More concern with the needs of customers would be a good idea.

“The three main challenges facing companies today are:
• Staying alive
•Producing value for shareholders, and
• Building an enterprise that will not only survive, but also succeed over the longer term."

No mention of customers, except to give it lip service at the bottom of your article, no mention of corporate social or environmental responsibility. Your company and most corporations are totally the opposite. No compassion, no morals, or ethics, just grab grab grab. The reason there are less companies and competition, is because the corporate slaves, (politicians) have cow tailed to you for their own greed and power.

“80 per cent of acquisitions or mergers fail to deliver value and would have been better left undone.”

Just look at the banking, service and food industries, no benefit to the customer, or worker. Except for the greed of CEO's, nothing for anyone really.

“Economic growth in the OECD has declined from 5.1 per cent in the 1960s to 2.5 per cent in the 1990s “

The policies followed by people like john Mc farlane, have destroyed businesses throughout Australia, no protection, no control of prices, charges, takeovers, monopolies, plus massive importation at the expense of peoples working and social lives.

“There is therefore real merit in the philosophy of "putting our customers first" and putting this into practice requires real commitment to this agenda.”

Don't make us laugh, people like you have one intent. Increase your ego, your wealth and power at everyone else's expense.

It is not a coincidence, that nearly 75% of jobs in this country, now come within the category of, part time or casual. Corporations in league with the brain dead politicians and beaurucrats have decimated the people of this country. To the point where, instead of technology improving our way of life, corporations have used it to enslave people so that they have to work twice as hard just to survive and live.

The value that corporations have given to society, is zero. The outcome very shortly, will be social and environmental collapse.

John, pull you tie tighter and do us all a favour

This is a timely and important statement you've made on behalf of a big company John. It makes a lot of sense. It's important to take a step back from the vitriol The Alchemist has just dished up and actually applaud a corporation for saying it like they mean it. Whether it makes it back down to a practical application within the Bank is something else but having the CEO make it a public mission in the first place will go a long way. So what about the customers? Customers have families and live in the same community and economy as the shareholders for the Bank. Haven't we been complaining forever that the banks are only about their profits and not about being proactive and responsible citizens? If banks are going to be the latter then they have to be more inclusive of ALL stakeholders and not just shareholders like John has said. Here's a thought - lets start picking on the shareholders for a change. That's where the a-morality starts ...

A profit-driven business is an amoral enterprise; it's only function is to create wealth for its stakeholders. A closer examination of how a company might operate towards the benefit of society at large is welcome, and all too rare.

The biggest mistake in my opinion was decades ago when some moron decided a corporation should have the same 'rights' as an individual. A pity they didn't add a few caveats to ensure corporations had obligations proportionate to their now immense power. Oh, and an effective regulatory body rather than our wishy-washy ICCC.

"The way we have managed and led our companies in the past is not the right way, given the lack of sustainability and humanity of our companies."
It's taken how long to work this out?

"I believe we are now firmly in a new age where spirituality, humanity and community will matter much more. "
I can't see how spirituality enters into it but he's right about the humanity/community bit. All we need now is a caring, sharing ASX.

Don't be too hard on the guy - don't forget, he didn't actually write this stuff, it was put together by his "Corporate Communications" department for him to read out at some event or other - I doubt he even saw it before the day he gave it. A quick look at the key managment variable, "platitudes-per-paragraph" is the giveaway.

The day I believe a banker is sincere about this sort of warm-and-fuzzy stuff is the day when one of them says "Hey, ripping off our customers to the tune of $4 billion a year - that's eleven million dollars a day, ladies and gentlemen - is setting a pretty poor example", and actually does something about it.

By any measure, the banking cartel in this country has to represent the most blatant example of consumer extortion outside the mafia or the triads. The profits they produce are there exclusively for two constituencies, the shareholder and the senior executive - their staff come nowhere (how many shall we retrench this week, Carruthers? we need to boost the bottom line again), and their customers are simply asked to open their wallets wider and wider with new "fee structures" that inevitably disadvantage the blokes with the lowest bank balance.

Come the revolution, the McFarlanes of this world will be first in the dock, and condescending speeches like this will be exhibit A.

