Where do you stand?

Here's where I am, through the eyes of your commie quiz-

[chefmike]

Here's where you are, TFarce -

[Caleigh]

just because a corporation is composed of human beings working in tandem, that does not mean that what is in the interest of the individuals is in the interest of the larger "organism" the corporation. the people who work for the corporation as a general rule don't get a % of the profits and so have little investment in anything but keeping their jobs. just as the corporation as a larger entity would generally love to cut labour costs whenever possible, the labourers on the other hand would usually love to get paid $500/hr but this usually wouldn't be good for the corporation as a whole.

are these concepts too hard for you to grasp?

just because a corporation is composed of human beings working in tandem, that does not mean that what is in the interest of the individuals is in the interest of the larger "organism" the corporation. the people who work for the corporation as a general rule don't get a % of the profits and so have little investment in anything but keeping their jobs. just as the corporation as a larger entity would generally love to cut labour costs whenever possible, the labourers on the other hand would usually love to get paid $500/hr but this usually wouldn't be good for the corporation as a whole.

are these concepts too hard for you to grasp?

You condescending arrogance only indicates a cowardly, pompous nature. The facts are that in life, some will succeed more than others. You will always have poor people and rich people. Winners and losers.

THAT'S LIFE

It's only the pussy-minded who are afraid to compete than run, limp-wristedly, to big brother to legislate them a living.

Deal with it and move on. By the way, you misspelled labor. This website is not based in Europe.

[chefmike]

just because a corporation is composed of human beings working in tandem, that does not mean that what is in the interest of the individuals is in the interest of the larger "organism" the corporation. the people who work for the corporation as a general rule don't get a % of the profits and so have little investment in anything but keeping their jobs. just as the corporation as a larger entity would generally love to cut labour costs whenever possible, the labourers on the other hand would usually love to get paid $500/hr but this usually wouldn't be good for the corporation as a whole.

are these concepts too hard for you to grasp?

You condescending arrogance only indicates a cowardly, pompous nature. The facts are that in life, some will succeed more than others. You will always have poor people and rich people. Winners and losers.

THAT'S LIFE

It's only the pussy-minded who are afraid to compete than run, limp-wristedly, to big brother to legislate them a living.

Deal with it and move on. By the way, you misspelled labor. This website is not based in Europe.

Pipe down, chorus boy!

[LG]

Ok, I clicked that link with the best intentions of completing your little analyses. But Jesus H Christ!

First question is bullshit right off the bat!!!

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.


Stupid commie motherfuckers. HUMANS are the corporations. Corporations aren't some martian entity that comes off the flying saucer and steals capital. They are made up of hard working people like you and me.

Not neccessarily. The people who manufacture your sneakers and clothes in Bangladesh, Pakistan and the Northern Mariana Islands are not like you and me. They are poor and badly treated.

Corporations do not care about the people they employ or the customers they sell to as much as they care about the shareholders that invest in them (and frequently, these are other corporations). Multinationals like Exxon and Shell only care about society and the environment when these affect their bottom line. The examples are endless.

Corporations are made up of hard-working people, but frequently very few less hard-working individuals make off with a lion's share of the profits. Corporations do not neccessarily serve the common good- look at the Niger Delta and the oil companies during Abacha's regime in particular, look at the case of the Norther Mariana's (and Jack Abramoff's involvement). The sweatshops there are hell to work in and yet they are allowed to label their clothes as "Made in USA".

So all in all, I think that question is fair.

[Caleigh]

what i'm realizing is that some people on this board aren't at all interested in discussion at all, they are just looking for a place to rant.

when i was younger i was a radical anarchist, and then as i grew older and had to support myself i realized that companies are organized to provide food, clothing, shelter to their employees in exchange for work which benefits everyone. the reality is though that some provide greater benefits to their employees than others. some try and share the collective profits of the company with their employees and others try to esconce them within the top eschelons. that's all, it's a question of corporate philosophy and esthetic.

oh, TFan, just because the board is based in the U.S. doesn't mean that everyone has to spell night NITE and quick KWIK. labour is as acceptable as labor to everyone except the dogmatic.

woof woof

[muhmuh]

some try and share the collective profits of the company with their employees and others try to esconce them within the top eschelons.

grats on finding out the difference between companys led and owned by a single person with personal interest in the companies well being and those which are led by a bunch of guys that get paid regardless of how they lead the company... too bad most dont get it

[guyone]

The corporations can only hold you in their grasp if you let them. If you make yourself a commodity and incorporate then you get to take hold of your own destiny. The key word though is becoming a commodity which takes a little originality and hard work.

[LG]

The corporations can only hold you in their grasp if you let them.

Good point...

I'll accept that's true in the West, where we are consumers and customers and where we can shape the way corporations are run and demand better practices, but what about in places like Bangladesh and Saipan, where human life is not valued as highly by companies out to make a buck? These are the companies that make the clothes we wear, the sports goods we play with, the consumer goods we use. And what about the treatment of illegal immigrants from Mexico in the southern US (strawberry pickers paid peanuts and treated like shit in California) and elsewhere or the treatment of Asian and Eastern European immigrants in Europe. Women from the Soviet Union are treated as commodities by small-time businessmen out to make a few dollars by selling them onto the highest bidding stripjoint owner. It's not just the big companies that mistreat people.

We can stay pretty independent, not buy into the commerce of it all (although every time we drive our cars, put on our Nikes have a cup of coffee we are buying into a commercial operation that might have impacts halfway round the world). But how can we help the less fortunate? They are not in control of their own destiny.