""And dont even say these are a few bad apples, isolated incidents in an otherwise benevolent corporate community. "
I fucking well will. I resent your belief that you can tell what I may & may not say"

I am not asserting that you are not aloud to say this. just that saying it would not be factually correct.

I refuse to sit here and list (more) corporate abuses that you can easily check and verify yourself.
I say corporations are bad because of this this this and this
you say prove it.
A totally reasonable request.
But corporate wrongdoings are so readily available that you not knowing about them is not a fault on my behalf for not providing the information to you, but a fault on your behalf for not even looking for information that is literally a click away.

@sic
Of course I know of these abuses. Not least because the same examples get trotted out every time someone wants to moan about MNCs. However, for every wrong there are many goods which do not get reported because they are simply routine.

So what 'good' corporation do you work for?

@ Friendly Sword: " Remove the illegality of drugs and the drug trade no longer will necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of those who are willing to fight against government enforcement (aka dudes with guns). Drugs just become another commodity, as they were for nearly all of human history without resulting in the collapse of human society."

Yay! Cheap Heroin, Crack, Ketamine, Ludes and Crystal Meth for everyone!!!

What about the fact that some drugs are SERIOUSLY HARMFUL to anyone that takes them? How does making those drugs legal help society?


"Regarding the threat of corporations:

Note that my stance here is that because corporation won't be so large, they won't be so powerful, and they won't have government armies along with them, they won't pose nearly the same hazards."

/fail. Rather than making sweeping, vague, statements, please respond to the specific points that I raised.

But to respond to this vacuous statement - why won't corporations be so large? How will you stop them growing?


"if you'll indulge in a bit of fantasy here"

I am unwilling to indulge your absurd fantasies. No-one ever allows me to talk about communism without shooting it down as 'absurd fantasy'.

@sicarus:

"right to:
life
health
freedom of expression (speech, press, etc.)
freedom of religion
freedom from religion"

Yes, I agree with all those, within reason. Freedom of the press does not give the press carte blanche to harass people, for instance.


@diplomat: "So, in my world: corporations create wealth, governments maintain rights, people benefit from both. "

Oh you poor, deluded fool. Corportations don't create wealth, they just appropriate it for themselves.


@ Sicarus: "I dont know how many nigerians or mexicans or burmese have stock portfolios or pension schemes."

Sicarus +1

"A corporation is bound by law to put making money above everything else, including environmental health, and human rights. They say money is the root of all evil, so what does that make an entity whose sole function of existence is to make money?"

Sicarus +2


"Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Chevron, Coca Cola, Nestle...."

All great examples, Sicarus. The only thing is, you fail to identify the one thing that would stop all these abuses - a stronger state!


@ Draugnar: "So, no, in modern America you can't truly be free of the big bad corps."

Well, it's certainly very hard. The British comedian and writer Dave Gorman wrote a really wonderful book about it, called "America Unchained" which I recommend - I think you'd enjoy it. (This is an aside, not a serious point, but I DO recommend Gorman's book as fun bedtime reading.

@Jamie, re: drugs

Legalization's main benefit is that it cuts off funding to organized crime. If legalized, the drug marketplace becomes one where disputes are settled by attorneys, not Kalashnikovs. This is a good thing, I think, and a good that to me seems to outweigh the harms of legalization.

I like you jamie, we may not agree on much, but you at least are a sane person.

How on earth would a stronger state stop corporate abuses? Wouldnt it just increase the corruption that already happens between corporate and state?
plus, we all know what happens when the corporate and the state become too close, merge even ;]

@Jamie
"Oh you poor, deluded fool. Corportations don't create wealth, they just appropriate it for themselves."

Go and read up on 'shares'.

@sic
"Sicarius (748 )
12:10 AM
So what 'good' corporation do you work for?"
Not relevant to this discussion. Not one of those you have mentioned.

It's totally relevant.
You can't say the corporation you work for is one of the 'good' ones then not provide any information to prove or disprove it.
if you really didnt want to talk about it then you shouldnt have brought it up.
But now refusing to disclose that information is tantamount to either you lying, or just being an all around prick.

you know I work for a corporation too. it's really evil. it poisons the earth and kills children, and has child sex slaves that bust unions and makes the black janitors perform satanic rituals to steal the souls of the hispanic cleaning ladies. And they embezzle. And sell weapons to child soldiers to fund their heroin trade that they use to fund their blood diamond theft ring which are then sold to wealthy jewlers in israel who use that profit to dump toxic waste on the palestinians thereby saving enough money to hire goons to go and beat up old ladies in the park feeding pigeons. and just for kicks they pull off the pen feathers of the pigeons. see, indisputable proof that corporations are evil . I mean, I can at least say there is one horribly evil corporation, at least one, the one that I work for. but you cant know what that one is.
its irrelevant.

