May 10, 2004

They're self-centered, manipulative, backstabbing, out only for themselves--and amoral about the whole thing: they're Corporations.
posted by pyrrthon1 20 years ago
  • This is a where Fark's "obvious" tag would come in handy...
  • Of course, being the Economist, they can't help but twist the knife into those darned socialists at the end!
  • there was a good thread on that Other Site about when corporations became individuals - legally. As a stupid lazy bastard I didn't find it though. Interesting because it had links to specific court cases that allowed, say, McDonalds to sue for personal injury and things like that.
  • Yeah, it seems corporations have all the protections of a person, but none of the responsibility. Go team.
  • I thought it was an interesting article and I will check out the film, if it shows up in my 'hood. I didn't think the cut to state run corps was out of line. It doesn't make any sense to me why the state should be innately less corrupt than the free market. I do think we should socialize certain things, like healthcare, but that is because I don't think health and insurance should be for-profit endeavors. That said, I think there is a happy medium that can be struck, limiting corporate freedoms, getting rid of the culture of corporate priviledge, etc. while still maintaining a generally free market.
  • shotsy: Not necessarily less corrupt, but better oversight, in that we all have a vote. If a private company misbehaves, only shareholders can change that; moreover, they hide behind the idea that companies are supposed to be amoral, and in pursuit of profit. Most governments have some sort of charter or constitution with slightly higher minded goals.
  • Corporations are legal entities, not real entities, thus are prone to all the defects of the inhabitants and generators of law, i.e., attorneys. The legal arena psychopathizes all it touches.
  • Yeah, it seems corporations have all the protections of a person, but none of the responsibility. Go team. Uh, taxes? The legal arena psychopathizes all it touches. Dude, that belongs in Bartlett's.
  • Uh, taxes? I meant criminal responsibility. But they also don't pay their fair share of taxes, IMO.
  • If Ken Lay goes to jail, I'll eat my words.
  • Uh, taxes? posted by the_leviathan at 11:29PM UTC on May 10 Continues Carter, who is chairman of Economists for Bush, “As most college freshmen learn in Economics 101, corporations do not pay taxes, people do. The burden of corporate taxation is ultimately borne by customers (through higher prices), stockholders (smaller dividends and capital gains), and employees (lower wages).” as found here. signed, Mr. Derail
  • Shelters and Leasebacks..... The problem with corporate taxes, is the failure of corporations to pay them. Specifically, through such things as leasebacks and other vehicles, corporations at times are exempted/sheltered from paying any taxes. Thus, they avail themselves of the benefits of being on US soil, but are free riders when it comes to paying for these benefits. As to the claim that "corporations do not pay taxes, people do" this is true to a point. Taxes are not per se harmful to the growth of a corporation. Namely, corporations benefit from the paying of taxes in the form of improved infrastructure and other things that, for example, allow for the flow of goods and services to be more efficent. I would argue that some conservatives, fail to understand this and believe that such things as infrastrucure just magically appear.
  • But, theoss, don't corporations just raise prices to cover additional tax expenses and protect their after-tax bottom lines? If they didn't, in many commodity sectors, especially, I think that they would't show any positive income after taxes. If my guess is correct, than not only are consumers paying corporate taxes, indirectly, but they're also paying some additional profit margin. The bottom line is where dividends come from. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  • theoss, path, both of you seem to make a lot of sense to me. (And I've never really thought about what you all just said.) Are you disagreeing, though? I never got past the pin factory part of Adam Smith, really.
  • Not really disagreeing, but whenever I see complaints about corporations not paying their share of taxes it strikes me that the complainers haven't thought about the effect of higher corporate taxes on prices. There are some market constraints on how much a firm could increase prices, but ultimately, I do believe it's the consumer who pays. I do agree with theoss on the benefits of infrastructure improvements, but would add that those improvements flow to individuals, as well. If we want good, well maintained roads, for example, we have to be willing to pay for them, and so on, whether through taxes or higher prices on goods due to corporate tax increases. So, maybe it's up to the taxpayers to pay attention to what tax dollars are being spent on, to educate ourselves so we can assess,at least to some extent, the value of what's in the US, or the state, or the county, or the city budget each year, and to let our representatives know what's good and what isn't. And vote for those we think likely to use our money wisely. In my little town, it's so clear that people vote for emotional reasons and we wind up with City Councel members who are unprepared to deal with economic issues. Sorry, that was a bit off topic.
