Top 100 Corporate Crimes of the Decade

[Mugatu]

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/top100.html

In the news one often gets the impression that Corporate crimes, while its general knowledge that they do occure, are far and few inbetween. A popular term used to describe this is, "A few bad apples."

The more I read, see, and hear things, it seems as if this isnt just a few bad apples but that we are suffering from a wide spread global problem with disasterous and often hidden harms.

Im offering no solutions at the moment but I feel it is important to bring awareness to this very real problem.

Oh and dont worry Ill try to bring forth a rosey sunshine thread soon.

[mps]

Fucking fantastic.

I guess greenbacks are the only things that are important in the world anymore. So as long as you have enough money to pay the horseshit fine you can pillage and plunder the Earth all you want. You can destroy resources, wipe out animals and literally salt the soils, but if you have fat stack of cash everything will be all right.

This part was especially abysmal: For every company convicted of polluting the nation's waterways, there are many others who are not prosecuted because their corporate defense lawyers are able to offer up a low-level employee to go to jail in exchange for a promise from prosecutors not to touch the company or high-level executives.

Yeah, capitalism works. Goddamn greedy assholes.

[Mugatu]

Agreed and whats also interesting is the fact that 38 out of the 100 top Corporate crimes of the decade were environmental.

[shade]

In 2001 there were 5,819,300 businesses in the US that employ people.

Looks like a few bad apples to me.

[Mugatu]

Instead of reading the headline you may want to actually try and read the entire article. Notice how it states that it is the top 100 and not the entire count of corporate crimes. 100 corporations violating American law is not a big deal to you? Consider the amount of power and influence some of these corporations have as well.

I know its difficult for you to accept seeing how you are a rich boy who is not only a state slave but also a corporate slave.

[shade]

I know that it says the top 100. It also is including individuals in its top 100, not just businesses.

How much is significant out of 5,819,300 companies? Well, 1% of that is 58,193 companies. Would that be considered widespread business crime?

[Mugatu]

Tell me out of those businesses how many wield the same amount of power and influence as some of the corporations that were mentioned? Not many I can assure you. A small business is also different from a corporation.

Its the new trend to use buzz words like "business community" and "big business" instead of corporation because people know that it almost always generates a negative reaction. One almost always associates corporations with the phrase corporate agenda.

Another interesting fact that can be related to this is the fact that 90% of the worlds wealth belongs to 5% of the worlds population. WHen you look at those numbers and then when you look at corporations it indeed is a huge deal.

[shade]

If Walmart were a country, it would be the 18th largest economy in the world. Just an interesting tidbit.

All businesses have the same goal: Make money. What makes a corporation a corporation is the fact that they sell stock and eventually give a portion of its profit to the stock holders. The stockholders are not liable for any debts the corporation may incur. There is nothing inherently evil about that. The evil comes in when the system is exploited and people break laws. Therefor almost everything you probably disagree with is already illegal. Perhaps you would want to amend the punishments for violating the crimes? How about make it so corporate criminals can go to jail for 20 years?

I understand what you are saying, but I fail to see the point. Are you proposing that we eliminate corporations, change various laws regarding them, or adjust penalties? Anything else would be moot.

[mps]

Are you proposing that we eliminate corporations, change various laws regarding them, or adjust penalties?

Start by adjusting penalties, then change various laws regarding them, and eventually eliminate corporations.

[BJ and UT5]

I don't think that eliminating corporations is necessary. There is nothing wrong with making a profit. But I think its pathetic that corporations can actually factor in fines for committing these crimes as a business expense. The fines for breaking laws and regulations should be much harsher. They're only going to be effective if the corporation won't be able to suffer breaking them.

[shade]

Start by adjusting penalties Bush signed a bill that made the maximum penalty for "white collar crime" up to 20 years instead of the previous 5 years.

then change various laws regarding them CEOs now have to sign on all the accounting reports of their company, and are held personally liable for any errors; the 20 year maximum penalty is applicable here.

and eventually eliminate corporations. Why?

[mps]

Bush signed a bill that made the maximum penalty for "white collar crime" up to 20 years instead of the previous 5 years.

Well penalties only work if people actually have to adhere to them. Just out of curiosity, when is he going to serve his jail sentence for 'white collar crime'?

Why?

Uh, because they are inherently evil and psychopathic in nature? But that's an entire thread in and of itself. Mugatu posted about a film called 'The Corporation' in the Movies section. I suggest you check it out. Hell, you might learn something.

[droogsteve]

Uh, because they are inherently evil and psychopathic in nature?


Really? Maybe you can answer a question for me. I'm a licensed plumber. I own a shop specializing in new construction. It's a union shop (NYC Plumber's Local #1). This summer I'm swamped and have had to turn away jobs, so I'm considering adding two more crews. It would raise the number of people I employ from 16 to 20.

