Comments
Posted by E_B_A :: 
:: 
:: Jul 05, 2005 09:34pm
:: :: Jul 05, 2005 09:34pmRyland... as you already know, I'm pro-life, but I have to agree with every thing you said. That's a pretty good point and I think a lot of people need to check themselves. That was profound, man...
Link to this comment :: ^Back to top
Posted by Jenna :: 
:: :: Jul 05, 2005 09:37pm
:: :: Jul 05, 2005 09:37pmI also think that you hit the nail on the head with this one. Im a flaming liberal, and when it comes to big business over human life and the environment, its obvious (to me anyway) what should come first. Sometimes things really have to be oversimplified to really make sense.
Posted by jman :: :: 
:: Jul 06, 2005 12:19am
:: :: Jul 06, 2005 12:19amA nifty followup to this is, divide the profit by the number of deaths they're willing to tolerate, then take that per-head figure and ask if they think it's OK to have an abortion if you're willing to pay that much.
As long as the life to be ended is "less valuable" than their own, I'm sure they'd be just fine with it. Same goes for drafts, slavery, globalization and the exploitation of migrant and foreign workers to improve profits, mass layoffs for profit, imprisoning dissidents and minorities, bombing raids, the list goes on and on and on.
In Bhopal, I understand that Union Carbide paid out a total of about $123 per death, despite a convincing hoax suggesting that they might actually do something for the victims. And essentially nothing for the injured and disabled, who number in the thousands. They managed to have the civil trial moved to India as a change of venue when the government of India sued in the company's home state (Connecticut, I think). See, Indian courts don't award punitive damages. As Union Carbide's accountants determined, the cost of the award could easily be covered by insurance (about half of the eventual $480M award was an insured "loss"), and other revenues without substantially or negatively influencing the company's bottom line that year.
But that's not the part that disturbs me. What disturbs me is that the company was so worried about liability that they denied that cyanide was involved in the leak, and made sure that the sodium thiosulphate antidote was withheld from survivors, despite autopsy results featuring bright-red organs characteristic of cyanide toxicity. Hell, they went so far as to arrange for an impromptu and volunteer medical clinic setup to deliver this inexpensive and highly effective remedy to survivors near the plant to be shut down and for all the medical personnel involved to be arrested by local police. All to prevent people from discovering the real toxicity of the material they released and to limit their liability.
They then proceeded to use the remaining methyl isocyanate in the ruptured tank to make pesticide, which they sold for around $200,000.
But really, you can't expect the CEO of a $10 billion dollar a year corporation to be responsible for everything their company does, now, can you? Can you?
Murder's only wrong when it doesn't further production and profit for a corporation or a government. When it does, it's called "the cost of doing business", "progress", or "patriotism", and nobody gets arrested for anything.
Murder one person, and you get a life sentence or a lethal injection. Murder 10,000, or 1,000,000 and you get a pension and the eternal thanks of your shareholders or voters (what a coincidence that they're often the same group)!
As long as the life to be ended is "less valuable" than their own, I'm sure they'd be just fine with it. Same goes for drafts, slavery, globalization and the exploitation of migrant and foreign workers to improve profits, mass layoffs for profit, imprisoning dissidents and minorities, bombing raids, the list goes on and on and on.
In Bhopal, I understand that Union Carbide paid out a total of about $123 per death, despite a convincing hoax suggesting that they might actually do something for the victims. And essentially nothing for the injured and disabled, who number in the thousands. They managed to have the civil trial moved to India as a change of venue when the government of India sued in the company's home state (Connecticut, I think). See, Indian courts don't award punitive damages. As Union Carbide's accountants determined, the cost of the award could easily be covered by insurance (about half of the eventual $480M award was an insured "loss"), and other revenues without substantially or negatively influencing the company's bottom line that year.
But that's not the part that disturbs me. What disturbs me is that the company was so worried about liability that they denied that cyanide was involved in the leak, and made sure that the sodium thiosulphate antidote was withheld from survivors, despite autopsy results featuring bright-red organs characteristic of cyanide toxicity. Hell, they went so far as to arrange for an impromptu and volunteer medical clinic setup to deliver this inexpensive and highly effective remedy to survivors near the plant to be shut down and for all the medical personnel involved to be arrested by local police. All to prevent people from discovering the real toxicity of the material they released and to limit their liability.
