Too Much Corporate Power? 343
This feeling, says the BW/Harris Poll survey, is amplified by the Net, "and the discontented who use it." It provides an early-warning system that approximates Paul Revere, says the magazine, a way to spread the word about the latest corporate outrage.
"With the Internet, information comes instantly," says Harvard University labor economist Richard B. Freeman, "so even if we don't have more people concerned about companies, those who can do more about it."
And we do have more people concerned about companies, it appears.
The Net seems awash in corporatist machinations. C-Net and other online news services read more like the National Law Journal every day, as the rise of Open Source programming and other trends -- copyright, privacy issues, a nascent movement for social responsibility -- pit the tech culture squarely against closed business practices and the runaway corporate growth that's accelerated dramatically since the 80s, then jumped dramatically again with the explosion of the Net and the Web.
The rushed, sometimes panicky entry of large corporations into a culture which is at heart architecturally open and markedly individualistic seems at times like a cultural civil war. Legal conflicts now seem to outstrip technological experimentation, advances and breakthroughs, lawyers getting as rich off the Net as they do in product liability or malpractice suits. Links are now a continuing legal battleground. Recently motion picture companies got a court order barring 2600 Enterprises from linking to sites containing DeCSS code, but that's just one item in a continuing litany of encroachment. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints asked for and received a court order prohibiting a church critic from linking to copyrighted handbooks. Mattel, which makes Cyberpatrol blocking software, took legal action after the cphack.exe program revealed Cyberpatrol's list of blocked Web sites.
Then of course there are the ongoing free-music and file-sharing fights, Amazon's efforts to copyright software and Microsoft's legal threats demanding the removal of links (on Slashdot, among other places) to its Kerberos code. Just wait till AOL and Time Warner link up. Thousands of Net-related actions are pending, and most are less about technology than corporate power. The Net evolved free of corporate and government control, but corporations and governments are racing to catch up.
In the Business Week survey, Americans gave business credit for the economic good times that have prevailed during the 90s. But the public is also becoming increasingly alarmed at corporate ethics, practices and power.
Nearly 40% of Americans surveyed said they thought profits were more important to corporations than making safe, reliable products. Only 6% said they thought large businesses treated their employees well, and just 8% said companies did a good job of educating consumers about health and safety issues related to their products.
74% said big companies have too much political influence, and more than 80% agreed that entertainment and popular culture are dominated by corporate money which seeks mass appeal over quality.
The Net is not only a prime battleground for the rising tensions between corporations and the public, it's also becoming the primary vehicle for anti-corporatist activists who have little voice in mainstream media.
Protests against Wal-Mart have erupted in more than 100 American cities, and issues ranging from the open distribution of technology to globalism to artistic control of culture to genetically altered food were cited in the survey. Without the news-spreading power of the Net, many of these efforts would probably have faltered.
The survey suggests that Americans are finally getting upset at their unchecked power and are coming to believe -- with amazing unanimity -- that large corporations need to be more responsible, ethical and regulated.
More than 95% of the survey's participants said they agreed with this statement:
"U.S. crporations should have more than one purpose. They also owe something to their workers and the communities in which they operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice some profit for the sake of making things better for their workers and communities."
This noble sentiment fails to take into account the proprietary and predatory nature of the contemporary global corporation. These companies have only one purpose. They are run by coalitions of analysts, stockholders, investors and executives whose overriding mission is to mass-market products, dominate markets and -- in the end -- maximize profits. There isn't a single CEO of a major corporation who wouldn't get fired in a flash if he or she decided to forego profits in favor of workers or community.
This conflict between an individual, entrepeneurial spirit and surging corporatism is the single most significant political conflict on the Net. And if the Net is, in fact, fostering a political/social movement designed to protest, curb or transform corporatism, that could well be the most significant and unexpected contribution to public life that technology has made since e-mail.
Still gotta love HP's approach (Score:2)
To achieve sufficient profit to finance our company growth and to provide the resources we need to achieve our other corporate objectives.
Those other objectives are listed on their web site [hp.com] (in descending order of precedence: Customer, Fields of Interest, Growth, Our People, Management, Citizenship), and they are right and good objectives from both a business and social perspective. The thing is the priority order (fulfill the ones above before you address the next one) and the inclusiveness of the first objective (you must consider all the others - they are the point: it isn't just money). Pure genius.
Perhaps regulation could be in the form of requiring corporate chartered objectives to be more in the spirit of HP's! With teeth, of course. E.g. if you want to deduct any losses on your corporate taxes, you must have inclusive corporte objectives and demonstrate you adherence to them. I wouldn't have problems with that kind of social responsibility for my company.
Re:Yeah, let's be like France! (Score:2)
Umm, no. A corporation's purpose is to provide a way to minimize/dilute risk and raise money, both by selling shares and increasing the number of shareholders.
A business (corporation or not) is supposed to make money by providing a quality product or service at a good value. Unfortunately, most large businesses have decided that it's easier to make money by litigating competition into the ground, and provide their products/services at the lowest possible quality and highest possible price.
The fact that you (and too many like you) have bought into the myth that it's a corporations responsibility to rape its own customers and compete by kicking the legs out from under the competition rather that outclassing it is a large part of the current (worsening) problem.
Excellent Point... (Score:2)
----------------------------
Re:Excellent Point... (Score:2)
On a related note, a book I think everybody who doesn't understand statistics should take is the classic book How to lie with Statistics [fatbrain.com]. For the less mathematical person, it's a good way of showing just how easily and subtly one can shift the results of those fail-proof statistics.
----------------------------
Okay, reality check PLEEEEASE! (Score:2)
Cops, by definition, want to control what you do.
Are you genuinely more afraid of cops than muggers?
What conclusions would a normal person draw faced with someone who genuinely was more afraid of cops than muggers?
(side note- Just last week, somebody literally planted a bomb in an attempt to blow up the house back-to-back with mine. It was the cops who, wearing blast shields, went to remove it and detonate the bomb safely in a barrel in the middle of the street, which they'd blocked off. Damn thing shook the ground. It was a cop who handled it and moved it to the safe place to be harmlessly detonated. I didn't notice any muggers offering to help- or any corporations, for that matter.
It wasn't a political bomb- turns out the person whose house it was is a local businessman who, basically, pushes his luck _hard_... about as hard as you can. This isn't a cop type person, as I understand it- it's another mugger type person (with various excuses and reasons) and if government was gone, this guy would just push it even harder and there would likely be even more bombs. Government is a recourse for people to at least feel they can do something about this guy _without_ bombing his house- except there was at least one person who didn't have any faith in that, wasn't going to trust cops and government to redress his grievances, and decided to take matters into his own hands- and try to blow up the house next to mine, adjacent to a block with lots and lots of little kids constantly underfoot.
Call me a crazy madman, but I for one feel safer trusting the cops.)
Re:stockholders about 50% of general public (Score:2)
So it's not even close to representing the American people as a whole. In fact, as the previous poster suggested, it's probably only a small portion of stockholders who have the control. Most of those 50%+ people probably only own stock through a 401k plan or similar method. They probably don't even know what corporations they own stock in. They don't get to vote on anything either. Don't delude yourself into thinking that holding stock in corporations gives any significant number of people any power over those corps.
The other side? (Score:2)
In a society where everyone is happy as long as they are doing better than the neighbors, it should come as no suprise that individuals are nervous about any successful organization. Hate to break it to all of them, but the treasured Free Market economy does have this exact drawback -- companies will gain power. The most important point Katz mentioned is that the abuse of this power is dangerous.
However, the flip side of this is a simple question: would you rather have the government regulate business, or have powerful businesses? I would hope that most answers would fall in between -- we need sensible rules: most importantly, I think that profitable organizations need to be kept out of government, and then vice-versa will be sane.
--
Re:The other side? (Score:2)
My apologies if my comment sounded anti-Free Market, that's quite the opposite of my position. However, there is no perfect system. In the Free Market economy (at least in theory), there are few rules that govern how companies can turn profit. Past the realm of consumer protection, and in the US, environmental protection, the government is supposed to have very little control. However, a drawback of this is that instead of government controlling business, business controls the government.
--
why can't corporations get the death penalty? (Score:2)
So, if a company's products kill people due to negligence, why can't the company be dissolved, with the shareholders getting nothing, and damages paid for lost wages to the employees and damages paid to the victims out of the corporate assets.
If it was like this, you can bet products like TIRES would be of higher quality.
