist marketplace function as intended while providing more oversight for mega-firms and giving the public “a seat at the table” in those companies considered “too big to fail.” by Richard Wise (35 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:21:44 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: MR. WISE
I wrote nearly identical letters to my two Senators and my Congressman. This is the type of innovative thinking that can create a new type of economy without the necessity of violence, but an economy that better responds to the actual needs of the most amount of people. This process also leaves as much capitalism in place within society as is possible pending a corporation's overwhelming growth and breakdown, addressing only those specific instances. I see no reason, however, to sell the stock once it is publicly owned. If the corporation is so big that its failure has put the entire world economy at risk, there is no reason to give its shareholders another chance to make the same mistake. Once public ownership is obtained, the only change that should take place is the regular replacement of the public's representatives on the Board of Directors of the corporation in question. Perhaps most importantly of all, nothing is taken from the ownership class in terms of wealth and prestige, so that they are left somewhat like the British Royals as titular heads of commerce rather than state, and, in fact, vital sources of advice and information, again foregoing any need for a violent transistion to public ownership of the major means of production. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:25:30 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: "Exit strategy"
Thank you for the comment, W.M.L. You make good points and I agree. As a Vietnam-era vet, Iraq war observer, and sometime investor myself, I am very sensitive to the notion of always having an "exit strategy." You don't have to take the exit, but you should always know what your objectives are, how they can be measured, and how you can make an orderly withdrawal once the objectives are achieved. You make a strong case for not making an exit after the capital infusion objectives are achieved. I was just offering a way that an exit might be completed once they are achieved. And, of course, if the company's problems turn out to be so massive that turnaround is not possible, you would want a way to withdraw your interest and let the company fail on its own. Thanks! by Richard Wise (35 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:54:44 AM (0+)
|
|
Right On, Dave Lindorff ! !
And I seem to carry the burden of recommending that readers look up "pre-historic" books. I took an anti-trust course in college in the 1960's, and read (Carl) Kaysen and Turner's "Anti-Trust Policy." It impressed me more deeply than any other book I read over the four years from 1960-63. The book is long out of print, but it should be on the shelf of anyone seriously concerned with anti-trust. I've also been thinking that it's imperative for lefties to keep Bushco's feet to the fire during the months before Inauguration, with impeachment and by pursuing the state A.G. Vincent Bugliosi outlined in his book. I personally recall Ramsey Clark, Cindy Sheehan, and Elizabeth Holtzman (not to mention Dennis Kucinich) stating long before November 4 that they would pursue impeachment regardless of the election's outcome. by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:04:13 AM (0+)
|
|
*state remedies
. by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:05:56 AM (0+)
|
|
And yes. Right on W.M.L. ! !
Your experiences with different parts of capitalism-the-mastodon shouldn't preclude your regard for the each other's methods. Let there be two, three, many wars on the dying beast. by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:19:24 AM (0+)
|
|
Rethinking Corporations
While restrictions on monopolies have been relaxed over the years, this is not the only relaxation of government oversight that has given license to corporate misbehavior. Part of the problem is that we have forgotten our own history as a nation, or perhaps it is that we have allowed a mythology to crowd out our history. We all know from our early schooling about the Boston Tea Party. But what do we know about it? Most of us know that it was about the colonists protesting a tax on tea, so they dressed up as indians (native Americans that is) and they threw a shopload of tea overboard into Boston harbor. How much sense does that make? The real story is not that they were protesting too high a tax on tea; rather they were protesting a descriminatory tax on tea that would, in effect, give a monopoly on tea to the East India Trading Company, a company in which King George held a significant interest. The protest was against a monopoly, not against a tax. Corporations are not mentioned in our Constitution, but are chartered by the various states. Ironic it is, then, that the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution has, effectively, ruled that corporations have the rights of people. Actually there was never such a ruling, but it was fudged into a ruling by the clerk who wrote up an actual court ruling. The founders of this country were very concerned about the establishment of economic power and the early notion of a corporation reflected that concern. Corporations, as their first and primary legal requirement, was that they serve the public interest; if found in violation of the public interest a corporate charter could be revoked. In the early days of this country, a corporation could only exist for a limited time, approximating the working life of a person. These kinds of rules kept corporations in check, keeping them from growing in wealth, perpetually growing in power. Today, corporations rival the government in their power and for reasons that probably relate to the ways that the rules have changed. by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:01:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Citation?
Thanks for this, PrMaine. You said, "Ironic it is, then, that the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution has, effectively, ruled that corporations have the rights of people. Actually there was never such a ruling, but it was fudged into a ruling by the clerk who wrote up an actual court ruling." Do you have a citation for that case? I would be really interested to see it. Thank you! by Richard Wise (35 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:54:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Citations
Thom Hartmann talks about this quite frequently on his Air America radio show and in several of his books. He mentions it briefly in Screwed, The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class and in What would Jefferson Do? I suspect there is a more detailed discussion in his Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights, but I can say for certain that there is considerable detail about the topic in his book, We the People, A Call to Take Back America. You might find some source citations in his Unequal Protection book or you might contact Thom through his web site. He's pretty good about responding to email. The case itself was the 1885 suit by Santa Clara County against the Southern Pacific Railroad. Chief Justice Waite ruled against the claim of the railroads that corporations were persons and expressed the same in a handwritten note. However, when J.C. Bancroft Davis, the court reporter and former railroad president, wrote up the decision after the death of Justice Waite, the published decision was that in fact corporations were persons within the intent of the 14th amendment. by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:26:41 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
