Corporations 'cannibalize' the American middle class, says Disney heiress

Disney heiress Abigail Disney isn’t done calling out American CEOs for hoarding corporate profits.

The 59-year-old philanthropist and filmmaker, who is the granddaughter of Walt Disney Company co-founder Roy Disney, blasted corporate executives Wednesday for their “addiction” to money and the “extreme unfairness” of paying their workers less than a living wage.

“We have begun to cannibalize the very people that make this economy thrive. After all, no middle class, no Disney,” she said during a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee.

House Democrats are considering several bills aimed at boosting middle-class wages, including one that limits how much companies can spend to buy back their own stocks and another one that requires companies to report details about executive salaries. The hearing reflects growing public concern about income inequality in the US, and how the economic recovery has done little to help working-class families.

Abigail Disney, who holds no role at the Disney company, has a lot of opinions about what needs to happen.

Last month, she caused an uproar when she called out Disney for paying CEO Bob Iger an “insane” amount of money. Her tweets went viral, and since then, she has continued to make the case that lavish CEO salaries are hurting American families and contributing to income inequality.

Maddog wrote:
After all, no middle class, no Disney,” she said during a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee

Sounds like the market will deal with corporations that price themselves out of the market.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:
After all, no middle class, no Disney,” she said during a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee

Sounds like the market will deal with corporations that price themselves out of the market.

That's all very well if and when you have a genuine "free and open" market system, where companies live and die according to 'free' market forces...

Which the USA, in reality, doesn't..

To wit :  consider just some of those American corporations that would have folded long ago, if it hadn't been for generous government pandering, protectionism, bailouts and subsidies ==

Exxon
General Motors
Several major banks and finance companies after the "GFC"
Any American healthfunds and private hospitals you care to name
Monsanto  (now owned by Bayer AG, anyways --  so that was a major waste..)
Peabody Resources
Union Carbide
DuPont.

Original Quill wrote:All 'free market' capitalism eventually distills down to monopoly.  Draw the curtain aside, and you will see there is no difference between crony capitalism and a free market.

Adam Smith got it wrong when he said that capitalists will compete, and thereby reducing costs and advancing efficiency.

What they do is compete and knock each other off, eventually eliminating all competitors.  Ergo: monopoly.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:All 'free market' capitalism eventually distills down to monopoly.  Draw the curtain aside, and you will see there is no difference between crony capitalism and a free market.

Adam Smith got it wrong when he said that capitalists will compete, and thereby reducing costs and advancing efficiency.

What they do is compete and knock each other off, eventually eliminating all competitors.  Ergo: monopoly.

Now I'm in a quandary.

Adam Smith of Quill?  

JOY BLENMAN wrote:The automatic pricing and distribution mechanisms in the economy—which Adam Smith called an "invisible hand"—interacts directly and indirectly with centralized, top-down planning authorities. However, there are some meaningful conceptual fallacies in an argument that is framed as the invisible hand versus the government.

The invisible hand is not actually a distinguishable entity. Instead, it is the sum of many phenomena that occur when consumers and producers engage in commerce free of regulation. Smith's insight into the idea of the invisible hand was one of the most important in the history of economics. It remains one of the chief justifications for free market ideologies.

*  *  *  *

The invisible hand theorem (at least in its modern interpretations) suggests that the means of production and distribution should be privately owned and that if trade occurs unfettered by regulation, in turn, society will flourish organically. These arguments are naturally competitive with the concept and function of government.

https://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations/

Ben Reilly wrote:Good point, Quill. In a state of perfect lawlessness or anarchy, the powerful will amass more and more power, and eventually lay down their own laws.

Libertarians think this can be addressed by having a small government with very limited and pre-defined powers, and miss the mark by failing to see how other organizations (corporations) will always have the advantage because they have no such baked-in limitations.

And they think it sounds so far-fetched, the notion that powerful capitalists would use physical force to impose their will, but they actually have done so already -- several companies have hired a private military force called Executive Solutions to wage battles on their behalf, for one example.

Maddog wrote:Why is limited government so confusing to people? I understand not approving of it, but I don't understand not understanding it.  