--
Re:Americans are Hypocrites (Score:2)
I think the most frightening form of corporate power is not somebody like Microsoft.
It is a corporation that has the power to make a mockery of our First Amendment rights. The proposed merger of America Online and Time-Warner is absolutely terrifying, because if this merger goes through a -very- substantial fraction of mass media content creation AND distribution will be in the hands of one company. Go look at the asset list for AOL and Time-Warner; the combination of the two produces a media superpower that makes the fictional Elliot Carver from the James Bond movie TOMORROW NEVER DIES a very plausible reality.
The average American, surprisingly, likes Microsoft and feels the government has wronged the company. But the average Americans' views change quite drastically when they look at how a company like AOL Time-Warner has the power to dictate of a lot of what we see in the movies and TV, what we hear on radio, what records to buy, what magazines to read and what they can view on the Internet.
Corporate castration is sometimes necessary (Score:2)
Even in the worst of cases, though, I'm not sure that dissolving a corporation would be a good thing - especially if it's a large one that provides a significant number of jobs. As long as the officers can be tried for criminal intent or criminal activity, this may be sufficient.
It's a choice, dummy (Score:2)
Re:Excellent Point... (Score:2)
so whats changed in last 130 years? (Score:2)
the public good (government)has been going since
at least the 1870s, with various advances and
retreats along the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Speaking as an Assistant to the Vice Peon... (Score:2)
I shop smart. I shop S-Mart.
Re:Americans are Hypocrites (Score:2)
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
Sometimes yes, usually through stupidity, not malice. Those that do get smacked down, usually hard. Look at Firestone.
Obviously, freedom to make money does NOT mean freedom to make money at any cost.
Safety costs money. I'd rather be able to decide myself how safe a product I want. Just because a Volvo is safer than a Fiesta is not a good reason to ban Fiesta or force Ford to make is as safe as Volvo.
Corporations have other legal obligations as well, which they just ignore as is convenient for them
This is bullshit. Corporation play power games and often manage to avoid responsibility for what they did, but just as often they get a painful whack on their ass. To say that corporation can easily ignore their legal obligations is, to put it mildly, untrue.
I always imagined that people (even corporations, who are legally people) should have just one vote. But political corruption allows these people to have far more influence than a mere vote.
Ahem. And is political corruption the result of there being corporations around? I seem to recall that political corruption was widely practiced long time before any corporations came into being.
For example, you can only have an FCC license to broadcast radio signals if you ante up the dough.
That's government regulation, not evil corporations trying to take away your freedom.
Where would they be nationally visible if it weren't for the internet?
So? Internet is a Good Thing. What's your point?
Artists or musicians or even people with alternate news have no outlet unless they gain the favor of one of these mega-corps.
They do. You just pointed it out -- the net.
And let me point out that just as nobody forces you to buy, say, Sony CDs, nobody forces Sony to sign on bands that fit *your* musical taste. Sony has no duty towards all the alternate bands to publish them and that is good.
Look at cable TV -- it was forced to give several channels to local communities. I have not met a single person who watched them. It's a waste of bandwidth. Here you have it: a local community has access to TV programming. What does it do with it? Zilch. Nada.
This is an interesting argument.
1. Corporations in Nazi Germany didn't work for profit alone.
2. Nazi Germany was defeated in World War II
3. Therefore corporations that don't work for profit alone fail.
That's not my argument. My argument is different:
(1) Hitler forced corporations to work not for profit alone, but rather for "national good".
(2) Katz and others would like corporations to care less about profits and more about "national/general/community good".
(3) Katz and others are not Nazis. However they should think about why Nazis wanted the same thing they want. Hint: it has to do with government power and who defines what the national good is.
Kaa
Re:DEATH PENALTY FOR CORPORATIONS COME OF AGE (Score:2)
There is just one little itty-bitty tiny problem with this. See, what the corporation does is mostly decided by its management, as opposed to shareholders. All the rants against corporations are really rants against corporate management.
Now, if a corporation is dissolved, who gets fucked? Well, the management somewhat 'cause they lose their jobs, plus they usually hold some shares. But the ones who are really obliterated are not the management, but the shareholders -- after all it's them who own the company. Their shares just became worthless pieces of paper.
You *could* argue that the shareholders should watch over the management's shoulder, but I don't think the world works this way.
Kaa
Re:Americans are Hypocrites (Score:2)
And only a relative few got rich from Wal-Mart and AOL stock, compared to the population that has to put up with the companies' existence. A very small percentage of the American population owns stock in Microsoft. It is most likely NOT the same people who are complaining.
Most people seem to believe in capitalism, but, ironically, only within limits.
And for the government: the Cuban people elected Fidel Castro, only to have him betray them and launch a dictatorship. Are the Cuban people their own enemy? Only in the crassest way of expressing it.
Missing the point. (Score:2)
If, as unfortunately is the case, however, the government tries to take action itself without addressing the fundamental theft of public IP, then we will end up being ruled over by the government regulators again as well as incompetent (but not greedy) corporations. This is what Ralph Nader proposes, wrongheadedly. People have to set themselves free from this prison their complacency made. We must FORCE the government to enforce the non-monopolizing aspect of intelectual properties.
IANAL,
Ben
Is there a Solution? (Score:2)
Is revolution a possibility? Revolution to what? Some political-economic system has to be implemented. Differences of scale will always exist guarenteeing that some corporations are always going to be getting larger. Even communism found this out.
Can we work towards a better democracy? Voting would help. Encouraging more responsibility among corporations and universities and political parties would help (a lot.)
"Giving Back to the Community" (Score:2)
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
-Adam Smith
In other words: when we buy a product from a company, we don't do it out of concern for the company's well-being. Then why should companies who sell to us should be concerned with ours? We don't pay a higher price than we'd like to as a favor to the stockholders -- we try to get the best deal possible. Likewise, why should companies sacrifice profits to make their products less expensive, improve service, etc. if it isn't in their best interest?
One of the basic facts about capitalism is that when two parties enter into a transaction, they do so out of mutual benefit. (If you would truly be worse off without a product, you wouldn't buy it.) Basically, it's an even trade. They don't owe you anything -- no more than you owe them.
Cheers,
IT
Re:What's the single biggest business in the U.S.? (Score:2)
I was listening to a debate on talk radio about this a week or so ago. The proponent for the flat tax argued that you should only have to list your income and deductions, and then multipy by a percentage and that would be your tax. Nice and simple.
I don't see it as being so simple. Is my company sponsored health care plan part of my income? How about my brother-in-law? Is his company car (which can't be justified for company use as he works in a single factory) income? Should I be able to deduct the expense of new t-shirts that I wear to work since I would just wear the old ones if I were working from home?
Indeed, figuring my own taxes year to year, I have discovered the complexity in taxes isn't in figuring the rate (a simple stepped percentage, which most people can look up in the tables). The complexity lies in computing what to apply that rate to.
Bush wants to spur economic growth in the US by encouraging the technology sector with tax shelters. Will I qualify for those shelters? Dammit, he just made my taxes more complicated.
My point is that the tax code is complicated in the US and all other countries because politicians cave in to 'good causes' by passing out tax breaks. If you want a simple tax system, recind all tax breaks and deductions. Let politicians vote a donation to things they support (of course, you'll suddenly find a lot less 'support'), instead of disguising what they're giving away behind euphanisms.
Re:What's the single biggest business in the U.S.? (Score:2)
If you have a good answer for that one, I think we'd all like to hear it.
People are obsessed with money, because money is how we denominate resources and controlling resources equates to power in any social situation. Say I go into a restaurant. If I have money, I can convince the proprieters of the establishment to bring me food. They will even ensure that my drink remains filled. They do this with the idea that if they do it enough then they will garner enough resources to convince a car manufacturer to trade them a vehicle for all the green paper they've collected. This will enable them to travel to the country where they can trade more of their green paper to stay at a bed-n-breakfast where someone else will serve them and keep their drink full. If they collect enough green paper, they might be able to convince someone of the opposite sex to travel with them in their new vehicle and play with them at the bed-n-breakfast. If they've worked really hard, and saved a lot of the green paper, the may convince several of the opposite sex to go with them at the same time to play at the bed-n-breakfast.
If this isn't something to get obsessed about, I don't know what is.
6% of the general public, but how many employees? (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Yawn. (Score:2)
This whole mess (corporate control of government) got started because we used politics to interfere with them. We need to get back to using markets to control corporations. Why? Because corporations are set against each other in markets, whereas in politics they unify against the common enemy: government.
