OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies

[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.

[deccan]

Baron Munchausen,

Here's a peace offering, my idea of a specific, clear and legitimate grievance against how many corporations operate, excerpted from the 17th October 2003 issue of The Economist. The issue concerns the wage inflation of bosses of corporations.

One of the first things that the Motorola search committee did was to follow the standard procedure of selecting a recruitment consultant to help them - in their case, the well-established firm of Spencer Stuart. To determine what a new CEO's salary should be, consultants make use of benchmarks. For Tenet Healthcare's new boss, for example, the comparison was with "compensation levels and opportunities made available to executives at the company's peer companies".

This has the effect of continually ratcheting up bosses' pay. No selection committee wants to award their new choice less than the industry average. That will, they feel, not attract the best man to the job, and it will also suggest that their company has settled for someone less than average. Since the tenure of top bosses is getting shorter and shorter, this ratcheting effect is accelerating, especially in Europe where, according to a recent report from consultants at Booz Allen Hamilton, the turnover of top CEOs has almost tripled since 1995.