It comes down to how we value widgets - good businesses value their ability to make widgets better/faster/prettier more than they value their bottom line. They value the widget for itself. This is why banks don't like/aren't good at managing businesses. Sometimes this infatuation becomes unsustainable because love is always blind.

But really good businesses plan on having children with their widgets(!), so they invest in R&D so that their widgets can grow and change into newer widgets. But R&D can fail as well because you can be blinded by science as much as you can be blinded by love. What matters in the long run is that we need to reproduce, as well as to produce, both ourselves and our businesses.

Reproductive costs (i.e. maintenance, sustainability etc.) are consistently under-estimated and under-invested. It's worthwhile to recognise that reproductive work is cyclical, time compulsory(e.g. emergency services) and necessarily social(as opposed to socially necessary).(credit Mary O'Brien "Politics of Reproduction")

Germaine Greer once pointed out that the Mughal Empire maintained a sohpisticated sustainable farming system by requiring that it's tenant farmers give one day(?) a year to the Emporer to maintain the canals , roads etc. The British converted this (reproductive)payment in kind into a financial rent, and within a decade the farming system had collapsed. Tradeability is anathema to reproductive assets and tasks, which is why there is so much opposition to the WTO etc.

The triple bottom line method of accounting goes some way towards addressing reproductive aspects of economics. Personally, I think that recognizing this as a feminist issue and engaging in a real debate between feminism and economics is the way to go. Look at micro -credit and the Grameen Bank for instance.

No business exists for its customers. The idea that it does or should is the myth of the Keynesian economic paradigm, the notion that production is called forth by demand (it is not). The demand-side model of economics is bunk.

The purpose of business is to produce for the owner the means with which they themselves may trade in the market to buy the fruits of other producers. The purpose of business is to produce the currency that makes trade possible.

To think that businesses are formed to serve their customers is to think that employees exist to serve their employers. To be sure we must give good value if we wish to trade successfully however the prime mover, the motive, the engine of our activity is our own need. We work and produce because we love ourselves. And it is right to love ourselves because it is only once we do so that we can truely love others.

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." - Matthew 19:19

The prime mover in every economy is the producer. Whether it be the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker.

Karl Marx understood this. He focused endlessly on the nature of production and its players. Adam Smith understood it with his stories about the Needle factory. It is only the Keynesians that have got it wrong with their presumption that consumers are at the heart of economics. Demand is not the engine of the economy.

A big part of the problem is with our language. The word "demand" sounds like "command" and people think that the consumer is hence the boss. When it does not happen they think some injustice has occured, that some natural order of things has been upset.

In Niger where people are starving it is not for a lack of consumer "want". Rather if is due to a lack of production. And still they persecute anybody there that dares to produce for market.

Dear John,

The other "Stakeholder" you may have overlooked in your analysis John, is: The typical Employee of ANZ Bank.

One of the issues I grapple with, is the Disparity of your Annual CEO Income and the Size of your likely Redundancy Package, and the other average employees at The Bank. If the average employee is earning, say $35, 000 per annum, and you earn, say $4 millions plus per annum, how do you look them honestly "eye to eye" as a fellow ANZ Employee?

Do you John, feel that with all sincerity, your Talents and Contribution to the bank is the equivalent to say, approximately 120 of your fellow employees?

What do you find this does John, implicitly, for Bank Staff's Motivation, Morale, Team Work, Participation, 'esprit de corps' . sense of equity and fairness, and their overall sense, of employees all working for a Common Purpose and meaningful Goal ?

John, if you had to sit in a Room with,125 of your fellow employees, how would you honestly feel,having a full and frank discussion with your fellow employees, about the appropriateness of YOU earning more than all of your fellow employees, in that Room, combined? Would you John,make your contribution to the ANZ,and do your Job,for the equivalent of 25 ANZ employees wages,or what about just 20 employees ?

Would the other group of Senior Executives at ANZ, also who are on high multiples of the average ANZ employees' Salary be prepared to take less, so you could offer More financial incentives, to the less well remunerated ANZ employees?

An example might be, that if the Top 20 ANZ employees, including yourself, took 2/3 off your remuneration, bringing you all into a Band of an average of $225 000 per annum, there might be a differential of a combined $30 millions,to be divided up among the less well paid ANZ employees.

