NationStates Jolt Archive

recently... a documentary called 'The Corporation' has brought to light a view of the corporation as an inevitable psychopath... the bottom line being profit before all else.... a study was recently done that proved that... in the financial world success is achieved by taking calculated risks... and since emotional people in general hesitate to take any risk... an advantage, or even a necessity for financial success lies in either being psychopathic... or in being able to remove all emotion/morality from financial decisions....

... just look at Walmart... they make 280 billion dollars... yet they cant afford to treat their employees with a minumum dignity afforded to even say.. MacDonalds employees... [just look at best/worst places to work in America studies]...

This is why capitalism and the trickle-down effect, though still popular even after massive failure in the Mulrouney-Regan-Thatcher era... DO NOT AND CAN NOT EVER WORK!!!
:headbang:
:fluffle: :mp5:
:rolleyes: :sniper:

This is why capitalism and the trickle-down effect, though still popular even after massive failure in the Mulrouney-Regan-Thatcher era... DO NOT AND CAN NOT EVER WORK!!!
It was working pretty fucking well until Johnson's Great Society and the general nanny state were put into place.

This is why capitalism and the trickle-down effect, though still popular even after massive failure in the Mulrouney-Regan-Thatcher era... DO NOT AND CAN NOT EVER WORK!!!

That's funny, considering the era your alluded did not utlilize a free-market capitalistic system. Furthermore, we were in a Cold War and defecit spending negatively impacted our economic situation. The trickle down effect does work though. The standard of living continues to rise in the U.S. (wages increase steadily), as well as in the world. The whole "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" philosophy is bullshit. Yes the rich get richer, and a lot richer than the poor. However the poor are gradually getting richer too. What we need is the government to stop screwing around with the economy. No tariffs, corporate welfare and inflationary spending. This fucking defecit the U.S. has accrued isn't helping either.

recently... a documentary called 'The Corporation' has brought to light a view of the corporation as an inevitable psychopath

Brilliant. A 'documentary' portraying an anti-business view. "Educational" I suppose it was too.

... the bottom line being profit before all else....

That's because a corporation is an organization to make profit. Duh. Kind of like how a military is an organization designed to destroy militaries. Kind of like how a charity is an organization designed to give to people. Does that mean a military is a homicidal maniac, a charity is a selfless saint? No. They are organizations.

a study was recently done that proved that... in the financial world success is achieved by taking calculated risks... and since emotional people in general hesitate to take any risk... an advantage, or even a necessity for financial success lies in either being psychopathic... or in being able to remove all emotion/morality from financial decisions....

Oh a "study" "proved" that, did it? Sounds scientific-like.

Not.

WTF is this "emotional people in general hesitate to take any risk?" So risk-takers are psychopaths? And I guess no one ever took a risk for, you know, love or fear. And hey, maybe gamblers are psychopaths too. Wait no, this conclusion is retarded.


... just look at Walmart... they make 280 billion dollars... yet they cant afford to treat their employees with a minumum dignity afforded to even say.. MacDonalds employees... [just look at best/worst places to work in America studies]...

Big deal. There are 1.7 million employees at Walmart. If they don't like it, they can work elsewhere. You want me to feel sorry for these people because they choose to work at a place where you don't think they are afforded "dignity?"


This is why capitalism and the trickle-down effect, though still popular even after massive failure in the Mulrouney-Regan-Thatcher era... DO NOT AND CAN NOT EVER WORK!!!
:headbang:
:fluffle: :mp5:
:rolleyes: :sniper:

Yeah I like the emoticons, they really show you're argument to be pure unvarnished truth. Capitalism doesn't work, because Walmart doesn't afford it's employees, in your opinion, "minimum dignity." That makes lots of sense. About as much sense as attributing psychological diagnoses to an organization.

Before the libertarians jump on this, Milton Friedman described the documentary as "surprisingly sane", or maybe it was "surprisingly rational". I haven't seen it myself but I plan to, and I'd suggest you at least watch it before criticising...

The directors of publically held corporations have a legal duty to appoint managers that will ensure the maximum rate of return on the stockholders capital. If they do not do this, they may face litigation for failing to exercise due dillegence and the rest.

In practice there is considerable leeway, what with the business judgement rule, and the rest. But there it is, they are in fact legally obligated to care only about profit. Everything else is secondary.

Before the libertarians jump on this, Milton Friedman described the documentary as "surprisingly sane", or maybe it was "surprisingly rational". I haven't seen it myself but I plan to, and I'd suggest you at least watch it before criticising...

Anyway, corporations violate the assumptions behind the free market by being large enough that an individual company can influence prices, as a free market should be comprised of small businesses. Adam Smith warned against excessively large companies.

The directors of publically held corporations have a legal duty to appoint managers that will ensure the maximum rate of return on the stockholders capital. If they do not do this, they may face litigation for failing to exercise due dillegence u.s.w.

In practice there is considerable leeway, what with the business judgement rule, and the rest. But there it is, they are in fact legally obligated to care only about profit. Everything else is secondary.

It was working pretty fucking well until Johnson's Great Society and the general nanny state were put into place.


