February 11, 2005

• Of course Wal-mart thinks its not economically viable to have a unionized store - not using their economics of fantastic profits. Meanwhile, many other companies have no problem providing a living wage and health care for their employees. But those companies aren't interested in raping the world the way Wal-mart is.
• Coppermac, my brother played hockey up in Thunder Bay for a season. I drove the 22-hour trip to watch him play. There's a Walmart in town, but there wasn't much else for about 100 miles. I'm not convinced a boycott would work for much of rural, backwoods Canada. That said, I wish you guys all the luck in motivating their management to treat employees fairly. Lord knows we haven't been able to do it across the border...
• This really belongs in the existing thread.
• Hey debris, those kinder, gentler companies are (sadly) gonna get left behind by the Wal-Marts of the world. Globablization, baby!! You're either with us, or you're poor and powerless!!!
• And: You're not condoning bomb threats, are you, coppermac?
• I dunno, there's nothing new about boycotts. I haven't shopped there in years. Walmart seems to be attracting a lot of badass attention lately. But the ironic thing is that there are worse companies out there that are doing plenty bad thangs with nary a blip on the activist radar. W.R. Grace for one. The Meatpacking industry for another: Smithfield Foods, Tyson Meat Plants, companies maiming and assaulting workers. Walmart's a pussy compared to these outfits.
• No, Wally's is some other big f*ckin' ugly feline monster, but certainly not a cute little pussy. They're all evil. Find me a corporation that isn't.
• The Costco Way - Higher wages mean higher profits. But try telling Wall Street.
• rocket, is it really necessary to post this to a thread which has disappeared, or can new developments in a potentially very important moment regarding the hopeful crippling of a scumbag corporation not stand on their own? I think this was worthy of a new thread, but if you don't, please go play by yourself in the other one. Alex: I've been to Thunder Bay, and I recall it being a little more vibrant than you do. I know there are a couple of hardware and department stores competing with Wal-mart, and they'd do even better if the bastards left town. The price of plastic crap that no-one really needs might rise by three cents or so, but I don't see doom in that eventuality. Hawthorne: I don't condone bomb threats in general, but this circumstance made me grin. I've dealt with bomb threats and death threats as part of my job, and they're no laughing matter, but I like the community response to world-raping assholes like the Wal-mart corporation. I'm therefore of two minds on that part of the story -- if they were decent corporate citizens I'd not be grinning, but when the over-reaching tentacles of unrestricted capitalism get bitten, even if it's in an illegal act, what is displayed is the wonderful taste of respectable sabotage.
• Yeah, coppermac, that's kind of harsh, and probably ineffective. Bomb threats, by themselves, seem pretty juvenile, and actual bombs would turn more people against the WalMart opposition that it would attract. And, by the way, what stores would you rather shop at? In my neck of the woods, our only mainstream choices are a really crappy Penneys and a Kmart, both of which are, at least, not as depressing as a WalMart, or a plethora of 99 cents discount places. There are no locally owned stores other than the last, except for one appliance store (stoves and refrigerators), and several furniture places with really tacky goods. I can drive about an hour north or south and find other chains, including WalMaer, but there are few local stores in either city. My situation probably isn't really typical in the US - the majority of workers here do farm (miminum wage) labor, and our unemployment percentage tends to run around twenty nine percent, so the quality of shopping places has gone into the tank. And, if the workers/unemployed/welefare-recipients shop at WalMart or Kmart, I can understand why. So, what do you suggest, apart from bombing the places folks here can actually afford to shop at?
