Kimberly-Clark Lies

[Heleuiski]

Greenpeace investigation reveals that Kimberly-Clark has been lying to shareholders, the public and regulators since 1998.

Many of you have written to Kimberly-Clark asking them to make Kleenex and other tissue products more forest friendly. In response you?ve likely received a generic response letter that attempts to paint the company in a very ?green? light. Included in the response is a statement that the company has a proud environmental record. An example of this record is the fact that the company since at least 1998 does not ?source use pulp from coastal temperate rainforests of British Columbia Canada.?

This claim forms one of the central pillars of the company?s Corporate Policy on Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. It?s a claim that shown up in a lot of different places over the past 8 years including several of Kimberly-Clark?s annual environmental reports, letters to customers and environmental organizations and in communications to shareholders. It?s even shown up a letter from Kimberly-Clark?s lawyers to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which regulates American corporations.

We decided to look into these claims. And surprise, surprise? we?ve uncovered evidence that Kimberly-Clark has been lying to the public, shareholders, customers and SEC. Possibly for years. In fact, they use very large amounts of pulp from coastal temperate rainforests to manufacture products that are sold throughout North America and shipped to Europe.

You can check out the claims and the evidence of the lies, Greenpeace uncovered in a new report called ?Chain of Lies: The Truth About Kimberly-Clark?s Use of Ancient Rainforests for Tissue Products?. The report details the shipment of logs from coastal temperate rainforests in British Columbia to Seattle-area sawmills to the company?s pulp mill in Everett, Washington. The evidence is based in part on US Customs data.

Although we presented this breach of policy information to the company executives, in April at the company?s annual stockholder meeting, to date the company has neither changed its stated policy on coastal temperate rainforest pulp, nor issued a clarifying statement.

One thing is for sure, these false claims cast serious doubt on ALL other environmental claims the company professes to hold true and dear. These include a ban on the use of pulp from virgin rainforests and a prohibition against using pulp from designated ecologically significant old growth forests in the North American Boral and mixed hardwood forests in Indonesia.

If a company?s been lying for years about one ancient forest? could it be possible that they are lying about all the others as well?

You decide.

We?ve asked the Securities and Exchange Commission, the US regulator of corporations, to investigate. Stay tuned.

Please check out the report and media release online at: http://kleercut.net/en/coastal

[omnirook]

It doesn't surprise me. Corporations have felt that it was a god-given right to lie to the public since the idea of the corporation was first hatched by a fiend in human form - well, that "fiend," of course got the idea from the government - fiendish!

Face facts: as long as somebody paid into the PAC or coughed up a campaign contribution, he or she is free to do pretty much what he or she feels like doing. What about the tobacco companies? What about them? They're making more than ever; it was just a matter of cutting the government in on the action. Anyone who has studied marketing must know that dangerous and wicked SELL. The rate of smoking may be down in the US, but it's way up elsewhere, especially in China.

About 40 years ago, the comedy-singer, Allan Sherman, who did many great parodies and send ups, did a number about advertizing and all these thousands of great new products that were flooding the market - things that promised everything from long life to great sex to salvation itself - all Sherman wanted to know was why, after he bought the stuff and got it home, it always turned out to be the same old soap in a different package w/a different smell.

[Heleuiski]

It doesn't surprise me. Corporations have felt that it was a god-given right to lie to the public since the idea of the corporation was first hatched by a fiend in human form - well, that "fiend," of course got the idea from the government - fiendish!

Face facts: as long as somebody paid into the PAC or coughed up a campaign contribution, he or she is free to do pretty much what he or she feels like doing. What about the tobacco companies? What about them? They're making more than ever; it was just a matter of cutting the government in on the action. Anyone who has studied marketing must know that dangerous and wicked SELL. The rate of smoking may be down in the US, but it's way up elsewhere, especially in China.

About 40 years ago, the comedy-singer, Allan Sherman, who did many great parodies and send ups, did a number about advertizing and all these thousands of great new products that were flooding the market - things that promised everything from long life to great sex to salvation itself - all Sherman wanted to know was why, after he bought the stuff and got it home, it always turned out to be the same old soap in a different package w/a different smell.


You've touched on a very good point. We are being brainwashed into thinking that because we have 100 brands of toothpaste to choose from, we have real choice and democratic freedom....

Whereas true democracy might be a long way away.

Good book... "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger, he touches on this.

[ApeTheDog]

Who needs 100 brands of toothpaste to choose from anyway? It's all a trick to get you to try them all. I'd rather they make 5 kinds and have them all be diverse and good.

It's like ice cream. If a store has 5 kinds of ice cream, you're going to end up with a favourite. If a store has 500 kinds, you're going to end up with a favourite as well - but it'll take you a lot longer to try them all. You consume more.

With the store that has only 5 kinds, they're going to be putting a lot more effort into their recipe's than the store with 500 kinds are. Choice is not always the best thing for the consumer - it often benefits mostly the manufacturer.

[Heleuiski]

The purpose of publicity is to make the spectator marginally dissatisfied with his present way of life. Not with the way of life of society, but with his own within it. It suggests that if he buys what it is offering, his life will become better. It offers him an improved alternative to what he is.

Publicity increasingly uses sexuality to sell any product or service. But this sexuality is never free in itself; it is a symbol of something presumed to be larger than it: the good life in which you can buy whatever you want. To be able to buy is the same thing as being sexually desirable; occasionally this is the explicit message of publicity, usually it is the implicit message, i.e. if you are able to buy this product you will be lovable. If you cannot buy it, you will be less lovable.

Publicity has another important social function. The fact that this function has not been planned as a purpose by those who make and use publicity in no way lessens its significance. Publicity turns consumption into a substitute for democracy. The choice of what one eats (or wears or drives) takes the place of significant political choice. Publicity helps to mask and compensate for all that is undemocratic within society. And it also masks what is happening in the rest of the world. Publicity adds up to a kind of philosophical system. It explains everything in its own terms. It interprets the world.

John Berger - Ways of Seeing.

[omnirook]

John Berger - Ways of Seeing.
Now that's a book that I would like to read!

It's perfectly true. As America has become more of a single-party, totalitarian police state, Americans have been offered an ever-increasing variety of goods to buy. Choice is power. When I went to college, I wrote an essay that said as much. My theme was that a person's power was proportionate to his/her ability to choose, especially how he/she spent his/her time. Nobody agreed. But it is true - at least if what you are talking about is real choice, not the illusion that marketers push.

To one of the other posts above - yeah, the greater the variety, the lesser the quality. Take one small example: Lysol. For years, it was on the market and either people loved or hated it (like Marmite!) I loved it. I found it's antisceptic smell clean, and it did one helluva job of getting rid of other smells (covering them over, let's be honest). Anyway, now there are 100 different types of sweet-smelling shit available, labelled "Lysol," that cover up nothing, and I can't find the original anywhere - except in a 99-cent store, under an off-brand name, so that's what I buy.

[Xander]

This is just another sign of how well trained many are in the herd like state of humanity. Isn't there a book on this theory called "critical mass"?

Anyhow, it shows that people are sponges. They absorb what you tell them to because they can be kept in relative comfort by accepting the environment and stucture given to them. Why fight a system that clothes and feeds you and promises that you'll nver have to worry? This is how the few retain the money and power of the many.

