The Brave New Globalist World (What is the real intention of the multinational corporations?)

interventionmag.com ^ | July 30, 2003 | Lawrence J. McNamee

[maui_hawaii]

A whole lot of the people causing the problems hide behind their corporate names and offices and entities, just the same way you hide behind the anonimity of the internet.

As for the rest of your post you are getting ridiculous now. I need to go anyway.

I will try to break you of your liberatarian left feildisms another day...

[vbmoneyspender]

I will try to break you of your liberatarian left feildisms another day...

Before you attempt to break anyone of anything, you need to break yourself of your liberal mentality that most people engage in business for venal reasons.

[harpseal]

Was it corporations who did those things or people. You talk about corporations as if they are artificial intelligences which are utterly disconnected from the people who operate them.

A Corporation is an artificial person established by the state to provide the owners of the corporation limited liability so that their personal fortunes are not at risk for the actions of the corporation. Until the Santa Clara case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that a Corporation was a person under the 14th Ammendment most Corporations had a tuime limit in their charter. In fact originally most Corporations took a legeislative enactment in order to be granted a charter.

Now to continue your history lesson. Originally the incorporators were entrepenuers who used this method to attract investment in fact many corps are still set up this way but as professional managers came in (technically employees of the corporation) the management of the corporation became more and more isolated from teh owners of the corporation. As more and more stock ownership passed to the hands of mutual funds and other managed investment entities, the actual control of the stockholders was further diluted so that now in many (not all) corporations the company is controled by the CEO and that CEO controls the board of directors that has hire and fire authority over him. Thus there is about as much chance of regime change from inside the corporation as in any totalitarian dictatorship.

Now you state that corporate power is moonshadow compared to that of the state. Since some corporations control soime nations and have in the past controled several governments I must ask which state you are referring to?

Things are not as black and white as you try to make them seem. Deal with reality.

[A. Pole]

The fact is, our nation is facing an economic crisis. We need leaders of strong character who are not bought and paid for by several "U.S. based multi-national" corporations.

BTW, I read the history of Byzantine Empire and I notice some interesting similarities. The Byzantine Empire declined economically and militarily as most of wealth got concentrated in the hands of the super-rich who DID NOT PAY much taxes (they got most of tax cuts while the middle class shrinked or disapeared). At the same time the trade and lucrative state monopolies got transferred to the international corporations key of them controlled by Venice. Venice did not show much gratefulness as she was willing to help crusaders to loot the Contantinople for extra profit.

Poland declined as the wealth got concentrated in the hands of few magnates and middle class (merchants, craftsmen and industrialists) got squeezed out of existence. At some moment the kings could not afford to protect the state from foreign powers.

Who does not study history will be forced to repeat it.

[hedgetrimmer]

Once again, I have given specific examples of corportate misdoings including Loral corp among others. I specifically asked you what should be done with Bernard Schwartz, given that he is the leader behind the security breach to China.

Your only response is to try to denigrate me by my experience? If I had said I had never help to start a company, what insult would you have flung then?

I hoped to get an exchange of ideas going, but instead you choose insult. Why would anyone support free trade, when someone who is so pro free trade as you cannot talk about specific problems that are happening because of this so called "free trade" and the solutions to them?

[Willie Green]

If you have a problem with special interests exerting influence in Washington, D.C., there is a simple solution to that problem. Vastly reduce the amount of power the federal gov't has and shareholders, via the corporations that they have an ownership interest in, won't have to pay protection money to the pols that wield power in Washington.

As far as campaign finance reform is concerned, I favor the solution proposed by Dr. Alan Keyes: eliminate ALL organizational contributions and permit donations only from individual citizens.

I don't accept the "extortion" excuse from those who gleefully pay for such influence for their own benefit.

When push comes to shove, corporations are merely artificial entities, and are not entitled to the same rights as individuals. In the very act of incorporation, investors yielded those rights to government in exchange for limited personal liability for the actions of the corporation. This arrangement is agreed to by our representative government because promotion of commerce is recognized to benefit the general welfare of We the People. However, when corporate activity ceases to provide this general widespread benefit to our society, and actually begins to function to our detriment, it is time for government to intervene and terminate this very fundamental agreement.

[vbmoneyspender]

It is already illegal for corporations to make donations to federal campaigns for elective office.

[martian_22]

My point was exactly that. They're in buisiness to show the investor body a profit. Why else would one invest?

A corporation needs political power and ties to open avenues of opportunity here and especially abroad. Friends in high places usually help remove obstacles for capitalist(or communist) exploitation.


Exploitation can be a bad or good thing. IMHO