Corruption

[CyberWar]

While Romans indeed had the right to abuse their slaves, it is not that they all necessarily did so. Rome, while going to some extent to be historically accurate, is still a modern interpretation and a work of art, not a source of history. Ancient Egyptians and Greeks up to the Classical period show a much more positive treatment of slaves - a slave was essentially a family member, regarded much like a child of the master. He would work along the master and eat together with him. On the other hand, slaves were usually prisoners of war in that era, and were rarely sold by their captors, unlike Romans, who practiced slavery on a large scale.

While I personally have no problem with capitalism, I harbour no illusions about it either and that is the point I try to make here. One thing that I really hate about it though is the general alienation of people - generally, everyone works for himself or a narrow spectrum of people, only contributing the very minimum to the society around that is asked of him by law. Capitalism runs on the principle of individual welfare, and that concept has been taken far too in the extreme in the West.

If a state as an entity is really to exist and not be just a mere illusion to deceive the masses, it must control the corporations, not vice versa. So I'm strongly for a mixed economy model with a strong state sector that could keep the entire system running even if the corporations refuse to cooperate. Decent models are China (the state sector being dominant), France and Sweden (dominant private sector).

[jrly]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

So what if large corporations run the business world? It doesn't really affect me either way. To compare western working requirements with slavery is farcical.

I would have to disagree with that because I believe that it was the corporations who pushed for the Iraq War and while you may not be directly affected by it, you certainly didn't seem to be for it in the Iraq War thread, so according to my logic you should be against the corporations, but many people will disagree with my on this and you, steve, may be one of them.

I have heard that in Celtic culture that the slaves were only put into slavery after being beaten through war or if the person had large amounts of debt and the slavery was not something that was hereditary, but I can't back this up, it is just what I have heard and I like this version of slavery, especially the debt part.

[Steve_TPF]

Correct, I am opposed to the war in Iraq, but it still doesn't affect me either way. The company I work for certainly had nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

While Romans indeed had the right to abuse their slaves, it is not that they all necessarily did so.

But they could if the wished. My boss certainly can't treat me that way.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

While I personally have no problem with capitalism, I harbour no illusions about it either and that is the point I try to make here. One thing that I really hate about it though is the general alienation of people - generally, everyone works for himself or a narrow spectrum of people, only contributing the very minimum to the society around that is asked of him by law. Capitalism runs on the principle of individual welfare, and that concept has been taken far too in the extreme in the West.

How has individual welfare been taken to far? Looking at communist countries, the individual is ver much downtrodden for the supposed good of the state. How many workers in China have the same pay and conditions that I have? The death toll in Chinese mines for example is appalling.

Originally Posted by The Australian

Some say that every year about 5000 Chinese coalminers lose their lives, but others say that figure would be much higher if all deaths were officially recorded.

As an occupation, it would have to rank as one of the world's deadliest. Life is cheap in China, you hear all too often.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

If a state as an entity is really to exist and not be just a mere illusion to deceive the masses, it must control the corporations, not vice versa. So I'm strongly for a mixed economy model with a strong state sector that could keep the entire system running even if the corporations refuse to cooperate. Decent models are China (the state sector being dominant), France and Sweden (dominant private sector).

Again, China uses and abuses its huddled masses. I sure as hell don't want to live there. France and Sweden - I'm not particularly informed about either of those. Though I don't seem to hear about french people dying at work.
I don't deny that business needs to be regulated, or that it can unduly influence governments for its own ends, but western workers are hardly slaves. If they overwork themselves to pay for things they don't need that's their own stupid fault.

[The Guru]

I just want to throw out a referance that you can search that spark our first revolution. I believe the name was "John Locke" he basically wrote our decleration before our "founding fathers" even thought about it.

I read as much of this thread as my eyes could take and my thoughts are this.

We could revolt with a big enough number of people, we just need a spark and a good logical reason to do so, that would appeal to the.....normal.....people, instead of it making us look like terrorists we would seem heros, So who ever supplies the spark, i will gladly suppy the timber for i do not hold the flint.

