Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Does it really say McDonalds is responsible for these problems? Or are you reading it in Rush Limbaugh style, pushing the claims to their most absurb extreme in order to avoid having to consider them? I think it says McDonalds contributes to these problems, actually. And they certainly do as one of the largest food companies on the planet. It's not so simple as saying that the 'free market' determines this, either. If not for McDonalds advertising vast numbers of people would eat differently. Corporations are not just passive receivers of market forces. They also create them. Just like Walmart has a measurable effect on inflation nation-wide by its push to reduce prices, McDonalds has a real effect on peoples' diets world-wide through its huge advertising campaigns.

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

I don't have anything against McDonalds either. They are a well run business as fast food goes, good marketing, and they aren't a monopoly. I have in the past traveled extensively and in many cases I would see more Burger Kings than McDonalds. I will admit that was at least five to ten years ago for foreign nations that were located in Europe so maybe things have changed.

Sometimes they do things that are stupid such as suing in Scotland for the exlusive rights to McDonald.

I don't really like the food and much prefer Whataburger for quality but every now and then I do get a light craving for McDonalds and go have one and that is it until a few months later when I will have another one or will be in a rush and it is what is available.

Is McDonalds evil? Nah. Just a super corporation and at least in my book not one of the bad ones as at least it isn't a super global monopoly with control of all or almost all fast food everywhere.

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is an incredibly funny statement. How could it possibly be 'incendiary' to say that sleazy corporations are sleazy? Yes, since corporations have more influence on the writing of laws that govern corporations than the 'general public' (non-wealthy ordinary people) they are pretty much sleazy by default.

What would happen if athletes controlled the various sports governing bodies, and manipulated them to stop testing for steroid use? Obviously, athletes who did use steroids would start winning competitions and not getting caught, so they'd be making all the money and the honest athletes would be frozen out. In a relatively short time, you'd have almost nothing but steroid using atheletes in the national and international levels of most major catagories of sports. Would it then be 'incendiary' to say that these athletes are all steroid using cheats? I think even the few who were not using them and somehow staying in the competition would understand why people would say that.

As I hope anyone who watches the news is well aware, corporations have been writing their own rules for decades, with only the occasional break due to some huge scandal or other to reign them in a bit. All those Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, etc., executives were/are buddies of GW Bush and Dick Cheney and were personally visiting the White House to tell Santa-Bush what sham regulation they wanted as recently as Last year. Only the collapse of their companies has exposed the extreme cheating and stealing they were up to. You think there aren't hundreds or thousands of other executives doing the same thing but with just a tad more sense?

And no, I don't eat at McDonalds. Can't stand the food anymore. I wonder now how I could stand it when I was a kid.

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

There are so many comments missing the point about the definition of a corporation that I can't see how to reply to them individually. So I'll make one general statement:

The problem with the current definition of a corporation is that it limits the liability of the corporate officers too much. You can pretty much murder people with impunity and get off with your corporation being fined, whether by actual government regulators or by lawsuit doesn't matter. It's only a monetary risk no matter how many lives you ruin. This is literally gambling with peoples' lives and thanks to the 'corporate person' being such a popular business dodge it extends into every area of life.

From the alphabet soup of chemical dumpers at Love Canal who never had to pay squat for their pollution, to the Ford Motor Company deciding to ignore the known problems with Pinto gas tanks, to the various pharmaceutical companies who ignored the obvious health problems with breast implants for decades, an the tobacco companies who waged open propaganda campaigns to disguise the problems caused by smoking, there is a clear pattern of both the executives and the 'corporate Boards' that are supposed to supervise them skirting both the law and common sense in their quest to make a buck. And why not? Even in the crash of Enron Ken lay has come away with 100+ million dollars while his employees have had even their retirement savings reduced to dust. I hear there are some lawsuits underway to recover some of that money from him, but they will be breaking new legal ground if they succeed. IF these people knew they could actually pay the penalty for their crimes, and be sent personally to prison, or at least have their fat executive bonuses confiscated, I think we'd see a great deal more responsible behavior. But that would require changes to corporate law. Guess who writes that? The corporations themselves, and then they give it to some bought congressman, senator, or President to push through the system. Somehow I don't think we're going to see real reforms any time soon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

[ October 28, 2003, 02:34: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Really, PvK? Because if non one buys a corps products..the corperation GOES BACKRUPT. This is gennerally considered a bad thing for them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, really! Because the percentage of people "who are sufficiently informed" is small enough that megacorps don't care, particularly once they've dominated a market. Some corporations don't deal much or at all in public sales anyway (e.g. Gator, chemical manufacturers, research companies).