Damn. There goes my pledge to stop posting on these kind of threads. I think you need to read a history book. Johnson's Great Society came before Reagan's Trickle-down economics.

Well I don't doubt that such a radical statement would be met with resistance.

But really, the documentary is quite good. It's obviously balanced against corporations, but there is much more to it than protest slogans.

Before the libertarians jump on this, Milton Friedman described the documentary as "surprisingly sane", or maybe it was "surprisingly rational". I haven't seen it myself but I plan to, and I'd suggest you at least watch it before criticising...

I'm criticizing this post. Frankly I don't care what Milton Friedman says, the documentary *may* be 'sane,' but this nonsense argument about 'psychopaths' is not deserving of praise.

I'm criticizing this post. Frankly I don't care what Milton Friedman says, the documentary *may* be 'sane,' but this nonsense argument about 'psychopaths' is not deserving of praise.

Fair enough. There's a lot more to the argument that corporations resemble clinical psychopaths than what's in this post.

I'm criticizing this post. Frankly I don't care what Milton Friedman says, the documentary *may* be 'sane,' but this nonsense argument about 'psychopaths' is not deserving of praise.

But the post is about the movie, and the movie does demostrate how corporations can be diagnosed as sociopaths by the technical definition of the term.

Now, you can deny the documentaries arguements by attacking their evidence, but you really have to watch it first.

But the post is about the movie, and the movie does demostrate how corporations can be diagnosed as sociopaths by the technical definition of the term.

Now, you can deny the documentaries arguements by attacking their evidence, but you really have to watch it first.

The post says the documentary "proves" it, not demonstrates, and the conclusion is that is why capitalism doesn't work. That's what I disagree with, and I don't need to watch whatever bunk this video is to disagree with that.

A corporation can be diagnosed as a sociopath? Yeah OK, if you accept that any other organization can as well, due to something called groupthink. It's a pointless "diagnosis" that really - given this context - seems only used as a method of demonizing the enemy for the purposes of anticapitalism.

And it's not like I haven't heard the "corporations are psychos" argument before either.

You know, as much as I'd love to just tear right into this guy, I don't think I will. My head hurts enough after trying to read all of that anyway, and I generally don't waste my time with people who emote the shit out of their posts, so it's all good.

I would, however, like to point out that Milton Friedman can, under certain circumstances, kiss my hairy white ass. I'm not prepared to take his word on this 'documentary' until I see it for myself, whether you'd call me a libertarian or not.

You know, as much as I'd love to just tear right into this guy, I don't think I will. My head hurts enough after trying to read all of that anyway, and I generally don't waste my time with people who emote the shit out of their posts, so it's all good.

I would, however, like to point out that Milton Friedman can, under certain circumstances, kiss my hairy white ass. I'm not prepared to take his word on this 'documentary' until I see it for myself, whether you'd call me a libertarian or not.
To be fair, that all he was asking for.

Well, I'm not exactly thrilled with the implication that pointing out Milton Friedman's opinions on the film would somehow steal "our" [since I'm not exactly a Libertarian] thunder or make us unwilling or unable to respond legitimately. Just wanted to clear that up, I guess.

I wish someone would make a documentary about the psychological nature of government. Government's financial basis is thievery (taxation), and it regularly engages is killing (warfare, abortion, capital punishment). In some cases, these actions might be justified, but surely people ought to be more worried about the fact that a government has the right to do these things than that a corporation is legally treated as a person. If corporations are evil because they encourage risk-taking, aren't governments much more evil because they plunder and kill?

...In some cases, these actions might be justified, but surely people ought to be more worried about the fact that a government has the right ...
In a proper society, the government does not have rights: problems arise when it acts under the assumption that it does. The opposite of acting by right is acting by consent--which the government should seek from the populace when dealing with almost any far-reaching domestic policy.

In short, Governments only act by "right" when they're utterly illegitimate.

The post says the documentary "proves" it, not demonstrates, and the conclusion is that is why capitalism doesn't work. That's what I disagree with, and I don't need to watch whatever bunk this video is to disagree with that.

OK, so the OP might be a bit zealous (it really is a good flick). Still though, the documentary doesn't really seek to reach the conclusion that corporations are in fact nut-jobs. Instead, it uses the technical definition of a sociopath as an outline of the points it makes. At the end, I don't think the message is "Corporations are insane" so much as "Corporations have problems that we don't tolerate in other individuals".

There are about three CEOs that were interviewed that really stick out. One had changed his outlook and began to seek profits within the limits of sustainable growth. The other, I believe it was the CEO of Shell or BP-Amoco, was shown sitting down with enviromentalist protestors outside his modest home. They calmly exchanged views during a long discussion. Although he hadn't changed much, we see him in a positive light as he is concerned but somewhat powerless to affect the way the corporation he runs does business. The last CEO (of Nike) was painted quite poorly, but then again all the footage was taken from a Moore documentary.

It is, of course, a critical documentary. But it is fairly balanced, and provides views from both sides. The question it's asking is do we want our corporations to be run this way? I think that's a very fair question.