"This is some good shit.(laughter) "

[CyberWar]

While it is indeed true that it is the workers' own fault in that they overwork themselves to pay for what they do not need, have you ever considered that somebody is certainly interested to have them want what they don't need?

Loans and credits are the ideal shackles for corporate slavery. Times have changed since the Roman legions marched around the Old World. These days, everything is done civilizedly, not with the aid of shackles and whips. The so-called "free" people are convinced to desire things they do not need through mass media, and then take loans to satisfy their false desires. The threat of lawsuits and property confiscations is usually enough to deter most from not repaying their loans, and the extra expenses created by purchasing and then reconsidering their purchase is also sufficient. Furthermore, every worker is bound to his employers like no slave ever was - while a slave could run away to another land and be free, a worker these days has nowhere to run - changing job will only change personal attitudes, but not his hopelessly-bound situation itself.

Neither is there a need for whipping and torture because physical punishment has been replaced by monetary methods of torture. A disobedient employee can very well earn a permanent place among hobos on the street, while the average citizen will spend most of his life working to repay the debts he has made. For this reason, I have personally never taken any loans nor plan to in the future, even if that will mean life in a log cabin in the woods.

My ideal system is somewhat like socialism, minimizing the influence of power-hungry cutthroats that currently run the Western world. If strategic industries like power production, transport, mining, weaponry and communication were under firm state control, private sector would have to do with services and distribution and would thus not have the resources to control the state.

[Draven]

While I agree with much of what Cyber just said let me add this, who owns McDonalds?

The Banks do, from a MSNBC news broadcast last night I heard how McDonalds wouldn't be able to pay their employees without the credit from the Banking system. There is your slavery, the company only stays in business because it borrows money to pay for times when the business isn't making allot of money and then spends its profits in times that it does by paying the banks back. Now we know GMC and other companies do this because the Federal Reserve has already bailed them out.

All those companies and corperations which run day to day life in so many ways are all bitches for the banking system. Hell a great many companies are ran the same way, until the money doesn't get put back in and then all the business owners of large corperations, bank CEOs etc. all bail out with golden parachutes and start all over again.

Modern America is owned by the bankers and the longer you allow youself to remain in that system and allow the media and companies to brainwash you into buying shit you don't need, you are a slave to the system and to those who control the system.

[Beyond]

Originally Posted by Draven

While I agree with much of what Cyber just said let me add this, who owns McDonalds?

The Banks do,

Then what are those 11 million shares of McDonald's stock doing out there? Are they just neat novelty items?

from a MSNBC news broadcast last night I heard how McDonalds wouldn't be able to pay their employees without the credit from the Banking system. There is your slavery, the company only stays in business because it borrows money to pay for times when the business isn't making allot of money and then spends its profits in times that it does by paying the banks back.

McDonald's are franchises. The owner/operator is solely responsible for paying employees, along with virtually every other HR responsibility. In other words, McDonald's isn't sending out checks from a central location to every single employee.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Beyond

Then what are those 11 million shares of McDonald's stock doing out there? Are they just neat novelty items?

They are what you call "fools' gold" or they are 11 million shares of debt. If McDonalds has say $20 million in raw capitial but owes the bank 10 million from extended credit and owes another 5 million in expenses such as paying their employees etc. and McDonalds goes under guess what, they pay their employees first -5 million and bank gets their 10 million from that leaves 11 million shares of 5 million in capitial.

Originally Posted by Beyond

McDonald's are franchises. The owner/operator is solely responsible for paying employees, along with virtually every other HR responsibility. In other words, McDonald's isn't sending out checks from a central location to every single employee.

Actually, yes they are. When you buy the franchize licence you are paying into a parent company who deals with that pay-roll and does in fact write the checks. On top of this said parent company also supplies the food, wrappers, to-go bags etc. As the store owner you just get a bigger cut of the profits from your store. Its the same with any franchise.

Ready to Commit? - Franchise License Agreement - Entrepreneur.com
The Franchise Agreement

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

While it is indeed true that it is the workers' own fault in that they overwork themselves to pay for what they do not need, have you ever considered that somebody is certainly interested to have them want what they don't need?

