Are Corporations Bad For America?

[ParanoiA]

I've spent considerable time on this forum defending capitalism, but I've always had a bad feeling about corporations. I work for one, so the hypocrisy on my part is noted and leaves me somewhat torn.

 

The thing is, when people criticize capitalism - particularly internationally and how we are perceived across the globe, how we treat people in the world, the wars and complete irreverant and lobsided consumption of resources - it seems like it often comes down to corporations, not necessarily capitalism itself.

 

Corporations don't really have a conscience and I'm not sure they're capable by design, or at least not the publicly traded ones. Nameless, faceless stock holders focused only on profit. CEO's could be this conscience, but they wouldn't last long as they're not solely interested in profit, so the results would reflect this.

 

Did our founding fathers have big business and corporations in mind? Or did this escape their foresight?

[jackson33]

in short; a corporation is just a very large business. the founding fathers, i would say, business as well as the people, should be protected from government. it would be hard to separate the people with in a large company the the fact they, manage, run, work or own part of the entity.

 

capitalism is a system which business operates in. the alternative is socialism or some form of it, which government either owns or by mandate controls some to all there industry. pure capitalistic societies do not exist, as some control by some means (rules-tax) is always present. these rules and taxes are considered to be in the publics interest.

 

the US has moved very close to the socialistic style of governing, with the last real hold out the capitalist, free trade idea. your arguments in defending capitalist are probably in defense of this creeping liberal attitude to all facets of life. IMO; the founders realized the primary problem in their efforts was, the idea people would some day realize they held the vote, for change and the changes made since have proved them correct. also IMO; the founders and for a good deal of time nearly all practiced the idea of serving in the system, opposed to career politicians. if they missed something, maybe term limits would have been best....

[ParanoiA]

in short; a corporation is just a very large business. the founding fathers, i would say, business as well as the people, should be protected from government. it would be hard to separate the people with in a large company the the fact they, manage, run, work or own part of the entity.

 

So who protects the people from the corporations? I'm not talking about here at home. I mean, out there in the international arena. How do we keep from getting bombed and hated because of big business's bully tactics around the globe? Tom's Brake shop doesn't cause international outrage - Halliburton does.

 

Greed is a managable problem, but we're not managing it. Our 401k's and cheap merchandise keep us, the consumers, from making the responsible decision and refrain from doing business with them. Wal-Mart would pillage the last remaining resources of the world if they could turn a profit from it. There is no internal conscience with big business, it seems.

[Sisyphus]

The trouble with the "faceless corporation" is just what you say, that it becomes a conscienceless monster with its only motivation an unquenchable desire for more and more profit. In other words, it turns the capitalist into exactly what Marx says "he" is. So yes, they're evil.

 

EVEN SO I don't really think you could say it is bad for America in the long run. Corporations fill a vital role in allowing investment on scales that individuals simply don't have the capital for. Also, in a weird way, it's actually kind of democratic, since I can buy one share and make a business investment, without having to already be wealthy enough to fund the entire enterprise. In that way, it goes a long way toward overcoming Marx's problems, in that you don't have to be a powerful capitalist in order to become one and benefit.

[ParanoiA]

So, what's the answer? The "conscienceless monster with its only motivation an unquenchable desire for more and more profit" causes a lot of problems. Or maybe I have an aversion to it.

 

I just listened to a "Town Hall" media meeting, an hour and a half in length, presented by one of our 5th line directors, lecturing about how being number one in virtually every category, with soaring profits is still not good enough. We are the biggest company in the freaking world at what we do. Talk about an unquenchable thirst. It makes me sick to be a part of it.

 

They even go on about how our competition's purse is a joke compared to our resources. Many of these businesses are smaller, have been around for years in their respective areas. WE are the new guy - not them. Yet, they are characterized as "attacking" our company. Like we're some kind of noble entity that has come to liberate the masses - only to be attacked by local war lords. Some of us even looked at each other like "are they trying to make this sound like the war?".

