Corporations must, by law, put the profits of stockholders above all else.

[porphyrian]

How can we justify this in the 21st Century? What would happen if we changed that law (I know, many think it won't happen)? Is there a justifiable reason for that rule?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. To what law do you refer?

I'm pretty sure corporations are supposed to put legality before profit. Whether or not they do is another matter.

[porphyrian]

2. I believe it's in the legal definition of a corporation, but I'm not a legal expert.

I'm barely even a legal amateur. However, I know for a fact that corporations are legally bound to deliver profits to their stockholders before all other concerns.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. No they aren't.

How do you "know" this to be true if you can't even cite the law?

[porphyrian]

9. I can't tell you why eggs scramble when you cook them, but I can make scrambled eggs.

I told you, I'm not a fucking lawyer, but I am correct. I don't care if you don't want to believe it. Be wrong, I don't give a shit.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. And thank fucking God you're not a lawyer.

Or a chef.

[porphyrian]

18. You have no idea. - n/t

[TheWatcher]

81. You can't prove the Official Story of 9/11

Yet you belch and shout down those who question it all the time.

Pot meet kettle.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

37. It's not a statute, but law developed through case law.

The officers and directors of a corporation generally have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize profits to the greatest extent possible. Since corporations are created under state law, each state would have its own case or line of cases that expressly sets that proposition forth.

This duty can be altered by consent of the shareholders, for example many corporations explicitly state in their prospectus that they take steps to be socially conscious, and this may mean the corporation won'tbe a profitable as it otherwise could be.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

79. That's fine.

But that's not what the OP said.

[chelaque liberal]

3. That point was made by Jim Hightower in one of his books.

Mind boggling when you think about it. A corporation is inherently unethical because it's only objective is to make a profit.

[porphyrian]

5. I love Jim Hightower. Everyone should read him.

Michael Moore brought it up on Oprah yesterday (I think it was yesterday) when he was talking about Sicko.

[EFerrari]

38. John Perkins spoke to this on Amy's show yesterday.

"We must get the corporations to redefine themselves, and I think it’s very realistic that we can do so. Every corporate executive out there is smart enough to realize that he’s running a very failed system. As an economist, as a rational person, nobody can conclude anything otherwise. If you look at the fact that less than 5% of the world's population live in the United States and we consume more than 25% of the world's resources and create over 30% of its major pollution, you can only conclude that we’ve created a very flawed and failed system. This is not a model that can be sold to the Chinese or the Indians or the Africans or the Middle Easterners or the Latin Americans. We can’t even continue with it ourselves. It has to change. And corporate executives know that. They’re smart individuals. I believe that they want to see change.

And when we have really pushed them to change, we’ve been extremely successful. For example, we’ve got them to clean up rivers that were terribly polluted in the 1970s in this country. We got them to get rid of the aerosol cans that were destroying the ozone layer. We got them to change their policies toward hiring and promoting minorities and women. We’ve gotten them to put seatbelts in cars and airbags, against their initial resistance. We’ve got them to change tremendously in any specific area where we’ve set out to do that.

Now, it behooves us, we must convince them that their corporations need to be institutions to make this a better world, rather than institutions that serve a few very rich people and their goal is to make those people even richer. We need to turn this around. We must. "

From Rush Transcript at Link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/05/149254&mode=thread&tid=25

[porphyrian]

45. That's a good point, he's right. Thanks.

;)

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Not necessarily

Acting in an unethical manner may cause the corporation to alienate customers and lose business, thus losing profits.

[On the Road]

4. Is There a Law?

It's a truism or a rule of thumb. But corporations can pretty much do what they want within the law as long as the board and the shareholders agree.

I agree with the basic point that there is a problem when so much of society is dominated by organizations whose overwhelming motive is their own profit.

I would really like for some candidate to propose some legal changes empowering nonprofit corporations. There are many organizations from traditional hospitals to AAA to museums to schools to credit unions that are not organized on a traditional profit-making model. And in many cases they are better for the country and the average citizen.

[porphyrian]

8. Yes, there actually is some law requiring corporations to provide profit to stockholders.

I'm not sure if it is in the law defining corporations or some other law, but it is law.

I think there should definitely be a reworking of the entire system defining corporations and non-profits. My beef with non-profit laws is that you can qualify almost automatically simply by being a church organization, but secular organizations have to navigate an impossible bureaucratic obstacle course, often only to be turned down.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Sorry porph, But It's Not A Legal Requirement

If it were, a company losing money (like GM or Ford or United Airlines) would be in violation of that law and officers would be in jail.

That doesn't happen.
The Professor

[porphyrian]

17. People commit treason and don't go to jail, too. That's no indicator.

I may be wrong, but not for the reason you cite. And I'm fairly sure I'm not.

[HamdenRice]

25. That doesn't prove your point

I think the OP means that there is a requirement that corporate officers try to make a profit, not that they always succeed.