Yes, I think it is proper and right that you, and the top twenty at ANZ, do Deserve to earn More.

But How Much More John ?

Kindest Regards,

Robbo

Believe it or not, non-corporate business also want to make a profit and we try not to eat others to do it. The average Australian does support companies over smaller business even if some prefer not to. Companies should be content with the compulsory superannuation we are all stuck with as without it, far fewer shareholders would be prepared to invest in your companies.

Re your quote: "Governments have a parallel responsibility to provide the right political, social and economic environment for companies to grow and succeed, to advance education so that there is enough talent to fuel our future, and to govern and regulate effectively without imposing an unreasonable burden on companies."

John, believe it or not, governments are meant to govern for Australian people as a whole, not just for the companies.
Governments don't usually go out of their way to impose burdens on companies but regulations governing companies are usually imposed if there is unfair or unjust implications caused by companies.
eg. The Federal government has followed your line of thinking that it would be better to promote GM in order to promote the companies and the scientific sector. Federal government doesn't care that the introduction of the GM companies product will cause economic loss to farmers and a loss of choice for both farmers and consumers. The Federal government has done everything it can to promote genetically modified crops and even gone as far as to promote the misleading information that GM crops yield more when even the GM companies data submitted to the OGTR show GM crops yield 20% less than non-GM comparisons.
State governments have followed good governance to prevent the unfair burden to others by imposing bans, but there is conflict as the Federals prefer to promote companies no matter what the adverse impact on others is.
Nobody wants the burden of economic loss John but the public does insist that the companies pay for the losses they cause and that is what regulation and good governance should address.

John, I appreciate your article. Few if any of the previous commentators understand that the rapid economic development since the start of the UK industrial revolution, which has lifted living standards all around the world, has depended on the risk-taking and entrepreneurship of the corporate businesses which they despise. As you note, "Competitive advantage is about longer-term uniqueness - about being different and more capable than our competitors." To be successful, companies have to out-do their rivals. Ultimately, that means offering to their clients, their customers, a better deal than those rivals - a company can only succeed in the long-term by pleasing its customers. That competitive advantage for companies also involves identifying those areas in which you excel, and in developing them, and buying-in best-in-class products and services from outside where you can't be the best, wherever in the world they are to be found.

As for regulation, my experience in regulatory policy with the Commonwealth and Queensland governments has demonstrated that most regulation is badly designed, inappropriate and/or unnecessary, with costs exceeding benefits. In Queensland, I often demonstrated that particular regulations didn't achieve their stated (or any) aims; they were continued rather than scrapped merely to support public service jobs at the cost of wealth-creating businesses.

John McFarlanes view is correct
A corporation considers

Staying alive
Producing value for shareholders, and
Building an enterprise that will not only survive, but also succeed over the longer term.

1 is the immediate – essentially cashflow
2 is the medium –licensing compliance issues and disenchanted share holders will soon see the stock price fall to the point where growth or even sustenance funds are unavailable
3 is where JM covers what Leigh and alchemist claim he has missed – customers.

Customer satisfaction is one of the requirements needed for a business to succeed over the long term.

Staff – changing culture and a lot of dead wood, a lot of mythical empires of clouds – all of which present more problems than they solve (spent 6 months on a contract inside the ANZ Banking Group some years ago).

Regarding acquisitions etc… claiming 80% of acquisitions fail to deliver what was expected is easy to explain – most of them are oversold and under resourced. Most rely on expectations of market dominance or economies of scale – Economies of scale are only achieved following integration of all systems and procedures and of course – getting rid of the surplus staff (easier said than done).
Market dominance – ignoring what the ACCC might say – opens up opportunity for the astute competitor to attract the disaffected customers and clients and thus blunt the expectations of pre-acquisition.

Considering that 90% of all business ventures fail in their first 5 years and 90% of the remainder within the next 5 years, 80% acquisitions not delivering expectations seems almost “reasonable”.

Corporate structures are important ways of aggregating and organising sufficient capital safely. Their importance should never be underestimated, especially since – for alternatives, government ownership (the only one I can think of – although willing to consider others) is the only model which could attract / direct sufficient capital to make anything work - and the downsides of that are legion (all the way from Telstra to USSR)

Col Rouge, there are different types of customers.
1.There are those that return to a business because of the value and service they receive. This applies to most small businesses
2.There are those customers that return to a business because it is a monopoly and they have no choice.
3. There are those that return because of the propaganda and market power that the business has.
4. Then there are those that have no option.