Divide and conquer. Works for me.
-russ
Surveys like this are not scientifically valid (Score:2)
A: I agree with the statement
B: I disagree with the statement
These surveys, with only two very limited choices, do not give a valid readout of what people actually think about the situation. If they sort of agree with it, but not exactly, they'll just pick choice A, because they don't entirely DIS-agree with it.
Re:Yawn. (Score:2)
(They have failed miserably; perhaps we should just remove the ability of the states to issue new corporate charters, and revoke all existing ones. There's a free market for you...)
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
Re:What's the single biggest business in the U.S.? (Score:2)
Re:Yawn. (Score:2)
Turn it around: would the stockholders of Firestone have allowed the corporation to have shoddy product safety practices if they faced personal liability?
Permitting profit without responsabilty is a recipe for disaster. At a very minimum, stockholders should be able to be sued up to every penny of profit or dividends they ever made off a share in a misbehaving corporation.
Re:Yawn. (Score:2)
If I own 1000 shares of Amalgamated Profits which I bought at $1 a share, and Amalgamated Profits pillages and rapes its way to obscene profits and I sell at $100 a share, that $99,000 profit is unassailable if Amalgamated Profits is sued. That's not right. All profits I made from Amalgamated Profits's pillaging should be within the scope of liability.
My suggestions:- no corporation can own stock. Period. Every shareholder must be an individual.
- File the Supreme Court decision that granted corporations all the rights of citizens in the circular file right next to Dred Scott and Korematsu.
- Start invoking the corporate death penalty - revoke the charters of misbehaving corporations.
Does this mean major changes in the economic infrastructure? Damn straight.Re:Americans are Hypocrites (Score:2)
Corporations exist out of the good will of the society to grant them explicit charters. The power to issue and revoke charters and replace management has always been with the people. Corporations don't have any natural "rights" to operate. Those rights are explicitly granted, and are conditional on their good behavior.
This is true to some extent but certainly not to the mythical status that consumers solely shape the market. For multi-billion dollar international corporations who have locked down market segments, individual consumers' stock and voices aren't worth piss in a monsoon. I'd like to see you try to boycott ADM or Daewoo or any of the major pharmaceutical or chemical companies.
Even if corporations attained their wealth and power perfectly legally and honorably, they are still polluting the political system. Witness the liberal hollywood set raising and dumping money into the democratic party which is ironically running two candidates who are loudly castigating "the media" and proposing tighter media regulations. Either hollywood is stupid, or they know that their money has more power than any promises politicians make.
(IANALawyer, correct me if I'm wrong)
Re:Yeah, let's be like France! (Score:2)
---- ----
Re:The other side? (Score:2)
With power, comes corruption. If the government distorts the market, some people will gain, others lose. And then the jockying begins to make sure the market is distorted in a manner favorable to yourself. The only long-term solution to corruption is to reduce the power wielded.
A free market, i.e., a capitalist economy, doesn't hinder or help participants. Government is a necessary component of a capitalist economy -- in order to have one neutral organization with a monopoly on the use of force. Other people and groups (companies) are then not allowed to coerce or defraud other people and groups. It's not at all the same as "business controlling the government." It's the government not, I repeat, not being controlled by business in order to provide a true free market. Anytime a company uses the government to obtain a subsidy or some other unnatural advantage over a competitor, it's no longer a free market. The idea of a capitalist economy is that the government does not favor, subsidize or punish people and companies except for actual offenses -- killing or hurting people, for instance. It doesn't set "industrial policy" or mandate technological changes (see FCC, USDA, etc).
---- ----
Re:Power (Score:2)
This reminds me of all the jockeying over "campaign finance reform" -- the prohibiting of some kinds of speech, particularly political speech, in order to "clean up the system." Never mind that Congress shall make no law abridiging the freedom of speech (most importantly, political speech -- read the federalist papers, etc.), the solution to corruption is still the restriction of speech, according to those currently in power. This makes no sense at all. The solution to corruption is the reduction of government power and control over people, the culture and the economy. A government with less power is less suseptible to bribes. If people and companies cannot use government force against their enemies and/or competitors, then lobbying, bribes, etc. will not be the problem that it is now.
---- ----
Re:We only hate evil corporations (Score:2)
Yeah, but that won't stop us from doing without! "Evil" is also relative here at Slashdot. These are acceptable:
* Child labor.
* Giving money to the Chinese government for the development of nuclear weapons.
* Millions of computers and video cards tossed in landfills every year because "400MHz is yesterday's news" and "the Voodoo 2 is slow crap."
And these are not:
* Having a receptionist somewhere who uses Windows 98.
* Questionable bullet items in licenses of software that is given away free of charge.
* Any suggestion that constant upgrading is maybe not the best idea.
Re:whatever... wacky statements.. (Score:2)
I think you hit the nail on the head here: you need corporate backing to run for presidency in the US. this allows corporations to present you with a choice, and for government it should be people who present the choices. in this way, the already rich can greatly control voting.
//rdj
DEATH PENALTY FOR CORPORATIONS COME OF AGE (Score:2)
DEATH PENALTY FOR CORPORATIONS COME OF AGE [adbusters.org],
by Russell Mokhiber
Exerpt:
IN TWO SURPRISING RECENT CASES, A LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR AND A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SEEK TO REVOKE THE CHARTERS OF CORPORATE LAWBREAKERS.
We know what the death penalty for individuals means: Commit an egregious crime, die at the hands of the state. What does it mean to talk about the "death penalty" for corporations? Simply this: Commit an egregious wrong and have your charter revoked. In other words, lose the state's permission to exist. It's an intriguing concept, because most of us never think about corporations needing anyone's permission to exist. But they do.
--
you are not what you own
first JK article I actually thought interesting (Score:2)
<P>
<i>
"U.S. crporations should have more than one purpose. They also owe something to their workers and the communities in which they operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice some profit for the sake of making things better for their workers and communities."
<P>
This noble sentiment fails to take into account the proprietary and predatory nature of the contemporary global corporation. These companies have only one purpose. They are run by coalitions of analysts, stockholders, investors and executives whose overriding mission is to mass-market products, dominate markets and -- in the end -- maximize profits. There isn't a single CEO of a major corporation who wouldn't get fired in a flash if he or she decided to forego profits in favor of workers or community.
</i>
<P>
I think they do. Just looking at the
example: "Shortage and Potential Loss of Professionals<BR>
Our business is labor intensive, and our success depends, in large part, on
identifying, hiring, training and retaining professionals. These professionals
must have skills in consulting, strategy, technology, creative design and
marketing. If a significant number of our current employees or any of our key
project managers leave, we may be unable to complete or retain existing
projects or bid for new projects of similar scope and revenue. Even if we
retain our current employees, our senior management must continually recruit
talented professionals in order for our business to grow. There is currently a
shortage of qualified personnel in the IT services market, and this shortage is
likely to continue. We compete intensely for qualified personnel with other
companies. If we cannot attract, motivate and retain qualified professionals,
our business and results of operations could be materially and adversely
affected."<P>
.com companies need to inspire their employees, and lately there has been lots of effort to get these new and booming companies and their now paper-rich CEO's to start donating money to charities.
<P>
articles such as <a href="http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,3
<a href="http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,38
<a href="http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282
technology companies are becoming more and more aware of their responsibility in both treating their employees well in addition to their responsibility to the global state of affairs. They realize that good PR, whether it has to do with their financial returns or their charitable gifts, are likely to increase their public image and thusly their financial returns.<P>
I think the trend is already starting and gathering steam...
Re:Finally, Proof very few Americans are truly Stu (Score:2)
those who can do more about it.
Yeah, right.
Do you honestly think a few thousand "oooh corporation X is soooooo bad" posts on internet sites _really_ get noticed by corporations?
Nope. The only thing the corporations will heed is a loss in profit. And they won't get that until consumers are responsible in what they buy.
Everyone on
Of course one could argue that over the years, people in western nations have been turned into consumer pods, lazy fat couch potato zombies by the corporates desperate for additional revenue.
Case in point - when flash Nike trainers first came out, and were a status symbol, people in the USA were getting _killed_ for them. A car advert in the UK claims "prepare to want one". Corporates prey on our "keeping up with the Jones's", often appealing to our lowest common denominator in order to influence our buying habits. Is this right?
