"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.