Enough background, here's my question: Am I evil yet? When exactly do I make the transition from small business owner to psychopathic corporate greedhead? 20 employees? 50? Should I deliberately start mismanaging my business to the point of failure so I can avoid evilness, or is it too late?

Please let me know, this question is nagging at me. If it's not too late I'll immediately start failing and notify my employees that they won't be making their kid's tuition and mortgage payments anymore, my very soul is at stake! And if evilness is already upon me, I want to grow a mustache to twirl and practice my "Mwuhahaha!" laugh.

[mps]

Corporations are designed to only be concerned for their stockholders. I think that about sums it up. Aside from that: There's an old saying that says 'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. I think that about sums you up.

[droogsteve]

Corporations are designed to only be concerned for their stockholders. I think that about sums it up. Aside from that: There's an old saying that says 'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. I think that about sums you up.

My question, which I would consider more amusingly derisive than sarcastic, is valid despite it's tone. Did Wal Mart or Starbucks start out as huge corporations? Of course not. They started as small businesses. So when do they show their inherent evil nature?

I started my business because I wanted a better life for myself and the people that I care about. Of course I want it to be successful and grow. If I reach a certain level of success, you will consider my business evil. Is business ownership itself evil? Is it wrong to want to succeed? Answer the question: When do I cross the line between being the good guy who allows people to support their families and being an inherently evil corporation? This is YOUR argument, not mine. Explain yourself.

And BTW, I submit that making up "old sayings" is the lowest form of rebuttal, although I would never be presumptuous enough to try to "sum up" someone based on what they post in an internet forum.

[chris_78660]

Uh, because they are inherently evil and psychopathic in nature?
OMG OMG OMG!!!111 you are so right! a corporation killed my mother and raped my sister!

a corporation was designed to protect its board/employees from frivoluos law suits that are created every day. if every business owner was fully liable for each of its employees, then our economy would crumble in a matter of weeks.
who do you think these corporations employ? which one of your parents works for satan?
Mugatu posted about a film called 'The Corporation' in the Movies section. I suggest you check it out. Hell, you might learn something.
basing an argument on a mockumentary? this is an easy kill

btw, what kind of clothes are you wearing and what kind of computer are you using?

[pidgeball6]

I run a small business as well, and am in league with the devil. My soul, which sold at a bargain to the dark overlord, was traded for a mere second home (to be financed in a decade or so) and tuition for two children beginning in 2014 and 2022. Not a bad deal by most estimations.
Is the link at the top of the thread and the link in the "I don't support the troops" thread related in some method of thinking? If so, can we just cut to the chase and post the links you think every American should read and believe? What's the deal with the cloak and dagger crap, and whats with mps always at the heels, Mugatu? You two goin' steady?

[shade]

Corporations are designed to only be concerned for their stockholders. And are legal entities that have to follow all the laws that other legal entities do, like you and me. A corporation is literally a person in the eyes of the law. That particular person has some special laws that it has to follow on top of the laws that everyone else follows.

Also, I wonder if when droog decides to incorporate to have preferential tax treatment and limited liability (if he hasnt already, or is an LLC or something), will he suddenly no longer care about what he mentioned earlier? About his employee's tuition payments and such?

So when do they show their inherent evil nature? If it is truely inherent, then they must have started the day they incorporated! What a silly trick question droog!

If I reach a certain level of success, you will consider my business evil. Here is a question. If you reach a certain level of success, will you stop trying to be more successful?

a corporation was designed to protect its board/employees from frivoluos law suits that are created every day. It is also to protect its owners from debt. In other words, it makes it possible for someone to make that jump from an idea to a business in a much more safe manner. If it fails, they wont lose their house or their car, etc. They will only lose whatever capital they originally put in to it.

Shit, Im drunk and all this was so clear anyway. I guess Bergs and Instigator(?) were right about conservatives and liberals and their methods of becoming anebriated.

[chris_78660]

Shit, Im drunk and all this was so clear anyway. I guess Bergs and Instigator(?) were right about conservatives and liberals and their methods of becoming anebriated.
i've had a couple beers too, so maybe i'm missing any sarcasm, but when did you start drinking?

[shade]

About 2 weeks ago when gf said she was no longer concerned with it, and recognised that her view of alcohol was strongly influenced by her negative experiences with her dad, and that I dont have an abusive bone in my body.

[chris_78660]

i wish she had known that when you guys came to austin ;)

[shade]

Coming to Austin next weekend (not this weekend). Not sure how much time we will have though.