 

I just think it's disgusting.

[jackson33]

corporations, follow laws, the same laws we do and we are in reality the corporations. additionally these entities produce products or services for some one who in the end is boss number one.

 

you will need to mention a particular business to go much further. but I'll take Wal-Mart, which is currently in the focus. the company was originated with the idea small town, should be allowed the same purchasing power as folks in larger towns where competition ruled. of course Sam Walton, an employee of Kresge's tried to convince his employer w/o success and founded what is now the world's leading retailer, think saving the average household about 2,000 dollars per year, to say nothing of having well over one million, world wide employees and somewhere near 5 million stock owners.they changed retail like no other business changed anything, with regards to all areas of that business. stories of truck drivers to store employees going from existent status to wealth over a million are numerous. we won't even mention the billions of visits by satisfied customers that participate. we won't mention the good they are accused of by nearly all the communities they enter, the value of near by properties or the other business entities that follow there lead or set up shop next door.

 

now getting here, they hurt a few people or organizations. these folks, in our country have the right to complain and complain they do. the fact is however the customers will keep coming, lines will form every time a number of employees are wanted and people will keep on saving money, stock holders receiving dividends or appreciation and the communities the taxes collected by the company.

[Saryctos]

I don't understand what people see as evil, or nasty about a corporation. It sounds like everyone is just bad mouthing the certain people involved. If you want to make large ammounts of money, you're going to have to be aware that there are people out there that are going to want to take it from you any way possible. Growing a large business in that reality tends to make you a bitter old miser.

[ParanoiA]

Well, keep in mind, I'm not talking so much about how they "handle" the profits. I'm more concerned with how the profits are achieved. A corporation will walk all over some poor little country and exploit their people for profit, without concern. IMO, only corporations have the nerve to do it.

 

think saving the average household about 2,000 dollars per year, to say nothing of having well over one million, world wide employees and somewhere near 5 million stock owners.they changed retail like no other business changed anything, with regards to all areas of that business.

 

But this is a great story, only if we ignore how they achieved it. I mean, I could invade a small country and enslave their people to make stuff super duper cheap. The mere fact they have revolutionized retail is not an indicator of good or bad - that is if people somewhere else, out of sight, out of mind, suffered or were exploited for it.

 

I honestly don't know. Profit isn't worth it if we're kicking folks around and denying resources for most of the globe because we're all over here enjoying our plastics, automobiles, computers, electronic gizmos and etc and don't want to give them up. And it's easy to do when we don't have to look at them.

 

Again, I don't know if that's really going on or not. I know it goes on to a certain extent, but I'm not sure how bad or insignificant it really is...

[Pangloss]

I was just watching a news report earlier today about the burgeoning "raw milk" industry -- milk that has not been pasteurized or homogenized. The reporter spent most of the segment touting the fact that it's "all natural" and that it's "extremely popular", and people drive for hours just to pick up a gallon of the stuff. Briefly at the end of the report she paused to slide in a little disclaimer about how it also happens to be illegal in 23 states and that there are some darn good reasons for it being so (which she didn't bother to elaborate on).

 

So what happens when Mr. Joe Farmer and his 23 "natural" cows suddenly hit the big time and start having to meet a demand for millions of gallons of raw milk for a hungry market? Well of course he becomes "a corporation".

 

What happens next? Some kid gets sick, and the next thing you know we're watching news reports about the "dangers of untreated milk". What, oh what, could we possibly do to this milk to make it safe? Oh, oh, oh could anybody possibly save us from this tragedy?!?! Followed, of course, by regulation forcing pasturization and homogenization.

 

I don't know, sometimes I think we're just too stupid a society to be allowed to breed.

[swansont]

One major problem I see is that corporations have a huge influence on government, which helps to perpetuate the corporations and the people who run them. I think it's undemocratic to have the volume of your voice be proportional to the size of your wallet, or worse, the much larger wallet you control by virtue of running a corporation of which you may only own a tiny fraction.

 

IMO, corporations are not people and should not be afforded the same kind of rights, and money isn't speech.

[jackson33]

competition, drives a free economy. in my past, when developing a small chain of C-Stores, i looked for places where a 7-11 or a Circle K where well establishes. they are run by people, at least then, that had no idea what local needs were. the idea works, with a good many such little chains now doing much better than the big ones. the same principle worked for Wal Mart as they always built near a K-Mart or some local box retailer. the difference in there case, was pricing. since all retailers had the same places to get products, WM either bought out manufacturers, stream lined and was no subject to selling to competitors. in some cases, plants were built in places where cheap labor could decrease the retail price even with transportation.

the jobs they created in 3rd world nations, were and are instrumental in bringing economies into the 21st century. south Asia, where in places where the average wage was 10 or 20 cents per hour, they paid 1.00 and these folks were ALLOWED, to work as much as they wanted. most did and many have gone on to run these factories and now even work in the Chinese Stores. like the original WM workers, they may be the future rich folks of their growing economies. IMO, we will just keep receiving high quality products at the same or in most cases, cheaper prices than ever before. there was no kicking around or rampaging of a nation. of all places, China, would just blow the place up, bury the gringos and move on....

 

character, is built by people, for themselves and the future of their offspring's. in the US we have a large number of Mexicans, Orientals and other groups, who work the hard jobs we cannot transport. its always been this way as the newest earned their way into the system. its my dream that the capitalistic system will prevail and in time all peoples, can have all we have in the US today. even the migrants have much more than their folks at home, proud of it and help their back home families.

 

i see nothing wrong in total or with the theory. we call it the American Dream, while most of the world can only admit, they missed that boat....

[jackson33]

One major problem I see is that corporations have a huge influence on government, which helps to perpetuate the corporations and the people who run them. I think it's undemocratic to have the volume of your voice be proportional to the size of your wallet, or worse, the much larger wallet you control by virtue of running a corporation of which you may only own a tiny fraction.

 

IMO, corporations are not people and should not be afforded the same kind of rights, and money isn't speech.

 

lobbyist, ARE people and in most cases represent business, organizations and the interest of those in that group. by far the most representation in Washington DC, are the labor unions, teacher unions, attorney groups and AARP. however every ideology is represent by some or many such people. you, i or any person in the world, probably has 10 or so with our personal interest in mind.

 

its been awhile since i checked, but of the top 25 contributors to politicians or parties were unions or union affiliated. 2 were business and not very large ones. by the way as i recall 20 went to Democrats, 2 to both and 3 to the Republican party.

 

the presidential race is the ultimate goal of all in politics and many in the legal system. even the young state congress person with thousands of people in his/her position, has to dream of someday being the President of the US.

any person in the US, with few requirements can run for office in a city or state election. work their way up, as in any business and achieve this ultimate post. while i agree the cost for this post, not from any cooperate reason, is getting out of hand. there now talking about 50 or 60 million to get a 240k job. makes little sense, but the folks that are and or will try, will make a statement to the country. each has worked the system, achieved more than most and has an opinion. to voice this opinion or make that statement is something very few have an opportunity to do and the value of which is to them worth more than it takes.

[Sisyphus]

lobbyist, ARE people

 

Yes, people buying influence with money. That's the problem.

 

by far the most representation in Washington DC, are the labor unions,

 

Actually not even close to true, but they are powerful. But why does it matter who is doing it? The point is votes are being effectively replaced by money. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, should it?

 

its been awhile since i checked,

 

Must have been before there was a maximum donation, in fact! Either that, or you're just making stuff up randomly. But again, does it matter who is doing it?

[Pangloss]

One major problem I see is that corporations have a huge influence on government, which helps to perpetuate the corporations and the people who run them. I think it's undemocratic to have the volume of your voice be proportional to the size of your wallet, or worse, the much larger wallet you control by virtue of running a corporation of which you may only own a tiny fraction.

 

IMO, corporations are not people and should not be afforded the same kind of rights, and money isn't speech.

