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