Sharon, the development of corporations and globalisation have led to unprecedented increases in incomes and living standards over the last 100-odd years, not confined to developed countries but for billions of people all over the world. Many regulations in many countries are badly conceived and badly designed and have negative impacts on public welfare – it’s not surprising if corporations which compete in product and service markets combine to seek regulatory change.

Trade in services is not an invention of corporate conspirators, from memory when I wrote policy papers on it in the 1980s, service trade was of a similar magnitude to goods trade, and services were increasingly “embedded” in many goods – a trend which has accelerated since then as economies are increasingly dominated by services and by intellectual property inputs into goods. That’s how it is. Anyone who believes that this is all controlled by corporate conspirators should explain first, why so many leading corporations decline and disappear every decade and, second, why globally rising incomes, health and education standards and choice arising from the processes of corporatisation and globalisation is a bad thing.

Bushbred,

You would have to be the most wise and intelligent person on this entire forum!

Either the Conservatives can't ever think of a worthy rebuttal or they never understand what you're talking about (I suspect it's a bit of both).

Keep up the good work. We need more people like you in the world.

…more reasons for “Realist” and The Right to celebrate the beauty that is the corporation:

SUEZ-LYONNASIE DES EAUX

- Water privatisation in poor countries. This in turn has seen the price of water skyrocket up to 700%!
- Negligent in providing safe drinking water that has resulted in deaths and severely sickened 725 people in one district alone.
- Left 200,000 people without access to water by charging between $335 and $445 to connect a private home to the water supply. Countless people were unable to afford this charge in a country whose annual GDP per capita is $915.

The IMF and World Bank are playing a key role in pushing water privatization all over the world.

Many countries have been forced to open their water supply to private companies as a condition for receiving IMF loans, and the World Bank has approved millions of dollars in loans for the privatisation of water systems.

PFIZER

- Extortion in regards to HIV/AIDS medicine by selling it at inflated prices that most poor people cannot afford.
- Refusal to grant generic licenses of fluconazole to governments in countries around South America where patients are forced to pay $20US per weekly pill, though the average national wage is only $120US per month.
- Withdrew from scientific studies of a new class of AIDS drugs called CCR5 inhibitors, choosing instead to rush its own untested CCR5 inhibitor onto the European market without full information about the drug's side effects.

KBR (A Subsidiary of Halliburton)

- Exploiting labourers from poor countries to rebuild Iraq. They sleep in crowded trailers and wait outside in scorching heat for food rations. They lack adequate medical care and put in hard labour seven days a week for at LEAST 10 hours a day.
- Dishonest billing practices;

No wonder America was so sure they’d be able to rebuild Iraq. It costs them virtually nothing!

Yes, good on the corporations...and good on The Right-Wingers too, for supporting it all.

But like Realist said, if we don’t like 'em, join 'em. Yes people, we too can be murderers and thieves.

Ah the usual hissing fits.

Now who owns corporations,

well individual people own corporations, either directly as individual share holders or indirectly as subscribers to superannuation and other mutual fund type savings plans or insurance policy holders.

So what is a corporation - well it is development of a Dutch idea where individuals could join together to “share” in the risks and rewards of commercial ventures.

Are corporations inherently immoral – No – no more than socialist organisations are inherently virtuous.

Are corporations subject to public review and oversight?

You bet, reams and reams of company’s law going back centuries.
Statutory Accountability to consumers, government, share holders, the public in general, the list is endless.

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

Could we possibly live with out corporations – No, unless you want to return to a subsistence existence and barter economy.

Are the rules of conduct for corporations ever reviewed – constantly.

Some might suggest that executives are overpaid – well – offer your services for the executive job and see how well you match up to the job description, when you can do it you get to criticise the package, if you cannot or would not get the role, you are not qualified to comment.

If corporate executives represent the new aristocracy, well better we have some one with the intellectual competence to work up through the process than a chinless wonder there due to lineage and the divine right of kings or a thug who crawls up a network of intimidation and union blackmail.

Col, I concede your statement about 'who owns corporations' is indeed people, but think a step further.....

Corporation/ShareHolder.
-Who's interests are served by the Corp ? its the shareholders of course.
-What must the corporation 'do' in order to satisfy the lust of the 'shareholder' for bigger and better returns ? Why, its obvious, they must a) 'Appear' to be good corporate citizens, while b) working towards the absolute destruction/absorption/takeover of all opposition.

They may not do this with Ak47s but with marketing campaigns and price wars and misuse of market power... etc.

And what of the shareholders of these other corporations ? well.. I think they are 'collateral damage'.

Can a society survive this ?

Now, I'm totally in favor of private enterprise, but ONLY within a framework of government control which prevents the country being blackmailed by the HUGGGGEEEEEEE financial interests that today's big corporations represent.

Open slather capitalism will run out of steam and resources like a fire cracker skyrocket.

It should be abundantly clear to a thinking person, that the premises on which capitalism is based are totally flawed.

Example:

Village on a river survives comfortably with a diet of fish and jungle produce.
One villager went to a town, and took some dried fish with him. The town merchant offered him a good price and asked "Can you get more of this" ?
The villager then goes and begins using more up scale methods of obtaining fish, which in the case of Borneo would be a poison from a tree root.
He dries and sells the fish, then gets a whole swag of cash, sets up home in the town, and the villagers starve.... no more fish.

That....is capitalism.

Socialism is equally deficient in outcomes, and based on the flawed premise that people actually 'want' to work for the benefit of those in society they don't know from a bar of soap.

We cannot exist with one, nor the other alone.

Socialism without reality based fiscal responsibility and Capitalism without compassion are both bankrupt.

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life"... said Jesus.

damn boaz, you ruined the most sensible post ive ever seen from you with your unnecessary preaching.