Slashdot Mirror
Too Much Corporate Power?
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.
My sister (watching Britney on TV): "Oh my god, she is such a hooch! Put some clothes on girl!
I change the channel...
My sister: "Hey, I was watching that!"
True story. Go figure.
The internet is the first real INCREASE in power gained by individuals since the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago. It puts each and every one of us on equal footing with the news media and the book/music/movie publishers in being able to be heard by a global audience. The creation of the DMCA, century long extensions to copyright acts, the UCITA, etc. are manifestations of the IMMENSE PH33R that gov't and big business feels at their long held power being slowly taken away from them. And I say, Woo Hoo! You can't stop us! Join us and ditch these lame laws, and learn new ways to make money in the digital society, or watch yourself go extinct as you sink into the tar pit like the dinosaurs you are.
I think you've got it backwards: government doesn't dominate corporations, government is the tool of corporations. Business buys politicians and votes. To think otherwise is to have one's head firmly planted in the sand.
What is this 'information once available only to nerds and geeks'??
I am asking seriously. What information are you talking about? Hollerith code? The ASCII table?
I'm not sure what the heck you are talking about, and I suspect you might not either.
> Nobody stuffs Britney Spears down the throats
> of unwilling people. People buy it, ask for it,
> scream for it.
They stuff it down my unwilling throat. There are no alternative avenues for the music I like except some shoutcast channels and the occasional extra low quality web video. I turn on MTV and all I get is candypop drek. The illusion of choice.
> 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.
One narrow, bifurcated statement deserves another, eh?
Way to imply anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi.
I hereby invoke Godwin's law.
you lose.
Not to pick on you personally, but I'm really tired of hearing this. Comments like this strike me as being from someone who is just looking for an excuse to complain.
Does anyone here remember where the (current) Republican party came from?
Yes, it's true the Reps and Dems have more money, etc. to blow on a campaign, but a vote for a third party is not wasted. Ask Abe Lincoln.
And for those complaining about how politics today is all about mudslinging and character assasination, please review the history of presidential elections in the United States. This has been going on almost since the country was founded. US News had a good article on this a few issues back.
--
The problem with the more liberalized socialist sentiments is that they're rather circular and inconsistent. Market-driven socialism "isn't" -- there has to be a bat somewhere to whack the market down when it doesn't behave.
.. one can't organize resources when one doesn't have a right to property other than personal possessions & all resources are in the hands of a centralized entity.
Right now we have a hybrid approach.. the bat is actually a slight tap from side to side by Alan Greenspan... and sometimes a wholesale whack, like in the early 1980's.
As for "entrepreneurs" in socialism, this may be popular *now*, but it wasn't for most of the life of the socialist idea... and it's still unclear how this would work in a "market socialist" economy (unless you consider cases like Canada as market socialist)
-Stu
Great post. Totally agree with this sentiment. Peter Drucker, for instance, has been saying this since the days of the first books on management in 1946... apparently all the execs that listen to him skipped that line...
-Stu
Look at the protests we had last year and this year:
Seattle (World Bank/IMC)
Washington D.C. (World Bank/IMC)
Philadelphia (Republican Nat'l Convention)
Los Angeles (Democratic Nat'l Convention)
It's quite clear that Americans are becoming increasingly irritated with the way corporations have just "taken over" many aspects of our society.
Did you know that 100 years ago, the government could revoke a corporation's charter if they saw that the corporation was abusing its power? A century of slick corporate lawyers whittling away at this law has put it out of people's minds. (It's still in the books!)
I think the problem is that most people (at least in this country.. the U.S.) have become too complacent. They just roll over when told to. You look at many multinational corporations and they practically have rewritten the laws and have gone beyond national boundaries.
To find out how bad it's gotten, check out sites such as Adbustets. Corporations commit many crimes but only get slaps on the wrists. (Such as making a product and then when people get killed by the product, they just get slapped with a fine.) They get away with these things because people just shake their heads and look the other way.
Fialar
The problem is that the government is granting power to the big guys. Having big guys is no problem. However, copyright laws, patent laws, and other such governmental interference (yes, copyright _is_ a governmental interference in the free market) is what is giving large corporations power that the free market would not have otherwise granted them. The government is making so many regulations that it is impossible for startups without mega-funding to make it. Thus, the power of the government is what is making the free market system not work.
Engineering and the Ultimate
I read the BW article and IIRC the main concern was about HMOs. The article was not about napster, the RIAA, the street performer protocol or anything like that.
I doubt any covert group of individuals planned to foster a country of apathetic voters, yet they do know this to be true and take advantage of it. They cozy up to the polititions, regardless of political party, and get the exposure needed for those who will support the status quo.
Ultimately what I believe we are coming to, is a place in time where we have to choose the rights of individuals over those of the artificial entity known as a Corporation. My vote is going to Ralph Nader
So fight the good fight
This is what is really needed to battle corporations that get out of hand. Individuals are sentenced to death, why shouldn't corporations for sereious offenses.
I always thought that shareholders are an unneccessray and, most likely, the reason that corporations are seen as corrupt. Lets face it, shareholders sit on their ass and earn profits for others peoples' work. Why aren't the employees getting this money? If a corporation has a good year the emplyees are the ones responsible and the shareholders reap the benefits. Divedends and wages are really nothing more than a monetary form of praise. Corporate America is sending the message that if you're rich and buy stock you've already done your part in soceity. Get a job on a board of directors somewhere and pretend to make important decisions. Not born rich? Get a job, you'll get enough table scraps to survive. I know there is always an exception to the rule but what is the percentage of middle/lower class workers earning enough money to be considered upper class. Hmmm, kinda funny how the labels for different income ranges seem to imply a cast system. Might as well change it to serf, landowner, ruling class and we're right back to something very similair to the feudal system of midevil Europe. Born into a powerful family means baron, king, other important person. Born a serf, means work your ass off for a shack, enough food to survive and some rags to cover your more sensitive areas.
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.
How exactly have "we" (or anyone) "used politics to interfere" with corporations? How else would you "interfere" with corporations? Beg them to be responsible? That approach has worked so well in the past...
The current fashion to bash government as the natural enemy of free enterprise is amusing, but not very informative. To the extent that they represent different constituencies (all citizens, versus the tiny minority who own most corporate stock), business and government are indeed natural enemies. On the other hand, to the extent that they represent the same constituency (i.e. to the extent that representatives owe their re-election chances to corporate money, and to the extent that elections are fashion shows decided at the fundraishing level, rather than the ballot box), they are natural allies.
It is fashionable in corporate circles to say that all regulation is bad because currently, regulations are hindering some companies' pursuit of profit. About a century ago, when Bell was first becoming the leader in the nascent telephone industry, the exact reverse was true: Bell couldn't get regulated fast enough, because a regulated monopoly basically means a guaranteed market. Bell's reasoning, which convinced government at the time, was that there were too many companies with too many competing standards, and that telephones were a "natural monopoly" which would work best if one standard was enforced by one company. Bell held on to its guaranteed market for most of a century (and fought tooth and nail to keep it).
The lesson is simple: Regulation is good until it becomes bad, and the deciding factor is always the same: profits. What else?
"The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
Increasing government power doesn't do much to enhance individual freedom.
By itself, no, but whoever pays the piper calls the tune. If people got involved in government, instead of letting themselves be propagandized into thinking that nothing they can do will change anything, then a strong government would be a good thing.
BTW, if I were a U.S. citizen, I _would_ be casting a vote for Ralph Nader. I'm rooting for you guys, I really am. One day, no doubt, a U.S. presidential campaign will have more intellectual content than the average beauty contest, but (unless Nader gets into the debates) it hasn't happened in my adult life.
"The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
I think your premise is flawed. I would argue that almost all coporate power has been based on tangible resources: Ownership, control, distribution, transformation into goods, and contracts negotiating the above. Most corporate power arises from a company's ability to extract profit from providing a resource (product), or access to a resource (service). Only rarely is this resource intellectual property.
Perhaps I'm missing something. The only 'government' examples I can see in the article are the court cases (and related lawyerly hassles):
- DeCSS linking
- Mormon linking
- Cyberpatrol hack
- Amazon patents
- MS Kerberos code
Which of those involves a federal power not enumerated in the US Constitution? Last I heard, the Constitution gave Congress explicit power to create laws governing copyrights and patents. (There's no way on Earth to write a law that ensures they'll only use that power wisely.)(Those of you in this thread that are using this as an argument for libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism, maybe you can answer a question for me: What is it that under such a system provides a check on the power of wealthy individuals and corporations? I'm genuinely curious -- this is the one thing that bugs me about it and I can't find a good answer in the standard literature. :))
-- Some things are to be believed, though not susceptible to rational proof.
When a mom and pop store overcharges you $4, they're most likely doing it by accident. (or its a criminal action..). When amazon does it, its a "marketing experiment", specifically to see how much they can steal from consumers before anybody notices...
The mom and pop store that puts the wrong price into the cash register can have my $4.
But amazon delibertly trying to screw me... thats just wrong..
Then again if the government was not given the authority to micro manage every aspect of our lives, there would not be the ability to pass those laws, and corporate lobbying would become irrelevant.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
No, in theory it can be changed through a slow and difficult to pass constitutional amendment, not the present usurpation of rights where it may be changed for any "noble end", short sighted actions that tend to crush liberty in the long run.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
I hate large companies. Especially Billy's. Nuff said.
I started off when I read your post and thought, what a load of bollocks. But that was probably just my knee jerk reaction to what appears to be a knee-jerk republican reaction.
I think I agree with you! Aaaagghhh.
On of the big problems in the US is the way campaigns are funded - the fact that large corporations fund the respective parties thereby undermining the democratic process (paying for special interests to be represented).
Life sucks but death doesn't put out at all....
Shareholders do watch over the management's shoulder.
No, they don't. There are two exceptions: one is a takeover situation, and the other is when a single entity has control of, say, >20% of the shares (and thus could exercise effective control, typically to put his own management team in place).
I understand the the shareholders have the ultimate power. It's just that in the real world they exercise it very, very rarely.
Management already does everything they can to protect a company's stock price.
So what would you need a corporate death penalty for?
If this sort of corporate death penalty were allowed, you can bet that management will take notice.
So tell me, what difference would it make? Corporation death penalty already exists, it is called bankrupcy. Just ask Dow Corning.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
There are no alternative avenues for the music I like
You seem to think that somebody has a duty to provide you with music you like
I turn on MTV and all I get is candypop drek. The illusion of choice.
Don't do it, then!
Why should MTV cater to your musical tastes? You don't like, don't watch it.
Way to imply anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi.
Nope. Way to imply that some very non-nice people disliked the freedom of corporations to make money. It doesn't mean that people like Katz are nazis, but it does mean that they should think about why nazis happened to agree with them on that point.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
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.
You make no sense.
(1) So what's the difference from bankrupcy, again? Is the end result any different?
(2) What community? What is the community of Coca-Cola?
(3) Victims of a criminal company have recourse to courts. That's what they are for.
(4) There is no requirement for ethical conduct. There is one for legal conduct, though, and everybody has to conform to it now, without any corporate death penalty necessary.
when a company will fight tooth and nail for the right to deliberately destroy the lives of millions [meaning tobacco]
Do you understand the concept of personal choice? I, an individual, want to make choices regarding which risks I find acceptable and which I do not. I do NOT want the government or trial lawyers to make these choices for me.
Heart disease is the most frequent cause of death in the US. How about suing dairy companies -- how could they market and sell butter to people?! And anybody who makes fried food -- it's unhealthy, isn't it?
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.
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?
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
The difference is that bankruptcy does not result from unethical conduct
First of all, there is a big difference between ethics and legality. Ethics is your personal moral beliefs. Different people have different ethics. They do not have to match. Imposing one's ethics on other people is NOT a good thing to do (IMAO). When a community agrees on some principles enough to make it law, we have legality. Legality IS enforceable on other people.
"Unethical conduct" is a matter of personal judgement. What's unethical to you may be completely ethical to me. As long as its legal I don't see a big problem here.
[Coca-Cola's community is ] The people affected by the actions, good and bad, of CocaCola.
They are not a community. They are a set of people selected by some criterion. That does not make them a community.
the average victim has no recourse.
The average victim has no recourse against what?
First, if you shove your hand in a chainsaw, you are not a victim, but an idiot. However what most people do as soon as they get out of the emergency room is sue the manufacturer. There is such thing as a "deep pockets" theory -- surely you've heard about it?
Second, look at the number of lawsuits filed against corporations in the US. You might be surprised.
That is how the court system "protects" the community.
The aim of the court system is not to protect the community -- it is to apply standing laws. Besides, you might want to consider the fact that there are other opinions on the situation. Why do you think you are right and other people are wrong?
It is countries like China and Burma in which (western) corporations run most rampant.
They do? In China? I think you are factually wrong.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
It's not hate of corporations, it's fear of them -- the same kind of fear you'd feel if you were alone with an uncaged carnivore.
According to their brand of capitalism, corporations are obligated to do ANYTHING to maximize their profits. Break the law, constrict our rights, manipulate the government, risk our safety, lie, cheat, steal, whatever.
Remember that you're talking about a different breed of animal than we are: business people, litigators. They do not have the kind of morals we do, and they do not understand our objections to their behavior, except as the whining of losers. The idea that we should take some responsibility for where and what we are is sadly naive or completely irrelevant, in their eyes.
How has this been reigned in, in the past? Only one way I can think of: law. There have been lawyers, judges, and lawmakers who have understood the societal dangers of allowing a hungry corporation to eat what it wants. It will eat everything it can.
Our recent troubles seem to stem from two basic events:
- the liberalization of law and its interpretation to benefit big business (see DMCA, UTICA, ad nauseum) at the expense of individual rights
- the introduction of new media technology, and the failure of lawmakers to treat these media as something new. (They instead, for instance, treat bytes as property, as demonstrated in the MP3 DeCSS cases.)
Corporations can exercise insidious power because they control things you aren't aware of. AOL/Time Warner scares people, for instance, because it will be able to dictate what you are told in a large variety of media, from magazines to television to the net. AOL *IS* the net, to many people, and in as much as it owns a good chunk of the US backbone, it is.
You ask "please tell me how corporations exercise power over you without government help" -- the point here is that they don't, although they could. But sadly, government has marched right along with them, giving corporate interests the laws they want, with little or no consideration of the individual.
DMCA, to my understanding, allows "offenders" to be jailed for "illegally" accessing media -- even reading a book. Tell me that does not scare you. Sounds like a combination of Farenheit 451 and 1984, to me.
Book publishers have been planning to "address" our new media by finding ways to charge you for every "page" you read, every time you read it. The DMCA allows for this, I believe.
Corporations are setting things up so that their "game" maximizes their rights while minimizing ours: media, software "inventions", heck, IDEAS are their PROPERTY. If you understand the concept of Amazon's One-Click ordering, then Jeff Bezos claims he owns part of your brain -- he has the patent on the idea, doesn't he?
Meanwhile, in corporate plans, we are pigs paying to eat at the trough, paying again and again, maximizing profits. How far will they go? As far as they're allowed to.
That is what corporate outrage is about, Charlie Brown.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
It's true, in some cases.
But what Adam Smith didn't foresee was the situation wherein corporations gain enough control over legislation that they don't have to try to please the consumer anymore.
Instead, they make money from patent licensing fees (Priceline), stamp out any competition, particularly small competition (Microsoft), or fix prices (gasoline, music CDs).
Our choices are then limited, and attempts to change the situation are met with legislation and lawsuits.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Clearly, YOU miss the point. Your post is either the result of a bug, or a humorous non sequitur.