They then proceeded to use the remaining methyl isocyanate in the ruptured tank to make pesticide, which they sold for around $200,000.
But really, you can't expect the CEO of a $10 billion dollar a year corporation to be responsible for everything their company does, now, can you? Can you?
Murder's only wrong when it doesn't further production and profit for a corporation or a government. When it does, it's called "the cost of doing business", "progress", or "patriotism", and nobody gets arrested for anything.
Murder one person, and you get a life sentence or a lethal injection. Murder 10,000, or 1,000,000 and you get a pension and the eternal thanks of your shareholders or voters (what a coincidence that they're often the same group)!
Posted by Robert Waugh :: :: :: Jul 06, 2005 02:04am
:: :: Jul 06, 2005 02:04amIf you Google the word Bhopal, can you guess to where the Sponsored Link at the top of the page points? One of Union Carbide's own versions of the "Bhopal Facts" or "Bhopal Information." Lovely.
Apparently they did nothing wrong.
Apparently they did nothing wrong.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Jul 06, 2005 03:24pm
:: :: Jul 06, 2005 03:24pmJust when you think a company can't sink any lower...
Thanks for pointing to that site via Google, Robert.
Thanks for pointing to that site via Google, Robert.
Posted by Dave Lartigue :: :: :: Jul 06, 2005 01:37pm
:: :: Jul 06, 2005 01:37pmIt's not just corporations that make this decision. Consumers make it every day as well. Look at Wal-Mart. It has despicable, exploitative, harmful policies, but thrives because people would rather have cheap shit than give a damn about other people or their own community. Why is it important for a corporation to save those dollars? Because consumers will bitch if the widgets go up fifteen cents in price, even if that fifteen cents saves lives.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Jul 06, 2005 03:21pm
:: :: Jul 06, 2005 03:21pmIn my opinion, it's worth asking whether the retailer you deal with is a union shop or not - just ask a cashier on the way out, most of them will happily discuss it with you. Large chain grocers and some department stores tend to be unionized (i.e. pay a reasonable wage), whereas most of these "big box" retailers aren't. Wal-Mart is just plain evil and like all big-box warehouses, it destroys the local economy around it while depressing wages and benefits for workers throughout the sector.
It's the same process that's going on in IT: nobody cares that wages are falling 10% a year or that 3M+ people in North America have or will have had their jobs outsourced from under them or their rights slashed by corporate-friendly governments. In my jurisdiction, for example, IT workers have almost no protections under our labour laws. You can legally fire an IT employee who refuses to work 24 straight hours, or who expects overtime for a 100 hour work week, or who demands a meal break during that 24 hour day. Employers generally refuse to include contract terms in employment agreements that offer these workers even basic protection from exploitation (i.e. 60 hour work weeks, overtime or on-call fees), despite the appalling lack of rights these workers have when compared, for example, to an HR person or a secretary sitting at the desk beside them. They're treated like other "professionals", but there is no guild, association, union or other trade body to protect their interests and rights, as there are for accountants, chiropractors, doctors, lawyers and so on.
But nobody really gives a shit. After all, it saves a few bucks for the shareholders, which looks good in RRSPs and 401Ks, right? And besides, if IT people kept doing well in the working world, it might give other wage slaves dangerous ideas. Best to slap them down fast.
Back to Dave's point about Wal-Mart: the only way to stop Wal-Mart is to not shop there, even if it does cost the extra $0.15 for the widgets Dave pointed out. I'd rather pay 10% more for things and know that the people who made them and who delivered them to me are able to put food on their own tables, thanks very much.
Also, look for things like clothing labels made in America, Europe, or Canada. It's alot harder to run a sweatshop in those parts of the world. Apparently, we get a bit squeamish about working teenage girls nearly to death for a few dollars a week to improve the bottom line, but only when those girls might be white.
Naomi Klein's No Logo gives an excellent description of export processing zones and the plight of foreign workers slaving to make our clothes and electronics. Companies go to these countries (Phillipines, Honduras, etc.) and setup shops in duty, labour law and tax-free "export processing zones" created for them by corrupt local governments. In these "zones", workers can easily be exploited, forced to work extremely long hours under poor conditions and be paid pennies an hour. When the local government wises up and starts asking for some revenue by ending the tax holiday, or a union manages to root itself in the "zones", these corporations simply pick up and move to a new area, where they can have another tax and labour cost holiday. It's disgusting, and I guarantee that every last one of us in North America will wear or use a product made (at least in part) in one of these zones today. Kinda makes you want to burn your clothes, doesn't it? Start with the Nikes, BTW.
