Reddit mentions of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few

I would recommend a couple pieces of media to you. One is a movie and one is a book. The movie is 'Inequality for All'. I think you can watch it here: https://vimeo.com/84192322

I also recommend the book 'Saving Capitalism' by Robert Reich. You can get that here: http://amzn.com/0385350570

The free market is only free if government regulation keeps it a level playing field for all comers. Teddy Roosevelt and FDR both saved capitalism when inequality and rigged monopolist markets risked everything. Bernie will do the same.

See Robert Reich's Saving Capitalism - http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Capitalism-For-Many-Not/dp/0385350570

Alright,



Educate yourself

Educate yourself

Educate yourself

Educate yourself

lmao, this is literally how you argued.

The filibuster book is kind of a ramble, obviously.

Reich's Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few is pretty devastating and echoes many of Bernie's themes. The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future by Joseph Stiglitz is good too. And Tony Judt's Ill Fares the Land.

I think you need to read up on what Bernie is proposing and where his ideas come from. So as long as we're throwing around links to books.

Not so much an advocate of my ideology, but was one of the books a read on my Journey towards my current one: Saving Capitalism: For the many, not the few


it does a great job of explaining some parts of our economic history for the past 40 years, but has a hastily reached conclusion without giving an exact reason why it solves these problems.

Krugman seems to have buried the hatchet. He wrote a very nice review of Reich's latest book, Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few.

As per my comment above: "...corporations are neither democratically owned or operated, and they operate towards the goal of earning a direct profit for their shareholders, not for wellbeing of their employees or for the members of the communities they serve. They have absolutely nothing to do with democratic politics, and they shouldn't be represented by our government or our constitution. They are not people, they're democratically run by people, and they shouldn't be afforded constitutional rights. And certainly not the right sell me on a candidate."

Corporations are a legal entity of the market; they are sanctioned by the government to operate within the market. That does not mean that they should be granted constitutional rights as a citizen of the United States, afforded with political power or sovereignty. They should not be able to directly align astronomically high levels of economic and political power behind a candidate that is going to thereby directly represent their interests within our own government.

Even in the section you politely bolded for me, you're contradicting yourself: "any one of those rights or privileges is properly decided by applying basic logic, common sense, and relevant and valid law to an examination of generally accepted reasons why the state grants existence to the legal fiction of the corporate form."

Affording corporations, and even unions given that many are now no longer democratically run, the right to amass huge sums of wealth through organizations that are run with top-down hierarchies, absent of any democratic decision making and run at the benefit of a extreme minority violates basic logic and common sense. It literally allows them to purchase the political process, skew your democracy and by extension the rules of the market in their favor, and to eliminate the power and efficacy of your political voice.

As per the CU wiki, which I did read - thank you, for the recommendation: In the case the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[2] The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4]

Citizens United, as a for-profit corporations, has absolutely no business voicing an opinion or coordinating with political campaigns in our democracy. They're a structure of the market that is only considered with generating profit - they have no priority or responsibility to the interests/health of society, the community, or our nation, they themselves are not democratic entities, and they should not be engaged in the politics of citizens.

As a happy reading recommendation for yourself, you should read "Saving Capitalism: For the Many not the Few" by Robert Reich: http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Capitalism-For-Many-Not/dp/0385350570

Or "Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy: An Agenda for Growth and Shared Prosperity" by Joseph Stiglitz:
http://www.amazon.com/Rewriting-Rules-American-Economy-Prosperity/dp/0393254054

Correction: Just double-checked, CU is a non-profit organization. The points above, in reference to for-profit corporations, still stand however.