http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10317817.stm
Highlights
US Oil
$210 Billion profit in 3 years
$35 Billion in exploration
and wait for it -.1 R&D on spill risk.
ALL Companies used the same Boiler plate
Out of date or non existent equipment.
1 referred to Walruses which haven't lived in the Gulf for millions years
Two actually gave the telephone number to the long dead specialist.
The list of LIES goes on.
My question is how much better are the wells off our coasts?
Anybody got the facts. i.e. Local drilling disaster recovery plans?
Recent disasters would suggest not.
One tends to wonder who is governing whom.
In real terms clearly these and other corporations tend to to "bean counting" i.e. Make a decision as to which is cheaper prevention (opportunity cost considered) or manageability (cost) of legal defenses (and recovery) later. Guess which way they went?
This industry ISN'T a lone exception.
Denialists, clearly there is a problem!
No it doesn't necessarily mean prices to go up .....less exec perks, wages etc. and a more reasonable profit.
Any one with solutions?

Denialists ? where? I'm with you 100%

Look at the climate change SCAM for "denialists" :) I mean those who deny there 'is' a scam.

You make a good point examinator.

In light of the Gulf situation.You would have to be be concerned as to
our own status in relation to regulations re off shore drilling in our country
and the monitoring of company's practices, operating such businesses is
probably necessary.

And for all intensive purposes ALGOREisRICH, the climate/environmental
situation occurring in the Gulf is currently in crisis, so deny all you want.

ROFL Examinator, corporations are about being realists, keep the
sensitive bit for your lover :)

*and wait for it -.1 R&D on spill risk.
ALL Companies used the same Boiler plate
Out of date or non existent equipment.*

Not so, but we know that you are unable to look at these things
with any kind of objectivity.

Firstly, the boiler plate would have had to be approved by
the Govt regulator. So if the regulator, who has the power,
got it wrong, they are as guilty as the corporations.

Secondly, there is indeed lots of equipment around. Oil companies
thought that with their fleet of ROV subs, they could do anything.
All that cutting and sawing down there is indeed being done by
their subs. But this well is beyond them, because they have
never faced these circumstances before, in the history of drilling
for oil.

Yet we have something like over 230 deep sea rigs and over 500 shallow
water rigs out there, drilling every day, around the world.
Their average age is 29 years, so they have been going for a while
now.

So lets look at the information that we know so far. The four major
oil companies are saying that indeed mistakes were made by BP when
this hole was drilled. It seems like one of the seals in the
"fail safe device" could have been damaged at the time of installation.
It seems that when the concrete work was done,
the young BP guy running things cut some corners, against the
advice of the rig workers. As the rig was costing 1 million $
a day, he was trying to hurry things along. The rest is history
or will be revealed by the enquiry

Not so, but we know that you are unable to look at these things
with any kind of objectivity. [Yabby]

Yabby, do you know Examinator in person to call the aforementioned judgement? Examinator profoundly cares for our Australian environment and future depicted in all of his postings which is to be admired.

Any person condoning wealth greed and exploitation of our planet and country simply does not care sufficiently about it. Examinator's motives are transparent. He cares passionately, obviously, in all probability, out of the love for his family, people, innocent creatures killed over many years, that assisted in sustaining our environment [marine enviro in particular]. No ulterior motives given through previous posts.

One tends to wonder who is governing whom [Examinator]

It is about time someone raised these issues on OLO or anywhere Examinator. A tad off the topic re; oil drilling. For many years since massive oil spills and marine disasters affecting our marine life and water I have wondered where and what are the watchdogs doing in their highly paid positions.

It is 2010 and politicians have just declared they intend watching the Great Barrier Reef and protected areas more closely after two major oil spills up north? What about the other spills that destroyed marine species over a good 20 years?

Concepts for Oil Spills? For starters, once Ships reach Australian waters, they should be logged in and out, show engineer reports of their ships, ensure the skippers know exactly the routes they are supposed to travel, monitor the waters around those routes, until they have traversed well out to sea. Regular monitoring conducted to check that Maritime and all the other watchdogs are performing their jobs appropriately.

Customs have emough on their plates and our environmental marine disasters may just have been caused in part by the fact that Customs have been far too busy channelling their energies into dozens of boat people arriving over the past 10 years regularly. An inevitable consequence of having Customs fully distracted.

When I think of the mess collectivist governments have got their economies in, Greece, USSR, and Australia, the role of “corporations” is insignificant.

Corporations exist in an environment of regulation. They have since before the first companies act.

Governments write regulation.

People elect governments.

Blaming corporations is like spanking oneself...

It inflicts some personal discomfort for the pious, some salacious pleasure for the less pious and does nothing for anyone else.

When someone can think of a better way or organising joint stock companies differently i am sure the Market will rally to the innovation (the market has always been proactive that way) but until that happens, Corporations will remain the bastion of the wealth creation which governments rely on to tax -

particularly the rapacious collectivist governments like Rudd (versus the mining companies)

So US oil spent $100m on a risk analysis study for oil spills.

Examinator, What is your point? What other money have they spent on environmental issues? This little factoid you have excised is pointless without other information.

The abuse of BP and other oil companies especially by President Obama
is badly mistimed.
In an emergency situation you do not publically abuse and critise those
trying to fix the problem. You ask if there other techniques they
could use, or can you get more experts for them.

You run the risk of them saying; "Then you fix the bloody thing !"

A debrief after it is all over is the time to critise with a view to doing
better next time.

That US senate interrogation made me wonder about what sort of
transport did those senators use to arrive in Washington.

Impossible to make much of a comment, because I see the title as a contradiction in terms.

Ginx

ROFL.

You would remember me as Fractelle.

Your observation is absolutely spot on. Which is why we need regulations, but if Yabby overhears me he'll accuse me of being a commie, so we'll just keep that between ourselves.

Past 1
Policarp.
Perspective please. Not everything is about you.

Denialist - one who chooses to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth.
One who refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.
In this instance it has nothing to do with AGW/ACC

Yabby,
Focus dear boy focus. I didn't say that the governments weren't culpable too.
More of your tendency to obfuscate by reference to irrelevancies and extremes rather than reasoned debate by dealing with the issues in proportion not combative extremes. The latter achieves nothing but polarisation and the worst in people.

Everyone inclined to *objectivity* and reason .

This topic demonstrates how the bollitical (cross between bollocks & politics)reasoning, that flourishes in OLO's superficially inclined conservative arguments, that Corporations don't need regulations, as 'the emperor's new clothes', illusionary.

I would argue that , with plenty of justification, that people as individuals are flawed, they are an amalgam of good and bad. Individuals have compassion as well as a drive for power (survival?)

Therefore, given societies are the product and comprise of (flawed) humans they too are further flawed. Additionally they too are often dominated by a number of different factors some know some presumed others deduced or best educated conclusions. One important factor is the tendency powerful individuals tend to dominate often creating unwarranted victims. To combat that and to level out the unreasonable power we have Democracy. Ingrained in this system we have rules, controls (checks and balances). The logical conclusion for this is to compensate for the lack of universal agreement in issues of behaviours, compassion and mutual responsibility (considered majority [ as opposed to
mob rule] prevails).

Given that Capitalism as a flawed human creation , focuses primarily on one side of the human equation and multi national Corporations are expressions of that one-sidedness, they need balance or at least controls i.e. regulation and policing.
If only because with out compassion Corporations become amoral, and seek to adversely influence HUMAN society in favour of PROFITS.

Part2
The 'conservative' (common usage) argument is that somehow that these biased, unbalanced flawed creations don't need or at most, minimal control and policing.
Like the GFC 'derivatives' this Oil crisis proves the laise faire concept to be ludicrous.

NB. This does not imply socialism or other such extremes.

What it clearly shows that we should NOT equate the interests of a NON human entity with HUMAN (balanced) intentions/ superior power/rights.
I don't believe corporations as NON Human entities should be able to use their financial power to influence/blackmail/bully Governments.
Governments are elected by the bulk of the people (democratically) corporations and their interests are dominated by a minority.