Within all this is the acceptance of a well delivered reality without question. We are told that certain things are better than ever without accurate comparison, companies can basically use one design and redress it ten times and call each a "new and improved formula" without questions being asked.

It does not surprise me in the least that KC have deceived people. In fact it is more surprising to me that it took so long to uncover and is a shock at all to those who should be cynics one and all.

Here's the best thing. If they can make more money by continuing to do it then not only will they do so but also they will have more clout with those in power to continue to do so as they will be more important to the economy! This circle is so vicious it's costing us more than we realise.

The quesion is, what to do about it without becoming draconian and police state like?

[floid]

Body smells are erotic and sensual. Capitalists don't like that because they are impotent and opposed to all manifestations of sensuality and sexuality. Sexually-awakened people are potentially dangerous to capitalists and their rigid, asexual system.
Body smells remind us that we are animals. Capitalists don't want to be reminded of that. Animals are dirty. They eat things off the ground. They are openly sexual. They don't wear tuxedos or corsets or have their hair done.
Body smells are unique. Everyone has her own body smell. Capitalists don't like individuality. There are millions of body smells but only a few deodorant smells. Capitalists like that.
Deodorants are harmful. Many capitalists like that because they are always looking for new illnesses to cure. Capitalists love to invent new medicines. Medicines make money for them and win them prizes. They also cause new illnesses so that they can invent even more medicines.
Deodorants cost you money. Capitalists are especially pleased about that.
Deodorants hide the damage that capitalists' products cause to your body. Eating meat and other body pollutants sold by capitalists makes you smell. Wearing pantyhose makes you smell. Capitalists don't want you to stop wearing pantyhose or eating body pollutants.
Deodorant-users are insecure. Capitalists like insecure people. Insecure people don't start trouble. Insecure people also buy room freshners, hair conditioners, and makeup.
Deodorants are unnecessary. Capitalists are very proud of that and they win marketing awards for it.

[wildcat]

Greenpeace investigation reveals that Kimberly-Clark has been lying to shareholders, the public and regulators since 1998.

Many of you have written to Kimberly-Clark asking them to make Kleenex and other tissue products more forest friendly. In response you?ve likely received a generic response letter that attempts to paint the company in a very ?green? light. Included in the response is a statement that the company has a proud environmental record. An example of this record is the fact that the company since at least 1998 does not ?source use pulp from coastal temperate rainforests of British Columbia Canada.?

This claim forms one of the central pillars of the company?s Corporate Policy on Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. It?s a claim that shown up in a lot of different places over the past 8 years including several of Kimberly-Clark?s annual environmental reports, letters to customers and environmental organizations and in communications to shareholders. It?s even shown up a letter from Kimberly-Clark?s lawyers to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which regulates American corporations.

We decided to look into these claims. And surprise, surprise? we?ve uncovered evidence that Kimberly-Clark has been lying to the public, shareholders, customers and SEC. Possibly for years. In fact, they use very large amounts of pulp from coastal temperate rainforests to manufacture products that are sold throughout North America and shipped to Europe.

You can check out the claims and the evidence of the lies, Greenpeace uncovered in a new report called ?Chain of Lies: The Truth About Kimberly-Clark?s Use of Ancient Rainforests for Tissue Products?. The report details the shipment of logs from coastal temperate rainforests in British Columbia to Seattle-area sawmills to the company?s pulp mill in Everett, Washington. The evidence is based in part on US Customs data.

Although we presented this breach of policy information to the company executives, in April at the company?s annual stockholder meeting, to date the company has neither changed its stated policy on coastal temperate rainforest pulp, nor issued a clarifying statement.

One thing is for sure, these false claims cast serious doubt on ALL other environmental claims the company professes to hold true and dear. These include a ban on the use of pulp from virgin rainforests and a prohibition against using pulp from designated ecologically significant old growth forests in the North American Boral and mixed hardwood forests in Indonesia.

If a company?s been lying for years about one ancient forest? could it be possible that they are lying about all the others as well?

You decide.

We?ve asked the Securities and Exchange Commission, the US regulator of corporations, to investigate. Stay tuned.

Please check out the report and media release online at: http://kleercut.net/en/coastal
It is comfortable to forget Russia.
It is also dishonest.

[omnirook]

Body smells are erotic and sensual. Capitalists don't like that because they are impotent and opposed to all manifestations of sensuality and sexuality. Sexually-awakened people are potentially dangerous to capitalists and their rigid, asexual system.
Body smells remind us that we are animals. Capitalists don't want to be reminded of that. Animals are dirty. They eat things off the ground. They are openly sexual. They don't wear tuxedos or corsets or have their hair done.
Body smells are unique. Everyone has her own body smell. Capitalists don't like individuality. There are millions of body smells but only a few deodorant smells. Capitalists like that.
Deodorants are harmful. Many capitalists like that because they are always looking for new illnesses to cure. Capitalists love to invent new medicines. Medicines make money for them and win them prizes. They also cause new illnesses so that they can invent even more medicines.
Deodorants cost you money. Capitalists are especially pleased about that.
Deodorants hide the damage that capitalists' products cause to your body. Eating meat and other body pollutants sold by capitalists makes you smell. Wearing pantyhose makes you smell. Capitalists don't want you to stop wearing pantyhose or eating body pollutants.
Deodorant-users are insecure. Capitalists like insecure people. Insecure people don't start trouble. Insecure people also buy room freshners, hair conditioners, and makeup.
Deodorants are unnecessary. Capitalists are very proud of that and they win marketing awards for it.
=)) ... :devil:

[MyDogHasFleas]

Yeah, so the problem with "corporations are evil" threads like this is the same problem as many of these abstract statements:

AS OPPOSED TO WHAT?

There's never a clear statement of what institution you'd like to establish in its place, that hasn't been proven time and again to be greatly inferior.

I also dislike, intensely, the "PEOPLE ARE STUPID SHEEP" theme that these threads often take. It's arrogant and elitist. Hey ... if people didn't WANT 100 brands of toothpaste to choose from, they would NOT EXIST. People are, generally, NOT stupid. Unplanned economies that allow freedom of consumer choice and a relatively free-market competitive environment ALWAYS produce much more good for the largest number of people, than attempts to plan and regulate that economy.

[Xander]

Yeah, so the problem with "corporations are evil" threads like this is the same problem as many of these abstract statements:

AS OPPOSED TO WHAT?

There's never a clear statement of what institution you'd like to establish in its place, that hasn't been proven time and again to be greatly inferior.

I also dislike, intensely, the "PEOPLE ARE STUPID SHEEP" theme that these threads often take. It's arrogant and elitist. Hey ... if people didn't WANT 100 brands of toothpaste to choose from, they would NOT EXIST. People are, generally, NOT stupid. Unplanned economies that allow freedom of consumer choice and a relatively free-market competitive environment ALWAYS produce much more good for the largest number of people, than attempts to plan and regulate that economy.
A person is an intelligent and self-aware being who is capable of creative thought.
People are nervous and herdlike more concerned with the societal norms than their collective good.

These are not really statements of superiority but merely observations. Take one singular brilliant minded person and they respond intelligently. Take 10,000 intelligent people and they develop societal norms which often are followed blindly. People are taught not to question either by directly being answered with "that's the way it's always been done" or my misdirection in getting the subject to concentrate on a subject which doesn't have such wide implications. After a while the society would become more irrational and reactionary than any one singular person. Sounds daft but look at the whole religious feuds thingy. I'd bet that you could get many singular persons, one from each religion, and put them in a single room. Arguments and discussion would be rife if the contentious subjects were brought up but no real jihad would take place. Why? I'm unsure. I'd guess it has something to do with a person thinking something is more right because more people agree with it.

