A Global One Child Policy?

[PoliticalNick]

So, it's okay for you to profit from your driving, but it's not okay for a business to profit from doing business.

First there is a difference between a Mom & Pop business where the profit is the owner's source of income to live and a corporation. It is the corporate culture of making as much profit as possible without concern for anything else I don't like or agree with. When is it enough?

Profit is only a dirty word when it's not you doing the profiting - do you encourage your employer to only break even on all jobs? Do you ensure that you reduce your wages so the evil corporation that employs you doesn't turn a profit?

Every person needs to earn a living. The thing is a corporation is not a person, it is a fictional legal entity given the same rights as a person without any responsibility to the human race.

You obviously know nothing about corporate charters, and even less about how corporations operate.

I have a bachelor of commerce degree that says different. I am quite familiar with corporate charters and operations. I was in the corporate world for many years before I chose to leave. I know for a fact that it is the mandate of every corporation to maximize profits in any way possible. Some do show a feigned concern for the environment or people but only because it is good marketing. You should be careful what you say and accuse people of.

 

[The Old Medic]

Why are they living in poverty?

Most commonly, they live in poverty because of a lack of education, corrupt political leadership, and an inability to cooperate long enough to effect significant change.

There is still a great deal of ethnic, religious, racial, and sexual discrimination and hatred in this world. Far too many people are held down by people of one religion or ethnic group.

A "One Child" policy, if it could be forced on the world, would wipe out many poor countries, rather rapidly. There is already an effective "one child" policy in effect in most developed countries, and their populations would be rapidly aging, and shrinking, were it not for immigration.

Japan is a perfect example of this. They severely limit immigration, and more and more Japanese women are not marrying or having children until their mid-late 30's. Their population is aging very rapidly, and the population is also shrinking. They estimate that in another 70 years, there will not be enough people to care for their majority aged population.

But, fear not. When we eliminate ourselves from this planet, the cockroach will evolve and take over!

 

[petros]

only because it is good marketing.

Marketing is amazing. How else could Cadillac sell a station wagon to some schmuck who thinks a station wagon is miraculously "cool" because its a Caddy"?

Most commonly, they live in poverty because of a lack of education, corrupt political leadership, and an inability to cooperate long enough to effect significant change.

Thusly the problem is political and not stresses on the planet.

Thanks for your honest opinion and POV.

 

[B00Mer]

Should there be a Chinese style one child policy?

That would be Chinese style wouldn't it?

...and that was what you were asking?? LOL

I agree.. we need population reduction by any means necessary.

Population control by eugenics was popular a few years back..

[youtube]PVhE3Muh3co[/youtube]

[youtube]feJza0S7AeA[/youtube]

 

[TenPenny]

I have a bachelor of commerce degree that says different. I am quite familiar with corporate charters and operations. I was in the corporate world for many years before I chose to leave. I know for a fact that it is the mandate of every corporation to maximize profits in any way possible.

I think your school would be ashamed of you.

Can you show me a real corporate charter that REQUIRES the corporation to 'maximize profits in any way possible'?

First there is a difference between a Mom & Pop business where the profit is the owner's source of income to live and a corporation.

Do you know the meaning of a corporation? Methinks not, based on the above statement.

Do you know that many truck drivers are incorporated owner/operators?

 

[petros]

How does a charity fit in? They are Corporations. Their goal is to earn as much as possible, keep jobs and pay cheques and be do gooders.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I think your school would be ashamed of you.

Can you show me a real corporate charter that REQUIRES the corporation to 'maximize profits in any way possible'?

Every corporate charter will contain a clause with respect to providing the maximum ROI to shareholders if the lawyer who wrote it knows what they are doing. That translates into maximizing profits which is where the share dividends come from. Can you really see a rush to invest in a corporation that doesn't promise to make you as much money as possible.

Do you know that many truck drivers are incorporated owner/operators?

Yep. Do you know why a lot of small, independent business owners choose to incorporate? Could it be so they are protected personally from their mistakes and bear no responsibility for losses? Incorporation of a small business is basically a get-out-of-jail-free card for the owner who, as a sole proprietor, would be personally responsible for bad decisions financially. A fine example of this on a larger scale is the bank meltdown of 2008. We had the top execs of these corporations receiving millions in bonuses while the company was going broke. No personal responsibility for their actions and decisions. That is the most odious part of corporatism and why I refuse to be part of it any more.

How does a charity fit in? They are Corporations. Their goal is to earn as much as possible, keep jobs and pay cheques and be do gooders.

The "not for profit" designation changes a lot of the rules in corporate law.

 

[TenPenny]

Every corporate charter will contain a clause with respect to providing the maximum ROI to shareholders if the lawyer who wrote it knows what they are doing.