Either way, point missed, pal.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Hmm, maybe my points were muddled. I'm not advocating more power to the government. I am saying that we ought to use law to restrict corporations' predatory behavior. There is a huge difference.
I fear governments and corporations both. Freedom, not power, indeed: I completely agree. But sometimes freedom is gained by law -- especially when we're talking about *reversing* a bad law, such as the DMCA. I don't call the right to tell me what I can and cannot think, read, and say "freedom." It's a first step toward tyranny.
You're right in this, at least: corporations are gaining excessive power because of bad governing.
Calls to hate large segments of the population? This ain't a call to hate, not at all. And corporations, while technically "owned" by the people, are run by very small segments of the population.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Yes, it's spelled Fahrenheit, not "farenheit."
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Direct Democracy isn't the reality that American citizens are dealing with. For various reasons, a representative democracy is the way that the US works.
It would be correct in a direct democracy to say that the American population is entirely to blame for it's troubles. Unfortanately, with a representative democracy, there's not much choice.
:reflectively: Of course, a direct democracy has it's troubles as well. It doesn't always scale well, it takes money to get noticed by enough people to form a majority, and there's always the danger that you'll elect a rutabaga farmer. (That's a joke son.)
Sometimes I wish I could edit my own messages. It's true, it's true, corporations aren't mostly propped up by IP. And I apologize for posting such silliness. I might have said, had I been more level headed, that the companies we care most about here are IP companies, like AOL, Microsoft, and the RIAA & MPAA.
Sorry again. And you have a point about all controls of scarce resources being abusable.
Information, OTOH is actually artificially scarce. It's only scarce because people still need to make money off of it by charging for copies. And yes, there are probably free dissertations or papers or other things that are free, but not commonly used because there is no marketing. And that's why it's so interesting. It seems everything but air (mostly) is sold to us somehow somewhere. It would be nice to have some music and movies be free somehow, so you could use them when you don't want to bother paying someone.
In the end, though, we have the fundamental problem of the RIAA trying to own Music (tm) and the MPAA trying ot own Movies (tm). But I suppose that mankind will yet somehow survive.
-Ben
Will someone in Redmond please post this?
I believe that amazon was trying to patent the process of one-click shopping, not just copyright the software. If they have the copyright, I can write up my own version (from scratch) which also permits one-click shopping, as long as I don't use their code or anything like that. A copyright applies to something semi-tangible, like text (ie. a movie script, or a book, or source code, binaries, music, that kind of thing).
A patent, on the other hand, applies to a process, that is to say, if Amazon (to re-use this example again) patents a process which allows users to purchase items with one mouse click to a web page, than any other process which allows users to purchase with one mouse click on a web page are infringing on Amazon's patent. Hope this helps.
----
Dave
MicrosoftME®? No, Microsoft YOU, buddy! - my boss
- Dave
You can find the article here.
InitZero is more correct than most of you are giving him credit for.
Before you go off slandering his post, sit back and think about it.
How did mega-uber corporations like McDonald's a Coca-Cola become mega-uber corporations? Mostly through American ignorance and *laziness*. Did I say laziness? Yes, I did.
Face, the majority of Americans are lazy. As I quote one of my best (and sarcastical) friends: "Give me convenience, or give me death". Is that not an accurate statement of the average American mentality??
We *DO* have the power to vote over corporations, using their only source of power. MONEY. If you don't like the company, or what it's doing, DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCTS! Is that easy? No!! Take a look around at typical consumables in your home (bathroom, kitchen products). I bet you'll find that about half of them are manufactured by Proctor & Gamble. If you took a stand against Proctor & Gamble, you'd have to do some serious work to avoid them. Would the typical American do so? No! It's too much work. "Give me convenience or give me death."
This country has been slowly lulled into a glazing coma-like state. We're so babied by Big Brother that we forget that we--and only we--have the responsibility to speak out or take actions against them when they wrong us--but often, it's too much trouble. Most of us would rather watch Monday Night Football (with the commercials) than go out getting signatures for a petition.
Corporations DO exist to make money. They make money with products. If you dislike a corporation, disassociate from them by not purchasing their products. Even the largest of corporations couldn't last long if their customer base severely thinned out. Competition is too ready and too willing for the weak to survive.
Instead of buying Coke, buy RC Cola. Heck that's probably owned by Coke now. CHECK before you buy! It's not hard.
But until people actually start doing this instead of just talking about it, nothing will change.
-brain
There is a difference between an unforseen bad thing and a calculated, hope it doesn't come back to haunt you but do it anyway bad thing.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
And I suppose Love Canal was a Hollywood exaggeration? Or how about Firestone?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
I really enjoyed my three weeks vacation. Howmany did you have?
Mark
Most people I know who actually look beneath a canidates multi-million dollar ad campaigns realize that bush is a moron and gore is just a democratic lapdog with good intentions. Don't get me wrong, I think gore could be a good leader, but since when is our political system about voting for the least-worst canidate?
Ralph Nader is America's number one consumer advocate... he has been fighting large corperations for 40 years. Criticize Katz if you will, but this issue will become more and more important as corperations realize they can control even more of the average person's life with the Internet. If you are afraid of who will control your life ten years from now, support Nader.
And if it weren't illegal, I bet thats what the tobacco companies would be doing.
It is my considered opinion that the tobacco industry is the embodiment of pure 'profit above all'.
A wise man once said 'the love of money is the root of all evil'. I have always been told that if your prime motivation for being in business is to make a profit or to make money, then you shouldn't be in business.
'If you build it, they will come'. The right reason to be in business is to provide a service or product to the marketplace that the marketplace needs. If you do it properly and look after you customers and employees, then you flourish, with the by-product being that you make a return on your investment. If your only motivation is to maximise your profit, then you will fail, because the things you need to do to maximise profit are usually the opposite of the things you need to do to maximise customer and employee satisfaction, and/or product quality.
So, generating profit is an outcome of being a successful business, but you will not be a truly successful business if you are only interested in making profit.
If you asked people in any of these large companies 'who is the most important person in your organisation?', I wonder how many would say 'our customer'?
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Actually, he was talking about Amazon attempting to copyright ideas that software is based on (one-click shopping); ideas that are fundamentally obvious, widely used, and belong, essentially, to no one, and everyone at the same time. Stop posting just to hear yourself talk.
The DMCA arguments relate to government. A small weak government could not threaten you with the DMCA. Without the government, what could the corporations do? Write a hot letter?
The same goes for the bad patents.
Reining corporations in with "law" seems counterproductive in the long run.
I'd suggest the solution is freedom, not ever-more-powerful government factions fighting for control over people and resources. You don't actually think you're going win that fight do you? And when you do, can YOU be trusted with the power? Can your successors?
Isn't it better to fear the people who'll put you in jail or kill you (the government) instead of the people who put grandmas on the internet (AOL)?
Freedom, not power.
(BTW: This is not a defense of any particular corporation. I just don't agree with calls to hate large segments of the population. Among other things, it's illogical.)
Almost everything bad is avoidable. It's just not worth the effort.
Sports injuries are avoidable by not playing.
Work injuries are avoidable by not working.
Electrocutions are avoidable by not having electricity.
Auto injuries are avoidable by staying home.
Bad things are a part of life. Life involves doing things. Doing things sometimes causes in bad results. Corporations do things. Sometimes there are bad results.
OK. Going back to the original point. Safety is relative, and perfect safety isn't attainable. Trying to attain it for yourself at the expense of others is destructive. Trying to attain it for anyone at the expense of anyone else is destructive.
If you simply accept life and put problems in perspective instead of playing the blame and retribution (and reparations) game, then you can be happier, and you can be less destructive and more constructive.
Make responsible choices for yourself. Make responsible choices in your work. Don't try to choose for everyone. Live your life and trust me to live mine.
--
Now addressing some specifics:
>> I simply pointed out that your argument was severely flawed.
If my argument was flawed, then what was I argueing? I was saying that the dangers were exaggerated relative to the dangers of everyday life. My point above is that this exaggeration has caused fear. Fear leads to destructive behavior. I was attempting to assuage the fear and prevent the destruction.
>> Does that make the company's actions right in either case?
The exact rightness or wrongness of the actions of each person in each situation is not my concern. Those are their choices, not mine. Taking those choices from them just moves them around. It doesn't make the right decisions happen.
>> Would you prefer it if either incident had become bad enough to directly impact a large number of people's lives?
No. But the reaction to the problem is going to impact millions of people, some of whom will lose their jobs. Exaggeration and fear will be the cause. This is sad.
>> How about no government?
Nah. That's a false choice.
If I get hurt from bad tires, I won't be suing though. I'd suggest this is the correct choice.
But, of course, I won't get hurt, because almost no one does.
>> Did Firestone tell the people who bought cars with defective tires that quality control issues were overlooked?
Were they? What are "quality control issues" exactly? Did Firestone say that all tires were perfect and would remain perfect forever? What exactly did Firestone do wrong, besides trying to make tires and only being 99.999% successful?
Firestone is probably going to go out of business. Does that make you happy? Perhaps you'd like to see Ford go out of business too? You could probably get the car dealers and tire dealers too, if you really worked at it.
---
The point is that the 2 incidents cited were completely overblown.
Life is dangerous and accidents happen. No amount of cash in the hands of lawyers or power in the hands of government workers will change this.
Simpsons joke.
There's a huge industry involved in bashing corporations. It works. Now almost everyone hates corporations. This is a surprise?
Now what's phase 2? Communism? Looting the corporations with lawsuits? Starting a "new" type of corporation where (coincedentally) YOU are in charge?
Please help me to understand the HATE of corporations. They're just groups of people trying to make a living by selling you things you need or want. Please tell me how corporations exercise power over you without government help.
47% of people know that
Yes. The risks from both of these are horribly exaggerated. Look it up. Compare deaths and injuries to sports, bad weather, medical mistakes, etc.
Bad things happen. Bad things happen when corporations are involved too.
Yeah. That's where money comes from. It's donated.
Er, if you produce something of value, you don't have to go around begging for donations all the time.
My good man, I couldn't have said it better myself!
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
Anyone wonder why fuel is so expensive in europe?
75% of the price of gasoline in Briton is taxes! Most EU nations charge similar taxes on it. I think the price is around $5.50 a gallon (give or take a little on the conversion). No wonder farmers and truckers are up in arms!
Politicians can go around and blame big-business / big-oil all day for high prices, but when the government extracts 75% of the money from each gallon of gasoline sold.. thats outragous!
I hope the truckers/farmers stay strong and get people to realize just what theives there are in their government.
Ah well, I suppose they need that much money to support their bloated goverment programs like 'socialized medicine'. If you think HMO's are bad, imagine your healthcare system run by the same folks at the DMV.
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
The average worker who didn't have investors build factories or offices for him/her to work in made $0/Hr, FYI.
By your calculations, the worker got 55%. The corporate taxrate, BTW, is 36%. This leaves the investors a scant 9% return on their investment, which they may have lost completely if the factory burnt down for instance.
So, for every dollar the investor got the workers got five times more in the form of created jobs and payroll, and the government got three times more in taxes.
The people who did no work, but risked something (the investors) got 9%. The people who did no work and risked nothing (the government) got 36%. It should also be noted that the people who worked did not risk anything! They do not have to return their paychecks or lose their houses if the business fails; but the investor is out whatever money he put into the effort!
Theres an interesting bit of math for you.
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Here's your five options.
1. Be a victim of the system
2. Whine and do nothing ( see point 1 )
3. Try to change the system
4. Ignore the system ( break the law )
5. Use the system to your advantage
I for one am going to 5 (by owning stock of companies who work the system to their advantage) while using my vote to help 3 (by voting libertarian, and removing the big government billyclub corporations use to beat consumers and competitors with).
If you are all so damn mad that rich people can go out and make policy then here's a novel idea.. become a rich person. Then you can pay politicians to make all the tree-huggin slacker-subsidizing citizen-babysitting laws you'd ever want! It's not that hard. If Warren Buffet can start out with a hundred bucks and become a billionare then why can't you? Gee he's probably a conservative too, which means he's dumb and misguided because he's not a liberal. We all know is the truth because the press tells us so. A smart liberal like you should be able to do it in half the time. So what's your excuse?
-- Greg
PS. good luck to all you 2's and your slashdot posts.
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
How many of the plantifs in the tobbaco lawsuit did not know that smoking caused cancer, and cancer can kill you? Either they knew when they started and started anyway or (for the really old ones) learned about it but decided to continue to smoke. Regardless of how 'addictive' smoking is they had it within their power to quit. It was their conciense choice to continue using a product that endangered their lives with full knowledge of the conequences.
.. lives' is taking away my right to it. We already do this with the 'war on drugs', and alcholhol prohabition before it.
Eating fast food may someday clog my arteries and through a heart attack kill me. Driving a car that may someday propel me into a solid object at high speeds and kill me. Drinking coffee, if I overdo it can cause heart palpitations and kill me. These are all risks I accept because they are either a needed or wanted part of my life. If I'm in a hostpital bed at 60-something getting triple bypass surgery I'm not going to be angry at McDonalds for doing this to me, it was my decision.
Now how about this.. What if I decide and accept the fact that smoking might kill me but I decide I want to do it anyway cause it imparts just that much joy in my life. Should I be prohibited from aquiring that product? But outlawing that product and corporations that produce it because it might 'destroy
Everyone has the choice to make an educated purchase of a product from a business. If you aren't educated it's your job to get educated before making that buy.
For those of you who believe that it's government job to protect you from yourselves I rue the day when you get just that and realize what sort of totalitarian regulated life you've brought apon yourselves.
You want a shepard to protect you from the wolves but don't you realize that shepard will slaughter you for meat when it's in his best interests?
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
In Nazi Germany what was done for the strength of the community was to make Zyclon gas and 2 x 2 x 7 foot ovens to eliminate an unwanted portion of the poluation.
The point being made was that what you consider 'working for the well-being of the community' may not be what someone else may consider it to be.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
A businesses' goals are simple and will never change. Maximize owner's return on investment by working within the established system.
If the established system (i.e. Government) has abusive IP regulations, a legal system that can be used to bash opponents, databases that can be purchased for customer lists, and easily influenced politicians then of course a business is going to take advantage of these things. If the government can be used as a tool to bloody your competition then businesses are going to use it.
The problem is not corporations, and likewise abolishing corporations is not a solution. The solution is to turn government around so that it doesn't feel the need to have it's thumb in everyone's pie. Our government feels the need to regulate and controll _everything_ and the result is that businesses control everything through the proxy of campaign donations.
Both of the big abuses that have affected the slashdot community are IP (intelectual property) related. The government has for years increased regulation on IP, increasing the years that it's holdable, increasing the controls on how it's sold to consumers (licensed, haha), and now increasing the regulation of how end-users can use that property. It wasn't SONY who passd DMCA, it wasn't Disney. It was the congress, who felt the need to have more control over your lives by regulating what you do with your property. Government thinks they know better than you what you should do with your life.
The only solution is to get government back to providing for the national defense and enforcing minimalist sensable laws (murder, rape, theft, etc..).
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
One of the reasons that i decided to use Linux as my primary OS was when I started to research how much it would cost me to get some decent software. The corporate powers have really gotten out of hand in how much that they charge for software. Just ask anybody who wants to get a copy of MSOffice. (Go S tarOffice!) Also of concern is the price of fun software such as Adobe Photoshop, or animatek's worldbuilder.
What is the software industry trying to pull? Sure there are many people out there who have the money to buy this stuff, but how many times would sales (and therefore profits) increase if you could get cool stuff like that for only about US$100?