BTW We are unique, is right in that I focus on Humanity's ( OUR survival as a species) interests over that of created (fashionable) entities/constructs designed to facilitate not dominate.
Tip the “HUMAN- ist" attribution I claim, is a good clue.

*but if Yabby overhears me he'll accuse me of being a commie*

Not really Severin, for I can't recall accusing anyone on
OLO of being a commie. Given your background of being a
waitress, I would indeed be pleansantly suprised if you
ever contributed anythng useful to economic debates,
but so far I can't recall that being the case.

*Corporations become amoral, and seek to adversely influence HUMAN society in favour of PROFITS.*

There is no objective morality Examinator, so what is in your
opinion adverse, is nothing more then your personal opinion.

Indeed corporations need to make profits and no, its not a dirty
word. Just as you seek payment for your services, they seek payment for theirs.
Those profits are commonly reinvested to a large degree,
to provide you with even better goods and services, even cheaper
then before.

Corporations have as much right as people to express their opinions,
for they represent groups of people, many who decided to save a few
bob for a rainy day, rather then forever bludge on the state, as
many do.

Stern wisely points out, that they are the best way of organising
joint stock companies and all the rest of you benefit. It is why
you lead the cushy lifestyle that you do.

You are creating your own strawman argument, by claiming that
there is argument for no regulation. That is a US neocon argument,
as per Bush and his mates. Most of us on OLO have in fact argued
that there needs to be balance, as I have pointed out again and again.

Capitalism may be flawed, but so is democracy, so is politcs, so
are people.

What can be argued is that we need intelligent regulation, we
need intelligent regulators. Our present politicians can hardly
be called that

Yabby

1. You regularly cast slurs on people who have the temerity to suggest that industry requires regulation just like any other human endeavour. Some people simply can't be trusted.

2. Like many tertiary students, I worked for a while as a waitress while living in the USA - that does not make for a "background as a waitress", I hold a degree in Applied Science, have worked in professional capacity for many years - as my writing clearly attests.

3. Corporations are no more than groups of people and as such require policies and a framework within which to function. Without such a framework we have issues like the GFC, or the catastrophic results of shoddy techniques resulting in oil spills.

That you actually attempt to excuse behaviour as illustrated in point 3, reveals a lack of intellectual reasoning that would be laughable if you were the only person who held such myopic opinions. Sadly there are too many like you in the boardrooms of monolithic corporations: irresponsible and uncaring.

G'day Frackers!

Same ol', same ol' eh?

Hehe Severin, I thought that would burst your boil :) You deserved
it. Pass smartarse comments which are clearly incorrect, you will
get it back.

*You regularly cast slurs on people who have the temerity to suggest that industry requires regulation just like any other human endeavour*

Not so, not even in my last post, not on the thread where Examinator
was feeling sorry for himself about his treatment by Telstra. I
clearly pointed out and have done so many times on OLO, that we
need a balance, a separation of the powers.

I also continue to point out that the GFC and BP oil spills
are due to the lack of regulation enforcement by the Bush regime
over many years, so they carry a share of the blame.

I continue to point out, that Bush was a dummie, elected by the
people, so democracy too, has its flaws.

If you are going to comment about my posts, at least bother to
read what I have written.

Yabby I'm with Severin (hardly unexpected). Also love Ginx's no-nonsense gritty comments.

What constitutes intelligent regulation is very much in the eye of the beholder.

To some mere mention of the word regulation, sends people scurrying for reds under the beds.

We can only cross our fingers that we have learned from the GFC and won't repeat the mistakes of the past but while I try not to be pessimistic, I am not holding my breath. The bigger the Greed the greater the power and it will take strong leadership to reduce the disparities which are only further empowered by this relentless faith in unfettered free market economics.

Thanks Pelican

A bit rich for Yabby to claim: >> Pass smartarse comments which are clearly incorrect, you will get it back. <<

Yabby your opening post to Examinator started thusly:

>> ROFL Examinator, corporations are about being realists, keep the
sensitive bit for your lover :) <<

That is personal and is a deliberate attempt at misdirection given that Examinator's topic is about developing the means by which corporations can be held accountable.

Conducting war is about being real as well, however we still have laws against war-crimes such as genocide, ethinic cleansing and the like.

Your continual use of ad hominems and misdirection is transparent to any reader of your posts. Try playing the ball - you may actually win a debate for a change.

PS

I would like to apologise to any workers in the service industry when I sought to establish my bona fides as having a greater background than just waiting tables. OLO is an open forum and people who work as waiters or other services have valid opinions and as much right to express them as any flea-bitten farmer.

"Everyone inclined to *objectivity* and reason ." . . . . .

“Given that Capitalism as a flawed human creation , focuses primarily on one side of the human equation and multi national Corporations are expressions of that one-sidedness, they need balance or at least controls i.e. regulation and policing.
If only because with out compassion Corporations become amoral, and seek to adversely influence HUMAN society in favour of PROFITS.”

The immediately above seems to fall well short of the one liner at the top of this post

From what i can see, collectivism suffers even greater flaws than capitalism and delivers a lower quality of life to the people it supposedly promises greater fairness and equality for .

As for ”compassion”, that is a uniquely human quality.

Whilst many companies would claim to be fair, few would aspire to being “compassionate”

Mind you, whilst many political parties might claim to be fair, it is only the parties of a left-leaning, collectivists style who run the lie that they are also “compassionate”.

Anyone with any experience of life knows, for a fact, that governments are just as incapable of exercising human compassion as corporations.

So maybe the only thing which divides corporations from government is

Whilst consumers can choose not to buy from or deal with a particular corporation

they do not have the same luxury of choice when faced with a bill from a government, intent on levying wasteful and pointless taxes, needed to fund wasteful and pointless policy objectives.

Now, as for focusing on “OUR” survival....

well what did the bloke who started the clean up campaigns say

“Think global, act local....”

If I consider how I can best survive and procreate, I have discharged my obligation to the survival of our “species”

and anyone who thinks they are different to that is, clearly, just “up themselves”.

Dear Examinator,

Corporations sensitive and responsible?
Not to the average consumer.

As long as the corporations
continue to maximize profits, I guess
their stockholders generally will remain
content.

Corporations are able to apply
political leverage on national policy,
winning favors for themselves, influencing
the country's tax structure. They have
immense power.

Then there's the issue of multi-national
coporations and their impressive record of
interference in the affairs of the host countries,
with activities ranging from bribery of local
officials to attempts to overthrow foreign
governments.

The multinationals do offer many useful resources
to the less developed countries. They encourage
economic growth by importing the necessary capital
and technology, and they create new industries
and markets all over the world. But their motives
are purely selfish - to exploit cheap labour and
resources on an international scale for the benefit of
a handful of stockholders in wealthy countries.

Their activities have had a significant impact
within their own countries too, for the multinationals
export not only capital but also jobs.

If an item can be manufactured more cheaply in Hong
Kong than in Sydney or Melbourne, the multinationals
may close down their Australian plants and open ones
in Asia, and import the finished item back to Australia.

They are also able to shift assets and operations around the
world - recording losses in high tax nations and profits
in low tax nations, or evading safety regulations or labour
laws in one country by moving to another that lacks them.

These huge organisations have developed much more quickly
than have the means of applying social control over
them. Dedicated to the pursuit of profit and subject to
the authority of no one nation, run by a tiny elite of
managers and directors who have a largely financial
responsibility to their far-flung shareholders, they
represent a very disturbing and growing concentration
of global power and influence.

Stern

Governments and corporations are made up by people. People who set the laws, created the policies and implement such. There is no reason why either governments or corporations cannot be set-up for the greater good.

As for stating consumers have choice - it is a limited choice. For example, the embargo created by Woolworths and Coles who monopolise the market and eliminate competition.