  • "Council."
  • someone start a thread about economics so I can ask about supply/demand vs. market-point pricing.
  • I think this thought that if the corporation is a person, it's a psychopathic one is bang on. All corporations are made up of people, who (Golden calf scene of Dogma notwithstanding) are for the most part good, decent people who care about the world. But the organisation is stronger than any individual - and there is no mechanism to give the organisation a heart or morals. It just has its goals. Every individual in the corporation is answering to someone else, so they don't have responsibility - but you never seem to get to the end of that responsibility chain. Unless it's at the stockholders, whom it could be offered have almost no say in the organisation unless they are very big stockholders. I once worked coding interviews with corporate lawyers answering hypothetical questions on ethics - and you just saw how the needs of the corporation could conflict with morality. even legality - and the pressure even on those who have taken oaths to put the company before that morality. That said - pete_best, please ask your question, I think it would be very interesting.
  • Well in school I learned that a banana costs $1 because it takes .20 to harvest it, .20 to ship it, .10 to market it, .10 to display it in the store, .10 for the store's cost, and .30 is profit. Now, I understand that the banana institute research people have discovered that people will pay $2 for a banana. The costs are the same, but the market price point is set higher, so that $1.30 is profit now. Thereby breaking the relationship of what something is priced at with what it costs to produce that product. Isn't that akin to going off the gold standard? Isn't that messed up? Isn't the consumer just getting screwed? etc. That's what I was wondering about.
  • pete: I've only taken Economics 101, and it was many years ago, but the forces that prevent that kind of price gouging are reduced demand (fewer people will pay $2 for a banana) and competition (supplier A sells for $2 and supplier B sells for $1...who are you going to buy from?). As long as there's no collusion between suppliers, or external forces (government pricing regulations, supply problems, etc), the price will naturally settle to $1. If anyone has gone beyond ECO101, feel free to correct me.
  • The probable reason that people would be willing to pay $2.00 is that supply falls short of demand, so not everyone is getting a banana when they want it. Raising the price to $2.00 would encourage an increase in supply (assuming it's not limited by lack of banana trees)and bereft banana lovers would flock to the stores. Of course, if the sellers get greedy and overstock bananas, they would have to cut the price to entice customers to buy more. If they can't sell what they have bought, they will have invested $.70 in each banana (or more, if we assume that they were willing to pay suppliers more to get them to increase supply) which they can't recoup.
  • Supplier A's bananas are hand-picked by Tibetan lamas and gently shipped in feather beds, while B's bananas are dumped in a bin and all bruised and moldy. Still willing to pay $1 for them? Also, when B finds out people are willing to pay $2 for A's bananas, B raises his price to $1.25. After market wars, loss-leaders, legal threats and maybe a little bloodshed, the price naturally settles at $1.75. That's what I learned in Eco 201.
  • This is a good read if you haven't already. {leached from that other site}
  • Too bad all the bananas are bought up by the banana cartel. And the little banana growers have no way to ship their bananas unless they use the shipping company that the banana cartel owns. And I guess I never did like bananas anyway.
  • Thank, BlueHorse, we're back to the subject of the post.
  • I'd definitely like to see this movie. My gut instinct is that it's typical anti-corporate, anti-globalization, anti-capialism bullshit, but I hope I'm wrong. The premise that corporate behaviour is sociopathic makes a lot of sense, at first glance. Corporations reject cooperation in favour of competition. They delight in their competitors demise. Layoffs are seen strictly in terms of maximizing profits, despite the real human suffering they cause. Any person who behaved like that would be labelled criminally insane. The Economist article is correct when it says socialism isn't the answer. So what is?
  • I'm curious- why isn't socialism the answer? It seems to have worked for some other countries...