So, give us an example. But I notice that you are now equivocating, instead of "ALL" you're now saying IF the lawyer who wrote it knows what they are doing. So, you're admitting that "ALL" corporations ARE NOT required to maximize profits by their charters. But please, post an example.

Yep. Do you know why a lot of small, independent business owners choose to incorporate? Could it be so they are protected personally from their mistakes and bear no responsibility for losses? Incorporation of a small business is basically a get-out-of-jail-free card for the owner who, as a sole proprietor, would be personally responsible for bad decisions financially.

So, how does that apply if it's a mom and pop corporation? are they still evil? how could they lose money, when they'd be REQUIRED to maximize profits?

The "not for profit" designation changes a lot of the rules in corporate law.

But, they're still 'corporations', so according to you, they are required to maximize profits. Can you explain that?

 

[PoliticalNick]

So, give us an example. But I notice that you are now equivocating, instead of "ALL" you're now saying IF the lawyer who wrote it knows what they are doing. So, you're admitting that "ALL" corporations ARE NOT required to maximize profits by their charters. But please, post an example.

Please help yourself to google. I am not here to do your investigations. I stated what I know from experience, believe or don't at your own will. I wish you luck to find a corporate charter online. You will find many mission statements and the like but most charters are protected legal documents.

So, how does that apply if it's a mom and pop corporation? are they still evil? how could they lose money, when they'd be REQUIRED to maximize profits?

The Mom & Pop outfits are not usually beholden to shareholders and can easily decide to ignore a clause in their charter without repercussion and a lot do. How does any business lose money, bad decisions.

But, they're still 'corporations', so according to you, they are required to maximize profits. Can you explain that?

It is just an attempt to muddy the waters by bring NFP into this. The NFP organization operates outside of the standard corporate laws. They have a complete set of laws to themselves so while structured similarly to the 'for profit' corporation they are quite different but yes, they also want to maximize profit in order to provide the most services possible.

 

[TenPenny]

The Mom & Pop outfits are not usually beholden to shareholders and can easily decide to ignore a clause in their charter without repercussion and a lot do. How does any business lose money, bad decisions.

Who are the shareholders of a Mom&Pop outfit - is it not Mom and Pop?

Let me see if I follow this. A corporation is forced, by its charter, to maximize its profits, except when it isn't forced to do so?

It is just an attempt to muddy the waters by bring NFP into this. The NFP organization operates outside of the standard corporate laws. They have a complete set of laws to themselves so while structured similarly to the 'for profit' corporation they are quite different but yes, they also want to maximize profit in order to provide the most services possible.

Once again, you're trying to weasel out of what you've said.

You said that 'corporations' are REQUIRED to maximize profits, but now you're trying to claim that some corporations aren't, apparently, 'required' to do do.

And you make claims about corporate charters, but of course, can't back it up.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Who are the shareholders of a Mom&Pop outfit - is it not Mom and Pop?

Exactly, which is why they can ignore a clause of their charter without repercussion from shareholders. DUH!

Let me see if I follow this. A corporation is forced, by its charter, to maximize its profits, except when it isn't forced to do so?

The charter is the guarantee to shareholders to operate in a certain manner. If all the shareholders agree to exempt a clause then it can be ignored as with Mom & Pop. This is never going to happen in a publicly traded Corp due to the amount of shareholders, there will always be some greedy ones. I would think this is common sense and should not require an explanation.

You said that 'corporations' are REQUIRED to maximize profits, but now you're trying to claim that some corporations aren't, apparently, 'required' to do do.

By the black & white letter of corporate law they are. NFPs are not a traditional corporation and usually not even call a corp, most commonly a foundation which operates under a different set of laws.

And you make claims about corporate charters, but of course, can't back it up.

How about you prove me wrong....show me a charter that doesn't require say Mcdonalds or Home depot to provide maximum ROI to shareholders.

I've had enough of your trolling now....good bye!

 

[TenPenny]

It's nice when you start clarifying and changing what you originally said. It's good to change the meaning of your statements after the fact.

 

[L Gilbert]

Should there be a Chinese style one child policy?

Is there too many people on the planet stressing the environment, energy, water, air and food supplies?

Yay or nay and why ?

A yes or no choice to 3 questions? lol
No, yes, and because there isn't enough fresh water to support us all, there isn't adequate food distribution, we are still not treating the planet with enough respect, nor are we treating other species with respect, all of which impinges upon our own well-being.

 

[petros]

Ya think?