If you think by procreating your genes you have somehow made all the contribution to our species that is required of you, I am probably wasting my time. However, I would just like to point out that your progeny will need all the resources, infrastructure and supports that you have been a beneficiary of - benefits that are being eroded to a trickle for a tiny elite by the lack of accountability of corporations and increasingly governments.

Stern,

I think you miss the point of the topic. It is about recognition for the reality that Corporations don't give a stuff about individuals but think in aggregation and amorality.

What the topic is not about is obfuscation in trying to raise the faux defence that while Corporations are bad they are no worse than Other organisations the clear implication being that some how excused their guilt. That is pure Bollitics
It is the equivalent of a murderer saying that because there are others worse than him he deserves to be cut slack! Why?

Did the corporations do wrong Yes or No. it's a binary decision yes they did (do). What to do about the other organisations is another issue.

Your nit picking (another obfuscation) simply confirms my denialist definition.

While we're in the territory of obfuscation I would recommend you rethink your accusation of collectivist governments ….At best it's way over the top exaggeration, at worst it borders on tinfoil hat truthers conspiracy theory. i.e. if the rational answer doesn't add up to what you want cover it all with some vague highly imaginative conspiracy theory.

My over arching point was to illustrate that we shouldn't immediately jump to the defence of corporations or believe what they say is necessarily either gospel truth or in our interests. In many if not most instances the interests are opposed

*In many if not most instances the interests are opposed*

Rubbish. It is in the interests of corporations to have happy
customers, who come back next time. Corporations have their
brands at stake, it is their interests to preserve those
brands. As Stern points out, with corporations, people have
choices and can vote with their wallets. Not so with Govts.

Corporations care about the individual, but not every individual,
for as everyone who has been in business knows, some consumers
are simply too irrational and unreasonable to deal with and it
is not the job of a corporation to lose money because of these
people.

Examinator, you refuse to answer my question, about your internet
access being value for money or not. Perhaps I will simply have
to conclude that you are yet another selfish cheapskate, who
wants everything ever cheaper for himself, but is unable to
understand the perspective of those 2 million mums and dads
who worked hard for their money, saved for a rainy day, and
invested in some Telstra shares. They do indeed deserve
a return, for providing the capital and taking the risk,
so that you can enjoy your internet service cheaper and
better then ever before.

But being selfish cheapskates, alot of you lot simply can't
get your minds around that.

Yabby I do recall at some point you stating in one of your postings on a thread a few months ago "now dont get me started on Telstra": or was it indeed another person? You are a rare exception if you are able to state here and now, never has Telstra let you down in the service delivery area.

Given most Australians have been ripped off by this corporation and others [costing them thousands of dollars] for non-services and/or lengthy delays suffered whilst paying for those services.

If you get me started Yabby I will take up the remainder of this thread. Most corporations, in particular those in the telecommunications market DO NOT deliver the services they specify at the beginning, during and after signing contracts.

My family and self, along with many other young people I know, complain, get nowhere with their complaints, change providers [Oh yes, the term you bandy about 'vote with their wallets'; a term I dislike Yabby for the record], only to encounter precisely the same problems and fraudulent rip-offs that their first one or two Telecommunications companies inflicted.

Corporations on the whole DO NOT deliver the services they promise. Therefore, one cannot blame the "people who vote with their wallets" Yabby.

You are right about one thing we all have raised which was one of the main issues Examinator included in his thread.

Regulatory bodies must perform their jobs and scrutinise these Corporations, some of whom, fall under the Telecommunications Act and relevant Ombudsmans and Ministers.

Banks, their Boards, shareholders and Managers, committed their fraud ripping me off for many years, ie NOT delivering services for the fees they fraudulently charged, are now being dealt with. It is now time that people acted upon the complaints we have already made to Corporations, about their charges for non-services and/or negligence.

In summary, people may vote with their wallets, Yabby, up to a certain point, thereafter people deciding to follow through and take action to ensure their money, via voting with their wallets, are receiving the services they pay to greedy ruthless dishonest Corporations.

Well said "we are unique"

People can only "vote with their wallets" (I share Unique's abhorrence of this term) where there is choice. Monopolies, by their nature, do not provide competitive choice. They do not need to care for their customers when the customer has no other options. Hence the need for some services to be under government control, such as public transport, essential services (communication, water, power). The privatization of these industries have resulted in the loss of choice and redress to the consumer that we have today.

Awaiting another 'bait' from Yabby.

To Severin, Yabby, Foxy, Pelican and all the other inhabitants of these
dungeons, I think that you are all arguing in vein.

I suggest that you spend 10 or 15 minutes and & read the following link.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6574

The present recession that the world seems to be having trouble
climbing back out of, is not going to change much.
We can expect increasing pressure on our standard of living as the
price of oil continues to press up against our reluctance or inability
to pay more for petrol and food.

The cost of energy and the difficulties of transitioning to a different
energy regime is going to change the whole economic and political
systems to such a degree that your present comments will sound like
discussions in the flat earth society.

Anyway Gail Tveberg says it much better than I can so go read that link.

*The privatization of these industries have resulted in the loss of choice and redress to the consumer that we have today.*

Pure rubbish, you seem to have a short memory, Severin.

When Telstra was a Govt monopoly, they basically screwed us blind
without any choice. When Qantas was a Govt monopoly, they did much
the same.

When I first went on the internet, in 1995, it cost 6$ then 9$
an hour, there was one ISP, that was my only choice. I tried
long and hard to get through the wheels of Govt, to suggest that
their Govt gorilla was holding us back, as I felt that the internet
had the potential to change lives and our world as we know it.
They were not interested. Now I pay 1.50$ a day, for an increasing
better service and its due to competition. Phone calls to Europe,
in those days cost me 2$ a minute and given that most of my
export business was done to Europe, phone bills were off the
planet, all thanks to a Govt monopoly.

The selling of Qantas and the deregulation of airlines, has
dramatically changed what used to be litle but the screwing
of the consumer, by Govt mandate

"OK those who think Corporations are sensitive and responsible"

No. They are not.

"Corporations driven by competition to offer cheaper access usually riddled with trip wires,-and aggressively pushed at the consumer"

Noooo......no, that wasn't the subject of this thread.

For a moment there I was confused..., then I realised the confusion wasn't mine!

Ooohhh the relief!

*I think that you are all arguing in vein.*

Hang on Bazz, we argue for fun! I've read your posts about peak
oil before and had a look at the URL.
I am simply not a worrywart as you are, for I have learnt to
accept that predicting the future usually lands up in failure.
For good reasons, some variable comes along which nobody had
considered and bang, the whole game changes once again.

Is society as we know it going to change dramatically? Sure
it will, so what?

So the price of oil goes to 300$ a barrel. The first thing
we'll all do is start to use it a little more wisely then
we now do, for if you look carefully, you will see huge
waste going on.

But of course if somebody is paying more for oil, somebody
else is earning more from oil and highly likely spending it.
More resources will be spent on drilling for more expensive
oil, the Middle East will have even more money to spend then
they now have, it all goes in a circle.

Let me give you an example. The price of lamb and mutton is
at an all time high right now, despite all the recession talk.
The reason is quite simple. Prices were so low for so long,
that farmers largely baled out of producing them. Now there
is a shortage. But the Middle East don't care, they are
simply paying the price, based on all their petrodollars
and buying what they need

Thanks for the reply Yabby, always good to hear your opinion.
Yes, Yabby you are right as far as it goes, but it is the timing that
will get us undone.
It is too late to avoid major problems but our politicians seem to be
aware of the problem, but are not game to stand up and tell the
majority what is going to happen.
They are not prepared to make even the simplest preparations.
Obama's speach a couple of days back is the closest any major
politician has come to saying it out loud.

My comment on the discussion here was the feeling I had of a lot of
good comment that was wasted because it was all relevant to a world
that will not exist.
I am not as pessimistic as perhaps you thought as I believe
we can surmount the energy problems, but we need to use the presently
available sources to achieve that transition.
There are not going to be any magic bullets and we will just have to
develop what we have now as alternatives.