  • zedidiah - I think that socialism would have a difficult time succeeding here because we tend to be a nation of cowboys. Out there on the range, righting injustices, fighting the bad guy and winning by killing the villain, thereby making the world safe for the poor homesteader whose ranch would have been taken away. A lot of us don't seem to have figured out that the lone gunman isn't necessarily a good thing, no matter how good his intentions are, in today's society. I think that the originators of the recent corporate scandals saw themselves as a version of "cowboys", doing whatever was necessary to make their company ("ranch") succeed, whether it was owned by themselves or by investors. And, this extends to racists protecting their we hate you if you're not Scots-Irish "ranch", libertarians protecting their don't tread on me "ranch", PETA finding an animal "ranch', tax protestors thinking that their "ranch" is separate from the rest of the country, and on, and on. And, as you get further down the chain of command in corporations, those who will do anything to succeed may be more dangerous than the top cowboys. Doubtful accounting practices, probably done by those who thought they had license to do whatever was necessary to protect the "ranch",may have put them into effect without the cowboys at the top knowing about it (even though they might have approved.) Since they're all cowboys, they can, in their minds, do whatever is necessary to keep the ranch safe. It also helps that their bosses give them bonuses for doing so, based on numbers which are skewed using bad accounting practices. In short, most of us don't have the greater good at heart. Changing the emphasis on individual success (corporate or personal) to what's good for the county in general is pretty daunting. I dont't know that socialism is the best thing, but we've at least got to get back to a different style of ethics.
  • zebediah: Socialism isn't the answer because governments are no less corrupt and single-minded than corporations. The only difference is that the focus is on votes instead of profits. If you give a government too much control of the economy (a definition of socialism, in a way) they will use it to buy votes, usually by providing voters more goodies than they can afford, and making future generations pay by running huge deficits. Obviously, right wing governments can run deficits too, but that's not classical conservatism. Today's neocons have more socialist traits than they like to admit....but that's a potential derail. I'd like to see a free market economy, with government regulated (and enforced) limitations to protect consumers and shareholders from corruption and anticompetitive practices. Add to that a dash of socialism in the form of public health care, and you've got a workable system (actually, you've got Canada).
  • Also, I think if we're going to discuss socialism, we should differentiate from Scandinavian style social democracy (democratic country, market economy, good social welfare system) from Marxist/Leninist communist systems (not democratic, state directed economy, and yet ironically very bad social safety net - who need a safety net or old age security if there is 100% employment?). And then there are places like India a decade or two ago, where (as far as I understand it) democracy was combined with heavy government involvement in industry, etc - which is its own thing yet again. So when someone says "Socialism works!" they are usually thinking about Sweden, etc. But when someone says "we've proved socialism doesn't work" they're usually talking about Russia, China or Cuba. Which usually explains the arguing, if they ever figure it out. That said, I'm still proud my grandma was called a commie for campaigning for the CCF and the NDP in the sixties.
  • I guess the question came up while considering that, while the USA doesn't have socialism by name, we duplicate many of the functions in roundabout ways. From government sponsored programs like MediCal/MedicAid, Social Security, and numbers of educational programs like Headstart, to heavy corporate regulation and controlled or subsidized markets. Most employed Americans have at least minimal health insurance, those who aren't have welfare and other programs to fall back on. Costs that a socialist government might incur are passed down to state and local governments, or paid by subsidized corporations, but of course the common citizens end up paying eventually. None of the above seem to work very well, and there's a great deal of infighting/deal-making always in progress. Very few of the benefits seem stable, as political agendas and corporate influence can reduce or increase them without much warning. It seems that the socialist governments are just being more honest about the social contract with their citizens. This may also be part of our national identity: Canadians and Europeans I've known seem to have a sense of satisfaction and security with their country that I haven't seen in Americans, a sense that, no matter what happens in life, they'll be OK. Of course this is just anecdotal, but they seem happier and less worried about life in general, as compared to the hard-working competitive Americans I've known, who always seem too tense and insecure by comparison. I wonder how much of this difference is the result of their/our government. I understand what you mean about our 'cowboy' mentality, but isn't this just a carefully tended myth? The overwhelming majority of us left the open prairie generations ago, and cling to comforts our ancestors couldn't have dreamed of. As a nation, we're 'all hat and no cattle'. Sorry for the long post. I don't have any answers here. Our current system doesn't work, corporate influence is a big part of it, and it seemed appropriate to ask about solutions that have worked for others.
  • But think about where we'd be without corporations. Mom and pop stores, 60 acre farms, no McDonalds to pay minimum wage to thousands of teen agers. In a lot of ways, we all benefit from corporations' ability to control prices. WalMart is maybe the best example on the benefits side, though I don't shop there because I think they fall short on the ethics side. I'm not convinced that corporations, per se, are evil. It's the lack of ethics in the current corporate culture that bothers me.
  • Hey path, I'm wondering, about the "lack of ethics in the current corporate culture" bit. I wonder this: People are encouraged to hold to ethical standards because if they don't, they get called assholes and lose a social life. Or something. But corporations have no social life, right? For them the real success is not to be known as an upstanding citizen, however that might help the real goal, which is profit. I'm having trouble spitting out what I'm saying, but I'm not convinced there's any motive for a corporation not to be evil. Whereas there might for a person.