And I am doing multiple plane regression with dichotomous binary categorization matrices right now. In other words, about oh say, 10 pages of work per problem. Fortunately, I am smarter than that and have made a nice little excel table for it :)

The anebriation assists with the possible frustration one may incur in doing so, and I just got done with 6 hours of class, and 4 hours of philosophy homework.

[chris_78660]

leave it to you, to over-analyze a couple beers ;)

although drinking does make homework less painful :p

[shade]

Wine actually.... but isnt that sort of obvious?

Oh and its German wine. I bet instigator is convinced that I have Nazi ties now!! No one should ever drink Qualitatswein Mit Pradikat kabinetts from the Mosel Saar river!!!!!!11!!!one

[Instigator]

In 2001 there were 5,819,300 businesses in the US that employ people.

Looks like a few bad apples to me.

That'd be "top 100" not "only 100 (all the rest of the businesses were great!)"

About 2 weeks ago when gf said she was no longer concerned with it, and recognised that her view of alcohol was strongly influenced by her negative experiences with her dad, and that I dont have an abusive bone in my body.

That owns, drinking is the shit.

EDIT: Does she smack you around, shade?

EDIT2:
Wine actually.... but isnt that sort of obvious?

Oh and its German wine. I bet instigator is convinced that I have Nazi ties now!! No one should ever drink Qualitatswein Mit Pradikat kabinetts from the Mosel Saar river!!!!!!11!!!one

You're that trashed off of wine? K I'm holding a bottle of Brut wine and it is....12% alcohol by volume!

You better have drank a bottle or two...

Next time go with the Skyy Vodka and some orange juice as a chaser. That's what I drink when I have to talk to my gf's parents.

[Mugatu]

This is funny cause I was drinking tonight as well.

Anyway,

OMG OMG OMG!!!111 you are so right! a corporation killed my mother and raped my sister!

Reminds me of family guy.

basing an argument on a mockumentary? this is an easy kill

btw, what kind of clothes are you wearing and what kind of computer are you using?

Interesting how you made that statement without even seeing the movie. It is not a Micheal Moore film (even though he is in it at times). It is one of the best constructed films that I have ever seen and truely maintains a bare bones approach when examining capitalisim and the impact that corporations have had on our society and the world itself. I strongly recommend you go see it.

Seeing how you feel that you are so perceptive in noticing bs, you should be able to detect it within this movie if it truely is a mockumentary. I noticed no such thing myself. In fact it is now manditory viewing for those who are taking business courses in university in Canada. Im not sure if it is the case for all but I know several for sure. Once again I strongly recommend you go see it. It is three hours but I promise that you will be blown away.

As for the whole clothing/computer comment, well, its not very fair. I mean Corporations and Capitalisim is in ever facet of America and Canada. It is virtually impossible to avoid.

And are legal entities that have to follow all the laws that other legal entities do, like you and me. A corporation is literally a person in the eyes of the law. That particular person has some special laws that it has to follow on top of the laws that everyone else follows.

This is actually a very good point and Im glad you brought it up. Corporations do indeed have the same rights as a human beings. It all started when the 14th amendment was passed ensuring that blacks or "persons" were given freedom and so forth. Corporations however decided to use this amendment to gain more power and freedom and claimed that they (the corporation) were a "person" as well and wanted the same rights as human beings. The courts surprisingly bought this horse shit which gave them a significant increase in freedom and power which they had previously lacked. Before this Corporations had strict laws and little freedom. Corporations themselves were now able to buy and sell land, sue, take bank loans ect.. Now you may think that this is no big deal but it leaves a huge accountability gap. The people serving in the corporation could now largely hide behind corporation itself because it was viewed as a legal person and those serving in the corporation remain largely untouched.

Another interesting fact is that Corporations, by law, are required to put their bottom line above all else which is now obvious to include humans and human rights. This is no law of nature but a very specific unnatural and monsterous law.

Another interesting note about how Corporations are legal persons. Because of this one can ask, "Well what kind of person is it?" Interestingly enough when you look at the direction that corporations have taken when viewing environmental damage, human rights violations, reckless disregard for set laws (aka lack of lawfulness) and so forth, the diagnosis given was that of a psychopath. I invision the modern day corporation as a sort of frankenstien that has over powered its creators and is slowly killing them... them being us.

There are many problems with corporations that also tie in with capitalisim. Having quarterly stock reports requires ceos and so forth to have a short sighted view only caring about short term profit gains. A lack of this short term profit results in the corporation to lose stock holder support which results in defeat by either bankruptcy or being taken over by another stronger corporation. So everyone is competing as agressively as possible to try and maintain a position on top trying to get the biggest profits possible with no regard for the long term cost it may generate because of the huge importance that short term gains hold. Once again the bottom line is all that counts and unfortuently with this system in place their is no such thing as enough. I mean as a person do you have to have a billion dollars? Wouldnt it be ok to have say half a billion or even a few million? Not being able to say, "Alright, as a company, I think we are big enough.. any bigger and the long term costs will be too geat" is a huge problem.


