The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Executive power > Comments

Executive power : Comments

By Sharon Beder, published 9/6/2006

Corporations position themselves to drive the global agenda.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
David “What must the corporation 'do' in order to satisfy the lust of the 'shareholder' for bigger and better returns”

As an investment strategy, an investment which can deliver sustainable and consistent growth and capital security is a better option than a ride on a portfolio rollercoaster where the capital worth, not merely the earnings capabilities are fluctuating wildly.

Hence one of the major benefits of an Investment in Australia versus many parts of say, SE Asia, China anywhere in Africa or Latin America, is the political stability demonstrated over generations of democratic politics and absence of “revolutions”.

The only way to deliver medium and long term capital security is to deal in a manner which respects not simply a demand for dividends but also the expectations of employees, customers and the wider environment in which the corporation exists and hopes to grow.

You will always find examples of short sighted moronic strategies, in recent decades, example Australian Bankings quest to remove its human face.

“Corporate ownership” the process by which people can come together to jointly participate in ventures which they could not afford to pursue as individuals.

Re “can society survive”

remove “society” and you remove the purpose of corporate ownership structures, to say nothing of its customer base (you know, no customers = nothing).

Just as there are always con-artists, thieves, cheats and scumbags, there will always be poor corporate citizens and to some degree we have legislation in place to regulate their behaviour and make them accountable. A worse problem is when all power is in the hand of politicians who can make the laws they would hold corporations accountable to but manage to avoid regulating things in their own nest or interest.

I liked your AK47 illustration but I would point out, Kalashnikov AK47s were produced to bring down capitalism, not to enhance it.

“Socialists” made guns too and have been more profligate and irresponsible in their distribution than capitalists (back to what I said earlier about all power in the hands of governments).
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 11 June 2006 7:21:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Boaz,

That is by far the best post I have EVER read from you! I agree with it 100%!

I may go over the top most of the time, but it's usually for shock value to get people thinking. But your last post is precisely what I feel about both Capitalism and Socialism. Extremes in both areas will merely implode on themselves, and sometimes, provoke violent revolutions. We need a balance.

Col,

You said:

“A lot more legislation controls the conduct and behaviour of corporations than controls the activities of unions.”

True. But, unions aren’t responsible for as many deaths or the gross exploitation and crippling illnesses of literally billions around the world. Union thuggery is only a direct result/response to the thuggery of corporations, an eye for an eye like they say. Sometimes, in the extremes that the largest and most corrupt corporations can hurt and destroy people, peaceful protests just ain't gonna cut it. They'll fall on deaf ears. Sad, but true.

Personally I view the largest corporations as being on a similar level to the likes of Saddam Hussein and Hitler. They are all responsible for some of the world’s worst atrocities. There are only 2 differences that I can see...

1. We need corporations [cringe];

2. The atrocities committed by the world’s largest corporations aren't publicised. Gee, I wonder why?

But in response to the last paragraph of your first post:

Not always true. A lot of those on the Board of Directors are only there due to nepotism or cronyism. Even where I work, I have to answer to someone who is far less competent and intelligent then I am purely because of nepotism. So it is more like a “divine right of kings” situation that you mention i.e. there are some who will be born into it. And - as much as I laugh at the stupidity of Communism - it was this exact situation that provoked it. Extremism breeds extremism – both ways.
Posted by Mr Man, Monday, 12 June 2006 2:56:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Corporations could do little or no harm if our elected politicians didn't aid and abet them for post-public-service employment and benefits.

The fact that Bob Carr left office and in a flash went to work for MacBank went largely unnoticed but it is tantamount to criminal. How dull NSW electors are!

We NEED PPPs (Private Public-Partnerships for a wide variety of projects). There are WAYS to make them mutually beneficial to public and corporation alike. What we don't need is this schoolby sheepish acceptance of Government Private Dictatorships (GPDs) at both state and federal level. People need to stand and be counted. We are being shafted by our own politicians and our political systems are stale and will not cater for acceptable changes in line with public sentiment. Our state and federal political systems have to be overhauled. There are ways to do this.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 12 June 2006 4:12:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rule by Corporation. Benign or Malignant?