  • So what we need is a corporation with a social life, who is afraid about going to parties and being snubbed.
  • Zedidiah - just a few correction to your description of America. Welfare isn't there any more to fall back on, since Mr. Clinton signed that "reform" which limits it five years for a lifetime (it's amazing how short a time five years is - a year here, a year or two out of work there, and then you're living with your children in a park in New Haven (a woman was doing this - she hit the maximum, but her work didn't keep her on, and her children were homeless). Also, considering that 15% of Americans have no health insurance whatsoever (including working), I guess work doesn't provide it. Working at Walmart doesn't - the premiums are too high. I don't know if I would have health insurance if I didn't have it from my university. As a Canadian who has needed and used welfare, subsidized housing, public primary, secondary and post-secondary education and healthcare, all of which has allowed me to grow up and get a better life (the Canadian dream), I am totally biased on why I feel a "sense of satisfaction and security" with my country. Mostly security actually, for the above reasons. But the knowledge that you can go to the doctor when you need to, that you have something if you fall on hard times - these are things that do create a sense of security. Until the Martin government gets going again. I want Tommy Douglas for PM!
  • I think the reason corporations aren't ethical is because consumers dont want them to be (or don't care). Consumers just want low prices, not ethics. That's why they shop at WalMart. Really, when it comes down to it, consumer greed for lower prices is on par with corporate greed for higher profits.
  • jb- I'm aware of the people who've fallen through our so-called safety net. I was addressing our mainstream, as many Americans aren't aware of tent cities or working homeless people in this country, employed folks who have no benefits of any kind. Some people deny they exist. rocket88- Yeah, people just want low prices no matter what, and have a disconnect between saving money at WalMart, and seeing the effect WalMart has on the local economy. A few communities have figured this out, a trend that I hope has a future.
  • BlogRot - Giving to charity, while certainly something all should do more, does not make up for paying your own workers such low wages that they will be dependent on those same charities. I used to shop a lot at WalMart, because I was impressed by their low prices, and they put all other stores like them in Toronto to shame. I have since learned those low prices are the result of terrible treatment not only of their workers, but also of their distributors and everyone else they have contact with professionally, even by business standards. Did you know that WalMart Canada accepts returns of electronics that have been opened, without even checking that the item is actually inside the box, let alone that it works? They then send that box (in case you were wondering, it was a box that suposedly held a game console, but actually was filled with CAT LITTER) to their distributor and refuse to pay for the game console which they never returned? This is actually only the most egregious of incidents involving I have heard (from the people who opened said box) about Walmart returning opened and tampered with electronic items, which of course the manufacturer refuses to reimurse the distributor for, leaving that business taking the loss for Walmart's stupidity. This is not just putting the bottom dollar first, this is lousy business practice.
  • zedidiah - sorry, didn't mean to suggest you weren't aware. It was something that had shocked me, as I only learned about it a few months ago (in an article about the said woman in New Haven - I live this city, and the job she was let go from was at my university, so I'm still more than livid). I think these sort of changes, especially those that only affect certain people, don't often get noticed unless you are in the system; even when they are part of a political campaign, the fallout is rarely publicised.
