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 > The western world at the crossroads to Fascism > Comments

The western world at the crossroads to Fascism : Comments

By Justin Jefferson, published 22/12/2009

No one has a right to speak for environmental values over and above human values.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
Grim,

Thank you, but the link you gave does not allow me to open the items in it that seem to be relevant. However, I have found another source:
http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html.

It lists countries, not governments, and it does not actually show that corporations are wealthier than the countries. It lists countries by GDP and corporations by sales. Neither is a precise measure of wealth, so even a country with comparatively smaller GDP will, because of its assets, be wealthier than a corporation with comparatively high sales.

The results are not surprising. The first 22 are countries. The first corporation on the list, General Motors comes in at 23 with $176 billion in sales. Next is Denmark with a GDP of $174 billion, but Denmark’s assets are far greater than its GDP, and I ‘d prefer to live in one of Denmark’s cities than one of GM’s factories.

The first four corporations are US-based. The next is German-based. The next three are US-based. The next is Japan-based. So, what we are really seeing is that corporations based in very large economies, such as those of the US and Japan, will earn more in sales than the poor countries, such as Pakistan and Peru, will produce in a year.

The point is less dramatic if it is put his way: 36 of the top 50 are countries and only 14 are corporations.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 31 December 2009 9:06:45 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
Chris C “It lists countries, not governments, and it does not actually show that corporations are wealthier than the countries. It lists countries by GDP and corporations by sales. Neither is a precise measure of wealth, so even a country with comparatively smaller GDP will, because of its assets, be wealthier than a corporation with comparatively high sales.”

Ah Chris, Grims piety got the better of him.

I am tempted to suggest he consult his own accountant before he humiliates himself with the comparison of – dare I say it (and quote him) “apples and oranges”

I recall it was, I think Belgium (or perhaps Poland) who was facing the wrath of the IMF some 20 years ago for being perilously close to loan default, commented regarding an assessment of its “national wealth” something about the realizable value of one of its medieval cathedrals - which is valid (unless you want to seize it and realize proceeds from a carry away sale).

I would further observe… you mention GM and as wealth, noting it is the first corporation listed in that stupid list (the IPS being a propaganda stink tank for small minded, envious socialists, who consider themselves too “intellectually inclined” to read The Daily Worker).

Whilst GM might have very high revenues, its shares have been traded as junk bonds for the past decade and its profits are non existent…

Hence, its present status and the shroud of US chapter 11 bankruptcy protection…. Something else Grim should ask his accountant to explain.

Now I would expect no country experiences the volatility in sales which any corporation is subject to… the hysterically called “global financial crisis” represented a contraction estimated to be about 3 % in GDP – where as GM quarter to quarter performance was a drop of 47%
http://www.autoinsane.com/2009/05/07/news/business-finance/gm-q1-revenue-drops-47-while-company-hemorrhages-market-sharecash/

noting, the impact of The Great Depression” produced around 30% decline in US GDP between 1929 and 1933

So Grim... before you bore us with your ignorance I seriously suggest you consult with someone with an economic or accounting background,
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 31 December 2009 10:23:51 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
Hey Chris,
That's an interesting way of looking at things; reducing the 'drama'.
If we only want to be 'less dramatic', why not just look at the top 20. There you have 100% countries and no corporations. By the time we get to your fifty, we are up to 14 out of 50, or 28%, then on to my 100 and we're up to 51%...-hang on, is this starting to look like a bell curve, or a hockey stick?
If we just look at the last 25 financial entities on that list, only 5 are countries; which means 80% are corporations.
The last country is Bangladesh, coming in at 95 on the hit parade. Would you rather be a worker in Bangladesh, or Tokyo Electric Power, at 96?
Of course, as you rightly point out, comparing sales to GDP is only one measure of wealth, and -even to an accountant as limited in understanding as Rouge- a balance sheet is meaningless if it doesn't include debits as well as assets.
I wonder if a list of the top 100 financial debtors would look much different?
Of course, then we would have to separate public and private debt, and we are back to the dreaded apples and oranges again.
But of course there are other ways of looking at the same statistics; eg,
51% of the top 100 financial entities have full employment.
51% of the top 100 financial entities have virtually zero liability for anyone over the age of 65, or under the age of 16.
51% of the top 100 financial entities spend little or nothing on education for those under the age of 16.
And to my mind, the most cogent point of all in a discussion which so freely refers to fascism, communism and totalitarianism, 51% of the top 100 financial entities are demonstrably undemocratic.
One share one vote, not one person one vote.
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 31 December 2009 12:24:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim “a balance sheet is meaningless if it doesn't include debits as well as assets.”