Bazz, I think there is indeed quite alot going on. Those 147$
per barrel oil prices woke up a great many people, especially
in the USA. The GFC has bought some time, it also showed
how fast consumption can drop if required.

In the last year or two, virtually every single vehicle
manufacturer has started planning for the production of
electric vehicles for instance. Plants to manufacture
lithium batteries and similar components, are being
planned and built right now. These things simply take some
years to roll out, they don't happen overnight.

Silicon Valley venture capital is taking alternative energy
very seriously and is throwing huge amounts of money and brains
at the question. That is how alternative answers will be found.

Yup, Obama is one of the few thinking politicians who is trying
to plan for these things and change the US economy to suit.

I don't really expect it from our 2 bob pollies, for their focus
is more on their own re-election, then what is best for Australia
in the longer term.

Yabby,

Your response is diversionary attempting to change the topic from admitting that
1. Corporation don't recognise concepts like 'fair', or 'enough'

2. They pervert the concept of Evolution 'adaption' but prefer 'law of the jungle,' the biggest most ruthless wins.

3. Unlike humans that have propensity for compassion, which is the basis for morality (live and let live is one approach)and a key factor in humanity. Dare I say the purpose of societies.This line of thought includes caring for the weak/needy and those that have no 1st person functionality. This is clearly the antithesis of Corporations.

4. Corporate "generosity" is self seeking (advantage not compassion).

5. Corporations deliberately use 'bean counting' cost of remedy (following safety, good product design,recalls etc) V opportunity cost.

6. As stated corporations encourage/demand the abrogation (by its culture and organizational psychology) the better side of human nature.

Your arguments on topics like "value for money invested", are subjective and display no consequential thought or the acceptance of the undeniable FACTS

Points like historical Qantas, Telstra are base around a world culture that doesn't exist anymore. (i.e. the Catholic once preached "Tremble and Obey or suffer eternal consequences" and forced conversion to suggest that is an argument to ban the Church now is as ludicrous as obsolete.

NB Nobody is saying that government instrumentalities don't have issues ....clearly they do. But they don't substantially negate "feral Capitalism of Corporations".

*Points like historical Qantas, Telstra are base around a world culture that doesn't exist anymore.*

Of course it still exists. Most countries of the world however,
have realised and accepted, how useless and expensive goods and
services are, when produced by Govt monopolies.

What you simply can't seem able to get you little mind around,
is that corporations are simply paper entities, commonly owned
by hundreds of thousands of people, to achieve an objective.

Each of those people are free to take their share of profits and
do as they please, feed the sick and the lame, environmental causes,
you name it. Meantime corporations still pay billions of $ in taxes
and charges, from which everyone benefits.

The world's largest philanthropists are indeed Americans. Usually
people who made money based on the corporate structure, then give
it all away by the billions. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the list
is endless. Ted Turner even gave a billion $ to the UN!

So I'll explain it again. When Microsoft takes your money, you
clearly spend it with them, as it's the best option that you have
in the marketplace, if you want their products or services.

Its not up to Microsoft to give that money to charity, but up to
its individual shareholders, like Mr Gates and his wife do.

http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/culture/buffetts-call-to-billionaires-20100617-ygxn.html

There you go Examinator. If this leads to 600 billion $ being
given to charitable causes, that is hardly a bad thing.

Perhaps you have simply just never taken the time to understand
the motives of some of those "greedy, evil capitalists".

Dear Yabby,

I used to think that the original impulse
of capitalism was: to supply the consumer
with the best possible product at the
lowest possible price. and then I learned
about "paper entrepreneurialism." The pursuit
of profits, not by producing goods or services,
but by using clever accounting procedures,
manipulating the tax laws, and buying, selling,
or dismembering other corporations.

Some leading corporations have become conglomerates,
whose primary business is taking over other
corporations. Each year, many American corporations
are taken over or merged with others. You may say
that these moves often make economic sense, but
sometimes they seem to represent little more than
piracy. One practice, for example, is one in which
a hostile investor buys a large stock in a corporation
and threatens to take it over and perhaps fire its
executives and sell off its assets; the coporation
then buys back the stock at a premium price to
persuade the investor to go away.

Billions of dollars have been "earned" in this way.
A whole vocabulary has arisen around corporate
takeovers. For example, "the white knight" a friendly
investor who buys control of a threatened corporation
to rescue it from a hostile investor. The "poison pill,"
any provision such as huge debts that makes a corporation
less attractive as a takeover candidate; and the
"golden parachute," a guarantee by a target corporation to
give huge severance payments (often of many millions of
dollars) to its senior executives in the event of a
takeover.

As I said at the beginning of this post these various
activities of "paper entrepreneurialism," brings us
a long way from the original impulse of capitalism,
at least as far as what I understood it to be.

Yabby,

You just don't get reality the give to charity because it's good business.
They aren't altruistic they want Quid pro Quo. Business bang for their buck.

BP are currently doing what they are because if they don't a bigger power i.e. The US Government will make getting oil from US controlled ground impossible.

Hardies only agreed to fund the compensation because they would have lost Govt business.

Big tobacco simply passed on the costs to the consumer.
Big Coffee, big Chocolate, etc ad nauseum simply pass it on in reality the consumer pays for the largess of the company it doesn't reduce the earnings it is written off to advertising and tax.
Do I really need to list them.

"Big bad corporations" is YOUR Jump to an extreme.I don't view them that way.

In essence I have advocated that Capitalism as it is practiced today especially by the 'big' is feral and needs controlling for the benefit of the people on a wider scale.
I am not against profit or business but I am against unelected few via corporation often from other country perverting and or subverting our elected government of any colour. Finish Capute end of, the rest is in projection on your part.i.e. the highly dubious assumption that the absence or muting of one extreme automatically mandates the other extreme. .....BOLLITICS

*They aren't altruistic they want Quid pro Quo. Business bang for their buck.*

Examinator, you really don't know much about seriously rich people.
Warren Buffett is 79. He still lives in the house that he bought
in the 50s for 30 grand. He's worth 45 billion or so. He does not
need any business bang for his buck. What he does in business, as
with many rich people, is purely for fun and challenge. Indeed he is altruistic,
but not in business, because that is not what business is about.
That is what charity is about. Do your homework, check out how
much rich Americans give in terms of philanthopy, it is huge.

*BP are currently doing what they are because if they don't a bigger power*

BP are doing what they are doing because they know perfectly well
that an even bigger power, ie US law suits, will be rolling in by
the thousands and they could well bankrupt the company. British
pensioners, who own a large chunk of BP, could lose it all.

*especially by the 'big' is feral and needs controlling for the benefit of the people on a wider scale.*

There are plenty of ferals who need controlling too, that is why
we have laws for both people and businesses.

*but I am against unelected few via corporation often from other country perverting and or subverting our elected government of any colour*

Quite simple, they are doing things that are illegal or they are not.
For that we have a court system, to sort it out. Just because a
politician is elected, does not make them a saint. That is also
why we need a separation of the powers.

Foxy, yes indeed that is all part of business, for a whole host
of reasons which I can explain, if you really want to know. But
its a long winded story lol.

Severin, consumer choice.

The mergers of Coles and Myer groups and the separate mergers of Woolworth and Safeway were sanctioned by the Keating government. So don’t blame me, I have never voted for the rancid side of politics and had it been my personal choice, I would have blocked the mergers in the name of the national good.

Secondly, despite the apparent Coles : Woolworth Oligopoly in retail I note, Coles : Myer has been broken back and other players like Aldi and Costco have both entered the retail markets, which dilutes the impact of retail concentration in the old chains.

So your comment on “choice” fails.

Regarding genes and progeny – the only thing I can offer my progeny happens to be the best thing.... my genes.

However, we do need to do more to ensure the meddlesome bunglers of the left are kept from teaching children,

“Nature” is so much better served when supported by productive “nurturing”,

instead of a lot of obsessive rubbish about equality and fairness.

Examinator, please, resist patronising, I do get the point.

Consumers are individuals, they buy from corporations.