[ProfessorGAC]

34. It's Not Correct

The law covers malfeasance & nonfeasance. Actually breaches of OTHER laws that negatively impact corporate profitability are what cover that. Incompetence would not be covered by any law. Which WAS INDEED MY POINT! A law that says a corporate officer is legally obligated to generate a profit would make no exception for market changes or incompetence. Therefore, the law would be violated.

Besides, after looking in Mann & Roberts, "Business Law", there is no such corporate obligation.
The Professor

[HamdenRice]

43. See post 35; and

I think you are missing my point. Your post tries to make this logical argument: if there was a law requiring the making of profit, management of unprofitable companies would be breaking that law.

My point is that the OP is referring to the idea that corporate officers must try to make a profit, not that they succeed. I'm just saying that you are misinterpreting the point of the OP -- and by extension the point of others who have argued that corporations must narrowly pursue profit making activities.

As for the substance -- what legal rules and institutions cause corporations to narrowly pursue profit-making -- see post 35.

[HamdenRice]

51. delete - wrong place

[HamdenRice]

52. delete -- wrong place

[Bake]

63. Directors can take shelter in the "business judgment rule."

They're not liable for mistakes -- even incompetence -- if they're using their best business judgment, nor if things happen that are beyond their control.

Bake

[Bake]

61. The fiduciary duty, addressed above, is to "maximize shareholder value"

That can come in many forms: dividends, share price, etc. There is no hard and fast rule about HOW to maximize shareholder return or shareholder value. Nor is there any rule about short-term value vs. long-term value.

When shareholders believe their fiduciaries, i.e. the directors, have breached that duty, they may bring a "shareholder derivative action" for breach of fiduciary duty, and it is up to the court to decide whether the facts of the situation constitute a fiduciary breach.

Bake

[Atman]

85. That is one of the most simplistic, moronic responses I've ever read.

There is no "law" stating that corporations must show profits every quarter or else the directors will face criminal charges and jail time. To even suggest that is what the OP was stating is just plain silly. You know it, Prof. You pulled a simple-minded GOP-style defense out of your ass, and you should be embarrassed.

The fact is, most "corporations," as we're discussing in this thread, are specifically chartered to make money or their shareholders. Period. That is largely the point of forming a corporation...to protect your own ass should you NOT make enough money for the others, and to get tax benefits. To make money. Every for-profit corporation selling shares of stock to the public does so with the express contract to make those people money. That's what it's all about. You cannot lose money perpetually; eventually the IRS gets on your back, so the Prof's argument again lacks any substance, as if the Stock Police run around arresting people.

But the basic premise set forth by the OP is 100% correct; if a corporation takes action which costs its shareholders money, those shareholders can, in theory, sue the board members for breach of fiduciary duty.

.

[On the Road]

20. I Wasn't Even Contesting Your Statement That Corporations

have to seek profits, although I don't know of any law that states that.

Corporations have frequently had other goals which often cost them substantial amounts of money and which they justify by a variety of long-term reasons. Coporate sponsorships and charities, while you may see them as cynical, do not obviously enrich the shareholders. Corporations often back off of protential profits for non-financial reasons. For every corporation that ruthlessly outsources, there are others that make every attempt to stay competitive while keeping jobs in the US.

I do agree with you about non-profit laws -- you seem to know more about the details than I do. This is where I think there's a policy opening for Democrats. Just because C corporations are the dominant model of organization doesn't mean they're the best for all situations.

[The2ndWheel]

6. "How can we justify this in the 21st Century?"

Production?

[porphyrian]

76. Production can occur just as easily, if not moreso, working for the common good rather than...

...at the expense of the common good. One is a provider, the other a rapist.

[Sapere aude]

11. Nothing wrong with corporations making a profit. But they can also be socially responsible while

doing it.

Cosco makes a profit and so do many small family owned corporations that believe in social justice.

Making money is not an evil in itself. We all hope to trade our goods and services for a good price. So do corporations.

I hope that bashing corporations for making a profit for their owners doesn't become one more DU political correct position we must adhere to!

[porphyrian]

14. Oh, I'm a capitalist. I don't think profits are inherently evil.

My problem is with putting profit before humanity, especially when such behavior is perpetuated on the scale it is today.

There is no DU "political correct" position, only the appearance of one. Any dozen of us have two dozen opinions, half of which conflict.

[jtrockville]

16. Social responsibility generally conflicts with profits

It's the role of government to impose social responsibilty on corporations, since maximizing profit generally conflicts with socially responsible behavior.

[Sapere aude]

24. I wouldn't argue with that. I was studying global economics in grad school a while back and we

discussed the difference between corporations in Europe and in America. In Europe there is the idea that corporations exist for stakeholders welfare maximization and in America it is for shareholders wealth maximization. In Europe the stakeholders include the owners, employees and the citizens.

Also we learned that the shareholders wealth maximization model is taking hold in Europe.

[patrick404]

15. If there is a law that says they can violate the law to put profits first.

Can't they just violate this law by following other laws, or would that be against the law?

