You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Rich Dad, Poor Dad Book Club (Chapter 4)
the other thing that corporations do is shield you from risk, and because of that they allow people to do things they would not otherwise be able to do. That is good for them and for the economy. It would suck to go into business and fail and then lose your personal house or assets. So fewer people would do so. Also I don't know what the outcome is but a fellow in California travels with his corporation in the passenger seat so he can ride in the HOV lane under the theory that corporations are people.
That’s a good insight into what corporations can do for you (the risk part). Thanks.
As for the corporations are people law, I’ve never really liked that, but flying next to your corporation is an interesting way to take advantage of it.
last I heard he has not gotten a ticket in order to test his theory in court. Most of what you hear about the citizens united case is very misleading. It was a case about whether or not you should be allowed to advertise a movie called "Hillary: The Movie" it should be pretty obvious that you should be able to advertise that movie in a free country. That's why they want to repeal the first amendment, so people can't advertise movies about Hillary Clinton.
I don’t know anything about that case other than its name.
That's intentional, media and politicians always lie about it, you could hear NPR commentators discuss it 100 times and not one of them will ever mention that the case was about a movie and I can't imagine they have ever allowed the title of the movie to be mentioned. But if you ask people who oppose Citizens United and call for the first amendment's repeal if they made a movie called "Trump: the movie" should they be allowed to advertise it they all say "yes".
Now I’ve got to check this out. That name is rattling around in my head and I can’t quite figure out what I associate it with, but it definitely isn’t a movie about Hillary.
they typically blather about it making corporations people but if the law it overturned had been allowed to stand then the only folks who would have any free speech would be those who owned media outlets. They would be able to broadcast their political messages 24/7 and others would not even be able to buy airtime. The Wikipedia article is pretty good.
That’s where I know it from. Ok. I should have some time to read about it this afternoon.
The best source is reading the court's decision directly. It is not very long.