• path, I suggest not shopping at Wal-mart or any other store with miserable corporate policies at all, especially if they pretty much just sell crap that no-one really needs. Where I live, there are hundreds, nay thousands, of alternatives: hardware stores, department stores, video stores, music shops, etc., some of them large corporate, some of them small chain, and many of them independent. My two local hardware stores are run and owned by people who live in the community and participate in it. I know this because I shop at them and have worked with one of the owners on a volunteer basis. Sorry that your city doesn't have alternatives that you know about, but I'd like to see more communities become aware that allowing Wal-mart to bully and bankrupt their competition out of business is wrong and ultimately not to the benefit of the community. As for the bombs, my stats are rusty, but I recall that during my time on the force, we estimated that fewer than one in five hundred bomb threats was even remotely serious, and fewer still had even a fake bomb to deal with. Other than biker gangs and secessionists in Quebec, I doubt anyone would bomb anything. That's why the 'threat' was such a laugh -- it probably resulted in a 'great waste of resources' (meaning the local cops actually had to do something that day) and the delicious punishment of having a couple of crappy Wal-mart stores shut down for a few hours, losing precious revenue. And, I dispute your allegation that actual bombs would turn the populace against those challenging Wal-mart, unless people were killed or seriously injured. Most of us can afford not to shop at Wal-mart, and we should. Buy less, consume less, and stop wasting money on items that will gravitate to the landfill sooner than they should. I hate the over-consuming society with such dispassion and antipathy toward recycling and purchasing and using quality items only as needed, not as required by fashion and brazen marketing campaigns (now carefully constructed as 'legitimate' television shows: see What Not To Wear and some of those home sort-out shows for example), and wish more people had the sense to realize that contributing to the accumulation and disposal of more trash is not wise.
• They're all evil. Find me a corporation that isn't. The only problem with this statement is that it has the same problem as the following statements: They're all evil. Find me a Jew that isn't. They're all evil. Find me a Muslim that isn't. They're all evil. Find me a government that isn't. They're all evil. Find me a union that isn't. They're all evil. Find me a man that isn't. On the other hand, blanket statements do make you feel good.
• coppermac - I don't shop at WalMart. But people will buy stuff they "don't need" no matter where they shop. WalMart didn't invent that. I don't like WM's policies, and agree that they trash local businesses, and would not shop there, but I can understand why people may choose to do so. I've lived in more affluent places where the populace tried to keep WM out, with varying degrees of success, but my current place is actively courting them and the only point of contention is whether they'll build within the city limits, or just over the county line, where tax revenues would be split. And, I believe that the majority of the population would be thrilled to have them here, for reasons expressed above. You're lucky to have hundreds to thousands of choices, but not everyone does. And telling farm workers that WM expoits its emplyees would get hoots of laughter. They'd think a job there was heaven.
• StoryBored: Well, you're right about the third one, but dead wrong about the rest.
• Subsitute "amoral" for "evil" in describing corporations, though, StoryBored, and you'd be exactly right.
• I dunno BlueHorse, i don't think all corporations are evil. Some definitely are. Some aren't. One example: Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, came up with the system of microloans. Over the past decade or so they've lent out millions of dollars to thousands of people who couldn't get loans. Where there was poverty before, Grameen bank helped to reduce it. Is that evil? Perhaps i'm unclear on your concept of evil...
• Hawthorne, i think "amoral" applies to markets, and probably to many corporations. But since "good" and "evil" are human-centred ethical terms, and since corporations are still just groups of humans, wouldn't there be occasions where you could justify those labels....? In the same way that you could call certain types of government good or evil?
• I'd argue with the concept are "just groups of humans." They're that, but they're something independent of that as well.
• (with the concept THAT CORPORATIONS are "just groups of humans"....)
• I'm fucking Québécois. And I kind of like it that my unionized comrades are giving that heartless corporation trouble. Dammit.
• StoryBored: Ah, yes. There was a PBS program on this particular institution-- I was quite impressed with the bank at the time. The original bank's operations as designed by Muhammad Yunus worked wonderfully. However, even at the start, there were some interesting restrictions. Here is a list of the requirements for borrowing: 1. We shall follow and advance the four principles of Grameen Bank – Discipline, Unity, Courage and Hard Work - in all walks of our lives, 2. prosperity we shall bring to our family, 3. We shall not live in dilapidated houses. We shall repair our houses and work towards constructing new houses at the earliest, 4. We shall grow vegetables all the year round. We shall eat plenty of them and sell the surplus. 5. During the plantation seasons, we shall plant as many seedlings as possible, 6. We shall plan to keep our families small. We shall minimize expenditures. We shall look after our health. 7. We shall educate our children and ensure that we can earn to pay for their education. 8. We shall always keep our children and the environment clean. 9. We shall build and use pit-latrines. We shall drink water from the tube-wells. If it is not available, we shall boil water or use alum. 10. We shall not take any dowry at our sons’ wedding, neither shall we give any dowry at our daughters’ wedding. We shall keep the center free from the curse of dowry. We shall not practice child marriage. 11. We shall not inflict any injustice on anyone, neither shall we allow anyone to do so. 12. We shall collectively undertake bigger investments for higher incomes. 13. We shall always be ready to help each other. If anyone is in difficulty, we shall all help him or her. 14. If we come to know of any breach of discipline in any center, we shall all go there and help restore discipline. 15. We shall introduce physical exercise in all our Centers. 16. We shall take part in all social activities collectively. Now I don't have any problems with the majority of these--most of it is common sense that will certainly better anyone's life, but I think a lot of folks might think this is a bit much to impose on to the poor who have no other place to go for a loan. As it stands now, the interest rate is 20%--simple interest, not compound, and the interest can never exceed the principle, no matter how long the loan is in default. The bank is owned and run by poor women under the direction of the founder. Right now it works, but I'm wondering what will happen when Yunus dies, and the poor women on the board are no longer poor. Right now it works within a moral framework, as have some US corporations in the past. However, I propose a formula: Size + wealth + a monopoly + time = corruption.