A corporation can be diagnosed as a sociopath? Yeah OK, if you accept that any other organization can as well, due to something called groupthink.QUOTE]

Except that I don't think other organizations qualify for legal personhood. The theme of the movie is, 'OK, corporations are people. What kind of people are they?'

[QUOTE] It's a pointless "diagnosis" that really - given this context - seems only used as a method of demonizing the enemy for the purposes of anticapitalism.[/

Demonize? No quite the opposite in fact, it actually humanizes that infamous villain the CEO.

Also, I don't remember the movie perfectly but I don't think at any point it criticized capitalism as a whole and proposed another system. The critique was launched specifically at the legal construction and modern operation of corporations.

Honestly, it's a good documentary and worth a rental if you have a night to spare. It is hard-edged, and you most likely will disagree with the conclusions. But still, it's best to take down your defenses once in a while and take in what the other side has to say. If I hadn't done that in college I would still be a communist or socialist today.

OK, so the OP might be a bit zealous (it really is a good flick). Still though, the documentary doesn't really seek to reach the conclusion that corporations are in fact nut-jobs. Instead, it uses the technical definition of a sociopath as an outline of the points it makes. At the end, I don't think the message is "Corporations are insane" so much as "Corporations have problems that we don't tolerate in other individuals".

Well that's not a very useful message IMO. Most individuals don't have brand names, a marketing department, a finances department, executives, managers, employees and a logistics train. All you are pointing out is that a corporation is not an individual human being. Different problems, different function, different form.


Except that I don't think other organizations qualify for legal personhood. The theme of the movie is, 'OK, corporations are people. What kind of people are they?'

Corporations are not "persons" beyond a legal sense. The movie is confusing legality with reality here, just as if I said that OJ Simpson was innocent because he was "not guilty." He's not innocent in a conventional sense, nor a legal one, though he is semantically.


Also, I don't remember the movie perfectly but I don't think at any point it criticized capitalism as a whole and proposed another system. The critique was launched specifically at the legal construction and modern operation of corporations.

Alright, but the original post does, and people use this video to promote their anticapitalist views.

There are many views of management in business, the problem I have is when people assume (as many do) that all corporations are run the same way, that all are large, that all are... 'sociopathic.'

Honestly, it's a good documentary and worth a rental if you have a night to spare. It is hard-edged, and you most likely will disagree with the conclusions. But still, it's best to take down your defenses once in a while and take in what the other side has to say. If I hadn't done that in college I would still be a communist or socialist today.

I've probably already seen it. It sounds vaguely familiar.

That's true, in reality corporations aren't people. But if they are legally defined as such, and thereby gain the legal protections any person would, then shouldn't they have the same responcibilities? If corporations are sociopathic then shouldn't something be done about it?

There are many views of management in business, the problem I have is when people assume (as many do) that all corporations are run the same way, that all are large, that all are... 'sociopathic.'

That's an excellent point. The documentary is far too general and would have us believe that all corporations are sociopaths when their critique focuses exclusively on MNCs. The documentary should have gone one step farther and demonstrated what, other than the basic construction of corporations, leads them to act in a sociopathic way. Even simply suggesting that they need to reach a certain critical mass of wealth and global reach would have been an improvement.

In a proper society, the government does not have rights: problems arise when it acts under the assumption that it does. The opposite of acting by right is acting by consent--which the government should seek from the populace when dealing with almost any far-reaching domestic policy.

In short, Governments only act by "right" when they're utterly illegitimate.

Agreed, but the government usually writes its laws so that it is still allowed to steal and kill, and I was using the term "rights" to mean what one is allowed to do according to the law. I guess I should have used a term like "legal privileges" rather than "rights".

That's true, in reality corporations aren't people. But if they are legally defined as such, and thereby gain the legal protections any person would, then shouldn't they have the same responcibilities? If corporations are sociopathic then shouldn't something be done about it?

But they don't have the same legal protections. A corporation doesn't get any rights, right to vote, bear arms etc. They aren't defined legally as people, otherwise they'd be counted in the census.

All a corporation really does is make sure the owners do not get sued for every little thing the corporation does, which is what happens if you're a sole proprietorship or partnership. This is important as there is no real way you can hold the CEO of a multi-million employee company personally responsible if Bob the retail clerk happens to masturbate a lot at work.

And as I said, all organizations are 'sociopathic' if you like that term; an organization itself can't have it's own mind, or soul, or personality, and all organizations are functional. The fact that governments, like corporations, are sociopathic by nature is more alarming, considering how many people have been killed by governments this past century.

That's true, in reality corporations aren't people. But if they are legally defined as such, and thereby gain the legal protections any person would, then shouldn't they have the same responcibilities? If corporations are sociopathic then shouldn't something be done about it?


Some research suggests that sociopaths comprise a significant percentage of the population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder). Since these people are afforded the same rights as everyone else, why should corporations be denied those rights because they are (allegedly) sociopathic?

But they don't have the same legal protections. A corporation doesn't get any rights, right to vote, bear arms etc. They aren't defined legally as people, otherwise they'd be counted in the census.

