Sailing a sinking ship?

[Hollus]

Its amazing how many people seem to subscribe to 'If its good for {insert corporate name}, its good for Canada.'

In a world of stateless capital and transnational corporations, ownership no longer conveys values of responsibility and good stewardship. If shifting operations to Indonesia or Brazil is less costly, patriotism will not be the factor that drives the business desicion.

Is capatilism working?

Has our government that was 'for the people, by the people' been hi-jacked by industry? An industry where survival is based on accountabilty to shareholders.

Maybe a better question is: How can capatilism be changed to serve more than an investers rate of return?

Veiwpoints?

[fellowtraveller]

I count at least 4 strawmen and two false premises.

Anybody care to up the ante?

[Hollus]

I count at least 4 strawmen and two false premises.

Anybody care to up the ante?

Would you care to elaborate, for my sake?

[shoop]

Could you refresh my memory on how the whole strawman thing works?

I count at least 4 strawmen and two false premises.

Anybody care to up the ante?

[Hicksey]

I'll second that. Strawman seems so Aristocrat.

EDIT:

Etymology:

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched

So what they're saying is though he's attacked "their" ways, they see no real damage inflicted by his blows because those weren't really their ways?

If that's the case, and the NDP isn't about class warfare, then please explain to us ignorant folk how attacking tax cuts for the rich/corporate and making it sound as if he's defending his supporters from the next coming of the Nazis, not class warfare.

Could you refresh my memory on how the whole strawman thing works?

I count at least 4 strawmen and two false premises.

Anybody care to up the ante?

[lost&outofcontrol]

<rant mode>

I think he makes very good points. Just look at Indonesia for the perfect example of influence trans-national corporations can have on a country. The British and US .gov had a direct link in the Suharto coup which led to the mass murder of over a million people all in the name of capitalism. The Trans-national corporations and representatives of the Suharto .gov had a conference in the late 60's and they (the Trans-national corporations) basically gave the Indonesian .gov their terms as too how they could enter the country and"cut out the cancer (dissidents)".

The IMF and the World Bank has loaned over 30 billion dollars to the Indonesian .gov of Suharto of which Suharto skimmed 10 billion that we know of and yet the IMF & WB refuse to forgive the debt. Who do you think is paying for the corruption of the trans-national corporations and the Suharto family ? The Indonesian people ended up paying for it. They have no chance in repaying this debt, they're barely paying the interest and that's how the IMF and WB work. They don't expect repayment of loans, only to receive interest on those loans for eternity.

The Nominal GDP for Indonesia is in the top 25 in the world and yet the Gross National Income per capita isn't even in the top 100. They're in the bottom half in the world for poverty. The invisible hand isn't doing a very good job.

All in the name of capitalism...

</rant mode>

[geoffrey]

<rant mode>

The Nominal GDP for Indonesia is in the top 25 in the world and yet the Gross National Income per capita isn't even in the top 100. They're in the bottom half in the world for poverty. The invisible hand isn't doing a very good job.

All in the name of capitalism...

</rant mode>

The GDP per capita (purchasing parity) isn't in the top 100 either. Lets not get into twisting stats. You could make the same assumption about China until you actually look at that nominal GDP of yours per capita. And with the Asian monetary crisis, nomial GDP pretty much means nothing.

[sage]

Capital moves from one place to another in search of the cheapest labour (among other things).

Why would people work for less? Generally because they are poor and something is better then nothing.

When Hargrove starts yakking about outsourcing, what he is really talking about is the movement of jobs to poorer places on the globe. When his speaking as the representative of labour, this is misplaced as he is actually the representative for "Canadian" labour. What is really happening is that Canadians (workers) want to reinforce the greater standard of living we enjoy over other poorer nations. They are all for equality and brotherhood so long as the class of people benefitting is strictly their Canadian ranks.

My point in all this is that one of the hallmarks in arguments against capitalism is the lack of equality, the fact that few control much, and most have little. The problem with a Canadian criticizing this from a global perspective is that we (collectively) have benefitted more then anyone from this system. In fact it reinforces our dominance (economically) over the majority of the planet, as we live richly off our resources.

Restricting the flow of capital may reinforce this but the direct consequence is the global poor remaining poor.

As a well off Canadian I'm perfectly happy with our place on the planet. I find it a little disingenuous though when someone uses arguments claiming to have altruism on their side, not fully appreciating that there is a second side to every coin.

[Hollus]

<rant mode>

I think he makes very good points. Just look at Indonesia for the perfect example of influence trans-national corporations can have on a country. The British and US .gov had a direct link in the Suharto coup which led to the mass murder of over a million people all in the name of capitalism. The Trans-national corporations and representatives of the Suharto .gov had a conference in the late 60's and they (the Trans-national corporations) basically gave the Indonesian .gov their terms as too how they could enter the country and"cut out the cancer (dissidents)".