At present the corporation has too much power and is aided and abetted by government. Currently, the very structure of corporations favours the immoral. Managers and directors have a legal duty to put shareholders' interests above all others' and no authority to serve any other interests - the 'best interests of the corporation' principle.

In short, business is amoral; its only social obligation is to make money within the law. The pathologically narrow and materialistic view of human nature that underpins today's corporate form not only dominates economic activity - it is also altering humanity, which goes a long way to explain the views of some of the more callous and cold blooded posters to OLO.

Enron, WorldCom, One-Tel and HIH had one thing in common – they were run by individuals who excelled in the ruthlessness, cunning and risk taking that is characteristic of the psychopath.

The popular image of a psychopath conjures up the likes of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler. The reality is that the psychopath is far more common and the ideal environment is the corporate world. On the broad continuum between the ethical everyman and the predatory killer, there's plenty of room for people who are ruthless but not violent.

Many psychologists suggest that the high-profile cases mentioned are merely the tip of the iceberg and symptomatic of a wider culture that allows ruthless, unremorseful psychopaths to rise inexorably through the corporate ranks.

The following link reads like all you ever wanted to know about corporate psychos but were too afraid to ask…

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~arc24/ec34.html

That said some very good points have been made by other posters.

Kaep I agree with you regards PPP's - however it is not only governments that need overhaul.

An excellent post was actually contributed by BD - shame he had to spoil it all at the end.

Mr Man - I understand how you feel, have had similar experiences and had the sheer appalling luck to have worked along side a woman who can only be described as an out and out psychopath.
Posted by Scout, Monday, 12 June 2006 10:31:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Man “But, unions aren’t responsible for as many deaths or the gross exploitation and crippling illnesses of literally billions around the world.”

Not “corporations” either, possibly some the people who run some corporations. Your rhetoric is like the child who blames all the adults for the degeneracy of a few, neither realistic and lacking any suggestions for any solution or viable alternative.

“Even where I work, I have to answer to someone who is far less competent and intelligent then I am purely because of nepotism.”

I have heard that levied at me (by someone with a chip on their shoulder, a deficiency in competence and no ethics). It is the excuse of the indolent and incompetent who, lacking the skills to manage, blame their own deficiencies on a supposed conspiracy of nepotism. If you really feel like that I suggest you find a different job.

Scout “At present the corporation has too much power and is aided and abetted by government.”

Always easy to make critical claims without supplying any detail whatsoever.

Yep Enron, is an example of when things do not work.

Cadbury (now Cadbury-Schweppes) is a classic example of when they do. I suggest you do some research and find out how the township of Bournville came into existence.

You also claim Corporations are aided and abetted by government?
Sounds like hysterical conspiracy paranoia to me.

I think most would observe, a “psychopath” is out their on the extreme fringes of humanity. Suggesting there are enough psychopaths to populate all those jobs in corporations is to suggest being a “psychopath” is not a disorder at all but “normal”.

I would note, however, the co-dependency which is demonstrated and demanded by socialists, whilst not as extreme a dysfunction as psychopathy of sociopathy, is none the less, a recognised disease.

So to all that choose to whine and criticise,
I suggest you come up with a viable and functioning alternative before you try to tear down that which works and supports the quality of life you all enjoy.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 12 June 2006 3:32:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

"I have heard that levied at me (by someone with a chip on their shoulder, a deficiency in competence and no ethics). It is the excuse of the indolent and incompetent who, lacking the skills to manage, blame their own deficiencies on a supposed conspiracy of nepotism. If you really feel like that I suggest you find a different job."

Perhaps in a lot of cases.

But then why is it that I can tell when they're about to lose money on a bad desion. I warn them of a mistake and then whadda ya know? They lose money.

Also, I suggest vital procedural changes that are needed in my department but they ignore it because the implementation might take a bit of extra work for a few weeks and possibly cost a few hundred. Despite the fact that they are already losing money by running things in an adhoc manner.

Don't mistake me for some whining fool who has no idea about business practices. I've studied enough project and quality management as a part of my Uni degree to spot imcompetence and nepotism when I see it.
Posted by Mr Man, Monday, 12 June 2006 11:07:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy