what went wrong in the UK and how do they fix it

[russtafa]

well that's why the people put a government in power to protect them from the powerful,that's what i thought?

[Stavros]

But then you get into the debate about who is in the government, who their backers and their friends are, and whether or not Labour tilts towards the Unions, the Conservatives toward business. In Thatcher's case, the argument was about the impact that monetarism was having on the fabric of society, where the determination to reduce inflation and create economic growth began with economic and fiscal measures that increased unemployment, causing much harship at the time. The overall aim, the Thatcherites claimed, was the restore the right of people to make a profit from business, and for people earning a salary to keep as much of it for themselves as was possible, the state taking as least as was necessary. Thus, one camp argued the moral judgement was that government was making life harder and more unpleasant for others; the other camp that it is not government's business to run business, that the moral argument should be on the concept of freedom as private property -where a free society is morally superior to one where government makes decisions people should be free to make themselves.

Government should protect the people from crooks and frauds, but where the boundary is line drawn between people in power and the people who most benefit from political decisions is an age-old problem. Capitalism isn't so simple to it can be praised or condemend with a few examples, that's life.

[Ben]

Ben, Capitalism does not respect national boundaries -before China became the 'workshop of the world' jobs that used to be done in USA or the UK (shipbuilding, for example) went to South Korea, which has established itself as the world class producer or offshore oil rigs, note: a specialist type of heavy engineering. Who in 1960 would have believed that South Korea could make more than a matchbox?

When Adam Smith was writing The Wealth of Nations, he was at the cutting edge of industrial capitalism -he was fascinated by the way machinery transformed human labour; but money -money is like water, it flows, or it stagnates. The jobs lost to Asia are gone, finito, Kaput. You will not get them back. You have to create something new, which is why I keep saying: America, capital rich, brain rich, resource rich...the solution is right there, beneath your feet, in your head.

I agree. Corporations are solely concerned with increasing their bottom line. And, of course, they want and need (it's the fiduciary responsibility of the CEO to maximize return on shareholder investment) to look for the cheapest possible labor pool, as it were.
Companies do not have any loyalty to their country. Take, say, Microsoft. Bill Gates was laying off American workers, offshoring jobs and bringing in guest workers. It's rational. And sensible. And, well, again, the CEO is duty bound.
A corporation is not an easy institution to run. They've gotta minimize costs. And boost corporate income. So they're doing what is in their best interest. And, too, corporations, as Adam Smith pointed out, are going to use state/government power to serve their own interests however grievous the impact on others, including the people of England. Again, it's rational. As they are maximizing their own wealth.
Take, say, oil companies. Ya know, they're serving their own interests (and they can't, again, by law, consider the social cost, the cost to others) and if runaway climate change happens, well, that is someone else's problem.
Ray Anderson, former CEO of Interface, explicates it pretty well:

[russtafa]

I agree. Corporations are solely concerned with increasing their bottom line. And, of course, they want and need (it's the fiduciary responsibility of the CEO to maximize return on shareholder investment) to look for the cheapest possible labor pool, as it were.
Companies do not have any loyalty to their country. Take, say, Microsoft. Bill Gates was laying off American workers, offshoring jobs and bringing in guest workers. It's rational. And sensible. And, well, again, the CEO is duty bound.
A corporation is not an easy institution to run. They've gotta minimize costs. And boost corporate income. So they're doing what is in their best interest. And, too, corporations, as Adam Smith pointed out, are going to use state/government power to serve their own interests however grievous the impact on others, including the people of England. Again, it's rational. As they are maximizing their own wealth.
Take, say, oil companies. Ya know, they're serving their own interests (and they can't, again, by law, consider the social cost, the cost to others) and if runaway climate change happens, well, that is someone else's problem.
Ray Anderson, former CEO of Interface, explicates it pretty well:

Ray Anderson - Interface Carpets - YouTube

that's why governments must view corps as potentially dangerous to the country and rein them in or suffer the results

[Ben]

[Ben]

that's why governments must view corps as potentially dangerous to the country and rein them in or suffer the results

Exactly.... Adam Smith said that over 200 years ago. And we aren't talking about small businesses or medium-sized businesses.
We're talking about transnational corporations, well, that don't have any loyalty to their country. As I just mentioned: Microsoft was laying off workers, bringing in guest workers (which I'm opposed to) and offshoring/outsourcing jobs to, well, India....
I mean, governments can put constraints on capital movement. Ya know, you're an American company, well, invest in America.
But as I just explained companies want to and need to minimize costs. (It was giant retailers like Wal-Mart and the banking sector that pushed for moving capital -- and hence employing cheap labor -- to places like China.)

[robertlouis]

Exactly.... Adam Smith said that over 200 years ago. And we aren't talking about small businesses or medium-sized businesses.
We're talking about transnational corporations, well, that don't have any loyalty to their country. As I just mentioned: Microsoft was laying off workers, bringing in guest workers (which I'm opposed to) and offshoring/outsourcing jobs to, well, India....
I mean, governments can put constraints on capital movement. Ya know, you're an American company, well, invest in America.
But as I just explained companies want to and need to minimize costs. (It was giant retailers like Wal-Mart and the banking sector that pushed for moving capital -- and hence employing cheap labor -- to places like China.)

Yes but....

One of the major effects of globalisation is that transnational corporations are able, with the assistance of able tax lawyers, to minimise their tax liabilities in such a way as to render them to all intents and purposes essentially stateless. All it takes is for a single country to break ranks and undercut the prevailing rates of corporation tax etc, as Ireland did a few years ago, and businesses will simply relocate their domicile for tax purposes. The US probably suffers more than most, while the lost tax take goes into higher bonuses for executives.

Global businesses are untouchable, like banks.

[russtafa]

there was a 2 major corporations in the 17th and 18th centurys that took over countries and had their own standing armies ,the British East India company,Dutch East India company i think?

[robertlouis]

there was a 2 major corporations in the 17th and 18th centurys that took over countries and had their own standing armies ,the British East India company,Dutch East India company i think?

That's true, Russ.

Arguably the most recent examples were American companies responsible for giving us the phrase "banana republic" in Latin America, where patronage, covert activity and a military threat helped to keep dictators in power to further the interests of those companies.

[Stavros]

The largest multinational corporations at their core specialise in one industry, and for that reason are different from both the British and Dutch 'India' companies which had multiple trading interests. In addition, although they have diversified into other areas, and even though they have the best tax lawyers in the world to help them not just avoid taxes, but also claim rebates (the oil companies are masters at getting their taxes returned) -MNC's provide huge sums in tax revenues to states, are major contributors to pension funds, as well as securing markets and employment across many boundaries: so the phrase now is: Too Big to Fail. But is that the case? Had BP's share price collapsed completely in 2010, it would have been broken up, existing firms cherry picking their favourite assets, new firms getting the rest. If Microsoft went bankrupt, its operating programme would still be a world class product; if Nokia and Vodafone went bankrupt, the other firms would have the share of the others customers. Too Big to Fail -in the short term, maybe; otherwise these corporations should be called Immortal...!