From the parent post,
"U.S. crporations [sic] should have more than one purpose
What, and have free market advocates claim "government intervention", and "nanny state" arguments?
The fact of the matter is people just don't care enough to regulate these companies, by changing their buying habits. Because if everyone was a responsible enough person, and had enough self control to say "No, I won't buy product X because I disagree with their business practices", then where would these companies be? Superceded by a business that made it clear that they are against practice X or Y, and with a clear corporate moral.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
that article should be taken with a grain of salt (Score:2)
"This is a class with clout," said Raghavan Mayur, president of the Technometrica Institute for Politics and Policy, which conducted the poll for IBD. "Obviously, they're watching, and they can swing things one way or another."
I remember the same thing being said about "Soccer Moms" 4 years ago. I was never convinced it wasn't just political hype.
For instance, a survey by Paine-Webber found that 50% of Americans own stock, while a Heartland-Bullseye poll found the number was closer to 60%.
Look at the sources. Investment firms. I am very hesitant to take their statistics at face value without knowing how they gathered those statistics and the demographics of the people they polled.
And, in a recent survey, the Federal Reserve said 49% of Americans directly own shares compared with just 31.6% in 1989.
I'm more inclined to believe this bit of information, but they leave out how much stock those Americans own. I know lots of people who own some stock in the companies they work for. The amount is typically so low it really doesn't make a difference.
So who belongs to this new investor class?
Typically, he's a white male, married, between 45 and 54 years old. He has a college education and works in a white-collar job. And he has more than $50,000 invested in the stock market.
The profile of the typical non-investor: female, married, age 65 or older, with a high school education. She also works in a white-collar job.
Now we get to the heart of the problem. These are their demographics. I'm willing to venture that the population they sampled for this pool was not a good demographic representation of the country as a whole.
Also note the amount of money a "typical" investor has invested in the stock market. $50,000? That's a lot of money, especially considering that the median income for the US is under $40,000 ( us census data [census.gov] ).
Also, notice the last line of the article:
The same was true among middle-income groups.
The same what was true? Everything? Or just the political views that made up the majority of the article? My reading of this article is that it is mostly just political propaganda targeted at the investors who frequent the website.
53% of registered voters that they polled had over $10,000 in the stock market. What percentage of people aren't registered to vote? That's and important piece of information, especially with the degree of voter apathy in America.
Also, small time investors have no say in how large corporations run. If I buy 100 shares of Xerox stock, it gets me NO input into Xerox's upper echelons.
In summary, be wary of polls online, unless you know how the information was gathered (i.e. the census). Individuals with $10,000 invested in the stock market are not going to have a say in the workings of huge corporations because their $10,000 is going to be spread out over a multitude of companies. It's only the large investors who have millions of dollars in stock in a particular company (well, many particular companies) that have a voice with the Board of Directors.
Moller
not bad (Score:2)
The corporations / government better be careful about how much they tread on citizens or they might end up reigniting the 60's. Signs of this have already begun, with WTO protests, sweatshop protests on college campuses, and others that have occured over the last year or so.
These are interesting times (if you ignore the parts that are frightening) for a couple of reasons:
* There are many companies that directly profit from the internet (ecommerce) and pretty much every company uses it for increased efficiency of data flow resulting in cost savings. Therefore it is a needed tool. However, in order to censor information, I've come to the conclusion that the internet would have to be made illegal to truly stop info (or even enough to stem the tide).
Look at the 2600 case. Joe Average will find a way around any rulings forever. You've seen what they've done already. Plus our government can't bully everyone in the world. Offshore servers are unstopable. Since corporations need the internet, it will be interesting to see how this is worked out.
* Corporations are 100% about making money, but more than that, they are about maximizing short term profit, sometimes at the expense of long term profit. Look at the DMCA: limits on reverse engineering. What will that do to long term innovation, and therefore profits? I've always felt that corpoations were as much of a threat to themselves as anyone else, because of this need for short term profits.
The government keeps things in check a bit with laws and regulations to prevent stuff like this (clearly I'm not a libertarian, if you didn't figure that out yet), but what happens with increasing corporate control of our government? You get laws that stifle innovation and ruin corporions in the long run, and therefore our economy. Not that I'd mind seeing capitalism crumble, or change into something more humane, but thats another story
So in this case it will be interesting to see how corporations, as rabid dogs, fight with people like Mr. Hatch who seems to understand the need to keep certain freedoms available.
So now, of course, I have to insert the mandatory "support the EFF" statement. It's a good idea though. Help effect the way these issues turn out.
Wal-Mart Cares! (Score:2)
Re:The other side? (Score:2)
I agree, somewhat.
Make some clear rules, then let the markets adjust accordingly.
Corporations run amorally - and I don't mean that in a negative way - they are run to provide maximum return to their shareholders. Period. Every action and expenditure should be directed to that end or management is not doing its job.
That said, in the current political environment there is some incentive for large corporations to appear as somewhat concerned about issues that are not obviously related to making a profit. Eg, oil companies with glossy advertisements showing tropical rainforests and how their exploration is sensitive, etc. They're concerned about their public image in an political context where public opinion affects their profitability. In some cases, there are actual monies spent on things (more than advertising) such as United Way contributions, etc. Probably not as much expenditure in the long term general weal as we would like, but some nonetheless.
The key is making and implementing intelligent rules so that corporations can then adjust accordingly. If you don't like gasoline sinking into the groundwater and ruining life for your grandchildren, then make rules so there is a current cost associated with so polluting a common resource. If you don't want kids in India shoved into factories at age 6 making rugs for $0.25/day instead of going to school, then make the right rules in India so that such short-term profitable decisions will go in the direction that you perceive to be better. If you don't like the cultural homogenezation of Walmart or McDonald's, then patronize the more expensive MomNPop stores, or make the B2B price posting rules such that MomNPop collectives can get negotiate some of same good deals that the Walmart wholesale buyer can get (even if the distribution costs for MomNPop are still high).
If you're really adventurous, try boosting the inheritance tax to make a government pension plan one of the largest stockholders, then let Joe Sixpack vote for the representative that trades-off clean air for EPS as he sees fit.
You won't have an easy time pushing rules through that cause short term costs to increase for corporations to promote your favorite long-term benefit.
IIRC, various corporate interests were quite dead set against the government creating the Grand Canyon National Park back in the first part of this century, though it's regarded as pretty safely set now and you'd be hard-pressed to find much of the public in favor of opening it up to rampant development.
Today's wild progressive ideas (copyright and patent law changes, anyone?) will eventually be hashed out so that in 50 years they'll be regarded as an ordinary part of the cultural landscape and taken for granted.
Re:We only hate evil corporations (Score:2)
Hate to correct you, but we hate those corporations too!
Game publishing - Microsoft publish games and are even bringing out a console, but we still don't like [slashdot.org] Microsoft.
Creating episodes of the Simpsons - That would be Fox, wouldn't it? We hated Fox here [slashdot.org] because they wouldn't allow Linux users to connect to their website.
Making big budget movies - Sounds like the MPAA to me. Where have you been? We [slashdot.org] really [slashdot.org] the [slashdot.org] MPAA [slashdot.org].
Distributing carbonated beverages - We complained [slashdot.org] about Pepsi too!
This all goes to show that Slashdot readers and editors are a fickle bunch of people.
Companies aren't the problem. (Score:2)
And in america we see almost half of the people looking to vote for a man who will raise the amount the government steals from your paycheck at gunpoint by an unprecedented amount. If he is for the people and not the powerful than why is he proposing to take this money from the people?
People in america need backbones! They say that government has to much power but than continue voting in politicians who look like santa clause but end up taking most of their money and leaving them lumps of coal in services under the tree! 95% of you are probably recieving paychecks from these all to powerful companies and own stock in other ones. So when you go to the polls this year realize that if you vote for any candidate wanting to increase power of government (which enables powerful corperations) you are one A++ hypocrit.
Re:Excellent Point (Score:2)
Thad
Re:Finally, Proof very few Americans are truly Stu (Score:2)
About 3 months ago I bought a Creative DVD 8x kit with the DxR3 card. I have yet to manage to buy a DVD to even try playing one on it because I will not support the assh*les. The closest I came to buying a DVD was with both SouthPark BLU (can't remember which MPAA type was actually distributing though that stopped me) and Madonna's Music video with AliG (but than the RIAA would get money out of me...no can't do it). I don't have any other DVD equipment and it was PC Plus's distribution of Cover DVDs (and in particular a double sided one half win, one half Suse6.4 DVD edition) that got me to buy one.
