The Corporation - A Critique Part 4

[Carbolicsmokeball26]

I'm enjoying your critique. I think you are correct in some points, that there are some poor arguments, and attempts at vilification, etc. However, I also think they make many good points. The best one, in my mind, is about the nature of a corporation as purely a profit machine. They could have made this point stronger. For me, the true problem is very complicated, but a central issue arises because a corporation has no body to be incarcerated, and also because decision-makers in a corp owe

[Carbolicsmokeball26]

a duty only to the corporation ITSELF. A CEO actually is bound to do a behaviour that will harm people, but make money for the corporation, so long as it is profitable AFTER all liabilities have been settled. I think this could largely be avoided, if all the law linked punishments not to damages, (or even tripling the damages), but by linking punishment to PROFIT. Otherwise, profit can still sometimes be made REGARDLESS of damages. Sounds fine, except we may be talking about health, safety, etc.

[goPistons06]

Advocate, you should write down your critique of the corporation so that you can make it more accesible

[whitesox889]

Basically, the documentary says that the Corporations should pay the workers more than they have to. Which is charity. I agree, people should give more to charity. But the manufacturing companies shouldn't just give more money in charity, all non-poor people in america should.

[danjohns85]

Epic Fail

[itcantalk]

wage slavery! labour creates all wealth

[anders3130]

@kaziqbal

you don't think that that person had to work to make the wheel?

[itcantalk]

profit is the money a corporation has userped from the environment or the workers.

[whitesox889]

Why don't you go live in some communist country then? Learn some economics please.

[DCAVGNfan]

Why is it that these people always cry about how sweatshop workers get paid $x an hour yet the sale price is so much higher?

These people evade so much reality it is not funny. Such as the fact that it takes more mind power to come up with the equipment and materials to make these products than any sweatshop worker could muster in 20 lifetimes.

[RoryRidleyDuff]

This segment of the critique is hopelessly naive about the benevolence of corporate capitalism. If this critique is intended to address 'misleading' statements, it should not itself mislead the public about the benevolence of corporations. In particular, the tendency of corporations is to benefit shareholders and key employees disproportionately, and increase the proportion of 'employees' with unstable, uncertain, less than full-time jobs. This is not commented on by this author.

[itcantalk]

poor farm technology? farming is a bad alternative to making not enough to feed your family, and in farming you could feed your entire family? im lost in your comment, they are more editorial than any documentary ive seen, really you have almost nothing to back up your opinion, unless you count piles and piles of money in the hands of the few.

[LuqmanNaq]

Current economic 'success' and domination of the US/EU is down to pure-capitalism by any strech of the imagination it's down to their government and corporations co-operation. U cannot deny that bailouts, subsidies, Tariffs, WTO policies, etc have been an integral part of US/EU economic sucess? I have yet to see that admitted by pro-capitalists websites, I've yet to see such mass-condemnation of it as I have seen about increasing Taxes on Corporations.

[LuqmanNaq]

Regarding sweatshops Naomi Klien's book no-logo goes in depth. Also if you watched the interview of Charles Kernighan on the corporation 2 disc or went to the NLC website he himself says that the workers tell him they don't want people to boycott they want them to demand better working conditions. Also how their country got into that state is far more complex than corrupt regimes A) how were they funded (recently banking and others corporations have been known to assist corrupt regimes).

[LuqmanNaq]

Also the idea that the corporations are doing a great job because they put 'sweatshops' in poor countries, is like saying someone is a philanthropist for giving a homeless man one's half-eaten person when one has a £10 note in one's pocket and A million dollars in one's bank account. The WTO polcies are heavily inclined in favour of US/EU/Chinas dominance the subsidies, tariffs, are in their favour, the current model is not 'fair' by any standard....