Here is a question. If you reach a certain level of success, will you stop trying to be more successful?

While it may seem like a perfectly logical statement the problem lies in never having enough. This results in explotation, crimes, harm to humans and the environment ect...

It is also to protect its owners from debt. In other words, it makes it possible for someone to make that jump from an idea to a business in a much more safe manner. If it fails, they wont lose their house or their car, etc. They will only lose whatever capital they originally put in to it.

There is also a problem with this system because it leaves it wide open to abuse as was the case with Nortel. You can distroy the company and pocket the money without worrying about losing your home ect... or you can choose not to follow certain laws knowing full well that if you do get caught the corporation can pick up the tab as a "business expense" and not have to worry about your personal posessions. I truely believe that a much greater amount of accountablility is needed and a radical change in the way the current capitalist system works specifically the need for short term profits. This current method is not sustainable and will distroy us in the end if changes are not made.

[droogsteve]

Also, I wonder if when droog decides to incorporate to have preferential tax treatment and limited liability (if he hasnt already, or is an LLC or something), will he suddenly no longer care about what he mentioned earlier? About his employee's tuition payments and such?
I am incorporated. You'd have to be insane to be in business and not incorporate.



Another interesting fact is that Corporations, by law, are required to put their bottom line above all else which is now obvious to include humans and human rights. This is no law of nature but a very specific unnatural and monsterous law.

And exactly what law would that be? I made a good living as a union plumber for 10 years before starting my own shop. The union provided me with a good life and allowed me to start my own business, so I never even considered making my shop non-union. I pay my journeyman plumbers the union wage of $32 an hour, time and a half for overtime, and full benefits. Most non union shops pay around $20 an hour with limited, if any, benefits. While I make a nice living, my profit margin after expenses isn't nearly as much as you probably imagine it is. My bottom line obviously suffers due to my decision to remain a loyal union man despite the fact that I'm now, in effect, management.

What laws am I violating?

Publicly held corporations are no different. There are websites devoted to listing companies that put environmental and human rights concerns above the bottom line so people of conscience can invest in them. Are those corporations also violating the monstrous law that you refer to?



There is also a problem with this system because it leaves it wide open to abuse as was the case with Nortel. You can distroy the company and pocket the money without worrying about losing your home ect... or you can choose not to follow certain laws knowing full well that if you do get caught the corporation can pick up the tab as a "business expense" and not have to worry about your personal posessions. I truely believe that a much greater amount of accountablility is needed and a radical change in the way the current capitalist system works specifically the need for short term profits. This current method is not sustainable and will distroy us in the end if changes are not made.
The laws of incorporation are meant to protect people like me. Let's say that one of my crews accidental improperly installs an alarm valve on a fire sprinkler system and the inspector misses it. There's a fire and the building sustains damage due to the improperly installed valve. Do you believe that I should lose my home and all of my savings? Without the corporate laws you would be hard pressed to find anyone willing to take on high risk tasks if they had to literally risk everything they own on every job that they do.

If the system is abused, you go after the abusers. You don't dismantle the system.

[Mugatu]

I am incorporated. You'd have to be insane to be in business and not incorporate.

I should have been more specific and mentioned publicly held corporations. My appologies.




And exactly what law would that be? I made a good living as a union plumber for 10 years before starting my own shop. The union provided me with a good life and allowed me to start my own business, so I never even considered making my shop non-union. I pay my journeyman plumbers the union wage of $32 an hour, time and a half for overtime, and full benefits. Most non union shops pay around $20 an hour with limited, if any, benefits. While I make a nice living, my profit margin after expenses isn't nearly as much as you probably imagine it is. My bottom line obviously suffers due to my decision to remain a loyal union man despite the fact that I'm now, in effect, management.

What laws am I violating?

Publicly held corporations are no different. There are websites devoted to listing companies that put environmental and human rights concerns above the bottom line so people of conscience can invest in them. Are those corporations also violating the monstrous law that you refer to?



Glad you asked. This thread pretty much sums it up nicely although I origionally read this off the internet. Its pretty long as well but a good read.

http://www.nancho.net/bigdna/ccbizeth.html

I specifically speak of publicly held corporations in this case because the whole problem is being answerable to your stock holder. You must put your bottom line, which is profit, above all else or your stock holders can sue you. This causes companies that would other wise invest in non profit projects that benifit the planet as not cost effective and therefor not worth it as well. Also this causes companies to view laws as nothing more as a business expensive. If it is profitable to break those laws (in relation to getting caught, fines, bad publicitiy) then they will because of the increase of profit it would generate. This is whats leading to so many human and environmental violations around the globe. The need for short term profit is causing a huge problem for long term sustainability on a global scale.