The IMF and the World Bank has loaned over 30 billion dollars to the Indonesian .gov of Suharto of which Suharto skimmed 10 billion that we know of and yet the IMF & WB refuse to forgive the debt. Who do you think is paying for the corruption of the trans-national corporations and the Suharto family ? The Indonesian people ended up paying for it. They have no chance in repaying this debt, they're barely paying the interest and that's how the IMF and WB work. They don't expect repayment of loans, only to receive interest on those loans for eternity.

The Nominal GDP for Indonesia is in the top 25 in the world and yet the Gross National Income per capita isn't even in the top 100. They're in the bottom half in the world for poverty. The invisible hand isn't doing a very good job.

All in the name of capitalism...

</rant mode>

Yes. We could easily fill a thread with examples of how we've plundered other nations 'all in the name of capatilism'. As we speak Canada US and France or supporting the coup that overthrew the popularly elected president Aristide. Now look at the state of Haiti, its civil war. Where does it say: Democracy aplies only if its in the best interest of our corporations that do bussiness in your country.

If we're going to fight the 'war on terrorizim', we need to also apply it to ourselves.

Im trying to understand how we can govern our nation with respect to Canadians, when the determining factor of our economic prosperity(our livelyhood) lies with transnational corporations. These corporations dont share our values and beliefs(unless you consider greed a value or belief). They're only concern is to stay competitive in they're market and they'll go against anything to do so.

How can we expect the goevernment of Canada to inact the will of the people when doing so will drive away our employers, leaving us with no jobs?

Has industry hi-jacked government? Is it political suicide to question the foundation of our society?

[Hollus]

Capital moves from one place to another in search of the cheapest labour (among other things).

Why would people work for less? Generally because they are poor and something is better then nothing.

When Hargrove starts yakking about outsourcing, what he is really talking about is the movement of jobs to poorer places on the globe. When his speaking as the representative of labour, this is misplaced as he is actually the representative for "Canadian" labour. What is really happening is that Canadians (workers) want to reinforce the greater standard of living we enjoy over other poorer nations. They are all for equality and brotherhood so long as the class of people benefitting is strictly their Canadian ranks.

My point in all this is that one of the hallmarks in arguments against capitalism is the lack of equality, the fact that few control much, and most have little. The problem with a Canadian criticizing this from a global perspective is that we (collectively) have benefitted more then anyone from this system. In fact it reinforces our dominance (economically) over the majority of the planet, as we live richly off our resources.

Restricting the flow of capital may reinforce this but the direct consequence is the global poor remaining poor.

As a well off Canadian I'm perfectly happy with our place on the planet. I find it a little disingenuous though when someone uses arguments claiming to have altruism on their side, not fully appreciating that there is a second side to every coin.

Please explain to me where I've been 'disingenuous' or claimed to have 'altruism' on our side.

I never said capatilism hasnt done me well, it has. Im saying the nature of capatilism is contradictory to democracy. If you would like to continue on down the path of the corporate state and consolidation, suit yourself. I, However, am trying to understand how we can evolve the system to serve a us and the rest of the world. Where theres a will theres a way.

[tml12]

Capital moves from one place to another in search of the cheapest labour (among other things).

Why would people work for less? Generally because they are poor and something is better then nothing.

When Hargrove starts yakking about outsourcing, what he is really talking about is the movement of jobs to poorer places on the globe. When his speaking as the representative of labour, this is misplaced as he is actually the representative for "Canadian" labour. What is really happening is that Canadians (workers) want to reinforce the greater standard of living we enjoy over other poorer nations. They are all for equality and brotherhood so long as the class of people benefitting is strictly their Canadian ranks.

My point in all this is that one of the hallmarks in arguments against capitalism is the lack of equality, the fact that few control much, and most have little. The problem with a Canadian criticizing this from a global perspective is that we (collectively) have benefitted more then anyone from this system. In fact it reinforces our dominance (economically) over the majority of the planet, as we live richly off our resources.

Restricting the flow of capital may reinforce this but the direct consequence is the global poor remaining poor.

As a well off Canadian I'm perfectly happy with our place on the planet. I find it a little disingenuous though when someone uses arguments claiming to have altruism on their side, not fully appreciating that there is a second side to every coin.

Please explain to me where I've been 'disingenuous' or claimed to have 'altruism' on our side.

