Anybody seen it?
I thought it was utter bullshits. It gave some excellent examples of corporate crimes that were just brutal. Horrible. But it makes no good case whatsoever that these crimes would not have been commited if these companies had been privately owned.
Anybody want to fight about it?
The Corporation
Moderator: aquaphase
The Corporation
"There are many fish in the sea, Maria. But you're the only one I want to mount over my fireplace." ~Walter Matthau
In the first 10 minutes they actually claim that corporations are *legally bound* to do whatever it takes to produce the most profit, regardless of the consequences. They don't even attempt to support the fact. Probably because it's insupportable and false. That kind of information is propaganda, not education.
"There are many fish in the sea, Maria. But you're the only one I want to mount over my fireplace." ~Walter Matthau
if members of a corp make profit and the shareholders don't, that's illegal as far as i know. fraud of some kind. am i wrong? i know its different than enron, but the same kind of thing.
also there are annual shareholder meetings for the people who own the largest shares, and those people vote for whatever they think will make the most profit. the ceo can't go againts those shareholders and decide to go green because he thinks its right.
the whole point is that they've set up the system so that nobody is responsible. you cant look at nike and blame one person. every person who works for nike is responsible for sweatshops and child labor, but they're mostly normal people just trying to feed their family. its the institution that is corrupt, not necessarily the people.
i liked what noam chomsky said about slavery. you can have a "nice" slaveowner who never beats his slaves and feeds them enough and whatever, but he's still a monster because he's part of a monsterous institution.
the problem with corporations is that they're so big and pervasive, people feel powerless to change anything. even the CEOs feel powerless because of what they'll face if they lose money for their shareholders...
which is actually a big deal. a lot of people have their savings in the stock market. people also have their pensions and retirement accounts in the stock market. so, a CEO faces huge pressure from all sides. but the heads of those companies are really the only people who have the power to change anything. the public as a whole can organize and change things through protest and boycotts or petitioning for new laws, but thats obviously a lot more difficult to organize than a single man deciding to increase the pay of chinese workers.
its a difficult situation, i think.
and yes i do think a privately owned company is very different from a publicly owned one. a privately owned company can choose to run on a deficit temporarily to retain employees. it can also make decisions based on considerations outside profit. AND its not considered a "person" under the law. specific people are liable, which makes them feel the weight of their decisions.
also there are annual shareholder meetings for the people who own the largest shares, and those people vote for whatever they think will make the most profit. the ceo can't go againts those shareholders and decide to go green because he thinks its right.
the whole point is that they've set up the system so that nobody is responsible. you cant look at nike and blame one person. every person who works for nike is responsible for sweatshops and child labor, but they're mostly normal people just trying to feed their family. its the institution that is corrupt, not necessarily the people.
i liked what noam chomsky said about slavery. you can have a "nice" slaveowner who never beats his slaves and feeds them enough and whatever, but he's still a monster because he's part of a monsterous institution.
the problem with corporations is that they're so big and pervasive, people feel powerless to change anything. even the CEOs feel powerless because of what they'll face if they lose money for their shareholders...
which is actually a big deal. a lot of people have their savings in the stock market. people also have their pensions and retirement accounts in the stock market. so, a CEO faces huge pressure from all sides. but the heads of those companies are really the only people who have the power to change anything. the public as a whole can organize and change things through protest and boycotts or petitioning for new laws, but thats obviously a lot more difficult to organize than a single man deciding to increase the pay of chinese workers.
its a difficult situation, i think.
and yes i do think a privately owned company is very different from a publicly owned one. a privately owned company can choose to run on a deficit temporarily to retain employees. it can also make decisions based on considerations outside profit. AND its not considered a "person" under the law. specific people are liable, which makes them feel the weight of their decisions.