Now I agree that some companies do have ethical programs that try and put environmental and human rights problems above the bottom line. However these genrally are very large corporations that can spend money on these programs and it will barely make a dent in their pocket books. They also get the good publicity and the general population thinks, "Aww they really do care about me." What is disturbing however is that while companies like Shell have environmental incentives they are still committing human rights violations and invironmental violations in different countries where they are not suseptible to American law. So they come off as being kind an caring spending several million dollars on these projects but in reality very little has changed and the distruction still vastly outweighs the good.

The laws of incorporation are meant to protect people like me. Let's say that one of my crews accidental improperly installs an alarm valve on a fire sprinkler system and the inspector misses it. There's a fire and the building sustains damage due to the improperly installed valve. Do you believe that I should lose my home and all of my savings? Without the corporate laws you would be hard pressed to find anyone willing to take on high risk tasks if they had to literally risk everything they own on every job that they do.


No when you use the law for what it was ment for that is excellent. THe problem however is how wide open this is to abuse and we have seen it time and time again with many large international corporations.

I believe that a radical change in the way corporations operate is needed before it is too late and the point of no return is closer then many may think.

By the way I am pleased to hear how you are running your corporation. Keep up the good work and for the love of god do not become publicly owned heh...


Ah and a final note on people within publicly owned corporations (and this is similar somewhat to my against the troops thread). While the people within the corporation may have a good set of ethics and values they must often put those aside for the good fo the company and the need for short term profit gains to appease their stockholders. This often forces them to do things that they may otherwise not wish to do but they see themselves as having no choice. If they do not make as much profit as possible they run the risk of losing stock holder support or being taken over by a competing comany. The public corporate instituion is inherently monsterous and because of this those serving within the corporation are also monsters, in their instituional role, even though in person they may be one of the nicest people around.

Noam Chompski describes this well.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheCorporation-10003604/trailers.php

Click on the Noam Chompski film at the top.

[Mugatu]

I run a small business as well, and am in league with the devil. My soul, which sold at a bargain to the dark overlord, was traded for a mere second home (to be financed in a decade or so) and tuition for two children beginning in 2014 and 2022. Not a bad deal by most estimations.

That explains alot now that I think about it.



Is the link at the top of the thread and the link in the "I don't support the troops" thread related in some method of thinking? If so, can we just cut to the chase and post the links you think every American should read and believe? What's the deal with the cloak and dagger crap, and whats with mps always at the heels, Mugatu? You two goin' steady?

There is a slight relation between the two but only to the degree of serving a monsterous institution being that government or a publicly owned corporation. While the democratic government isnt inherently evil (obviously) it has become corrupt. The publicly owned corporations however are inherently evil for reasons stated above. So soliders serving a corrupt government are inherently monsterous because the instituion is monsterous while those serving a corporation are inherently monsterous becasue once again the instituion is monsterous.

I dont know what you mean by cloak and dagger. I speak plainly and to the point. I dont write, " LOL OMG YOUR SO STUPDI! AMERICA RULES!" ect..

As for your comment about mps and myself. We have similar view points on the world which naturally results in us supporting each other. Should he bring up a point I disagree with I will say so and the same goes for anyone else. If I agree with you Ill back you if not then I will be in opposition. Its pretty simple really. If you dont have anything constructive to say then please stop taking up space.


I write about all this because I feel it is important to raise awareness. That and it helps me construct my thoughts better for inperson debates as well.

[droogsteve]

I specifically speak of publicly held corporations in this case because the whole problem is being answerable to your stock holder. You must put your bottom line, which is profit, above all else or your stock holders can sue you. This causes companies that would other wise invest in non profit projects that benefit the planet as not cost effective and therefor not worth it as well. Also this causes companies to view laws as nothing more as a business expensive. If it is profitable to break those laws (in relation to getting caught, fines, bad publicity) then they will because of the increase of profit it would generate. This is whats leading to so many human and environmental violations around the globe. The need for short term profit is causing a huge problem for long term sustainability on a global scale.I believe that's a specious argument.

This is section 716 of the business corporation act in your link:

...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders....


There is nothing inherently evil about that. It merely assures that the company's officers will put the interests of stockholders above their own. As far as the lawsuits from stockholders that you mentioned, of course stockholders can sue for blatant mismanagement. But there's not a court in the country that would uphold a suit in which the stockholders sued a company because they refused to cross ethical boundaries in pursuit of profit. A court of law cannot penalize a corporation for refusing to break the law.