 

[damngrumpy]

Here we go social engineering again. It comes in the form of birth control
smoking laws, prevention of pot, in some places liquor, and even the old
prostitution laws. Laws, books full of laws and no success. The reason is
we usually agree on what is criminal and what it social condition.
Things like child sexual abuse and murder are pretty well defined as the
criminal law. Social laws not so. There are business people who engage in
smoking cigars to weed and its not just kids and hippy types. For that reason
there will be on consensus. Prostitution is as old as society and it will be a
problem forever because we as society insist on it being a problem.
One child won't work because it falls in the same category as individual
thought and greed. Feelings can't be legislated in the long run.
Besides I am a grandfather, seven kids twenty two grand kids who would I
throw out of the boat of life?

 

[coldstream]

China has a looming problem, and much of the developed West does. One child or 1.3 per couple as exists in much of the advanced West now.. is well below replacement level. It creates a situation where an ever diminishing group of productive young people are supporting an ever larger relative group of aging old people.. in declining health and productivity. In fact if economic history teaches anything it is that declining population leads inevitably to economic collapse.

All of the predictions of disaster of a GROWING population originated by Thomas Malthus in the 19th Century.. proposing an arithmetic increase in food production would be unable to support a geometric increase in population.. have been proved wrong. With the population perhaps 10 times what it was then... the world is quite capable of feeding its population.. in fact it has a surplus.. the famines occur because of wars.. or lack of means of distribution.. or lack of technology in developing areas... or politics.... or radical environmentalism which promotes Malthusian depopulation.. removing the pestilence of humanity from pristine eco-planet.

 

[damngrumpy]

The real reason less children are being born is because of economics
People don't have the money to raise kids and enjoy their lifestyle at
the same time.
Women are becoming the bread winners in many cases. My family
Doctor a woman is practicing medicine while her husband a Dentist by
profession is staying home to bring up the kids. There are all kinds of
arrangements being made out there.
We have less children and fewer resources for some in disadvantaged
positions like foster kids for example.
Society is going to hell in a hand basket overpopulation is a problem in
some regions of the world and a greater problem is the lack of education
in some societies. Where education is advanced there are fewer kids.
Where there is poverty and less advancement there are too many kids.

 

[Kathie Bondar]

What sort of a one-child policy do you mean? One where farmers are allowed to have more than one kid, and rich people can simply pay fines to avoid the penalties, and girls aren't wanted so they are killed or abandoned? Is that what you're asking about?

And don't forget polygamists and monogamists four times divorced and remarried, with a couple of kids from each misfortune.
If you ask me, there should be one marriage to one spouse in a lifetime, period. Look at Marie Curie, widowed with two small kids, she made it work for her.

 

[taxslave]

Although there is validity to the theory of wasting resources the bigger factor is that we allow the resources to be claimed by corporations and sold for profit which leads to countries and entire regions not being able to get them. It is quite clear that the profit motive is what causes the largest issues.

Of course they are sold for a profit, otherwise what would be the point in taking on the risk and headache? Are you willing to work for free?
Don't forget that a good portion of that profit goes to union pension plans.

First there is a difference between a Mom & Pop business where the profit is the owner's source of income to live and a corporation. It is the corporate culture of making as much profit as possible without concern for anything else I don't like or agree with. When is it enough?


Every person needs to earn a living. The thing is a corporation is not a person, it is a fictional legal entity given the same rights as a person without any responsibility to the human race.


I have a bachelor of commerce degree that says different. I am quite familiar with corporate charters and operations. I was in the corporate world for many years before I chose to leave. I know for a fact that it is the mandate of every corporation to maximize profits in any way possible. Some do show a feigned concern for the environment or people but only because it is good marketing. You should be careful what you say and accuse people of.

A bachelor of commerce degree will qualify you to pump gas at a self serve. Beyond that you have shown zero knowledge of the corporate world. Or politics for that matter.

 

[JLM]

The real reason less children are being born is because of economics
People don't have the money to raise kids and enjoy their lifestyle at
the same time.
Women are becoming the bread winners in many cases. My family
Doctor a woman is practicing medicine while her husband a Dentist by
profession is staying home to bring up the kids. There are all kinds of
arrangements being made out there.
We have less children and fewer resources for some in disadvantaged
positions like foster kids for example.
Society is going to hell in a hand basket overpopulation is a problem in
some regions of the world and a greater problem is the lack of education
in some societies. Where education is advanced there are fewer kids.
Where there is poverty and less advancement there are too many kids.

It's mainly a matter of choices and what makes us happy. Today we are more focused on material things and the family unit is suffering. Years ago big families often with very few resources was the norm and people were probably happier. We didn't hear of major massacres every second week. We were busier with activities directly necessary for living which probably kept us physically and mentally in better shape.