  • blogRot - most, if not all, large corporations have charitable programs, and facilitate employess to perform public service of some sort. (For example, the last place I worked gave a couple of hours paid time off per week for those who volunteered to tutor at a local school.) And, most of them have something in the mission statements about wanting to "being a good citizen." The former gives their PR departments something to point to when talking about the latter. And, as cynical as that last sentence seems, I don't think corps. are inherantly evil. But I do think there are dangerous "traditions" specific to types of industry. (Gross generalities to follow.) For example in old-line manufacturing, in farming, and in other industries where most of the work force is un- or semi-skilled, hourly labor, workers are viewed much like machinery and equipment: easily replacable and probably won't work if not "operated" to achieve the highest production. Wages are low, benefits few, bathroom breaks restricted, etc., etc. The stories that broke a few months ago about WalMart stores locking employees in at night, often without a supervisor or anyone with a key available in case of emergency, speak to that tradition. My very personal feeling is that it's unethical to dehumanize the people who work for you, but the tradition goes back to the Industrial Revolution, at least. In industries where workers are more educated and highly skilled, employees get a lot more respect. (No, really they do!) There's still some disdain for the "worker bees", but it's a far cry from what minimum wage earners often encounter. However, these are the businesses which gave given us so many glorious accounting scandals in the last few years. But the energy brokers like Enron and Mirant seem to me to follow the tradition of the old "wildcat" well drillers who made often made tons of money taking all sorts of risks that more staid businessmen would avoid as being low class. And the wildcatters were much like cowboys. The financial institutions which have gotten their comeuppance are also on the risk-taking side of the fence. I'm sure that people in both were rewarded for taking chances, thinking outside the box, challenging outmoded rules, and the like, even in jobs where that kind of risk taking is dangerous. There have been a few companies which tried to change the way business tends to be done. Kaiser Permanente, for example, had a no-layoffs policy for years, which made them apply a lot more thought to hiring - looking at the expected life of the positions they wanted to fill and targeting younger folks for those with a long lifespan and older ones for those that would last, say 5 years. Unfortunately, they finally had to change the policy. Reliant Welding had (maybe still has) a system where all employees got profit sharing. Sometimes the bonus checks were bigger than the wages a individual earned. They were also the first I know of to ban fancy offices for executives. Not sure if this is interesting or pointless blathering, so I'll stop here.
  • my vote is "interesting". Walmart, Enron, Mirant.... notice a pattern? They don't actually *make* anything. I really got to try that cat litter trick. I fell in love with Walmart when I found out they were taking out insurance policies on the older employees (you know, that old lady greeting you at the door?) so that when they die, Walmart goes ka-ching$$$ (is ka-ching racist?) Profit makes the wallet grow bigger so as to invest into more bannana producing ventures. Walmart pays its employees what the market will bear. And if Canada is such a socialist Utopia, why is there any need for non-state sponsored chartiy/welfare programs? (wayyyyy OT) So what Walmart imports quality Chinese prison labor lawn furniture - it lets all those charity recipient employees of theirs stretch their welfare dollars farther. Corps are so EEEEEEEEEEEEEvil.
  • Canada is neither socialist nor Utopia. I don't recall anyone suggesting it was either. I also don't recall anyone saying Walmart was evil. I dont shop there because I don't like some of their business practices, and because I prefer to support local retailers. But I wouldn't call them evil. (Or even EEEEEEEEEEEvil)
  • 13 'E's. it matters. ...but I'm not convinced there's any motive for a corporation not to be evil... I just sort of ran with it.
  • It's very interesting, path. I am also reminded of a talk I heard earlier this year from an anthropologist, Steve Striffler, who worked at Tyson Foods in Arkansas processing chicken. He had a lot of stories of treating people like machines, even to the point of just continually speeding up the line to the maximum that the workers could do without actually breaking down, though it was very stressful. Fortunately, the actual machines relieved them; the workers made of metal did break down under the pressure. I think he may have a book coming out soon, and especially for an anthropologist, he actually has a relaxed, readable style. There was no theory in his paper, he made his points through examples; if he keeps that style in the book, it will be a very interesting read.
  • Did Tyson actually give Striffler access to their plants, or did he do the research by interview from the outside? Striffler has 2 books listed on Amazon, one which he wrote and one which he co-edited. Both are about the history of banana production in South America.
  • He just went and applied for a job. He didn't tell them he was an anthropologist, but he also used his real name, so they could have easily found out (he later told his co-workers, who were surprised, but not upset). He worked there for a few months, talked with the workers, socialised with them outside of work, and generally made observations about life inside the processing plant, later doing some interviews (after he had gotten to know people). He was (and still is) at the University of Arkansas, so I think that led him to be interested in Tyson, which is a very large company in the area. Also, most of the workers recent immigrants, especially from Mexico; his background in South America gave him the language skills he needed. It was a very interesting paper, looking at industrial issues, how ethnicity is constructed (the title was "We're all Mexicans here"), communities of Mexican ex-pats in the South - but what stuck me was that it seemed much like you had said, that the workers were seen as replaceable, like machines themselves. Interestingly enough, they may have been officially "unskilled" but of course weren't; there was one man, for instance, who was the only one who could keep a certain machine flowing correctly. And certainly Striffler is very honest about how difficult he found it at first. But they were treated as if it involved no skill.
  • jb: Sounds like an interesting read to be accompanied by tooth-grinding and profanity. Pick any corporate name, and go down to the level of the "peons"--even if they're white collar "peons"--I bet you'll get the same horrendous soul-destroying stories. My question to ya'll is how much profit is enough profit? It's great that companies grow, but what does it do to our society if this growth start to look more like a tumor?
