Why is wealth only "evil" when it comes from corporations?

[Australian rePublic]

Many musicians, movies and TV shows talk about how bad and evil rich corporates are, and why CEOs and bankers are really bad people, and why it's not fair for them to be so wealthy, and after reading this somewhere, it got me thinking. Is this hypocritical of them? Take for example, Mr. Burns on the Simpsons. Just because he is the CEO of a successful corporation they had to make him be the evil character. The Bruce Springsteen song "Jack of all trades" does nothing but critises bankers and banks, and keeps saying how it's bad that bankers are making money. Bruce Springsteen often sings about bankers making money. And I could name millions of examples, but I think you get my point. Is this hypocritcal? I mean, why exactly do musicians and writers hate wealthy people who made their wealth in business. The people in question are EXTREMELY wealthy, and yet they have the height to complain about how wealthy corporates are. Is this hypocritical of them? I think it is. I Think it's very hypocritical.

Furthermore, in the United States, when people were protesting that the top 1% earn more than the rest of the country, why were they only protesting at Wall Street in New York? Why weren't there any protestors in front of LA movie stdios or recording studios. They also rake it in! People say that CEOs should take a pay cut, well why don't they ever say the same about singers and actors? I mean singers can sing about how much they lkove socialism as much as they want, it's not going to stop them from cashing their 6 figure checks.

Anyway, NationStates, what's your take on this? Why is "wealth" only evil when it comes from corporations?

[Bakery Hill]

You don't know the true story of Mr Burns do you?

[MERIZoC]

Its me, the guy who thinks Mr. Burnes is the good guy

[Randsbeik]

Probably some sense of entitlement.

"It isn't fair that they can be successful!"

But other than that, I don't really know. Maybe some sense of rebelling against "the man."

[The Alexandrian Polis]

It isn't, they are simply the ones holding the most popularity. For example, when it comes to movie studios, only a minority knows where their movies are actually produced. I've had people ask me if Star Trek was a Disney show. Aside from that, almost all child-friendly cartoon movies are considered Disney even if they aren't.

Essentially, nobody knows what anybody actually does outside the major corporations.

[Australian rePublic]

You don't know the true story of Mr Burns do you?

Way to take my thread completely out of context by ignoring everythin writen in it, except for one example

[New haven america]

It isn't, they are simply the ones holding the most popularity. For example, when it comes to movie studios, only a minority knows where their movies are actually produced. I've had people ask me if Star Trek was a Disney show. Aside from that, almost all child-friendly cartoon movies are considered Disney even if they aren't.

Essentially, nobody knows what anybody actually does outside the major corporations.

... Why?

[Coconut Isle]

Anyway, NationStates, what's your take on this? Why is "wealth" only evil when it comes from corporations?

Because by and large the best way to bring large amounts of people and money together is through a corporation? You do know that all of the recording and movie studios you talked about before are owned by corporations themselves? It's the most efficient way of doing business. With large amounts of money and people, corporations have a lot of sway in governments and may propose policies which aren't in the public interest, which I guess is one reason why people don't like corporations. Another reason is that directors of corporations seem to have large bonuses no matter what they want they do (even when they get a severance package) and it feeds into that "we are the 99% thing".

[Ragusan North America]

It's not the wealth that's the point of contention, it's the political influence. Public figures like actors, musicians, athletes etc. are all personally wealthy, sure, but they don't normally have lobbies in government. Corporate lobbies are the ones bankrolling political campaigns, putting politicians in power who enact policies that are disastrous for the average person, which is why you see protests on Wall Street but not in Hollywood.

I wouldn't say there's anything inherently wrong with being wealthy off of one's own merits; but it is wrong to use your wealth to corrupt national institutions in order to further enrich yourself at everyone else's expense. This is why some people get a pass when others don't.

[Bakery Hill]

You don't know the true story of Mr Burns do you?

Way to take my thread completely out of context by ignoring everythin writen in it, except for one example

I'll tell you despite your hostility. By abusing his position in reconstructing post-war Europe, Montgomery Burns smuggled Nazi war criminals, in particular atomic scientists, into the United States in "diplomatic bags". One of those scientists was the half-son of a certain famed inventor, a Milan Tesla-Bogdanov, who during the war had collaborated with the Nazis in the field of quantum weapons. Now Burns brought him to the United States purely in the interests of profit, but upon receiving him in his Springfield mansion, Tesla-Bogdanov presented him with an extra-ordinary proposal: Fund the construction of a "Quantum Meta-Narrative Mainframe" and Burns could have as much money as he desired.

Burns did it, the fool.