I myself am hell;
nobody’s here—
nobody’s here—
yeah but what are they propegandizing? propeganda puts a face on something so you can feel irrational emotions towards it. in wwII all germans look like huns.That kind of information is propaganda, not education.
this documentary is certainly not the most biased one i've ever seen, but it is biased. however, its biased against an institution and doesn't demonize individuals, which is sort of the whole point of the film. thare ARE no individuals to demonize because of the complex structure of corporations. we have set them up to be skitzophrenics.
it does also talk about the good things corporations can do and DO do for comunities, like sponsoring little league teams, matching employee charity contributions, etc etc. and i recently saw a show about how corporations are "going green" to save money. texas instruments was going to move its facilities overseas because dallas was getting too expensive, but instead it figured out a way to lower its costs by becoming more sustainable and simply wasting less energy. so corporations can become better, even if its only for PR or financial purposes.
i dont think theyre the enemy but i think the current system is totally corrupt and needs to change. people need to be held accountable for their decisions instead of just shrugging and saying their hands were tied.
I myself am hell;
nobody’s here—
nobody’s here—
No, you're not wrong about hat, but that's not what they were asserting. They were asserting that it was illegal to sacrifice profit in the name of social justice or environmental concerns.if members of a corp make profit and the shareholders don't, that's illegal as far as i know. fraud of some kind. am i wrong?
And they're wrong about no one being responsible. During the bit about IBM and the Nazis, they used one person's signature to prove that IBM was aware, more or less disproving their own point about facelessness. Limited liability is great but I think the jail terms handed out for Enron show that it only goes so far, and that eventually people are held accountable.
And that bit about "diagnosing" corporations as psychopathic was just sooo bogus. I mean, I could run out and find 15 different blond people, each one displaying one of the characteristics they checked off on the list. Going from that to a conclusion that all blond people must be psychopathic is just dumb.
The institution isn't necessarily corrupt, nor is it doomed to be so, which seemed to be the whole point of the film.
Here's the part where I admit I didn't watch the last 30 minutes anyway, it was boooooring me. Sigh. I'm not in the mood to argue anymore anyway.
"There are many fish in the sea, Maria. But you're the only one I want to mount over my fireplace." ~Walter Matthau
So, what kind of reforms do you all have in mind?
Corruption, mostly of the more subtle lobbyist-flavor, keeps the government from enforcing strong regulations. Our apathy has kept the press from doing what should be it's job and keeping abuse and negligence on the front page. This isn't a new story.
Corruption, mostly of the more subtle lobbyist-flavor, keeps the government from enforcing strong regulations. Our apathy has kept the press from doing what should be it's job and keeping abuse and negligence on the front page. This isn't a new story.
I haven't seen this film, but I'd like to. I just wanted to add that many corporations in the UK are encourage to live up to certain expectations of "corporate responsibility." I don't know if this is something happening in the US too.
Corporate responsibility has become a buzz word where I work. They have had massive changes in our recycling and rubbish collection. They have schemes in place to encourage cycling/public transportation. They have organised ride shares. They are looking to replace our company vehicles with low carbon emission vehicles and possibly electric vehicles. They also have a lot of new programs for social contributions as well, encouraging volunteer work, matching charity contributions, etc.
To be honest, I think it is just as much of a marketing ploy than anything else, but it is generating some good.
Corporate responsibility has become a buzz word where I work. They have had massive changes in our recycling and rubbish collection. They have schemes in place to encourage cycling/public transportation. They have organised ride shares. They are looking to replace our company vehicles with low carbon emission vehicles and possibly electric vehicles. They also have a lot of new programs for social contributions as well, encouraging volunteer work, matching charity contributions, etc.
To be honest, I think it is just as much of a marketing ploy than anything else, but it is generating some good.
