The Corporation is in Serious Trouble

[idealisttotheend]

The second example is the old American revolutionary maxim: "No taxation without representation." Corporations pay taxes that would make you scream if you saw them, but they have no representation in our democratic process and are forced to resort to lobbyists to try and protect their interests. Only the executives of a company could be expected to vote for the interests of their company, and why should they have to give up their vote on their personal interests?

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

One could easily argue that corporations are the only ones with representation these days. Look at the Bush administration. How many laws are flat out being written by industry representatives? When was the last time that Bush and co made a decision that went against corporate interests. Who pays for the leadership campaigns for political parties, who pays their bills, who fills their advertising budgets. Money talks in politics since without it you can't buy the love of the masses.

I believe there was a heated debate on the Canadian campaign financing laws on this forum. I bet any takers 100 bucks each that the second a conservative government gets into office they get repealed. Why? So corporations continue to hold the vast majority of influence over political discourse in this country and others. And with the money begotten from average citizens who likely didn't consider political advocacy part of the purchase price.

[Hugo]

One could easily argue that corporations are the only ones with representation these days.

John Connally probably had more corporate backing than any other politician in history. According to you, he should have had it in the bag, but instead he was a dismal failure.

What you are doing is arguing against democracy. You are saying that the electorate is so stupid that they cannot be trusted to vote according to their true desires when money is involved, so you propose to pass laws to try and prod the electorate in the direction you want them to go in.

How many laws are flat out being written by industry representatives?

You tell me how many. Don't forget to tell me which ones, too.

When was the last time that Bush and co made a decision that went against corporate interests.

When he passed the steelworker protection laws. Next question.

So corporations continue to hold the vast majority of influence over political discourse in this country and others.

Extremely debateable. I would say that lobby groups hold far more influence. What you're also saying is that, since corporations are allowed no representation at the front door, you want to slam the back door on them too, while you continue to freeload off them and bleed them dry for "redistribution" and social programmes. Correct?

We are talking here about the business corporations which impact on 99.9% of society

Ah, I don't remember you telling me where you drew the line. Do you also advocate banning the two-man landscaping operation who takes care of my lawn pests? What about the five-man garage that services my car? What about Dell? Or do you draw it by profits? Is there a set dollar amount below which is a harmless small business and above which lie evil, amoral corporations?

[Bakunin]

Alright, then it seems I'll have to explain this to you. What you are saying is that since some corporations act irresponsibly, rather than punish those corporations under the law we should distrust all of them and punish all of them.

I never said or tought that.

They get a golden parachute because once one has been at the top it's hard to get work again. Without it, nobody would take the position.

Here is a quote from a book

En mars 2000, la capitalisation boursière de Global Crossing s'élevait à 40 milliards de dollars, En févrirer 202, l'entreprise était exsangue, son titre boursier au plus bas. Or juste avant la faillite, son président Gary Winnick s'était fait voter par son conseil d'administration une indemnité de départ de 730 millions de dollars. En toute légalité.

For ruining a corporation, the ceo on its own get 730 millions. I guess thats because its hard to get work again lol. I doubt he was winning has much with his salary. I guess after ruining that corporation, he don't need to work anymore.

And where is the former CEO of Enron now? Jail.

Enron was too much near the bush administration. If the ceo is now in jail is because the government was forced by public opinion to do something about it.

And yet, the story was made public anyway. More to the point, why do you find it problematic that corporations can influence a TV station but that the government owns a TV station (the CBC)? The irony that Fox is also a corporation also seems to have escaped you. You're objecting because corporatism didn't save you from corporatism.

I think it can be problematic if the story would have not been public wich was the goal of that corporation. As for Fox, their goal was to keep ad contract to make money.

this where 2 sample of corporations where their decision was based on the fact to make money and where it was a threat to our security.

Then you need to get out more, quite simply. Even though the Canadian government hasn't started murdering people, it has mired itself in scandal and corruption and precious little has been done about it. Where is your outrage against that? Strangely, you want corrupt corporations to be replaced by an even more corrupt government.

I know the liberal are highly corrupt but at least thei have to be elected each 4 years. If never they make something stupid there are 3 other party that warn the population.

Examples of my social darwinism, please?

Social darwinism:

societies develop and therefore operate by "natural" laws, the real aim of "Social Darwinism" theories is to rationalize and thereby legitimize the unequal and disproportionate divisions between and within societies.