Maddog wrote:Why is limited government so confusing to people? I understand not approving of it, but I don't understand not understanding it.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Why is limited government so confusing to people? I understand not approving of it, but I don't understand not understanding it.  

Instead of thinking about "limited government', why not speak of government that is only, but no less than what is needed.  

"Limited government" suggests favor of one side of the polarity: essentially, insufficient government.  That is the reason why it is favored by monopolistic capitalists.  It is just enough to control the unwashed masses, but not enough to control the private power seekers!!  As my signature suggests, government exists only to keep their slaves in line.

We have this debate going on right now, in the form of regulation vs. RW deregulation.  Regulations are simply public protections, as George Lakoff points out, against corporate actors which want to dominate the 'free market'.  Their opposition to public protections is indicative of their power incursion into what you would call libertarianism.  It’s axiomatic, when government lacks power, private interests move in to create monopolies favorable to them.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Instead of thinking about "limited government', why not speak of government that is only, but no less than what is needed.  

"Limited government" suggests favor of one side of the polarity: essentially, insufficient government.  That is the reason why it is favored by monopolistic capitalists.  It is just enough to control the unwashed masses, but not enough to control the private power seekers!!  As my signature suggests, government exists only to keep their slaves in line.

We have this debate going on right now, in the form of regulation vs. RW deregulation.  Regulations are simply public protections, as George Lakoff points out, against corporate actors which want to dominate the 'free market'.  Their opposition to public protections is indicative of their power incursion into what you would call libertarianism.  It’s axiomatic, when government lacks power, private interests move in to create monopolies favorable to them.

Limited government, is plenty of government. Beyond that is oppressive government.

Maddog wrote:You live on a plantation. I'm not interested. I'm perfectly fine with all of the regulations in California, as they don't affect me. My only complaint is that people that leave there and move here, sometimes forget why that move was necessary.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Limited government, is plenty of government. Beyond that is oppressive government.

And short of that is tyranny by the wealthy, privileged and established.

Maddog wrote:You live on a plantation. I'm not interested. I'm perfectly fine with all of the regulations in California, as they don't affect me. My only complaint is that people that leave there and move here, sometimes forget why that move was necessary.  

The only plantations I know are in the south.  I don't live in the south.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Limited government, is plenty of government. Beyond that is oppressive government.

And short of that is tyranny by the wealthy, privileged and established.

Maddog wrote:You live on a plantation. I'm not interested. I'm perfectly fine with all of the regulations in California, as they don't affect me. My only complaint is that people that leave there and move here, sometimes forget why that move was necessary.  

The only plantations I know are in the south.  I don't live in the south.

You live on a state-sponsored plantation, and enjoy the paternalism.

Ben wrote:Why must libertarians be so dramatic?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You live on a state-sponsored plantation, and enjoy the paternalism.

So in other words, the state government of California owns its residents as property, tortures them if they try to escape, doesn't pay them, earns massive profit from the fruits of their labor which it keeps for itself, and keeps them living in squalid conditions.

Why must libertarians be so dramatic?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

So in other words, the state government of California owns its residents as property, tortures them if they try to escape, doesn't pay them, earns massive profit from the fruits of their labor which it keeps for itself, and keeps them living in squalid conditions.

Why must libertarians be so dramatic?

No, California treat them like children that must be supervised and regulated at all times.  Much like former slaves were treated. Remind me which state has the highest level of poverty

Maddog wrote:I'm a Texan. I don't do drama. I speak clearly and honestly, when I think speaking is even necessary.  Drama is for liberals.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Complete non sequitur.  Do big words confuse you...like the long posts?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Complete non sequitur.  Do big words confuse you...like the long posts?

I could probably place that image after About 90% of your posts.  

I don't think you know what non sequitur means.  

You're very existence is based on government being a daddy to its citizens.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I could probably place that image after About 90% of your posts.  

I don't think you know what non sequitur means.  

You're very existence is based on government being a daddy to its citizens.  

Redneck, you are a true southerner.  Inability to think abstractly; intolerant; defends guns; hates blacks; wears boots; hates the government;  and you probably drive a pickup truck.