I never said capatilism hasnt done me well, it has. Im saying the nature of capatilism is contradictory to democracy. If you would like to continue on down the path of the corporate state and consolidation, suit yourself. I, However, am trying to understand how we can evolve the system to serve a us and the rest of the world. Where theres a will theres a way.

The orignal nature of capitalism was that it would not be counterproductive to democracy.

Adam Smith, widely regarded as the father of modern economics, argued it should include "good Christian values."

Looking at the U.S., the only time Bush feels the need to include "good Christian values" in his government is when he is campaigning. I think that otherwise, he is all about the big corporate (read: Enron) guys.

[Hollus]

Capital moves from one place to another in search of the cheapest labour (among other things).

Why would people work for less? Generally because they are poor and something is better then nothing.

When Hargrove starts yakking about outsourcing, what he is really talking about is the movement of jobs to poorer places on the globe. When his speaking as the representative of labour, this is misplaced as he is actually the representative for "Canadian" labour. What is really happening is that Canadians (workers) want to reinforce the greater standard of living we enjoy over other poorer nations. They are all for equality and brotherhood so long as the class of people benefitting is strictly their Canadian ranks.

My point in all this is that one of the hallmarks in arguments against capitalism is the lack of equality, the fact that few control much, and most have little. The problem with a Canadian criticizing this from a global perspective is that we (collectively) have benefitted more then anyone from this system. In fact it reinforces our dominance (economically) over the majority of the planet, as we live richly off our resources.

Restricting the flow of capital may reinforce this but the direct consequence is the global poor remaining poor.

As a well off Canadian I'm perfectly happy with our place on the planet. I find it a little disingenuous though when someone uses arguments claiming to have altruism on their side, not fully appreciating that there is a second side to every coin.

Please explain to me where I've been 'disingenuous' or claimed to have 'altruism' on our side.

I never said capatilism hasnt done me well, it has. Im saying the nature of capatilism is contradictory to democracy. If you would like to continue on down the path of the corporate state and consolidation, suit yourself. I, However, am trying to understand how we can evolve the system to serve a us and the rest of the world. Where theres a will theres a way.

The orignal nature of capitalism was that it would not be counterproductive to democracy.

Adam Smith, widely regarded as the father of modern economics, argued it should include "good Christian values."

Looking at the U.S., the only time Bush feels the need to include "good Christian values" in his government is when he is campaigning. I think that otherwise, he is all about the big corporate (read: Enron) guys.

Ya man. I dont think many would argue that society should be based on some form of "good Christian values" as you say. Although it should not be religion that dictates these values, finding common ground on the basic "human values" inwhich we would like to govern our society shouldnt be difficult. Its the implemintation thats difficult, being that we've strayed so far from these values(or perhaps never really valued them).

[tml12]

Capital moves from one place to another in search of the cheapest labour (among other things).

Why would people work for less? Generally because they are poor and something is better then nothing.

When Hargrove starts yakking about outsourcing, what he is really talking about is the movement of jobs to poorer places on the globe. When his speaking as the representative of labour, this is misplaced as he is actually the representative for "Canadian" labour. What is really happening is that Canadians (workers) want to reinforce the greater standard of living we enjoy over other poorer nations. They are all for equality and brotherhood so long as the class of people benefitting is strictly their Canadian ranks.

My point in all this is that one of the hallmarks in arguments against capitalism is the lack of equality, the fact that few control much, and most have little. The problem with a Canadian criticizing this from a global perspective is that we (collectively) have benefitted more then anyone from this system. In fact it reinforces our dominance (economically) over the majority of the planet, as we live richly off our resources.

Restricting the flow of capital may reinforce this but the direct consequence is the global poor remaining poor.

As a well off Canadian I'm perfectly happy with our place on the planet. I find it a little disingenuous though when someone uses arguments claiming to have altruism on their side, not fully appreciating that there is a second side to every coin.

Please explain to me where I've been 'disingenuous' or claimed to have 'altruism' on our side.

I never said capatilism hasnt done me well, it has. Im saying the nature of capatilism is contradictory to democracy. If you would like to continue on down the path of the corporate state and consolidation, suit yourself. I, However, am trying to understand how we can evolve the system to serve a us and the rest of the world. Where theres a will theres a way.

The orignal nature of capitalism was that it would not be counterproductive to democracy.

Adam Smith, widely regarded as the father of modern economics, argued it should include "good Christian values."

Looking at the U.S., the only time Bush feels the need to include "good Christian values" in his government is when he is campaigning. I think that otherwise, he is all about the big corporate (read: Enron) guys.

Ya man. I dont think many would argue that society should be based on some form of "good Christian values" as you say. Although it should not be religion that dictates these values, finding common ground on the basic "human values" inwhich we would like to govern our society shouldnt be difficult. Its the implemintation thats difficult, being that we've strayed so far from these values(or perhaps never really valued them).

Well, Adam Smith said "Christian" because he was writing in a time and in a society when Christianity was the dominant religion and there was no separation between church and state.

We can incorporate "Christian values" in modern Canadian society without to them as "Christian." For example, having welfare programs, helping the less fortunate in society, and generally treating everyone with respect and dignity would probably be defined as "Christian values" by Smith but need not be solely about Christianity if we created a government like this in Canada or the U.S. today.

[sage]

Hollus your fundamental premise was that outsourcing is wrong. My point was that it is only wrong if you're a Canadian living large already.

You are correct you did not shroud your argument in altruism, though many people on the left use language very close to yours and make do indeed appeal this intangible sense of morality.

My point was that we need to be clear about the consequence of the decision-making you are about to embark on. I think the majority of Canadians find no contradiction whatsoever in trying to address third world poverty and cry when jobs are outsourced.

These comments were meant to address more then just your thoughts on this post, and I am sorry if you took my words to imply that I was calling you "disingenuous".

[Hollus]

Capital moves from one place to another in search of the cheapest labour (among other things).

Why would people work for less? Generally because they are poor and something is better then nothing.

When Hargrove starts yakking about outsourcing, what he is really talking about is the movement of jobs to poorer places on the globe. When his speaking as the representative of labour, this is misplaced as he is actually the representative for "Canadian" labour. What is really happening is that Canadians (workers) want to reinforce the greater standard of living we enjoy over other poorer nations. They are all for equality and brotherhood so long as the class of people benefitting is strictly their Canadian ranks.

My point in all this is that one of the hallmarks in arguments against capitalism is the lack of equality, the fact that few control much, and most have little. The problem with a Canadian criticizing this from a global perspective is that we (collectively) have benefitted more then anyone from this system. In fact it reinforces our dominance (economically) over the majority of the planet, as we live richly off our resources.

Restricting the flow of capital may reinforce this but the direct consequence is the global poor remaining poor.

As a well off Canadian I'm perfectly happy with our place on the planet. I find it a little disingenuous though when someone uses arguments claiming to have altruism on their side, not fully appreciating that there is a second side to every coin.

Please explain to me where I've been 'disingenuous' or claimed to have 'altruism' on our side.

I never said capatilism hasnt done me well, it has. Im saying the nature of capatilism is contradictory to democracy. If you would like to continue on down the path of the corporate state and consolidation, suit yourself. I, However, am trying to understand how we can evolve the system to serve a us and the rest of the world. Where theres a will theres a way.

The orignal nature of capitalism was that it would not be counterproductive to democracy.

Adam Smith, widely regarded as the father of modern economics, argued it should include "good Christian values."

Looking at the U.S., the only time Bush feels the need to include "good Christian values" in his government is when he is campaigning. I think that otherwise, he is all about the big corporate (read: Enron) guys.

Ya man. I dont think many would argue that society should be based on some form of "good Christian values" as you say. Although it should not be religion that dictates these values, finding common ground on the basic "human values" inwhich we would like to govern our society shouldnt be difficult. Its the implemintation thats difficult, being that we've strayed so far from these values(or perhaps never really valued them).

Well, Adam Smith said "Christian" because he was writing in a time and in a society when Christianity was the dominant religion and there was no separation between church and state.

We can incorporate "Christian values" in modern Canadian society without to them as "Christian." For example, having welfare programs, helping the less fortunate in society, and generally treating everyone with respect and dignity would probably be defined as "Christian values" by Smith but need not be solely about Christianity if we created a government like this in Canada or the U.S. today.

I agree, but how can one nation initiate change without simply being left behind? With capatilism being a global reality, changes at the local level can be easily undermined.

What could we do to make the first step toward change, without paralyzing our current economics? Thats the question I really want to address.

[sage]

On another point, when did corporations operate on the basis of shareholder accountability? I suggest that corporate governance is more about maintaining management then any sense of accountability to shareholders.

[Hollus]

On another point, when did corporations operate on the basis of shareholder accountability? I suggest that corporate governance is more about maintaining management then any sense of accountability to shareholders.

The way I see it(by no means do I consider myself an economic expert, so I welcome any challenging veiws) corporations are bought and sold on the stock market. A corporations success relies on its ability grow interms of profits(shareholder returns). A corporations failure is the result of maintaining management for any reason other than remaining competitive and increasing shareholder returns(reasons such as 'human values' that have no economic trading power).

If a 'corporation A' doesnt persue profit by every possible means(breaking human rights law, environmental law, outsourcing factories to less regulated contries) than the door is left open for a 'corporation B' that will.