One of the best parts of the film was the interview with Ray Anderson. He is the president of Interface, the biggest carpet corporation in the US (industrial carpet). He basically talks about how customers started asking questions about how much they pollute, etc and he has no answers. So he set up a group to figure it out and basically was apalled at what they showed him. He talks about how humans are plundering the earth and that every business and person needs to make a plan to become completely sustainable as soon as possible. On their company website it says: "Ray has embarked on a mission to be the first company that, by its deeds, shows the entire industrial world what sustainability is in all its dimensions: People, process, product, place and profits — by 2020 — and in doing so, to become restorative through the power of influence. He’s leading a worldwide effort to pioneer the processes of sustainable development."
To me, this is what direction corporations needs to go in if they are going to survive. Here is an example of someone taking responsibility within the structure of a corporation, which is pretty rare. Maybe because he founded the company it is easier to feel ownership over it, instead of just feeling responsible to the shareholders.
The interview with him is the best part of the movie and if you can find clips of him on youtube you should watch it. His interview is what took the movie from just bitching about corporations to showing the solution.
Total sustainability is the only solution.
As far as the psychopath stuff... The whole point is that its ridiculous for a corportion to be considered a person under the law, and if it was a "person" it would be in prison. If a single person could be repsonsible for as much damage as Dow Chemical or Exxon or Nike, they'd have to be the antichrist. But somehow because its a corporation, its more okay...
To me, this is what direction corporations needs to go in if they are going to survive. Here is an example of someone taking responsibility within the structure of a corporation, which is pretty rare. Maybe because he founded the company it is easier to feel ownership over it, instead of just feeling responsible to the shareholders.
The interview with him is the best part of the movie and if you can find clips of him on youtube you should watch it. His interview is what took the movie from just bitching about corporations to showing the solution.
Total sustainability is the only solution.
As far as the psychopath stuff... The whole point is that its ridiculous for a corportion to be considered a person under the law, and if it was a "person" it would be in prison. If a single person could be repsonsible for as much damage as Dow Chemical or Exxon or Nike, they'd have to be the antichrist. But somehow because its a corporation, its more okay...
I myself am hell;
nobody’s here—
nobody’s here—
Commercial carpet and furniture manufacturers are, for some reason, way ahead of the curve on this one. Several of them are beginning to implement "cradle to cradle" policies where they take responsibility for all of the materials, including manufacturing by-products, through the enitre life-cycle of their product. 3M also has a great reputation. Although it may be that they understood the publicity and liability advantages before their competition. Either way, still good for us. These practices won't go beyond niche markets and the stray committed exec until there is much more pressure from both ends, individual consumers and regulators. Most people of modest means have watched their net income stay stagnant or even shrink over the last few years. Price will always be their first consideration.
i like the cradle to cradle idea, especially for things like matresses, carpet, pillow, and stuff like that where the material can easily be converted into something else or recycled and used again in the same product. If you can't make a product that is compleely biodegradable i think this is also a good option. especially for carpeting, which you dont really want decomposing... at least not in your house.
for products that dont decompose and aren't necessary enough for companies to use these kinds of policies... maybe there is no place for them in the world. maybe we dont need plastic toys. or polyester leisure suits. or styrofoam.
for products that dont decompose and aren't necessary enough for companies to use these kinds of policies... maybe there is no place for them in the world. maybe we dont need plastic toys. or polyester leisure suits. or styrofoam.
I myself am hell;
nobody’s here—
nobody’s here—
When you get down in to the details of it, alot of what people generally consider recycling isn't. If the new use isn't comparable in quality and durability, some people call that downcycling. You can make newsprint out of old books but you cannot make a decent hardback out of old newspaper.
The key to really aggressive recycling and reuse becoming widespread is super-super-high energy costs. It's just too cheap to refine and transport raw materials right now. Kind of paradoxical. If there was some sort of miracle like cold fusion, it would probably lead to an environmental melt-down.
The key to really aggressive recycling and reuse becoming widespread is super-super-high energy costs. It's just too cheap to refine and transport raw materials right now. Kind of paradoxical. If there was some sort of miracle like cold fusion, it would probably lead to an environmental melt-down.
-
ifihadahifi
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:16 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests