• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power

RavenSky

The Doctor's Wife
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Messages
10,705
Location
Miami, Florida
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The article is very poorly written, in my opinion, but the topic and the author being interviewed are interesting.

As a result, corporations emerged as self-governing institutions with the single goal of serving their own interests and those of their shareholders. Bakan’s work does not seek to vilify or analyze the people who run corporations or work for them. He critiques the institutional nature of the corporation as legally created, saying it is an invention that has been imbued with characteristics that, if observed in a human being, would swiftly be diagnosed as psychopathic.

Bakan outlined the characteristics of a psychopath, including: callous unconcern for the feelings of others; incapacity to maintain enduring relationships; reckless disregard for the safety of others; deceitfulness, repeated lying and cheating people for profit; incapacity to experience guilt; failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior.

Looking at this list in relation to the excesses on Wall Street, the guiles and machinations of big banks, the environmental record of oil and gas companies, the misinformation campaigns we wrote about in "Climate Cover-Up" and the lies and lack of guilt in the tobacco industry, I began to see Bakan’s point.

"Not only have we created an institution in the image of a psychopathic human being, but we’ve actually conferred personhood on it ... and as a society we’ve given it immense power to govern every aspect of our lives," Bakan said.

Increasingly, corporations have limited legal obligation to be concerned about the environment but are compelled to do what’s best for their shareholders...

Their critical path must be to serve shareholder profits — that’s been the unique nature of the institution and its legal obligations since corporations were first formed. Corporations were first conceived in the late 19th century as immensely powerful tools to attract large sums of capital; they created massive projects such as railroads and more recently airlines and the internet. They were mighty, effective investment capital vehicles, and they were constrained so they would not cause more harm than good.

Beginning in the 1930s "there began to develop a robust regulatory system and regulatory state," Bakan observed, but in the 1980s we began to see a dismantling of regulation, which continues today. "Now the notion is, 'Let’s let the powerful vehicle do its own thing and hope it constrains itself. ... Somehow everything will trickle down and play out, and the market will take care of it so everything will be fine.' Well, everything isn’t fine."

Today’s corporation, as an institution, lacks any intrinsic or internal ability to constrain itself morally or ethically, and Bakan sees this as very dangerous

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/do-you-work-self-regulating-psychopath

While I have not compared corporations to psychopaths, I have long agreed that the very nature of corporations' duty to shareholders only is at odds with what is good for employees, society at large and the environment.

What do you think?
 
The Corporation (2003)

This documentary explicitly shows how the behavior of corporations is by law sociopathic.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHrhqtY2khc[/YOUTUBE]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/

These sociopathic institutions are ruling over us through government corruption.

Give an ape an extra banana and he'll gladly fuck over his fellow ape.
 
That is the documentary done by the same author I was quoting in the OP. Thanks for the link to the movie.
 
I agree with this premise that corporations by their nature must be treated with caution due to that nature being selfish and ultimately intent on rising at any cost. A beetle stepping on its brethren to avoid drowning, while pushing those below it under water. That we gave this personhood still just blows my mind completely.
 
The Corporation (2003)

This documentary explicitly shows how the behavior of corporations is by law sociopathic.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHrhqtY2khc[/YOUTUBE]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/

These sociopathic institutions are ruling over us through government corruption.

Give an ape an extra banana and he'll gladly fuck over his fellow ape.

This shows that apes are not so different to many humans.
 
This shows that apes are not so different to many humans.

That's the point. Systems based on greed will bring out the worst in people.

Humans will adapt to their environment. If it is one of cooperation they will tend to cooperate. If it is one of greed and self gratification humans will adapt and become despicable creatures.
 
I'm surprised people hadn't seen this. It's about 10 years old isn't it?

Does anyone like Adam Curtis's documentaries?
 
I invest in corporations. I have 10 members in my household that I support and I'd like to retire someday. Therefore, I invest in companies that offer the highest return. They are usually very well managed. Most well managed companies treat their employees well. But a company that doesn't look after my interests well will lose my investment.
 
I invest in corporations. I have 10 members in my household that I support and I'd like to retire someday. Therefore, I invest in companies that offer the highest return. They are usually very well managed. Most well managed companies treat their employees well. But a company that doesn't look after my interests well will lose my investment.

The individual must survive in whatever system they find themselves.

But the reason you have this desperation to invest is because of the corporate system with most of the wealth created flowing into very few hands.
 
I invest in corporations. I have 10 members in my household that I support and I'd like to retire someday. Therefore, I invest in companies that offer the highest return. They are usually very well managed. Most well managed companies treat their employees well. But a company that doesn't look after my interests well will lose my investment.

The question is, I think, why can't a corporation be organized to do all of it? Shareholder interests, but also employee interests, societal interests and environmental interests? Is the possibility of lower returns to shareholders a good enough reason to negate the risks of bad outcomes to everyone and everything else?
 
I invest in corporations. I have 10 members in my household that I support and I'd like to retire someday. Therefore, I invest in companies that offer the highest return. They are usually very well managed. Most well managed companies treat their employees well. But a company that doesn't look after my interests well will lose my investment.

The question is, I think, why can't a corporation be organized to do all of it? Shareholder interests, but also employee interests, societal interests and environmental interests? Is the possibility of lower returns to shareholders a good enough reason to negate the risks of bad outcomes to everyone and everything else?

In my experience, the companies that treat their employees and the environment well earn the highest return. People assume that "maximizing shareholder return" means screwing employees. Not true. Large corporations tend to pay their workers better and offer better benefits. But they can't pay far more than market or else their competitors will put them out of business.
 
The question is, I think, why can't a corporation be organized to do all of it? Shareholder interests, but also employee interests, societal interests and environmental interests? Is the possibility of lower returns to shareholders a good enough reason to negate the risks of bad outcomes to everyone and everything else?

In my experience, the companies that treat their employees and the environment well earn the highest return. People assume that "maximizing shareholder return" means screwing employees. Not true. Large corporations tend to pay their workers better and offer better benefits. But they can't pay far more than market or else their competitors will put them out of business.

The biggest return is in not caring about the environment.

There is no monetary return in caring. There is only expense.
 
In my experience, the companies that treat their employees and the environment well earn the highest return. People assume that "maximizing shareholder return" means screwing employees. Not true. Large corporations tend to pay their workers better and offer better benefits. But they can't pay far more than market or else their competitors will put them out of business.

The biggest return is in not caring about the environment.

There is no monetary return in caring. There is only expense.

Again, a coporation that harms the environment will lose shareholder value. But why should corporations be charged with directly protecting the environment? Do you expect police departments to care for the environment? How about libruaries? If not, why should McDonalds regulate the air? Corporations, shareholders, and their employees pay taxes. I expect the government that receives our taxes to regulate and care for the environment. I expect McDonalds to adhere to federal environmental rules and make hamburgers.
 
The biggest return is in not caring about the environment.

There is no monetary return in caring. There is only expense.

Again, a coporation that harms the environment will lose shareholder value. But why should corporations be charged with directly protecting the environment? Do you expect police departments to care for the environment? How about libruaries? If not, why should McDonalds regulate the air? Corporations, shareholders, and their employees pay taxes. I expect the government that receives our taxes to regulate and care for the environment. I expect McDonalds to adhere to federal environmental rules and make hamburgers.

How does a corporation that harms the environment in totalitarian China lose shareholder value by polluting?

It gains shareholder value.

That is why they are doing it.

Corporations are sociopathic entities. They only do the right thing when forced to do it.
 
The question is, I think, why can't a corporation be organized to do all of it? Shareholder interests, but also employee interests, societal interests and environmental interests? Is the possibility of lower returns to shareholders a good enough reason to negate the risks of bad outcomes to everyone and everything else?

In my experience, the companies that treat their employees and the environment well earn the highest return. People assume that "maximizing shareholder return" means screwing employees. Not true. Large corporations tend to pay their workers better and offer better benefits. But they can't pay far more than market or else their competitors will put them out of business.

Screwing employees raises the bottom line in the short run. In the long run it drives off the good employees and the bottom line ends up worse, not better.

This is part of why I would like to see stock options abolished--they encourage short-term approaches. Rather, I would like to see the top people paid in stock shares with limited liquidity--the true value of their pay will come down to the long term performance of the company. Such a CEO will care more about the share price 10 years from now than what it's going to do next month.

There's one well-known CEO that applies this (looking only at the long term results) approach to the many subsidiaries he has--somehow I don't think it's a coincidence that he's also considered the world's best investor.
 