• Find me a corporation that isn't. Here's two: Heifer International: donates livestock (milking cows, egg-laying hens, etc.) to starving people in third-world countries. Not evil. And my family's been operating a small incorporated retail business in the same town since roughly the outbreak of WWII. I'm biased, but not evil.
• Also, rocket88 is correct. That's what the sidebar is for, to alert us to updated threads. And most of us do check those old threads, so we would have seen the post. Most of the posting homunculus does here involves updating old threads, many of which I hadn't read before and was pleased to discover. And for which, while I'm on the subject, I'm grateful. Thanks, homunculus.
• BlueHorse, thanks for posting that on Grameen. i didn't see the PBS show and that was some interesting background. I totally agree with you on your formula: "Size + wealth + a monopoly + time = corruption". You hit the nail on the head. This formula applies to all institutions, not just corporations. A monopoly can be held by government, unions, churches, aid groups, media and so on. When it comes to good and evil I don't believe that any human organization is automatically exempt from either. Which was why i originally disagreed with the "all corporations are evil" statement.
• Hawthorne, you're right - it's groups of humans plus other things. I guess what i'm saying is that those other things don't necessarily lead to amorality. My example would be that you or i could go down to the gov't office and set ourselves up as a corporation tommorrow. We don't suddenly turn into amoral people once the paperwork's done. Same thing probably applies in most small corporations. The good of the company is the baggage brought by the folks involved, mixed together with what the corporation is doing on a day-to-day basis. For large companies, company cultures emerge, and in many cases the cultures can be amoral but depending on corporate leadership can tilt towards good(Lee Valley Tools) or bad (Nortel). I take a little hope from the thought that the corporations who have healthy values (and who are sharp) seem to prosper better than the pillagers in the long run.
• Interesting, path. Most of the farm workers I grew up with (yes, I did farm labour when I was a kid) would never shackle themselves into a crappy job retailing garbage at Wal-mart. I'm sure some desperate people would, but there are desperate people out of many different types of work, not just farming. Personally, I can't understand why anyone would shop there. Sometimes we feeble humans are reduced to grasping at crap just to get by, but I think I'd rather be dead than trapped in a life where Wal-mart shopping seemed even remotely acceptble.
• A community near where I live, Campbell River, is about to have a Mall-Wart imposed on it. At a recent meeting, Walmart presented it's usual case for supposed economic benefits to the town. The battle is heating up and I'd like to help. Any suggestions as to what a monkey can do (aside from bomb threats) to help keep the bastards out?
• Alas, my long-lasting family-wide (raised RC, so one big family) boycott of the behemoth was broken when I needed a pair of skates. Cracked, plastic second-hand skates at Sports Traders for $119, or brand new, CCM leather skates at Walmart for $50. Now, I pay $7.50 (Cdn) for organic milk, $5.50 for free-run eggs, I avoid chain stores and restaurants, but that was just too damn good to pass up.
• I'd be careful with the free-run eggs. Build a fence to keep them from running out into busy traffic. ...erm but what's that organic milk, that sounds really expensive....
• I'm too early-Sunday lazy to look it up, islander, but there must be some good sites out there with advice on how to organize a community resistance to corporate behemoths like (but not limited to) Wal-mart. That way, you can see how others have organized and structured their attacks, and pick up some hints on previously successful techniques (like how to get the local media to help you out). I know here in Toronto there have been campaigns against Starbucks and Mcdonalds that have worked, but I don't know the details. You might try asking the local merchants and small chains that will be competing with Wal-mart to help with the resistance, too. Given that their asses are on the line in this, they might be willing to donate some time/resources/office space if they think you'll be able to keep the monster away.