The simple fact is that wage and price controls hurt those they are supposed to help. If you really want to do something for the poor, abolish them.

Better yet, why don't we stop the fiscal policies that keep the poor down, like minimum wages, price controls and sales taxes?

Exactly true, and this is why the mass unemployment that minimum wage laws create is so bad for the economy and for the working class.

You want to abolish human written law for natural law.

Adam Smith would have said the invisible hand.

[Hugo]

I never said or tought that.

Then what are you proposing?

For ruining a corporation, the ceo on its own get 730 millions.

So, the shareholders decided to give him $730m. It was theirs to give him. What you are basically saying is that people have no right to decide what to do with their own money. Who does? You, el Generalissimo?

If the ceo is now in jail is because the government was forced by public opinion to do something about it.

Funny, I thought the judicial, executive and legislative were all separate. That's what it says in the US Constitution. Or are you telling me that Congress, or George W Bush, sent the Enron CEO to jail?

this where 2 sample of corporations where their decision was based on the fact to make money and where it was a threat to our security.

And so, based on the "2 samples", you are indicting the whole capitalist system? Yet you reject my indictment of all government based on my "2 samples" of Hitler and Stalin.

I know the liberal are highly corrupt but at least thei have to be elected each 4 years.

Yes, and you can "elect" a corporation as often as you want by buying from them, or refusing to do so.

Social darwinism

and you quoted me as saying:

If you really want to do something for the poor, abolish them [wage and price controls]... why don't we stop the fiscal policies that keep the poor down?... the mass unemployment that minimum wage laws create is so bad... for the working class.

So, because I want to help the poor, you conclude I am a social Darwinist?

[maplesyrup]

When was the last time that Bush and co made a decision that went against corporate interests.

When he passed the steelworker protection laws. Next question.

One in a million, or whatever.

Why don't you be honest and explain the real reason Bush engineered this legislation, eh?

[August1991]

For ruining a corporation, the ceo on its own get 730 millions. I guess thats because its hard to get work again lol. I doubt he was winning has much with his salary. I guess after ruining that corporation, he don't need to work anymore.

Bakunin, that money was not taken from me or you. It was taken from the shareholders who voluntarily chose to buy and hold the shares. I see a big difference between that and the money now being paid to Andre Ouellet.

As to your example of a corporation polluting the water of a town and then suppressing a Fox news report about it, I would like to see an Internet reference (I vaguely recall the story.)

But the "corporation" did not pollute the water. A person caused the pollution. IOW, I dump my garbage on your front lawn and you sue me. This is a question for tort law.

I don't see why this justifies abolishing corporations or treating the people who create one any differently from you or I.

[maplesyrup]

Gap Between Haves, Have-nots Expands

Over two decades, the income gap has steadily increased between the richest Americans, who own homes and stocks and got big tax breaks, and those at the middle and bottom of the pay scale, whose paychecks buy less.

    The growing disparity is even more pronounced in this recovering economy. Wages are stagnant and the middle class is shouldering a larger tax burden. Prices for health care, housing, tuition, gas and food have soared.

    The wealthiest 20% of households in 1973 accounted for 44% of total U.S. income, according to the Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50% in 2002, while everyone else's fell. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2% to 3.5%.

    Jobs and the economy top the list of voter concerns this election year. President Bush touts a strong economy that is growing, but polls find that Americans have doubts and think jobs are scarce. John Kerry is trusted more on the economy, with Democrats talking regularly of "two Americas," divided between the rich and everyone else.

    That argument has merit, some private economists say.

This is the direct result of allowing corporations way too much power in our societies.

[Cartman]

I thought that this was an interesting story. It is interesting that some believe large coporations should be allowed to invest as they see fit, but a union garnering and wielding this kind of economic clout? Well...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/...lan_040325.html

[Bakunin]

Then what are you proposing?

maplesyrup is the one who want to abolish them.

Me i want better law so when the head of a corporation make something immoral like hiding fact, or polluting the water of a town, I want the head of the corporation to be held responsible and im not talking about giving money im talking about prison just like the enron guy.

So, the shareholders decided to give him $730m. It was theirs to give him. What you are basically saying is that people have no right to decide what to do with their own money. Who does? You, el Generalissimo?

August:

Bakunin, that money was not taken from me or you. It was taken from the shareholders who voluntarily chose to buy and hold the shares. I see a big difference between that and the money now being paid to Andre Ouellet.