I could ramble about this all day and still miss the arguments that define it best so I'll leave that one to more lucid posters.

As for alternatives to corperations, why should there need to be? Evil corporations would be better off removing the evil than the corperation. What needs to happen is that our governments and legal systems need to ensure that even a person with all the gold available does not recieve cart blanche in the way that some corperations seem to.

Mind you though it is all well and good pointing fingers at corperations but what we really need to do is make it personal. The people in grey that make up the cognitive regions of corperations need to be named and shamed for their decisions. Perhaps when they suffer the stares of their friends whilst at the pub they may think more deeply about their decisions. After all is it really going to worry them if say ICI (their employer) gets bad press? As long as they have job security (which is garnered by sticking to the companies guidlines and not the publics) then why the hell should they care? By making things more directly responsible I think many problems would be solved or at worst the proper people could be arrested for the breaches of law rather than scapegoats (though it would still be possible and perhaps even more desirale to have a system of scapegoating).

[Heleuiski]

Body smells are erotic and sensual. Capitalists don't like that because they are impotent and opposed to all manifestations of sensuality and sexuality. Sexually-awakened people are potentially dangerous to capitalists and their rigid, asexual system.
Body smells remind us that we are animals. Capitalists don't want to be reminded of that. Animals are dirty. They eat things off the ground. They are openly sexual. They don't wear tuxedos or corsets or have their hair done.
Body smells are unique. Everyone has her own body smell. Capitalists don't like individuality. There are millions of body smells but only a few deodorant smells. Capitalists like that.
Deodorants are harmful. Many capitalists like that because they are always looking for new illnesses to cure. Capitalists love to invent new medicines. Medicines make money for them and win them prizes. They also cause new illnesses so that they can invent even more medicines.
Deodorants cost you money. Capitalists are especially pleased about that.
Deodorants hide the damage that capitalists' products cause to your body. Eating meat and other body pollutants sold by capitalists makes you smell. Wearing pantyhose makes you smell. Capitalists don't want you to stop wearing pantyhose or eating body pollutants.
Deodorant-users are insecure. Capitalists like insecure people. Insecure people don't start trouble. Insecure people also buy room freshners, hair conditioners, and makeup.
Deodorants are unnecessary. Capitalists are very proud of that and they win marketing awards for it.

I wrote a poem about that...

Odour Eaters for the WASPS

Strip off the natural sex,
and reapply that artificial mess,
overpowering and ugly,
ashamed to love the body.
Puritan perfume seeps
into every crack.
everyday sensuality
will never come back.
Pheromones, hormones
fuckably hot.
Dirty, dirty
out damn spot!
Out I say,
mercy me,
thousands of douches are sold
dry c**ts, zombie - like, cold.

[Heleuiski]

People are, generally, NOT stupid.
=))

[MyDogHasFleas]

OK I got one response to the "people are not stupid" point that said "well people en masse ARE stupid, stupid!" and one that was just an emoticon falling down with laughter.

Perhaps you should open your eyes and look. Both outward, towards reality, and inwards, towards your biases.

People are what they are. They have changed pretty rapidly in evolutionary terms, but they are what they are.

Just because the majority of people don't make a choice YOU would have does not mean THEY are stupid. Perhaps they just are motivated differently. Perhaps they actually have some experience and wisdom that you do not have.

You should also think about what your disdain for popular decisions says about you and your biases.

I will also point out the "wisdom of crowds" theory that is actually scientifically shown to be valid in many circumstances. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_crowds

[Xander]

OK I got one response to the "people are not stupid" point that said "well people en masse ARE stupid, stupid!" and one that was just an emoticon falling down with laughter.

Perhaps you should open your eyes and look. Both outward, towards reality, and inwards, towards your biases.

People are what they are. They have changed pretty rapidly in evolutionary terms, but they are what they are.

Just because the majority of people don't make a choice YOU would have does not mean THEY are stupid. Perhaps they just are motivated differently. Perhaps they actually have some experience and wisdom that you do not have.

You should also think about what your disdain for popular decisions says about you and your biases.

I will also point out the "wisdom of crowds" theory that is actually scientifically shown to be valid in many circumstances. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_crowds
I'll let you define stupidity then. I was merely pointing out the actual nature of large groups of people.

Doesn't the "wisdom of crowds" apply more to addressing a group of individuals rather than the group itself?

[cryingmime]

Body smells are erotic and sensual. Capitalists don't like that because they are impotent and opposed to all manifestations of sensuality and sexuality. Sexually-awakened people are potentially dangerous to capitalists and their rigid, asexual system.
have you ridden the chicago subway after midnight recently? I can safely say the homeless man in the back corner of the car that smells is NOT sexy.


Deodorants are harmful.
Many capitalists like that because they are always looking for new illnesses to cure. Capitalists love to invent new medicines. Medicines make money for them and win them prizes. They also cause new illnesses so that they can invent even more medicines.
This is a LIE. Prove to me that depdorant causes illness. if you can't, you should shut the fuck up about corporations telling lies because you're the same as them.


Deodorants cost you money. Capitalists are especially pleased about that.
clothes cost money, food costs money. i don't see you whining about that you stupid fucking hippies.


Deodorants hide the damage that capitalists' products cause to your body
Eating meat and other body pollutants sold by capitalists makes you smell. Wearing pantyhose makes you smell. Capitalists don't want you to stop wearing pantyhose or eating body pollutants.
vegetarians that don't wear deodorant smell just as bad.


Deodorant-users are insecure.
Capitalists like insecure people. Insecure people don't start trouble. Insecure people also buy room freshners, hair conditioners, and makeup.
i won't even bother answering this one, but lets just say it's a stupid statement.


Deodorants are unnecessary.

so are you.

[Heleuiski]

have you ridden the chicago subway after midnight recently? I can safely say the homeless man in the back corner of the car that smells is NOT sexy.

This is a LIE. Prove to me that depdorant causes illness. if you can't, you should shut the fuck up about corporations telling lies because you're the same as them.

clothes cost money, food costs money. i don't see you whining about that you stupid fucking hippies.

vegetarians that don't wear deodorant smell just as bad.

i won't even bother answering this one, but lets just say it's a stupid statement.

so are you.


What are you, the CEO of Mitchum?

There's a difference betweeen natural body smells and homeless people that don't wash.. ever.

There is scientific research at the moment to find out if there is a link betweeen the aluminum in deodorants and breast cancer.

[Heleuiski]

Groupthink is a mode of thought whereby individuals intentionally conform to what they perceive to the consensus of the group. Groupthink may cause the group (typically a committee or large organization) to make bad or irrational decisions which each member might individually consider to be unwise.