Is it true that pressure from stockholders can prevent companies from pursuing charitable endeavors? Sure. But that's not the corporation's job. I give to charity regularly because I want to. But when I invest my money, I want it working for me. If a company that I invest in can give me a decent return and do good works, that's fine. But if my return begins to suffer, their primary responsibility is to ME, the person that's financing their company. I believe that we have a fundamental disagreement of the corporate purpose. Again I quote from your link:

We must remember that corporations were invented to serve mankind.

I disagree. Corporations were created to make money. Serving mankind is a side benefit that corporations should aspire to, but it is not their purpose.

By the way I am pleased to hear how you are running your corporation. Keep up the good work and for the love of god do not become publicly owned heh...

Thank you. And you don't have to worry, I'm neither greedy nor particularly ambitious. I wanted to achieve some security for myself and family and maybe a small legacy to pass on. I've created a nice little niche for myself and I'm satisfied with what I have.

[pidgeball6]

Ok the point is a little clearer. You feel ALL publicly held corporations are evil, by nature and by law. What I don't understand is how you reach some of your conclusions. I read into the links you posted and they seem to be predicated on the assumption that a corporation is obligated to make solely money for the stockholder, but the laws that the corporate lawyer lists are, more to the point, about looking at the corporations best interests. Doesn't public image come into the equation somewhere? I agree that corporate greed has become problematic and should be adressed, but to what extent? By the tone in some of the trailers in your link, the only answer is to do away with the corporations all together. Seems a bit extreme to me. What would become of the thousands of charities who rely on corporate sponsors for their very existence? Or more specifically, what of the people these charities help? Corporate responsibility is one issue, abolishing the corporation out right for being an evil entity is another, I guess I should ask where you stand on these two before arguing further. Alter the laws that govern corporate actions, or abolish corporations?

[shade]

That'd be "top 100" not "only 100 (all the rest of the businesses were great!)" If you had read deeper, you would have recognised that this had been addressed.

EDIT: Does she smack you around, shade? Only if I ask.

You're that trashed off of wine? K I'm holding a bottle of Brut wine and it is....12% alcohol by volume! Well, I didnt say I was trashed. But yes, you have to drink wine by the bottle because it bruises very badly very quickly in air.

Next time go with the Skyy Vodka and some orange juice as a chaser. I dont use chasers. I can drink 1/4 bottle of vodka straight.

It is one of the best constructed films that I have ever seen and truely maintains a bare bones approach when examining capitalisim and the impact that corporations have had on our society and the world itself. If you really want to see a decent film (although extremely biased) about capitalism, see "Life and Debt." It is about Jamaica and how globalisation and the world bank have "destroyed them." We had to watch the movie in philosophy, and I am writing my critique of it tomorow. After watching it, although with having the admitted advantage of attending a business school in the US, the core of their problem is a lack of economic understanding and common business sense. However they try to externalise these shortcomings and blame the world bank and the united states.

One such example is a clip shown repeatedly of a farmer "needing to" dump out thousands of gallons of surplus milk that he was unable to export. At a different point in the movie, they complain that they cant under cut imported powdered milk in the local markets!! A simple concept like cutting your losses and selling your surplus milk to the local markets at a cheaper price than powdered milk seems like common sense to someone like me, but they dont do it! Instead they take an entire loss of thousands of gallons of milk, in a country where a typical salary is $15-20 a week, and a gallon of milk would sell for about $1.

But, that is all the world bank's fault.

In fact it is now manditory viewing for those who are taking business courses in university in Canada. Lol, that explains the Canadians who are willing to pay $20,000 a semester in out of country tuition to attend my slightly better than average state funded university for our business program.

I mean Corporations and Capitalisim is in ever facet of America and Canada. It is virtually impossible to avoid. You could just import from Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia, or sort of the Netherlands.

Corporations however decided to use this amendment to gain more power and freedom and claimed that they (the corporation) were a "person" as well and wanted the same rights as human beings. Not really, it just has to do with the separate legal entity, as part of limited liability. Obviously someone or something has to be liable for its general actions, hence corporations are like people.

Now you may think that this is no big deal but it leaves a huge accountability gap. Not at all. It even includes capitol punishment for the corporation.

The people serving in the corporation could now largely hide behind corporation itself because it was viewed as a legal person and those serving in the corporation remain largely untouched. Ever hear of "pierce the corporate veil?" That is when the state or a private party is prosecuting a corporation and they then have subpoena power over people in the corporation and the corporation itself. And, the higher up you go in the corporate ladder, the more personally liable (for criminal actions, not debt) people become.

Another interesting fact is that Corporations, by law, are required to put their bottom line above all else which is now obvious to include humans and human rights. Not quite. Corporations are formed with the goal of maximising shareholder equity. By law, they have to stay within laws, which account for other people and the environment. Also, based on the corporations mission statement, they are not restricted solely to shareholder profit. Goodwill is a corporation, and it specifically has the goal of maximising profit, and giving back 100% of its profit to help the community's disabled.