Corporations weren't meant to become so powerful. The concept of protection from personal liability is what spurned entrepreneurial innovation and we have all benefitted from it tremendously. Without liability protection, the number of risks that have been undertaken would not have been and the Western world would look very different than it does today.

And to this day, there is no legal doctrine that says that a board of directors is so strictly beholden to shareholders that it must strictly pursue profits to please them. But of course, that is what major public corporations have become, and that's an important distinction to make. Most corporations are not publicly held. Neither are most LLPs, LLCs, S or C corporations. But that doesn't prevent those corporations from doing everything they can to maximize their profits at the cost of everyone and everything else. So publicly held corporations are not by necessity more destructive than any other entity.

The fact is that the profit motive works. But problems occur when the profits of one begin to damage the quality of life to others that are not competing in a given business. For example, when Corporation A begins dumping toxic shit upstream from where we get our drinking water so it can compete more successfully against Corporation B, by not disposing of its waste responsibly, it becomes a problem. And compounding that problem is the concept of the greatest profit possible combined with the perverted idea that capitalism = freedom, and so by restricting capitalism, tyranny isn't far behind. But that's where we sit as of now, and only through responsible and reasonable government regulation can we hope to change it.
 
Corporations weren't meant to become so powerful. The concept of protection from personal liability is what spurned entrepreneurial innovation and we have all benefitted from it tremendously. Without liability protection, the number of risks that have been undertaken would not have been and the Western world would look very different than it does today.

And to this day, there is no legal doctrine that says that a board of directors is so strictly beholden to shareholders that it must strictly pursue profits to please them. But of course, that is what major public corporations have become, and that's an important distinction to make. Most corporations are not publicly held. Neither are most LLPs, LLCs, S or C corporations. But that doesn't prevent those corporations from doing everything they can to maximize their profits at the cost of everyone and everything else. So publicly held corporations are not by necessity more destructive than any other entity.

The fact is that the profit motive works. But problems occur when the profits of one begin to damage the quality of life to others that are not competing in a given business. For example, when Corporation A begins dumping toxic shit upstream from where we get our drinking water so it can compete more successfully against Corporation B, by not disposing of its waste responsibly, it becomes a problem. And compounding that problem is the concept of the greatest profit possible combined with the perverted idea that capitalism = freedom, and so by restricting capitalism, tyranny isn't far behind. But that's where we sit as of now, and only through responsible and reasonable government regulation can we hope to change it.

It's actually incorrect that a corporation protects anyone from personal liability. If you are a shareholder and you directly break a law, there is no immunity.
 
The question is, I think, why can't a corporation be organized to do all of it? Shareholder interests, but also employee interests, societal interests and environmental interests? Is the possibility of lower returns to shareholders a good enough reason to negate the risks of bad outcomes to everyone and everything else?

In my experience, the companies that treat their employees and the environment well earn the highest return. People assume that "maximizing shareholder return" means screwing employees. Not true. Large corporations tend to pay their workers better and offer better benefits. But they can't pay far more than market or else their competitors will put them out of business.

There is a danger to mix the cost of things with the value of things. Hire an inexperienced and mediocre team of engineers to design and organise the construction of a bridge and the project is riddled with design changes re calculation for stress analysis resulting in high cost overruns. Hire very skilled and experienced builders and the fees or salary may seem high but the savings on cost overruns and remedial design action runs several times what they are paid.

I sat at a meeting where one manager wrote off failed works for US$5 million and re labelled it investment in plant development, and bragged how he replaced a good staff member who was earning €9.50 per hour and expedited critical materials ahead of schedule for a worker on €5.00 per hour. Then there are HR people who don't understand the difference in skills of people and take on very unsuitable people who are not even experienced in the field of work the new staff were hired for. This happened in a major oil company when the HR said there was a shortage of skills. I recruited by own staff who started within 3 days.
Structure and attitudes within a company are also very important to cost savings whether it is state run or private. The Ads by HR were not fully related to the job scope and asked for technical qualifications that were irrelevant and not in the possession of most of the skilled and experienced staff. Further a processing time of 1 to 2 months for immediate requirements would have caused delays and liquidated damages unless staff were on board within a week or so.
 
Back
Top Bottom