I don't buy DVDs, Videos, Cinema Tickets or Music (excluding club and radio). I put my money where my mouth is and it hasn't killed me. Do you think they've noticed yet...I don't but it doesn't stop me. The question with these things is always will anyone break from the sheep mentality and say "we don't care if everyone does X, Y is right so thats what we do, even if it does mean we don't make as much OR we charge more".
It is not right for corporations to live for the LCD but they do, I honestly think that one is the matter of the public standing up for itself and refusing crap just because everything is crap. If we can vote with our wallets we will win.
As for the need for nanny state intervention...why not. I have no problem with the government muscling in on MS, they must be subjected to the same rules and we all must apply them though...
Vote with your wallet or Vote with the ballot Paper but either way VOTE
Finally, Proof very few Americans are truly Stupid (Score:2)
-
-
-
Admitedly someone can't spell (crporations) but it is reassuring beyond belief to see that 95% of the surveys respondents do not agree with the capatilist tripe that gets spouted so often (especially here on Slashdot..."it's their xxx they can do what they want with it" etc.etc.). Morality is alive and well, I can't wait to see the backlash build against the media corporations who have spent 30 years developing a mass market that hates them for being so patronising:-)Re:Americans are Hypocrites (Score:2)
I'd have to recommend against that strategy. If you want to gain influence over the way a company operates, you are going to have to buy a lot of stock, more than most of us can afford. By purchasing stock in a company, you are telling it that you agree with its business practices, for the most part.
Instead, I'd suggest doing two things: 1) buying stock in the competition, and 2) speaking out against the company.
Remember, it is possible to invest in socially responsible funds [nwsource.com].
The situation in the UK (Score:2)
Re:That's OK (Score:2)
Re:Statistics (Score:2)
Average wage going down (Score:2)
It also has a theogry in there that the USA wants to become a global playerz (we aren't now), and the only way the coropartions see fit to do this, is my cutting works, lower wages and "Mega-mergering".
Man, my spelling is really bad today, it was extremely painful for me to type that sentance. Grammer-whores and Grammer-trolls, do your best.
Corporate Power (Score:2)
My survey says ... (Score:2)
Statistics (Score:2)
what about you descendents (Score:2)
Re:*sigh*....not again.... (Score:2)
True -- but have you noticed that there are fewer Mom & Pop shops anymore? They can't compete against the big corporations, which will often move into a neighborhood and deliberately undercut M&P prices to be rid of the competition; they can afford the (to them) small temporary loss, but to M&P it's the whole business.
And when Mom & Pop are gone, what happens? Either the big corp goes back to what prices they feel like charging, or they get stomped by a yet-bigger corp. Don't believe me? Think about air fare prices and the airline industry shakeout of the last many years...
I'm far from anti-capitalist (hell, I'm a capitalist myself!), but there seems to be a balance lacking here. I blame much of it on the consumers: if we didn't ask for the absolute bottom dollar, this wouldn't happen. If we support Mom and Pop (your local small bookstore, for example) instead of the cheapest big corp (Amazon?), we'd have a small, local business where our comments would be more easily heard, and our own personal preferences would be given more attention.
It's about physical community, I think -- something that's harder to manage in this increasingly-connected world.
---
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
Yes, but the problem is they're doing so at the expense of the safety, well-being, and frequently the civil rights of their employees and customers. Corporations have other legal obligations as well, which they just ignore as is convenient for them -- whenever they can buy off a senator or congressman, or judge.
Campaign contribution limits are frequently challenged as an assault on "free speech." Which is always interesting. Because if I had the kind of "speech" that a company the size of Coca-Cola or Universal or Sony could throw around, I bet I could get a congressman to pass a law for me, too. I always imagined that people (even corporations, who are legally people) should have just one vote. But political corruption allows these people to have far more influence than a mere vote.
What's wrong with seeking mass appeal? Wouldn't you rather make something that more people like as opposed to less?
What's wrong with it is that they are simultaneously strangling every other means of artistic output to crush the competition. For example, you can only have an FCC license to broadcast radio signals if you ante up the dough. Broadcasting on an unused band is enough to bring the radio gestapo down on you, even though the public owns those airwaves. So only huge corporations can own radio stations and broadcast on them, and laws prohibiting monopolies on broadcasting were recently dumbed-down to make it easier. Britney Spears and the legions of boy-bands that dominate the airwaves today only do so because of mass-marketing campaingns. Artists or musicians or even people with alternate news have no outlet unless they gain the favor of one of these mega-corps. Witness how many alternative news sites exist on the internet today (for example, there's this one that just does news for computer-related people with a strong bias towards Linux). Or how many unsigned bands (like the guy with the DeCSS song, for example) have posted their stuff to the internet. Where would they be nationally visible if it weren't for the internet? Nowhere. And there is already a strong movement by corporations to stifle competition on the internet too, by taking over the DNS namespace, and / or just suing into oblivion anyone who posts competing points of view in the "public" arena that these companies seem to think they own.
By the way, in Nazi Germany the corporations didn't work for profit alone, but rather did what had to be done for the strength of the community. I heard it didn't work out well in the end.
This is an interesting argument.
1. Corporations in Nazi Germany didn't work for profit alone.
2. Nazi Germany was defeated in World War II
3. Therefore corporations that don't work for profit alone fail.
That one speaks for itself. But I might point out that Nazi Germany was under some duress from competing nations with planes, bombs, tanks, and soldiers, and that Herr Fuerer had mental problems. But those might have just contributed in a very minor fashion to the fall of Nazi Germany.
Corporate dictatorships? (Score:2)
If that is a valid view, then most of the world's biggest dictatorships are corporations.
Re:Yawn. (Score:2)
Corporations seem to have more free speech than individuals these days. Does this seem fair to you, voters?
--
Re:DEATH PENALTY FOR CORPORATIONS COME OF AGE (Score:2)
I think you've missed the point. A death penalty that can be issue by the community and/or victims of a criminal company means that everyone involved in the company, from sharholders to managers to cubical slaves, has an motive (even - gasp - a requirement, just like citizens) for ethical conduct. Currently, directors are required by law to maximise share value - a requirement often in direct conflict with ethical conduct - an insane situation. "People before profit" might be a trite-sounding slogan, but when a company will fight tooth and nail for the right to deliberately destroy the lives of millions* merely to give more dollars to its shareholders (who, it might be noted, were wealthy to begin with), the society that habours such a force of destruction is failing to allow the standard of living it is capible of, and may even be in serious trouble.
*while I was thinking of certain documents brought to light in the tobacco trials regarding work on addictiveness and marketing, tobacco is no worse than many.
The fundamental purpose of companies was to provide a society with a mechanism of production and thereby facilitate the raising of the standard of living of the society. The current situation bear little resemblence to this. A death penalty would increase the resemblence. Companies that line the pockets of a few sharehodlers via methods that damage a society on a wider scale have no place in that scheme. Currently, I'd put most large corps in that catagory (but then, I place less value on being able to buy the latest home theatre system or fashion clothing than many.)
Re:DEATH PENALTY FOR CORPORATIONS COME OF AGE (Score:2)
You still don't seem to grasp what I'm getting at. I'll have another quick bash, but I doubt it'll help.
(1) So what's the difference from bankrupcy, again? Is the end result any different?
The difference is that bankruptcy does not result from unethical conduct except in extremely rare cases such as successful lawsuits. I think you're assuming that unethical behaviour can and is met with lawsuits. In the real world, such victories are so rare that ethics are simply not a relevant concern to many executives.
(2) What community? What is the community of Coca-Cola?
The people affected by the actions, good and bad, of CocaCola. Unfortunately, most criminal behaviour takes place in the 3rd world, which is even less able to issue "death penalties" than the west.
(3) Victims of a criminal company have recourse to courts. That's what they are for.
Dream on. Putting aside for the moment the lobbying power that results in law changes to protect a corp, the average victim has no recourse. Case in point - even 2600, which enjoys _exceptional_ circumstances that most victims could not dream of, as well as the EFF bankrolling their legal defence to the tune of $$$ most victims will never earn in ten lifetimes, the MPAA is still steamrolling right over them.
Sure, victims technically have recourse to the courts, but lets not pretend that this infers justice, or even a motive for ethical behaviour that is on par with with the almighty dollar.
