Home | About | Donate

The Plundering of a Nation by a Beloved Company


#1

The Plundering of a Nation by a Beloved Company

Paul Buchheit

An emotional response to any criticism of the Apple Corporation might be anticipated from the users of the company's powerful, practical, popular, and entertaining devices. Accolades to the company and a healthy profit are certainly well-deserved. But much-despised should be the theft from taxpayers and the exploitation of workers and customers, all cloaked within the image of an organization that seems to work magic on our behalf.

1. Apple Took Years of Public Research, Integrated the Results, and Packaged it as Their Own


#3

There is no genius resident in our princes of commerce. Bigness enables gigantic sales. Imagine what that savvy entrepreneur, the creator of the pet rock, might have "earned" in today's bizarre environment.


#4

Another paid troll sullying the reputation of an economist who points out what every citizen should understand about today's inverted tax codes and how corporate plunderers are controlling when not stealing from The Commons of creative/inventive synergy.


#5

No, Clarity is just pointing out a contradiction in an otherwise good article. As Marx explained, and to paraphrase Proudhon:

"Le profit, c'est le vol!"


#6

I tend to think of this style of essay as the unwrapping of the santa clause clause (the really, really fine print ya know?) precisely given the juxtaposition of the two sentences you cite. Its sorta kinda like the wry treatment of the 'whoopie' factor dependent on the forked branch of predatory marketing and highly massaged consumer culture in the ole echo chamber, hamber, amber.


#7

The "If its to big to fail its too big to exist" cliche fails when there are economies of scale to be had. Instead of breaking up such companies to avoid rising fascism, we could share in their economic and environmental benefits by establishing a personal wealth cap through popular, yearly, online, encrypted referendums.

Wealth cap excesses in funds, assets, stock, etc. could be electronically distributed to all citizens equally. Poverty would disappear. And automation will turn to everyone's advantage by relieving us of work drudgery while giving us all more money and leisure time, like it does for plutocrats now.

Distribution of Wealth Cap excesses would benefit the environment by reducing the birth rate. The less people to distribute the excess wealth to, the more economic benefits would accrue to the public. In time a balance between public well being and population numbers needed to run an environmentally healthy planet would be reached.


#8

Did Buchheit just move to the US? That's a rhetorical question, but he appears to be exhibiting a lot of naïveté about Capitalism. That's how Capitalism works! We pay to get a uni education that might take us 6 or 8 years of hard slog on top of the tens of thousands of cash dollars so that we can create things that the rich then take, keep, and sell back to us. They can deduct 3-martini filet mignon lunches and "conferences" in Tahiti, but we can't deduct as much as a damned boloney sandwich. OF COURSE Apple is going to screw us for every penny they can get!


#9

The $140,000,000,000 dollars that apple plans to use for stock buybacks is enough to pay every one of its 66,000 US employees $2 million each. Why not let the people who work there have half the money they helped the investors make? It is one possible decision leadership could choose.


#12

Excellent ideas Clarity Atlas.

I suggested simply placing a "bot" in today's electronic financial system that automatically distributes any wealth cap excesses equally to the all citizens from cradle to grave. And that personal wealth determination should include all of a person's assets.

In a better world, laws could be made or rescinded direct democratically by safe, encrypted referendums. A continuous process, depending on rapidly changing circumstances and new information. The public could set the personal wealth cap at one million, ten million, or one hundred million. High enough to stimulate entrepreneurship, yet low enough to prevent extreme wealth/power concentration and oligarchy.

Another benefit of direct democracy is that there may be no need for taxes. The people themselves could decide what infrastructure to spend on and how much of their money, as suggested by another poster yesterday. Politicians tend to waste our money on war, pork, themselves, etc.

It is gratifying to see that people like you are thinking more deeply about the roots of wealth disparity and how to fix things bypassing the oligarchy designed system that got us into this mess to begin with.


#15

We have never once witnessed SR apologize for any slur.


#17

Perhaps not, but you've certainly absorbed the corporate point of view pretty exclusively.


#19

And thank you Brother.

The oligarchy would not accept a wealth cap. Direct democracy by safe encrypted referendums could achieve it. The more referendums, the harder for oligarchs and their politicians to subvert them.

Direct democracy is the Universal Mind. It is 300 million people governing in a decentralized way and making the laws instead of 300 politicians owned by billionaires rolling in Scrooge McDuck vaults of gold looted from the public.


#20

I think the fact that you felt the need to disclaim being a corporate shill says that you're already aware of why people would believe you to be one.