• What about the Sweeds? The concept of Ikea seems to be a good one. They treat their employees like gold. There is even an employee day where all the profits go to the workers. Don't know what the wage is like. Not sure how much they pay the third world for the crap they peddle (the grass reed mats are a bargin). The Americans seem to pay Mehican fruit picking wages to the employees, and fire or lay people off, or keep the hours short to ensure no benifits have to be payed. Now as for the Americans, my arteries are clogged enough from the value meals at Mcdonalds, and cheap toilet papers not a good enough reason for me to put the corner store out of business. So like they used to say in South America Green go! And another thing, Theres a song that goes "you do it to yourself you do, and thats why it really hurts, you do it to yourself!" Buy your cheap toilet paper, your ding dongs, and your beepin' Kias. When the middle class is gone,-------- fill in the blanks yourself.
• And another thing, what about a Crown corp. set up like Wal mart? I know the goverments inept, but theres no reason the profit shouldn't be kept in our own coffers.
• A Crown corp would be automatically unionized by CUPE, meaning the workers would be paid big $ and the prices would skyrocket. In other words, there would be no incentive to shop there.
• coppermac: in Califronia, farms workers work 10 hours a day for mimimun wage, 6 days a week, with no overtime, holiday pay, pension plans or health insurance, in the non-unionized areas. And, much of the work, as you probably know, is much harder and more dangerous than retail sales. Many independent farmers are moving out of areas with a strong union presence. That's increased jobs in the poorer counties. where the farm worker population is largely recent immigrants who speak little or no English, and have little choice for other types of jobs, but the soil in those areas tends to be highly alkiline so that not much grows well there. Which means that the farmers have a hard time surviving. And, if they go under, even with subsidies, there won't be as many jobs for the farm workers. Catch 22? So, yeah, I'd say that if a farm worker in those areas qualified for an inside job, which had a few more benefits, he or she would find it attractive.
• I see it, path, but I still don't see Wal-mart as an option. Faced with a lesser of two evils choice, some will choose Wal-mart, but I think that situation is rare. There are dozens of evils (and maybe a few goods) to choose from, so there are more options than just pick fruit under unbearable conditions or stock Wal-mart shelves under unbearable conditions. Truthfully, the entire labour racket desperately needs a serious overhaul (yeah, I can see that happening fairly in the future), but those who rely on unskilled labour are always going to be stuck with crappy jobs until the middle classes (and up) all lose their abilities to walk and function normally, what with too much damned tv and computer use and lack of exercise combined with fast food delivery systems. Then those few humans who've not allowed their every muscle to atrophy and don't have 83% body fat will rise up and farm us for the juicy dew that rolls down our greasy flanks as we bake in the hot, hot sun. Or something.
• Like ants herding aphids. Quite a picture.
• EEEEVIL
• StoryBored: The corporation's sole reason for existence, if it's a public corporation, is to maximize profits for shareholders. It can treat other stakeholders in what it does (employees, customers, the communities it operates in) as if their concerns matter to it, but it will usually only do this if it contributes to a maximized bottom line. In fact, that's the only time the corporation can possibly consider a non-shareholder stakeholder in its actions, since by law it must prioritize maximizing financial returns to investors over any other potential types of returns to other stakeholders. This drives the corporation to act amorally -- to, for instance, go ahead and build that new factory that will double the amount of pollution in that stream, if it knows the financial penalty it will pay as a result is smaller than the profit that will result. Or to go ahead and build that new big box retail outlet, and put all the smaller local businesses that compete with it out of business, despite the financial and non-financial costs that action might impose on the community. It doesn't matter how nice or moral the people working for the corporation might be. The corporate charter sets the corporation on a path to amorality. Regardless of whether this particular corporation is "good" or that one "bad," it's important to understand that ALL public corporations are charged with maximizing profit for investors above all other possible priorities, and that this structural feature makes the corporation, any corporation, trend toward amorality.
• Not entirely true. Most corporations have significant budgets for things like charities, community projects, and scholarship programs. Shareholder return is very important (and I'm glad it is, at least for the companies in which I've invested), but it's not the be-all and end-all of a corporation's existence.