The court system simply does not work to this end. The USA is being sued by a petroleum co. trying to stop California clamping down on a polluting fuel additive that is seeping into their drinking water. That is how the court system "protects" the community.
>Little resemblance? US is the richest country in the world. It is closely followed by Western Europe and Japan. In all these countries corporations,according to you, run rampant.
Countries like Russia or China, on the other hand, killed off their corporations or did not allow them to develop. Are they better off?
?!? Excuse me? It is countries like China and Burma in which (western) corporations run most rampant. You make my point nicely - "Are they better off?"
I give up.
Re:Power to the sheep! (Score:2)
If anything, the ultimate irony is that the government does not need to protect me from myself, but does need to protect me from actions forced upon me by corporations against my will. Yet it is the former that makes it through court, and the later that just sits in the "too hard" basket.
All things will die somehow, but the sheep with the shepard lives a longer, richer, fuller, and easier life than the wolf's dinner. Currently, the primary erosion of my rights is not from governemnt, but from the "rights without responsibility" crowd. I believe that the right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Most people today seem to believe that the right to operate a car or SUV upwind of my property simply overrides my right to breath. I find that many, perhaps most of those who clamour for less restriction on their "rights" have no intention whatsoever of accepting the associated responsibility in the use of said rights such that they do not restrict the rights of others.
But I diverge...
Government is a bigger problem (Score:2)
Re:Government is a bigger problem (Score:2)
However, corporations are by and large limited to using suasion as opposed to naked force, which is the province of government. If I don't believe their argument that shopping at Wal-Mart is for losers and go there anyway, there's nothing they can do. If I decide that the government argument that tobacco smoking is harmful is a crock and light up in an office building, I'm in trouble. There are legitimate limits that can be placed on corporations to keep them from exploiting the 'under-informed' as you put it. We need the equivalent limitations placed on government.
Being a Canadian, I'm proud that my country can have such a high level of gov't involvement while not stomping on individual rights
This brings to mind my favorite story about Canada. A Canadian guy took his dog to a vet, and the vet decided that the dog needed a cat scan to diagnose its problem. The vet said the dog could get it within a day or two. The guy happened to know that the waiting list for humans was weeks to months and asked how it was possible to get the dog done so quickly. The vet said that the same equipment was used as for humans, but that since it was for-profit work, there was no waiting list for animals! When this story came out in the newspapers, naturally the Canadian government changed the rules so that humans wouldn't have to wait as long. JUST KIDDING! What really happened was the the rules were changed so that animals could no longer get cat scans. Benevolent government in action.
This brings up the other problem of companies influence in gov't. Once the companies become giants, they also get a say in the political arena. Obviously, and as many people already now, you "bribe" so long as the marginal cost of bribing is less than the marginal benefit of paying the bribe..
Exactly. And you know why this is a problem? Because we cede too much power to government in the first place! If governmental power were limited, bribing would be an ineffective strategy because government wouldn't have the ability to implement whatever it is that the briber is attempting.
Re:Government is a bigger problem (Score:2)
The big difference here is that you have the ability to walk away from your corporate/religious/institutional oppressors. Walking away from your government is a much more difficult proposition.
Finally corporations are often the ones who call down the full power of the State for their own purposes. Like Britian using gunboats to open the opium market in China, or American intervention in the Middle East. It's also usually the State that smashes picket lines at the behest of some corporation.
A great argument for limiting the power of the state. If it isn't given the powers necessary to oppress, it's not going to be an effective tool of the evil corporations.
To whom it may concern (Score:2)
I recently completed a survey and wish to share with you the results:
[Note: the survey involved a set number of questions asked of a participant (me) regarding my happiness with my government]
100% of those surveyed do not trust the federal government
100% of those surveyed were disappointed with their inability to directly affect spending and policy decisions made in their nation's captital.
100% were disappointed with the government's lack of a Guarrantee of Satisfaction or Your Money Back! Heck, even Sears has that!
100% of those surveyed were disappointed with the federal government's past work and plans for future work. Specified were failures in education, welfare, defence and foreign affairs.
100% were disappointed in the term "government funds" when the truth is all funds are "taxpayer money".
100% did not believe politicians were honest or had integrity. All respondents were leary, if not afraid, of any politician who bragged about their record of "public service".
100% of all respondents agreed that positive responses to this poll would be acheived when all of the "persons of dubious ancestry, i.e. children of female dogs and illegitimate offspring" were run out of town on a "rail" and replaced with persons having no prior governing experience.
Finally, 100% of respondents agreed that common sense dictated a "pay as you play" policy. Whereas, persons who paid for the system, were allowed to assist in its' governing. Therefore, non-paying members of society, contributing no funds to its' upkeep, would follow a policy of placating their benefactors until they contribute themselves.
All surveys reflect a +/- of 4% depending upon whether the respondents had had their morning coffee or not.
Thank you,
Power (Score:2)
Of course, as corporations (at least by US law) are in many ways considered a person, it just seems appropriate, in a twisted kinda way.
Are you perhaps suggestiong that we ditch capitalism, which is what gives these companies their power in the first place? Any stuctured economical/governmental system is destined for tyranny, it's only a matter of how long individual's good-nature can hold it off. Even with a pure democracy, something only possible in a very small or very interconnected society, combined with a socialistic economy, the only truley equalistic combination, would still not give us a perfect world. Once you get more than 2 or three people together, it becomes exponentially more and more difficult for tham all to be happy.
Basically our only choice is to try and maximize individual contentment, no small task there. Without a major upheaval of power, we've basically only got two choices: Government and Economy. The two are so intertwined that there's hardly a differency anymore, of course.
Well, there's always Chaos
It's The System Stupid (Score:2)
First, online freedoms (freedom of speech, freedom from unwaranted search and seizure, etc.) are not as well protected as their "real world" counterparts. Second, it's all too easy to push little guys (individuals, small organizations, and companies) around with only a large wad of cash and some fancy lawyers. How many institutions or individuals out there could withstand (or tolerate) a concerted attack (for whatever reason) from a big company? They have the money to bury you in legal proceedings and legal bills and they have the money to "grease the wheels" in the government to make sure that the new laws favor them and not you.
And Third, big corporations are only growing more and more used to being able to push around the little guys. Granting overly broad patents, modifying our intellectual property laws to empower big corporations even more, letting all these mega-mergers go through, these things encourage companies to get bigger, uglier, and nastier.
And all the while we're spending our time trying to bust up microsoft. Well guess what folks, Billy boy may have done some shady things but his business antics are nothing compared to the assaults on our freedoms and our privacy being mounted by numerous "big faceless" corporations. MS may have taken away some money from you and maybe some other people, but the RIAA and the MPAA are trying to take away freedom of speech and freedom of the press! Who is the more serious threat?
We don't need to get bogged down in yet more regulation, that wouldn't even help. We need to change the system so that it's simply not possible to bully "the little guy" around so much or for big business to influence politicians so easily. Campaign finance reform, a good solid ruling or two from the supreme court upholding the basics of the bill of rights online, some sort of reform of our civil lawsuit system to make it more fair and reasonable, these things will make the difference between our freedom or our domination.
Speaking as an Assistant to the Vice Peon... (Score:2)
The best method of rebellion isn't tattoos or piercings, it's not to support them. Take your dollar-votes somewhere else. Put economic Darwinisim into action.
Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
Re:Most people are still blind to corporatism (Score:2)
Sounds like...
God sends his spaceships to America, the beautiful [ckdhr.com]
They land at six o'clock and there we are, the dutiful
Eating from TV trays, tuned into to Happy Days
Waiting for World War III while Jesus slaves
To the mating calls of lawyers in love
Everything should be designed for maximum entertainment value and replace anything which is there for "our own good"
Michael Eisner in the Whitehouse, Congress wears mouse hats and sessions open with "M-I-C..."
WCW in the Pentagon
Ted Nugent as the Atty General
Sure... why not...
Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
What's the single biggest business in the U.S.? (Score:3)
It's the U.S. government themselves.
Think about it: Politicians votes are bought and sold like stocks and commodities by special-interest groups. The companies with the biggest wallets usually win (though what, exactly, they truly "win" in the long run could be a subject for a whole other debate).
Our tax dollars fund everything from the Army to the White House electric bill. What I think a lot of people have forgotten (and what corporatists would probably rather see unremembered) is that the entire purpose of a government is to TEACH PEOPLE TO RESPONSIBLY GOVERN THEMSELVES in the first place. The theory is that, once that critical mass is reached, the original government structure falls back into a simple supervisory role, a fallback for handling debates or issues that, for whatever reason, cannot be resolved at a local level.