Quote:

And please define what you mean by benifical, because using just that I know of more than a few people who would leave McDonalds and the other corps you listed alone, but close down MM, Shrapnel and quite a few others you would like to see stay in one piece.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">When I wrote "corporations should only exist to do beneficial things", I didn't mean to say that they should be destroyed if some people don't appreciate what they do. I was reacting to people seeming to say that corporations just abstractly needed to exist. However, I didn't mean to say that a corporation should need to justify its existance.

However I do think that when their behavior causes problems, someone ought to consider controlling that behavior. Corporations certainly can't be counted on to do it themselves, because they their whole purpose is generally to maximize their own profits, by doing whatever they can get away with. This can and does frequently get way out of control, and in the case of megacorps, on a vast scale compared to what mischief individual humans can do.

PvK

[ October 28, 2003, 01:44: Message edited by: PvK ]

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Does it really say McDonalds is responsible for these problems? Or are you reading it in Rush Limbaugh style, pushing the claims to their most absurb extreme in order to avoid having to consider them? I think it says McDonalds contributes to these problems, actually. And they certainly do as one of the largest food companies on the planet. It's not so simple as saying that the 'free market' determines this, either. If not for McDonalds advertising vast numbers of people would eat differently. Corporations are not just passive receivers of market forces. They also create them. Just like Walmart has a measurable effect on inflation nation-wide by its push to reduce prices, McDonalds has a real effect on peoples' diets world-wide through its huge advertising campaigns. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No it said McD contributes to the problem. But even that is ridiculous. The one I read was just a rant by a hardcore vegitarian. I dislike McDonalds but one can hardly blame them for the fact that we eat meat. Do you really think we eat more beef becuase of McD's?
Now if you want to critisize McD's for pushing unhealthy junk food on us and being a major contirbutor to the rise in obesity (and god knwos what other health problems) well I couldn't argue with that.

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's incendiary because you are saying, "You're rich therefore you must have done something bad in order to get so rich, therefore you are evil." Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?

If the authorities have suspicions, then it is okay for them to investigate. If investigations turn up evidence of wrongdoing, then I'd be happy to say that that corporation is sleazy. Otherwise, I do not believe that it would be fair to call corporations and even as you seem to imply, rich individuals, sleazy by default.

In McDonald's case, what is it precisely that you think they have done wrong?

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey, PvK, you named the thread "Public referendums on destroying evil companies". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

Deccan, didn't you know that if you are not a poor Joe-schmo, you are by default a sleazy scum-bag? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif Even though the majority of wealthy people are honest, hard-working people that got their money by working long hours, taking great personal (financial) risks, etc., they are still sleazy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif Sounds like a lot of stereotyping is going on here to me...

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

Keep in mind that were it not for corporations and other large businesses, you would most likely not be able to own a car, the computer you are using right now, or have canned foods, packaged foods, processed foods, or even much food that you did not grow yourself or was not grown within a couple of miles of you (very problematic for large cities http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ), nor be able to buy much in the way of cheap (comparatively based on quality versus cost) clothing, shoes, furniture, etc. that you did not make yourself, have a house that you did not build yourself, and so on. All of these things would be way to expensive if they were made by small companies that were not able to produce on such a large scale as to be able to lower costs to more affordable levels. It takes a lot of capital to get production costs down so that prices can be relatively low (as well as to develop methods to reduce such costs, allowing other companies to copy them). Small businesses and cottage industries rarely have that capital.

[ October 28, 2003, 08:00: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh no, I must find a way to lose all my money then. Oh dear, poverty is virtue isn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

I agree with Mephisto. Corporations have separate legal personality to individuals and, to reflect that nature, are governed by a completely different set of legal obligations than those that apply to individuals.

I was not suggesting that they should have the same rights as individuals, simply that they must have separate legal personality in order for any rights empowered by law to be able to be enforced against them.

As to whether or not corporations should always act in a beneficial manner, I consider that this is a naive view. Corporations act for one purpose, to make profits in order to realise value for their shareholders. As to how they make those profits is a matter driven by market forces and business opportunities.

If you dont like the way a corporation does business, then as an individual, you only really have one method to show that dislike - dont buy their products. You have certain more rights if you are a shareholder, but practically, you will hold too few shares to make any real differences.
The only other option is lobbying in its many forms.