Groupthink, and its related dysfunctional group behavior, the Abilene Paradox, wherein groups agree to pursue goals with which the individual members do not agree, continue to fascinate researchers in the field of Social sciences. The reason for this fascination is that these theories appear to explain the observed behavior of individuals and groups in many social contexts. For example, some researchers point to the Bay of Pigs Invasion as the archetype of the groupthink phenomenon. They note that the decision to execute this disastrous military campaign was made with almost unanimous agreement by President John F. Kennedy and his advisors. These advisors were, almost without exception, very similar in background to the President and lacked military command experience. General David M. Shoup, Commandant of the Marine Corps at the time and not part of the group, predicted failure for the invasion, which went forward with disastrous results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

[SeierTapt]

About the toothpaste selection from earlier in this thread, I was at Wal-Mart earlier tonight getting just that. I noticed that Crest had 5 or 6 different flavors of the exact same basic toothpaste. It was interesting really.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231115199/103-9105994-4003814?v=glance&n=283155

I reccomend this book. I read it last year and it makes some interesting points about brand names and marketing and such.

[Dom]

Yeah, so the problem with "corporations are evil" threads like this is the same problem as many of these abstract statements:

AS OPPOSED TO WHAT?

There's never a clear statement of what institution you'd like to establish in its place, that hasn't been proven time and again to be greatly inferior.

I also dislike, intensely, the "PEOPLE ARE STUPID SHEEP" theme that these threads often take. It's arrogant and elitist. Hey ... if people didn't WANT 100 brands of toothpaste to choose from, they would NOT EXIST. People are, generally, NOT stupid. Unplanned economies that allow freedom of consumer choice and a relatively free-market competitive environment ALWAYS produce much more good for the largest number of people, than attempts to plan and regulate that economy.

Corporations are a phenomina that have popped up in the last 50 - 75 years...

We mananged with some other institutions for thousands of years....

[Xander]

Errm is it really worth saying 3 times???
You need coffee badly if your nerves are so bad you triple tap the post button!!

[Heleuiski]

The Corporation exists to create wealth, and even world disasters can be profit centers. Carlton Brown, a commodities trader, recounts with unabashed honesty the mindset of gold traders while the twin towers crushed their occupants. The first thing that came to their minds, he tells us, was: "How much is gold up?"

THE PATHOLOGY OF COMMERCE: CASE HISTORIES
To more precisely assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using actual diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the DSM-IV, the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": It is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."



http://www.thecorporation.com/index.php?page_id=2

[cryingmime]

There is scientific research at the moment to find out if there is a link betweeen the aluminum in deodorants and breast cancer.


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2002-10-17-email-hoax_x.htm

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_6_1x_Antiperspirants.asp

A hint for you: Don't believe every piece of crap email you get, they're usually wrong.


r

[Heleuiski]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2002-10-17-email-hoax_x.htm

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_6_1x_Antiperspirants.asp

A hint for you: Don't believe every piece of crap email you get, they're usually wrong.


r

Touche

[cryingmime]

Touche
it's all good! I got nothin' but love for ya!

:smooch:

[macr0]

Yeah, so the problem with "corporations are evil" threads like this is the same problem as many of these abstract statements:

AS OPPOSED TO WHAT?

There's never a clear statement of what institution you'd like to establish in its place, that hasn't been proven time and again to be greatly inferior.

I also dislike, intensely, the "PEOPLE ARE STUPID SHEEP" theme that these threads often take. It's arrogant and elitist. Hey ... if people didn't WANT 100 brands of toothpaste to choose from, they would NOT EXIST. People are, generally, NOT stupid. Unplanned economies that allow freedom of consumer choice and a relatively free-market competitive environment ALWAYS produce much more good for the largest number of people, than attempts to plan and regulate that economy.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it"

But besides that, I totally agree.

My question is, why does environmentalism == anti-capitism?

I wish I was a socialist. I wish I was a marxist, oh how I'd lived the life to allow me to think that such things are good ideas.

[Heleuiski]

it's all good! I got nothin' but love for ya!

:smooch:

;)

[Heleuiski]

Well huge corporations are like... bigger than some countries. Who watches the global corporations? Who polices them?

Anyone know?

[macr0]

Well huge corporations are like... bigger than some countries. Who watches the global corporations? Who polices them?

Anyone know?

The "right" answer is the people who buy their stuff. That kind of has problems working in practice though, especially for the big ones.

[Ckyzxr]

Corporations exist for one reason only. To get bigger. The owners/shareholders want their investment to grow and the corporation serves only the shareholders. The customers, employees, lobbyists, R&D, marketing, public relations...it's all a means to an end...increase shareholder value. Corporations are unstoppable at present.

So get used to it cause it ain't gonna change; and you won't care anyway when you're dead. Oh, and don't think you can do anything about it. :P

[Heleuiski]

Corporations exist for one reason only. To get bigger. The owners/shareholders want their investment to grow and the corporation serves only the shareholders. The customers, employees, lobbyists, R&D, marketing, public relations...it's all a means to an end...increase shareholder value. Corporations are unstoppable at present.

So get used to it cause it ain't gonna change; and you won't care anyway when you're dead. Oh, and don't think you can do anything about it. :P

Hah that's a very fatalistic view.

[MyDogHasFleas]

"My question is, why does environmentalism == anti-capitalism?


That, my friend, is an outstanding question.

And double credit for using the C double-equals-means-comparison idiom.

A follow-on question is:

Why does the media only recognize anti-capitalists as environmentalists?? There really are a lot of capitalist environmentalists out there, but the media doesn't seem to get that.

[MyDogHasFleas]

Well huge corporations are like... bigger than some countries. Who watches the global corporations? Who polices them?

Anyone know?

The answer is quite obvious but you don't want to see it.

The answer is: you, the consumer, do, by simply voting with your wallet.

Big corporations only exist because they are providing value for their customers. As soon as those customers decide to go somewhere else, big corporations can die in a hurry. It's happened many times.

In fact, big corporations are MUCH more answerable to the people than big government, big labor, or big education.

And, to anticipate your next question:

You do not have the only vote. Just because YOU don't like Wal-Mart or Microsoft or Exxon-Mobil doesn't mean they are evil and should be killed. Lots of other people are fine with these companies and buy their products every day. Why do you get to dictate what they should and should not be allowed to spend their money on?

[MyDogHasFleas]

Corporations exist for one reason only. To get bigger. The owners/shareholders want their investment to grow and the corporation serves only the shareholders. The customers, employees, lobbyists, R&D, marketing, public relations...it's all a means to an end...increase shareholder value. Corporations are unstoppable at present.

So get used to it cause it ain't gonna change; and you won't care anyway when you're dead. Oh, and don't think you can do anything about it. :P

You say that like it's a bad thing. What is wrong with increasing shareholder value?

In a free market economy there has to be a return on successful investment, or no one will invest.

[Ckyzxr]

You say that like it's a bad thing. What is wrong with increasing shareholder value?

In a free market economy there has to be a return on successful investment, or no one will invest.

Yes...but return is simply not enough. It must be the biggest return possible, in spite of EVERYTHING else.

[floid]

You say that like it's a bad thing. What is wrong with increasing shareholder value?

In a free market economy there has to be a return on successful investment, or no one will invest.
The essential "wrong" that you seem to miss is that a proxy for something of value can never, in and of itself, have any value in any kind of "sane" economic system (that is, one designed to spread the economic burdens and rewards among it't participants based on real ability to "earn" or produce something of actual value in the real world).
But economies based on fractional reserve banking and speculation short circuit the safeguards of the system, reward the non-productive, make slaves of the truly productive, and create fictitious legal entities called corporations behind which groups of real people can whitewash their greed by calling it "business".