There is no law in the legal sense that says corporations must maximise profit for shareholders. The only ethical action for a corporation is one that follows its mission statement. The mission statement usually includes "maximise profit for shareholders" among other things. Such as, "maximise profit for shareholders by selling insurance plans and investing in dividend paying stocks to take advantage of intercorporate dividend tax rates." - and they must abide by law.

There are many problems with corporations that also tie in with capitalisim. Having quarterly stock reports requires ceos and so forth to have a short sighted view only caring about short term profit gains. I really hope they arent teaching you this at your canadian university. If you go in to the work force with ideas such as this, your business will surely fail. And, its simply patently false. My father is the vice president of www.the401kcompany.com. They are a corporation that was purchased by
www.nationwide.com. They were purchased either in 1999 or 2000, I forget. But they were bought right before the recession, and during the recession they were in the red about $1-2 million per year (and their ceo doesnt get paid 100s of millions), because being a company that specialises in retirement plans, they are intimately linked with the stock market. $1,000,000 per year in a company with an average salary of $40-90k per year is easy to come up with by firing people. But, they have never laid off a single person since the company was created. Why? Because they dont just look at the current quarter! They only hire good people, in many cases, the best people. You dont fire the best people so you can make a $1,000,000 difference on your earnings report. You keep them so you still have them when the economy turns around (or whatever happens to be slowing you down) so that you can achieve in the long run.

Oh and shockingly enough, the main reason my dad and his boss have never fired anyone, is because they know everyone. They know all their families, they know what financial situations they are in (kids in college, mortgages, etc) and they are moral people who care about their employees not unlike droog! And they are a corporation with like 150 people at the top of a high rise in Austin TX. By your definition, they are inherently evil. That is simply patently false.

Also might want to point out that according to you, nationwide should have dissolved my dads company. Why didnt they? Could it be that they have long term goals? Maybe because my dads company handles the retirement plans of millions of people in the country, such as every employee at Sonic, IBM, Microsoft, etc? Isnt that a good long term position to be in? Lifetime customers as long as the service stays at its high level of quality (right back to the employees).

If you want an example of a good corporation: http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/factsheet.xhtml?ID=117902

A lack of this short term profit results in the corporation to lose stock holder support which results in defeat by either bankruptcy or being taken over by another stronger corporation. Flase. Bankruptcy causes stock to crash. Stock crashing does not cause bankruptcy. A corporation only receives money when it sells stock. If stock that is already on the market's prices goes up and down, it doesnt matter, other than image. The corporation still has its money. It is bad if they try to sell new stock though, in which case they will get a lower price.

Not being able to say, "Alright, as a company, I think we are big enough.. any bigger and the long term costs will be too geat" is a huge problem. People say that all the time. Especially corporations that are not publicly traded.

I am incorporated. You'd have to be insane to be in business and not incorporate. Well, you could be an LLC or LLP. You get the limited liability part... in some cases its better because you can control who owns the company more directly.

I should have been more specific and mentioned publicly held corporations. My appologies. Droog, can I buy a share of your stock? Or are you afraid you will become evil upon selling me that share?

And I expect a quarterly report!

Anyway this thread is taking too much time right now. I need to get some work done. Ill check back tomorow.

[BigMattTheHobo]

If you had read deeper, you would have recognised that this had been addressed.

Only if I ask.

Well, I didnt say I was trashed. But yes, you have to drink wine by the bottle because it bruises very badly very quickly in air.

I dont use chasers. I can drink 1/4 bottle of vodka straight.

If you really want to see a decent film (although extremely biased) about capitalism, see "Life and Debt." It is about Jamaica and how globalisation and the world bank have "destroyed them." We had to watch the movie in philosophy, and I am writing my critique of it tomorow. After watching it, although with having the admitted advantage of attending a business school in the US, the core of their problem is a lack of economic understanding and common business sense. However they try to externalise these shortcomings and blame the world bank and the united states.

One such example is a clip shown repeatedly of a farmer "needing to" dump out thousands of gallons of surplus milk that he was unable to export. At a different point in the movie, they complain that they cant under cut imported powdered milk in the local markets!! A simple concept like cutting your losses and selling your surplus milk to the local markets at a cheaper price than powdered milk seems like common sense to someone like me, but they dont do it! Instead they take an entire loss of thousands of gallons of milk, in a country where a typical salary is $15-20 a week, and a gallon of milk would sell for about $1.

But, that is all the world bank's fault.

Lol, that explains the Canadians who are willing to pay $20,000 a semester in out of country tuition to attend my slightly better than average state funded university for our business program.