It's the same process that's going on in IT: nobody cares that wages are falling 10% a year or that 3M+ people in North America have or will have had their jobs outsourced from under them or their rights slashed by corporate-friendly governments. In my jurisdiction, for example, IT workers have almost no protections under our labour laws. You can legally fire an IT employee who refuses to work 24 straight hours, or who expects overtime for a 100 hour work week, or who demands a meal break during that 24 hour day. Employers generally refuse to include contract terms in employment agreements that offer these workers even basic protection from exploitation (i.e. 60 hour work weeks, overtime or on-call fees), despite the appalling lack of rights these workers have when compared, for example, to an HR person or a secretary sitting at the desk beside them. They're treated like other "professionals", but there is no guild, association, union or other trade body to protect their interests and rights, as there are for accountants, chiropractors, doctors, lawyers and so on.
But nobody really gives a shit. After all, it saves a few bucks for the shareholders, which looks good in RRSPs and 401Ks, right? And besides, if IT people kept doing well in the working world, it might give other wage slaves dangerous ideas. Best to slap them down fast.
Back to Dave's point about Wal-Mart: the only way to stop Wal-Mart is to not shop there, even if it does cost the extra $0.15 for the widgets Dave pointed out. I'd rather pay 10% more for things and know that the people who made them and who delivered them to me are able to put food on their own tables, thanks very much.
Also, look for things like clothing labels made in America, Europe, or Canada. It's alot harder to run a sweatshop in those parts of the world. Apparently, we get a bit squeamish about working teenage girls nearly to death for a few dollars a week to improve the bottom line, but only when those girls might be white.
Naomi Klein's No Logo gives an excellent description of export processing zones and the plight of foreign workers slaving to make our clothes and electronics. Companies go to these countries (Phillipines, Honduras, etc.) and setup shops in duty, labour law and tax-free "export processing zones" created for them by corrupt local governments. In these "zones", workers can easily be exploited, forced to work extremely long hours under poor conditions and be paid pennies an hour. When the local government wises up and starts asking for some revenue by ending the tax holiday, or a union manages to root itself in the "zones", these corporations simply pick up and move to a new area, where they can have another tax and labour cost holiday. It's disgusting, and I guarantee that every last one of us in North America will wear or use a product made (at least in part) in one of these zones today. Kinda makes you want to burn your clothes, doesn't it? Start with the Nikes, BTW.
Posted by Ravnos :: :: :: Jul 07, 2005 01:23pm
:: :: Jul 07, 2005 01:23pmJman, do you happen to live in BC? I remember reading a bit of BC's IT labour laws after reading the "easpouse" LJ and thinking how terrible they are. Apparently EA had a lot to do with getting those laws pushed through, unsurprisingly.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Jul 07, 2005 02:49pm
:: :: Jul 07, 2005 02:49pmNope, I'm in Ontario, where the Conservatives fucked us real good about 4 years ago. Sorry to hear the trend is spreading. I know California has similar laws on the books too. It's just not the right time to be a geek, I guess. But, if you're interested in watching the IT world go sliding down the tubes, this is one of my favorite (if depressing) sites (link). They call themselves the "dot com deadpool"...
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jul 06, 2005 04:06pm
:: :: Jul 06, 2005 04:06pmThought provoking as always Ryland. I remember when the Bhopal disaster happened, and I read about the settlement. Both were/are a travesty.
The problem is, most Americans have no idea where Bhopal is, and care even less. It's the same for most tragedies that happen thoughout the world. We were quick to take the condolences of people from other countries when 9/11 happened, but did you see any of that returned when 20,000 died in the Iran earthquakes? Was there a concerted effort by Americans to express our sorrow over the bombings in Spain or Indonesia? I've always had a feeling that there just aren't many good ole boys out there in Iowa who give a rat's patootie about what happens to people "over there".
I agree with Jenna - I'd rather pay more and have the welfare of people and the environment taken into account, than not. I'd rather see my taxes go to healthcare for everyone in this country, and the education of all children, than to bombs for Iraq.