Soviet Socialism and U. S. Capitalism are failures for the same reason.
They both thrive by exploiting the many to satisfy the desires of the few.
In Soviet Socialism the few were the "party members".
In U. S. Capitalism the few are those who hide behind "corporations".
And in both the many are those who supoort the leisurely lifestyles of the few by creating value from raw materials with their work which is consumed, in insanely disproportionate amounts, by the few.

As Nighthawk said once here -- We're not coppertops but greenbacks in this Matrix that is called an "economy".

[LongSilence]

A big part of Civilisation is Organisation. Different idealogies and practices encourage and limit certain freedoms and 'rights', all for the aim of ensuring each constituent works harmoniously together towards some sort of "ideal". Of course the "ideal" is also variable but it can be usually deconstructed down to the common philosophy of getting the society to function effectively. Sometimes the focus is preset to cultural conservatism, sometimes its to scientific progression and sometimes its flexible and sometimes its not.

Corporations are by their nature an effective way to organise a large number of people with more fluid roles but like all other means of government often fall foul of the age old flaw of human involvement and the powerful influence of assigning roles to creatures. In order to ensure that the majority can get on with the important task of actually getting on with their lives the minority are given power and the potential to use and abuse it.

The peculiar quality of "sheep" that people often overlook is that compared to the shepherd(s) they are actually the productive party of the relationship manufacturing the 'wool' that clothes both them and the shepherd(s). Being a "sheep" therefore isn't as bad as people selfistly assume.

[floid]

The peculiar quality of "sheep" that people often overlook is that compared to the shepherd(s) they are actually the productive party of the relationship manufacturing the 'wool' that clothes both them and the shepherd(s). Being a "sheep" therefore isn't as bad as people selfistly assume.

Very true, the problem arises when you have shepherds who never realize that they are also sheep.

[Heleuiski]

The answer is quite obvious but you don't want to see it.

The answer is: you, the consumer, do, by simply voting with your wallet.

Big corporations only exist because they are providing value for their customers. As soon as those customers decide to go somewhere else, big corporations can die in a hurry. It's happened many times.

In fact, big corporations are MUCH more answerable to the people than big government, big labor, or big education.

And, to anticipate your next question:

You do not have the only vote. Just because YOU don't like Wal-Mart or Microsoft or Exxon-Mobil doesn't mean they are evil and should be killed. Lots of other people are fine with these companies and buy their products every day. Why do you get to dictate what they should and should not be allowed to spend their money on?

Hah, did I say Microsoft is evil and should be killed?

I don't think so.

Mr Gates and wife Melinda have given $5bn (?3.2bn) to a foundation run by the software pioneer's father.

The William H Gates Foundation, which now has assets of $10bn, has as its goal the improving of people's lives by giving grants to tackle world health problems.

[Heleuiski]

My point was not that corporations are intrinsically bad, my point was who polices them.

If the answer to that is the consumer, that is not good enough IMHO.

EDIT:-

For example, I would like to buy organic chicken, as I do not agree with the conditions in which these animals are raised, however I cannot afford to buy organic chicken and so vote with my feet.

Do you see?

[macr0]

You say that like it's a bad thing. What is wrong with increasing shareholder value?

In a free market economy there has to be a return on successful investment, or no one will invest.

I think you're definately going to have to pull out some strongbad if you want to get a positive capitalist view on here :)

[macr0]

Hah, did I say Microsoft is evil and should be killed?

I don't think so.



I did :)



Mr Gates and wife Melinda have given $5bn (?3.2bn) to a foundation run by the software pioneer's father.

The William H Gates Foundation, which now has assets of $10bn, has as its goal the improving of people's lives by giving grants to tackle world health problems.

And now that Mr. Buffet is giving them all that money who knows what they're gonna do? The Gates Foundation gives to NPR, extra points!

[Heleuiski]

So people shop at walmart, because it's cheap, they may like to shop elsewhere but they cannot afford to do that.

Your argument is flawed.

[macr0]

My point was not that corporations are intrinsically bad, my point was who polices them.

If the answer to that is the consumer, that is not good enough IMHO.

EDIT:-

For example, I would like to buy organic chicken, as I do not agree with the conditions in which these animals are raised, however I cannot afford to buy organic chicken and so vote with my feet.

Do you see?

Here's the capitalist view :banghead:

If enough people want to buy organic chicken, then a company will start becoming more efficient at growing organic chicken thus dropping the price.

They already did that though, that's why most chicken isn't organic :) But, if enough people want it a booming niche is created.

Besides that, you're extra dollars for the organic chicken is your vote. Spending money is voting. That's the whole idea.

If you can't afford it and you really believe it so much, then try to make more money.

It's kind of like fascism. Instead of going in the military to have to vote, you have to contribute to society. Society gives you money because people value contribution to the betterment of their lives. With that money, you have shown that you have earned the power for your opinion to count.

The other thing is to try to get other people to buy organic chicken.

But on the flip side of things, pure capitalism implodes and destroys itself. That's why government chooses to regulate some industry. Government regulates to decrease the efficiency of the companies (monopoly like AT&T). You also get into some hairy situations with oligarchy as well, which is why the government also steps in there (think 1950 automobile industry).

[Architectonic]

Well huge corporations are like... bigger than some countries. Who watches the global corporations? Who polices them?

Anyone know?

The customer!

(note, this means more than just the person who buys their products, but it means all their employees, other corporations that have dealings with them, etc)


That's why government chooses to regulate some industry. Government regulates to decrease the efficiency of the companies (monopoly like AT&T). You also get into some hairy situations with oligarchy as well, which is why the government also steps in there (think 1950 automobile industry).

How do intellectual property laws and other monopolies/oligopolies created as a result of government policy fit in there?

[Heleuiski]

If you can't afford it and you really believe it so much, then try to make more money.

It's kind of like fascism. Instead of going in the military to have to vote, you have to contribute to society. Society gives you money because people value contribution to the betterment of their lives. With that money, you have shown that you have earned the power for your opinion to count.


That's the problem, people assume just because you don't make huge wads of cash that you do not contribute to society.

What if you do voluntary work, care for a relative, are a stay at home Mum, are disabled?

So you're worthless then? On the shitheap?

I don't agree.

[macr0]

That's the problem, people assume just because you don't make huge wads of cash that you do not contribute to society.

What if you do voluntary work, care for a relative, are a stay at home Mum, are disabled?

So you're worthless then? On the shitheap?

I don't agree.

Ok, well for one we were talking about organic chicken. You don't have to make wads of cash to buy it.

Additionally, no one has the right to have what they want "just because". I want a condo on the beach. You want organic chicken.

My reasons for wanting a condo are just as important to me as your reasons for wanting organic chicken. [IOW the reasons do not matter]

I stop by and take care of some of my older family members some time. I could be out working more instead to make more money for my condo, but I don't. My life is a series of trade offs. I value taking care of family over me buying a condo now.

It's called opportunity cost.

You choose to do voluntary work, care for a relative, etc. You opportunity cost of that is not having enough money for organic chicken.

[Architectonic]

So how does that apply for the disabled then?

[Heleuiski]

You choose to do voluntary work, care for a relative, etc. You opportunity cost of that is not having enough money for organic chicken.

I'll just have to stick to being a vegetarian I guess.

:mad:

[LongSilence]

That's the problem, people assume just because you don't make huge wads of cash that you do not contribute to society.

What if you do voluntary work, care for a relative, are a stay at home Mum, are disabled?

