re: a corporation is not a person ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by flandroid
Except when it is. 
and, in the US specifically |
Yes, that is the funny thing about the english language. It is full of ambiguities and double meanings. Most of us have ability to sort out intent from the context. Conversation would be impossible if we had to define specifically what we intended with every word we used.
Of course, I was aware of the legal definition of a corporation. However, I have no idea what it has to do with my original statement, so I didn't feel that everyone here needed an explanation of the difference between the legal role of a corporation as a person and one possessing a corporeal existence.
More relevantly, my point was that a 'corporation' does not personally experience any gains from its actions because it is not a real person (even if it is a legal entity). As I originally stated, there are two sets of people who do experience those gains: 1) Those who are employed by the corporations who gain through their salaries and their employment; and 2) The owners of the corporations who are shareholders.
This leads us to a bit of a circular argument, because in many cases those employees and owners are us. We work there and our pension plans invest in those corporations. Even those of us who work for the government tie our existence back to these 'greedy' profits -- without the profits there would be no taxes and no government jobs.
My point is that it is just lazy to point to a legal abstraction and call it greedy. It is more accurate to note that we (collectively) are greedy. We accept employment, we ask for high wages, we expect our retirement plans to earn good returns and to support us in our old age.
Pointing to corporations as greedy is a cop-out.