 

Yes' date=' people buying influence with money. That's the problem.

[/quote']

 

Let's not forget what money actually is -- the expression of civilized success at attaining an economic goal that benefits far more than the individual recipient. It's not automatically a corrupting influence, you know. There is a reason why we have checks and balances against the weight of popular opinion. The issue is not so much whether money should be completely removed from the equation, but rather whether there should be additional checks and balances against the influence of money.

 

I don't live in a democracy, and I don't want to. Not when the masses are running around demanding unpasteurized milk and screaming about how fire can't melt steel, thank you, no.

[PhDP]

Corporations and other interest groups can harm democracy, but limiting contributions to a certain amount and allowing only individuals to contribute is a straightforward way to solve the problem, at least partially. Too much energy is spent on fundraising, and it the end, nobody really benefits from this.

[john5746]

http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/publications/alperovitz_06.html

 

I think employee ownership is superior to investor ownership.

[Sisyphus]

Let's not forget what money actually is -- the expression of civilized success at attaining an economic goal that benefits far more than the individual recipient. It's not automatically a corrupting influence, you know. There is a reason why we have checks and balances against the weight of popular opinion. The issue is not so much whether money should be completely removed from the equation, but rather whether there should be additional checks and balances against the influence of money.

 

I don't live in a democracy, and I don't want to. Not when the masses are running around demanding unpasteurized milk and screaming about how fire can't melt steel, thank you, no.

 

Actually, I think you're right. Upon closer examination, maybe I am being "too democratic." That sounds like a sarcastic statement, but it isn't. The fact that it sounds so just shows how conditioned we all are without even realizing it. Democracy is great, but approaching it as an absolutist is neither practical nor necessarily even beneficial. The practical part I knew - the nature of money is such that I can't imagine a society in which it is completely divorced from political power. All we can do, as you say, is continually think up new ways to check its influence. And even that has to be weighed in such a way that the cure isn't worse than the disease. Some people call it a free speech issue, which to me seems manifestly bogus, but it does at least give us pause.

 

However, the "maybe not beneficial" part I hadn't really considered. Would we actually be better off willingly allowing money and power to cozy up more than is necessary? Instinctively I recoil at the unfairness of it. And it is unfair, by our basic postulates of government. "All men are created equal" means, among other things, that rights do not depend on means. And, obviously, merely having money does not necessarily mean one is smarter or better able to govern. Anyone of even moderate intelligence and decent work ethic can become extremely wealthy if that is one's only goal in life, and, conversely, neither the most intellectual nor the most civic-minded career choices tend to pay very well at all. But the over-all effect? I don't know. I'll really have to think about it.

 

Corporations and other interest groups can harm democracy, but limiting contributions to a certain amount and allowing only individuals to contribute is a straightforward way to solve the problem, at least partially. Too much energy is spent on fundraising, and it the end, nobody really benefits from this.

 

I think you're probably right (despite my above existential issues). But there are obstacles to even straightforward solutions. For all politicians' talk of campaign finance reform, the Catch-22 of the matter is that in order to be in a position to reform the system, you had to have become indebted to it. Screwy laws with lots of loopholes favor incumbents, which means the people who vote on the laws. And so, much like silly pork-barrel spending, it's unlikely to go away, and neither party has more to gain than to lose by pushing it.

 

I think employee ownership is superior to investor ownership.

 

Vastly! But I doubt it will ever become the status quo, just because they're so much harder than corporations to get started. Perhaps in the future there will be more public awareness about this kind of things, and corporations will grow more and more employee-owned for PR purposes, to appease market forces that favor "less evil" businesses.

[GutZ]

Depends. I'd like to see corps being taxed beyond a specific profit limit though and have that added to a health care fund. This would force corps to not act so ruthlessly, or they will just have it taken away.