• Hawthorne, i agree that many corporations are going to take the short-term profit-maximizing approach but i don't take it as an absolute. You said that: "by law it must prioritize maximizing financial returns to investors over any other potential types of returns to other stakeholders." What law is that? There is nothing in the law as far as i know that mandates a corporation seek financial turn above all else. The CEO sets the strategy of the company, the shareholders decide whether the returns/conduct of the company is acceptable. If the shareholders are a decent bunch, especially in a small corporation, i can easily see other factors besides $$$$ entering into the picture. If there was a legal constraint then the companies that gave money to Tsunami relief are in a heap o' trouble. I guess what bothers me a little is that corporations seem to get a disproportionate blame for the evils in the world mainly because of the word "profit". But let's take a look at other institutions: take a look at the hunger for $$$ from governments who want more taxes, churches who want more donations, unions who want more dues. Excess financial return to the organization rather than to shareholders. But it's still Stinky Profits. When the union wants to set up shop in Wal-Mart, they're not at all thinking of the extra union dues are they?
• Corporations don't get a "disproportionate" blame for the evils of the world. They have a disproportionate influence on life and society; the blame they get is absolutely proportionate. As far as corporations having charitable-works programs: Please. "We gave $2 million to charity last year!" ("Of course, we had a $500 million profit last year. Which means that $2 million for us was like the average Joe giving 150 bucks to charity: Nothing special.") It's called PR. I fully understand that good people can lead corporations they have influence over to do good things. But to call the legal entity called a corporation "good" doesn't make sense.
• What law is that? Dodge v. Ford, which, according to Joel Bakan in The Corporation: ...stands for the legal principle that managers and directors have a legal duty to put shareholders' interests above all others and no legal authority to serve any other interests -- what have come to be known as "the best interests of the corporation" principle. ...The "best interests of the corporation" principle, now a fixture in the corporate laws os most countries, [compels] corporate decision makers always to act in the best interests of the corporation and hence its owners. The law forbids any other motivation for their actions, whether to assist workers, improve the environment, or help consumers save money. They can do these things with their own money, as private citizens. As corporate officers, however, stewards of other people's money, they have no legal authority to pursue such goals as ends in themselves -- only as means to serve the corporation's own interests, which generally means to maximize the wealth of its shareholders.
• It's called PR. Buulshit. Most charitable donations of corporations aren't publicised. And where do you get the $2 million / $500 million figures? Out of your ass would be my guess.
• Wow, let's get ornery, shan't we?
• So where did you get the figures?
• Hawthorne, i agree that corporations are generally responsible to the shareholders. What i disagreed with is " must prioritize maximizing financial returns to investors over any other potential types of returns to other stakeholders." which is a stronger statement than Bakan's "must act in the best interests of the corporation". If a corporation is to thrive these days, it can't just ignore worker welfare, the environment and consumers. My example would be what started this thread: Wal-mart. Their dominance is attracting enormous scrutiny. When consumers are talking boycott, the shareholders are going to suffer. So yes, the corporation may be responsible to the shareholders directly but they are also responsible to the consumers and the public at large. Re: calling a corporation good - One of Google's official corporate policies is "Do no evil". Whether they carry it out is for us to judge but it's an interesting example. Re: disproportionate influence, hmmm I agree that can be true, though i think it varies on a person-to-person basis. I have in the past twenty years personally given more money to the government in the form of taxes than i have ever given to corporations.
• Charity is free advertising. Where are the bible thumpers now? Hey christians have you forgotten it is improper to make a show of donations? Yeah, and another thing. What ever happened to the ideals of people like Henery Ford the father of the working class. Pay your people enough money to live decently, and that of Debeers, who deiceded to treat the South Africans with respect? There is a disturbing trend in Canada now. Politicians have made even easier for large companies to have perpetual temp labour at half the rate of the old workers. This is compounded by the fact that the new wave of immigrants don't know enough to demand decent wages. Where will Canada be in tweenty years?
• And please let's not bring ass into the discussion :-)
• which is a stronger statement than Bakan's "must act in the best interests of the corporation What about Bakan's The law forbids any other motivation for their actions, whether to assist workers, improve the environment, or help consumers save money. . . . As corporate officers, . . . stewards of other people's money, they have no legal authority to pursue such goals as ends in themselves? Or consider this quote from corporate law scholar Dr. Janis Sarra, from the notes of The Corporation: "In North America, the best interests of the corporation have been defined as the best interests of the shareholders. Courts usually only consider shareholder wealth maximization as the benchmark of whether the directors and officers are acting in the best interests of the corporation. . . . As long as the best-interest-of-the-corporation principle is taken to mean shareholder wealth maximization, any real initiatives to shift the considerations and decision making to environmental concerns or other kinds of social equity concerns are going to be very, very limited. The way in which corporate law is currently constructed requires directors and officers to justify any socially responsible actions under the guise of, or the aim of, either short-term or long-term shareholder wealth maximization." (I can also cite other sources for this stuff if you want: Greider, Korten, Chomsky, more of those type folks.)