Sure they are. But no-one forces you to buy their products.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Furthermore, every worker is bound to his employers like no slave ever was - while a slave could run away to another land and be free, a worker these days has nowhere to run - changing job will only change personal attitudes, but not his hopelessly-bound situation itself.

Neither is there a need for whipping and torture because physical punishment has been replaced by monetary methods of torture. A disobedient employee can very well earn a permanent place among hobos on the street, while the average citizen will spend most of his life working to repay the debts he has made. For this reason, I have personally never taken any loans nor plan to in the future, even if that will mean life in a log cabin in the woods.

I took out a loan to buy a house. It's an investment that will provide for my future comfort. I don't want to live in a log cabin. Besides, if I did that, where would I obtain the glasses that I need to see properly?
As I said, living means working, regardless of how you live. Even if a slave ran away (without getting caught,) he/she would still have to labour for the essentials of survival. I consider my current work/reward balance to be quite good.

[Beyond]

Originally Posted by Draven

They are what you call "fools' gold" or they are 11 million shares of debt. If McDonalds has say $20 million in raw capitial but owes the bank 10 million from extended credit and owes another 5 million in expenses such as paying their employees etc. and McDonalds goes under guess what, they pay their employees first -5 million and bank gets their 10 million from that leaves 11 million shares of 5 million in capitial.

Where do you keep getting this credit/bank shit from? Cites please.

Actually, yes they are.

As part of the franchise agreement, McDonald's OFFERS accounting and payroll services but it does not REQUIRE it.

Check out this software that is meant for franchise owners of McDonalds.

Here is an article about an accounting company in Pennsylvania that handles all payroll responsibilities of 20 local McDonalds.

Here is an Australian company that offers payroll services to franchise owners.

Again, why would these companies exist and purport to represent franchise owners if McDonald's is doing it solely for every location?

I invite you to review at the Franchise agreement if you don't believe me.

When you buy the franchize licence you are paying into a parent company who deals with that pay-roll and does in fact write the checks. On top of this said parent company also supplies the food, wrappers, to-go bags etc. As the store owner you just get a bigger cut of the profits from your store. Its the same with any franchise.

Not at all. Different companies structure their franchises differently.

To quote MCSpotlight.org:

The Franchise Agreement grants to the franchisee the right and
authorisation to operate a specific McDonald's restaurant,
usually for a period of 20 years. These rights include the use of
McDonald's trademarks, restaurant decor designs, signage and
equipment layout, the formula and specifications for menu items,
use of McDonald's method of operation, inventory control, book-
keeping, accounting and marketing and the right to occupy the
restaurant premises.

In return, the franchisee agrees to operate the business in
accordance with McDonald's standards of quality, service,
cleanliness and value. The franchisee is expected to become
involved in local civic and charitable activities. Training is a top
priority to ensure the uniformity of the operation and the
consistent quality of the staff.

Each franchisee has constant support through a McDonald's
consultant who is always available for help and advice, visiting
the restaurant on a regular basis, Training facilities are free and
available to the franchisees and their management teams.

Like I said, they OFFER it but do not REQUIRE it. Many franchise owners prefer to handle payroll on their own. Reasons include: privacy, efficiency, and productivity as a result of.

[Draven]

Beyond,

I already cited it the evening news on MSNBC, I can't link to what they say on TV. I never said they required it, I said they deal with it.

Also I'm quoting directly from your post;
"These rights include the use of
McDonald's trademarks, restaurant decor designs, signage and
equipment layout, the formula and specifications for menu items,
use of McDonald's method of operation, inventory control, book-
keeping, accounting and marketing and the right to occupy the
restaurant premises."

Note that as franchizee you have the right to USE;
1- McDonald's trademarks,
2- restaurant decor designs,
3- signage and
4- equipment layout,
5- the formula and specifications for menu items,
6- use of McDonald's method of operation,
7- inventory control,
8- book-keeping, accounting and marketing
8- and the right to occupy the restaurant premises.