So you're worthless then? On the shitheap?

I don't agree.

Of course not. But you are choosing to give more of yourself to individuals rather than participating in the capitalist exchange of goods for services. As such, you are, by the nature of what you are doing, not contributing to society's working machine that produces the desired "organic" chicken. Mass production was developed to cater and encourage the long life and successful reproduction of human beings: without it it is unlikely that the world would be as populated as it is now.

You can of course bypass the established system and become friends with someone who happen to produce the organic chicken you want...

[macr0]

So how does that apply for the disabled then?

That's why we have politics, which are SUPPOSED to be separated from capitalism (damn lobbist!).

The job of politicians is to implement things for the "social good". Capitalism isn't for the social good.

It's another balancing act.

We, as a society decide that the disabled should be supported by the society as a whole. That's why we pay taxes.

In a way, this is the open door that we all like to use.

Why can't the government pay for my organic chicken? They pay for that guy with no legs to buy cloths at walmart.

Oh wait, he has to shop at walmart! Let's give him more money so he can go to the Gap.

But we'll have to cut the organic chicken fund?!?

[macr0]

I'll just have to stick to being a vegetarian I guess.

:mad:

It's ok. I still don't smell the ocean

<_<

[Heleuiski]

Of course not. But you are choosing to give more of yourself to individuals rather than participating in the capitalist exchange of goods for services. As such, you are, by the nature of what you are doing, not contributing to society's working machine that produces the desired "organic" chicken. Mass production was developed to cater and encourage the long life and successful reproduction of human beings: without it it is unlikely that the world would be as populated as it is now.

You can of course bypass the established system and become friends with someone who happen to produce the organic chicken you want...

I could start my own organic chicken farm in the back yard... not sure what the neighbours would say.

:)

[LongSilence]

That's why we have politics, which are SUPPOSED to be separated from capitalism (damn lobbist!).

The job of politicians is to implement things for the "social good". Capitalism isn't for the social good.

It's another balancing act.

We, as a society decide that the disabled should be supported by the society as a whole. That's why we pay taxes.

In a way, this is the open door that we all like to use.

Why can't the government pay for my organic chicken? They pay for that guy with no legs to buy cloths at walmart.

Oh wait, he has to shop at walmart! Let's give him more money so he can go to the Gap.

But we'll have to cut the organic chicken fund?!?

Hmmm... what if we, you know, got rid of all those who aren't too "productive "? I mean, it might mean a few unsavoury actions but at least we could then supply organic chicken for all!!


I could start my own organic chicken farm in the back yard... not sure what the neighbours would say.

:)

But what about the people you were giving your time up to care for?
Well, i guess they might get less attention but at least they might get Organic chicken!!

[macr0]

I could start my own organic chicken farm in the back yard... not sure what the neighbours would say.

:)

I tried growing an organic garden one time in my back yard. The ants took over in 2 days :( If I ever want to grow something again, I'm getting some nitrogen fertalizer!:wahmbulance:

[Architectonic]

That's why we have politics, which are SUPPOSED to be separated from capitalism (damn lobbist!).

What I don't like is the assumption that many issues have to be dealt with on the Federal level - if government was more decentralized, there would be more diversity in policy and hopefully more transparency.

[macr0]

Hmmm... what if we, you know, got rid of all those who aren't too "productive "? I mean, it might mean a few unsavoury actions but at least we could then supply organic chicken for all!!

But what about the people you were giving your time up to care for?
Well, i guess they might get less attention but at least they might get Organic chicken!!

If we did do that, we might as well eat the people we got rid of first. They're organic too.

:scratches head:

[Heleuiski]

Hmmm... what if we, you know, got rid of all those who aren't too "productive "? I mean, it might mean a few unsavoury actions but at least we could then supply organic chicken for all!!



But what about the people you were giving your time up to care for?
Well, i guess they might get less attention but at least they might get Organic chicken!!

God I feel so guilty now that I'm not completely productive in a purely capitalist sense...

Yeah you might as well send me off to the knackers yard now.

[Heleuiski]

If we did do that, we might as well eat the people we got rid of first. They're organic too.

:scratches head:

FUCK! That reminds me of an old Sci fi film Soylent Green.

*puketastic*

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/

[LongSilence]

If we did do that, we might as well eat the people we got rid of first. They're organic too.

:scratches head:

Yeah, I thought about that... but they've probably not been free to roam free and get much exercise being disabled and all. Not to mention all that inorganic shit and the manufactured clothes they've been eating and wearing. At least we know the chickens have been eating good old non-artificial corn and hopefully not dressed up in any of that Walmart fabric.

Now babies on the other hand...

[macr0]

What I don't like is the assumption that many issues have to be dealt with on the Federal level - if government was more decentralized, there would be more diversity in policy and hopefully more transparency.

For some things, maybe. I think social services would be grand at the state level.

Might have problems with people clogging up states. Then you'd have to apply for citizenship for different states because Oregon has free healthcare and welfare for all.

The problem is that this would work if the economics were also separated at the state level.

It's pretty obvious why that wouldn't work. You'd have tarriffs for buying chicken feed from your neighbor state and all kinds'a craziness.

The feds would just keep people from killing us and us killing each other :)

[Heleuiski]

Yeah, I thought about that... but they've probably not been free to roam free and get much exercise being disabled and all. Not to mention all that inorganic shit and the manufactured clothes they've been eating and wearing. At least we know the chickens have been eating good old non-artificial corn and hopefully not dressed up in any of that Walmart fabric.

Now babies on the other hand...

That's as funny as fuck.

[macr0]

FUCK! That reminds me of an old Sci fi film Soylent Green.

*puketastic*

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/

:( ignorance is bliss.

[Architectonic]

The feds would just keep people from killing us and us killing each other

You realize that there are many countries that are smaller (in both population and landmass) than the United States? Some of them have more efficient political processes too.

The economies don't need to be separated at the state level - I guess in a similar way to how globalism works now. With corporations paying tax to do business in a particular state/country.

As for your Oregon example, I see you've stumbled on a key theme in the world currently - you realize that first world countries are exactly that to the rest of the world - they all want to get in. And as such, the larger the government, the more restrictive the immigration policy.

[Heleuiski]

You realize that there are many countries that are smaller (in both population and landmass) than the United States? Some of them have more efficient political processes too.

The economies don't need to be separated at the state level - I guess in a similar way to how globalism works now. With corporations paying tax to do business in a particular state/country.

As for your Oregon example, I see you've stumbled on a key theme in the world currently - you realize that first world countries are exactly that to the rest of the world - they all want to get in. And as such, the larger the government, the more restrictive the immigration policy.

You mean other places exist other than the United States?
I thought that was just a fairy tale engineered by some mad commie bastards...

[macr0]

You mean other places exist other than the United States?
I thought that was just a fairy tale engineered by some mad commie bastards...

Don't listen to them. We all know what the world looks like...

http://www.razee.com/Images/badamerica.gif

[Heleuiski]

Don't listen to them. We all know what the world looks like...

http://www.razee.com/Images/badamerica.gif

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Oh dear...

=))

[Architectonic]

Don't listen to them. We all know what the world looks like...

http://www.razee.com/Images/badamerica.gif

Man, I haven't seen that in years. Classic material!

[macr0]

You realize that there are many countries that are smaller (in both population and landmass) than the United States? Some of them have more efficient political processes too.