Fast forward odd seventy years and we have Donald Trump as President of the United States, as it appeared on the Simpsons. Why? Because Tesla-Bogdanov's "Quantum Meta-Narrative Mainframe" allowed events from the Simpsons timeline, such as the Trump presidency to super impose upon our own. He's also allowed real Nazi Timecops to infiltrate our most important institutions. Again why? Because Tesla-Bogdanov isn't like Burns. He's an ideologue. A convinced Clerical Fascist who wants to destabilise modernity and recreate a twisted medieval vision of fascism in this timeline. And it was Burns who enabled him to do this.

That my friend, is why corporations are evil.

[USS Monitor]

Bruce Springsteen often sings about bankers making money.

Yeah, but he's Bruce Springsteen. It's awesome when he sings.

I mean, why exactly do musicians and writers hate wealthy people who made their wealth in business. The people in question are EXTREMELY wealthy, and yet they have the height to complain about how wealthy corporates are. Is this hypocritical of them? I think it is. I Think it's very hypocritical.

Furthermore, in the United States, when people were protesting that the top 1% earn more than the rest of the country, why were they only protesting at Wall Street in New York? Why weren't there any protestors in front of LA movie stdios or recording studios. They also rake it in! People say that CEOs should take a pay cut, well why don't they ever say the same about singers and actors? I mean singers can sing about how much they lkove socialism as much as they want, it's not going to stop them from cashing their 6 figure checks.

Anyway, NationStates, what's your take on this? Why is "wealth" only evil when it comes from corporations?

Entertainers and authors don't rely as heavily on the labor of others. They do rely some on roadies, editors, cameramen, etc. that earn more ordinary incomes, but there's a sense that making music or writing best-selling novels is less exploitative than running a corporation. Entertainers and authors are accountable in a way that CEOs aren't because if they are assholes to work with or they do shitty work, casting directors can stop giving them roles and editors can stop publishing their writing.

Of course not all CEOs are terrible people, but the ones who are, it's difficult to dislodge them from their position of wealth and power. And if really is a position of wealth and power. They have power over other people much more than entertainers or authors do. The power is a key part of what gets people riled up against them.

[Infected Mushroom]

Many musicians, movies and TV shows talk about how bad and evil rich corporates are, and why CEOs and bankers are really bad people, and why it's not fair for them to be so wealthy, and after reading this somewhere, it got me thinking. Is this hypocritical of them? Take for example, Mr. Burns on the Simpsons. Just because he is the CEO of a successful corporation they had to make him be the evil character. The Bruce Springsteen song "Jack of all trades" does nothing but critises bankers and banks, and keeps saying how it's bad that bankers are making money. Bruce Springsteen often sings about bankers making money. And I could name millions of examples, but I think you get my point. Is this hypocritcal? I mean, why exactly do musicians and writers hate wealthy people who made their wealth in business. The people in question are EXTREMELY wealthy, and yet they have the height to complain about how wealthy corporates are. Is this hypocritical of them? I think it is. I Think it's very hypocritical.

Furthermore, in the United States, when people were protesting that the top 1% earn more than the rest of the country, why were they only protesting at Wall Street in New York? Why weren't there any protestors in front of LA movie stdios or recording studios. They also rake it in! People say that CEOs should take a pay cut, well why don't they ever say the same about singers and actors? I mean singers can sing about how much they lkove socialism as much as they want, it's not going to stop them from cashing their 6 figure checks.

Anyway, NationStates, what's your take on this? Why is "wealth" only evil when it comes from corporations?

In my view its justified because artists are under appreciated and under compensated pillars of society. They enrich our lives and so I have no issue with LA's studios. Many of them are truly talented and work very hard to create work that enrich both themselves, us, and society as a whole culturally and artistically.

Corporates leaders and bankers on Wall Street on the other hand, have manipulated the people for far too long. They not only lead unhealthy money obsessed existences but they also seek to directly/indirectly enforce it on the rest of us. All these self-important people in their suits and ties, talking about "serious" financial issues. They are the driving force behind the myth of the American Dream and the outrageous expectations for everyone "serious" to work overtime, come in on the weekends, and lead miserable entertainment-starved lives with little free time. At the end of the day they are responsible for much of the world's misery. They take, demand, and control us and honestly give us very little in return. Society could probably do with less people doing that stuff. And quite honestly, many of their top leaders are worse than the Mafia but because they are such leaders and wield such economic power, they will never see justice.

[Risottia]

Anyone thinking that Bruce Springsteen is "rich" in the same way Lockheed is "rich" needs to learn a thing or two about quantities and orders of magnitude, sharpish.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Many musicians, movies and TV shows talk about how bad and evil rich corporates are, and why CEOs and bankers are really bad people, and why it's not fair for them to be so wealthy, and after reading this somewhere, it got me thinking. Is this hypocritical of them? Take for example, Mr. Burns on the Simpsons. Just because he is the CEO of a successful corporation they had to make him be the evil character. The Bruce Springsteen song "Jack of all trades" does nothing but critises bankers and banks, and keeps saying how it's bad that bankers are making money. Bruce Springsteen often sings about bankers making money. And I could name millions of examples, but I think you get my point. Is this hypocritcal? I mean, why exactly do musicians and writers hate wealthy people who made their wealth in business. The people in question are EXTREMELY wealthy, and yet they have the height to complain about how wealthy corporates are. Is this hypocritical of them? I think it is. I Think it's very hypocritical.