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
Indeed it's just the documentation of the proprietary extensions, the detailed informations of what Microsoft added to the Kerberos open protocol.
Without this documentation, there can't be compatiblity on other's platforms.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
(it's possible it's not "replace management" but "replace board members" or something along those lines...not sure)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
>>"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." <<
Publicly owned corporations are owned by their stock holders. These stock holders recieve the majority of the income received. Failure to provide the 'owners' with dividends usually means serious trouble for management (as in being replaced).
refering to the quote included at the beginning of my post.... Wal-Mart (mentioned in the article) grants stock to it's employees. People making 5 to 20 dollars an hour are able to retire with several hundred thousand dollars in their retirement account.(They also offer health and other benefits) If Wal-Mart didn't keep costs down and make a good profit, the stock would be worthless. That's an example of corporate responsibility to its' employees. Many other large corporations do the same.
Those small companies that Wal-mart replaces in all those small towns never have and never will offer those types of benefits (but they pay the same low wage to their employees, and charge the consumer higher prices). If anything, it's small privately held companies that exploit employees much more so than large ones (I speak from experience).
Anybody can buy stock if they want to. Investing in a start up is extremely high risk, and usually only the wealthy can afford to do that. There are many more failed startups than successes. The risk is directly proportional to the investment. Without Investors providing start up money, most of todays business' woudln't even exist (where do you think companies get their money before they make an IPO?). It's about creating companies that create jobs, not just about rich people spending their money. And, yes, it's the amount you invest, not the risk to yourself that counts most.
As I said before..most of the problems with fair pay and compenstation revolve around smaller privately held companies. The ones that escape the public eye (and the internet). None of the outspoken critics want to help people at those places, there's not enough money or publicity in it.
Vote.
and again:
Vote.
-- From Denmark
The Net evolved free of corporate and government control, but corporations and governments are racing to beat it into submission.
If you can read this, then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously".
You get the government you deserve. Since I can't vote here, I deserve none. please?
Shareholders do watch over the management's shoulder. Smaller shareholders may not pay attention to shareholder meetings, but larger ones do. They elect the board of directors and the directors hire/fire upper management. Management already does everything they can to protect a company's stock price. Just look at the current Firestone/Ford situation -- the CEO of Ford appears in a comercial and you can see the fear in his eyes. If this sort of corporate death penalty were allowed, you can bet that management will take notice.
You're half right. Many (not all) corporations would love to eliminate many freedoms, but they can't do that without government support. Most corporate abuses complained about on /. are a direct result of government legislation. If Congress and the president hadn't allowed the MPAA and friends to purchase the DMCA, we wouldn't be in this DeCSS mess.
This is why I don't understand the support for big-government politicians like Nader and Gore. Even if you believe that either or both of them are entirely honorable men who would use the increased power of government responsibly and never bow to corporate lobbying, can you say the same about their successors? The real solution is to firmly limit what government can do (for example, to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution), leaving corporations with no reason to try to buy influence. Not that I know how to actually achieve this...
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The problem is not that capitalism is bad and corporations are evil. It is that there is a socio-economic inertia inherent in corporate growth. This has an inversely proportional relationship with consumer previously. What starts as a good thing because it is convenient becomes evil as too many people are affected by it. Wal-Mart moving into a suburban planned community is fine, it's convenient and threatens nothing as there was nothing there before. Now as Wal-Mart, builds more stores throughout similar areas they become popular and are welcomed into areas that had their retail needs met by individual stores previously. This begins to displace individual entrepreneur. This happens because people become trained to go to Wal-Mart, by there very pervasiveness. If a citizen moves from one place to another there is now always a Wal-Mart in proximity to them, why are they going to find the store that is better when there is always a giant, well lit, store where they can have the needs sated. What the consumer doesn't realize, until it is too late, is that they by their own gradual surrender have given up the choice of product and quality they had 0 at the local retailer. If something isn't right or you are unhappy you could speak directly with the proprietor. Sam Walton is dead, his namesake store is now run by a board influenced by share holders, share holders want money too, they paid for a piece of the pie and want a return. No one involved in that scheme is going to do anything to stop profit if it is solely for the benefit of a society/community.
Well once again JONKATZ (Java Object for News, Konspiracy, and Anticorporate Text Zenning) has produced a fabulously obvious article. I love the "and regulated" bit. That is so true! Think about it: what problem has ever not been solvable with laws and legislation? I mean, every time a problem crops up in our society, those trusty politicians make a law that immediately fixes the problem. Since everyone automatically obeys all laws, then a carefully worded document on file at the capitol and enforced by slow-witted beaurocracy can't help but improve our lives! I'm amazed that we have any problems at all in the world, what with all the laws. I suppose it just takes a while for enough laws to be made for the world to be perfect. Those greedy corporations won't know what hit 'em as soon as some heavy handed regulation comes their way!
XeoMage
Since when did it become hypocritical to like some things that a company does but to hate others? Why does it have to be an "all or nothing" situation?
There's nothing wrong with liking a company's products but bringing it to our attention when they do bad things like stamp on our rights. Slashdot does both, and for both it should be applauded.
While I would agree with many of the statistics posted in the Jon Katz's article, I would strongly disagree that we need some sort of populist outcry for regulation. I agree that it is prudent and necessary to get corporations to work towards being responsible citizens on their respective country(s) but a mass of governmental regulation based on populist outcry is not the solution. If you ask the average person on the street they'll answer in one of two ways (in order):
1) Whatever benefits their wallets
2) Whatever makes them feel warm and fuzzy
I whole-heartedly agree with people holding the 1st opinion. Everyone wants to get ahead in life and everyone should be free to work towards making a better living for themselves and their family. However the second point is where many of our problems will stem from. To put it bluntly no one wants to be the "bad guy". "Everyone should win, everything should be fair" they cry? Oh yeah? Do a text search on the Constitution of the United States or the Magna Charta or the Federalist Papers for the word "fair". Nowhere in those documents will they guarantee you that it's the role of government to make things fair. Widespead regulation is only going to replace one juggernaut with another. And I'd much rather have a free business there than a liberal government drunk on its own power given by an ignorant populace. Before we ask the biggest bully on the block to use its huge judicial and legislative arms to beat down the smaller bully, remember who the larger bully is and try and get the smaller bully on our side first.
Some people take their .sig way too seriously
Mr. X> Now I'm a little bit unclear here. If I recall correctly, corporations' purpose is to provide profit for their shareholders.
To paraphrase Michael Moore: Then why not just sell crack?
my karma ran over your dogma
First, this is not whining.
Second, why open their franchise?
Maybe I should have told my life story about how I also didn't find it interesting and after some schooling didn't wish to be a pharmacist.
I just figured to stick with the topic at hand.
It all boils down to YES I agree that corporate america is taking over every facet of our lives. Is this a good thing? No, I don't believe so. This is my opinion. You can take it or leave it.
The people with the money will continue to make the money. There is a growing disparity between the rich and the middle class, which are slowly becoming the poor.
Takes money to make money. (In most situations)
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
"If you don't like a company, don't buy its product but do buy its shares."
Are you telling me only stockholders should have a say? This isn't supposed to be a plutocracy!
Film/game companies exist to make money. Why should they release art films/games that don't make any money?
DigitalContent PAC
OliverWillis.Com
An Operative with an Agenda
Never mind that Nader has made money off of those corporations he hates so much
DigitalContent PAC
OliverWillis.Com
An Operative with an Agenda
durable clothes. a pair of Dickies, like a pair of Levi's or anything else. thanks for the query, sorry i wasn't clear. the 'dubya' in George W. Bush stands for 'i would never make it in the real world.'
neopets.com
i love running out at 4am to get stuff. Wal-Mart never closes and their prices beat 7-11. i LOVE Wal-Mart for last minute things and the occasional new pair of Dickies.
.gif/never updated website. others are artistic, beautifully minded, free-thinking people who will probably be poor.
why did Wal-Mart open a store that is groceries only? that's right, no Barbies or Hot Wheels for the kids' birthday parties, no inkjet cartridges, no TVs.
the reason we (read ~i~) hate big business is because they go into markets where they historically have no expertise. have you seen Safeway or Albertson's gas stations?! great prices, but that's just not right. i can't support them when the near-future-and-getting-worse trend is toward a country with 8 major corporations, each with their own line of gas stations & cars, restaurants, hospitals, monitors, private schools and hotels. it's potentially sick.
i think it's worse here in Dallas, TX than anywhere i've been (that's a lot of places). even the college students want a quick degree and a job with a big company for reasons of money and not enjoying a career. others want a quick MCSE because they're 'good at windows 98' and can make their own useless and entirely ugly/bad type/bad animated
the 'dubya' in George W. Bush stands for 'i'm an absolute moron.'
neopets.com
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Contrast that with the way Napster and DeCSS hit lots of consumers directly (already, or potentially) and it's not hard to see how some corporate welfare gets under the popular radar while other stuff sticks out like a sore thumb.
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
You are just spouting bullshit to disagree with Katz. Well, you are an ass.
Corporations ARE causing serious problems in the world today. They ARE stealing our freedoms. They ARE influencing our government by supporting candidates that will throw our freedoms away so that corporations can rape us.
When small mom and pop shops do stuff I don't like I go somewhere else. When Joe Schmoe spits on me and calls my mom a whore I kick his ass. When the MPAA lobbies for unfair laws that take away my freedoms I scream bloody murder but noone hears me and I have to remove DeCSS off my website or fear getting sued.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
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.
No, it's because there wasn't a decent person to vote for, because people like us don't have the resources needed to run for president.
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.
Only 50% of the population even own ANY stock. Out of those 50%, most of them only own any stock through mutual funds and such and don't even know what stock they own. Most of this 50% has NO say whatsoever in what these companies do. The other 50% who don't own stock, well... they don't own any stock.
Sure, AOL ruined the internet, but they did it while making people such as you and me rich in the process.
Well, who do I have to ask to give me my money? Like I said above, MOST people haven't seen any of this money. It's mostly the wealthy getting wealthier.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I'm sorry, I forgot to turn on html formatting. sorry in advance.
You know, a lot of people are getting tired of the same old "Evil Big Corporation" rhetoric being spouted over and over again. Big companies do good stuff and bad stuff. Small companies do good stuff and bad stuff.
;-)
This statement is true but for a fair amount of time now there have been far too many "large" companies doing bad stuff than smaller companies. Most of those are the larger Megacorps(tm). When that kind of disparity exists we have to look a little closer at it.
Everyone does good stuff and bad stuff.
So because everyone does bad stuff we should not complain at all?
We just like to rant about the evil companies because they have the facilities to do it to more people. When the Mom & Pop shop on the corner overcharges you by four dollars, nobody cares, but when Amazon does it we get a flurry of Slashdot articles about it.
Not exactly true my friend. I bitch about small companies that overcharge me - and you should too. (However I also can see when the reason a small company is overcharging me is because a bigger company is squishing them.) If enough complaining is heard then people will do somehting about the problem. Hell - even complaining is doing something about the problem provided you're complaining to the right person. You never know, the right person may be the one standing next to you. Or even a tr0ll on Slashdot.
The Tick - "Spoon!"
NEO - "There is no spoon."
"Bah!" - Dogbert
On our intranet, the following was posted this morning:
Now you tell me, if 53% of registered voters are in the stock market, how is it that you are saying so "few" people have control? I agree with the first poster - everyone has control over their stock purchases, and if even a small percentage of small time investors took action against a targeted company, that target company would make the appropriate changes.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
Make it so that a donation of computers to a refurbisher (like Goodwill, for instance) will return a tax writeof of 100% of original value of the old computers, and we will be able to kiss the Digital Divide goodbye!
And just how would you fund this tax writeoff? You may be among the many American's that don't understand that a tax break is, in essence, just *giving* money to the corporations to accomplish a specific purpose. That's why we have United Way and all the other corporate tax writeoff's now.
Also, 100% of the original value would be stupid, especially since the corporation in question has in most cases *already* taken 100% of the value of that computer in a tax writeoff. It's called depreciation. So, what you will really do is fund new computers for everyone now so that the company can depreciate *200%* of the purchase price of the thing over 7 years (it may be 3 years for computers). Great idea. Not!
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
I just had to point this out. Many, many, many, probably most, employed Americans have money in stock. Don't believe me? Ever heard of a 401(k)? Most pension plans have at least some money in stocks. That includes union pension plans. Never before have more people had more money in stock.
you're most likely correct. I should have clarified like many other posters did on this topic. The original post I was replying to was referring to individuals owning stock and having a say in how the company was run. The majority of individuals owning stock do now have any say in how the company is run. I addressed this more in a reply I made above. Also, most of the other posters on this thread made the same point.
Having a 401(k) and a pension plan doesn't give you enough stock to have any input into how the large corporations run.
also, "more people" having "more money" in stock doesn't mean much. Regardless of how many people have money in the stock market, most of the money in the stock market comes from the richest individuals in the nation, which is a very small percentage. It is those individuals who get a say in how the company is run, not the small stockholders with 401(k) plans or mutual funds.
Moller
I agree- an interesting ramble by Katz as always.
But I wondered about the survey. Your point about leading questions is good. I also wonder exactly how they got their responses - magazine fill-in-and-send surveys are notorious for getting results mcuh more extereme than reflects the poulation at large.
Why? How many of those have you filled out, ever? Me too...only people who already have strong feelings will take the time...
Check out "How To Lie WIth Statistics".
In addition, there are various rating sites that are popular with people. These sites allow people to speak and rant about the positives and negatives about consumers goods/services. Some examples are Deja and (referral link) Epinions, which I use almost everytime I need to do consumer research.
However, any communication on the Internet is useless if the courts don't enforce free speech. With the news that URLs aren't property, this is just more ammunition that corporate sharks^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers can use against people who register RandomFortune500CompanySucks.com. And some companies think they can control free speech by using the trademark game! Is this trademark clause the future loophole that will control free speech? I hope it doesn't follow along the paths of the Interstate Commerce Act.
I don't know what else to say. I can only hope the laws allow the Internet to help in fighting corporatism (and government??).
Rangers Lead the Way!
Interesting! This issue (among others) is why I consider myself a Constitutionalist.
Constitutionally Correct
Exactly! I say this over at Liberty Rally all the time, and every other chance I get. It's why I'll probably be voting Constitution this fall. Let's limit the gov't to the power it's actually supposed to have and we'll see our lives improve.
Constitutionally Correct
Hear, hear! I was going to say the same thing. When you vote for the "lesser of two evils" you are still voting for evil. Stop voting on politics and start voting on principle! If everyone would stand up for what they really believe in, instead of second-guessing how everyone else will vote and wondering if their vote is "wasted", maybe we'd actually make a difference.
I'm voting third party this year. Why don't you try it, too?
Constitutionally Correct
You are amazingly enlightened. It does astound me that, in general, we find it so easy to curse the beast that we have created. Much like Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, we constructed this empire with such fervor and determination, then recoil in horror and disgust that the empire does not behave the way we intended.
However, much like Frankenstein, there does come a point where that we which have wrought cannot be undone by the creators. Sure, it is easy to say that we can kill the beast since it is the people that are sustaining it. I argue, however, that while it only takes a few to create these empires, it takes many to actually kill it. Unfortunately, those of us that I consider unwitting participants in this initial endeavor do not compose the entire group that began these dark ventures. I believe some have begun the process of scorning these empires, but way too many have been tainted by the darker side never to turn back.
My college philosophy professor once stated that society in general will not change until the things that cause us pain are brought to an extreme. Then the society will general react to the other extreme to solve the problem until it finally settles into the median range again.
