Leftist opposition to the existence of corporations

[GIGObuster]

@HRoark43

And these poor nations have no share in the blame here?

Corporations can only rape and pillage (being facetious here, folks) where they are allowed to. Third world nations let them come in and do their business (in both senses of the word), and third world workers flock to their corporate jobs. Everything that goes on is voluntary. Can someone define “exploit” for me?

So I see here that you do not know history also, well, one example is that in Guatemala in the 50’s the government decided to reign in the abuses that a former dictator allowed to an American company called United Fruit. The USA government decided to then overthrow an **elected **“commie” government that indeed just tried to not allow the corporations to run over the country.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/guatemala704/history/timeline.html#

In 1944 Jorge Ubico, who had ruled Guatemala as a pro-American dictator since 1931, was overthrown by a civilian revolt. Under Ubico, the United Fruit Company became the most important business in Guatemala and received tax exemptions from the government. In the following years, new President Juan Arevalo brought in vigorous education, labor and economic reforms. These reforms were extended by his Democratic successor, Jacobo Arbenz. He legalized unions and introduced agrarian law reform that by 1952 had benefited more than 100,000 poor rural families. Idle land was expropriated and former owners were compensated. The United Fruit Company, the largest landowner in Guatemala, was hugely affected by the new law, as the company was only using 8 percent of its property in Guatemala. In early 1953, a month after President Dwight D. Eisenhower was sworn in to office, the Guatemalan government expropriated 40 percent of the United Fruit Company’s land. Fearful of the spread of communism in Guatemala, President Eisenhower approved “PBFortune,” a covert CIA operation to supply weapons and funding for paramilitary groups to oppose President Arbenz.

[Agnostic_Pagan]

@msmith537

Your entire proposal smacks of niave idealism. What in your mind makes Walmart any more or less “moral” than their suppliers? Because Walmart is frequently a target for left-wing anti corporation types?

Recognition that an ideal is currently unworkable, and therefore not worth pursuing, but expressing the hope that one day it may be is naive? Equality of results among all of society’s benefits is impossible. There is only so much real estate in Southern France, and its value would greatly diminish if everyone that wanted to move there could. But those limitations only apply to material goods. The only limitations in the distribution of profits and other intangible goods are the costs of obtaining information and legal constraints on that distribution.

As accounting evolves, both financially, socially, environmentally, etc., a fuller recognition of total costs and profits will be possible. And once the systems for processing those accounts are in place, the costs of distributing that information will be greatly lower, and it will be more feasible to determine a more equitable distribution of certain benefits. The whole of the twentieth century saw the field grow in leaps and bounds in processing that information, but based on primarily one criteria - financial performance, and for primarily one audience - the owners of an enterprise.

This century, accounting and reporting is being focused on all relevant factors (including the determination of relevance and boundaries of those factors), and to share that information with all stakeholders, not just those with a pecuniary interest.

But the timeline for this is decades. AIS and ERP databases are not cheap and only larger enterprises can currently justify their expense. But those systems will make it easier to process additional information and creates the template for smaller enterprises to follow. Within a couple decades they will be as commonplace for the corner garage and beauty salon as for Fortune 500 companies. Hopefully, the legal obligations determining who is able to have access to that information will change as well to include a broader audience.

As for Walmart, there are many reasons why they are a favorite target of ‘left-wing anti-corporate types’, their attitude towards their suppliers being only one. Ask yourself why they are a focus and not other major retailers such as Target or Macy’s. But Walmart’s actions have been debated many times on this board, and I have no desire to rehash it here. I used them as an example since they are the exemplar of the behavior I was describing.

The whole point of free markets is to prevent people like you from arbitrarily deciding what is “good and moral business” and what isn’t based on their own personal biases.

No, the whole point of ‘free’ markets is the supposedly efficient allocation of resources - something that is not possible unless a sufficient accounting of those resources are obtained and while price has been a good indicator, experience now shows that it is not sufficient which is why there is a large push for more comprehensive accounting. Because even modern socialists support the market system as long as certain criteria are met.

It is living in a democratic society that allows one to decide what is ‘good’ or ‘moral’, (pharmaceuticals yes, narcotics no; hunting, yes, murder, no). And the decision is not arbitrary unless a majority makes it so. Currently, they have decided that profit maximization is ‘good and moral’. I disagree, and so seek to change that view, not arbitrarily impose mine on others. That method is more often used by capitalists in my experience.

[Agnostic_Pagan]

@RickJay

Forcing standards compliance by givernment fiat isn’t a good idea, for a variety of reasons, but primarily because a voluntary management system is generally taken seriously and is much likelier to mean the company wants it, and seriously uses the certified system for its intended purpose. Having it forced on them will make it a paper chase where only the bare minimums are met.

That is true, but requiring the use of a single standard is necessary for honest comparison and consistency which is why there is a convergence occurring between IFRS and GAAP. But no one is required to use GAAP or IFRS unless they meet other requirements. I envision a similar regulatory regime where ISO or whatever the final convergence is are the de jure definitions of that standard and legal compliance is only required for certain firms.

I also think the standard-setting bodies should remain non-governmental. FASB, IASB and the ISO have been able to establish real standards by being so. I would argue that the EPA may have been more effective if they had followed such a model as well. I do agree that industrial self-regulation is generally more effective than governmental fiats, but those fiats should be used when industry lags, such as with civil rights or consumer protection. And I think the threat of legislation over which industry would have limited control that is pushing a great deal of the development toward a self-regulatory standard.

@Null Summit

Even though you would prefer that cooperatives be mandatory that doesn’t seem an especially likely scenario. In the future cooperatives may increase in prominence and corporations may decrease in prominence (we’ll have to wait and see…) but I haven’t heard of any serious policy proposal, lobbying group, etc. espousing the sentiment that cooperatives be the required form for all businesses.

No, it is not likely anytime soon (i.e. not for several decades at the earliest, so I doubt in my lifetime sadly.) Yet ignorance or dismissal of them as viable alternatives does not help either. So the first step is overcoming both of those obstacles. A major part of that step is establishing the same institutional support that other forms of business have. So it is too early to require mandatory adoption. But it is still on my wish list.

It also doesn’t seem (to me) that it’s an especially popular idea with the general public. If the citizenry of a democratic country decline to make cooperatives mandatory isn’t that a good indicator that a variety of business forms is desirable by the public?

A variety of structures is desirable. I do want corporations abolished, and cooperatives mandatory (or at least the preferred structure) for certain firms - large public commercial enterprises, but I support sole proprietorships and partnerships as well. But the lack of public support is also an indicator of ignorance of their existence as a viable alternative. When they are encountered in the media, they are too often dismissed as some failed hippie socialist experiment from the sixties, and the industry definitely needs to take more initiative in promoting their development. (A few Public Service Announcements would be awesome.)

@mazinger_z

We would not have the level of wealth today without the corporation

As I mentioned earlier, I think corporations just happened to be at the right place at the right time. There are many reasons for the level of wealth in today’s world. I think democratic governments, technological innovations and fairer trade policies were the key factors. Corporations have been used very well by a small class of individuals to appropriate a significant share of the wealth that has been created often in spite of their actions. Corporations are only the latest tool of that class.

A cooperative would work only if we could change the very essence of human nature (or we had more wealth than we knew what to do with, both scenarios highly unlikely.)

Human nature does change. A thousand years ago, feudal societies were considered the true expression of human nature. Mandates from heaven were considered the only legitimate form of government. And merchants were considered among one of the lowest classes and an undignified profession for any man of stature.

And modern cooperatives have worked since the early 1800s and at scales far larger than a single grocer or farming community.