Personally, I try to make as many little contributions as I can. I do not shop at WalMart (as we say around the house, WalMart is the devil). I try to use services provided by local people. When possible, I try to support local artisans. I buy produce from local growers as much as possible. That may not be a big deal in the scheme of things, but every drop adds up.
As for the cost of human life, I've never understood why someone can profess to follow a god of peace, and yet allow thousand to be killed, simply because it keeps the board members happy. However, since we have such a shining example in the White House, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
The problem is, most Americans have no idea where Bhopal is, and care even less. It's the same for most tragedies that happen thoughout the world. We were quick to take the condolences of people from other countries when 9/11 happened, but did you see any of that returned when 20,000 died in the Iran earthquakes? Was there a concerted effort by Americans to express our sorrow over the bombings in Spain or Indonesia? I've always had a feeling that there just aren't many good ole boys out there in Iowa who give a rat's patootie about what happens to people "over there".
I agree with Jenna - I'd rather pay more and have the welfare of people and the environment taken into account, than not. I'd rather see my taxes go to healthcare for everyone in this country, and the education of all children, than to bombs for Iraq.
Personally, I try to make as many little contributions as I can. I do not shop at WalMart (as we say around the house, WalMart is the devil). I try to use services provided by local people. When possible, I try to support local artisans. I buy produce from local growers as much as possible. That may not be a big deal in the scheme of things, but every drop adds up.
As for the cost of human life, I've never understood why someone can profess to follow a god of peace, and yet allow thousand to be killed, simply because it keeps the board members happy. However, since we have such a shining example in the White House, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Posted by el Bow :: :: :: Jul 06, 2005 07:39pm
:: :: Jul 06, 2005 07:39pmI'm a liberal and I would opt to kill the people - well beyond the hundreds of thousands.
Posted by Fyrewolf :: :: :: Jul 14, 2005 02:14pm
:: :: Jul 14, 2005 02:14pmThe more I think about it the more I realize that the earth has become a disgusting place...and what exactly is the problem?
People.
In my opinion the wrong people end up dead over bad decisions. Maybe if some of these CEOs died the workers they exploit would quit being just numbers on paper.
Maybe...
I think I'm too much of an optimist.
People.
In my opinion the wrong people end up dead over bad decisions. Maybe if some of these CEOs died the workers they exploit would quit being just numbers on paper.
Maybe...
I think I'm too much of an optimist.
Posted by Karen :: :: :: Jul 18, 2005 04:43pm
:: :: Jul 18, 2005 04:43pmHere's a happy thought for the future: I work at a large northeastern Ivy League university. I'm friendly with a professor in the PoliSci department, who sometimes discusses her classes with me. She does a lot of work with undergraduates on American history, in which they often prefer to on economic issues. She told me last week that she has yet to have a student do a topic on an economic issue in American history where that student did not come down against the notion of regulation. To the future leaders of America, there can be no plausible scenario in which it makes more sense to decrease potential corporate earnings by price controls, safety controls, wage controls, etc. No case for government regulation has ever, ever been put forward in her class.
I can't even tell you how depressing I found this. When I was college age, Ralph Nader was a HERO for "Unsafe at Any Speed." And now, of course, that title has been placed on a list of the most harmful books of the 19th & 20th centuries.
Sigh.
I can't even tell you how depressing I found this. When I was college age, Ralph Nader was a HERO for "Unsafe at Any Speed." And now, of course, that title has been placed on a list of the most harmful books of the 19th & 20th centuries.
Sigh.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Jul 18, 2005 07:48pm
:: :: Jul 18, 2005 07:48pmI hear you Karen: it's a pretty sad comment on the state of things when supposedly educated people from a leading school have been sufficiently indoctrinated that they can't see past making a buck. Something about "those who don't learn from history..." comes to mind, given that you're discussing students thereof.
I've also run into this among academics: they've truly been sold to corporations as a result of cuts in public funding for education (at least in Canada). If they want grants, they sell out. Simple as that. The few remaining faculty who believe in outdated concepts like social justice, the development of scientific knowledge or philosophy, sustainable development, protection of the biosphere, the regulation of corporate interests and the development of usable antitrust laws (among others) are having a surprisingly tough time getting tenure at McUniversities these days, and an even tougher time getting funding. In science, almost no fundamental research is being done: now it's all aimed at supporting a grant-providing corporation's goals, or technology transfer (selling out publicly funded patents and IP produced by students, all for the profit of the professors and the institution). The rest are ideologues and demagogues for one cause or another, out to make a buck off their next paperback.