The very substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. -William Shakespeare
For my own part, regret nothing. Have lived life, free from compromise... and step into the shadow now without complaint. -Hermann Rorschach
shadowspires
In fact, a whopping 72% of Americans feel that big businesses have gained too much control over many aspects of their lives.
A whopping 72% of teenage girls think that N*Sync is the best group ever, but that doesn't mean they're right.
Whoops. I got all outraged and indignant for nothing, and went off half-cocked. 95% agreed with the statement that corporations should give back to their communities. I hereby rescind my wrath.
I just had to point this out. Many, many, many, probably most, employed Americans have money in stock. Don't believe me? Ever heard of a 401(k)? Most pension plans have at least some money in stocks. That includes union pension plans. Never before have more people had more money in stock.
Sorry, but the "only rich, cigar-smoking, old white guys own stock" myth is a misconception that I hate to see propogated. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
"If I removed everything here that I thought was pointless, there would be like two messages here."
woxy.com - Bam! The Future of Rock and Roll
Unfortunately Jon Katz failed to provide a link to the poll, and I was unable to find one at businessweek.com. Can anyone else find it?
Uhhh...AFAIK trademarks have always been allowed to exist for eternity, as long as the company that owns them continue to use them, and prosecute infringers to prevent its 'dilution'.
I think you're thinking of copyright...
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
For the good of the culture they exist in? Because, although it's denied often, the people who make up the companies, including management, are human and will benefit from things that add to humanity in a significant way?
Fair enough, though. I know that arguments like those will be greeted by derision, jokes, etc. So in that spirit we might as well give up on any artistic or philosophical endeavor that doesn't have a net result of More Money. That means, of course, no more Open Source, but who cares, eh?
Nothing, per se. The trouble is that funding for movies tends to go to films calculated primarily for maximum profit at the expense of quality and real social relevance. Leaving smaller, more "important" films out in the cold.
For a relevant example, take a look at what happened to Looking Glass when Daikatana sucked up their funding. A great many /.ers were outraged. But the same thing happens all the time in the movie and music industries and we hear very little of it.
Honestly, I am amazed at your victory. I would never have thought it possible to take a couple of statistics from a single source and stretch it, with the aid of only a few buzzwords and headlines, to a full-blown article. Your talent at content-free bafflegab has been acknowledged at long last.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
Look at income statistics, health statistics, and other quality of life statistics and you'll find that countries that have invited in multinationals have done better for their citizens than those who have tried to keep them out.
As their productivity improves, so do their wages. This is what has happened in Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and so on.
Thus, consumers get cheaper prices at the drug store; usually, too, more convenient hours and a larger selection of products.
And you're helping to build a growing sector of the economy where there's a labor shortage.
The horror, the horror.
Remember that corporations are beholden to the few, not the many. Government may not work well, but American government (at least in theory) is answerable to all its citizens.
Check out ihatethephonecompany.com and join the class action lawsuit against Bellatlantic. I, like many others was horribly inconvienced by Bell Atlantic when they rolled out their DSL. I lost money by taking half days to wait for modems and technicians that never showed. On top of that, I was down for at least one solid week a month.
The net definitely brings consumers together against corporate power faster and more powerfully than any group of phone lines, newsletters, or fax machines could ever have done.
I'm not saying that the net is going to destroy corporations, I'm just saying that the same consumers who feel like the net is owned by "big businesss" are now realizing that they can own a piece of it too. People are finally feeling empowered against corporations.
Just in time, I say
You are currently running a program that is direct competition to our Windows products. We also detect the presence of Linux and other competing operating systems present on this hard drive. We enjoy crushing consumers who don't use only Microsoft. I will now pop up a blue screen with unintelligable error messages that you will not be able to rid yourself of even after reboot. So that's what an illegal operation is!
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
If you don't purchase the products of a company/Corporation, they'll either wither and die, or change their marketing strategy/product quality/do whatever they need to do to get you to buy their product.
95% ,of the people say you're wrong. They're tired of the Corporations screwing the folks around.
This message indicates we have 26% dumb people, 20 percent who are stupid, and 5% who are mentally retarded.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
Of course people complain and worry more about the ethical failings of large corporations as opposed to the ethical failings of "Mom & Pop" shops. When the corner store overcharges you, you go to another corner store, complain to the owner, tell all your friends, whatever. Your local government weilds a lot of power over the Mom and Pop shops. And if your Mom and Pop shop controls the municipal government, they don't control the county government or the state government.
Large corporations not only have the power to "do it to more people," but they also pour huge sums of money into campaigns and lobbyists in the U.S. to ensure that they have access and favors that Mom and Pop can't dream of. Think DMCA. And they do the same thing, or worse, around the globe. The fear that big business is more dangerous and/or powerful than government exists for a reason!
Large corporations can do much more horrible things than Mom and Pop shops. This is obvious to any observer. Because they are capable of much more damage (and much more good, but that's usually not seen to be as profitable), they should be held to higher levels of scrutiny and skepticism than Mom and Pop.
a VERY good point... but are there suggestions for getting this kind of knowledge / information to the NON /. crowd?
Are answering negatively because their provider isn't using the RBL and Harris is constantly spamming them ? :)
Please help billioniares to better rule us by voting for one of their paid candidates, if you live in the U.S. See BillionairesforBushorGore.com Or for a compact synopsis go here
Why is money...
.01 - the government taxed the other .01
It isn't the endall beall - it is just the commonly defined tool. It has been mutually agreed by almost everyone to be the preferred medium of exchange for goods/services. Barter does still exist someplaces, but it is heavily discouraged because it is difficult to tax. Therefore governments have added incentive to insure that a form of currency is used that can be regulated, controlled, and TAXED.
Just remember that most high level politicians are so obsessed with their own self-importance that they think they know whats best for their "constituents". Of course most of their info is given to them by various corporate interests, with a little (Large) stack of colored paper.
Some people think it is the endall etc because they have been brainwashed into thinking it is. Everytime you watch tv or listen to the radio, you get hammered by ads telling you about the latest widget that you MUST have to make your life complete. So you go out and earn more money to buy that widget to keep you happy until the next must have comes along.
There is nothing wrong with money in and of itself - it is the abuse of it, especially in large quantities. The tool is not evil - it is the wielder of the tool that must be watched.
my
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
Are you suggesting that the government say that companies can't fire people when they don't value their employment anymore? Give me a break.
Minimum wage laws put people out of work. Period. Let's say a company has 4 employees in a third-world country that get paid $3 an hour, and one in the US who gets paid $12 an hour but produces 4 times as much work as the other employees. Suppose in an "act of good faith", the third-world government makes a $4 minimum wage. Those employees are now getting a collective $16 to produce the same output as one person who is paid $12. What happens?
Well, the company makes an economic decision (ever heard of them?). They must fire the third-world workers since they aren't worth the money. Secondly, the US employee demands a $16 wage since he does the same work as those 4 employees. The company (and therefore their consumers, society) is now getting half the work done for $4 more. The third-world people are out of work.
Yes, the third-world country's conditions are horrible, but putting people out of jobs is not the answer. They want to work. Why the hell are you on a crusade to not allow them to? Just because you raise a minimum wage does not force the company to keep those employees. In fact it gives them an incentive to get rid of them.
In a side note -- without corporations, you wouldn't be driving your car, riding your bike, writing with pencils, getting on the internet or brushing your teeth. I sure don't want to live in the hills and work in a field all day long. I don't know about you.
http://www.rtmark.com
The purpose of rtmark is to perform acts of corporate sabotage, among other things. It accomplishes this risk-free by, among other things, bribing workers for target corporations with the money it receives from rtmark's members. RTmark's executives are free of liability for any of the actions of the corporation thanks to the limited liability inherent in a corporation.
Some of their past projects include:
The etoy Fund: rtmark helped to organize the massive 'virtual sit-in' against eToys, Inc., when that company sued the tiny art site etoy.com for copyright infringement or some nonsense due to the similarity in the name.
GWBush.com: rtmark helped to set up and also provided content for parody site GWBush.com, which pissed off good old W. enough that he committed one of his (many) vocal blunders, saying that "There ought to be limits to freedom." (Audio at the rtmark site) Well, sure, there should be limits to freedom, but certainly not when it comes to having the freedom to express ones' opinion of a presidential candidate.
And, perhaps most famously, the B.L.O., where, in 1993, RTMark channeled $8000 from a military veterans' group to the Barbie Liberation Organization, which used the investment to switch the voiceboxes of three hundred BarbieTM and G.I. JoeTM dolls.
Lots of interesting stuff at the site.
---------------
Free yourself. Everything else will follow.
Well, FYI, French corporations have no problems of competitivity, the trade balance is highly positive, and exports are going just fine. In the meanwhile, true, people work 35 hours a week IF THEY DON'T WANT TO WORK MORE, or, depending on the company, work 39 hours but have eight of nine weeks of holidays per year. Once again, that's only if you don't want to do more. Except that, this time, the employee is the one who makes the choice, not the boss.
And guess what? It's god damn cool. Many people are getting a better family life. Others can concentrate more time on their hobbies. Women especially are extremely pleased with this system. And even companies actually found that, at the end of the day, this reform was positive for them, because it was accompanied by a significant gain in flexibility.
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
Well, the founder of one of the largest companies in the world had this to say, and his policies are carried on by the directors who have followed him.
Mire the Third World in poverty? What, like they're awash with money at the moment. Please. Multinationals are the biggest exploiters of cheap third world labour and the majority of the profits of these practices don't stay in their country anyway. Are you trying to tell me that Nike sweatshops in Indonesia help anyone except Nike and the corrupt government there.
Exactly. We should allow corporations to pay starvation wages, ignore health and safety issues, refuse to grant paid holidays or sick leave, pay no taxes, create predatory cartels and monopolies, produce unsafe or poor-quality products etc etc ad nauseum. The government has to control corporations because, as history has shown, corporations only care about profit and to hell with any other considerations.
What's even more fun is when the Big Corp burns too much cash and goes bankrupt, leaving communities with *no* outlet for a particular type of item.
This happened with craft stores in my old home town; originally there were several little ones, which did ok. Once the big mega-store moved in (I believe it was a regional chain), all the others died out. Then the big store goes bankrupt, and now there's no decent craft stores left (and this is in a college town, where there should easily be sufficient demand for them).
Two points here:
1) If I voted for the "wrong" person in the last election, it was because I there was no "right" person to vote for. Even if I find a better candidate to vote for, the specifics of the U.S. electoral system pretty much guarantee that one of the major party candidates will be elected. Since a vote for a minor party will have basically no chance of being reflected in the overall representation in Congress or elsewhere, my only way of influencing politics at all is to vote for the "lesser of two evils" from the major parties.
How am I repsonsible for (hypothetically) destruction of the forests, when the only two real choices are between the guy who wants to chop it all down now, and the one who to chop it all down over four or five years?
2) Not all stock is voting stock. You may have a financial stake in a company (often indirectly) and still have no say in how that company is run.
Of course if you're not happy, you can get rid of the stock. But if you own stock in a company through a mutual fund, you usually can't divest from that company without dumping the fund. There are certainly a number of good "clean conscience" type funds out there, but good luck getting them added to your 401(k) plan.
Ownership does *not* equal control, or even approval of a company's policies.
This is NOT the first time for Ford either. You won't read about this in Lee Iacocca's autobiography, but it's in the trial record. In the early 1970's, around the time of the Arab oil embargo and the [oil] price shock, subcompact cars were popular with consumers mainly due to their relative fuel economy. However, the "Big Three" car manufacturers HATED these small cars due to their (relatively low) profit margins. (Henry Ford II is reputed to have derisively muttered: "Small cars, small profits!") However, GM, Ford, and Chrysler were forced to manufacture these loathsome "small cars" because consumers were flocking to Toyota's and Honda's. Ford designed and marketed a subcompact vehicle called the Ford "Pinto". The Ford Pinto turned out to have a little problem: The gas tank, located in the rear of the vehicle right underneath the back seat passengers, had a tendency to rupture and ignite when the vehicle was impacted from the rear - often with fatal consequences to the passengers. (These gas tank explosions occurred even with very low speed impacts.) I can't remember how many people died, (or survived but were disfigured for life), before an irrefutable fact was established in the many civil suits against Ford that resulted from the Pinto. First, not only did the senior Ford executives, (including Mr. Ford II and Mr. Iacocca), know that the gas tanks were unsafe; but they made a (very conscious) decision NOT TO RECALL the cars and install a very inexpensive component that their engineers had told them would make the gas tanks MUCH SAFER and MUCH LESS PRONE to explosion from a rear impact. So what did Ford do? They asked their engineers to give them a cost estimate on how much a recall would cost. Then they asked their lawyers the following question: How many lawsuits do you estimate we'll get each year due to exploding gas tanks and what will the average cost (per lawsuit) be? So the [Ford] lawyers and statisticians came back with their figure. As revealed at trial, the executives decided that "fighting the lawsuits" was less costly to Ford and Ford's shareholders. There was no recall and the unsafe gas tanks were never fixed. Do any of you have a loved one who was killed by an exploding gas tank in a Ford Pinto? Maybe a corporate "death penalty" is excessive punishment and hurts the innocent along with the guilty. However, I've often wondered: "What is the difference between a cold, calculated case of first degree murder and the decision those Ford executives made to keep the Pinto on the road? In the current situation involving Ford and Firestone, there is still much to be revealed. In due course, certain facts may come to light about the design of Ford Explorers. These are the kind of facts which Mr. Nasser may not be so eager to reveal. Right now, he prefers to portray his company - and himself - as the "great victims" of these callous Firestone folks. Don't be too surprised, when all this goes to trial, if we (once again) find history repeating.
Company being shut down & all its accets liquidated
Those that do get smacked down, usually hard. Look at Firestone.
e radio.asp to read just a little bit about the opinions broadcasters have about their competition.
Not nearly enough, in my opinion. For example, take my HMO. Please. They've already taken so much from me.
And is political corruption the result of there being corporations around?
What does this matter? It's being done and needs to be stopped. Is that just what corporations ought to be allowed to do?
That's government regulation, not evil corporations trying to take away your freedom.
Try to become informed on this one. Micro radio stations have been trying to get these regulations rolled back for years, but the enormous power of lobbying media conglomerates is doing a fantastic job of keeping them shut down. It's large corporations using the government to keep up their bottom line. Follow this http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1999/1/29pirat
So? Internet is a Good Thing. What's your point?
My point, if you read to the bottom of the paragraph, is that we're seeing the corporate Hydras raise their ugly heads once again as they attempt to control something they do not own and have no right to control. The DeCSS case is by far the most frightening manifestation of this because it has touched First Amendment issues as well as a long-standing "right" to do with as you please with the property you've bought. Corporations are buying legistlation that allows them to change the laws to improve their profits. It's a problem.
(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.
I wasn't, in my original dissection, even interested in why you wanted to compare Katz to Nazis. I just was pointing out the non sequitur you committed in assigning the failure of the German economy to the principle of "common good." In your new syllogism, your conclusion is so poorly stated that I don't know what to tell you.
In a dictatorship, the national good is decided by a dictator. In a monarchy, by the monarch. In a plutarchy, by . . . you get the idea.