[LuqmanNaq]

U may argue that the policies are pure capitalism however I rarely see mass campaigns from pro-capitalists against government bailouts (although now there are, even though it has been happening for a long time), the WTO's imbalance and principles that make other countries reliant on US corporations/banks to provide them with investment and opportunity. I have yet to see the mass campaign of condemnation those acts above which Jim Rogers calls socialism for the rich.

[paulk314]

So called "capitalists" do not always advocate capitalism. Those of us who know what Capitalism actually means do, and we do argue against "socialism for the rich".

[permanentmauve]

there is nothing more blighting to a downtown than a walmart at it's periphery. the mom and pop *cannot* compete. you would have them believe that the corporation does them a favor by putting them out of business.

[chopsky]

These people seem to be forget that the woman who chooses to work for 3c, would otherwise be doing something FAR worse with her life without that job. She is given the choice as to whether she wants to work there or not. It is not forced labour. In providing her with that job, the company is putting her in a better position than she was previously, and regardless of how much better that position may be, it is still better. However you look at it, these 'sweatshops' add value to these countries.

[EasyEs]

I make only .001$ for every barrel of oil my company finds and pumps if that!! Thoes women are making a far better profit margin than I am on the products they provide society.

[leandrov5]

They do not raise the wages as they grow. As it grows it needs to cut cost, because if it doesnt cut cost, it loses out on profit. Thats the point, so it outsources, why pay more workers more money when you can pay more workers less.

[Advocate1234]

One of McDonald's greatest strategies to destroy competition is to raise wages.

[Duckthunda]

tell that to the million people that lost there homes recentlly. and as for no evidence, read allan greenspan 's book where he attributes the economic recovery in the 90's to what he calls "increased worker insecurity ." and you didn't answer my question, do you know anyone who isn't a contract worker?

[Advocate1234]

Yes.

[Duckthunda]

3rd correction... you don't do that by paying people more money. sorry i'm using a ps3 controller to type this.

[Duckthunda]

l. correction. what i ment to say was, like all institutions a corporations primary responsibility is to it's own survival. and by law maximise profits to it's shareholders. you do that by paying people more money.

[Advocate1234]

It should maximize profits, that is the price of efficiency. This also lowers the cost of living making people able to purchase more with the same wages.

[Duckthunda]

corporations don't pay people higher wages as they grow. in fact it's the opposite. people are working longer hours for fewer wages then they have in 30 years. do you know anyone who isn't a contract worker? 30 years ago we had job securite. like all institutions, corporations must, by law maximise profits for there shareholders. you don't do that by paying people more money.

[Advocate1234]

Your just spouting your own assumptions of which there is no evidence.

[sisalo]

You're

[machbar]

I'm demonstrating that Canada's socialized system of single-payer government-run medical health care system delivers better results than the screwed up, unfair, inefficient, profit-driven system in the USA.

[Advocate1234]

Mark:

Did you really watch the video? The "Sick in America" video?

Because it talks about the problems of both systems and has a third alternative.

[machbar]

Yes I watched it. Stossel is always provocative and interesting. I wonder what those mall drop-in clinics charge for brain surgery. You are welcome to the third alternative and I'll stick with our system in Canada, thanks.

[EasyEs]

Do you live in Canada have you used our health care and have you also used American health care like I have. I will tell you that in no way is the quality of care in Canada better even after you wait months and months longer for it. The cost of waiting for medical procedures causes much much more incurred cost down the line. Don't believe me try working sick and see how productive you are. Try including the cost of pain drugs and the addictions they cause, the cost of the sickness getting worse

[machbar]

I don't doubt that individual cases will contradict World Health Organization statistics. I'm citing a study which shows the overall, or average level of health care. Based on my experience with the two systems, I have had excellent treatment in Canada but I would not want to be without insurance in the USA. The insured in USA often get top notch treatment. But people in Canada don't lose their life savings and their houses because they happen to have cancer.

[Advocate1234]

That's the whole point Mark. I really wish you watched the video. I posted the partial YouTube link for it. Did you miss it?

[machbar]

No I didn't miss it. I don't agree with its analysis or proposed solutions.