Furthermore, in the United States, when people were protesting that the top 1% earn more than the rest of the country, why were they only protesting at Wall Street in New York? Why weren't there any protestors in front of LA movie stdios or recording studios. They also rake it in! People say that CEOs should take a pay cut, well why don't they ever say the same about singers and actors? I mean singers can sing about how much they lkove socialism as much as they want, it's not going to stop them from cashing their 6 figure checks.

Anyway, NationStates, what's your take on this? Why is "wealth" only evil when it comes from corporations?

As you kind of said yourself, those saying and complaining like that in public media, and the internet are wealthy $ too. They are mostly liberal democrat-s leftists. I find it ironic, that most leftist Celebrities who praise the Castro Brothers of Cuba Fidel and Raúl Castro Ruz, would loose their wealth $, properties, mansions and investments $ under their government. Especially if they dare disagree with anything against their government or them personally, and y I mean on anything at all.

[The Alma Mater]

It goes even further. "Bigpharma" are evil corporations, that secretly want to keep you sick so that you keep needing their product - while the people who produce "alternative medicine" are sweet and kind.

Despite being megacorporations making billions as well.

Odd how the human mind works.

[Delator]

Why is "wealth" only evil when it comes from corporations?

Why is "organization" only evil when it is done by Labor?

[Giovenith]

It isn't that wealth is automatically evil when it comes from corporations, it's that corporations in their current form have garnered a reputation for being evil with wealth. It's something of a stereotype (though perhaps a well-earned one), the typical human thought process of, "I often see entity do X, therefore, doing X is an inherent property of that entity's nature."

There is a fierce debate to be had about whether or not corporations can exist without committing evil, and this debate is arguably the mother of the capitalist/communist feud, but it can't be said that this outlook on the evil of corporations was merely pulled out of people's asses. Big companies have been responsible for no small amount of heinous shit in their relatively short existence. They've also been responsible for a lot of good things. The question is really whether or not those good things make up for the bad, how much as we willing to let them fuck up in exchange for the latest smartphone. There is no easy answer to that, but the question is, I think, the most pressing one of our generation.

[Calladan]

Many musicians, movies and TV shows talk about how bad and evil rich corporates are, and why CEOs and bankers are really bad people, and why it's not fair for them to be so wealthy, and after reading this somewhere, it got me thinking. Is this hypocritical of them? Take for example, Mr. Burns on the Simpsons. Just because he is the CEO of a successful corporation they had to make him be the evil character. The Bruce Springsteen song "Jack of all trades" does nothing but critises bankers and banks, and keeps saying how it's bad that bankers are making money. Bruce Springsteen often sings about bankers making money. And I could name millions of examples, but I think you get my point. Is this hypocritcal? I mean, why exactly do musicians and writers hate wealthy people who made their wealth in business. The people in question are EXTREMELY wealthy, and yet they have the height to complain about how wealthy corporates are. Is this hypocritical of them? I think it is. I Think it's very hypocritical.

Furthermore, in the United States, when people were protesting that the top 1% earn more than the rest of the country, why were they only protesting at Wall Street in New York? Why weren't there any protestors in front of LA movie stdios or recording studios. They also rake it in! People say that CEOs should take a pay cut, well why don't they ever say the same about singers and actors? I mean singers can sing about how much they lkove socialism as much as they want, it's not going to stop them from cashing their 6 figure checks.

Anyway, NationStates, what's your take on this? Why is "wealth" only evil when it comes from corporations?

I think if you look at the amount of money The Catholic Church has (or indeed almost ANY church) you'll find another source of wealth that is evil. If they took 5% of the money they have tied up in buildings, land, gold fittings for their churches, and put it towards what the true mission of the church is supposed to be - helping those in need, feeding the poor, healing the sick - then this world would be an infinitely better place.

Vatican City is, for me, a place far more corrupt and evil than Las Vegas could ever manage to be, simply because it is supposed to be the home of the most spiritual man on earth. At least the people in Vegas do not pretend to be good.

[Constantinopolis]

"Wealth" isn't evil. Exploitation of the working class is evil. And most people who oppose corporations are at least vaguely aware that there's some sort of difference between a rich banker and a rich actor, even when they're not really able to explain what the difference is.

The difference is this: A rich banker or corporate CEO is actively exploiting people, actively enriching himself off the labour of others. He is an active and willing participant in the injustice of capitalism. Meanwhile, a rich actor or musician is merely a passive recipient of the benefits of capitalist injustice. He simply got lucky.