In a democracy, the national good is decided by a majority. In a republic such as ours, certain aspects of what's "good" are not up for review by the voters. These include rights to free speech, etc. A US corporation is, by legal definition, a person. There are good reasons why that should not be. But even if they are allowed that definition, the whole point of this, which you are missing, is that if individual people behaved as corporations do, and ignored every custom of civilized behavior, law, and the rights of their neighbors, they would find themselves jailed and/or ostracized from their communities. If I as a person stood out on the street shouting my opinions and not only refused to quit shouting them but in fact actively attacked others who shouted their own opinions, the neighborhood would come after me with clubs. That's what media conglomerates do. If I ignored the somewhat bothersome waste disposal facilities of my neighborhood and instead just started dumping my trash in my neighbor's yard, he would have every right to file a lawsuit against me. But in the corporate-dominated world you simply can't win. A single person, or a group of people, or even a whole city full of people, just do not have the resources to stand and fight against a corporation. When they enlist the help of their government, someone then screams that regulation will kill the business. It's suddenly the "stockholder" interest that's mysteriously at stake. Suddenly, a corporation's "rights" to make a profit are more important than the rights of the community that makes the corporation's existence possible.
A corporation may exist only to further its bottom line. But we the community they live in are not obligated to bend our lives around them to make that happen. Coroporations take a risk when they are formed, and shareholders share that risk, as well as the rewards. I see many other posts on here trying to appeal to somebody's grandmother's mutual fund as a reason not to come after irresponsible corporations. That's the risk you take when you gamble, which is all that playing the stock market is. If you aren't willing to take the risk you shouldn't play the game. In Corporate America, however, that's unacceptable. Anything that stands in the way of profits, or even slightly inconveniences them, is fair game. Either the civil suits will bury you or the bought laws will harass you into nonexistence.
The point is, right now corporations decide what is good for us, and it should be we deciding what is good for us. Kaa brings Nazis into it to poison the well, and makes a non-sequitur in the process. The argument he makes is fallacious.
Corporations also have a thing called a charter. It's their legal right to exist. In the past, citizens who felt that a corporation's activites were too destructive could petition to have that charter revoked. This power still exists today. But our government won't use this because of the kickba^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions they're getting.
Corporations may have a purpose -- to enrich their shareholders. But they are also responsible and must obey the law like any other citizen. When they don't, our current system fails to punish them in any measurable fashion.
When a person is so intent on making money that they harm others or harm society, we call that person a bad person. The same should apply to corporations. Corporations are part of society and when they put profits above all else, they are bad. Microsoft has set the computer industry back several years by leveraging a near monopoly to push innovators out of business, rather than competing honorably on the basis of quality and service.
I'm far less concerned about big corporations than I am about big government. The former wants to make money. The latter wants to tell you what to do, what to think, and how to behave, and will exercise the full power of the state if you resist.
Hah! When I went to work today it was my boss telling me what to do, not the government! Government isn't the only controlling power in our lives, most workers probably deal with their employer more than than the State.
In terms of thought control, governments are hardly alone in censoring. In fact private media which produces the bulk of censorable material and has more opportunity to censor than the government. And it does just that in order to make money and to present a good corporate image in the public mind. Churches, political parties, etc... also censor, it's not just a government thing.
In terms of actual physical control over human beings corporations are not slackers in this department. They can control how you behave from dresscodes to discouraging pregancy plus a whole host of workplace rules. This even includes prohibition of speech, such as what you can say. (Like no workplace flirting, can't talk about the last strike, etc...) Government isn't the only institution with regulations and since work is something most adults deal with a lot more than the State it is a larger problem for most people.
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.
More often than not, as many shareholders are people with stock-based IRAs or 401Ks as big shots.
The stock runup of the 1990s actually brought a lot more families and working people into the shareholder class than you might think.
Hey, I'm a webserf at a little Dotcom, and even *I* have stock!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
That's not acceptable to me. One thing that needs to be done in the next session of Congress is to make it easier for corporations and even individuals to donate, rather than toss, older but still functional computers.
Currently there is a disincentive for corporations to donate or resell aging computers. Make it so that a donation of computers to a refurbisher (like Goodwill, for instance) will return a tax writeof of 100% of original value of the old computers, and we will be able to kiss the Digital Divide goodbye!
Also, require computer manufacturers to take old machines in trade, and then give them a similar donation tax writeoff to send the computers to a refurbisher.
That's my idea...harebrained as it might be.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I can think of two corporations which deserve this, big time: Firestone and Ford.
May I remind folks that this is not the first time Firestone has fscked up...in the 1970s their 500-series tires had the very same delamination problem that their SUV tires do now.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Yes, and when people do bad stuff, they get in trouble for it. And if it's bad enough they go to jail. And we make laws to keep them from doing bad stuff.
Taking advantage of technology and situtations and political power to rob people of their freedoms so a company can maximize its profits is bad stuff. Fortunately we have an answer to these issues, legislation, litigation, and, uhhh, criminal justice (couldn't think of another L word).
This country's founders created corporations to provide specific public services, but, concerned about the risks of concentration and abuse of power, they carefully limited corporate powers. Incorporation was a privilege not a right, and corporations were each granted unique charters by a state legislature in the state where they did their business.
- Corporations had to have a specific purpose written into their charter
(license to do business); if they didn't fulfill it, or exceeded their authority,
their charter could be revoked.
- Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, usually
10 to 30 years, and ceased to exist after that time unless their charters
were renewed.
- Corporations could not own stock in other corporations or own real estate
beyond what they needed to conduct their business.
- State legislatures set the rates that corporations could charge for
their products or services.
- All corporation records and documents were open to the public
(or the legislature or the state attorney general, depending on the state).
- A corporation's officers, directors and stockholders could be held personally
liable (sometimes triply) for all harms and debts caused by the corporation.
- Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
- Major corporate decisions had to be affirmed by unanimous shareholder vote,
and the power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large
and small investors had more equal voting rights.
- Corporations were prohibited from making any donations to political
candidates, direct or indirect. (In Wisconsin, this law was still in effect
until 1972!)
- To ensure local control and input, all of a corporation's stockholders
were required to be from the state where it did its business.
- and much much more
We must reclaim the sovereignty of the people to insure that corporations really serve the public interest, their original purpose. To do this, we must follow the example of this country's founders - limit corporations' size and power, and hold their every act subservient to the will of the sovereign people. That is democracy.If the Sean Fanning example shows anything, it shows corporations with all their money, legal teams, influence peddling and research departments are not anywhere near enough to duplicate the creativity of millions of independent 'net users who focus their attention on redefining/streamlining any given market. As millions more individual users come on line from around the world the best of the new ideas and ways of looking at things will make it to the forefront. I think large corporations will be at a distinct disadvantage. As long as we're able to keep the competition and access to capital markets open to the up and coming entrepeneurs. Before giving up and thinking all is lost you should read a new book, the "Tipping Point" which makes the case for an individual making a difference.
They see the revolution coming and are attempting to make walls illegal so as not to be the first against it.
Actually, I get the impression that as long as they can keep feeding the sheep their mind-altering drugs such as television, they really are quite realistic in being complacent. The Majority doesn't give a shit, and has no intention of getting off its fat ass.
--
NO TOUCH MONKEY!
We don't have to pass new laws... just repeal the DMCA and the like.
The government doesn't just do a bad job of warding off corporate power, it makes an active effort to help it prosper.
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." American companies now "owe" something to people who are not on their payroll? Seems a little socialist. To claim that you are owed "something" indicates that you feel that "something" is your right. Apparentely 95% of people feel their communities have a right to social work by their local companies. That is frightening. Verizon is a major company in NJ, but tell Verizon that we as the people have a RIGHT to them adding a park, improving housing, etc.., is a violation of Verizon's freedom. They owe their customers a service they are paid for, that is all. They owe their employees a paycheck, that is all. That is the nature of business, one service for another. When people start claiming rights to things they have not earned(socialized medecine, etc.) we have proven that our American brand of so-called capitalism has truly failed.
As a result of the corporate mind-job, and in a similar vein (slightly on-topic), the constant mantra of profit as all important is part of everything now. In order for a government to increase arts funding, they have to try to justify it in terms of long-term economic returns. Likewise when a school or college tries to increase emphasis on humanities, history, philosophy, etc. it is criticised on the grounds that such subjects are not of direct commercial use.
Last time I checked, the economy was a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end is a higher standard of living for society. Arts are also a means to that end - a separate means to that end, and thus do not need to provide an economic return in order to achieve that end (though any impact on the economic "means" should be weighed). But today in business, if the value is measured in anything other than dollars, it's worthless. My standard of living cannot be measured by dollars. Thus the system intended to enhance my and your standard of living seems unable to achieve this (other than by blind luck, of which there is not much around). Under this currant rubbish, my standard of living is apparently a function of home appliances...
Free market/minimal governement -- it's propaganda, people, not the natural order of things, mana from heaven, nor a panacea. It's all about balance, and, while perhaps hyperbolic, this article makes the point that the scales are tipped. And what is news about it is that the general population is starting think so (as opposed to the 80s when my observations and protestations made me an indiscreet minority). This may or may not be true, but please stop crapping on about how the big bad government is about to take everything away from you tomorrow. If I may be allowed to generalize, those who espouse unfettered markets reveal a tendency to believe that evil is lurking, ready to take everything away at the first chance. The constintuency of the evil is unkown, but it's out there, insidious, and ready to make us miserable by taking away our cars, home, and cable hookup. Remain vigilant! Declare war on ! Balance can be obtained. Check out Australia and many European countries. Regarding markets and the commonwealth, you can have your cake and eat it to.
Did I just support Jon Katz? Gods save me!
In space, no one can hear you moo.
Are sports injuries avoidable if it is given that you are playing? Not entirely, but that's a risk that the potential victims are willing to take. Did Firestone tell the people who bought cars with defective tires that quality control issues were overlooked? The potential victims in this case were not informed of the added risk from those tires. There's the difference - corporations shouldn't be deciding what additional risk is acceptable for me to take. By your logic it should be legal for someone to slip poison in your drink. You can always not drink it.
Auto injuries are avoidable by staying home.
That's assuming that cars stay on the road. I suppose you wouldn't mind having a car drive into your living room and hit you, since it is obvious that you could have avoided that situation. Why have rules at all? If you don't want to get gunned down on the street, you should stay home. If you don't want your posessions stolen, you shouldn't have bought them. If you don't want to die, you shouldn't have left the womb.
I haven't been following this story very closely, so I don't have all of the facts (and it is still being investigated, so all of the facts aren't out yet), but so far it looks like one of the problems was that rubber that had been rejected was later used in tires when the supply of good rubber ran low. There were a few other details, but I don't remember them (and you seem to have completely made up your mind on the issue, so it isn't worth the effort to do any research). As I stated in my previous post, this created additional risk beyond what could be expected from an ordinary tire - I never claimed that there was no risk to begin with or that Firestone claimed perfection, please read the post before you respond.
Firestone is probably going to go out of business. Does that make you happy? Perhaps you'd like to see Ford go out of business too? You could probably get the car dealers and tire dealers too, if you really worked at it.
Did you even read my post? I didn't say anything about wanting companies to go out of business, nor did I imply it. I simply pointed out that your argument was severely flawed. You don't seem to be contesting any of my arguments, so you either didn't read them, agree with them, or can't come up with a snappy comeback.
The point is that the 2 incidents cited were completely overblown.
Does that make the company's actions right in either case? These incidents usually lead to investigations that reveal a wide range of problems, which then tend to be corrected throughout the industry. Would you prefer it if either incident had become bad enough to directly impact a large number of people's lives?
Life is dangerous and accidents happen. No amount of cash in the hands of lawyers or power in the hands of government workers will change this.
So we shouldn't have any government regulation, right? How about no government? You seem to be advocating anarchy here. The reality is, there is always a balance of profits vs. safety, since safety usually costs money. Consumers alone often can't push the balance too far toward safety, since, as you continue to point out, the number of people directly affected in any one case tends to be rather small (only a few hundred at most). Things are even worse when the safety risks aren't immediate and obvious like in the Firestone incident - if people don't know that they are being put at risk by a product, they probbly won't stop buying it. This is why we have regulations and this is why companies that endanger the safety of customers knowingly and willingly will get in trouble and sometimes go out of business.
The problem with this is that if a company produces a product that kills some of its shareholders, the shares get passed on to someone else, and the dead ex-shareholders no longer have a voice (literal or figurative). If they admit that the product kills people, stock prices will drop and the new shareholders will get angry (until the product kills them of course). If the people getting hurt aren't even shareholders, the company shouldn't even care, right? Therefore, it would make sense for a company to try and hide any little problems like defective tires in order to keep profits up.
Remember, most of the movies which 'illustrate' examples of corporate abuse (i.e. The China Syndrome, etc.) are eggagerations created by entities which (thank god) don't have much power themselves. We shouldn't let Hollywood-created 'realities' egg us on to fight 'the corporations.'
The DeCSS case was a movie? I really need to get out more... That would explain the ruling though. And the MPAA doesn't have much power? What you need to remember is that we usually only hear of major abuses like the Firestone fiasco, not the minor ones where only a handful of people are screwed over at a time (or where the victims are bad people like pirates and hackers). By your logic, corporations should be ignored as long as they are good at hiding abuses of power. Natural selection dictates that the only corporations that will survive will be the ones that are most successful at fooling people like you and silencing people who get too suspicious. Someone should make a movie out of that. Oh wait, lots of books, movies, and television shows have used that plot, but they must all be unrealistic exaggerations that we can't possibly learn from, right?
Hey man, I live firmly in the realm of reality (and it sucks hard core let me tell you), but I still want to be the engineer of my own powerful and prosperous model train layout (amongst my many other obsessions, like a 1,000 gallon aquarium).
In actuality, I know of someone that is the aforementioned engineer. He runs a place called the Model Railroad Museum (in Illinois I think?, been a long time since I visited there).
Oh well, some people grow up, some people grow older. I choose to grow up, and refuse to grow older.
Bite my yammer.
Well, I agree that centralized power must be decreased, which is why I suggested socialism along with true Decomcracy. (Not the Representative Decomcracy which must "Decomcratic" nations actually hold.)
As for corruption/bribery, which happens to be one of the major ties between big business and big government, that makes perfect sense. I don't agree 100% about the freedom of speech part, as one of the key properties about the US constitution is that any part of it may be changed through vote. Now Congress should be changing the constitution before they pass laws opposing it, but I've never considered polititions the brightest people around. (And besides, I'm all for anything that'll shut up those campaigners... j/k)
-Space for rent
Why do we feel we have to boycott or deny ourselves something in order to uphold our beliefs? The current technological state of the planet is A Good Thing(TM). It is not a real problem. People should have every right to enjoy the fruits of our culture whether that be a cinema, music, neat kit - whatever. The prosperity of our culture does not have to mutually exclusive to corporatist rape of the world. We simply need to stop the concentration of wealth and power. Corporations should not have more political or judicial clout than an citizen; it is plainly wrong. Corporations should not have the same rights as real people; they are obviously not. Corporations should be tools controlled in the best interest of all. When companies are able to participate in our society as an 'equal' with equal rights we have a problem. They simply do not have the same responsibilities and motivations as citizens. We have taken the last 100 years to figure this out: its plane and clear now.
My solution: (you knew my "I have the 'real' answer" was coming eh)
Revoke every (for profit) corporate charter on the planet. In all cases. Replace it with something else... something that makes them responsible to citizens of the planet, the environment, social rights etc. Build in their charters conditions of responsibility. (not easy I know.. but bear with me). Make it _illegal_ for them to contribute or get involved in politics/government. Enact a kind of Asimov's Robot Laws (replace robot or corporation), pay real money for natural resources and pollution emissions.