So much for intellectualism.
It's ironic, really, considering that most of these history and political science students you describe could at this very momement be eating a chocolate bar that's 40% likely to contain slavery in the form of cocoa, wearing so-called "blood diamonds" and branded clothes made by underage girls in foreign sweatshops on their way to a consciousness-raising session about their own supposedly "oppressed" rights as members of whatever group they choose to identify with. All while attending a prestigious, overpriced school in the most privileged society in the history of humanity.
The real tragedy is that there is absolutely no way to tell this "up and coming" group of self-righteous, privileged corporate dittoheads what they're not seeing or the evil that their outlook and lack of humanity will eventually facilitate. They simply lack the receivers to pick up such signals: they've been shorted out by the mass media and our culture, which goes apeshit when a few dozen white people are killed, but doesn't give a rat's ass when white people kill millions of others over economics and politics.
Well, that's my happy thought for today :)
I've also run into this among academics: they've truly been sold to corporations as a result of cuts in public funding for education (at least in Canada). If they want grants, they sell out. Simple as that. The few remaining faculty who believe in outdated concepts like social justice, the development of scientific knowledge or philosophy, sustainable development, protection of the biosphere, the regulation of corporate interests and the development of usable antitrust laws (among others) are having a surprisingly tough time getting tenure at McUniversities these days, and an even tougher time getting funding. In science, almost no fundamental research is being done: now it's all aimed at supporting a grant-providing corporation's goals, or technology transfer (selling out publicly funded patents and IP produced by students, all for the profit of the professors and the institution). The rest are ideologues and demagogues for one cause or another, out to make a buck off their next paperback.
So much for intellectualism.
It's ironic, really, considering that most of these history and political science students you describe could at this very momement be eating a chocolate bar that's 40% likely to contain slavery in the form of cocoa, wearing so-called "blood diamonds" and branded clothes made by underage girls in foreign sweatshops on their way to a consciousness-raising session about their own supposedly "oppressed" rights as members of whatever group they choose to identify with. All while attending a prestigious, overpriced school in the most privileged society in the history of humanity.
The real tragedy is that there is absolutely no way to tell this "up and coming" group of self-righteous, privileged corporate dittoheads what they're not seeing or the evil that their outlook and lack of humanity will eventually facilitate. They simply lack the receivers to pick up such signals: they've been shorted out by the mass media and our culture, which goes apeshit when a few dozen white people are killed, but doesn't give a rat's ass when white people kill millions of others over economics and politics.
Well, that's my happy thought for today :)
Posted by Karen :: :: :: Jul 19, 2005 10:08am
:: :: Jul 19, 2005 10:08amSigh. Happy happy.
My only real consolation, jman, is that ideology is a pendulum that swings back and forth. I have been fortunate enough to live most of my life in a time when it was swinging towards or resting briefly in the left--now it's swinging rightward, and is likely to stay in that zone for the rest of my life. But it has to swing back. That's the law of gravity...right?
My only real consolation, jman, is that ideology is a pendulum that swings back and forth. I have been fortunate enough to live most of my life in a time when it was swinging towards or resting briefly in the left--now it's swinging rightward, and is likely to stay in that zone for the rest of my life. But it has to swing back. That's the law of gravity...right?
Posted by ag :: :: :: Jul 19, 2005 11:46am
:: :: Jul 19, 2005 11:46amIf history shows us anything is that liberalism or freedom wins out in the end. Spain is an excellent example. The conservatives led by Franco held complete control until his death. Fast forward 30 yrs. after his death and Spain is one of the few countries recognizing gay marriage and one of the most liberal in Europe. Free will is a powerful force. Just have patience.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Jul 19, 2005 01:11pm
:: :: Jul 19, 2005 01:11pmFree will is a powerful force. If you can subvert that, you've got it made. Just convince the people that they want what you want, and they will fight to the death to get it.