Not the same, but similar. Corporations can donate funds to politicians, they can hire out or themselves provide armed guards, etc. These distinctions are where the law meets reality, but given the plethora of suits by corporations asking the courrts for 14th Amendment protection, I think it is well established that for the purposes of the law corporations are people.

And as I said, all organizations are 'sociopathic' if you like that term; an organization itself can't have it's own mind, or soul, or personality, and all organizations are functional.

Well, the documentary certainly didn't use that criteria for sociopathic. So for the purposes of this discussion, no other organizations can be called sociopaths either because they are not defined as legal persons or they do not fit the criteria of a sociopath or both.

Some research suggests that sociopaths comprise a significant percentage of the population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiso...ality_disorder). Since these people are afforded the same rights as everyone else, why should corporations be denied those rights because they are (allegedly) sociopathic?

But there are a differences. Sociopaths usually do not have the political and economic power of corporations. Sociopaths aren't nearly immortal. No one sociopath has (possibly) harmed millions worldwide.

Anyway, it's very late for me over here so I am off to bed. I will make a note to check this post in the morning.

Some people seem to be confusing an anti-corporate stance with an anti-capitalist stance. The two can coincide, to be sure, but this is not a given, or necessary. I myself am more or less fine with capitalism...only the smallest and most agrarian of societies can handle a non-capitalist economy with any degree of success/ comfort, I think. (Or a society which has developed as such from a very early stage, and has not been exposed to anything else, and which has little desire to grow or expand beyond its capabilites and resources. Ah, Utopia.)

But I am very anti-corporate. Corporations exist to seperate their human agents from the risk inherent in doing business. And yet, these corporations have all of the rights as an actual person, despite that legal seperation from their human components. That doesn't make much sense to me. I say, if we must have corporations (and to support or current system of global trade, then we must...) then we should at least make them accountable for their actions. By that, I mean we should hold accountable not only the people running the ship, but the ship's stockholders as well. If you don't have faith that the company you want to invest in is running things legally as well as profitably, then DON'T INVEST. Would this lead to less capital available to the market? In the short term, yes. But eventually, we would see a rise in ethical as well as financial performance, and investor confidence would again increase...there would possibly be smaller market gains, slower growth, but this would be off set by increased market stability and consumer confidence. Give me slow and steady gains over quick spikes and falls, any day.

Of course, I'd also enjoy seeing CEO salary caps and required profit sharing for ALL employees, and I would absolutely love for it to be a crime for board members to approve themselves raises in the midst of mass layoffs. Also, no more golden parachutes...executive failure should be rewarded the same as non-executive failure...a kick to the butt on your way out the door, and nothing else. Your trillion dollar severance package can be better used to rosy up our fourth quarter earnings statement, thanks very much.

Or maybe my biggest beef is with publicly held companies. I think that if a company goes public, then that should open them up to heavy regulation. If you have the cojones and the resources to stay private, then maybe you should be rewarded with fewer regulations. (and if you are content enough to remain a normal private citizen, just living your life in this crazy world, then the absolute bare minimum of gov't involvement would be much appreciated, yes?)

And a note for those of you who insist that wages have been growing like weeds over the past twenty years or so...inflation and (especially now) rising energy costs have wiped out wage increases for most workers, accepting highly skilled workers. Many workers, especially lesser skilled workers (and teachers, even those with advanced degrees) are actually making less money now than they were ten to twenty years ago. Again, this is adjusted for inflation. Just because our cars and tv's keep getting bigger, doesn't mean our standard of living is improving to any great extent. Also, be aware that debt levels have risen, while savings have fallen. I'm not doomsaying, but I am certainly looking on my wallet with a keen and frugal eye.

My slogan for the day: Down with the Corporate Regime! Up with Mom & Pop! (and may they rise or fall on their own merits!)

And yet, these corporations have all of the rights as an actual person,

No, no they don't. This keeps getting brought up and it's just not true.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/corprights.html

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/corprightsdebate.html (for both sides of the debate)

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/ToPRaP.html (interesting timeline)

No, corporations do NOT have ALL the rights of a person. They do not have any right to vote, they cannot marry and file their taxes jointly, they cannot bear arms or enlist to go fight in the war...lacking a physical manifestation that would give them such rights. That may well be remedied at some point, who can say? My beef is that they are recognized as people under the due process clause of the 14th amendment, specifically, and that such an interpretation has broad effects. For instance, Wal-Mart being allowed to introduce a ballot initiative in California. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/walmart_california_ballot_initiative.html

Corporations have also claimed protection under other amendments as well.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2003/09/08/daily54.html Luckily, they aren't yet fully considered as people.

Corporations are not people, and should not be recognized as people. Rather, the people running the corporations, and investing in them, should be held responsible for their actions.


And, just for kicks...
http://www.fecinfo.com/

In a proper society, the government does not have rights: problems arise when it acts under the assumption that it does. The opposite of acting by right is acting by consent--which the government should seek from the populace when dealing with almost any far-reaching domestic policy.

In short, Governments only act by "right" when they're utterly illegitimate.

I absolutely agree. Government is an artificial, and some argue practical, entity that only exists ideally to protect liberty. Since the government doesn't actually exist in any concrete sense, it amounts to nothing more than a collection of individuals who initiate force on other individuals. If private citizens can't violate each other's rights, then it makes no sense to me that the government, which is only an official grouping of people, can. Governments should only be created through consent and only operate through consent.

You are aware that there are nonprofit corporations, right?

recently... a documentary called 'The Corporation' has brought to light a view of the corporation as an inevitable psychopath... the bottom line being profit before all else.... a study was recently done that proved that... in the financial world success is achieved by taking calculated risks... and since emotional people in general hesitate to take any risk... an advantage, or even a necessity for financial success lies in either being psychopathic... or in being able to remove all emotion/morality from financial decisions....



Id also like to point out, the FDA is also a corperation by this guide line

By classifing anything designed to Cure/Prevent/treat any Clasified Desease as a drug gives them to power to do as they please.

I myself am Bi-Polar and ADD, and was Diagnosed as such before they were "Taged" as Diseases (At that time they were disorders, that donot require a "Drug" to treat but there were shure alot out there.)

Their statment on caner is to change it from a termal illness to a Mangable (Controllable) illness instead of iradicating it complatly as they did small pox(witch im shure their still kicking themselves over) is Barbaric.
Obesity is now a Desease! The abilty to arbitraily clasify conditions as Desease removes the presence of any oposition.

What happend to Eating right and exersising. now you have to Pop a Perscription pill. its now "Manageable"

I also saw that the FDA once tryed to clasify Vitaman suplents as Drugs so they could make bank off them too.

I just thought that should also be consitered, when you say corperation people think Microsoft and Albertsons. Most wouldnt think FDA (Food and Drug Association)

Edit-

You are aware that there are nonprofit corporations, right?
While this is true, the corperation in the statement "Not for Profite Coperation" realy is to convey that they are well orginized and not just scaming you out of your money.
a good example is the Red Cross, while they have many NFP donation they also have Hospitals where you have to Pay to be treated, while its very diffrent than say a 100% NPO its still an example when you consiter how FOR profit the FDA Is

I dont like me them FDA.

Sure...and there are corporations with strong environmental policies, and corporations consisting of one or two locals operating out of their bedroom, etc...

Such entities don't seem eager, able, or willing to pursue their status as persons, as defined by law...and as such, stripping them of such a "right" would hardly affect them, in my view.

You are aware that there are nonprofit corporations, right?

That's a very different animal to a publicly held corporation though.

While this is true, the corperation in the statement "Not for Profite Coperation" realy is to convey that they are well orginized and not just scaming you out of your money.
a good example is the Red Cross, while they have many NFP donation they also have Hospitals where you have to Pay to be treated, while its very diffrent than say a 100% NPO its still an example when you consiter how FOR profit the FDA Is

I dont like me them FDA.

That is incorrect. Non profit means that the goal of the corporation is not to make a profit. The owners get paid a salary based on their function, the amount of money they make is not dependent on the amount of money the corporation makes. In your Red Cross example what you fail to mention is that regardless of how much money that hospital makes, the owners will still be paid the same amount, therefore the money is reinvested in the hospital rather than going into anyone's pockets. It isnt in the selfish interest of the owners to make money, they gain nothing from it.

hey hey.... I may have been a little unclear in my statements.... first off... capitalism is by definition "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." [dictionary.com]...

You are aware that there are nonprofit corporations, right?
I am well aware that there are non-profit corporations... I have been involved with many.... I have no beef with the non-profit coroporations whose purpose is something other than a 'making the most money' bottom line... they are not profit-based and thus are not truly 'corporations' by definition....

with this post I really just wanted to get a discussion on these issues.... I'd agree that capitalism may work in a very small community... as communism does amongst some isolated tribes today... but for the world in which we [well.. the majority of us using this forum] this is not the case...

I'm not going to get into arguing specific cases with people [yet]... but I just want people to keep open minds and not take what you are told [by corporations, governments, religous instituitions] as true just because you've been told it....

getting back on topic... I am mainly saying in my original post, that corporations are inevitably psycopathic and evil... since they legally have some of the rights of people.. they share some of mankind's [and womankind's] worst features... the only thing that sickens me, is corporations choose their own psycopathic nature... I can list a couple examples that werent even in the documentary... [which yes.. I think people should see.. especially Americans [[which I thank god* I am not one]]]...

Nestle is being boycotted right now by many groups... [one of such being the UNITED CHURCH] because.. well... "Organizers charge Nestle, one the of world's largest manufacturers of baby milk, with contributing to the deaths of millions of infants worldwide through the use of dangerous baby formula marketing practices which result in unsafe bottle-feeding. Nestle is charged with undermining breastfeeding to create a market for its baby milks. "...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Boycotts/Nestle_boycott.html
...basically NESTLE convinces third-world mothers to use their baby formula in locations where water is CONTAMINATED... thus they are literally KILLING BABIES... and about 5000 times as many as Jack the Ripper [one of histories most notorious psycopaths]...