THEN: Let them loose in the world, let them sell stock, let them pursue profit. BUT: If they violate this new charter, they are dissolved, assets seized and stocks revoked, all assets are given to a 'world trust' or somesuch. Peroid. Game over. Shareholders and Directors will be finally be financially motivated to do The Right Thing(TM).
Radical? Yes. Flame me if you will, Libertarians: do your worst. But unless the planet bands together, re-writes the fundamental rules, we will never stop MegaCorps from bullying real citizens . They will fully re-write the present system to their advantage, and theirs alone. They will continue to play citizens against one another, governments/regions against one another ("If you raise minimum wage, or enact environmental laws, we will move to XYZ country and you'll be unemployed."). Every country is in a race to the social/environmental/judicial bottom, and the corporatists couldn't be happier.
DO US ALL A FAVOUR AMERICA:
Sorry to reply to myself but I want to make something clear about my statement: " deny ourselves" & " People should have every right to enjoy the fruits"
I am not condoning mindless consumerism or mass consumption in culture. A LOT of our present system wastes production on things like packaging, endless buy-buy-buy crap, advertising, planned-obsolescence, Just-In-Time production*, McDonalds kids Toy Plastic crap etc etc etc** - this kind of fluff can be done away with in order to reduce our burden on the planet... but there is a very reasonable medium where the people of the entire planet can live well, enjoy healthcare, enjoy technology etc - and still be responsible to the planet and our culture. Corporatists have introduced a lot of ideas and things (see above **) - for their OWN benefit, not for those of citizens.
* Just-In-Time Production is a method to offload corporate assets from Warehousing and Rail to the public subsidized highways/tractor trailers, at the expense of our safety & tax-coffers (and stress levels of people who work in production facilities)
Intent vs Action
Folks, not that I am for what the big corporates are doing, but lets take a step back here. Big corporates are made up of the same substance as the rest of the business world, people. Who are these people that we are talking about? "They" are not some elite club out to get "us" - but in fact, "they" are made up of people like you and me. Surely a large percentage of the 74% vote work for and are even in managerial (read decision making) positions in these companies? That's just my point of view - we really have ourselves to fear... I think that we sometimes forget that we are dealing with ourselves at times.
There is simply no reason why a corporation should be allowed to exist. It is a flawed model for conducting busniness - it is great for profits, but miserable for the people that work in them (you have no power). And I might add that if you are not unhappy in an environment in which you have no power, there is something wrong with you.
There is no reason why a boss should own everything you make. There is no reason why you should spend 2/3 of your waking hours in a workplace where you have no rights, no power, and own nothing. Ask yourself why it should even occur to you to submit to this sort of life.
The true alternative would be to replace the private corporation with cooperative models where the employees own the business and run it in a democratic fashion. There is no other way.
BTW, yes, I realize you can start a coop, but it is extremely hard to get capital, and you don't ave the same legal benefits as a corporation.
--
I think one problem with this is that the shareholders aren't all evil people making millions without doing any work. There are probably quite a few hard working people whose pension funds, retirement accounts, etc. will be wiped out. Not to mention a few thousand out of work employees.
One reason that punishing a corporation is so tricky is that it hurts lots of people who have very limited control over what the corporation does.
I'd bet the tires would be much more expensive as well.
So you don't think that an investor is entitled to some return on his/her investment. Although it may not seem so these days, there is risk in investment, and the "lick of work" you mentioned is in fact that risk. The worker benefits from the fact that people invest in the company for which they work.
Arm yourself with knowledge.
Software has been copyrightable pretty much as long as it's been around, and I haven't heard anyone complaining about it, since a copyright on software only protects the particularly code that's copyrighted.
Sure, lots of /.ers don't know the difference between patents and copyright, but that doesn't make it excusable for an alleged journalist writing a feature article. Nolo.com has a good primer here.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Berman was right -- no living thing may halt progress. The machine will topple you if you even think about it.
Big business brought Orwell's 1984 upon us, not because of some evil plot -- because of profit.
Humans in their natural state are unprofitable. We don't want anything! In order for us to want something, we have to be coaxed into it, and then we always want it, because we are creatures of habit.
You can't win against the biggies. They are unstoppable.
If you can't beat em, join em.
Of course the high fuel taxes are nothing to do with the fact that Britain has THE lowest income and road taxes in the entire EU are they? no it must be the evil Tony Blair stealing all the money. I would also suspect that the UK has lower direct taxes than the US, in fact find me any Western nation that has such low direct taxes! Ironically the farmers who are at this moment blocking depots etc (instead of worrying sheep) are the only people in the UK who pay almost no tax on there fuel (something like 3-4p tax on a litre of red diesel). The farmers and hauliers are only suffering because of years of awful management and planning which has caused them to be ripped to pieces by the much more efficent European competition. The farmers are also suffering from a BSE crisis they themselves created (mmmm what a good idea, lets feed our cows with sheeps brains) and the simple fact that there are too many farmers producing too much food. Please get informed before making comments.
Similar to the concept that opression is relative. There are worse alternatives than toeing the line for the multinational corporations. However, that does not make the situation any better. Just yours.
Your right, I didn't know what I was talking about, what I meant to say was that things that only once affect geeks and nerds, such as mp3's decss etc, is now making its way into mainstream America. Mainstream America in now being affected by these events, and thy are getting fed up with it.
--Reggie
--Reggie
With more and more of mainstream America getting information that was once available to only nerds and geeks, we can finally put a stop to all this. Its about time that we as a people take a stand against this onslaught of our rights. Sure the Internet needs rules and laws, but taking away our rights to inpart these "rules and laws" is too far. Companies caring more about profits then the livelihood of people is too far. There needs to be a change.
--Reggie
--Reggie
Well how about we just take all these little white collar criminals and put them in the general prison population with murders and rapists instead of ferrying them off to club fed?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Q into reality how many of those prisoners behind bars are there for drug offenses ? ? ?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
People as a whole (in large enough groups) can't govern themselves. That is why socialism and communism don't work. They're nice ideas, but the larger a group is, the more likely the individuals are going to act selfishly. For good governmental/societal policies you need to set the system up so that PEOPLE DO GOOD THINGS AUTOMATICALLY. That's why capitalism works. If everyone works selfishly (this doesn't preclude teamwork, see game theory) then the country gets rich. And hey, it works. It's why the drug war is failing -- legislation against a popular activity is useless. You have to work with what people want. The problem with corporations is that once they achieve a big enough size, their natural selfish impulses are no longer wholly helpful to the system, but harmful. This is because it's easier for them to bully than to earn money "honestly." Trying to convince them to do it "honestly" is useless, since that would just help less honest corporations gain a competitive edge. What you need to do is build into the system a natural check against such practices, some intrinsic disadvantage of either being a huge corporation, or behaving badly. Of the two, it'd be much easier to stop them from being huge in the first place. Hence anti-trust laws. The laws only work when enforced, and they involve legal battles and stuff and are very sloppy. Instead we need to implement rules that favor smaller companies. SEVERE tax penalties might work (good luck getting THAT through washington.) My point is, you can't expect people to act selflessly, you have to set the system up so that they WANT to. Sorry about the rambling. :)
Personally I'm involved in a company where I advocate the people and environment factor largely. If a company is not covering its own foundation and integrating instead of overtaking, it will result in penalties in the longer run. Common business sense for those who are aware. In time, more people will become aware.. Thank God, or we would build a world on a shaky foundation.
why questioning it..
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.
Why questioning it.. This is how the net changes life in the long run and how people will look back at in the future. Bringing people together with enough masses without direct responsibilities outnumbering the masses with direct responsibilities leads to automatically regulations through common sense.. My argumentation is that evolvements that are good will be accepted by the masses and can carry on, but evolvements that are faulty will in a world where exposure/opensystems are at its greatest, have more eyes to detect the faultyness and more to be capable of influencing evolution in the overall desires direction.
Upeo
Gr....damn my html. "It's a good point. Money is the symbol of vanity inherent to the human species today" should not be part of the blockquote. :)
If they donate $$$ to a political party/candidate, the are evil.
If they donate $$$ to a cause (cancer research, etc.), they are good.
If they donate $$$ to my bank account, they are very good.
---
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
Ah, yeah, one of the classic arguments of how the capitalists "deserve" their riches.
First of all, if the argument worked, it would mean that the investors deserve to get some amount of the profits. Yet which amount they should get could be dependent on other social factors. One could argue that the current disparity in distribution of wealth is harmful towards society, and that, while investors deserve their "reward", this reward is currently too large for the common good.
But anyway, the "risk" argument has a major flaw in that, as an entity's economic power increases, the investment of equal amounts of money incurs in less and less risk (all other factors kept equal). Suppose a millionaire and a low-middle class divorced mother each invest $5000 on stocks. For the woman, this are her life savings. If the investments fail, she's screwed-- bye-bye down payment on new car. However, for the millionaire, if these fail, it's almost a throwaway-- it means that he'll have to wait a bit more before buying that new Armani suit.
So the woman risks far more than the millionaire. So if the investments were to work well, it stands to reason then that she should be rewarded proportionally more than the millionaire. But in practice, things are not like that.
Anyway, the biggest investors are not persons, but corporations. In what sense do corporations run "risks"? Certainly not in the same sense as people.
Are you adequate?
.. mom and pop simply don't have the resources to do enough damage to get seriously worked up over. mom and pop can't single-handedly litigate good ideas until they die, etc etc. in fact, the larger a corporation gets, the less human it acts, REGARDLESS of the integrity of its employees. this is a FACT.
Internet killed the video star,
i could live a little longer in this prison
It's not gonna change though. Everyday "The Man" gets a better grip on us. Everyday "they" get richer and we get poorer. It truly is becoming 1984 and there's nothing we can do. We may have the numbers but they sure as hell got the money.
get out while you can
I am currently not obliged to divulge that information as it might compromise the agents in the field
Finally, Someone I can agree with here. Britney Spears? What adult likes Britney Spears? Noone. My teenage sister does. Why because the entertainment industry mass markets this stuff towards them. Is this right? NO, but I think that all leads back to one of those age old question of should the entertainment industry be unregulated from marketing to kids. I don't think they should. But I'm sure they do. As would everyone else who markets towards kids. And don't give me that BullSh*t that parents should be responsible. I personally don't send my kids to daycare or public schools, and given how much time are you "allowed" to spend with your kids between work and school (theirs) , homework , maybe 4-5 hours. And your competing against mass marketed crap (scientists who've been at this for years) and don't get me started on how the media and general opinion is of the mind that a woman's place is in the workforce not being the primary care taker of HER children. (Damn the crap I got for asking my wife to do that from my family, friends, and just about everyone I meet.) So yes, given the time you spend with your children and how much the general public spends with their own children, I think the Gov't has a BIG F***ing responsibility to regulate ANYTHING That effects children.
This isn't sig. it's banner for advertising.
I'm not suggesting that *every* problem should be solved by more government. I'm more interested in corporate abuses that inherently cannot be solved by the market in a reasonable period of time. As a representative of the People's interests, the government has to be able to step in from time to time, in a very judicious way, to provide relief.
Do we really want a world where corporate leaders think they can get away with _anything_?
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Agreed. Rampant corporatism will be the ultimate rationale behind ending the era of the nation-states. We have to have a polity that makes it impossible for corporations (or wealthy individuals, for that matter) to escape national laws they don't like.
The only option for antisocial corporatists should be to set up shop on Mars.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Take your dollar-votes somewhere else. Put economic Darwinisim into action.
Yeah! If you don't like Wal-mart, shop at K-mart! That'll teach 'em! :)
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Government regulations of business do not arise in vacuo. They arise when a group of people object to what they see as bad behavior, such as child labor, dumping in Love canal, knowingly putting out dangerous products for years (the Ford Pinto, Firestone 500, etc.) They also arise when the gov't thinks it is in the public good to do so, such as regulating aircraft design and maintenance or manufacturing/mining/agricultural operations. Sometimes they go too far, and certainly there are any number of bad laws on the books; and sometimes they don't go far enough: they are bending over backwards letting the industry deal with net privacy, eg, and they allow big (but only big) business to call the shots in corporate welfare. Sometimes (not always) the bad laws are written at the behest of corporations (DMCA, UCITA); sometimes good laws are not enforced. There is an inevitably (though not purely) confrontational dynamic between those institutions committed to self-interest and those committed to the public weal, and even good examples of each can't be expected never to make mistakes. A corporation in its self-interest may do something bad for the public good; in response gov't may regulate (or fail to), but may overreact or underreact. But lapses and abuses are better dealt with constructively, not by pointing fingers. Statements like "it's government manipulation" are just too simple minded to be useful.
Corporate power by itself is not the problem, it's the way that it's been allowed to be abused that has caused many of the issues that we see here on /. everyday. After all, there are plenty of huge conglomerates out there that make profits day in and day out, yet we never really hear about them because they play fair.
It's only when you get companies trying to abuse the vast wealth that they possess through methods like lobbying for favourable changes in the law that corporate power becomes a problem. Because this isn't what capitalism should be about - the law should ensure a level playing field and consumer rights, not act to favour one company or group of companies above others.
If the RIAA or MPAA had fought fairly using the weapons at their disposal rather than getting un-Constitutional laws passed, we wouldn't be nearly so up in arms about it. It's not corporate power that's the problem - it's the abuse of that power through the mechanism of a government all too willing to be bribed.
On of the big problems in the US is the way campaigns are funded - the fact that large corporations fund the respective parties thereby undermining the democratic process (paying for special interests to be represented).
The big, big problem with this is that is is unfair to the little guy. See if we eliminate the ability to raise funds for the campaign that means that you have to one of two things:
1. Be really, really, really convincing on street corners and bars.
2. Be incredibly rich.
I think that there should be a big pool of funds that are avaible for equal distribution for people who wish to compaign with that are avaible to any canadate without prejudice.
Respond to s
Also I havn't seen too many stores that are that good in my area. Most of them are local shops for a specific racial or ethnic type of which I am not a member.
Respond to s
They should be forced to pay a living way, pay for daycare and health benefits, and not pollute the environment.
They already are forced to pay minimum wage laws and most of the really big ones do many of the things that you say you want.
Additionally, corporations that are particularly odious in raping Mother Earth, like those companies making the big gas sucking SUV's, should pay a penalty tax for environmental reparations.
You know as much as I like to help the environment I feel that human beings are part of that environment and in many instinces rise above it. We could theoretically waste the whole damn planet and then build artifical structures thousands of feet below the earth's surface and start again if we wanted.
Personally I don't want my standard of living reduced even further (no I don't drive a SUV but I do live in modest means) so that I have to pay rediculous prices for "environmentally friendly" products. It's really simply not something that has to be a top priority.
We may need to work ona unified world government to make this happen, otherwise corporations will relocate to Third World countries like Thailandm, Vietnam or India, like Nike has done, to get away from fair wage
laws.
Not going to happen. If anyone does create a one world government it would be the US and let me tell you a great many people would not like that. As far as third world governments are concerned I feel that people still have a choice in what they do you know I don't see anyone forcing people to work at gunpoint to make shoes or anything like that. In the abstract people can always relocate or do something else for a living. It's an opt in kind of thing.
Respond to s
Well, so what we have here is great world-wide conspiracy of evil white man to keep everybody under control.
the U.S. is not a pure democrocy. it is a REPRESENTATIONAL democracy. we elect candidates to represent us. they are the gov. we are not the gov.
our gov. has been owned by the corporate lobbyists for a long time now. we will never have a chance to control the gov. until the lobbying is brought under control. neither Gore or Bush will do this so vote for someone else.
The only wasted vote is the one that isn't cast for the candidate you think is best suited.
In other words if you think Ralph Nader is the best candidate and you don't vote for him for whatever reason then you have wasted your vote.
What sense does it make to vote for Gore just to make sure Bush doesn't win? They both suck and neither of them will lead this country in a responsible manner. Please vote for the candidate that you think would be the best president. MHO
The gov. has the power but it has put it up for sale to the highest corporate bidder. I believe this is the real problem. This practice of corporate lobbying must stop.
The corps. get tax breaks and license to destroy the environment and the politicians get big fat kickbacks. Obviously neither the gov. or the corps. will be interested in putting a stop to this practice.
So how do WE stop it? Vote for a president with some integrity.
:)
Did you bother to read that article you linked to?
Here's a snipet: "So is Nader a hypocrite for amassing a personal fortune while advocating consumer rights and railing against corporate power? In a word, no."
Is Nader perfect? of course not but he's at least 3 orders of magnitude better than any of the other candidates.
We needed a survey to tell us this? Some writers just have a flair for the obvious, I guess.
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
You don't think this is a little arrogant of you, do you? "The things *I* like (and all the other people who like the same things I like) I like because I am an intelligent, freethinking individual. The things the masses like they like because they are thoughtless mind-slaves."
Yes, Britney was test-marketed and the executives found that teenage girls really loved her. They rolled her out, promoted her, and...SURPRISE! Teenage girls love her. It seems to me that this has a lot more to do with executives trying to predict the tastes of teenage girls than with executives controlling brains.
The American consumer is so innundated with attempts at psychological influence that it's meaningless to talk about what the people want.
Again, this line of reasoning seems pretty conceited to me: "The average reader of independant media is so innundated with inaccurate, biased reporting and ego-aggrandizing anti-establishment rhetoric that they can no longer think for themselves."
Rash, popular-opinion-driven statements like this one make me ashamed to be a liberal. One of the main jobs of the government is to tax that 95% and re-distribute large portions of it to the rest of the country in the form of jobs, welfare, infrastructure, etc etc.
I notice that the people who bitch the most about corporations are usually the people least informed about how they actually operate.
I just pointed this out in an above post as well. The people who do the most bitching about corporations tend to be the people who know the least about how they actually operate.
Don't forget, corporations are beholden to our wallets, just as much as poloticians are beholden to our votes. Each allows them to stay in power.
That's why boycotts work.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn Pro." - HST
The government, and all laws are created for the convience of who ever imployed them. Plenty of our government is by the people and for the people. But this has been a century by business for business. but don't forget that corporations are legal people too. We want our freedoms back and we are going to have to fight the corporations, those who define what is convient, to get them back. Corporations know we are pissed off, and they are clawing to stay in position of making the rules, as seen in recent developments of internet law.
Its what you learn after you know everything that matters.
I just learned that my
"But," you say, "its the greedy shareholders out there ruining America! Let's hold them responsible!"
Every mutual-fund owning grandma in the US is a shareholder and you are too. The US economy works because the corporate veil minimizes the risk involved in investment. Would you buy Ford stock if you could be sued for the Firestone-related deaths?
The point is: We have seen the enemy and it is us.
Nonperiodic Central Trajectory
Great idea, force the prison system to put violent criminals back out on the street so we can keep the "dangerous" white-collared criminals behind bars. Only so much prison space, ya know. Ohio just had to let a guy out after three years that was convicted of killing his 3-year-old son in cold blood.
Nonperiodic Central Trajectory
Because without society, there would be no corporations.
They should be forced to pay a living way, pay for daycare and health benefits, and not pollute the environment.
Additionally, corporations that are particularly odious in raping Mother Earth, like those companies making the big gas sucking SUV's, should pay a penalty tax for environmental reparations.
We may need to work ona unified world government to make this happen, otherwise corporations will relocate to Third World countries like Thailandm, Vietnam or India, like Nike has done, to get away from fair wage laws.
but your thinking is fuzzy.
One of the biggest problems facing our environment is global warming due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We need to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Trees are very good at removing carbon dioxide, in fact, they are mostly carbon. Grow a tree, remove carbon dioxide. Make the tree into paper or bury it, just don't burn it.
And you can recycle paper too, just don't burn it.
A lot of peopler have very confused feelings about corporations.
There was a protest march in London earlier on this year by the UK equivalents of the Seattle protestors. My friend went along and cheered on the destruction of a branch of McDonalds although he did not take part himself.
But most days during the week he buys a McDonald's breakfast!!!
When I broached him on this apparant hypocrisy, he said he hated McDonalds but they did a very good breakfast and he hadn't time to seek out alternatives...
Here's my opinion. I'ts probably going to be unpopular, and so I'm probably going to get bashed as a troll, but what the hell, you need to understand this.
;->), the problem is not amazon, the problem is the apathetic consumer. People are complaining about how amazon charged different prices: Did you bother to price compair before you purchased? Probably not. If you had, then What's the Deal? You got a good price? Otherwise the fault is your own. I compair prices all the time. I decide when/where to buy gas, music, electronics, ect. Sometimes I look for a month before I buy. Most people are just too lazy. Those people have no right to complain. The bottom line is:
I am going to tell you a secret. I don't want to, for fear you might use this knowlege because I know my political views are not the same as most people's. On the other hand, consumers are so apathetic that I shouldn't worry about it.
CONSUMERS HAVE THE POWER. Yes, its true. I know it doesn't feel like it at times, but its true. Consumers have the power of choice over what they decide to buy. If you are so worried about big corporate conglomerates, then don't throw your money their way. Patronize smaller businesses and mom and pop stores in your community. Buy off brands. Refuse to pay $150 for shoes. Companies are out to make money. If people stopped buying, then NO MONEY.
The problem is that the average consumer is so apathetic, that they forget that this is a capitalist system. One has to choose what one spends money on. I know what you are saying, "What good can I do?" The trick is consumers need to organize. Ever here the term Boycott? It works.
Now that you know this, lay off bashing businesses. Why? Because businesses are run by people. If you support government regs on business, you are actually taking the rights away from the people...Including yourself! Every person running or owning a business is just an average shmo who had an idea and wanted to make money. (Don't you wish you could earn more money? Sure, we all do.) PLEASE DON'T let the government regulate how we do business.
Now for the RANT
I am sick and tired of people bashing businesses. The problem is not M$ (even though it IS evil
When you bough, you agreed to pay the price. You have no one to blame but yourself.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
-- my reply to this artical
:)
A new survey in Business Week, of all places, finds that Americans are getting ticked off about corporate power. In fact a whopping 72% of Americans feel that big businesses have gained too much control over many aspects of their lives.In a variety of ways, abuse of technology is the reason for their unease, the Net the vehicle by which they're expressing it."
-- It would be nice if I actually had this
-- artical so I could see who was actually
-- survayed. So this is the anchor of the
-- arguement?
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.
-- Is the survey inacurate because of the Net's
-- amplification effect? Poor metaphor of Paul
-- Revere, BTW.
"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."
-- How are these people "doing more about it"?
-- Perfectly banal statement about the internet
-- being fast, we know.
And we do have more people concerned about companies, it appears.
-- How do you figure this? Do you know more than
-- this other fellow, "Richard B. Freeman"? I'm
-- just curious thats all.
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.
-- This is a funny thing about the internet: the
-- more YOU search, the more YOU find.
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.
-- yes these things are bad. But I don't think it
-- is wise to start a civil war over them. Wars
-- tend to isolate people (with and without
-- factional propaganda). Consider this post #84.
-- We certainly don't need a war on ourselves
-- because ultimately we have nothing but
-- ourselves to blaim for these evils.
--
-- I'm all for questioning and confronting the
-- Particular Power. Its good when somebody
-- submits some info on contacts (ie. you can
-- find your representive with this ).
-- If you're going to say "we are powerless" you
-- must back that idea up with some real evidence
-- Don't just complain our society is impossible
-- to influence, give some examples of what you
-- tried that didn't work.
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.
-- Absolutely correct, Jon. We have the power to
-- do as we please and we always will. This is
-- because we have the brains to out think our
-- preditors. If corporations try to control us
-- with technology then.. well? We made the
-- technology in the first place! If a human made
-- it, a human can defeat it. Unless you are a
-- self-defeatist.
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.
-- I can't dissagree with this at all!
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.
-- BTW, was this an internet poll?
-- sometimes blind surveys are not the best
-- sources of information. Why not ask the
-- corporations what they think of objectives.
-- They might even publish their objectives. If
-- you don't like greedy corporations don't work
-- with them, and certainly don't buy into one.
-- (freedom)
--
-- On the other hand, if you do like greedy
-- corporations, go for it.
-- (liberty)
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.
-- People have funny issues
-- With ICQ and an email client I can save the
-- world! Oh joy.
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.
-- AH HAHAHA "We the people" need to behave more
-- responsible, ethical and regulated. Why thats
-- the funnyst thing I've ever heard, next to
-- the bill of rights [sarcastic]
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.
[snip]
-- Again this argument is self-defeatist.
-- Why do you believe this Katz?
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.
-- I don't share this particular opinion, but
-- thats ok, we all have opinions (hopefully).
-- Getting down "the most significant action on
-- the net is pro or anti corportism" is
-- difficult to be a provable fact. If figureing
-- out how to diflect a meteorite to save the
-- earth from certain destruction
-- created "meteordot.org" and it created
-- somekind of knowalage base for it, I'd say
-- that might be big enough to be the biggest
-- fact of activity (on the net). Perhaps not..
-- scott yannitell
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.
And this is the distinction between what some people see as legitimate "capitalism" and "corporatism".
I was recently talking with my brother and a friend (who we will call Greg, as that is his name) about socialism; Greg attends the University of Utah, which has a socialist-friendly school of economics. Greg has become somewhat socialist, and we were arguing about the merits of capitalist over socialist systems until I realized there really WAS some common ground. Greg declared all capitalists evil, but said there was plenty of room for entreprenuers. That is, someone who raises money for a enterprise that provides useful goods or services and founds it. This is supposed to be one of the foundations of capitalism... and it's OK in a socialist world. And it's the best part.
Of course, Greg didn't beleive that investors (who he called "Capitalists" -- those who front capital but do no other labor) had right to much more than minimal profit from the deal. I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I sympathize with the idea that the laborer's sweat equity may be as important to the company as the capital, and wonder why they're rewarded out of proportion. Sure, w/o the investors money, purchasing of materials and wages are impossible. But w/o the labor, the enterprise is impossible, too.
This is why stock options are a good thing....
Anyway, this post has gone on and on and is now venturing into decades old arguments about economics so I think I'll end it now.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
-Kriticism
-PARANOIA is fun. D20 is not fun. The Computer says so.
-The Computer
Now that we are comfortably entrenched in the post-hippie era, it has become a symptom of our cultural malaise that we continually designate nameless, faceless entities as our oppressors.
There are good reasons for this.
Corporations can never be seen as victims. Unlike the misunderstood and misjudged young adults just now approaching driving age, corporations do not feel grief. Unlike a young geek, a corporation will never feel embarrassed to be seen in an ugly car. In fact, a corporation is likely to few such a vehicle as an asset. In advertising, loud, ugly, garish, and underpowered means memorable.
In other words, the individual's rolling chariot of shame is the corporation's low-cost, tax-deductible advertising.
As we enter the post-slashdot era, we find a curious trend. Corporations treating the embarassment of individuals as a form of advertising. Witness the rise in vouyeristic television -- generating revenue for the corporations whilst indelibly branding the poor hapless individual participants.
Such is the case with the Slashdot Cruiser. The executives at OSDN undoubtedly viewed it as a tremendous opportunity to generate buzz. Unfortunately, the buzz they heard was acutally coming from a loose frame mount and a broken radio. The true individual wants nothing of it. The Slashdot Cruiser has quietly disappeared from our pages -- perhaps the executives changed their minds, perhaps it was reposessed by the bank for non-payment, perhaps it was simply dumped into the lake. Regardless, the great tragedy is that Jon Katz was obviously not in it at the time.
Got a full tank of hot grits and a penis bird in the glove box.
It's long been said that all power issues from the barrel of a gun (before that they said "the point of a sword"). Well, in the modern, globalized, media-filled world, all power issues from the barrel of a pen. The pen that writes stinking big checks to political candidates. Even bigger checks to political parties (volume discounts). Checks to battalions of lawyers. It's the Golden Rule, he who has the gold makes the rules. --Dave Rickey
>I'm far less concerned about big corporations >than I am about big government. The former wants >to make money. The latter wants to tell you what >to do, what to think, and how to behave, and >will exercise the full power of the state if you >resist. Don't believe me? No I don't believe you at all. You've obviously never taken a marketing course in your life. Companies see profits in getting their customers, and more importantly there non-customers to view their image as positive. Once the company is seen in a positive light, or at least in a position of power and penetrates the mainstream, they are able to manipulate under-informed people into the way they think. Whether it be that shopping at Wal-Mart is for losers, or that if you don't drink Budweiser you won't meet all the pretty girls. These things motivate people into the mainstream, thus increasing revenues and profits for the "manipulating" company. This entire "too much gov't power" thing is almost entirely an American thing. 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 (albeit less than the U.S., but I'm not complaining that's for sure!) 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.. Anyway, I'm getting off topic so I'll stop it at that.
propaganda. It would be wiser to worry about the growth of the government than the growth of corporations. Putting even more power (which is obscene as it is) in the government's hands, will lead to disaster on the scale that corporations could never affect.
People don't get the death penalty for negligence.
Capitalism = Morality
I don't suppose French rail receives and government subsidies ...
Shareholders are millions of people across the United States who instead of investing in the newest television or VCR happened to invest in something that would give them a return.
The nice thing about the Internet has been the stock market boom where the home investor can easily purchase whatever company they wish.
The idea that only rich people own stock, and only rich people control corporations is an outdated idea.
Test me. Actually look at a stock ticker and tell me how many millionaires it takes to purchase stock that only costs $20.
I would like to say that I disagree with you entirely. What this statement really shows is that 80% of Americans are hippocrates. They believe that companies put out mass appeal instead of quality and yet still go to buy it! They say that companies have too much political power and yet don't vote or even better vote for a party instead of ideas And 95% of America is retarded to think that companies have an obligation to the worker and the community. That is incorrect. The correct statement is "If workers feel misstreated, and if communities feel left out then they don't buy the product, they get a new job with a new company, or start their own, or they make themselves more valuable at the present workplace." The current American mentality that says, "give me what I want now or else" is nothing more than a return to a barbaric society of dictatorship and socialism. If you don't like the system, move to a country with a different system. Cuba should do nicely.
I have been attempting to word those very thoughts for quite awhile. It's nice to see that some people on this posting can see the whole picture.
Reguardless of how many American's own shares in corporations, they still have to follows the laws of the country. It just so happens that our current government believes in taking money in return for political favor. As for the corporations taking unfair advantage of this corruptness... I'm afraid that if I had enough money I'd bribe politicians to do what I wanted too. This isn't about power. Government is the only thing that has real power because they have guns. This is about being envious of a successful enterprise doing what you wish to God you could do yourself. The correct answer to this problem is hitting the problem at it's source. Kick out corrupt government officals. Return the government to it's Constitutional limits and suddenly corporations won't be able to buy power. Or are you afraid that you will lose your power then too?
The world is not binary. Saying that corporations should have "one" purpose implies a disconnected world. The tobacco industry lawsuit, microsoft lawsuit, and the upcoming landslide of other lawsuits indicate that a focus on profit without ethics is simply not good for shareholders. The world is not disconnected, and profits with ethics will win. The American public, through a) shorting stock in unethical companies and b) complaints to their attorney generals will rearrange the priorities for American corporations. It's happening right now.