The economies don't need to be separated at the state level - I guess in a similar way to how globalism works now. With corporations paying tax to do business in a particular state/country.

As for your Oregon example, I see you've stumbled on a key theme in the world currently - you realize that first world countries are exactly that to the rest of the world - they all want to get in. And as such, the larger the government, the more restrictive the immigration policy.

The devil is in the details. And as far as everyone wanting to get in, it's political back dooring as usual. A Kenyan trying to get citizenship has to do everything except for walk a tight rope over a pit of alligators. A Vietnamese person just has to name a few presidents and sing a song or two.

Let's introduce this on a state level.

So sure, it could work. Would we all be better off? I doubt it. I think something like that would require some more war to happen.

With today's technology we should be able to do what the Greeks did as far as political processes go.

[MyDogHasFleas]

Yes...but return is simply not enough. It must be the biggest return possible, in spite of EVERYTHING else.

So, what do you mean by "EVERYTHING else" ?? You mean, all those things you think corporations SHOULD be doing besides trying to provide goods and services that customers want, so that they will give them money?

This is what annoys me about all these anti-corporation arguments. You assume the conclusion, up the wazoo! The conclusion being, Corporations Making Money Is Bad, because it's Obviously Not Helping The Public Good.

Well... out with it!! What does that really mean? And why is it true??

[MyDogHasFleas]

My point was not that corporations are intrinsically bad, my point was who polices them.

If the answer to that is the consumer, that is not good enough IMHO.



In point of fact it's not just the consumer. Corporations are subject to an entire library full of laws, and certainly to a rather insane legal system that allows anyone, anytime, to sue them for anything, at no cost.

But, I don't think that's what you are talking about, as evidenced by the next paragraph.



EDIT:-

For example, I would like to buy organic chicken, as I do not agree with the conditions in which these animals are raised, however I cannot afford to buy organic chicken and so vote with my feet.

Do you see?

Ah yes. This is the "those people over there SHOULD do something because I BELIEVE they should" argument. Here's the missing part of that argument: USING WHAT RESOURCES? i.e. WHO PAYS? You think somebody ELSE (either the corporation itself, or the government, i.e. taxpayers) should subsidize your organic chicken because YOU think they should.

Well... the only response to that is...

NO.

[Heleuiski]

A case in point: Sir Mark Moody-Stuart recounts an exchange between himself (at the time Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell), his wife, and a motley crew of Earth First activists who arrived on the doorstep of their country home. The protesters chanted and stretched a banner over their roof that read, "MURDERERS." The response of the surprised couple was not to call the police, but to engage their uninvited guests in a civil dialogue, share concerns about human rights and the environment and eventually serve them tea on their front lawn. Yet, as the Moody-Stuarts apologize for not being able to provide soy milk for their vegan critics' tea, Shell Nigeria is flaring unrivaled amounts of gas, making it one of the world's single worst sources of pollution. And all the professed concerns about the environment do not spare Ken Saro Wiwa and eight other activists from being hanged for opposing Shell's environmental practices in the Niger Delta.

The Corporation exists to create wealth, and even world disasters can be profit centers. Carlton Brown, a commodities trader, recounts with unabashed honesty the mindset of gold traders while the twin towers crushed their occupants. The first thing that came to their minds, he tells us, was: "How much is gold up?"


It turns out that standing for the public good is an expensive proposition. Ask Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, two investigative reporters fired by Fox News after they refused to water down a story on rBGH, a controversial synthetic hormone widely used in the United States (but banned in Europe and Canada) to rev up cows' metabolism and boost their milk production. Because of the increased production, the cows suffer from mastitis, a painful infection of the udders. Antibiotics must then be injected, which find their way into the milk, and ultimately reduce people's resistance to disease.

Fox demanded that they rewrite the story, and ultimately fired Akre and Wilson. Akre and Wilson subsequently sued Fox under Florida's whistle-blower statute. They proved to a jury that the version of the story Fox would have had them put on the air was false, distorted or slanted. Akre was awarded $425,000. Then Fox appealed, the verdict was overturned on a technicality, and Akre lost her award. [For an update on the case see Disc 2 where we learn that at one point, Jane and Steve became liable for Fox's $1.8 million court costs, later to be reduced to $200,000.]

Have a read of that.

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.php?page_id=2

[Heleuiski]

This is quite interesting too.


The nature of the corporation continues to evolve, both through existing corporations pushing new ideas and structures, courts responding, and governments regulating in response to new situations. A question of long standing is that of diffused responsibility: for example, if the corporation is found liable for a death, then how should the blame and punishment for this be allocated across the shareholders, directors, management and staff of the corporation, and the corporation itself? See corporate manslaughter specifically, and corporate liability generally.

The present law differs among jurisdictions, and is in a state of flux. Some argue that the owners of the business - the shareholders - should be ultimately responsible for such circumstances, forcing them to consider issues other than profit when investing, but the modern corporation may have many millions of small shareholders who know nothing about its business activities. In addition, traders ? especially hedge funds ? may rapidly turn over their partial ownership of a corporation many times a day.

One position is that the directors should be passed the burden of moral and legal responsibility as part of their job of representing the shareholders. Another position is that the artificial entity of the corporation itself should be held liable, in accordance with the model of a corporation as a natural person. In some jurisdictions, both directors and the corporation are liable for certain offences (see, for example, the Canadian province of Ontario's Environmental Protection Act). The issue of corporate repeat offenders (see H.Glasbeak, "Wealth by Stealth: Corporate Crime, Corporate Law, and the Perversion of Democracy" (Between the lines press: Toronto 2002) raises the question of the so-called "death penalty for corporations." [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

[Heleuiski]

In point of fact it's not just the consumer. Corporations are subject to an entire library full of laws, and certainly to a rather insane legal system that allows anyone, anytime, to sue them for anything, at no cost.

But, I don't think that's what you are talking about, as evidenced by the next paragraph.

Ah yes. This is the "those people over there SHOULD do something because I BELIEVE they should" argument. Here's the missing part of that argument: USING WHAT RESOURCES? i.e. WHO PAYS? You think somebody ELSE (either the corporation itself, or the government, i.e. taxpayers) should subsidize your organic chicken because YOU think they should.

Well... the only response to that is...

NO.

You just said that the consumer votes to keep corporations functioning, when I present an argument to counter this, namely that a good chunk of people couldn't afford to go elsewhere you discount this.

?

[Heleuiski]

Halliburton:-


Allegations of fraud by Halliburton, specifically with regard to its operations in Iraq, have persisted since before the Iraq War. The associations between Cheney and Halliburton had led many to speculate with regard to improprieties and profiteering from the war.

On 27 June 2005, the Democratic Party held a public committee, aired on C-SPAN 3, at which former civilian employees based in or administering operations in Iraq, testified to specific instances of waste, fraud, and other abuses and irregularities by Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR).

Among the senators and representatives present at the hearing were Byron Dorgan (presiding), Henry Waxman, Frank Lautenberg, and Mark Dayton.

Among those testifying were Bunny Greenhouse, former Chief Contracting Officer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Rory Mayberry, former Food Program Manager for a Halliburton subsidiary; and Allan Waller of the Lloyd-Owen International security and operations firm.