I wont even list all the stuff that coors has done... read for yourself
http://www.bamn.com/boycott-coors/index.asp

... I could go on listing examples citing some of the other biggest corporations in the world [didnt coors and molson just merge??]...

... I could also go into the relationships between corporations and American government and political parties [In Canada.. a bill has been introduced to limit the donation by a single person/corporation to $5000.... imagine if that happened in the US]....

.. but I encourage any to look up these examples on their own... and do something about it....

thanks for reading... peace...

Rather, the people running the corporations, and investing in them, should be held responsible for their actions.

So next time someone does something stupid and sues the nearest available corporation, they actually get to sue the owner(s) directly? Or stockholder(s)? What was the point of making a corporation then, why not just have everything be a sole proprietorship? I agree that a person should be responsible for their action, but you would enable the doing the equivalent of holding Bush responsible if a local cop beats you up.

So next time someone does something stupid and sues the nearest available corporation, they actually get to sue the owner(s) directly? Or stockholder(s)? What was the point of making a corporation then, why not just have everything be a sole proprietorship? I agree that a person should be responsible for their action, but you would enable the doing the equivalent of holding Bush responsible if a local cop beats you up.

So owners and managers of corporations shouldn't be held responsible for anything they do? Obviously no-one can control the actions of their employees, however you can be held accountable for the precautions you have taken, and your response after an event. A corporation should also be held accountable for the effects of its activities, such as pollution. Unfortunately, litigation in the US doesn't seem to have much to do with common sense.

You can't dismiss the psychopathic behaviour of corporations argument that quickly. Based on criteria supplied by the WHO, including...
Inability to form lasting relationships (when wages in a country rise, the TNC moves on)
Inability to accept guilt (no admission of responsibility has been made for Bhopal and other accidents)
Disregard for others (including workers, the environment and victims of corporate disasters)
...corporations are psychopaths. How can an organisation has a personal disorder? Well how can an organisation have personal legal rights?

You can't dismiss the psychopathic behaviour of corporations argument that quickly.

You know, actually I can.


...corporations are psychopaths. How can an organisation has a personal disorder? Well how can an organisation have personal legal rights?

It's easy. Personal legal right =/= personhood.
A legal right does not a psyche create.

If you think differently, do you believe that a slave deprived of personal legal rights is no longer a person?

Or that a robot carrying a machine gun (hence personal right to bear arms!) is a person?

An organization is by definition amoral. It doesn't have morals any more than it has feelings. No organization does! Not even the fucking Catholic Church! Now, the Pope has morals. And feelings too, most likely. But the organization itself does not.

So owners and managers of corporations shouldn't be held responsible for anything they do?

No, in fact that's the opposite of what I said.

Obviously no-one can control the actions of their employees, however you can be held accountable for the precautions you have taken, and your response after an event.

Yes.

But, everyone seems to believe the CEO of a corporation has omniscient and omnipotent capabilities, and like God, hold him responsible for all it's goods and accountable for all it's failings.

An organization is by definition amoral. It doesn't have morals any more than it has feelings. No organization does! Not even the fucking Catholic Church! Now, the Pope has morals. And feelings too, most likely. But the organization itself does not.



I don't see how non-profit organisations like Amnesty International or the Red Cross could be called amoral. Sure, they don't HAVE morals, but their goals and actions are entirely based on morals. A corporation, on the other hand, is definitely amoral as its goal is profit and it does not include morals in reasons for a particular course of action.

I don't see how non-profit organisations like Amnesty International or the Red Cross could be called amoral. Sure, they don't HAVE morals, but their goals and actions are entirely based on morals.

The organizations goals claim to be based on morals, but you know what? So do many corporations. "We are committed to good service, friendly customer interactions, trust..."

Now, you can say that line must be bullshit. But then I could say it's bullshit about the Red Cross being all goody-goody too now couldn't I. Obviously, you believe everyone who ever worked or works at or for a corporation is a heartless automaton driven only by greed for wealth anyway... but some of us are skeptical about "charities" and "non profit organizations" too.

Now imagine a country run by corportations.

It would probably happily kill people so long as there was financial incentive.

It would probably say anything to justify this.

Now imagine a country run by corportations.

It would probably happily kill people so long as there was financial incentive.

It would probably say anything to justify this.


scary, and if the U.S. continues on the path their on...
someday true

I hate to burst everyone's bubble here, but governments are corporations too. Big, bloated, monopolistic corporations, who, for the most part, impede productive progress. I know many people here do not like capitalism, but capitalism exists because someone has to stick up for the way the capital in a country is being used, instead of saying that "people matter much more than capital does" (which is true, but people can't survive without capital, and an economy can't grow without an efficient allocation of that capital). An efficient allocation of resources is achieved much better with free markets than a socialist state, because a socialist state has nothing to fear from waste and corruption. A million here, a billion there, what does it matter? We can just tax the crap out of our citizens, while feeding them all sorts of lies about our good intentions. But when a company blows a million or a billion on waste and corruption, what do you get? Mammoth, big press scandals like Enron.

It is true that corporations may occasionally make bad policy decisions that result in the deaths of individuals (I highly doubt that they want their consumers who buy their products to DIE, since that does kind of put a damper on repeat business). I might point out that people do have legal redresses against corporations in such cases, unlike governments, which are immune from reprecussions of bad policy decisions. The key is competition, accountability, efficiency, justice, and, yes, some progressive policies to help those who have been dealt a lemon by the system. I believe the efficiency of capitalism should have certain controls on it to prevent it from choking the life out of the poor and disadvantaged, but the underlying premise of capitalism must remain in place for us to survive as a species.

It was working pretty fucking well until Johnson's Great Society and the general nanny state were put into place.

Amen, bud. :)

It is true that corporations may occasionally... ...want their consumers who buy their products to DIE

exactly... and how are third world mothers whose babies die from contaminated breast milk formula water promoted by Nestle able to get restitution?

well put Saladador... when taken out of context anyways...

*snip*
Actually, you should see the movie (or better yet, read the book). The bias is clear enough to see through, and good points are made. It isn't the absolute TRUTH (nothing is), but it gives a good perspective on why even well-meaning business people sometimes get railroaded by corporate policies. (The chapter on the Body Shop is especially revealing)

well put Saladador... when taken out of context anyways...

So wait, you think corporations want people who buy their products to die? That's what I'm getting from your deliberate misinterpretation. Could you perhaps explain the logic, if there is any, behind that? Or are you just excited at being able to villify and demonize "corporations?" I mean you do so love calling them "psychopaths" while ignoring the 'psychopathy' of any other organization.

I think you're just an anti-capitalist.

But really, the documentary is quite good. It's obviously balanced against corporations, but there is much more to it than protest slogans.

That'd be "Biased against" not "Balanced"...

...No, corporations do NOT have ALL the rights of a person. They do not have any right to vote, they cannot marry and file their taxes jointly, they cannot bear arms or enlist to go fight in the war...lacking a physical manifestation that would give them such rights. That may well be remedied at some point, who can say? My beef is that they are recognized as people under the due process clause of the 14th amendment, specifically, and that such an interpretation has broad effects. For instance, Wal-Mart being allowed to introduce a ballot initiative in California. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/walmart_california_ballot_initiative.html

Corporations have also claimed protection under other amendments as well.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2003/09/08/daily54.html Luckily, they aren't yet fully considered as people.

Corporations are not people, and should not be recognized as people. Rather, the people running the corporations, and investing in them, should be held responsible for their actions.

Well, technically speaking, corporations can and do marry - and divorce - its called a Merger. Incidentally, they can then file "joint" tax returns. They can enlist or even be conscripted to fight in a war by providing their product or expertise. Particularly manufacturers or engineering firms.

I wish someone would make a documentary about the psychological nature of government. Government's financial basis is thievery (taxation), and it regularly engages is killing (warfare, abortion, capital punishment). In some cases, these actions might be justified, but surely people ought to be more worried about the fact that a government has the right to do these things than that a corporation is legally treated as a person. If corporations are evil because they encourage risk-taking, aren't governments much more evil because they plunder and kill?
I'm guessing you're American? My gut reaction to the highlighted was shock, followed by horror. Then I remembered where you must be from and now I understand. See, I don't view taxation as theivery since us lucky Brits get an awful lot for our taxes. You guys don't, you get a police force that doesn't protect you, no healthcare, no pension, an army that bombs the crap out of innocent civillians and regularly fires on itself and various welfare schemes designed to keep poor people as poor as possible. I can see why you see taxation the way you do. Also, your sig (unless sarcastic) makes it perfectly clear that you are pretty hard right economically speaking, we have to agree to disagree about the role of government in the health and wellbeing of its citizens :)

On topic: I have a huge problem with the shareholder obligation thing, corporations need to be held accountable for their actions, even if they are making a profit. Under the current system they get away with murder - literally in some cases - as long as the shareholders are happy. Businesses must be held to the same standards as individuals, they enjoy some of the same rights but suffer none of the consequences and I can't stand that.

This is why capitalism and the trickle-down effect, though still popular even after massive failure in the Mulrouney-Regan-Thatcher era... DO NOT AND CAN NOT EVER WORK!!!
Hi, I'm a free-market capitalist who loathes corporations.

Go soak your head.

I think you're just an anti-capitalist.

yes.... yes I am... an how.....

but yes... corporations hold the value of profit for shareholders higher than human life... unless the loss of life is bad for profits....

I feel like I'm repeating myself....

"If you feed enough oats to a horse, eventually some will pass through to feed the sparrows."
John Kenneth Galbraith

Big deal. There are 1.7 million employees at Walmart. If they don't like it, they can work elsewhere. You want me to feel sorry for these people because they choose to work at a place where you don't think they are afforded "dignity?"


Ah the vioce of those who have never had to work for themselves.

I moved out of home at age 17 and got myself a job filling shelves at a supermarket chain as I can't get social security/dole/welfare becuase my father is a lawyer and my mother a univeristy lecturer. So instead I have to rely on what I earn while I study at university.

So let me tell you something you little mommas boy.