As for the pendulum Karen described, it's really the US that's "fighting the tide" - the rest of the world is already largely leftist, at least where there is a constitutional democratic or republican process of some sort available (I'm using those terms according to their actual meanings, not as names of the American political parties). You're right, ag, people definitely can be patient: remember that a young Vietnamese dishwasher named Ho Chi Minh pleaded Vietnam's case in front of the various powers negotiating the WWI armistice agreement in Paris between 1919 and 1920. We all know how long it took before a leftist government came to full power in that particular little swamp, and they didn't have Exxon, Viacom, ConAgra and Monsanto to contend with, at least not in the same quantity we do today. Aside from which, most "marxist" governments inevitably become totalitarian and corrupt in order to prevent further cycles of revolution. But I digress...Animal Farm covered it better than I can.
The pendulum argument might apply to ideology, but it does not apply to economics. The penultimate goal of all corporations is monopoly, and while they might have occasional setbacks on the road to that goal (anti-trust actions, depressions, etc.), they will proceed inexorably towards it at all costs. There is no pendulum at work there, and as the fine citizens of the USA have experienced for a century or two, the best way to reach the finish line first is to control the governments and people which might slow you down. Globally, most of the transnational corporations presently smashing a boot in the face of the average human being have their roots America, even if their money is in a tax shelter in Europe or the Carribean.
So, as a direct result of economics, I don't think you'll see the pendulum return to the same old left side of the ideological swing as both of you have predicted: governments, like free will, have been subverted to better manage economic conditions. Like serial killers and all other sociopaths, corporations have excellent self-esteem, and they aren't likely to let go of anything for the greater good of humanity. I agree it will bounce back somewhat, but things have changed, and localized governments have alot less control over interal affairs than they typically have in the past, despite the general failure of globalizaton and the fact that nationalism will always win over cooperative globalism (just watch the EU constitution try and pass - "balkanized" is more than just a clever expression), just as racism will always beat diversity. The trend we've seen lately is just human nature expanded to a discorporeal maximum with unlimited funding and power. Regardless, greed will always trump both humanism and nationalism - history is replete with examples. When you get right down to it, greed is as important a survival mechanism for humans as upright locomotion is. So like corporate influence over governments, it's not going anyplace fast.
As for America, I've observed that the corporate interests which have always controlled its government and politics have just gotten tired of allowing the occasional break for humanity and governments interested in the welfare of their citizens, and have decided it's time to grab the reins and stop letting them go. JFK really did mark the end of an era.
It's too bad really, that we as a species won't really progress until this endless cycle stops, or is irreparably damaged. Peak oil, a durable, global economic collapse, a large-scale nuclear exchange and natural catastrophes (within 50 years, the costs of repairing the annual damage caused by a changed, erratic climate and its tantrums will exceed the world's economic output, according to the best estimates I've seen) are really the only things left with sufficient force to break that cycle. Even World Wars I through (whatever we're up to now) haven't made so much as a dent. In fact, they've done nothing but create corporate profit and the conditions for econmomic growth. War is good for business, as J.P. Morgan and pals figured out, and if business controls government...well, you get the picture.
That being said, I do admire your optimism. Sorry to ramble on so long. Happy fucker, ain't I?
As for the pendulum Karen described, it's really the US that's "fighting the tide" - the rest of the world is already largely leftist, at least where there is a constitutional democratic or republican process of some sort available (I'm using those terms according to their actual meanings, not as names of the American political parties). You're right, ag, people definitely can be patient: remember that a young Vietnamese dishwasher named Ho Chi Minh pleaded Vietnam's case in front of the various powers negotiating the WWI armistice agreement in Paris between 1919 and 1920. We all know how long it took before a leftist government came to full power in that particular little swamp, and they didn't have Exxon, Viacom, ConAgra and Monsanto to contend with, at least not in the same quantity we do today. Aside from which, most "marxist" governments inevitably become totalitarian and corrupt in order to prevent further cycles of revolution. But I digress...Animal Farm covered it better than I can.
The pendulum argument might apply to ideology, but it does not apply to economics. The penultimate goal of all corporations is monopoly, and while they might have occasional setbacks on the road to that goal (anti-trust actions, depressions, etc.), they will proceed inexorably towards it at all costs. There is no pendulum at work there, and as the fine citizens of the USA have experienced for a century or two, the best way to reach the finish line first is to control the governments and people which might slow you down. Globally, most of the transnational corporations presently smashing a boot in the face of the average human being have their roots America, even if their money is in a tax shelter in Europe or the Carribean.