[Advocate1234]

Did you just watch the first video, or all 6 (I think there were 6)?

It outlined very clearly why America's healthcare needs improvement. It talked about our tax code. It explained what areas of medicine have reduced the price and why. It explained why the problem is any third-pary payer, whether the government or insurance. It explained health savings accounts, which worked. It explained RediClinic which is offering care at extremely cheap prices and will continue to do so.

[machbar]

Yes, I watched from beginning to end. Do you need an affidavit? The system it proposes is still for-profit which is an incentive I believe is best removed from the health care system. The longer I treat you, the more I make. The more extensive the operation, the more I make. You think that's great. I don't. We live in different worlds. You say "So what, I don't have health insurance". I say: what happens when you have a catastrophic illness or accident?

[Advocate1234]

Well, I'm glad you watched it, but you seem to miss the examples where the price goes down. If it is an extensive operation that many people need, the price will go down via competition.

The fact that I don't have health insurance is the gasoline example from the film. If nobody had health insurance, the price for everything would go down because of the profit motive.

Lasik and plastic surgery have dropped while technology has gone up. Nobody needs insurance for that, but prices drop.

[machbar]

I didn't miss a thing. You can get your bypass operation at Wal-Mart if you want. I'm sticking with the (however flawed) Canadian system for now thanks.

[akakkios]

Cheers!

[Advocate1234]

Lasik eye surgery is a extremely delicate operation on one's eye to see 20/20 or even 20/15 vision. Today, you can even get it done for the cost of less than eye glasses or contacts.

When 5/6 of the economy works by bringing people products at the cheapest price, this will do it do. But, even so. If everyone just had insurance for critical care, the price of check-ups would drop significantly.

[akakkios]

By the way I will have to change my quotations, I thoght it was Michael Corleone who stated "I have always believed that helping your fellow man is profitable in every sense, personally and bottom line." guess he wasnt the only one thinking that way...

[Advocate1234]

Well, I hate to break it to you, but you only make profit in America by giving your neighbor what he wants.

[akakkios]

The central problem of the debate in all this lies on "initial distribution", if you examine the theory, the theorists, (jesus) even its defenders over here... you can clearly see how the discussion ends with the "distribution" problem, I have no critique against the mathematical model of the theory, its perfect, my question is, can we justify poverty and death just because we believe "status quo" capitalism is better to a more civilized one?

[Advocate1234]

Are you seriously still one of these people going to try redistribution again?

[BuffaloBru]

okay, this is getting ridiculous. Nobody is qualified to plan the economy. That is the beauty of a capitalist system: it's not planned! Everybody specializes in their area of expertise and it all comes together for the good of everyone. Demand establishes what goods producers make. There will never be a successful "planned" economy, because no one is qualified for that.

[Advocate1234]

Thank god you said it. I was ready to lose it. That is why I stopped arguing with him.

[Psy500]

You ignore that the more capital accumulates the more power the people that own that capital has leading to less choice, for example the size of Microsoft most of the choice in software comes from outside the capitalist system and from free software, it is Microsoft, Apple or the far vast numbers of OSs made outside the profit motive and most servers run of BSD proving engineers are far superior to capitalists as capitalists are unqualified to make design decisions.

[Advocate1234]

Do you have any evidence that more choice comes from outside the capitalist system, because I haven't heard such absurdity in a long time.

Most software in America is for profit.

[Psy500]

Most software is America is for use, you have to take in account all the software written by engineers for a company to be used in the companies goal to make profit elsewhere. Also software written to make workers job easier in the workers spare time.

Another example is the Internet, most of the content on the Internet is for use and not for profit.

[Advocate1234]

If it is to make the workers job easier, that is capitalism.

[Psy500]

No it is not, capitalism is production for profit. Production only for use is the opposite of capitalism, so if a worker makes his life easier interdependently outside the drive for profit you can't call it capitalism. If the company orders the worker to produce for internal use only while capitalism plays a role it is for the most part of market forces.

[Advocate1234]

What do you mean? Capitalism always always people to produce things for their own use. But, if someone asks you to recreate your product for them, you can do it for a profit if you choose.

Moreover, if you create a product, capitalism prevents others from stealing from you.

[Psy500]

Yes but internal use of production has less market forces on it. Also when workers use their own time to improve their tasks that is totally outside the profit motive.

"Moreover, if you create a product, capitalism prevents others from stealing from you."

This actually limits developments, the reason why the open source community has such rapid progress is people are free to improve it themselves and release it back.

[Advocate1234]

You're so stuck on this profit motive. You need property rights, which are only protected under capitalism.

[Psy500]

Also it is industrialization that has provided all the benefits of modern life and not capitalism. The fact these poor countries are still poor are proof, look at Buenos Aires were co-op of workplaces taken from capitalists are vastly more efficient then when they were run by a private capitalist, the workers in these co-ops state because they take pride in their work knowing it is not being stolen by capitalists.

[Advocate1234]

What?! Capitalism brought the Industrial Revolution.

You state that they are more efficient, but they are not. They produce goods that most people do not want and it is the reverse: The stole the property that was already built by Capitalists.

[Psy500]

Capitalism produces tons of goods nobody wants thus why capitalism has to engineer demand, so their goods are mostly in demands.

Capitalism stole property built by peasants and slaves.

[Advocate1234]

If goods are produced that nobody wants, companies go out of business and experience losses. It is impossible to produce goods people do not want under Capitalism.

This is by far the worst argument you have made yet.

Any command economy that produce stockpiles of goods that people do not want and have shortages of most consumer goods. You simply haven't looked at history. See Venezuela now.

What peasants? What slaves? Capitalism has brought more to the poor masses than anything else.

[Psy500]

Capitalism engineers want.

Venezuela is not a command economy most is private enterprise. Also the idea that you can't plan a economy is absurd, capitalists are less qualified the engineers thus make worse plans then engineers would. The problem with the USSR was the engineers were not in charge of planning.

As for peasants and slaves don't you know history, capitalism got its start from taking the property of peasants and exploiting the labor of slaves.

[Advocate1234]

Okay, I'm done with the conversation.

I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks that engineers should have planed the economy and that is why the USSR failed.

There is no hope for you.

[Psy500]

Look at the USSR military power which the planners of the USSR allowed engineers to plan production for, not what the people wanted but they did do a good job supplying the military.

Also what qualifications do capitalist have? They don't go to engineering school to learn how to plan production why would they be better at planning production?

[Advocate1234]

I'm done, this is just getting to be absurd. I feel like I'm talking to someone who was locked in the closet for the last 100 years.

[Psy500]

Your the one that puts faith in unqualified capitalists. During WWII all major powers relied on engineers to plan the war effort, if engineers could do such a great job planning the war time economy why would peace time economies be any different?

[machbar]

The notion that exploitive, low wages in developing countries is a good sign and means that people can buy more for the money they earn is just so warped.

Have you ever heard of "Fair Trade"?

[Advocate1234]

Yes, I have heard of "Fair Trade."

Yet, I don't believe it is compassionate to remove the best of a few bad choices from the poorest people in the world.

"Fair Trade" sounds nice, but eventually, the corporations are just not going to want to set up shop in these foreign countries if it cuts into their profits.

This leaves the poor people in other Countries with some really bad alternatives.

[machbar]

I'm relieved to hear your deeper motivation is compassion for those less fortunate than yourself. At least we have that in common.

[Advocate1234]

That is the truth with most people on the Right.

The truth is people like me are tired of explaining to people why policies like the Minimum Wage, Social Security, and other government policies hurt the poor; it just takes too long to explain to everyone who votes.

But, it is easier to just side with people who are anti-abortion and run policy with a few quick soundbites.

[BuffaloBru]

Advocate is exactly right. These people have work in the first place because of these corporations. Would a better solution be to fire them, leaving them on the street? They would probably end up having to sell their bodies into prostitution. And no, you cannot compare prices like you were, you have to look at PPP. What appears like a low salary to us is not at all. Our poor live so well! They are richer than the rich in a lot of places!

[redstartn]

Like Milton F. you can't see a difference between Socialism and Communist Russia. I have no interest in a Communist revolution. I do however want to live in an America where the basic common good comes before insane profit motivation. Some things are more important than money like- health, culture, family, education, art etc. The "Reagan revolution" hasn't benefited anyone but the richest 1% which you are not part of.

[Advocate1234]

the poorest people in America are better off than any poor people of any other Country and receive food clothing and shelter as a result.

[machbar]

Who provides the poor in America with food, clothing and shelter?

You have 47 million people with no health insurance.

Poor people in Cuba have better health care than the poor in America.

[Advocate1234]

I don't own health insurance. So what. These are % of POOR households in the US that own each of these: 97% color T.V. (25% big screen) 73% Microwave 73% own a car (30% own two or more) 78% DVD or VCR 59% Stereo 55% 2 or more tv's 65% clothes washer 76% air conditioning 56% clothes dryer 63% Cable or Satelite TV Only 2% OF THE POOREST AMERICANS had bouts with hunger. 99% of POOR avoid eviction.

[machbar]

Elsewhere you've said if a corporation makes you sick, you can sue them. Don't you think it would be better to PREVENT harm to your health rather than trying to get cash after you've contracted some fatal illness? But you're too poor to afford the lawsuit... Now you say you don't care that you have no health insurance. Dude, I hope you never have to test your ill-considered theories.

[Advocate1234]

Hey Mark:

Watch this series; it is very well done.

watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

[machbar]

In the World Health Organization's ratings of health care system performance among 191 member nations published in 2000, Canada ranked 30th and the U.S. 37th, while the overall health of Canadians was ranked 35th and Americans 72nd.

[Advocate1234]

I'm really disappointed that you didn't watch the video.

[machbar]

Your credibility would increase if you learned to stop making assumptions about other people's actions and asserting them as fact.

[Advocate1234]

The video I sent you talked about the Fact that American's healthcare is terrible, although it produces different types of results depending on who can get care.

So, since that is the case, why are you telling me that American healthcare system is ranked poorly if you watched the video?

[MatthewLeee]

Michale Moore is in this movie, and somehow this is supposed to be unbiased?

[manoverde84]

Oh c'mon. You attack one aspect of Corporation but do not address another. Sure a corporation can give people health benefits and high wages, but most of the ones that do likewise run sweatshops in third world countries. Your arguments are never going to convince anyone if you do not address the profit motive of some companies with regards to enviromental damage, sweatshops and dealings with third world despots. And the movie never says that corporations are evil but that today some are rougues.

[Advocate1234]

The "sweatshops" provide better jobs than any alternative in those countries otherwise people would not work for them.

The profit motive is precisely what gives the incentive for corporations to provide jobs to those people.

[redstartn]

Do you realize that you are defending the exploitation of fellow human beings? The argument that 3 cents an hour is better than 0 cents an hour is not a good one. You are the reason that revolutions get messy.

[Advocate1234]

It is not compassionate to remove the best of several bad choices from the poorest people in the world. Moreover, to say that they are being exploited is absurd. Most of these "exploitative" jobs pay more than any other jobs within their country. Eventually, these jobs bring technology and the people move up the economic ladder: India is a great example.

Lastly, the cost of living is so much lower in other countries that comparing prices is absurd.

[redstartn]

Telling the people who are being exploited that they should be happy with whatever they can get isn't compassion either. Helping them revolt is a better choice if you ask me.

Just identify yourself when it comes.

[Advocate1234]

If you could explain to me how they would be better off under your plan of a communist revolution, I would love to hear it.