Corporations go to a lot of trouble to ensure they retain individual consumer patronage.

For instance, the success of scurrilous organisations like PETA are based on the working to manipulate the concerns corporations have for their individual consumers.

I note, Mr Rudd & Co seem to show no regard for the individual owners of the houses their policies burnt down, the profligate waste of tax payers resources on stupid stimulous packages nor the opinion of superannuation paying consumers on the extra taxes been expropriated from the mining companies their superfunds are invested in.

As for nitpicking, if your opinion counted, I would be insulted.

However, I am not insulted, so what does that convey?

My own arching point would be to suggest

It is a pure indulgence of the inept to criticise the actions of the able and pretend that they would be so much better doing what we all know will never be put to the test.

Stern

I did not blame you for the competitive impasse of Woolies and Coles. Also all federal governments of either political stripe have not supported genuine competition in this country.

Consumers have reached a low level of apathy as a result of corporations running the government.

Below is a link to to a report by the chief executive of Choice magazine suggesting action that can be taken by consumers to achieve good service and high standards of produce. Clearly no government is going to act.

"I would like to see the introduction of ''super-complaints'' here. In Britain they work by allowing designated bodies to complain on behalf of consumers to the Office of Fair Trading or other regulator. They were used with great effect to expose overpricing in the motor industry.

In Australia they would give grass-roots organisations, which know what it is like for consumers, the power to refer troublesome market sectors to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Consumers have the right to know which companies persistently commit offences against consumers. A register should be set up to log such offences and reveal them for all to see.

These ideas and more are being discussed at the National Consumer Congress in Sydney with politicians, policymakers, regulators, consumer advocates and businesses."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/consumers-must-stop-accepting-second-best-20100315-q9id.html

Severin corporations running the government

That is a big claim and a fraudulent one.

For instance, the incumbent federal government is run by ex-union officials doing the bidding of their union bosses (which does explain some of the mess).

If corporations ran government do you think there would be so much dead-wood in the public service?

Of course not, the chain saw wielding forces of corporate efficiency would cut them down in an instant, just like Jeff did in Victoria over a decade ago.... and now needs to do again... a healthy forest (of woody bureaucrats) needs someone to clear the dead-wood from the forest floor and saw down the sick trees.

As for setting up new super-bureaucracies, well why not start with one to look at the public sector. Centerlink, for instance and how their high handed public officials ride roughshod over consumers.

Mind you we will probably end up needing a super-dooper-complaints dept to investigate the complaints against the super-complaints dept, such is the nature of inept and unaccountable public bureaucracies.

Speaking personally, as I usually do, I would rather individuals researched who they were buying from versus being taxed for some official of bland appearance and response, to be employed to list naughty vendors.

You see, the public are far more savvy than you give them credit for.

All you seem to be advocating is employ more useless people in pointless nanny positions, which adds nothing to the national wealth.

Better they find productive jobs, like hand crafting ornate widgets.

Dear Yabby,

If you've got the time to explain,
I've got the time to read it.

So go for it!

I'd love to hear from you.

"As for nitpicking, if your opinion counted, I would be insulted.

However, I am not insulted, so what does that convey?

My own arching point would be to suggest

It is a pure indulgence of the inept to criticise the actions of the able and pretend that they would be so much better doing what we all know will never be put to the test.
Posted by Stern, Monday, 21 June 2010 8:32:38 AM"

True. Very true.

Stern,
Test what? All I've advocated is a closer control on Corporations.

All those who wish to look at the topic from a dispassionate stance.
It seemsof the Capitalist dominated political "right" that the questionable dogma of "what is good for corporations is good for the people(at large)". That is not necessarily true but again the absence of one extreme doesn't emphatically mandate the other.
i.e. Greater legislative control doesn't necessarily mean the end of competitiveness ad nauseum.

Many on OLO say they are not opposed to regulation in principal,the same way 'the AGE' was not opposed to strikes but never supported one there was always exceptional circumstances.
Most of all their reactionary responses are more often than not are in the extreme.

NB I said at the inception of the "SP"Tax that polarised reaction was way too premature and dogmatic to many unknown variables. Also I said that If it goes to parliament it would be no where as onerous as argued. The point being that there is an element on OLO that are being politically manipulated by myopic business interests.

BP has been PROVEN to have ignored Warnings, 700 safety breaches and other amoral behaviour.
The incompetent/Govt instrumentality is an other issue as is investment motivations.

This topic is quite narrow and specific.

No matter how you slice it competition is an anathema to Corporations (any organization).
Their primary goals are to
- Ensure its longevity.
- Its ever increasing profits
Via - market power (ability to control all elements of its environment) regardless of consequence.
NB Regardless of Aldi, Costco et al Australia's supermarket is the most concentrated in the world.
Corporations simply respond to greater pressure.
The individual is irrelevant try get restitution or suing a corporation some time. They plan on mass statistical manipulative attitudes discouraging in depth analysis. Try getting details on front load washing machines or understanding the basis of their star rating or program presets. Or know faults.

Examinator i note you accuse BP of amoral behaviour.

If your assertion to 700 safety breaches is true, I think it would be immoral, not amoral.

Of course one might also ask

When are the writs to be issued by the regulators for these 700 breaches?

It would seem to me you are falling into the old nanny-state thinking

That copious regulation achieves something.

Regarding competition. The corporations who thrive in a capitalist system accept competition. It is an unavoidable consequence and stimulant to product quality, cheaper pricing and consumer satisfaction in general.

I would observe, it is where government holds a monopoly or is part of an oligopoly, like Telstra, the obscene Two airline agreement and power generation / delivery industries, that consumer expectations are ignored, prices sky rocket and product quality stagnates.

So your lust for “greater control of corporations” I would ask by who?

Government? – well they are inept at best and the Australian federal one of the day is a walking liability, especially if you have government endorsed and promoted roof insulation.

So if government is (clearly) incapable of enforcing the regulations you would demand it enacts, who on earth should?

When I consider the volumes of regulations, everything from trade agreements, companies legislation, employee legislation, consumer legislation and dangerous goods legislation, I ponder why many corporations bother?

All “regulation” does is add costs to the consumer, under the pretence that they are being protected from some possible wrong.

Which, as any sensible person knows, is a very expensive way of doing things.

But is does provide employment for some third rate public service flunky who could not keep a job in the real world.

"All “regulation” does is add costs to the consumer, under the pretence that they are being protected from some possible wrong."

Deregulation does the same thing, but with more sophisticated marketing.

Foxy, one way to understand what happens in the corporate world,
with the allocation of assets etc, is very similar to what
happens in the housing market. So that is perhaps an easy
way to explain it, for most people can relate to it.

People buy houses, but they may renovate them or parts of them.
They might knock a house down and rebuild a better one, as
the real estate value of the land does not justify the old
place anymore. They may buy 2 ajoining houses, knock both
down and build some units, for better use of the land.

Sometimes people will just buy a house as its cheap, give it
a coat of paint and make it look pretty, then resell it to
somebody who is impressed by the paint. Its all about
changing values and using the real estate to its most
effective value.

In the corporate world, there are people and companies who
do exactly the same, but with tiered old companies, or
undervalued companies. Or companies whose assets could be
better employed by other companies.

In the corporate world its often more complicated, because
there are so many owners, so it comes down to who owns more
then 50%.

Stern and other so minded

Corporations are not human therefore they have no conscience therefore by logical definition they are without morality....i.e. they have acted amorally.

To have morality they must be alive and possess a sense of right and wrong. Corporations are like guns a man made tool it is the users who is chooses the morality.

Corporations like all organizations (plus or minus, depending on the object of the organization) create, give cover, or encourage disconnect from the side of humanity that makes us a social being.

We tend to align ourselves with and even defining ourselves by our function in that corporation (tool of man)i.e. I'm the GM of XYZ Corporation (and therefore I'm important) why?
Consider these two actual examples:

A CEO put retrenched 2000 people out of work to increase the share price by 10cents. And added $1million dollars to his bonus share holding.

