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.