 

Of course people will say that this is discourage people from wanting to gain economically, but I really don't see how corps like wal-mart really help America when it jumps overseas to make a profit. Or like "hey I dont want to spend money on enviromental and safety costs...let jump over to a third world country pay the people nothing to work there, and return large profits shipping product back to "America" where we can get "Americians" to pay top dollar.

 

There are some good companies out there though, they do get overshadowed by alot of these other arsehole companies.

 

Essential everything will evolve towards some sort of aspect similiar to a corperation, it's just more efficient. As much as they are pinned evil, people will miss them ( well I guess no one below middle class anyway).

 

(sorry if if that has alot of mistakes...evening shift...tired...well and you should be use to it by now)

[PhDP]

I think you're probably right (despite my above existential issues). But there are obstacles to even straightforward solutions. For all politicians' talk of campaign finance reform, the Catch-22 of the matter is that in order to be in a position to reform the system, you had to have become indebted to it. Screwy laws with lots of loopholes favor incumbents, which means the people who vote on the laws. And so, much like silly pork-barrel spending, it's unlikely to go away, and neither party has more to gain than to lose by pushing it.

 

It's true that many reforms are not made because the status quo favours incumbents, above all, politics is about winning elections. However I'm not sure it's the case with party funding. Trees grow tall because if they don't, other trees would grow taller and steal their light. But they would all benefits and the productivity of the forest would increase if they could all agree on growing a little shorter. Same thing goes with party funding, what matters is not how much you have, but how much you have relative to your opponents.

 

In Quebec the contribution is limited to 3000$/individual. The implementation of the limit had no overall effect, wealthy political parties have still more money, it's just that less energy is devoted to fundraising and the governements do not live on the money of interest groups and corporations.

[Dak]

imo, money should be:

 

you contribute to society

you get payed an amount dependant on your contribution

then you can take from society by spending money

 

iow, the more you put into society, the more you can get from it.

 

mega-corporations are designed to make a relitively small number of people inordinately rich, at any costs (not neccesarily by providing a useful service to society), and those people don't even have to do anything (but can, rather, employ others to manage their buisness for them).

 

this, imo, is wrong. whatever economic setup is adopted, i think it should be focused on benifiting society as a whole. why is it not the case that market forses have resulted in mega-corporations that actually act in the best possible manner for the public?

 

a good example is the music industry:

 

• retardedly high profits on CD sales (not exactly best for consumer)
  
• small % of profits actually go to band (not exactly best for artists)
  
• small % of profits actually go to people who do the day-to-day running of the buisness (not best for most workers involved in buisness)
  
• large % of profits go to people who do crap all to run the company/make the music (shareholders, who literally do nothing)
  
• copy protection, which demonstratably artificially limits what you can/cannot do with your legally bought copy of the cd, without actually slowing piracy down (not exactly good for consumer)
  
• standards wars, with adoption of new formats based on who's got the biggest company, rather than whats actually best (see: beta-max vs vhs)
  
• resistance to online music sharing, even the legal stuff, even tho there's demonstratably a desire to get music like this (again, not good for the consumer)
  

 

 

now, fair enough, we actually get music, so the music insustry is performing it's function and providing society with a service, but i cant help but feel it could be done in a better way, whereby society gets cheaper music, the people who actually make the music, press the cds, etc, get a bigger cut, and the music format/delivery method is the one that's actually the best, rather than the one that makes the company most money.

 

 

the last point in the list above is quite relevent: it's in societys best interests to have music available on CD at shops, and in didjital format via download as that's more convienient for people, and coporations are actively trying to prevent this because it's bad for them. the reason that it's bad for them is there's currently an 'unspoken cartel', whereby companies charge shitloads for cds, so market forses demonstratably wont drive them much cheaper. online music is available for about 50p/track, is not megacorp dominated, and market forses will act to keep prices low, whilst the artists get a bigger cut. so, everyone wins. except the current big names in music distribution, who are actively trying to stop this, so they can make money, and to hell with the artists and consumers who dijital distribution would benifit.