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 (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.
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.
I can get you those results in a poll too, I'll just use residents from the place I call home. Haverford, PA, a suburb of Philly where the average home costs $600k and the average household income most definitely isn't $40k.
----------------------------
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.)
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.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.
--
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
As far as I understand it, the law treats a corporation as a legal entity like a person.
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.
--
InitZero,
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.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
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.
The war between corporations, individuals, and
the public good (government)has been going since
at least the 1870s, with various advances and
retreats along the way.
Think about it, there is never again going to be a major advance in technology. What we see with the entertainment industry attempting to squash EVERY new media technology that comes along is just the begining. Eager for a future where we have fast efficient engines? The oil industry will NEVER let that happen.
Basically what we have in this world is for the first time a system where corporate power has become global. The current system wants to protect it's revenue stream, and if the world's technology remains static, that's fine by them.
Look at the kind of power and resources these companies have today an imagine that was the case throughout history. Every major invention in the world left significant numbers of people out in the cold with no way to make a living. If they could have, don't you think the radio industry would have liked to get the government to declare TV illegal. How about typsetters having the power to declare the printing press illegal. I'm sure Railroad industry would have loved to find a way to halt the devlopment of alternative forms of transportation.
Now those in power have the resources and a crooked/gullible enough government to do this. We have see all the major advancements in technology that we are going to. Any more would potentially threaten the revenue streams of large, influential companies, and our governments have shown recently that their top priority is to prevent that from happening.
Finkployd
I shop smart. I shop S-Mart.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
-- Some things are to be believed, though not susceptible to rational proof.
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.
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
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Commit an egregious wrong and have your charter revoked. In other words, lose the state's permission to exist.
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
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
He is NOT us. While corporations are indeed owned by stockholders, few stockholders have a voice in how a corporation is run.
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.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Almost all corporate power has been based on one of 4 things: a patent, a copywrite, a trademark, or a trade secret. If we weaken intellectual property by shortening these durations, people will get their power back. Also, the requirement that these intellectual property rights are granted by the people on the condition that those given these rights don't seek to monopolize their industries, should be strictly enforced. This is why the RIAA, Microsoft, and the MPAA should all have their intellectual property rights stripped by the public through the government. Our legislature is who should protect us, not strip us of our rights as the DMCA did. I believe there are good people in congress who simply didn't know that the DMCA would hurt consumers, and will bend to the public if the public demands it.
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
Like it or not folks, we live in a capitalist world. Communism may have offered an alternative until a few years ago, but it's gone as a real force now. Corporations survive by getting larger and garnering more power, having more people work for them and selling to more of the populace. Very large corporations are those able to do this better than their competition.
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.)
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
"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."
"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
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Why do we not have a simple, flat-tax structure that everyone can handle?
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.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
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.
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.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
In the same vein, 6% of the general public thought that employees of large companies are badly treated, but how many employees feel that way?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
, because they made a statement which sounds apppealing to a large amount of people, and then asked them if they agree with it. Most people probably do not have such strong beliefs about it one way or the other, but they only have the options:
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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Mmmmm... every corporation its own little welfare state. No thanks. I want to work at my job, and not be controlled by companies. This does not mean that I want coporations to be "involved in the community." With money comes control. Just pay people and let them live their lives. Don't build parks and provide daycare and adoption services, etc. Just maximize profits, respect human rights, and pay people, and that's it, please. Replacing the Government Welfare State with a privately run version isn't "freedom" -- it's just Corporate Socialism instead of Regular Old Socialism. I'll vote for actual freedom every time, not coddling, no matter who does the coddling.
---- ----
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
The solution to corruption is to decrease power, not increase it. Switching to a socialist economy would greatly increase power, and focus it in the government, not diminish it or spread it around. This would be a bad thing.
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.
---- ----
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Hate to correct you, but we hate those corporations too!
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.
I wanted to refer you all to a very moving article posted on Adbusters , about Death Penalties for Corporations.
DEATH PENALTY FOR CORPORATIONS COME OF AGE,
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
it's a sig, wtf?
Just something that stuck out. .com companies in my sector, their top priorities are 1. to maximize utilization of their employees, but 2. recognize that their employees are their greatest asset and that they must find, inspire, and retain employees.<P>
8 510,00.html">Newman's Own Philanthropy Plan</a><BR>
3 39,00.html">Dems Donate Leftover Wires</a>, and even<BR>
, 38043,00.html">MOnsanto to Offer Free Rice Tech</a><P>
<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...
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.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Considering the source it comes from, and the statements it makes.
"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 ).
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
While this article is a bit short on opinions I think he has it right. Not a new insight, but I've thought for several years now that the internet is a threat to capitalism and the established order. I think everyone here agrees with that, to an extent.
:)
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 has decided to forego profits to help its community by refusing to sell evil computer games to minors. Don't you wish more companies decided to act for reasons other than profit?
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 Microsoft.
Creating episodes of the Simpsons - That would be Fox, wouldn't it? We hated Fox here 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 really the MPAA.
Distributing carbonated beverages - We complained about Pepsi too!
This all goes to show that Slashdot readers and editors are a fickle bunch of people.
I could really care less about the companies having to much power. The truth is that, without an heavily overpowered government, their power is extremely limited. I've never heard of any company forcing you to buy their products at gunpoint, but look in your paycheck. You'll see you're paying government a service for something that you probably don't want. But try to opt out of buying off government and you'll end up with some severe legal action at best, or sitting in your house as Janet Reno burns it to the ground at the worst. The truth is that right now most of you are probably paying close to 50% of your money straight to the government. If microsoft took 5% of your money you'd be outraged and it could never happen, but in reality they still do a better job at what they're doing than any government ever will. I would much rather sit in front of a slow windows screen then go to the DMV or any other government office for that matter.
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.
Click here to read too much about my personal life
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
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
-
-
-
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:-)Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
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.
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.
You should see the protests they have over here at the moment. They're only just getting feul tankers to emergency services!! The government is trying to lay the blame on protesters for blocking the exits to refineries - which they aren't. The refineries don't really want to delivere any feul because tax and duty is so high they sell at a loss (80p/litre 60p, of it is tax+duty) because Superstores over here have started to sell feul as a means of luring more customers. They sell the feul at a loss to get more people and offset the losses with increased profits in store. Guess who led the way... Walmart^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ASDA!!!
And 84 percent of people will believe any statment that includes a statistic.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
In my American Polictic 101 Class, reading the book "Irony of Democracy" (very book good), it states that the average hour wage for workers has went down from over $8.00 per hour to just over $7 (7.14 IIRC) in less than 5 years.
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.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Well, I'm no naderite, but the arrogance of Jack Valenti's MPAA and Hillary Rosen's RIAA -- and the supine compliance of federal judges who aren't supposed to be whoring for the corporations -- makes me think these guys need to be spanked. Unfortunately, increasing government power doesn't do much to enhance individual freedom.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
That 99% of surveys come up with highly questionable statistics. X% of people agreed with this statement isn't even a statistic; X% of people will agree with you, period. People don't want to argue with researchers, they want to get rid of them.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
72% of all statistics are made up.
Will they be happy about the wasted enviroment they'l inherit from the likes of you
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.
---
---
Politics is about making compromises. Religion isn't. --Michael Horton
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.
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.
If that is a valid view, then most of the world's biggest dictatorships are corporations.
I'm far less concerned about big corporations than I am about big government. The former wants to make money. The latter wants to tell you what to do, what to think, and how to behave, and will exercise the full power of the state if you resist. Don't believe me? Try (U.S., state of California, but the general principals apply everywhere): riding a motorcycle without a helmet, driving a car without a seatbelt, getting silicon breast implants, making an 'insensitive' remark (however presently defined by the arbitors of such things) at your workplace or college campus (or in private, if you happen to be the owner of a major-league sports team), fly on a commercial sircraft without having your identity recorded, etc. Government is assuming greater and greater power over our lives. Each incursion is done for the best of reasons, but ultimately add up to giving government control over you. And it plays into the paranoia about increasing corporate intrusion, since giving government these powers allows corporations to, via political contributions, access to these same tools. Focus your fears on the greater evil: creeping governmental intrusiveness and nannyism.
Dear sirs,
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,
Well, is it any wonder that Corporations want more power for themselves? When you get any group of people together, the first thing they want to do (well, the second...) is take over the world.
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
-Space for rent
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.
I'm ticked at my bank, any phone menu system, auto dialers which say "Please stand by", news of how the rich get richer, George Lucas withholding on DVD, the people who own Dubya and the morons who discontinue (or change/ruin) some food as soon as I find I like it.
;-)
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 Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Most people are too busy eating their Big Macs, watching Must See TV, and buying the latest SUVs to really see what's happening
Sounds like...
God sends his spaceships to America, the beautiful
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 Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
When the Mom & Pop shop on the corner overcharges you by four dollars, they go out of business.
When AOL/Time-Warner/MegaCorp/OmniCorp overcharges you by four dollars, you generally have no choice but to shut up and pay it, particularly in today's climate where corps are merging with each other so quickly as to be undetectable by the human eye. And unlike the Mom & Pop stores, the megacorps are pumping millions of dollars into the pockets of politicans to make sure that things stay that way.
--
--
The New World Order is upon us, and it's about damned time.
If you as an individual ca n afford lawyers to protect yourself from corporations that have lawyers on retainer and an endless stream of cash. Extending the length of copyrights basically extends the life of monopolies.
.....corrupts absolutely.
It's been a fact of life since the beginning of time, once someone gets too much power they will get greedy.
Look at all of the mega-mergers that are always covered in the news, and now most of these corporations control the very news sources that the public is *supposed* to get unbiased news from.
It is a fact, all of the major news sources, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and the major newspapers in the country are controlled by large corporations that don't want to see them get bad press and checked up on by media hounds. By controlling the major media outlets, they are able to control what the public can and can't see and hear.
The one place they are having a hard time with this is the internet. It is impossible for these companies to control a medium that has no real boundries.
The net is the one place where the corporations can't control what we see and hear, and I certainly hope this doesn't change any time in my lifetime.
The Corporations control of media with the Advent of the Internet is weakening.
The sole motivation of a corporation is to make money.
Mass comunication is mass acceptance. Thus the more people that hear the Corporate PR the more accepted it is as "fact" or "truth".
If a company can use the media to sell a product that is harmfull/dangerous/deadly, to the consumer
then they will. If they think they can get away with it.
IF a company can alter the product to improve yeilds and/or maximise profit by any means available regardless of effects on the environment or health of consumer they will.
IF a company can dump toxic waste and the fines are cheaper than proper disposal? well you get the picture.
We are in a society where it is not safe to assume the food at the grocery store does not contain posions and carcinogens, where the cars we drive destroy the environment et cetera.
The Internet is a tool for the dispersion of information in all forms be it code, poetry, art, or most importantly the information to make informed decisions appart from the hype and PR that companies use to make us purchase crap wether we need it or not.
The large Corporations see the Internet as a threat to their choke hold on the consumer. They want people to eat what they shove down our throats and say mmm please sir can I have some More.
They are invoking the legal Demons to make it illegal for us to speak out against them. Illegal for us to change the ways of of world. They will use any and all tools at their disposal to protect their empire.
Corporations are amoral evil gluttonous creatures who have no more empathy for the consumer than a wolf has for a sheep.
They see the revolution coming and are attempting
to make walls illegal so as not to be the first against it.
I have little doubt, however, that most of those who reponded, "yes, corporations don't always have our best interests at heart" have little idea of just how true that is. Does the average person know about the DMCA and the threat it poses to the First Amendment? Does the average person know that Hollywood is really trying to control information usage while going around claiming to be 'fighting piracy'? Does the average person realize that Disney owning ABC means that some news stories just aren't making it on the air?
I think most persons, who get their news from the networks, or their local newspaper, or even Business Week have little idea of the forces at work in corporations. How could they? Corporations own those news outlets.
They may have a foggy concept of the reality we already clearly see, that political entities are fading in importance compared to the corporations. But they probably don't realize how quickly their rights are being taken away.
Most people are too busy eating their Big Macs, watching Must See TV, and buying the latest SUVs to really see what's happening.
________________
________________
Private Essayist
I think the people have too much power (via the government). They have the power to kill and steal from their neighbors.
Yes, let's take the air out of America's corporate balloon! Ultimately, it will serve to make us more competitive with other free world countries, right? Da!! Pass me the vodka comrade! Somebody spin up that old song "power to the people"!! America's workers are oppressed! The general public is horrifically mistreated! Let's go put the power back in the hands of the people!!
-Is it just me, or does all of this dribble sound frighteningly familiar??? Has this country really turned into a bunch of spineless whiners with their hands out? Let me ask you this: what would you do, if given the chance to quote "take the power away from the corporations". Someone explain to me just what the hell that means. This is a capitalist economy, remember?? If you start choking business, you choke the nation. And where does it end? Granted, the article pointed out some particular instances that were very hard to swallow. But I ask again.. what will you do about it? What CAN you do about it? And, if given the chance, who here would really kill America? Nobody? Who's leading this revolution, anyway???
It's not Mickey$oft. It's not AT&T. It's not Time-Warner, nor AOL, nor Standard Oil, nor any other name that might come popping to the surface of your neurons.
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).
"U.S. [sic]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."
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*
Nearly 40% of Americans surveyed said they thought profits were more important to corporations than making safe, reliable products.
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
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
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.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
When government seeks to dominate corporations, corporations seek to dominate government. In the meantime, our freedoms go out the window. No wonder people are pissed.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Jon, Jon, Jon...
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
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Of course we only hate evil corporations. Corporations that do things we find entertaining, like publishing games, creating episodes of The Simpsons, making big budget movies, and distributing carbonated beverages..they're all right. It's all those other corporations that we hate. You know, the ones we don't know that they do.
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.
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
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.
Got Rhinos?
- 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!Got Rhinos?
Did you know that Cuba is the only third world country that has first world life expectancie (actually the same as the US, only that women live 1 year less in Cuba & men 1 year longer). They also get free cradle to grave education & healthcare. Consequently Cuba has the most highly educated citizens in the whole of the Americas. Fact is the average Cuban is infinitly better of than some Javanese Nike worker on a subsinstance wage - really the only people doing ok in Indonesia are the Soeharto cronies & the Chinese businessmen. Virtually all the third world gets from opening their countries up to foreign corporations is debt. There are many countries in Africa where the average person was heaps better off in the subsistance era, when the vllages grew what they needed, than they are now, where everyone is in debt & on poverty wages because the world bank & IMF, etc, conned them into growing coffee for the likes of us.
When the Mom & Pop shop on the corner overcharges you by
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.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
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
Kris Felscher
We've got enough youth, how about a fountain of "smart"?
People yelp and moan as they're being screwed by multinational corporations, yet they still go to Walmart, drink Coca-Cola, and eat at McDonald's.
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.
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.
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
One problem is that corporations have been given the same rights as the individual. Before we can take our governments back, we need to change the laws and 'crack the corporate I.' There is an interesting article in the July/August issue of adbusters, which is also available here
Oh, and there is an interesting site on what can happen when a corporation gains too much power, as is the case with Shell-Nigeria.
Everyone has a right to be concerned about how powerful corporations have grown. Just a few bits of food for thought.
-as
What Future?
Nearly 40% of Slashdot posters surveyed said they thought karma was more important to posting than making intelligent, useful points. Only 6% said they thought posters with large amounts of karma treated their fellow posters well, and just 8% said posters did a good job of educating posters about real information related to the topic.
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.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
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 have met the enemy and he is us.
InitZero