Or the corporation ran a smaller firm out of business depriving 300 people out of work so that the company would dominate the market and up the profit for the corporation.

BTW the BP breaches of safety and maintenance took place over 4 years . They still haven't fully cleaned up the damage from their Alaskan pipe leak. Then there was the refinery that needed repairs and upgrades but didn't get them ..ignoring safety issues. They paid their (inadequate...it hasn't discouraged them from short cuts) fines
They were carpeted by the US Congress and promised to fix "the 'culture' of short cuts" for a better return to the shareholders.
They with other oillers lobbied the govt to keep the laws loose and un costly (more profitable).
4 years down the line ....Oops the Gulf debacle.

Under law you are as guilty for corrupting an individual as the corrupted.

Which oil exec will to jail or be fired WITHOUT a Golden parachute for their part in corrupting the oversight authority?

claims of poor pensioners/superannuation, adding costs et al, "lust?" for power to control a man made tool are all BOLLITICS

*A CEO put retrenched 2000 people out of work to increase the share price by 10cents*

The CEO should be dismissed instantly. Because with 2000 required
people not at their jobs, the company could hardly function and
would start to go backwards fast.

OTOH a CEO who had 2000 extra people on the payroll as dead wood,
should be fired if he did not cut the dead wood and the company
functioned just as well without them.

*Or the corporation ran a smaller firm out of business depriving 300 people out of work so that the company would dominate the market and up the profit for the corporation.*

Once the smaller firm closed, the larger firm would have to hire
extra staff, to cope with the extra business. But it shows me
that you are looking at all of this from a very wrong angle,
more from ignorant compassion, then from how the economy works.

For of course, since the invention of machines, we have had people
screaming that workers would all lose their jobs and be unemployed
because of those machines. I was told by one caring mom, how those
evil computers would deprive her kids of jobs! Economies just
don't work that way I am afraid, as history shows.

If workers want increased wages, the only way to achieve them is
increasing productivity and that is what machines and efficient
ways of doing things are really all about. Profits are only
a very small part of the equasion, cutting out waste and doing
things more efficiently make far more difference. Everyone benefits,
from consumers to workers

Examinator

" It seems of the Capitalist dominated political "right" that the questionable dogma of <<"what is good for corporations is good for the people(at large)". That is not necessarily true but again the absence of one extreme doesn't emphatically mandate the other.
i.e. Greater legislative control doesn't necessarily mean the end of competitiveness ad nauseum ".>>

I absolutely agree Examinator with your points, in fact there is no evidence whatsoever
to support the benevolence or benefit of Corporations to mankind,
but there is mountains of evidence proving the contrary.

If you looked at Nigeria for example, a country or business opportunity free of regulatory constraints (sic),
the Corporate behaviour there could be considered downright sociopathic and of no benefit to the Nigerian people whatsoever.

Your original and main point is a given, and those who think that large collective democratic representation
(like a Govt) should not regulate Corporate behaviour, is off their dial and living in a fairy land of
Right Wing Mantra and berserk philosophy.

They're the same people who also believe that an individual can negotiate
an employment contract, when the fact is that most employee's are not qualified to represent themselves.

In the world of Stern and others, 7 yr olds would still be down the coal mines!,
or in the workhouses of the rich being fed a bowl of gruel a day.

Let's not beat around the bush Examinator, it is a proven historical fact that
Corporations can not and do not act in the best interest of anyone but themselves.

fait accompli ..finit.

Dear Yabby,

Thanks for your real-estate analogy.
However, as far as I know Real estate
is still based on the competitive
efforts of private capitalists whose
owners are not capable of exerting
enormous political and economic power,
such as those of large corporations.
The size and economic power of the
major corporations are immense.

The largest corporations are linked together
through interlocking directorates,
social networks consisting of individuals who
are members of several different corporate boards.
As I've stated previously, these coporations are
able to apply political leverage on national
policy, winning favours for themselves,
influencing the country's tax structure, and so on.

They have in the past also had an impressive record
of illicit corporate activity. For example, in the
US, Exxon was discoverd had paid nearly $60 million to
government officials in fifteen nations, including
$27 million to several Italian political parties.
Lockheed had distributed nearly $200 million in bribes
and payoffs in several countries, and the resulting
scandals implicated the prince of the Netherlands,
the prime minister of Japan, military leaders in
Columbia, and cabinet members in Italy.

Overwhelmed by the size of their task, American federal
investigators offered corporations immunity in return
for full confessions. In all, more than 500 major
American corporations, most of them multi-national,
admitted giving bribes or other questionable payments
to government officials in order to obtain benefits
for themselves.

I wonder how much is given to the Liberal Party in the
form of "donations," by the Mining Companies, here in
Australia?

*The size and economic power of the
major corporations are immense*

Absolutaly. They create the wealth, they
create the jobs. BHP alone pays 6.3 billion$
in tax. Without them we would frankly be stuffed.

Yet clearly they don't have much power, as we
see by the present attempt of Govt fiscal
thuggery, where they want to claim up to 77%
tax from these corporations, for a bit of
good old pre election pork barrelling, to
to try to impress the punters who actually
vote. There are clearly no limits to the greedy
lust for political power!

So what it comes down to is that politicians need
corporations to have a healthy economy, which the
punters insist on, but the moment they think that
they can afford to, they have no qualms about
sticking the proverbial knife in, in their
own self interest.

I should hope that corporations try to protect themselves,
in the interests of their shareholders. If the Govt
wanted 77% tax from your hubby, you would be protesting
too.

*They have in the past also had an impressive record
of illicit corporate activity.*

Hang on, thats guilt by association. You are a woman,
I don't blame you for those women committing murder,
robbery, drug dealing etc.

Corporations, just like people vary.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-kevs-77-effective-tax-rate-20100617-yhw2.html

Foxy, that story contains all the figures by the way, you are
free to check them out.

Examinator .... strange, me and all those “others so mind”.....

So before I go any further,

Hello all you other “so minded” folk out there, maybe we could get together and form the “so minded party for the insistence of lucid posting”.

Now to examinator, your assertion that corporation are amoral instead of immoral fails, they cannot be amoral, any more than they can be immoral.

However is we apply the more realistic assumption that corporations are merely the product of the will of their shareholders and the board of directors, we would see them as sharing the morality or immorality of said shareholders and board of directors.

As to likening them to a gun, yes and they are probably better likened to a large crowbar, simply because they are a method by which people achieve greater productivity through combined activity.

As for aligning ourselves with job titles.. you might but you do not speak for me,

I much prefer to just take the money, rather than the title on the door or the company car.

As for running small companies out of business.. .well maybe that happens but that is the will of the owners and would have happened regardless they were an incorporated entity or an unincorporated partnership.

As to the rest of your post, the BOLLITICS bit:

I fear your sense of the hysteric has overcome you, I suggest a quiet nap this afternoon and leave your set of junior building blocks in the cupboard.

Dear Yabby,

Sorry we're not going to see eye to eye on
this one.

The facts remain that multinational
corporations dominate the economies
of many less developed countries,
influencing the level of wages, the kind
of crops that are grown, or how national
resources are allocated.

Even developed nations
are subject to this influence: more than half
of Canada's industry is owned by American
and British multinationals, making it
difficult for the Canadians to control their
own economy. In fact, American corporate
industry abroad is now on the the largest
econmies in the world. Such a situation
raises the prospect of neocolonialism,
the informal political and economic domination
of one society over another, such that the
former is able to exploit the labour and
resources of the latter for its own purposes.

The multinationals are joining nation-states
as the major actors on the
international stage, for they inevitably develop
worldwide interests and the "foreign policies"
that go with them.

As I've stated previously,
these huge organisations have developed much
more quickly than have the means of applying
social control over them.

Dedicated to the pursuit
of profit and subject to the authority of no one
nation, run by a tiny elite of managers and directors
who have a largely fictional responsibility to their
far-flung shareholders they represent a very disturbing
and growing concentration of global power and
influence.