Our own government has failed miserably in this regard, partly because people seem to have a great deal of trouble taking responsibility for their own actions, no matter how distasteful. I view our current situation as something along the lines of a collective Dr. Frankenstein suddenly realizing that he's created quite a monster.
Why do we not have a simple, flat-tax structure that everyone can handle? Because it would give too much control back to the consumer, and it would not require an IRS of anything near its current size to maintain.
Why is there not more effort to curb mega-mergers between enormous companies? Because doing so would be bad for (government) business in terms of politicians losing out on big campaign contributions and under-the-table kickbacks.
Why did the DMCA come into effect? Why was it even created, as it was written, in the first place? To help corporations and government make even more money; The corporations from royalties, and the government from patent and copyright filing fees (and kickbacks, etc).
Why is the entire planet apparently obsessed with silly little pieces of green (or other colored) paper with pictures and numbers printed on them? Why is money treated as the be-all and end-all of existence?
If you have a good answer for that one, I think we'd all like to hear it.
Keep the peace(es).
Yeah, let's be like France! (Score:3)
Now I'm a little bit unclear here. If I recall correctly, corporations' purpose is to provide profit for their shareholders. To have more than one purpose would necessarily dilute the focus of the directors away from the primary purpose of profits. Unfortunately, if U. S. corporations are made to concern themselves with other things, they become less competetive in the world market, and we turn into France. ("What's that work week length again?")
Yours truly,
Mr. X
P.S. Please note that a concern solely for profits doesn't negate the idea of responsible corporate citizenship. It would appear that Bridgestone/Firestone forgot the concept of long-term profitability. *snicker*
Sigh (Score:3)
Two observations. First, the trial lawyers' definition of 'safe' is fairly different from mine. IIRC more than half of the cost of a ladder goes to lawsuit insurance. Second, the corporation's executives have a legal obligation to produce as much profit for the shareholders as they can. The point of a business is to make money, not random acts of kindness.
more than 80% agreed that entertainment and popular culture are dominated by corporate money which seeks mass appeal over quality.
May I point out to that 80% that popular culture is called 'popular' because most of the population likes it. What's wrong with seeking mass appeal? Wouldn't you rather make something that more people like as opposed to less?
Nobody stuffs Britney Spears down the throats of unwilling people. People buy it, ask for it, scream for it. They would be much upset, and rightly so, if somebody told them that this is not "quality entertaintment" and that they should go watch something that's good for them, like PBS.
More than 95% of the survey's participants said they agreed with this statement:
"U.S. crporations should have more than one purpose. They also owe something to their workers and the communities in which they operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice some profit for the sake of making things better for their workers and communities."
That's a survey? That's a propaganda job. The question is quite similar to "Do you agree that applehood and mother pie (err... you know what I mean) are good for America, should be respected by all and we should have world peace -- and don't bother replying, we know you'll say yes".
This noble sentiment fails to take into account the proprietary and predatory nature of the contemporary global corporation.
Noble sentiment? Proprietary nature? Proprietary as opposed to what -- government owned? Somebody tell Katz that it has already been tried -- there were no corporations at all in the USSR, nothing "proprietary" and "predatory". By the way, in Nazi Germany the corporations didn't work for profit alone, but rather did what had to be done for the strength of the community. I heard it didn't work out well in the end.
Amazon's efforts to copyright software
Ahem. Confusing "patent" and "copyright", plus what Katz called "software" was really "one-click shopping". Of course, it could be that he really meant what he wrote -- that software was not subject to copyright before Amazon began its dastardly deeds...
Bletch.
Kaa
Corporations Becoming the Government (Score:3)
Nobody in government appears willing to be a champion of individual or public rights anymore.
I may not be able to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, but it's sad that free speech has been curtailed to the point that I can't publish some DeCSS source code. Even though the U.S. had laws against exporting encryption software for many years, it was still very legal to print out the source code for that software and export that printout! They seemed to be very careful about the free-speech aspects when they wrote that law, but nobody seems to care about that any more.
Domination (Score:3)
Re:Corporations should be beholden to society (Score:3)
A unified world government just means unified destruction of jobs. Instead of just having them destroyed in one country, they'll be destroyed in every country. Who is likely to be hurt the most? Yep, the people in Third World countries who have the least access to other jobs.
In any case, remember that multinationals typically pay twice the going wage rate. Stop them from doing that, and you mire the Third World in poverty. Clever thinking on your part, huh?
-russ
(shaking head sadly) (Score:3)
Every example you give is GOVERNMENT imposing too much power, not corporations.
If you folks in the media would frame this issue properly, then perhaps the general public would take away government power (especially take away those federal powers NOT enumerated in the US Constitution that they seem to think they have) and corporations would no longer have that tool at their disposal.
Granted, the corporations, owned by the general public (stockholders) in most cases try to influence that overbearing power to their interest when they can, but the bottom line is that the government holds the power and consistantly demonstrates that they do not deserve it. You list perfect examples of this above, but hide the actual offender (government).
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Re:The other side? (Score:3)
Actually, the problem isn't the free market economy; it's government manipulation. Once the mechanisms of government regulation are in place, existing megacorps buy control of them and use them to entrench their positions -- see any of a dozen RIAA/MPAA threads on /. for examples.
/.
Re:Corporations should be beholden to society (Score:3)
Here's an interesting bit of math. Take the Gross Domestic Product, representing the total value of goods and services produced in the US: about $US 9,559,700,000,000 [doc.gov] for 1999. Divide by the size of the American workforce: 137,673,000 [bls.gov]. You discover that the average American worker creates $US 69,438 of value per year.
All that value has to end up somewhere. Eventually it all ends up in the hands of a worker who made something - or, in the pocket of an investor, who didn't do a lick of work on making something but manages to get paid anyway.
The average American worker's gross pay, including benefits, is $US 18.50 / hour [bls.gov], or $US 38,480 / year. Leaving $US 30,958 of value going somewhere else.
In other words, the average U.S. worker gets about 45% of his or her productive worth diverted to the owning class. Welcome to capitalism.
"Our new king is so nice! He give us beggars twice as many table scraps than the old king! We should make sure our king stays in power!"Just because you leave a group of people better off than before does not mean that you are not exploiting them.
Rather than assisting multinationals to come in and pay six cents a day rather than the locally prevailing three cents, how about assisting these nations in building their own domestically-owned industries?
We only hate evil corporations (Score:3)
I saw this over 10 years ago. (Score:3)
I had envisioned to get my degree. Eventually move into my own business, with my own little pharmacy on the corner.
When in school, other people in the program did make me see the light.
"How can you do that, with CVS, Genovese and Rite Aids starting to pop-up all over the place? They'll run you out of business."
Here I am in a career I like, computers.
This was just one small story, but I bet there are millions more like it.
This is hardly news - but is it a bad survey? (Score:3)
I think almost anyone would agree that even the best corporations would be better off becoming more responsible and ethical. The fact that "regulated" was slipped in with those two suggests that the survey is slightly leading. Slipping in something that a large portion of the populace will take issue with at the end of a list, preceeded by two things they can't take issue with... That's class. All class.
This isn't to say that I personally disagree that corporations need to be more regulated. But I refuse to believe 19 out of 20 people feel that way. That's too thorny an issue for any fair poll result to be that unbelievably lopsided.
*sigh*....not again.... (Score:3)
Absolutely Unremarkable (Score:3)
- Do you think taxes are too high?
- Do you believe that politicians should be more honest?
- Do you think that there should be better programs on television
- Are you sick and damn tired of the man getting you down?
- Do you think people should have more sex?
I mean, come on!Re:hating nice corporations (Score:3)
My understanding of a dickie is that little half-shirt-half-sweater thing women sometimes wear underneath blouses and what-not.
I know this because once -- a long time ago -- my grandmother used to talk about her dickies. I was confused (and disturbed) until she later offered clarification.
And I remember once -- not longer after she first started to talk about her dickies -- that we (my grandmother and I and probably my grandfather) went to Marshall Fields (a big Chicago department store like Macy's or Bloomingdales) in search of a dickie -- one -- singular.
The implication was that, yes, you could buy more than one dickie -- two dickies, three dickies, four -- but that you bought them separately (and only combined them at the checkout carrier for 'dickies' -- plural) but that you didn't buy them in pairs -- as in: "Dammit, the matching dickie is missing! I only have one dickie!"