@Sicarius
If I say which one I work for you will traduce their reputation, ignoring all the good things that are done.

One of us here is lying and being a prick. I leave the audience to decide. My discussion with you is over.

I don't think that either of you are lying, but you are definitely both pricks. :)

Seriously though diplomat, it's a fair question. You accepted that the examples Sicarius gave were examples of malignant corporations. You argued that there were in fact lot's of goods that counteracted the bad, but your only counter-example was the one you work for.

If that is the extent of your argument, shouldn't you at least describe it? Alternatively, name us another multinational corporation that is a force for good in the third world rather than ill.

well if you are so sure of their altruism, why not tell me the name? Even I cant change facts (shameless propagandizer as I am) so we can all see at least one example of a corporation that doesnt fuck everyone over.

I agree with FS and Sicarus on this one, diplomat. You can't hold your company up as an example of good practice without telling us which company you're talking about.

@ diplomat: "Go and read up on 'shares'"

/fail. The vast majority of the world's poor do not have significant stock portfolios.


Friendly Sword - you still haven't given a meaningful response to my points about corporations.


@ Sicarus: "How on earth would a stronger state stop corporate abuses?"

Only a strong state has the power to exert control over major corporations. How would dissolving the state stop corporate abuses?

@Jamie
"@ diplomat: "Go and read up on 'shares'"

/fail. The vast majority of the world's poor do not have significant stock portfolios."

Of course they do not, the point is that the wealth generated by corporations is not retained but returned to shareholders as dividends and to governments as taxes (on the corporation itself and it's employees wages).

@Jamie, FS
Of course I can. There are plenty of people posting things here about their personal experience without everyone demanding chapter & verse on the source. You can choose to disbelieve what I am telling you but ask yourself why I would bother lying.

I tried to get across earlier, but I think I failed, that it is often not the headline stuff that a good MNC brings to a country. For example, the various factories that I have seen, ours and others, have better health & safety and better pay & conditions than local companies do. This usually extends to major suppliers too; I have been involved in an initiative whereby ourselves and other companies are setting up a joint, independent monitoring operations. When I worked in China, my assistant was a bright woman who had grown up in a peasant hut, we sponsored her to get an international accountancy qualification and she now works for a major advertising company. I have seen colleagues from the Philippines posted to Europe for three years to gain experience. Our training centre is always full of people from around the world. These are opportunities that do not come from local companies.

Also, typically, MNCs pay more tax than local companies which is good for the local economy. These are things that you won't see in the newspapers but I have been there and seen them myself.

My experience of course mostly relates to my employer but in visiting suppliers and talking to contacts in other companies I do not think that we are that unusual. Of course, there are things that we can do better - and we are working on cutting water usage, reducing CO2 emissions, sustainable sourcing, etc. - and there fuck-ups (I am only aware of one in my company). There are also people for whom nothing bar the total abolition of global trade for whom nothing else is enough.

Before you take some high profile examples of MNC fuck ups and conclude that all MNCs are evil, you should also take time to read about CSR. Most companies address it in their annual reports and there are a variety of sources that comment on them.

@ jamiet "What about the fact that some drugs are SERIOUSLY HARMFUL to anyone that takes them? How does making those drugs legal help society?"

They’re just as harmful regardless of whether or not they legal, however for as long as the drugs are illegal, they will promote gangs which supply the drugs, crime with which to pay for them at their inflated price, drug pushers who will create addicts, and among all this seeking assistance in kicking the habit will be disincentivised.

Portugal had significantly liberalise their drug laws, and have not seen a significant change in use levels. However, much of the crime related to the use of drugs has been avoided, and addicts are more likely to seek assistance.

That is how making drugs legal helps society. However, equally importantly, it also grants people freedom of choice. You may scoff that it is no great freedom to lose to take drugs, however that is simply your own evaluation of the benefits and costs of using drugs. The principle that you are fit to judge what decisions other people make is a highly unsound one.

@diplomat: "Also, typically, MNCs pay more tax than local companies which is good for the local economy."

Apart from all the Multinationals that are masters of avoiding taxes through the use of tax havens (the number of major companies which are apparently based in the Cayman Islands is remarkable), transfer pricing and other creative methods.

Loss of corporate tax to the developing world due to tax evasion through some of the common forms of evasion is currently running at US$160bn a year (based on 2008 figures) That is more than the combined aid budgets of the whole developed world (US$103.7bn in 2007).*

@ Ghostmaker: "Portugal had significantly liberalise[d] their drug laws, and have not seen a significant change in use levels."

I agree that the law on drugs (in the UK and probably the USA) should be liberalised. However I would argue that some drugs, such as heroin, are so harmful that they should remain banned. I would suggest that by legalising (but regulating) drugs such as cannabis, you would free up police resources to tackle the trade in the drugs which remained illegal.