Foxy, corporations certainly have economic power, but that
is their role. They just don't have political power,
or they would not be nationalised in the third world as
they are, think of Venezuela, Zimbabwe and similar.

If they don't invest in the third world, we complain
that people are poor there. When they do create economic
activity, jobs etc, now you are complaining too!

*more than half
of Canada's industry is owned by American
and British multinationals,*

So how much do Canadian pension funds have invested
in other countries and in these multinationals?
Today capital is globalised, that is the reality.
Nearly all Australian pension funds insist on having
part of their assets in other countries, to spread
risk.

*Dedicated to the pursuit
of profit and subject to the authority of no one
nation*

Hang on, they are subject to the authority and laws
of many nations, spreading risk makes sense, given
that no single Govt can really be trusted.

Yes they set out to make a profit, that is their
job. Just like your hubby sets out to profit by
his wages, when he goes to work.

The thing is, today it takes large coroporations,
to make the huge investments required in many
industries. When drilling a single hole searching
for oil can cost 100m$, or a microprocessor factory
can cost 5 billion, you are not going to do these
things via a mom and pop business. That is why
we need corporations.

Stern and others

A corporation is an entity under law it has no morals of its own therefore it is is amoral.i.e. without morals
Logic dictates that change the operators nominally one would change the Corporation's actions. The corporation has is not sentient and there lies the problem. See my "gives cover etc"

However as anyone ofey in with Organisation behavioural psychology (i.e. the behaviour of individuals within the organisations) will tell you that long term organisations develop 'cultures'. These stem from how aggressive the leadership and therefore organization is in pursuing its 'goals'.NB it is a *collective* factor not necessarily that of one of individual.The individuals would act differently as individuals.

In the case of Commercial corporations the one and only over arching goal (today) is *More* profit. All other impediments to this are to be eliminated....the greater the drive/focus the greater risk of 'the end justifies the means.

Your biggest furphy is that a Corporation reflects the wishes of the share holders....it does not. At best it reflects the views of the biggest investors via their selection of management. E.g. try and change a board decision at a News Corp GM..(good luck)

As for the superannuation try and change who the fund decides to invest in. Try and pick and choose....I dare you.
At best you get select from column A or column B.

They also cross invest fund managers, try and work out who the other people invest in. It is beyond the average person. So enough of the freedom of choice nonsense.
Its Like governments you have to choose from a limited selection and good luck if you don't like the party's choice of candidate. Even at a branch level.

BTW job/title is the third identifier people mention on meeting someone for the first time. The port was for others too.

Stern, your argument is superficial aid overtly influenced by Political dogma.

Dear Yabby,

Lets look at the record...

American-based multinationals have an
impressive record of interference in the
affairs of the host countries, with activities
ranging from bribery of local officials to
attempts to overthrow foreign governments.
As long ago as 1953, international oil
companies helped to overturn the populist
Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mussadegh and to
consolidate the dictatorial rule of the shah -
thereby incurring the enduring wrath of the
Iranian people toward the US. In 1954, a dispute
between the United Fruit Company and the elected
president of Guatemala led to the president's
ouster and a period of dictatorship. In 1970,
ITT, fearing for the safety of its investments,
plotted to overthrow the elected president
of Chile; the coporation not only spent millions
of dollars within Chile for that purpose, but
even secretly asked the US government for help
and offered to contribute a further $1 million
toward any federal expenses involved.

When these and similar facts became public in the
mid-1970s, Congress demanded extensive investigations
of illicit corporate activity.

Exxon, it was soon discovered, had paid nearly $60
million to gernment officials in fifeteen nations,
including $27 million to several Italian political
parties. Lockheed had distributed nearly $200 million
in bribes and payoffs in several countries, and the
resulting scandals implicated the prince of the
Netherlands, the prime minister of Japan, military
leaders in Columbia, and cabinet members of Italy.

Overwhelmed by the size of their task, federal
investigators offered corporations, immunity in
return for full confessions. IN all, more than 500
major American corporations, most of them
multinationals, admitted giving bribes, or other
questionable payments to government officials in
order to obtain benefits for themselves.

I'm not going to continue to argue with you,
as its getting a bit tedious repeating the same things.

Corporations motives are purely selfish - to exploit cheap
labour and resources on an international scale for the
benefit of a handful of stockholders in wealthy countries.

Anyway, I've said everything I've wanted to say on this
topic. You of course are entitled to your opinions.
But not your facts.

I didn't want interject in this discussion again, but Foxy's riveting
and depressingly accurate account of history has incited me to add my bit.

"With history comes context" I hope it's fair say Foxy, was the point of your last post.
I remember all the events to which you refer, in my lifetime.
And the facts speak for themselves.

No doubt about it, Corporations are not beneficial.

*Corporations motives are purely selfish - to exploit cheap
labour and resources on an international scale for the
benefit of a handful of stockholders in wealthy countries.*

You see Foxy, this is where you lose it. For some strange
reason, you seem to expect corporations to become tear jerkers
like yourself or Examinator, wearing your hearts on your
sleeves through life, when that is not their role.

You forget that people are driven by self interest. You love
your husband, because how he makes YOU feel. We went through
all this in the love is based on self interest debate, but
I don't think you ever got your mind around it.

Read up a bit of basic evolutionary psychology, they explain
it rather well.

Yes, some corporations have paid bribes, interfered in
politics etc, so have plenty of American Govts. So why single
out corporations?

Fact is that in much of the third world, bribery is a way of
life amongst people, so corporations are hardly the only
sinners.

If a corporation goes to the third world, invests scarce capital,
takes risks of losing the lot, creates job that clearly pay
more then the locals used to earn, or they would not work there,
creates economic growth by which the people of that country
benefit, who on earth should care if its based on self interest?

For win-win outcomes are indeed the best outcomes in life.

Stern and others

A corporation is an entity under law it has no morals of its own therefore it is is amoral.i.e. without morals
Logic dictates that change the operators nominally one would change the Corporation's actions. The corporation has is not sentient and there lies the problem. See my "gives cover etc"

However as anyone ofey in with Organisation behavioural psychology (i.e. the behaviour of individuals within the organisations) will tell you that long term organisations develop 'cultures'. These stem from how aggressive the leadership and therefore organization is in pursuing its 'goals'.NB it is a *collective* factor not necessarily that of one of individual.The individuals would act differently as individuals.

In the case of Commercial corporations the one and only over arching goal (today) is *More* profit. All other impediments to this are to be eliminated....the greater the drive/focus the greater risk of 'the end justifies the means.

Your biggest furphy is that a Corporation reflects the wishes of the share holders....it does not. At best it reflects the views of the biggest investors via their selection of management. E.g. try and change a board decision at a News Corp GM..(good luck)

As for the superannuation try and change who the fund decides to invest in. Try and pick and choose....I dare you.
At best you get select from column A or column B.

They also cross invest fund managers, try and work out who the other people invest in. It is beyond the average person. So enough of the freedom of choice nonsense.
Its Like governments you have to choose from a limited selection and good luck if you don't like the party's choice of candidate. Even at a branch level.

BTW job/title is the third identifier people mention on meeting someone for the first time. The port was for others too.

Stern, your argument is superficial aid overly influenced by Political dogma.

Yabby and others,

I call your evolutionary psychology and raise you behavioural psychology particularly in the field of organizations.

You seem to have either missed the essence of what is being said or stuck in the time warped mental mangle of Maggie Thatcher. Business can do no wrong and people should pick up the pieces.

Deny if you can that the public picks up the suffering and the bill on all counts. Yet all these events were caused because various Corporations individuals did what they knew was wrong.

The Medical scientist that uncovered the problems of thalidomide did the world a favour but because he fudged numbers, he later lived in disgrace regardless of the good he'd done.

The rogue trader who bankrupted the 300 yo British bank went to jail for his crime against a corporation.