 

when it comes to megacorps, i think it's plain that capitalism failst to work anywhere near ideally. wether this can be stopped, and wether it's the fault of capitalism, megacorporations, or consumers, i don't know.

[Haezed]

Yes, people buying influence with money. That's the problem.

 

Would you limit the ability of people to contribute to the candidates of their choice? Such a plan would have a few first amendment problems...

[Haezed]

We really have three questions bouncing around.

 

1. Are corporations bad for America? Of course not. If we didn't allow corporations the US couldn't possibly compete. This country would become an economic backwater.

 

2. Do corporations sometimes do bad things? Of course they do. They are made up of human beings.

 

3. Can the laws pertaining to corporations be improved? I've no idea. We'd have to discuss a particular branch of the law - antitrust, Sarbanes-Oxley, SEC regulation, etc - for that discussion to be meaingful.

 

Note that these three questions can be asked about any large entity: 1. Is government bad (no, we really need some kind of government); 2. Do governments do bad things (yeppers); 3. Can the laws controlling government be improved (sure, but let's talk specifics).

[Sisyphus]

Would you limit the ability of people to contribute to the candidates of their choice? Such a plan would have a few first amendment problems...

 

I elaborated a great deal on my thoughts on this in post #17. If by limit you mean keep the maximum contribution, then yeah, I would. The first amendment excuse is awfully lame, since even the people who use it know it's just an excuse. It's the policy equivalent of the frivolous lawsuit: everybody knows it's bogus, but there's enough people in power benefitting from it (that is to say, all of them), that there's always someone willing to step up and make a case for the letter of law, spirit be damned. However, I also happen to think the letter argument is rather weak. It's quite the stretch to say that giving somebody money is "speech," "money talks" notwithstanding.

[Sisyphus]

 

2. Do corporations sometimes do bad things? Of course they do. They are made up of human beings.

 

I'd say the reason they do bad things is because of lack of power in individual human beings. The organization of corporations makes it inherently almost impossible for them to ever act for any reason other than the absolute maximization of profits. In other words, they are naturally utterly ammoral, insatiable monsters. That's why Google's slogan ("Don't be evil.") is such a big deal, and why most people are so cynical about it.

 

Basically agreed on 1 and 3, though, although I think you didn't really answer your own questions. You say they're necessary to be competitive, which is true, but that doesn't mean it's not a necessary evil, and it doesn't mean things can't ever change. It seems there's a gradual shift for more employee ownership, which HAS to be an improvement.

[ParanoiA]

Good post Haezed.

 

1. Are corporations bad for America? Of course not. If we didn't allow corporations the US couldn't possibly compete. This country would become an economic backwater.

 

Compete intra or internationally? Are we assuming that only big business can handle international trade? Can smaller businesses not cooperate together to emulate the shoes of big business, without the negative consequences of soulless ownership?

 

I don't know how realistic that is...

 

2. Do corporations sometimes do bad things? Of course they do. They are made up of human beings.

 

Yes, multiple human beings who's only shared interest is profit. All other interests are disputable and therefore lack any kind of enaction. The more owners, the less conscience, the more focus on profit only.

 

3. Can the laws pertaining to corporations be improved? I've no idea. We'd have to discuss a particular branch of the law - antitrust, Sarbanes-Oxley, SEC regulation, etc - for that discussion to be meaingful.

 

I don't like the idea of legislation. I prefer market solution. First, I'd like to settle on whether they're truly bad or not. I see both sides, but with a bias to one. If they're truly a wart on Americas proverbial ass, then my solution has to do more with "awakening" the public and pursuading hearts and minds to reject it. Or, more accurately, reject the corporations that are actually bad - since they're not ALL going to be bad or evil.

 

For instance, I've heard recently that more and more folks are insisting on "blood-less" diamonds, or whatever the hell they're called. They're being made fun of too, but that's the kind of action I like. We should do that. It may seem silly on the outset, but I like the implications of an educated public demanding ethical behavior from our businesses through the power of consumerism. Perhaps that's the only conscience that could be enacted on a corporation.