Im not an econnomist and im not english so im trying to translate the best i can and it may lead to misunderstanding. the 730$m "indemnité de départ" was voted by his "conseil d'administration", administrative conceilor or something like that just before the corp go bankrupt. then the "actionnaire" shareholder wanted to sue him but their is now law against this. In french we call this a" méthode de pilliage".

And so, based on the "2 samples", you are indicting the whole capitalist system? Yet you reject my indictment of all government based on my "2 samples" of Hitler and Stalin.

im not against corporation im for intelligent law against possible threat to our society. I agree that not all the law are intelligent or perfect but i think that we need them. I dont want "natural law".

Funny, I thought the judicial, executive and legislative were all separate. That's what it says in the US Constitution. Or are you telling me that Congress, or George W Bush, sent the Enron CEO to jail?

You were telling me that government where corrupt, i agree on that, justice is corrupt or his not perfect. Evryone know that Enron and the bush administration where working togheter.

So, because I want to help the poor, you conclude I am a social Darwinist?

No, because you want to abolish human law to let the natural law rule. At least i think thats what your trying to tell us, maybe i am wrong, just answer me.

[Bakunin]

As to your example of a corporation polluting the water of a town and then suppressing a Fox news report about it, I would like to see an Internet reference (I vaguely recall the story.)

its from the documentary "the corporation"

But the "corporation" did not pollute the water. A person caused the pollution. IOW, I dump my garbage on your front lawn and you sue me. This is a question for tort law.

that's what im saying, someone must be responsible for the act of a corporation. if it put dangerous trash in a lake wich goes to the water source, then somebody must be held responsible. Even if the corporation pay for decontamination, the ceo or the employer who tought of this must be held responsible. Thats why we need better law.

I don't see why this justifies abolishing corporations or treating the people who create one any differently from you or I.

me too, it justifie to get someone responsible from those act but abolishing them is a bit radical. You should ask this question to maplesyrup.

[maplesyrup]

Why is Nortel being investigated by the RCMP?

Is this another example of our glowing corporate world?

Wasn't Nortel one of, if not the prima donna of the Canadian corporate elite?

I am beginning to wonder if all our corporations are being run by criminals and/or thugs.

[Cartman]

MS...you forgot to mention how we ALL got screwed by Nortel as the feds decided to make significant investments into this great corp (CPP). If I am not mistaken, this stock was once around $129/share and went as low as a penny stock. Maybe the feds should just let the Ontario teachers' union invest for us.

[idealisttotheend]

  Hugo:

You tell me how many [laws were written by industry representatives]. Don't forget to tell me which ones, too.

In America (which is what I was thinking of),

The Data Quality Act.

This two sentence law was written to ensure the data used by the US government is "sound." It was written by a industry representative.

MSNBC story -- Data Quality law

The Bush medicare revamp bill

ourfuture.org anaylsis of the Bush bill

(people wondering about why the provinces want a federal drug plan and possibly why Martin is opposing may want to consider that it looks like the point of this American bill is to avoid a single payer system that would push prices down)

This state shows how powerful the lobbyists are in Arizona -- writing "many" of the bills

There was a story on 60 minutes too about a piece of legislation that turned out to be writen exactly like the lobbyists submission that involved the EPA but I can't find it anywhere.

In any case it's becoming common practice.

In Canada:

Many of PM PMs advisors are lobbyists.

It is now considered normal at Health Canada to listen harder to drug companies and Monsanto than scientists defending the public interest.

Lobbyists are direct appandages of corporations (colluding through industry associations).

[maplesyrup]

Corporations aren't in trouble. Right!

A quick glance at today's news:

Ford, Magna face class-action suit

Monsanto ripped over wheat experiments

And this doesn't include the RCMP visiting Nortel.

[August1991]

For heaven's sakes, you guys would have the government regulate corporations for a supposed democratically inspired public good. But when a democratic government regulates corporations, you claim that the government is hostage to corporate lobbyists. Sorry, I don't quite get it.

Maybe the solution here is that the government should not be regulating corporations at all.

IOW, the government - because it has powers of coercion no corporation/collective/cooperative/single individual has - should be held in check. I'm not merely afraid of the government being taken over by corporations. I'm afraid of the government being taken over by anyone.

All of your examples above of alleged corporate malfeasance involve people who voluntarily chose to deal with people through corporations. Nortel share prices? Gimme a break! No one is forced to buy shares.