So, as a direct result of economics, I don't think you'll see the pendulum return to the same old left side of the ideological swing as both of you have predicted: governments, like free will, have been subverted to better manage economic conditions. Like serial killers and all other sociopaths, corporations have excellent self-esteem, and they aren't likely to let go of anything for the greater good of humanity. I agree it will bounce back somewhat, but things have changed, and localized governments have alot less control over interal affairs than they typically have in the past, despite the general failure of globalizaton and the fact that nationalism will always win over cooperative globalism (just watch the EU constitution try and pass - "balkanized" is more than just a clever expression), just as racism will always beat diversity. The trend we've seen lately is just human nature expanded to a discorporeal maximum with unlimited funding and power. Regardless, greed will always trump both humanism and nationalism - history is replete with examples. When you get right down to it, greed is as important a survival mechanism for humans as upright locomotion is. So like corporate influence over governments, it's not going anyplace fast.
As for America, I've observed that the corporate interests which have always controlled its government and politics have just gotten tired of allowing the occasional break for humanity and governments interested in the welfare of their citizens, and have decided it's time to grab the reins and stop letting them go. JFK really did mark the end of an era.
It's too bad really, that we as a species won't really progress until this endless cycle stops, or is irreparably damaged. Peak oil, a durable, global economic collapse, a large-scale nuclear exchange and natural catastrophes (within 50 years, the costs of repairing the annual damage caused by a changed, erratic climate and its tantrums will exceed the world's economic output, according to the best estimates I've seen) are really the only things left with sufficient force to break that cycle. Even World Wars I through (whatever we're up to now) haven't made so much as a dent. In fact, they've done nothing but create corporate profit and the conditions for econmomic growth. War is good for business, as J.P. Morgan and pals figured out, and if business controls government...well, you get the picture.
That being said, I do admire your optimism. Sorry to ramble on so long. Happy fucker, ain't I?
Posted by ag :: :: :: Jul 19, 2005 02:54pm
:: :: Jul 19, 2005 02:54pmI agree with you that the ultimate goal of corporations are to grow and provide a better investment to investors. That in itself is not evil or bad. When corporations try to subvert the will of the people or grow at a cost of the people then they have overstepped their bounds. I disagree that the corporations cannot be controlled. The recent PR campaign that Walmart has undergone and its mea culpa at its annual investor meeting shows that if corporation overstep their bounds the backlash will have an effect on their bottom line (Walmart stock has stagnated for the last year even though its a solid company). News corp. had to buy back a lot of their shares because left leaning investors where trying to do a hostile take-over. The break-up of Standard Oil and AT&T attest to the historical control the people have had.
We can also look at Microsoft as an example of a behemoth who is helping with infectious disease prevention in third world countries, and educating the populace. It is up to us to invest in companies that are doing "good" and punish companies by not investing in them. The world is changing and we must change along with it and work the system to our advantage and wait for the opportune moment to act to better ourselves and humanity. I'm an optimist but not an unrealistic optimist.
We can also look at Microsoft as an example of a behemoth who is helping with infectious disease prevention in third world countries, and educating the populace. It is up to us to invest in companies that are doing "good" and punish companies by not investing in them. The world is changing and we must change along with it and work the system to our advantage and wait for the opportune moment to act to better ourselves and humanity. I'm an optimist but not an unrealistic optimist.
Posted by jman :: :: :: Jul 19, 2005 04:46pm
:: :: Jul 19, 2005 04:46pmI agree with you that the ultimate goal of corporations are to grow and provide a better investment to investors. That in itself is not evil or bad.
See, this is where we disagree. Greed (bad) and wealth (to most of us, "good") are directly related. I guess I'm with Buckminster Fuller here: earning a living, making money to live is not amassing wealth, it's a logistical necessity of staying alive in a culture where we don't grow our own food and where we're legally separated from the land we live on. Accumulating wealth into the hands of the few off the backs of many or at the price of the resource they depend on doesn't have to be evil, but almost invariably is evil, because being ethical and treating people better than dollars is expensive. You can't sell something for $100 that costs $10 to make without fucking someone (or ideally, many someones) along the way! That wealth has to come from somewhere. In addition to which, it is far easier to buy a government than it is to appease its bureaucracy.