You could just import from Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia, or sort of the Netherlands.

Not really, it just has to do with the separate legal entity, as part of limited liability. Obviously someone or something has to be liable for its general actions, hence corporations are like people.

Not at all. It even includes capitol punishment for the corporation.

Ever hear of "pierce the corporate veil?" That is when the state or a private party is prosecuting a corporation and they then have subpoena power over people in the corporation and the corporation itself. And, the higher up you go in the corporate ladder, the more personally liable (for criminal actions, not debt) people become.

Not quite. Corporations are formed with the goal of maximising shareholder equity. By law, they have to stay within laws, which account for other people and the environment. Also, based on the corporations mission statement, they are not restricted solely to shareholder profit. Goodwill is a corporation, and it specifically has the goal of maximising profit, and giving back 100% of its profit to help the community's disabled.

There is no law in the legal sense that says corporations must maximise profit for shareholders. The only ethical action for a corporation is one that follows its mission statement. The mission statement usually includes "maximise profit for shareholders" among other things. Such as, "maximise profit for shareholders by selling insurance plans and investing in dividend paying stocks to take advantage of intercorporate dividend tax rates." - and they must abide by law.

I really hope they arent teaching you this at your canadian university. If you go in to the work force with ideas such as this, your business will surely fail. And, its simply patently false. My father is the vice president of www.the401kcompany.com. They are a corporation that was purchased by
www.nationwide.com. They were purchased either in 1999 or 2000, I forget. But they were bought right before the recession, and during the recession they were in the red about $1-2 million per year (and their ceo doesnt get paid 100s of millions), because being a company that specialises in retirement plans, they are intimately linked with the stock market. $1,000,000 per year in a company with an average salary of $40-90k per year is easy to come up with by firing people. But, they have never laid off a single person since the company was created. Why? Because they dont just look at the current quarter! They only hire good people, in many cases, the best people. You dont fire the best people so you can make a $1,000,000 difference on your earnings report. You keep them so you still have them when the economy turns around (or whatever happens to be slowing you down) so that you can achieve in the long run.

Oh and shockingly enough, the main reason my dad and his boss have never fired anyone, is because they know everyone. They know all their families, they know what financial situations they are in (kids in college, mortgages, etc) and they are moral people who care about their employees not unlike droog! And they are a corporation with like 150 people at the top of a high rise in Austin TX. By your definition, they are inherently evil. That is simply patently false.

Also might want to point out that according to you, nationwide should have dissolved my dads company. Why didnt they? Could it be that they have long term goals? Maybe because my dads company handles the retirement plans of millions of people in the country, such as every employee at Sonic, IBM, Microsoft, etc? Isnt that a good long term position to be in? Lifetime customers as long as the service stays at its high level of quality (right back to the employees).

If you want an example of a good corporation: http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/factsheet.xhtml?ID=117902

Flase. Bankruptcy causes stock to crash. Stock crashing does not cause bankruptcy. A corporation only receives money when it sells stock. If stock that is already on the market's prices goes up and down, it doesnt matter, other than image. The corporation still has its money. It is bad if they try to sell new stock though, in which case they will get a lower price.

People say that all the time. Especially corporations that are not publicly traded.

Well, you could be an LLC or LLP. You get the limited liability part... in some cases its better because you can control who owns the company more directly.

Droog, can I buy a share of your stock? Or are you afraid you will become evil upon selling me that share?

And I expect a quarterly report!

Anyway this thread is taking too much time right now. I need to get some work done. Ill check back tomorow.


You typed a lot.

Vodka..... mmmmm.... then...... *barf*

[shade]

Yes I did unfortunately. I just sorta kept going. Unfortunately it probably will not be read by as many people as it should be... which is one reason why I cut it short.

[droogsteve]

Well, you could be an LLC or LLP. You get the limited liability part... in some cases its better because you can control who owns the company more directly.

My business structure was pretty much set up from top to bottom by my cousin Brian. It sounds terribly ignorant of me, but I pretty much rubber stamp anything he recommends. I trust him completely. He was both a CPA and an attorney by age 28 and despite his success, devotes a huge amount of time to my business and while accepting only minimal payment from me. He reminds me a little of you Shade, incredibly focused and goal oriented from an early age. I don't know where I'd be without him. Payback time comes next year when he plans to build a house. I'll be acting as the main contractor and plan on showing my gratitude in a big way. :)


Droog, can I buy a share of your stock? Or are you afraid you will become evil upon selling me that share?

LOL, if I ever go public you'll be notified of the IPO. But it's more likely that you'll hire me to renovate your Central Park West duplex when you become rich. ;)

[shade]

Nah, you would have to come do the plumbing of my mansion in the hills of austin overlooking a river.