Well talk about stupid…

it is obvious you are making pronouncements through your fundamental orifice

because

Even a first year student accountancy clerk would be able to tell you that:

As far as a balance sheet goes:

“Assets” are “Debits”

And

“Liabilities” are “Credits”

Therefore regarding “-even to an accountant as limited in understanding as Rouge- “

Excuse my “limited understanding” but it is, quite obviously, significantly greater than yours -

Yet you keep coming back to dazzle us with your profound ignorance –

go figure?

And as we are talking “And to my mind, the most cogent point of all in a discussion . . . . . .One share one vote, not one person one vote.”

Three "cogent" points this humble accountant would seek to bring to that aspect of the debate:

1 Corporate “Voting rights” are, generally and rightly, proportional to “invested risk” (since no one is forced to hold shares).

Excepting

2 provisions for the protection of minority share holders, as included within the corporations statutes of most “western” democracies

3 Differential Classes of Shares, promoted with differential obligations and entitlements

Come on Grim… you are such fun!

A dullard with a mouth big enough to drown in and the stupidity to keep jumping into it.

Every time you try to show me up, for whatever reason…. You end up buried, head first, in the brown sticky stuff….

Keep em coming…

I just love crafting my “limited in understanding” educational briefings just for you
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 31 December 2009 1:08:34 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
From CJ: "He should come down from his perch, sell his "prime real estate" and retire instead of behaving like a narcissistic goose. Nobody's stolen anything from him - rather, he needs to face the reality that he now lives somewhere where he can't do what he likes and has to obey the law like everybody else."

You CJ and people like you are the ones who will in the long run happily see the rights of the people in this country taken away. You probably haven't been further than the Blue Mounts and don't give a rats about our farmers as long as you are comfortable in your city dwelling. But whether you are or are not from the city it is WRONG that any government should take away the rightful ownership of any land from anyone without compensation.

And for the record, you are wrong, HE CANNOT SELL THE PROPERTY!

Mr. Spencer's land HAS BEEN locked up in the name of KYOTO and meeting the government's CO2 targets and he has not been compensated. His land is called a "sink" and many, many more farmers have had their land taken from them and some have suicided.
Whether you know Peter Spencer as having made money in Papua New Guinea makes no difference at all, it is not democratic. It has happened to many other farmers and probably will happen to many, many more.

I wonder how you would feel if it was your land and this was happening to your family. It seems you have no idea what freedom and democracy means. You would let everything be taken away that means anything to the individual, land, homes, thoughts, freedom of speech, the whole lot. What sort of individual would agree that what is happening to Peter Spencer is right? Only you can answer that CJ and I know who the goose is.
Posted by RaeBee, Thursday, 31 December 2009 7:30:26 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
Grim,

We could do the top 1,000, around 80 per cent of which would have to be corporations because there are only around 200 countries on Earth. All I was trying to do was to get a precise understanding of loose terms thrown around in this debate.

The simple point is that corporations are not countries or governments. They do not have the powers or obligations of governments, any more than sporting clubs do. They are powerful in some cases, indeed, but I do not see any alternative to having some big corporations in the world. It is actually efficient, and they have to work within all sorts of laws, which can be argued about separately.

It makes perfect sense that someone who puts $1,000 into 1,000 shares in a company gets 1,000 votes. Otherwise, two people with one dollar each at stake could put someone else’s $1,000 at risk.

This discussion is a long way from the environment. You have even got me agreeing with Col Rouge, when I do not share his political philosophy at all, but I do see the sense in the semi-free market economy we have because it allows people to be rewarded for effort. Nor do I see environmentalists as necessarily fascists, communists or socialists. Nor do I see fascism running the world. I think the whole division of the world into “the Left” and “the Right” is silly.

On a separate point, I am not so sure animals cannot empathise. I had an old, sick dog, who had breathing difficulties. When she started to pant, my other dog would go and lie in front of her and lick her face, as if trying to make her better. I know this is unscientific, but he obviously knew something was wrong and wanted to help her in his doggy way
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 1 January 2010 2:59:39 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. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

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