OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidG:
Hmmm some intersting stuff there... and also a lot of funny crap. One one of the pages it suggest McD is causing world hunger by promoting the meat culture. Like if it wasn't for McD we'd all be vegitarians and there'd be enough food for the whole world. And McD is responsible for global warming cause of all that methane cows produce. Like if McD's dissapeared tomorrow we all start eating salads.

Does it really say McDonalds is responsible for these problems? Or are you reading it in Rush Limbaugh style, pushing the claims to their most absurb extreme in order to avoid having to consider them? I think it says McDonalds contributes to these problems, actually. And they certainly do as one of the largest food companies on the planet. It's not so simple as saying that the 'free market' determines this, either. If not for McDonalds advertising vast numbers of people would eat differently. Corporations are not just passive receivers of market forces. They also create them. Just like Walmart has a measurable effect on inflation nation-wide by its push to reduce prices, McDonalds has a real effect on peoples' diets world-wide through its huge advertising campaigns.

---

No it said McD contributes to the problem. But even that is ridiculous. The one I read was just a rant by a hardcore vegitarian. I dislike McDonalds but one can hardly blame them for the fact that we eat meat. Do you really think we eat more beef becuase of McD's?
Now if you want to critisize McD's for pushing unhealthy junk food on us and being a major contirbutor to the rise in obesity (and god knwos what other health problems) well I couldn't argue with that.

[deccan]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
How could it possibly be 'incendiary' to say that sleazy corporations are sleazy? Yes, since corporations have more influence on the writing of laws that govern corporations than the 'general public' (non-wealthy ordinary people) they are pretty much sleazy by default.

It's incendiary because you are saying, "You're rich therefore you must have done something bad in order to get so rich, therefore you are evil." Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?

If the authorities have suspicions, then it is okay for them to investigate. If investigations turn up evidence of wrongdoing, then I'd be happy to say that that corporation is sleazy. Otherwise, I do not believe that it would be fair to call corporations and even as you seem to imply, rich individuals, sleazy by default.

In McDonald's case, what is it precisely that you think they have done wrong?

[deccan]

Originally posted by PvK:
I didn't mean to say that they should be destroyed if some people don't appreciate what they do.

Hey, PvK, you named the thread "Public referendums on destroying evil companies".

[Fyron]

Deccan, didn't you know that if you are not a poor Joe-schmo, you are by default a sleazy scum-bag? Even though the majority of wealthy people are honest, hard-working people that got their money by working long hours, taking great personal (financial) risks, etc., they are still sleazy. Sounds like a lot of stereotyping is going on here to me...

[Fyron]

Keep in mind that were it not for corporations and other large businesses, you would most likely not be able to own a car, the computer you are using right now, or have canned foods, packaged foods, processed foods, or even much food that you did not grow yourself or was not grown within a couple of miles of you (very problematic for large cities ), nor be able to buy much in the way of cheap (comparatively based on quality versus cost) clothing, shoes, furniture, etc. that you did not make yourself, have a house that you did not build yourself, and so on. All of these things would be way to expensive if they were made by small companies that were not able to produce on such a large scale as to be able to lower costs to more affordable levels. It takes a lot of capital to get production costs down so that prices can be relatively low (as well as to develop methods to reduce such costs, allowing other companies to copy them). Small businesses and cottage industries rarely have that capital.

[ October 28, 2003, 08:00: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[deccan]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Deccan, didn't you know that if you are not a poor Joe-schmo, you are by default a sleazy scum-bag? Even though the majority of wealthy people are honest, hard-working people that got their money by working long hours, taking great personal (financial) risks, etc., they are still sleazy. Sounds like a lot of stereotyping is going on here to me...

Oh no, I must find a way to lose all my money then. Oh dear, poverty is virtue isn't it?

[Growltigger]

I agree with Mephisto. Corporations have separate legal personality to individuals and, to reflect that nature, are governed by a completely different set of legal obligations than those that apply to individuals.

I was not suggesting that they should have the same rights as individuals, simply that they must have separate legal personality in order for any rights empowered by law to be able to be enforced against them.

As to whether or not corporations should always act in a beneficial manner, I consider that this is a naive view. Corporations act for one purpose, to make profits in order to realise value for their shareholders. As to how they make those profits is a matter driven by market forces and business opportunities.

If you dont like the way a corporation does business, then as an individual, you only really have one method to show that dislike - dont buy their products. You have certain more rights if you are a shareholder, but practically, you will hold too few shares to make any real differences.
The only other option is lobbying in its many forms.

Failing this, you must exercise your franchise as a voter in order to put pressure on governments to police corporations.