• rocket88, I have to say I find your attitude pretty unreasonably bitchy. I'm the only one here who's going out and researching facts on any of this. Yet you're giving me a hard time for not responding quickly enough? Life pulled me away from the computer for a while. So give me a break. As far as my $2 million/$500 million figures, I made them up. They were meant to prove a point. In case you're too literal-minded to "get" that point, it's this: Corporations make way, way more money than than "give back to the community." I was curious to see how close to actual ratios my admittedly made-up figures were, so I went to check the numbers of the first big American corporation that popped into my mind, General Motors. In 2003, GM had revenue of more than $185 billion, and profit of $3.8 billion. According to the GM website, in 2004 the company made "almost $89 million" in charitable contributions. Compared to the case of GM, my example of $2 million charitable contribution on profit of $500 million looks low but not unreasonable. Again, though, it was rhetoric to make a point, which I believe stands up very well. Again, GM makes "almost $89 million" in charitable contributions, but brings in more than $185 *billion* in a single year. Now it's your turn to cite facts to back your argument. For instance, where did you get your claim that Most charitable donations of corporations aren't publicised?? Our of your ass?? It appears to me that corporations get both PR and tax deductions out of their charitable contributions -- and not doing so would go against the "best interests of the corporation" principle. If you want to believe that corporations in general give to charity out of the goodness of their hearts, well, that's just stupid. They don't have hearts. Again, I'm not saying that corporations can't and don't do good things, or that corporations or the people who work for them are necessarily evil, or anything like that. I'm saying that they're amoral. I don't understand why all the resistance to that concept.
• We were getting into a great discussion. Let's all play nice and keep our hands on the table, shall we? HawthornWingo: I would buy the idea that all corporations start out amoral and eventually take on the moral character of the people running them. Corporations in and of themselves don't do good, the people behind them choose to do good. But many things Monsanto has done and is doing is just plain-and-simple evil. We allow corporatons the rights of an individual, but there is a slew of laws the allows a corporation to excape the responsiblity. My feeling that charity for the purpose of advertising is not a moral act for a corporation. It's hard for me to believe that any charitable act a corporation does is motivated by something other than own self-interest and a desire for profit.
• First of all, HW, I didn't give you a hard time for not responding fast enough. In fact, you did respond to my question, you just didn't answer it. Also, I don't think calling 'bullshit' is overly ornery or bitchy, but you seem to be sensitive to it, so I'll stick to facts: Dodge v Ford is an interesting case. Normally the courts don't get involved in business decisions of corporate directors. They assume that the elected directors are acting in the shareholder's interest, and if they aren't they'll get voted out. That assumption couldn't be made in this case, however, since Henry Ford bragged publically that he knew his actions weren't in the shareholders' interest, but he was doing them anyway because it was in the interest of his employees and customers. The end result was that the court found in favor of the Dodge brothers (who went on to create a competing car company) and case law was made that "the corporation exists for the benefit of the shareholders". Your assumption that corporate boards follow this credo blindly is wrong. Boards that want to be good corporate citizens (and they do exist) just need to be a little more creative in how they go about it. Many corporations now have corporate governance committees, environment committees, and community involvement committees. They can't spend too much of of the profits on "good deeds", but they work to find a healthy balance between morality and shareholder return. And yes, it's easy to argue that corpoarations are inherently amoral, but it doesn't really matter, because corporations don't make decisions. Human beings do, in their role as officers and directors of the corporation, or in their role as shareholders with a vote. And some of those humans still act with a moral conscience.
• This is a good discussion and Hawthorne i do appreciate the time you're spending on bringing facts to the table. I think our difference of opinion is actually not that great. Your claim is that corporations are amoral right? (i.e. without morals, rather than necessarily immoral). My claim is that many are but some are not. Those who aren't have made the conscious decision through leadership not to take an amoral stance. Separately, I'd like to comment on your GM example. They had US$185 billion of revenues in 2003 and $3.8 billion in profits. Your comment was that "corporations make way, way more money than they give back to the community". But to support that US$185 billion of sales, GM had to spend US$173 billion on wages, supplies, equipment and so on. In other words US$173 billion spent on society -- that money put food on the table for (likely) millions of people. (I see by the way on their website that GM won a South African humanitarian award last year.) That Sarra's quote you gave: "..directors and officers [must] justify any socially responsible actions under the guise of, or the aim of, either short-term or long-term shareholder wealth maximization". Seems to suggest that there's some kind of legal inquisitional grilling going on during board meetings. That doesn't happen in most healthy corporations. A good board recognizes that long-term corporate success is tied to being a good corporate citizen. I've heard of Chomsky but not of Greider, Korten. Can you point me to some online sources for the latter two? p.s. I did see The Corporation (the movie), I liked it except for the amoral parts :-).
• In fact, you did respond to my question, you just didn't answer it. I didn't???? Seems to me I stated pretty clearly that I made the figures up, to make a point. Also, I don't think calling 'bullshit' is overly ornery or bitchy, but you seem to be sensitive to it, so I'll stick to facts: What a passive-aggressive load of shit this statement is. You're the one who broke out the "out of your ass" trope, friend. And, finally, rocket88, can't you see that we're saying essentially the same thing? I *never* say that human beings, shareholders in a corporation, can't or don't act conscientiously, or that corporations can't or don't do good things. In fact, I go out of my way several times to point out that that's not what I'm saying. Yet you insist on an adversarial discussion. Whatever.
• StoryBored: Here is a sample of Korten's work. Here is his website. Here's Greider's home page, and here's his bio page from The Nation. Should be plenty of good reading in both places. Greider especially is an excellent writer -- his books are thoughtful, well constructed, and chock full of evidence to support his arguments.
• Finally: A good board recognizes that long-term corporate success is tied to being a good corporate citizen. Is it? Every time we turn around, it seems Wal-Mart is doing something else that proves it *isn't* a good corporate citizen. Yet within the business community, Wal-Mart is held up as the shining example of how to do business in the modern, global economy. Its relentless drive to lower costs and increase efficiencies is the model that Wall Street insists corporations strive for. And if you don't do it, your competitor will -- and you'll be left by the curb.
• Hawthorne: thanks for the links, i'll check them out soon.
• Ok, just took a look at David Korten's website. It has a solid critique of the weaknesses of the corporate system. I have no argument with this. What i was interested in though was getting his suggestions for alternatives to corporate organization. I found this in his talk Civilizing Society "...the creation of an authentic market economy [is] comprised of local enterprises that provide productive and satisfying livelihoods for all, and vest in each individual a share in the ownership of the productive assets on which their livelihood depends. Such a society would be radically self-organizing and predominantly cooperative in the manner of all healthy living systems, and would maximize the opportunity for each individual to develop and express their full creative potential in service to the life of the whole." My first question about any new economic system is this: How do I get food from it? Yes, i guess my stomach does run my life. Unfortunately for my stomach, this little blurb doesn't help. Digging further: His book The Post Corporate World sounded it might have the answers. Okay, but now this is the part that *really* gets me. To see this book, I have to shell out US$27.95 to McGraw-Hill, a CORPORATION. Korten, dude, you are so busted. If this corporate issue is so important and the welfare of the world is at stake, why in heaven's name isn't the contents of your book published free on the website? Creative Commons. It's been done. p.s. i tried to find a copy of the book at the Ottawa local library. The one copy of it has been stolen according to the online reserve system. A little too peeved at this point to figure the political/economical symbolism of that.
• Great tale. Thanx, StoryBored! btw I think what Korten is saying he wants to do is limit the size of business entities and otherwise keep them accountable to the locations/markets they serve. Which is not necessarily more than a reformed version of the current system, and is closer to what Adam Smith had in mind. I.e. I don't think Korten would necessarily say "profit is bad," just that the current system is skewed to favor the corporation over other stakeholders in the activities of the corporation, and that needs to be fixed.
• Walmart accused of denying lunch breaks. My guess is they have done that, but they they may get away with it. Adding on to a nicely contentious thread.
• path, don't you know that by posting that link you're aiding the terrorists?
• Yeah, path, stop helping the terrorists. I'd like some yummy soup though if there's any left.
• But seriously if Walmart did that, then they should pay for it in court big time....