Then shareholders sell off all their 'corporation A' and buy the 'corporation B'

So if not accountability to the shareholders(more accuretly shareholder's investment) then who?

[shoop]

While your interpretation of events *may* have had some validity at one point in time, they are definitely not in touch with the current business environment.

The costs of lawbreaking have become so high, so quickly that companies are forced to *play by the rules*. Sure there are still some corporate lawbreakers, but the examples of Enron, MCI Worldcom, Tyco and Marth Stewart Omni Media are more and more proving to be the rule rather than the exception...

by no means do I consider myself an economic expert

If a 'corporation A' doesnt persue profit by every possible means(breaking human rights law, environmental law, outsourcing factories to less regulated contries) than the door is left open for a 'corporation B' that will.

[sage]

If a corporation answers only to shareholders, then why is there such a thing as a "poison pill"? Its there to reinforce management and to ensure a takeover does not occur. It has nothing to do with shareholder value.

Also how is Magna International doing on the corporate governance side? Last I heard, Frank Stronach controls the corp through voting shares which are not held by the general public.

In the world of multi-billion $ corporations no one entity generally has enough shareholdings to actually hold directors accountable.

I will admit I over-generalized though.

[sage]

I will agree though that it certainly isn't a sense of patriotism or morality that will govern a corporation's conduct.

[Hollus]

While your interpretation of events *may* have had some validity at one point in time, they are definitely not in touch with the current business environment.

The costs of lawbreaking have become so high, so quickly that companies are forced to *play by the rules*. Sure there are still some corporate lawbreakers, but the examples of Enron, MCI Worldcom, Tyco and Marth Stewart Omni Media are more and more proving to be the rule rather than the exception...

by no means do I consider myself an economic expert

If a 'corporation A' doesnt persue profit by every possible means(breaking human rights law, environmental law, outsourcing factories to less regulated contries) than the door is left open for a 'corporation B' that will.

Fair enough, but your taking that statment alittle out of context.

The overal statment of my post remains unchallenged: Corporations accountable to their shareholders[investment] interests, and lack the capacity to protect 'human values'.

[shoop]

What do you consider to be *human values*?

After the utter failure communism has proven to be in providing a decent standard of living everywhere it has been tried, it is time to quit railing against the evils of capitalism.

Of course there need to be restraints on free markets, but this must be tempered with the recognition that Canada's high standard of living is due to the business environment in which the country's economy exists...

Fair enough, but your taking that statment alittle out of context.

The overal statment of my post remains unchallenged: Corporations accountable to their shareholders[investment] interests, and lack the capacity to protect 'human values'.

[lost&outofcontrol]

What do you consider to be *human values*?

After the utter failure communism has proven to be in providing a decent standard of living everywhere it has been tried, it is time to quit railing against the evils of capitalism.

No country has ever been communist. The closest a country ever came to it was in the soviet union up until 1924 when Lenin died or the Paris Commune of 1871 . You don't really think that Russia under Stalin or China under Mao was communism do you ? They were nothing more then socialist dictatorships.

[Hollus]

What do you consider to be *human values*?

After the utter failure communism has proven to be in providing a decent standard of living everywhere it has been tried, it is time to quit railing against the evils of capitalism.

Of course there need to be restraints on free markets, but this must be tempered with the recognition that Canada's high standard of living is due to the business environment in which the country's economy exists...

Fair enough, but your taking that statment alittle out of context.

The overal statment of my post remains unchallenged: Corporations accountable to their shareholders[investment] interests, and lack the capacity to protect 'human values'.

What do you consider to be *human values*?

I'd like to ask you the same question, and how capatilism is going to account for them.

I am not a communist. Obviously an idealist.

Human values to me means alot of things. In this thread its been used as a term to refer to as tml12 said:"good christian values" or as I said "finding common ground on the basic 'human values' inwhich we would like to govern our society"

Sustainable development- I think we could all agree on that

Environment- I dont think anyone wants to leave a scoarched and lifeless earth

International Law- Dont think we should be supporting rebel factions to overthow demacraticly

elected governments inorder to protect corporate interests.

Human rights abuse- mabye Im alone on this, but Id like to see corporations adhere to a set list of

regulations instead of jumping around to take advantage of the impoverished.

Desperation should not be able to be used as a competitive edge.

Yes, I can hear you now:"this is all very nice-but your dreaming-it'll never happen". To which I reply: Where theres a will theres a way, and if you dont believe that than your part of the problem.

[sage]

Hollus would you be willing to give up your standard of living so that someone in the sub-Sahara can have a better existance?

Just a question.