In the unskilled labour market most employees have no choice about working in it, they are in it becuase they need cash to support themselves (like myself) during study or whatever or becuase they have no skills they can offer but brute labour.

The way most corporations treat their workers is simply appaling. I am from Australia and thus there are more controls over Industrail Relations than in the US, although not for long thanks to the all wise John Howard but most workers still get treated like dirt. Over time is rarely paid, people who complain are fired or get their hours cut, younger employees end up working more hours becuase they cost less to employ.

Let me ask you this mommas boy. Have you ever had to rely on your own pocket to support yourself. I moved out of home so I could stand on my own to feet with pride and sadly there are no jobs for young people without skills except in the unskilld labour market no matter how smart or how well they did in school.

So before you go spouting that crap think about it for a second. I get frustrated by people with no will to get ahead in life but at least these people are working and they should have the right to be treated like humans. I hate paying tax becuase I dont like having to support those who wont put any effort into getting a job but none the less I believe that society has the duty to ensure that the conditions of its workers aren't those of the early industrail age.

So mommas boy who probably doesnt have to work to support himself, who probably doesnt actually really udnerstand ecconomic theory, who probably doesnt have his own developed views but those of his daddy and who probably hasnt really expereinced life from multiple view points how about you go try and working in the unskilled labour market and then pretend becuase of your background that you have no other skills but your personal strength.

I straddle the line between left and right wing and I can certianly understand the points of the ecconomically right wing but people have the right to be treated like people.

Now that I have that out of my system.

The documentary was obviously bias but none the less is was very well done ( I saw it about a year ago). It did actually seek a balanced viewpoint and it was made in a professional way.

I thought the most interesting part of the documentary was the CEO who was talking about how his buisness had expanded after he started pursuing sustainable growth.

In particular I found one his statements a bit mesmerising. It went like this (I cant remember it exactly) "I realised that unless we changed the way we did things the future generations would view us as criminals. I didnt want to be one of the people who the children of tomotow would be blaming".

Now like I said I cant remember it exactly since I saw it a while ago but none the less it was an extremely interesting point.

Maybe what we have to realise is that like anything capatalism isnt evil or good by itself, it is defined by those who "follow" it and "speak" for it. If all CEOs thought and acted like this then they would be champions of society and of environmentalism.

I say his example is one we should be following. We have to a have an ecconmic system that is based on greed to encourage growth and so people can make something of themselves and richen society, but it doesnt have to have dentrimental effects on anyone, in fact it can have positive.

Viva la sustainable capatalism

"If you feed enough oats to a horse, eventually some will pass through to feed the sparrows."
John Kenneth Galbraith

"THE TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT DOESNT WORK JUST BECAUSE YOU MAKE UP A FARM METAPHOR FOR IT!!!"
Greenlandika

So let me tell you something you little mommas boy... ... people have the right to be treated like people.


*applause*

We have to a have an ecconmic system that is based on greed to encourage growth and so people can make something of themselves and richen society, but it doesnt have to have dentrimental effects on anyone, in fact it can have positive.
Viva la sustainable capatalism


what the hell is this?

As a libertarian, I thought this film was much better than a Moore flick, but still skewed toward an anticapitalist, antiglobalist view (if perhaps, a bit underhanded).

One point not really hit on by the movie:
Couldn't we also assume that we, the consumers, are the real psychopaths here? If crazy is defined as doing something again and again, expecting different results than are otherwise obtained-- Why do we choose to support these monsters?
This is in no way "Goin' Godwin", but--
Aren't the Nazis who participated in the slaughter of the Jews as much at fault as Hitler and his cronies?

In other words, if we all know (and face it, everyone does) that corporations like McDonald's and Nike are only in it for the dough, why do we support the worst possible ethical choices in the marketplace?
If our only reason is "cuz it's cheap", then clearly we're as unethical and insane as the corporations themselves.

"THE TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT DOESNT WORK JUST BECAUSE YOU MAKE UP A FARM METAPHOR FOR IT!!!"
Greenlandika
Bah: He means you feed the horse food, and the sparrows wait for the food to pass through the horse so they can have what trickles down.
Get it?

recently... a documentary called 'The Corporation' has brought to light a view of the corporation as an inevitable psychopath... the bottom line being profit before all else.... a study was recently done that proved that... in the financial world success is achieved by taking calculated risks... and since emotional people in general hesitate to take any risk... an advantage, or even a necessity for financial success lies in either being psychopathic... or in being able to remove all emotion/morality from financial decisions....

... just look at Walmart... they make 280 billion dollars... yet they cant afford to treat their employees with a minumum dignity afforded to even say.. MacDonalds employees... [just look at best/worst places to work in America studies]...

This is why capitalism and the trickle-down effect, though still popular even after massive failure in the Mulrouney-Regan-Thatcher era... DO NOT AND CAN NOT EVER WORK!!!
:headbang:
:fluffle: :mp5:
:rolleyes: :sniper:
That's one of the reasons why you need a government: to regulate labour rights.
I don't think corporations are bad. They employ a lot of people who would probably not be able to get another job.