Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've posted similar along similar lines in the past but included it in discussions about outsourcing rather than a stand alone topic. To the OP I give you kudos for bringing light to this topic as it really is important to understand and appreciate.
The real problem with "corporations" as they exist today is the lack of accountability that the decision-makers have to the citizens of the world (their employees and customers). Not only is the Corporation itself protected and given the right to pursue profit (even though it is a psychotic pursuit for all intents and purposes), but the decision-makers behind the scenes come and go shuffling from one company to another with pretty high frequency and they are rarely held accountable but instead are protected by the anonymity corporations provide for them.
Of course there are exceptions, but most C-level executives and board members in fact can drive corporate initiatives through delegation and pretty much get away with anything (while claiming innocence or only indirect involvement if called out).
One such example is the move to Outsource most any business process to low-cost countries. Since the average tenure of a C-level or other executive is only a handful of years, and since their compensation is almost always aligned with short-term profits when given the opportunity to cut costs via outsourcing they will thus almost always do so (even if harmful to the company mid or long-term). Does anyone know who exactly at IBM, Accenture, McKinsey, or any of the other technology firms started the IT Outsourcing trend? Nope. Can a particular individual at each company be singled out as being unpatriotic for continuing it and be held accountable? Nope.
It's the accountability which needs to be put back into the corporate model. Accountability to all the citizens affected by the products or services made and/or sold. Outside of that I think the international corporate model needs to be revamped and regulated by local governments much more than it is today.
In the globalizing business world we need to ensure that even with the pursuit of ever increasing profits that corporate size and influence is contained to a reasonable level. It doesn't serve citizens of any country to have operating within its borders multinational conglomerates which do nothing for the local economies in which they sell their products except to ship local money elsewhere. It doesn't serve citizens anywhere to have only the illusion of choice when buying a product when in fact 95% of the brands on their supermarket shelves are from subsidiaries of just 3 or 4 mammoth companies.
I think ultimately it is a fundamental government responsibility to regulate corporate entities to ensure their actions are patriotic, reasonable, and for the greater good. All that leaves a lot of room for definition... but I think it would be a good start for politicians to pay attention to this topic a lot more than they do today.
I think ultimately it is a fundamental government responsibility to regulate corporate entities to ensure their actions are patriotic, reasonable, and for the greater good. All that leaves a lot of room for definition... but I think it would be a good start for politicians to pay attention to this topic a lot more than they do today.
The government is to determine whether a corporation is suffiiciently "patriotic and reasonable" and "functioning for the greater good"?
I think ultimately it is a fundamental government responsibility to regulate corporate entities to ensure their actions are patriotic, reasonable, and for the greater good. All that leaves a lot of room for definition... but I think it would be a good start for politicians to pay attention to this topic a lot more than they do today.
Amazing that people like you still exist.
What are you people calling yourselves these days?
I'm sure you've wised up and shed the "old labels".
Is it just "progressive", or something more accurate?
If corporations can be considered "people" under the law, they should be liable for the same kind of penalties when they break the law. Any company whose actions or inactions result in a death should be disincorporated.
Correct me if I'm wrong.. but hasnt people gone to jail for actions, or inactions of their corporations? Try Enron...
That is too bad because individuals have no chance fighting against a corporate entity while governments do.
All that said... although you may have a point, I haven't yet heard a better idea.
Individuals can and do bring successful suits against corporations all the time. You need to have more faith on the system we currently have in place to combat corporate abuse.
Correct me if I'm wrong.. but hasnt people gone to jail for actions, or inactions of their corporations? Try Enron...
Of course they have, but realize that if your entire goal in life is to destroy "the corporations" which seems to be a typical thing these days, you're going to have to lie and make things seem more 'unfair' than they really are in order to make your position more palatable.
Really, I consider "corporation blamers" just slightly below dog crap, but what the heck. What are a few little white lies for 'the greater good'.
but hasnt people gone to jail for actions, or inactions of their corporations? Try Enron...
Not directly. They've been charged with crimes which attach to them personally. Such as fraud, or failing to abide by SEC regulations on reporting requirements. The statutes specify areas where individuals might be held liable for specific conduct.
Corporations can actually be charged with crimes like 'murder' (like Value Jet after the Everglades crash in 1996). But the penalties are financial and organizational. Individuals would be charged differently. In general, you can't put your own personal criminal conduct (falsifying records, permitting illegalities, etc.) behind a corporate wall.
What you CAN do is protect your personal assets against civil suit (in general). Imagine two people with the exact same business, but one has no formal incorporation (just a business license from the state/city) while the other is a Delaware-incorporated LLC (limited-liability company) that maintains 'corporate formalities' and its own bank account. If the first business gets sued, the guy who runs it can lose his house. The second business is protected from that sort of loss, unless, as mentioned above, the person filing the lawsuit can show that the corporation was just a front for someone's personal conduct.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