The 1st, gives people free choice. The 2nd, have no option. The 3rd, are deluded and easily manipulated. The 4th, are the millions that have no option but to use a bank.

As to customer satisfaction, the last 3 show that your reason, is illusionary. If the people were able to receive their income in cash, then banks would have to provide better and cheaper services. As it is, in collusion with the elitist bureaucrats and politicians, they have captured and monopolised the monetary system for the benefit of the elite and the detriment of the people.

Take welfare, or any income. All of it goes into banks, who then charge for using the peoples money. Then the government, charges them for using their own money. When you take into account bank charges, eftpos charges, debit charges, government charges on transactions and interest, then you find that what you support is just an elitist illusion.

Col, you can have an environment without an economy, but you can't have an economy without an environment. That goes for all environments, natural, economic, social, health and welfare.

Sadly it is people like you that have contributed, encouraged and hastened the decline of all these environments for the almighty dollar.

The outcome is obvious, yours and Mc Farlanes approach is unsustainable, as can be seen by the decline of every service to the community. But what would you care, we can see how much by your post and refusal to see reality. Whip out your economies of scale and try to eat those, the majority of people are forced to eat you and your ilks sematic illusions.

Alchemist “Sadly it is people like you that have contributed, encouraged and hastened the decline of all these environments for the almighty dollar.”

Oh really – now lets us think about this

Why are their very few travel agents selling flight tickets for hydrogen filled airships and why are their only about 12 return trips across the Atlantic by sea pa when their used to be around 50 ships plying the trade 70 years ago?
Why are their very few manufacturers of valve radios?
Why is it the craft of “Thatching” has experienced a significant decline?
Why are their very few jobs for gas mantel packers?
Why did "cropping" die out as a craft and the luddites try to smash mechanically operated machines?
Why do printers no longer use the exact same model printing press as employed by Gutenberg?

Simple - Because someone found a “better way” which (to use your words) “contributed, encouraged and hastened the decline of all these environments for the almighty dollar.”

So far from being “unsustainable” what Mr McFarlane has suggested, what I agreed with and what you are “ranting” against is not only “sustainable” it is “inevitable”.
What is “unsustainable” is your notion of fixed structures and references – like the luddites (and as Canute tried to teach his court), you cannot and will not hold back the tides of change which continually wash across our feet.

As for your 4 types of “customer” – entrepreneurial opportunity encourages entrepreneurial adventure. The “customers” who have been abandoned by banks will ultimately negotiate with a supplier for banking type services. This is why I could never understand why banks did not organise the retention of their customers better – damn stupidest strategy anyone could adopt – unless the “staff culture” was so entrenched and intransigent that the only way to progress was to consolidate services and retreat from the market. The decline of Banks involvement has facilitated the growth in mortgage broking.

All the "illusions" are yours. The only "certainty" is "change" - get used to it.

COL SAID: Considering that 90% of all business ventures fail in their first 5 years and 90% of the remainder within the next 5 years

RESPONSE: This is simply untrue. I refer to page 49 of the following report:-

http://www.pc.gov.au/research/staffres/bfacaap/bfacaap.pdf

Col implies that 99% of business fail within two years. This is way off the mark.

According to the data presented on page 49 of the report:-

34.6% of businesses started will fail in the first 5 years.
55.0% of businesses started will fail in the first 10 years.

In other words:-

34.6% fail in the first 5 years and of those remaining 16% fail in the next 5 years.

At least that is what the Australian data says

Col it appears that you have no understanding of the world, why ask silly questions relating to past practise when no one mentions it. By what you write, you have no idea what change means, for you it is the same approach, destroy the environment, disenfranchise, and enslave the people.

Change is inevitable, but people like you, the rich elite, beaurucrats, Politicians and academics, live in a world of total illusion. Change means improvement from what we have, not a continuum of what corporations want, or a return to the past as you envisage.

Corporations have but one desire, profit at any cost. We see this with banks and the corporate monopolies that are taking over our country.