[Hugo]

Why don't you be honest and explain the real reason Bush engineered this legislation, eh?

Because the steel unions lobbied him to.

This is the direct result of allowing corporations way too much power in our societies.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

No, because you want to abolish human law to let the natural law rule. At least i think thats what your trying to tell us, maybe i am wrong, just answer me.

I agree that we need intelligent and just laws. However, you seem to want to make laws based upon the assumption that corporations are evil, but what you need to realise is that corporations are no more intrinsically evil than people are, because after all, they are composed of people. To legislate on the assumption that they were would be like legislating on the assumption that blacks or Jews were intrinsically evil, an atrocity.

Therefore, laws that are unnecessarily punitive and punish success (like anti-trust laws), laws that interfere in private affairs where neither state nor judiciary should be meddling (like insider trading laws) and so forth are unjust.

In America (which is what I was thinking of),

The Data Quality Act.

You assume that it was the fault of corporatism that Congress never discussed the Act, when in fact that is a failure of Congress, not corporatism. You assume that the government would not have passed such an Act anyway, when all indications are to the contrary.

The Bush medicare revamp bill

And this is a special interest group complaining because a particular law doesn't benefit them enough. If we had a dollar for every time that happened, there'd be no more national debt.

You are assuming what you need to prove. Government is passing down law as written or requested by corporate interests, but this does not prove corruption, nor that corporatism is evil. If the laws were unjust, government would be more culpable than the corporate interests who requested it. Until you can prove that government has no alternative but to pass laws suggested by business interests, you have no case when you claim that business unduly influences politics.

Politicians are able to listen to various opinions and make judgements accordingly. I can list you many examples of politicians making decisions that went directly against the wishes of business interests, even where substantial money was involved, for instance, many of the politicians who received money from technology companies voted against the Trade Promotion Authority proposal that they were in favour of.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... I agree that we need intelligent and just laws. However, you seem to want to make laws based upon the assumption that corporations are evil, ...  laws that are unnecessarily punitive and punish success (like anti-trust laws), laws that interfere in private affairs where neither state nor judiciary should be meddling (like insider trading laws) and so forth are unjust.

You have a bit of a naive take on the basis for economic regulation. Information and transactional inequity are known to hinder market growth. Imposition of economic regulation such as the two you mention are in fact instrumental in expanding market participation and depth.

[Hugo]

Information and transactional inequity are known to hinder market growth. Imposition of economic regulation such as the two you mention are in fact instrumental in expanding market participation and depth.

Prove it.

[August1991]

Information and transactional inequity are known to hinder market growth.

How? And if they do, how would government regulation improve things?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Hugo and August...

Consider: Akerloff, "The Market for Lemons", 1970.

Also, I would direct you to the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics in general and entries relating to completion of contracts and securities regulation in particular.

There is some academic debate around whether and what regulations there should be, but the theories which justify them are fairly commonly known by economists. In principle, a market in which participant information costs outweight their expected benefit from transactions will not come into existence. Or, put another way, any market only comes into existence when the potential participants can benefit from participating. Only where there is a basic level of reliability do information costs become affordable, and participation occurs.

'Trust builds markets'. So, in theory, regulation which reduces participant information costs will increase market participation and thus depth and efficiency, increasing overall welfare.

I would argue that the entirety of human progress since the renaissance at least demonstrates the truth of this theory.

[Hugo]

'Trust builds markets'. So, in theory, regulation which reduces participant information costs will increase market participation and thus depth and efficiency, increasing overall welfare.

Unfortunately, antitrust laws have nothing to do with "trust" and everything to do with putting high-priced lawyers in command of the economy.

The anti-trust laws in America are profoundly unjust. They speak of completely ambiguous crimes such as "unfair competition," "restraint of trade," "collusion," and "intent to monopolize." There is no way for any company to have any idea of whether they are in violation of these laws until a judge rules on it. Anti-trust laws also rule that if a company attempts to defend itself against the charges, and loses, it will pay triple damages.

The products of a company are owned by that company and may be sold or disposed of any way it sees fit. Anti-trust laws violate freedom of property and freedom of contract because they strike down these rights.

any market only comes into existence when the potential participants can benefit from participating.

Exactly, and anti-trust laws completely violate that. You see, an anti-trust suit basically says that a company has no right to enjoy profits or to be successful, and may be stricken down for nothing more than being successful. In this environment, no potential participant can feel sure of any benefit from participating.