Anyway, my understanding of dickies -- plural, singular, or whatever else -- is, as I say, limited pretty much to the events I describe above, but perhaps -- and I mean this honestly -- there is another meaning for "dickies" that you could share with us -- a meaning in which dickies are bought, sold, bartered (whatever) in pairs -- much like slacks or socks are.
And, yes, corporations are taking over way too much of our lives. I speak about this at some length in the 'Amazon' thread that was posted earlier today.
Cuba has 1st world life expectancies (Score:3)
The "Contradict Jon Katz" game is in session! (Score:3)
four dollars, nobody cares, but when Amazon does it we get a flurry of Slashdot articles about it.
And when Jon Katz takes note of something, everybody at Slashdot lines up to disagree with him.
Look, I agree that Katz often seems like he's just recycling stuff and that his "serious journalist tackling today's tough issues" tone seems more like "trying way too hard" sometimes.
But really, some of the biggest threats to our liberties ARE powerful monied interests. We know that. That's why there's a YRO section on Slashdot and near-daily carping about this legal machination or that.
The problem, really, is that Katz is preaching to the choir. That, and this particular chorus is too proud to be told what it already knows... so it results to dischord.
Big Corporations (Score:3)
Large corporations serve the lowest common denominator; ie: the people that don't know any better. If you don't like what a company is doing, don't utilize the services of that company. Go to someone smaller, and local to your community.
The same goes for government. Gas prices too high? Blame the gov. Clinton & Gore are the ones who asked OPEC to raise gas prices in order to help Russia. The oil companies aren't raising prices. Look at how much money you give to the government. How much control the federal government has. Until people start paying attention to what's happening in their own communities, no solution will ever be reached.
I choose to use small businesses to recieve my products and services, not major corporations, who provide bland products and services. I choose to know who my local government officials are, and wish the feds would self destruct. We don't need them... they need us.
Kris Felscher
Small Businesses in a Big Economy, What it Means (Score:3)
What about going to smaller businesses?
a) Distribution of the goods is poor. Smaller hardware stores are not Home Depot; they don't have 30 hammers out on display. The small business, with a limited budget cannot afford additional capital without income.. Without additional capital, they cannot attract new customers.
b) Small Businesses often emulate Large Companies and try to pretend they are bigger than they actually are. The end result is that they provide terrible service, and an arrogant, "don't give a fsck" attitude. Their customer base dwindles because the one thing that they *can* provide, repeated good relations with the customer, has been lost. As we move more toward automating things through voice and tension about large companies grows, talking with an actual person will probably become a welcomed, value-added feature of the purchase. It's the one thing I've ever agreed with Gates about; he mentioned this in his second book.
c) Small businesses have poor accounting skills and cannot handle keeping track of inventory well, much less bookkeeping. Tax laws in America favor the corporation who has a staff of paid accountants and lawyers.
70% of small businesses fail within the first year because of two reasons - sloppy capital management and undercapitalization. I tend to also include b), since poor or dishonest customer relations will drive people away from purchasing in the first place.
This has been my experience as both a small business owner and a consumer.
--
Spindletop Blackbird, the GNU/Linux Cube.
Hypocrites yes, but not in the way you describe (Score:4)
Well...I don't really agree with that. We don't have many options to elect the right person. How many of our elections are between only two candidates? I live in New York. The senate primaries were yesterday, and guess what, Hilary Clinton won the Democratic Primary and Rick Lazio won the Republican Primary. I never ever HEARD of anyone challenging them. For the past month they've been running ads against each other, they both effectively ignored the primaries.
It's also difficult for anyone from the majority of the american public to achieve a high-ranking elected government position. This is a generalization, but most people don't have the resources or the abilities to run for a seat in the house, or the senate.
To a great extent, we are the corporate power. Never before in American history has so much money been invested in the stock market by so many people. We own our oppressor.
This isn't really accurate. You say that never before...has so much money been invested. This is probably accurate. However, most of that money is in the hands of a small percentage of the population. Because of the stock market's incredible success and so many companies having incredibly increases in their stock price, our culture has shifted so that to the outside observer it would seem that everyone is investing in the stock market, simply because of media saturation. You can't watch prime time television without seeing a myriad of investment ads. But the simply fact is most of the people in the country don't have the money or the time to spend investing in the stock market.
Don't mind me, I just hate wallstreet. I find it incredibly galling that a small number of people who pump money into our corporations dictate how those corporations run. (side note, I'm interning at Xerox right now...it's messed up, wallstreet is dumb. That's all I can say.)
Moller
Re:Missing the point. (Score:4)
I disagree. IP is a mere drop in the bucket - but it happens to be the drop that hits you on the head because of where you work and live.
Corporate power (and abuse of said power) easily extends to destruction, litigation, slavery, injury, and death without an IP issue in sight.
Keep the big picture in mind and IP in perspective - I'm not saying IP practises "aren't that bad really", if anything I'm suggesting that you overlook the sheer magnitude of corporate filth, due to the overwhelming disgusting vastness of the fraction of it that is in your direct view.
The Corporate "I" (Score:4)
Oh, and there is an interesting site on what can happen when a corporation gains too much power [essentialaction.org], as is the case with Shell-Nigeria [shellnigeria.com].
Everyone has a right to be concerned about how powerful corporations have grown. Just a few bits of food for thought.
-as
Katz in the post-Slashdot Era (Score:5)
74% said karma whores have too much influence on Slashdot, and more than 80% agreed that slashdot comments are dominated by trollers which seek mass appeal over quality.
The Net is not only a prime battleground for the rising tensions between karma whores and trollers, it's also becoming the primary vehicle for communists who have little voice in mainstream software development houses.
Protests against DeCSS have erupted in more than 100 American mirrors, and issues ranging from the open distribution of technology to globalism to artistic control of culture to iMacs were cited in the survey. Without the news-spreading power of the Net, many of these efforts would probably have faltered.
The survey suggests that slashdot posters are finally getting upset at their unchecked power and are coming to believe -- with amazing unanimity
-- that karma whores need to be more responsible, ethical and regulated.
More than 95% of the survey's participants said they agreed with this statement:
"Karma whores should have more than one purpose. They also owe something to their moderators and the communities in which they operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice some karma for the sake of making things better for their moderators and communities."
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Americans are Hypocrites (Score:5)
When people complain about the government, I have to point out that we, not them, are the government. If there's a government problem, it's because I elected the wrong person.
To a great extent, we are the corporate power. Never before in American history has so much money been invested in the stock market by so many people. We own our oppressor.
The same people who claim Microsoft is a monopoly have stock in Microsoft. The same people who think that Wal-Mart is homogenizing America in an effort to mute culture and get us to buy more Britney Sprears CDs are the same people who rode the stock from $10 in 1991 to more than $55 this year.
Sure, AOL ruined the internet, but they did it while making people such as you and me rich in the process.
Corporations exist to make money. I'll be the first to agree with that. But we forget that they aren't making money for themselves. They are making money for their shareholders. If you don't like a company, don't buy its product but do buy its shares. Become and owner and change the way it operates.
There will be some who say that the average stock owner has no effect on the company as a whole. Before you tell me that, tell me how much your vote will mean in the next election. Tell me if your vote is wasted.
We [bpib.com] have met the enemy and he is us.
InitZero
Re:Americans are Hypocrites (Score:5)
We all have "stock" in the federal government, too; but does that mean that it doesn't oppress some American citizens? Hardly.
The massive difference being that in elections, it's "one man, one vote"; in corporations, it's "one dollar, one vote", and 5% of the people hold 95% of the dollars. Until that changes, we're fucked - economically and politically, because that 5% determine who gets to be treated as serious candidates for office, and because one of the main jobs of the government is to protect that 95% of the wealth from us peons.So will my vote for Nader be wasted? Pretty much. It's symbolic action, rejecting both mainstream choices; it might have some small indirect effect if enough people do the same, but no matter which way I - or anyone who reads this - votes, we're going to get a rich, big-business-friendly, born-again-Christian, white guy in the White House [billionair...orgore.com].
I mostly go to the polls to vote on bond issues, for schools and parks and against new jails (stop locking up drug users and you'll have plenty of room) and "senior citizens" centers (the elderly are the richest demographic and they already get a nice chunck out of my paycheck to subsidize their retirement), and occasionally an interesting local race.