"You may scoff that it is no great freedom to lose to take drugs, however that is simply your own evaluation of the benefits and costs of using drugs. The principle that you are fit to judge what decisions other people make is a highly unsound one."

I am not suggesting that I am 'fit to judge' in the way you imply. I don't make the laws. I am however entitled to an opinion, and that's what I am expressing here - my opinion. I thought
you were generally in favour of freedom of speech, Ghost? My opinion in this case is that while I, as an individual, am no more 'fit to judge' what others should do than you are, the state - governed by a proper democratic process - IS fit to judge. Indeed, that is its role.



* figures from the Institute of Development Studies, available at www.eldis.org

(And Ghost, before you say it, I am well aware that YOU are of the opinion that the only role of the state is the protection of property from the majority - however as you are also aware, I reject the notion of property rights. I have previously offered to have a one-to-one discussion with you on this particlar issue, but you didn't take me up on that offer, which I think is a shame.)

@Jaime - I'm not willing to dig through this whole farce to see what everyone has said, but if you 'reject the notion of property rights', and have the wherewithal to defend your position, I would suggest you open a thread instead of trying to discuss it 'one on one'. While I agree with many of Ghost's positions, he would doubtlessly be the first to say he doesn't speak for everyone...

@ stratagos: I may at some point do that, but I don't have time this week.

The reason I attempted to discuss it one on one with Ghost is that I found the discussion I had with him in another thread, where this issue came up, very interesting indeed, but also frustrating as it kept being interrupted by idiots posting stupid comments. Ok?

Has everyone given up? Do I win?

No. But don't have time to comment on your tax post.

Perhaps that's because my point about tax evasion strongly refutes your view, and is backed up by reliable data?

@Jamie
If you will not even believe me when I say that I have been busy what is the point of writing anything?

Tax avoidance is legal, the countries which "lose" from it are primarily those that the companies move from, that is the US, most European countries and so. Note that countries such as Switzerland, The Netherlands and Ireland have benefitted significantly from introducing favourable tax regimes for MNCs.

Tax evasion is a different matter and, as it is illegal, there are no reliable figures on this. The worst examples that I have encountered were in Syria, where the corporate tax rate of 110%, encouraged everyone to cheat and Egypt where we were once asked to pay a multi million dollar amount offshore instead of on by a man who is now there trade minister (we refused).

On the positive side, during a visit to Tanzania in 1992, I recall our general manager there being delighted at being the biggest tax payer in the country (the company not personally). Generally, in my experience, subsidiaries of MNCs are very careful to pay appapropriate taxes because local tax authorities are always sniffing around looking for errors or just a bribe (for example when the Chinese tax bureau tried to claim that $5m worth of machinery was my personal property thus subject to 50% duty - the biggest tax bill I ever received).

Transfer pricing is a potential route for moving profits to a more favourable regime and so you can be sure that it is the first thing tax authorities look at. Regardless of that, most developing countries charge a 'with-holding' tax, typically 10%, on all payments made outside of the country. So, if you buy materials from a foreign supplier for 100 (genuine market price, no profit transfer or other games) you have to pay 111 so that he gets his money.

“I agree that the law on drugs (in the UK and probably the USA) should be liberalised. However I would argue that some drugs, such as heroin, are so harmful that they should remain banned. I would suggest that by legalising (but regulating) drugs such as cannabis, you would free up police resources to tackle the trade in the drugs which remained illegal.”

Could work successfully towards your ends, but I would make sure that there were alternatives to heroin on the market. Alternatively, medicalise it.

“I am not suggesting that I am 'fit to judge' in the way you imply. I don't make the laws. I am however entitled to an opinion, and that's what I am expressing here - my opinion. I thought
you were generally in favour of freedom of speech, Ghost? My opinion in this case is that while I, as an individual, am no more 'fit to judge' what others should do than you are, the state - governed by a proper democratic process - IS fit to judge. Indeed, that is its role.”

The state is still just a group of people, and none of them are fit to judge how I should lead my life.

Also, the point about freedom of speech is irrelevant. You can give an opinion, but you cannot lay down a judgement legitimately.

"And Ghost, before you say it, I am well aware that YOU are of the opinion that the only role of the state is the protection of property from the majority - however as you are also aware, I reject the notion of property rights. I have previously offered to have a one-to-one discussion with you on this particlar issue, but you didn't take me up on that offer, which I think is a shame."

A little unfair that you say this. My response was actually that I was busy at the time, and would like to have a conversation at a later date. (I emailed you on March 9th to this effect)

I'll try to write an initial argument for why I consider property rights to be legitimate via voice recognition, but if that doesn't work, my shoulder injury from falling off a bike will make writing a long post too painful to justify it.