''In return, the franchisee agrees to operate the business in
accordance with McDonald's standards of quality, service,
cleanliness and value. "

So lets get this straight you are required to operate at the McDonalds standard of service, quality, vlaue & cleanliness. What limitations exist on those standards? And in order to run a McDonalds (you don't own the business just the building) you must "use" the intellectual property of the McDonalds' corperation; so to USE the McDonalds sign and USE the McDonalds uniforms and to USE the McDonalds hambirger formula, fry formula or McFlurry formula you seem to also have to agree to USE the McDonalds inventory control, book-keeping and accounting services to McDonalds standards.

As for "use" you should have read the links I left on franchising; because buying into and "owning" a McDonalds resteraunt is not the same as owning the actual McDonalds buiness. You own the building and the equiptment not the business.

From: Ready to Commit? - Franchise License Agreement - Entrepreneur.com
When you execute a franchise agreement, you are not "buying" or taking any form of ownership in the franchise. Every franchise agreement contains specific clauses that make clear that all ownership rights to the brand, trademarks and proprietary business operating systems remain with the franchise company.

To the extent that you must make investments in personal or real property in association with the franchised business, you usually will own such property based on your investment. However, many franchise agreements also condition the ownership of such property by containing provisions that require the property be sold to the franchise company upon termination of the franchise agreement, often at its depreciated value.

News - McDonald's Says Bank of America Won't Boost...

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by Draven

News - McDonald's Says Bank of America Won't Boost...[/url]

I do not believe beyond is disputing the definition of a franchise. He only stated that its up to the store "owner" where to get extra funding from before and after the business is already up and running. The owner could have the payroll checks cut from the bank they are using, or have mcdonalds cut the checks and charge the location. The money will come from the same fund. That store locations profits.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by FerretBone

I do not believe beyond is disputing the definition of a franchise. He only stated that its up to the store "owner" where to get extra funding from before and after the business is already up and running. The owner could have the payroll checks cut from the bank they are using, or have mcdonalds cut the checks and charge the location. The money will come from the same fund. That store locations profits.

Ferret,

Beyond is disputing the word USE when you enter into a contract to USE something you are required by the contract to USE that contract substance. So by signing a contract to USE McDonalds book keeping, accounting services, etc. You are agreeing to use those services. I've already pointed this out and if his claim that McDonalds use private banks etc I want to see a source and not just an interpetation of the word "USE" which I already clairified as being a contract (agreement) to use said material. Its not that hard its basically a lease...

[CyberWar]

While taking a credit to invest in future is sometimes necessary, it is possible to work and live without such tool of rather devious nature. However, I would not take one unless absolutely necessary - a fluctuation in the economic situation can easily offset any gain, instead landing one in even deeper debt and possibly resulting in expropriation.

Most people could successfuly provide for themselves and their families without the use of banking system until mid-20th century, and most of them did not live in log cabins in the outback either.

[Beyond]

Originally Posted by Draven

Beyond is disputing the word USE when you enter into a contract to USE something you are required by the contract to USE that contract substance.

McDonald's doesn't require you to use them for HR, period. What part of that don't you get? Did you see the HR resources linked above for McDonald's franchise owners? They wouldn't exist if Papa Bear did it.

Some do, most don't.

Want some more links/proof?

Try here for a CPA firm that cites multiple McDonald's as clients, or this article which discusses a PEO that supports over 60 McDonald's, or how about this article that states McDonald's requires payroll to be factored into the startup costs (which must be furnished by the owner/operator).

Read this article about an owner of 8 McDonald's which offers his own custom benefits and payment options, both of which would violate your definition of "use" per McDonald's franchise agreement.

Here is a CPA firm in California that handles accounting related tasks for multiple McDonald's. Here again is a company that manufacturers accounting and payroll software for McDonald's franchise owners, which uploads payroll information to Horizon, who then issues the checks.

So by signing a contract to USE McDonalds book keeping, accounting services, etc. You are agreeing to use those services. I've already pointed this out and if his claim that McDonalds use private banks etc I want to see a source and not just an interpetation of the word "USE" which I already clairified as being a contract (agreement) to use said material. Its not that hard its basically a lease...

I've got 8 sources on this thread alone, get your head out of your ass and start reading them.

McDonald's does not require that franchise owners/operators use their accounting, payroll, or tax services.