🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr28.210912.20543@ee.ubc.ca> kenb@ee.ubc.ca (ken buckland) writes:
>klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) writes:
>
>>>The idea that if corporations are taxed, somehow consumers will get off the
>>>hook is absurd.  
>>>Obviously corporations will pass the cost of new taxes on to consumers.  
>>
>>This is obvious only when the corporation has what the economists call 
>>an "inelastic" demand for their products.  For example, foods like milk,
>>and ICBC insurance for a taxi-driver, basically have an inelastic demand.
>>
>>If the demand for the product is "elastic", e.g., $8.50 per person for a 
>>movie at the cinema, then the consumer can choose to consume less, 
>>i.e., wait for it to come out on video, and then rent it for $5.00 per family.
>>In this case, the corporation must examine their financial books,
>>balance the increased fees against decreased demand, and see how it 
>>affects the bottom line -- the "profit" or "return on investment".
>
>True enough - I guess my ECON 101 is a little fuzzy.  I was trying to make a
>more general point however.  That is that people cannot somehow expect to
>extract money from corporations the way they might mug someone.  Corporations
>are not an open source of cash that will passively endure increased taxation -
>they pass everything back to the consumer eventually.  In the case of people
>choosing to rent videos, they do pay a price for this choice: they have to
>watch movies on a small square screen.
>
>Ken Buckland
>kenb@ee.ubc.ca
>

yes, well it seems that corporations do what everyone else does - if they
have to pay out more money, they take more wherever they can get it. it
also seems that something we have to consider is that we have basically
legislated ourselves into a situation that dictates that corporations get
to do a lot of the dictating of general financial conditions, and have
the monetary muscle to move people howsoever they choose. we could change
this, if we wanted, limit the overall size a company can be, or limit the
scope of its ownership, as well as ask them to pay for the priviledge of
using resources, such as people, do achieve their profit aims.

bucky fuller always contended that the origination of corporations was in
the buccaneers of old - they basically tok whatever they could, and gave
away as little as possible. without descending to personal accusations of
corporate bosses now, i think there is a lot to support this point of
view, particularly if you simply look at the outcome of much corporate activity.it seems the less regulation, the more abuse of the individual and collective
good, in the form of pollution, low wages, bad working conditions, poor
product, etc.

it's a little late for me after a long day - i hope this is easy enough to 
follow.

sp

-- 
Scott Probst: Brain and Behaviour Laboratory, Psychology dept, SFU
              Graduate Issues Officer, Simon Fraser Student Society.
e-mail: probst@fraser.sfu.ca - ph: (604) 291 3354/3181 - fax: (604) 291 5843
              "yes, well, and here we go again..."   Dr H.S. Thompson