  • BlueHorse - based on my own experience, I think you're generalizing too much. I worked for more than 30 years in corporate America, and was always treated with respect, was promoted based on performance, was well paid, had good benefits, and sometimes even was able to make "a difference" in the way business was done. And, I was an office peon for a lot of that experience. And, for the most part, the blue collar peons got the same benefits and pay well above minimum wage. I do agree that there are some disturbing trends now: salaries of top executives way out of line, cutting employee numbers that undoubtably goes beyond efficiency increases due to system improvements, sending jobs offshore, and so on. But, if you follow the stock market and financial news, you'll find that sound companies are struggling to maintain profitability. If you had a business that couldn't sustain itself, what would you do? And yes, as I said somewhere up this thread, there are some industries which treat their employees badly, and the closest I have as an excuse for them is that they are mostly in commodity businesses where profit margins are really low. I think they should raise prices so that they could compensate employees well, but that would raise prices for all of us. Are you willing to pay a dollar more for a gallon of milk, or $100 more for a set of tires, or twice your current ISP's monthly charge so that we don't leak help desk jobs, don't loose the ability to shop at discount chains, don't have the ability to buy products made more cheaply in other countries which sell for less here than what we make...? Should we stop subsidizing farmers, some of whom will lose land which has been in their families for generations, so that major corporate farming comopanies can control prices on the stuff we get in the grocery store? And companies generally haven't grown like tumors since the dot.com bubble. In fact the burst of the bubble and the effect of 9-11 and the stupidity of firms like Enron have sent a bunch of formerly successful companies into bankruptcy and trashed some companies whose super-optimism was unfounded but given credence at the time. (I read an article Metafilter some time ago which said, essentially, "no wonder the market went up explosively in the 90s since most of the traders were on Prozac. It may not be true, but I've loved that explanation ever since.) Again, think of yourself as the owner of, I don't know, maybe an antique store. You've rented a space in a mall, invested in the best antiques you could buy, hired an employee or two to be there when you couldn't, got the utilities set up by plunking down some serious deposits, and given up some of your home life so that you could keep an eye on the store and do the accounting for purchases, sales and expenses. Should you make a profit? How much? How much is too much? Can you provide benefits for your emplyees? How much will you pay them? If you're generous with them, will your profits cover it? And, isn't that kinda like a corporation on a smaller scale? So, here I am again, an apologist for corporations, which goes against the grain, but I do think that blindly assuming that they're determined to be evil is a real mistake.
  • This seemed like a good footnote to an old discussion of whether/how much corporations are evil. I think that the reasons why some questions are not anwered relates more to the focus that managers are given rather than purposeful evil, but you may disagree.
  • Oh, and it's a news link, so it may not last long.
  • I saw the film and liked the first half of it from a film-making point of view. But what bothered me from an intellectual point of view was that it's not just corporations who can be psychotic, it can be any organization of any type (church, state, union, boy scouts ...). They, uh, seemed to have missed this point.
  • StoryBored, I think they were getting to the point that corporations can be psychotic and they have the rights of individuals through legislature. Alone, the former seems pretty unremarkable because we believe that things without personhood can't have a moral position to be judged from (this is why we don't try animals who kill humans, instead we cut off their heads and check their brains for rabies). The reason the makers of The Corporation did this "diagnosis" as if the corporation was an individual was simply due to the individual-like rights of corporations in law. On a side note, boy scouts and churches are two things that have been incorporated since the concept of legal incorporation, and oddly enough, both suffer from constant legal harrassment in the form of child abuse suits. Awesome link, path.
  • The film is crap- shallow, simplistic, unamusing, unbalanced crap. Bill O'Reilly would be proud of the lack of fact-checking and oversimplification of very complicated issues.
  • Any examples of the lack of fact checking drjimmy11? I thought they did a fair turn to corporations considering the crap that spews from the voices of the left with increasingly biased popularity. Still, they seemed to be lacking in legitimate backing of the corporation by focusing on greenswashing rather than any actual benefit corporations return to humankind. But it is a movie, after all, so it caters to its audience or preaches to the choir, however you want to say it.
  • I've linked to this before, but this is another interesting perspective on corporations. Also, reading _Captains of Consciousness_ by Steward Ewan this summer was eye opening as well. (to understate somewhat)