Greenhouse, who provided the bulk of testimony, spoke for several minutes about her involvement in the evaluation and crafting of government Army contracts, and explaining how her superiors undermined and dismissed her concerns of illegal business practices. "Ultimately my main concern was the repeated insistence RIO contract be awarded to KBR without competitive bidding," Greenhouse said. She testified to have been given misinformation in answer to her complaints, saying she was "overtly misled."

Mayberry, still in Iraq, testified by video from questions prepared by the committee. He said that KBR routinely sold expired food rations to the Army.

The recorded interviewer asked, "Are you saying that Halliburton deliberately falsified the number of meals they prepared and then submitted false claims for reimbursement and that they did this to make up for past amounts auditors had disallowed?" Mayberry firmly answered "yes." He said that serving expired food rations was "an everyday occurrence, sometimes every meal." He also explained that Halliburton systematically overcharged for the number of meals as well, saying, "they were charging for 20,000 meals and they were only serving 10,000 meals." Dorgan later commented, "obviously there's no honor here, by a company that would serve outdated food to our troops in Iraq."

Halliburton and its subcontractors contend that billing discrepancies for the dining facilities stemmed from interpretive differences in their contracts, which required them to be prepared to serve a minimum number of meals per day. When they billed for these minimum numbers however, the DCAA countered that they should only be required to pay for meals served. Of the more-than-$200 million in question, $51 million was eventually retained by the U.S. Army Field Support Command.

Mayberry also claimed would-be whistleblowers were threatened "to be sent to Fallujah" and other "places under fire" if they talked to media or governmental oversight officials. In 2003 and 2004, Fallujah had been well known as dangerous for foreign troops and civilians. "I personally was sent to Fallujah for three weeks. The manager told me that I was being sent away until the auditors were gone, because I had talked to the auditors," Mayberry said.

"The threat of being sent to a camp under fire was their way of keeping us quiet. The employees who talked to auditors were sent to camps under more fire than other camps, and Anaconda." This report led Dorgan and others to voice considerable outrage.

Allan Waller testified to specific examples of how KBR officials had conspired in blocking of Lloyd-Owen fuel transports, and using other coercive means against its competitor. British based Lloyd-Owen has a direct contract with the Iraqi government to provide fuel to various parts of the country.

In his introductory remarks, Dorgan said that Senate Republicans had blocked any attempts at having a formal bi-partisan hearing, resulting in a separate committee.

More corporate scandal.

[Heleuiski]

Ford:-


Through early production of the model, it became a focus of a major scandal when it was alleged that the car's design allowed its fuel tank to be easily damaged in the event of a rear-end collision which sometimes resulted in deadly fires and explosions. Critics argued that the vehicle's lack of a true rear bumper as well as any reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank, meant that in certain collisions, the tank would be thrust forward into the differential, which had a number of protruding bolts that could puncture the tank. This, and the fact that the doors could potentially jam during an accident (due to poor reinforcing) made the car a potential deathtrap.

Ford was allegedly aware of this design flaw but refused to pay what was characterized as the minimal expense of a redesign. Instead, it was argued, Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. Mother Jones magazine obtained the cost-benefit analysis Ford had used to compare the cost of an $11 repair against the cost of paying off potential law suits. The characterization of Ford's design decision as gross disregard for human lives in favor of profits led to major lawsuits, inconclusive criminal charges, and a costly recall of all affected Pintos. Ford lost several million dollars and gained a reputation for manufacturing "the barbecue that seats four."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

[Utopmk]

Greenpeace investigation reveals...

Lost interest after the first 3 words.

[Heleuiski]

I'm not saying corporations are evil. I'm saying that they are far from perfect.

[Heleuiski]

Lost interest after the first 3 words.

*yawn*

[MyDogHasFleas]

You just said that the consumer votes to keep corporations functioning, when I present an argument to counter this, namely that a good chunk of people couldn't afford to go elsewhere you discount this.

?

It wasn't an argument. It was a statement that corporations should pay for something that you want but don't want to pay for.

It's like when a little kid asks for a candy bar just before dinner. It isn't an argument and it doesn't demand refutation.

The only response I could think of was, "No." I think that does quite well.

I could add, "I hope to god people like you don't get into power in this country and start nationalizing everything because THEY know better than US. Because I just might have to learn how to be a soldier and join the resistance." Does that make you happier?

[MyDogHasFleas]

All these recitations of corporate greed and scandal are not an argument either. They are simply broadside attacks. Just saying "corporations are evil" doesn't do anything. Do you think you have a better system? Bring it out and let's examine it. Stop just kvetching.

[Heleuiski]

All these recitations of corporate greed and scandal are not an argument either. They are simply broadside attacks. Just saying "corporations are evil" doesn't do anything. Do you think you have a better system? Bring it out and let's examine it. Stop just kvetching.

Corporations are not evil. I haven't said that.
Sheesh! Enough with the broken record.
I'm saying they should be held more accountable for their actions.

How could I hate corporations when I love my Starbucks coffee and I'm sat here typing using a windows GUI?

[Heleuiski]

Me:- Well huge corporations are like... bigger than some countries. Who watches the global corporations? Who polices them?

Anyone know?


Fleas:-The answer is quite obvious but you don't want to see it.

The answer is: you, the consumer, do, by simply voting with your wallet.

Big corporations only exist because they are providing value for their customers. As soon as those customers decide to go somewhere else, big corporations can die in a hurry. It's happened many times.

And when I suggest that sometimes you cannot vote with your wallet?


It was a statement that corporations should pay for something that you want but don't want to pay for.

It's like when a little kid asks for a candy bar just before dinner. It isn't an argument and it doesn't demand refutation.

No it's not.

If I don't like what a corporation does you then said to vote with my wallet.. fine but what if you can't afford to do that?

Then you say that corporations shouldn't pay for something I want?

It doesn't make any sense at all.

You are thinking that I want all corporations disbanded! No, but I want them to be more accountable for what they do to the environment and to peoples health.

I repeat, I did not say in any part of this thread that corporations are evil, it is an assumption that you have made. You are seeing that I have a viewpoint on this that is far removed from my actual stance.


Toonia:- In extreme cases, debating in black and white is often useless because one side is argued as an absolute and the B-&-W thinker projects the same degree of absolutism onto their opponent. You must then spend most of your time trying to defend your actual position, essentially debating against what is perceived to be your position. The B-&-W thinker sometimes does not have the ability to perceive the shades of grey you present and so the argument is reduced to two ludicris positions. Well, that's the worst case scenario anyway.

[Ckyzxr]

So, what do you mean by "EVERYTHING else" ?? You mean, all those things you think corporations SHOULD be doing besides trying to provide goods and services that customers want, so that they will give them money?

This is what annoys me about all these anti-corporation arguments. You assume the conclusion, up the wazoo! The conclusion being, Corporations Making Money Is Bad, because it's Obviously Not Helping The Public Good.

Well... out with it!! What does that really mean? And why is it true??

I never said "bad" or "evil". I am not anti-corporate. In fact I have been a corporate employee for decades (six different corporations).

I'm just stating the absolute goal of corporations. It is not for me to decide whether it is good or evil; I am no judge. I am just an observer (and participant). I actually help the corporations improve their value; my forte is Continuous Operational Improvement. I am as much a part of their existence and success as anyone.

Furthermore, I have helped my peers (Directors and Regional Managers) understand why our corporation makes the decisions it does. Our corporation is not bad (you might be DEAD without it), but it still has the same goal as most all corporations...increase shareholder value.