The Rouges and Mc Farlanes of the world think it is great that the people are bled to feed the elite and rape the land, when do they ever implement change, that enhances things rather than degrade them.

Our world revolves around economics, an unsustainable illusion. It is corporations that reject change unless it is all to their bottom line advantage. They neglect technologies that would improve our lives and the environment.

Col, if you ever leave your comfort zone of the polluted disgusting crime filled debauched cities and see the real world form outside your air conditioned fuel guzzling mobile coffin, you may actually see the world in reality. But then again you and your ilk, are afraid of reality, as it shows that your world and approach aren't real, but just a passing demonic phase of history.

It is a historical fact, that when societies get to the point where they are controlled by small percentage ruling elite, they collapse and the ruling elite is exterminated. Many believe that we are at that point. But don't worry Col and John, your all so blind that you won't see it until it hits you full on.

Alchemist “Col it appears that you have no understanding of the world,”

Don’t bother with that garbage I have been self employed for over 20 years and own a number of businesses, as well as having lived on 3 continents. Claim whatever you want, you will always lack the experience and expose to different societies cultures and business decision making environments which I have known.

“Change is inevitable, but people like you, the rich elite, beaurucrats, Politicians and academics, live in a world of total illusion.”

You are simply ranting against the best system of economic organisation – Stalin & Co are proven failures.

“The Rouges and Mc Farlanes of the world think it is great that the people are bled to feed the elite and rape the land.”

More ranting and no substance – easy to foam at the mouth (like a rabid dog) however lacking in debating points.

Get this straight – regardless of your asinine view, Mr McFarlane and I both have the same rights as you – that we understand more than you is a matter of your inferiority and unsuitability for greater things.

“Col, if you ever leave your comfort zone of the polluted disgusting crime filled debauched cities “

Choke on the fumes all you like – you offer nothing of merit – just envy and the small minded views of the intellectually limited and insignificant.

When you have an opinion to contribute – please provide it – until then – keep your envious and ineffectual ranting to yourself – remember for every one like you – there are a lot more like me – and lets face it, skill-wise, we have you beat, we know how to work, get results and achieve. All you seem to know is how to rant (and probably wait for your dole cheque).

Finally Re ruling elite don’t hold your breath

Terje the observation I used is well accepted whilst I would not dispute your data the definitions of a business might leave some testing, many “businesses” exist as sole-traders who do not incorporate of go bankrupt.

Col, it is extremely difficult to answer someone that is so knowledgeable abut someone they don't know. Sadly, you get it wrong about me in all your statements.

Your deep seated lack of confidence and fear show through in all your posts, leading you to lose sight of reality and what life represents.

I am too old to get the dole, to well off and still working, approach my business in a sustainable way, both economically and environmentally.

Unlike you I have only been a business owner for 40 years, so wouldn't have the understanding that you have. My businesses, are energy self sufficient, my income when I take it, is 20% above the highest paid manager. Our employees receive not only an excellent wage, but also profits of the company. Our customer base is worldwide.

It is greed that is the problem and I stick by what I said previously. By your attitude col, you reiterate my post, no thought for anyone but yourself. Just determined to stick to useless technologies and ways of life. Unable to see beyond the dollar and grasp the future in a positive way.

Why people like you and McFarlane can”t see beyond the 4 walls that surround you, is the reason we have so much negativity to look forward to. If you can' see that our environmental, economic, social and health systems are collapsing, then your economies of scale are very deficient.

My life and business relies on technology for it to function, what that has to do with communism is beyond me. But I can understand how fear and ignorance can lead people into fantasy. Technology, is what can either save us or destroy us, pity you appear aligned with the latter.

With regard to being a rabid dog, you are probably looking in a mirror, as the image you reflect, seems to be getting control of you. But I note a growing trend in that direction in a lot of businesses today, particularily large corporations. At least it shows us what we are up against

Alchemist wrote
Post 1
“Col it appears that you have no understanding of the world, why ask silly questions relating to past practise when no one mentions it. By what you write, you have no idea what change means, for you it is the same approach, destroy the environment, disenfranchise, and enslave the people.

Change is inevitable, but people like you, the rich elite, beaurucrats, Politicians and academics, live in a world of total illusion. Change means improvement from what we have, not a continuum of what corporations want, or a return to the past as you envisage.”

Following my response, alchemist then wrote

Post 2

“Col, it is extremely difficult to answer someone that is so knowledgeable about someone they don't know”

from your post 1 - you had no knowledge of my credentials, capacities, life experiences or circumstances when you claimed I had, to use your words

“no understanding of the world”

With such ignorance in mind, you now suggest it is “extremely difficult to answer someone that is so knowledgeable abut someone they don't know.”

I suggest you remember that such statements make evident the hypocrisy at the heart of your posts.

Now suggesting that I am “Unable to see beyond the dollar and grasp the future in a positive way”

maybe you can justify such a statement by reference to posts in which I have made “the dollar” the focal point of anything! or is that just another example of your own “rabidity” at work?

As said I have before – the joint stock company is the best method of organising commercial resources, capital, risk and entrepreneurial skill. That is why the communist block countries failed economically and why the “Western Democracies” prevail.
The nature of JSC’s is not “perfect” (no venture involving “risk” can ever be “infallible”) but, like most things in life (and from my humble, yet, according to alchemist, “entirely non-existent experience of the world”) very few things are “perfect”.

Just like 'World Best Practice' whilst a well known expression, in no way assumes “perfection”

Col, (and from my humble, according to alchemist, “entirely non-existent experience of the world”) “, not my quote, I wrote, “Col it appears that you have no understanding of the world,”. Different to your inference, but those that live within the past have to alter things to justify and appease themselves.

Collapsing infrastructure, health systems, education systems, family systems, social fabric falling apart. Don't these send you signals that something is wrong. We are being led by an agenda purely for singular economic outcomes, increasing profit margins, doesn't ring any bells. Must be awful to live in such terror of reality.

Constant economic growth is unsustainable, resources are running down, everything is thrown away. We are not using the resources of the planet in a progressive way.

The idea that monopolies create competition is a proven fallacy. They destroy the communities that they work within over time. Just look at history to see that
The only way forward is to create a system the benefits all concerned and includes our environment. The way forward is for more small business and less big companies, the more people that are self employed the more content they are. Corporations rob people of individuality, the only thing they receive is money, little job satisfaction.

Using our technology in a progressive reusable manner is the only solution, it should not matter that some big business will miss out if we change. Growth should be through innovation and not consumption. Technological advances should be for making it easier for all of us, not harder for a lot, as it is at the moment.

The methods of the last century, have passed their use by date, we have to change. After all, how many natural disasters that may be caused by our greed, can be economically overcome as they continually hit our population areas.

Thats reality Col, not corporate greed and profits. Bringing up the communist plot theory, is for those of the past. Intellegent people realise the faults with that system, just like they do with the present one that is being forced upon us.

Alchemist “Collapsing infrastructure, health systems, education systems, family systems, social fabric falling apart.”

That might be your view but limited vision condemns you to getting it wrong.

“We are not using the resources of the planet in a progressive way.”

Nothing you have suggested would do better but we were talking about the organisation of joint stock companies not tree-hugging mantras.

“The idea that monopolies create competition is a proven fallacy.”

That is WHY Telstra was privatised

Such a statement has no relevance to the nature of JSC’c. Competition exists when different companies compete for capital and then compete in markets. It is when governments, who should be “umpires” get their “own team” on the playing field that “monopolies” manifests themself.

“Using our technology in a progressive reusable manner is the only solution”

Has nothing to do with the organisation or ownership of JSC’s

“Growth should be through innovation and not consumption.”

Innovation facilitates consumption, consumption finances innovation. Remove one and you destroy the other.

“Technological advances should be for making it easier for all of us not harder, ”

"Technological Advances" are "innovations"
here you seem to contradict yourself but
Luddites will always be “challenged” by technological advances / Innovation.

“The methods of the last century, have passed their use by date”

1 Will not happen without innovation and innovation needs consumption (above).

2 So put up some suggestions.
Suggestions that we can test for “viability” before you tear up the current methods
or you will simply inflict the same outcomes as the Khymer Rouge inflicted on Cambodia and that will not happen whilst we still use ballot boxes or in your new order, do votes go too?

Question How Owns JSCs
Answer Owned by private individuals, “mutual funds” (superannuation Funds etc) and by other JSCs.

If you follow the line back to the ultimate “ownership”, everyone with a superannuation fund or insurance policy benefits from JSCs, which countersthe idea of corporations for the benefit of a few individuals.

“Thats reality Col”

you just lack vision and faith in the innovation of other “individuals”

"It is a historical fact, that when societies get to the point where they are controlled by small percentage ruling elite, they collapse and the ruling elite is exterminated. Many believe that we are at that point. But don't worry Col and John, your all so blind that you won't see it until it hits you full on."

Well said, Alchemist. I have pondered when corporations will plunge us into such total misery that the poor souls of this planet will have no option but to engage in revolution. Ironically, that's what the ruling elites fear the most. Their power structures are weak, and easily removed by the billions of this planet. And yet while these elite cretins are deathly afraid of revolution, they continue toward the inevitable.

We need to hook up some time... give me a yell: software.au@gmail.com.

Col, “Innovation facilitates consumption, consumption finances innovation. Remove one and you destroy the other.”

I understand the world you live in, thats why it is collapsing.

Innovation is determined by need and desire, corporations never invent anything, they either buy or steal them.

You assume that everyone that doesn't hold with your viewpoint is a cretin and has no knowledge of technology. I feel very sad for you in that respect, your life must be very shallow and lacking. Maybe thats why you are are so angry and without understanding when it comes to world reality.

Technology is the only thing that can save us, but not in the way it is being used and not by the control of society by corporations. Sure lots of super funds are locked up in large corporations, but if you look at the ratio of ownership and control, then you will see that the little people have no say whatsoever and are at the mercy of corporate owners, who hold majority shares and control the companies direction and operation. Lets no forget the obscene renumeration that directors give themselves whilst using small investors money.

Col, it is not much use talking to people like you, because when the tide of the future washes over your head, I will be sitting here with my advanced technological renewable support systems keeping my feet dry, whilst you sink into the mire you live within.

The reason that society won't turn to alternative energies is because the elite can't control renewable energies and cottage industry, as it can fossil energies. Renewable anything, means less money for the elite. We operate on biofuels, solar, wind and integrated flywheel power, all non polluting and the only viable energy future, if we want to have a world with a decent environment and livable climate.

After our change over, business fuel costs dropped more than 60%, electricity costs, 94%. In two years time we will achieve 90% fuel autonomy. So if thats being a Luddite, then where does that leave you.

Thanks Conspiracy theory, my email is, the_organic_alchemist@hotmail.com

ConspiracyTheory “I have pondered when corporations will plunge us into such total misery that the poor souls of this planet will have no option but to engage in revolution. Ironically, that's what the ruling elites fear the most. Their power structures are weak, and easily removed by the billions of this planet. And yet while these elite cretins are deathly afraid of revolution, they continue toward the inevitable.”

Oh those bad and nasty corporations naughty corporate executives who don’t do as Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin demanded. Those bad, bad corporations who bring us the internet, insure our houses, stock and fund supermarkets and tend for almost all and every human need, , Those “elite cretins” who fund research, develop and build houses, roads, power plants, new food crops, pharmaceuticals etc as well as cars and “planes and boats and trains” (feels a song coming on) .

“ConspiracyTheory” is good name for someone who is stating to the “ruling elite” (under whose definition anyone with an insurance policy or monies in a superfund is a part of), the owners of corporations are the “elite cretins” yet who offers nothing more than the Khymer Rouges' misery of “revolution”
Such insecure arrogance to talk of those “elites” with such distain.

I would suggest,

When the concept (JSC and their place in contemporary economic organisation and management)
-is too large for you to get your head around,
It does not mean that it is a bad concept,

it just means you have a limited intellect or a small head.

So
When you can find democratic support for your asinine leftwing fairyfloss at the ballot box.

When you have a viable alternative to the “joint stock company” which has been around, pretty much unchanged, for the past 300 years (although now much more regulated).

When you know the consequences of your proposals (revolution etc).

Then you should make a post, until then Mummy should lay you down for your afternoon nap.

This "elitist" is not "deathly afraid of revolution" but merely considers it an enoromous waste of time, resource and opportunity.