Consider this the who went to jail for Bhopal, the lies of Big Tobacco, GFC, the pipeline failure in Alaska, the 700 'serious' safety breaches of BP over 4 years,after the spill is over etc?
Answer no one. Even Tony will get a golden parachute.
Comm bank were caught selling dodgy FC loans who did time ?
A lot of farmers certainly lost big time and had to spend even more to recover something.

The limited liability of Corporation and the web of legal dodges covers, encourages ONE side of human nature, That is the problem.
One can't effectively police morality where there is greater incentives to ignore it with impunity. We as legal entities are responsible for what we do therefore why aren't corporations.
Answer the political/financial power they can usurp.

There are alternatives/solutions...simply put,it is the predilection for political security blankets and (ab)use of corporate financial power that stops many people from facing the truth and then considering alternatives.

Speaking of concern how about this gem that just arrived on my email.

Last month a world-wide survey was conducted by the UN.

The only question asked was:

"Could you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"

The survey was a massive failure because of the following:

1. In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.
2. In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.
3. In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant.
4. In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.
5. In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.
6. In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.
7. In the USA they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.
8. In Australia they hung up as soon as they heard "the call centre delay".

:-D

Examinator, you really can't get your little mind around this, but
I will prevail.

If I came to you and employed you as my investment consultant and
manager, and you with your sense of compassion started giving away
my money to the charities of your choice, you would go to jail for
defrauding me of my assets.

Similarly members of company boards have certain legal
responsibilities and obligations, towards those who entrust their
savings with them and the companies which they oversee. They
cannot do as they please, no matter how long the heartstrings.

If I own the company, I can do as I please, not so when others
have shares in the company.

If people are breaking the law out there, whether it's in the name
of a corporation or as private individuals, we have a legal system
to deal with them. Don't blame the criminal, if the legal system
is crook and they are not dealt with appropriately.

In business the question is not what is moral, but what is legal.
That sets the boundaries. If you as a citizen think that something
which you consider immoral, should be declared illegal, you are
free to approach your political representative to change the law

"Similarly members of company boards have certain legal
responsibilities and obligations, towards those who entrust their
savings with them and the companies which they oversee. They
cannot do as they please, no matter how long the heartstrings."

Ah! yes indeedy!!

Keep the shareholders happy. No matter what the cost to infrastructure/staffing/service.

And once the shareholders are happy (unemployed but happy), then the Board members are happy;-and thus they are rewarded.

So, then there is further pursuit of profit+dividends= minus infrastructure/staffing/service= increased profit/dividends= fat bonus.
So then there is further pursuit of profit+dividends= minus infrastructure/staffing/service= increased profit/dividends= fat bonus. So then there is further pursuit........

One must indeed prevail when dealing with little minds.

The largest corporations are linked together
through interlocking directorates,
social networks consisting of individuals who
are members of several different corporate boards.
As I've stated previously, these coporations are
able to apply political leverage on national
policy, winning favours for themselves,
influencing the country's tax structure, and so on.

They have in the past also had an impressive record
of illicit corporate activity. For example, in the
US, Exxon was discoverd had paid nearly $60 million to
government officials in fifteen nations, including
$27 million to several Italian political parties.
Lockheed had distributed nearly $200 million in bribes
and payoffs in several countries, and the resulting
scandals implicated the prince of the Netherlands,
the prime minister of Japan, military leaders in
Columbia, and cabinet members in Italy. [Foxy]

In a Nutshell..you have it all in one Foxy. A CEOs primary function is to network network and network via placing themselves on as many Boards as possible and participating in as many ventures and 'charitable' organisations as possible to build up their wealth of portfolios; to one day 'land the big fish' ie head one of the largest corporations raking in the big money. Dismiss the concept of acknowledging or valuing long term staff loyalty, they will weed out who ever they do not see as fitting into their scheme, direction or vision for their short term role to make as many dollars in as short a time as possible. Most CEOs have worked with and met are ruthless, cold hearted, made of steel, 'using', in terms of bludging off employees and the company, and too lousy to chip in a dollar for the 20 year employees retrenched and/or those long term directors who actually performed the majority of the work building up the companies.

I guess it just goes to show why we have to be really careful about
where we invest our hard earned savings, for if there were a bunch
of emotionally engulfed houswives on the board, their bleating
hearts would likely dominate any sense of responsibility towards
those peoples savings.

Yet if your local bank dipped into your savings and withdrew
money from your accounts to give away to various charities
without your consent, you would be screaming from the rooftops!

But when heartstrings are concerned, rational thinking hardly
comes into it, as we well know and this thread proves yet once
again.

Examinator, Stern and others...

so nice to be considered part of a larger group

Firstly your maladjusted version of shareholders wishes - The wishes of shareholders are always reflected in the decisions of the company because

If a shareholder disagrees, they can vote with their money by selling their shares and investing elsewhere.

We do not get similar opportunity to reflect our displeasure on government.
Although today we see the return of public executions,

with the Australian Labor party intent on cutting off its own head in public.

As for superannuation... we employ superannuation executives to make some decisions in our name, when we invest in unit trusts or any other managed fund and we can always swap funds if we wish no different to how we can choose between different real estate agents to sell houses for us.

Your comment re - so enough of the freedom of choice nonsense

You seem to project a strong sense of angst about the range of opportunities which millions of other people find perfectly suited to meet their needs.

Maybe it is an envy that they have more than you to invest or maybe you are just a small, twisted soul who likes to bolster a sense of self importance by pretending you have an alternate solution to processes which work well for other people.
Maybe you should set up your own fund and see how well you fare.... but don’t ask me to invest with you... your credentials here offer a portents of certain failure... maybe go to government, they have a perfect scorecard at backing losers – and this labor mob, well Rudd was going to and Gillard certainly will, lose the next election

Regarding your opinion to my argument... think what you will.

I am certainly sufficiently superficial to be able to ignore the whining of the absurd and whilst you may criticise my choice of political dogma, it is mine to make. You will not change it and arguing against it will likely only enhance the influence my view may carry with others.

Stern, Just for You.

Your latest rant has proved my point you are wanting to talk politics yet the topic has NOTHING to do with the that.

Well apart from the rhetoric show me WHICH CORPORATION has the majority or the share holders are 'the mums and dad' DIRECTLY.
*Please* show me which Superfund or management trust allows its rank and file (M&D contributors) to determine which SPECIFIC stocks they or the fund can invest in? In most instances these organizations have their own profit agenda not what the people want.

You know or should know my depiction of the choice is limited to a percentage of column A B C etc. The whole point of super is to be a power block.e.g. go to your super fund and say you don't want to invest in BP but the rest of the industrials are are OK. Good luck! You will be told either column A or column B end of.
Did you have any choice in the Corps in the various Column A,B etc investing in Derivatives?

In short you show me specifically where I'm maladjusted (wrong in fact)!

The structure of corporate ownership is so complex and dominated by OTHER corporations as to render choice for the M&D moot.

In short like many who share your predilection you can't prove your assertion or disprove mine. You repeatedly resort to gamesmanship via Gain saying, insult, Rote Dogma, and other manipulative answers rather than actual objective analysis.
Errt!
Wrong answer
Thank you for playing

Obviously you lack the skills to understand how it is an individual choice that determines which, among hundreds and thousands of superfunds or shareholdings an individual elects to invest in.

Until you can comprehend those few words and how an investor chooses the superfund or shareholding which is most aligned to personal expectations, such as 'green' investments or 'ethical' investment or investments in a particular industry segment or with a particular company which has experience in a particular business or product type, etc, you will never understand what myself and others (presumably like me) have been telling you.

Denying the clarity of what I have said, by applying your own muddled and foggy interpretation and caveats to what is as clear as a summers day, merely confirms what I previously stated

You ... "arguing against it will likely only enhance the influence my view may carry with others."

regarding "Thank you for playing"

and your previous comment

"You repeatedly resort to gamesmanship via Gain saying, insult, Rote Dogma, and other manipulative answers"

One is inclined to observe we could suggest either

a matter of you, a petard and being hoisted

versus

plain old hypocrisy.

your choice, of which applies most accurately to you matters not to me.