Every now and then, I mosey on over to see what Wil Wheaton is up to. I know he's a Hollywood liberal, or as he puts it "progressive", but we share some of the same views, and he's definitely not 'in your face' about his opinions like some celebs. He also seems to respect other peoples views, and doesn't cry 'censorship' when people disagree with him. He seems to be somewhat pro-gun and anti-DMCA, but he's a little too 'green' for my tastes. He also uses a lot of words like 'neo-conservative' and seems to be quite anti-republican. In this particular post, he humorously talks about the recent wooing from the DNC, coming in the form of a survey. What really bothers me about the post, are his anti-corporate comments. (emphasis his)

There was also a section for comments, where I wrote: "To earn my vote, the Democrats need to offer strong, clear, different alternatives to the neoconservative agenda which is currenly (sic) driving White House policy. Democrats in Congress need to shun coporate (sic) money, and return to representing The American People, when the two interests collide.

Wasn't it Paramount Corporation that was popping out all those Star Trek shows and movies? And just what is so wrong with corporations any way? Corporations are people too.

Corporations don't have an income, hold assets, or pay taxes; people do. Corporate money is money that belongs to the shareholders. Taxes a corporation 'pays' are actually collected from customers in the form of higher prices, employees in the form of lower wages, or shareholders in the form of lower income and shareholder equity. In turn, a corporation's interests are the interests of all of those major stakeholders. What's good for a corporation is good for the customers, employees, and shareholders alike.

Commercial transactions are mutually beneficial. When Steve buys a computer, he does so because he wants a computer. The corporation, on the other hand, wants Steve's money. Both Steve and the corporation walk away from the transaction happy. Now I realize that not every transaction ends up being a happy one, as people do have returns, refunds, and need service after the sale. But from the outset, the transaction is mutually beneficial. Customer satisfaction is a different issue, that determines the longevity of a corporation. Only the government and government regulated monopolies are able to shirk customer satisfaction and not feel the economic impact. (Ok, and maybe Microsoft.)

Personally, I'm a little fed up with the demonization of corporations, as large uncaring behemoths, with overpaid, tyrannical CEOs. As a shareholder, I take it personally, and if you own individual stocks, mutual funds, or have a 401k, you probably should too.

UPDATE: Richard Tallent gives my article a pretty good fisking over on his website. I figure, I've spoken my peace, and he's spoken his, so I'm only going to respond to parts of his essay. Richard laments that he's "fed up with individual stockholders whose only metric for buying or selling is the share price, without consideration of that company's ability to do business in an ethical manner."

I cannot attest as to why Richard buys stock, but I buy stock to make money, not to feel like a better person. After the Worldcom scandal, Worldcom's stock plummeted to $0.06 a share, before rising back up to $0.25 a share before being delisted. Is a savvy investor unethical for taking advantage of the opportunity? Are people that invested in Napster guilty of violating ethics or laws relating to music sharing? I don't think so, but apparently the music companies do.

Richard mainly addresses the issue of corporate money in politics, which I never even ranted about. I'm just sick and tired of the anti-corporate attitude I'm hearing lately. As for corporate money in politics, I don't see where it's any different than union money or special interests. It just seems like people lobbying for a common interest to me.

He also touches on mandating controls on CEOs and executives, like tying CEO pay to employee pay. Actually, that's already been tried, and failed. Ben and Jerry's (the ice cream hippies) did that when they first opened up shop. What they found was that they could not attract top talent to run the company. They ultimately ended up raising the bar for executive pay, while leaving the ice cream scoopers far behind, and eventually, got rid of the ties altogether. Mandating an across the board pay ceiling would only serve to put American companies at even more of a handicap against international firms.