Failing this, you must exercise your franchise as a voter in order to put pressure on governments to police corporations.

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

Baron Munchausen,

Here's a peace offering, my idea of a specific, clear and legitimate grievance against how many corporations operate, excerpted from the 17th October 2003 issue of The Economist. The issue concerns the wage inflation of bosses of corporations.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

Ahh, if this discussion is more focussed on fat cat's pay, then I believe we are on firmer ground.

The sad thing is that the only people who can really do anything to curb extoritionate director's pay are the shareholders of the corporation, or a direct regulatory body such as the Stock Exchange.

Governments have tried to legislate (as the Blair government is trying to do at the moment, primarily in relation to privatised utility companies) but currently, nothing is progressing.

The allies here though are the large investment funds into which most of our pension monies are invested. These generally hold large slugs of public companies' equities and therefore, directors really have to listen to fund managers if they have an objection. This approach appears to be polarising and I think we will see a lot more direct shareholder action to stop excessive pay awards..

The UK is bad enough, but when you see what the CEO's of US companies pay themselves!!!!!

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

A large part of executive pay comes from stock options, right? At least, during the stock boom of the late 90s options were the bulk of executive compensation plans. The idea being, that a profitable company = a sucsessful company. Of course, the American way is to hire a team of lawyers to analyze the rules and systems and find the best ways to exploit them, so stock options eventually started leading to companies taking drastic short cuts, using creative accounting practices, selling unsafe products, and shredding the evedince of these activities. Taking illegal shortcuts raises corporate profits, thereby raising stock prices and executive pay. So maybe doing away with stock options as compensation would have a positive effect on corporate behavior. Just my 2 cents worth of rant. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

Macjimmy, you are quite right that option schemes, and phantom option schemes, used to be a fair percentage of director's remunerations.

This is less the case these days, where the bulk of remuneration packages come from guaranteed bonueses irrespective of whether or not the company performs.

It sometimes seems that the rationale is

Success should be rewarded
Failure should be compensated!

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

I don't understand the reasoning for options then, and bonuses now. Why not just pay executives a larger salary than everyone else? I know they already do get larger salaries than average employees, but then it is combined with all of this doublespeak for money. Just increase their salaries. And while I'm here, what about the practice of creating offshore accounts to evade income taxes? I am under the impression that this is a fairly common practice among larger corporations and richer individuals who can afford accountants and lawyers to set up things like this. I remember when Enron & pals were big in the news that there was some talk about trying to fix it, but like the rest of corporate reform, it has been drowned out in the flood of news from Iraq, Afganistan, and Kobe Bryant.

Ahhh, someone shut me up http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ October 28, 2003, 15:03: Message edited by: macjimmy ]

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

Macjimmy, the clever executive will get a salary, but benchmarked at a level that hopefully wont upset the shareholders too much.

He will then get bonuses, discretionary and non-discretionary.

He will also get pension contributions.

Add then stock options and some sexy advanced payment mechanism to get money paid offshore to avoid taxes as a "sweetener" and then your average board chappie is wealthier than Croesus

Oh, and the clever ones negotiate golden handshakes and golden parachutes, so it makes it damn expensive to get rid of them.

Eg head of AstraZeneca in England, sack him? no worries, but that will be £38,000,000 please

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

poverty isn't so much of a virtue as it's hard to be tempted to be arrogant about your wealth when you don't have any. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

Hate to bring this topic to the top again... but in regards to GATOR and installing even when you say no. I just ran into that when I downloaded a DivX Codec. It popped up twice asking if I accepted the Gator install and Gator EULA. I said no. The Codec installed. I run a program that uses the Codec and... My firewall pops up asking if I want to allow a program titled Gain to connect to a website with Gator in the URL. I say block all connections from said application.
I ran Adaware. And... 29 Gator files, 2 Gator regkeys, 2 Gator Regvalues, 1 Gator Process.

So it seems that in at least a few cases, though probably not all. Gator will install even if you say no. And if they are willing to do that then they are probably willing to install without asking at all.

Now THAT fits my description of a sleazy company. Both Gator and the one allowing it to run in their software/downloads in such a misleading way.

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey, PvK, you named the thread "Public referendums on destroying evil companies". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Non-appreciation is not the same thing as evil.

PvK

Re: OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ive had to deal with a browser hijacking lately. Installs without any notice usually. Ad aware only helped so much, I had to manually root around in my files and zorch those files. I added 00hq.com and 8ad.com to my block list, I'd reccomend you all do the same.