Think of it this way: It's like the difference between someone who runs a casino, and someone who went to play at the casino and got lucky. Both of them have wealth that they did not work for and that they do not deserve. But the owner of the casino is actively running a scam (because all gambling is ultimately a scam), while the lucky player just happened to be at the right time in the right place.

[Holy Marsh]

I think the general thought process is that the wealth of a corporation, especially in modern times, is rarely used to improve lives but rather to propagate the creation of more wealth. So the billions a corporation has are essentially tied up in the process of ensuring it can make more wealth, instead of doing something more morally worthwhile. I'm not saying I agree with this line of thought, but I believe that is at the very least a fair summary of what I believe to be legitimate talking point from that camp.

[Constantinopolis]

And as for wealthy celebrities speaking against capitalism: It's perfectly legitimate for the lucky player who won a lot of money in that casino to later realize that casinos are a bad thing, and speak against them.

[Pope Joan]

Corporations are where the wealth tends to clot together these days, but america's history of "robber barons" should show us just how personal and individual evil wealth can be, and (mis)behave.

I come from the home town of muckraker Ida Tarbell. Her venom was not aimed at Standard Oil; it was all devoted to John D. Rockefeller.

[Philjia]

Because it's difficult for corporations to rise to the top without doing a lot of dubious things, and when the house of cards collapses, lots of people who didn't do anything wrong also get hurt.

[Australian rePublic]

Bruce Springsteen often sings about bankers making money.

Yeah, but he's Bruce Springsteen. It's awesome when he sings.

The Truth has been spoken!

I mean, why exactly do musicians and writers hate wealthy people who made their wealth in business. The people in question are EXTREMELY wealthy, and yet they have the height to complain about how wealthy corporates are. Is this hypocritical of them? I think it is. I Think it's very hypocritical.

Furthermore, in the United States, when people were protesting that the top 1% earn more than the rest of the country, why were they only protesting at Wall Street in New York? Why weren't there any protestors in front of LA movie stdios or recording studios. They also rake it in! People say that CEOs should take a pay cut, well why don't they ever say the same about singers and actors? I mean singers can sing about how much they lkove socialism as much as they want, it's not going to stop them from cashing their 6 figure checks.

Anyway, NationStates, what's your take on this? Why is "wealth" only evil when it comes from corporations?

Entertainers and authors don't rely as heavily on the labor of others. They do rely some on roadies, editors, cameramen, etc. that earn more ordinary incomes, but there's a sense that making music or writing best-selling novels is less exploitative than running a corporation. Entertainers and authors are accountable in a way that CEOs aren't because if they are assholes to work with or they do shitty work, casting directors can stop giving them roles and editors can stop publishing their writing.

I don't see too many CDs and booble heads which aren't made in a Chinese sweatshop

Of course not all CEOs are terrible people, but the ones who are, it's difficult to dislodge them from their position of wealth and power. And if really is a position of wealth and power. They have power over other people much more than entertainers or authors do. The power is a key part of what gets people riled up against them.

[/quote]
Then why are all CEOs hated? All of the complaints about CEOs that I've heard are about wealth. "Look at him, he owns this many houses""look at him, he owns this many houses". The exact same thing can be said about any celebrity, but it's not. You could argue about donating money to charity, and many CEOs do (some without recieving credit). I'm not going to argue that there aren't arsehole CEOs, there are, but there are arseholes everywhere. EVERYWHERE and not everyone abuses their poower

[Forsher]

Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
You play the guitar on the MTV
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Money for nothin' and chicks for free
Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it

It's an old song and it's not necessarily suggesting such wealth sources are evil, but... I'm not convinced your major point holds.

It must also be said that with the exception of the likes of Lorde, most musicians and artists don't tend to come from privileged backgrounds whereas the whole evil banker thing is definitely tied to school ties and silver spoons... because a lot of it is like entitlement.

Let's talk about John Key. He's a wealthy person (a multi-millionaire). He was a currency trader and earnt the nickname "smiling assassin" in his business career. As PM he's a lot better known as Teflon John, so we must admit there's something special about smile and wave Key but he's cult of personality popular... despite being a "banker" and having entered politics with a reputation for laying off a lot of people. Mitigating circumstances? He started off at the bottom. This may explain why his son Max Key* is much less popular.

I also think celebrities tend to come across as friends whereas bankers and whatnot are in charge of your actual money.

*There's a cell phone company here called 2 Degrees who used to talk about two degrees of separation. I have a mutual friend with Max Key on Facebook. See? It's true. (He also knows Barack Obama, there's a suggestion John Key resigned because he would no longer be able to play golf with the US president with the whole term limit bull, so I can confirm I am six degrees of separation or less from many major world leaders.)