See, this is where we disagree. Greed (bad) and wealth (to most of us, "good") are directly related. I guess I'm with Buckminster Fuller here: earning a living, making money to live is not amassing wealth, it's a logistical necessity of staying alive in a culture where we don't grow our own food and where we're legally separated from the land we live on. Accumulating wealth into the hands of the few off the backs of many or at the price of the resource they depend on doesn't have to be evil, but almost invariably is evil, because being ethical and treating people better than dollars is expensive. You can't sell something for $100 that costs $10 to make without fucking someone (or ideally, many someones) along the way! That wealth has to come from somewhere. In addition to which, it is far easier to buy a government than it is to appease its bureaucracy.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jul 19, 2005 10:45pm
:: :: Jul 19, 2005 10:45pmI hate to nitpick... who am I kidding, I love to nitpick.
I would argue that the ultimate goal of a business, any type of business (including proprietorships, partnerships, and so on, in addition to corporations), is to grow and provide a good return to investors, but that the specific purpose of corporations is to limit the personal liability of those investors, which is where a lot of the greed and irresponsibility comes in.
I would argue that the ultimate goal of a business, any type of business (including proprietorships, partnerships, and so on, in addition to corporations), is to grow and provide a good return to investors, but that the specific purpose of corporations is to limit the personal liability of those investors, which is where a lot of the greed and irresponsibility comes in.
Posted by Karen :: :: :: Jul 20, 2005 10:21am
:: :: Jul 20, 2005 10:21amMany many years ago, I read an interview with Noam Chomsky in Rolling Stone, in which he said something I've never forgotten. It was not long after the whole chlorofluorocarbon kerfuffle, and the interviewer asked Chomsky if Dupont, which had known CFCs were bad for the environment, should not have taken steps earlier to self-regulate and discover different products to do safely what the CFCs did unsafely. Chomsky said that corporations are not people: they do not have souls and consciences, etc--they have one obligation only and that is to their stockholders. If changing CFC technology before forced to would have decreased the stockholders' returns, then the corporation was bound by its nature not to do it.
It sounds cynical, perhaps, and it's true that there are corporations that have a more ethically-inclined charter, but I've never for a moment doubted Chomsky's position on this. Corporations do not need to pay attention to prevailing ethical tides until and unless their stockholders ask them to.
I'm not sure what you mean, Ryland, by the "personal liability" of investors--the raison d'etre of a corporation is to relieve investors of personal liability, so I don't know what else the corporations are expected to do in that regard.
As to your argument, jman--which is a good and a chilling one--that the current economic model will militate against the possibility of ideological pendulum swinging: well, I dunno. I do know that there is a wonderful cartoon from the turn of the century of the inside of the Senate: in the gallery, lining the hall, are massive moneybags with heads and limbs, and on each is the name of a different trust: oil, sugar, etc. In other words, government has been in the pocket of business before, and we made it out all right.
Perhaps the growing international resistance to globalized business may have the same effect one day. I hope so.
As to the idea that leftist ideology always wins--I wish I could be that optimistic, ag! Just because Spain has gone from Franco to gay marriage in 30 years doesn't mean they won't swing back again 30 years hence. The view simply isn't long enough yet. As Mao Tse-Tung said when asked what he thought about the French Revolution: "Too early to tell."
It sounds cynical, perhaps, and it's true that there are corporations that have a more ethically-inclined charter, but I've never for a moment doubted Chomsky's position on this. Corporations do not need to pay attention to prevailing ethical tides until and unless their stockholders ask them to.
I'm not sure what you mean, Ryland, by the "personal liability" of investors--the raison d'etre of a corporation is to relieve investors of personal liability, so I don't know what else the corporations are expected to do in that regard.
As to your argument, jman--which is a good and a chilling one--that the current economic model will militate against the possibility of ideological pendulum swinging: well, I dunno. I do know that there is a wonderful cartoon from the turn of the century of the inside of the Senate: in the gallery, lining the hall, are massive moneybags with heads and limbs, and on each is the name of a different trust: oil, sugar, etc. In other words, government has been in the pocket of business before, and we made it out all right.
Perhaps the growing international resistance to globalized business may have the same effect one day. I hope so.
As to the idea that leftist ideology always wins--I wish I could be that optimistic, ag! Just because Spain has gone from Franco to gay marriage in 30 years doesn't mean they won't swing back again 30 years hence. The view simply isn't long enough yet. As Mao Tse-Tung said when asked what he thought about the French Revolution: "Too early to tell."