 

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Redneck, you are a true southerner. Inability to think abstractly; intolerant; defends guns; hates blacks; wears boots; hates the government; and you probably drive a pickup truck.

I am far more tolerant than you, and don't hate anyone.

Maddog wrote:I just don't believe in paternalism like you do. I don't think it's helpful to the people being used.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I am far more tolerant than you, and don't hate anyone.

The difference is, I am intolerant of true, uncivilized evil.  You, on the other hand, incorporate evil, guns and racism into your culture.

Maddog wrote:I just don't believe in paternalism like you do. I don't think it's helpful to the people being used.    

You have no idea what you believe.  You took a mediocre course(s) in business administration, at a mediocre school, just outside Houston.  You haven't been able to describe, let alone defend libertarian theory.  You're a 'true believer' without a mind of your own.

Go get a degree in economics at London School of Economics and Political Science, Wharton or perhaps Sorbonne Universaté...then come back and preach to us.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The difference is, I am intolerant of true, uncivilized evil.  You, on the other hand, incorporate evil, guns and racism into your culture.



You have no idea what you believe.  You took a mediocre course(s) in business administration, at a mediocre school, just outside Houston.  You haven't been able to describe, let alone defend libertarian theory.  You're a 'true believer' without a mind of your own.

Go get a degree in economics at London School of Economics and Political Science, Wharton or perhaps Sorbonne Universaté...then come back and preach to us.

So you're less tolerant than me, and an elitist snob to boot.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So you're less tolerant than me, and an elitist snob to boot.  

I am less tolerant of false equivalencies, and groundless arguments intended to deceive.  Especially those by RW elitists, who take the public to be fools and think they can 'hoodwink' people.

BTW, the word was "patronize", and I used the word to say the left wouldn't try to deceive, as you do.  Go back, and read more carefully…and get a dictionary this time.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I am less tolerant of false equivalencies, and groundless arguments intended to deceive.  Especially those by RW elitists, who take the public to be fools and think they can 'hoodwink' people.

BTW, the word was "patronize", and I used the word to say the left wouldn't try to deceive, as you do.  Go back, and read more carefully…and get a dictionary this time.

The word I used was to describe you. I don't care what word you used.  

I didn't go to A&M either.

What are your feelings on Texas Wesleyan University?  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The word I used was to describe you. I don't care what word you used.  

I didn't go to A&M either.

What are your feelings on Texas Wesleyan University?  

I really don't recognize on-line colleges as legitimate.  They are money mills, and rarely have accreditation.  Remember Trump University?

What did you study, book-keeping?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

It often appears that Maddog did his valuation and book-keeping subjects at night school or by correspondence...

Unfortunately, it's a pity he didn't bother getting a grounding in basic commerce and economics before trying those more prectically-oriented topics..

Might have saved him getting sucked into all of that "Libertarian" nonsense,  and from posting up all of that nonsensical bulldust he keeps on pushing around his mistaken comparisons of 'socialism' versus 'capitalism'.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I really don't recognize on-line colleges as legitimate.  They are money mills, and rarely have accreditation.  Remember Trump University?

What did you study, book-keeping?

Well, I didn't go to Wesleyan either.

But Ben did. 

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well, I didn't go to Wesleyan either.

But Ben did. 

Doxing is against the rules of the forum.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

It often appears that Maddog did his valuation and book-keeping subjects at night school or by correspondence...

Unfortunately, it's a pity he didn't bother getting a grounding in basic commerce and economics before trying those more prectically-oriented topics..

Might have saved him getting sucked into all of that "Libertarian" nonsense,  and from posting up all of that nonsensical bulldust he keeps on pushing around his mistaken comparisons of 'socialism' versus 'capitalism'.

Thanks to you I get to stay in outstanding physical condition, because I spend hours every day running through your head.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Doxing is against the rules of the forum.

Quit being a fucking snowflake.  

And an arrogant pretensious one at that.  

Ben went to fine school. You just got shown up for being the dick you quite often are.  

Think before you strut around like you're some sort of intellectual superior to any one on this place.