[August1991]

'Trust builds markets'.

No doubt information plays a critical role in markets - as does clear property rights. At issue ultimately is whether an enforceable contract is possible and at what cost. Many, many deals fall through because such a contract is either impossible or too costly. Markets don't exist.

At the same time, the legal system has developed tremendously over the past several hundred years precisely to overcome this problem. (Call this trust if you will.) I have no doubt we can now conduct more transactions through markets than ever before. Consider contingency markets alone.

Now then, have government regulations encouraged or discouraged the ability to sign enforceable contracts? I am hard pressed to find even one example where government regulation has lowered transaction costs. Can you think of one, Sweal?

[How about money and central bank insurance services to private banks? Governments screwed this up and have now made central banks independent. How about universal medical insurance? Maybe. Well, OK. Provision of public goods and enforcing property rights.]

If individuals acting on their own can't find away to fashion an enforceable contract at acceptable cost, I doubt very much if the State would do much better. Markets fail for a reason.

[The Terrible Sweal]

'Trust builds markets'. So, in theory, regulation which reduces participant information costs will increase market participation and thus depth and efficiency, increasing overall welfare.

Unfortunately, antitrust laws have nothing to do with "trust" and everything to do with putting high-priced lawyers in command of the economy.

Fewer Rightista Rostums and more substance, please.

The anti-trust laws in America are profoundly unjust. They speak of completely ambiguous crimes such as "unfair competition," "restraint of trade," "collusion," and "intent to monopolize." There is no way for any company to have any idea of whether they are in violation of these laws until a judge rules on it. Anti-trust laws also rule that if a company attempts to defend itself against the charges, and loses, it will pay triple damages. 

From your earlier comment, it appeared you were complaining about anti-trust rules as a general principal, but now you appear to be really concerned about specifics and application issues. I too would favor greater clarity in any regulatory regime rather than leaving persons guessing how to comply.

The products of a company are owned by that company and may be sold or disposed of any way it sees fit. Anti-trust laws violate freedom of property and freedom of contract because they strike down these rights.

Well, now you're back to principles again, but to what avail. Your position represents an extreme perspective on economic liberty, and a reductionist understanding of property. Okay, fine. Economic market theory, however strongly suggests that your ideas are not optimally efficient. Accordingly, you must have some other criteria than efficiency which you are concerned with. What, I wonder?

... an anti-trust suit basically says that a company has no right to enjoy profits or to be successful, and may be stricken down for nothing more than being successful.

You're merely polemicizing. I know what anti-trust rules are about. They are intended to prevent market distortion through collusion or dominance. Do you object to that INTENT?

[The Terrible Sweal]

I am hard pressed to find even one example where government regulation has lowered transaction costs. Can you think of one, Sweal?

Starting broad and getting narrow, begin with the rule of law itself which you alluded to but haven't given full acknowledgement. Then add the principle of equality before the law -- the ability of regular citizens to enforce contracts with the aristocracy and the government greatly enhanced the willingness of merchants to undertake works for them.

More specifically, government regulation of insurance has contributed substantially to the extent of coverage purchases we see in our society at the level of the retail consumer.

Consider also highway traffic regulations which enable the road system to function at all, and thus the market for automobiles to reach its current level.

If individuals acting on their own can't find away to fashion an enforceable contract at acceptable cost, I doubt very much if the State would do much better.  Markets fail for a reason.

Why do you begin with the premise of doubt for the state's ability to improve contracting costs? Surely at the level of cases, it depends on the reason for the costs, and the nature of the proposed solution. You say that markets fail for a reason, but it is equally true to say that governments and regulations exist for a reason -- because of the purposes they serve.

[Cartman]

Maybe the solution here is that the government should not be regulating corporations at all.

Now I HAVE heard everything. But, maybe you are right. I mean, this is exactly what those Nike sweatshop workers keep saying. That is, greed is a noble virtue. Leave corporations to their own devices, and just assume everything will go to plan. After all, these labourers are not forced to work there now are they? I mean, starvation is an option. Alternatively, here in Canada where gov'ts do regulate corporations, everything is messed up and the economy is on the verge of collapse.

August, there have been texts written since classical theorists saved the day. You can check them out at your local library (oops...government intervention :angry: ). You can buy them on-line at Chapters. Just make sure you effectively barter with the seller.