[porphyrian]

21. I don't think they're very concerned with laws at all unless they help them profit more.

Corporations tend to disregard or circumvent any laws that get in their way, even if that means buying every politician in Congress (or at least a voting majority).

[patrick404]

29. Should we then disband the FTC, SEC, FDA, and other regulatory agencies?

And how do the congressional staff manage all the 'buying.' Even if you ignored private firms and non ADR overseas firms, thats alot of 'clients.'

[porphyrian]

31. I didn't say we should disband anything, you did.

I think we need to examine the situation very closely and decide what to do from there.

If an agency isn't doing it's job, it should be fixed or replaced. It's very apparent many of those agencies aren't doing their jobs. Waiting for them to correct themselves isn't a viable option.

[patrick404]

44. I asked if they should be. If as you allege there is a law that subsumes

the rule of law to profit maximization, then why bother with regulatory agencies? If a firm can always use the defense of 'yes we broke the law, but we had to in order to maximize profits' than why bother with having laws and enforcing agencies which may get in the way of maximizing profits?

I neither believe there is such a law, nor do I believe that a firm behaving unethically can get away with it for any duration. Some firms may benefit in the short term from such corruption, but they eventually either fail at business (as their suppliers and/or customers can no longer trust them and no longer want to do business with them) or they end up being prosecuted or punitively fined. It may not be instant, but there is general retribution over time for unethical corporate behavior. Shareholders see this coming and bail out.

Most people's inner instinct is to be decent. This applies to business owners as well.

[porphyrian]

46. Well, you need to read around this entire thread a bit and get back to me. - n/t

[Bake]

65. One cannot breach a fiduciary duty by refusing to break the law.

The duty is to maximize shareholder value within the confines of the law. Breaking the law, in fact, can and should jeopardize shareholder value by subjecting the corporation to potential economic sanctions - fines, damages awards, etc.

There is no duty to maximize value BY BREAKING OTHER LAW.

Bake

[Bake]

64. The SEC is not there to enforce the rule of maximizing shareholder wealth

The SEC's function is to ensure, as far as possible, fair and transparent markets for securities through the disclosure requirements of the 1933 Securities Act and the 1934 Securities Exchange Act as they apply to publically traded companies. That's basically all they do.

They come into play, e.g., when corporations like WorldCom overstate earnings or otherwise cook their books, because those things constitute securities fraud.

Bake

[bryant69]

19. That's where regulation comes in

You create a business climate where acting immorally towards your employees or the environment has severe consequences. Such that, in order to preserve the bottom line, corporations act morally.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[porphyrian]

27. I'd like to see candidates commit to corporate regulation (or is it re-regulation?).

Every President since Carter has de-regulated, some more than others. It certainly hasn't produced a better world or better economy for the majority of us.

[librechik]

22. it may not be law, but it's custom, and what the kids are taught in biz school

so they propogate it.

There is no mechanism to change it, except a countermovement to teach business that it is better AND IN THEIR FINANCIAL INTEREST for them to help people (customers) too.

At one time there was a certain amount of honor among corporate leaders. They knew that by giving back to the community, they would reap much in the way of profits.

Reagan's swaggering and iconoclastic administration put an end to that, and gave them all the excuse to fuck the people and toe the bottom line. Since then it's gotten more and more extrem, to the point where these peopl (I am sure) are losing money supporting these "fuck the people" policies. They just aren't losing enough to hurt the bottom line, so they will continue.

[porphyrian]

28. Regulation might change it, if it's actually enforced.

However, every President since Carter has de-regulated in some way (even Clinton is partially responsible for the media we have today). And, what regulations remain are only arbitrarily enforced for a variety of reasons.

[librechik]

36. I agree sound regulation is needed--and boycotts wouldn't hurt either.

[porphyrian]

41. Boycotts are kind of hit and miss, but why not?

When they work, they really work.

[OHdem10]

23. It is the practice., for examp;le , J, Immelt, GE

was participating in a Forum shown on C-Span.

He re-itterated this. My responsibility is to the
Shareholders. Period.

During the Regan Administration this was made firm.
We have Democrats who were in office at that time.

Every President since then has reaffirmed amd made
The Investor Society stronger. GWB strenthened this
in his first term.

This has created the situations good and bad in trade
policy,

Investors demaned higher and higher profits. Business
must do whatever it takes to increase earnings and profits.
Send plants overseas. The Corporation goes looking to
cheapest place to produce product. They must please Investors
(stockholders. Americans lose jobs. The Corporation's
duty is to the Shareholders,not American Citizens.

Presidents (I say Presidents because they
have all participated. Regan and GWB have done the most.)

Jeff Faux, Economic Policy Institute has written a Booke

THE GLOBAL CLASS WAR "How America's BIPARTISON ELITE
Lost our Futures and what It Will Take To Win It BACK?"

EPI, org has interesting materials from time to time

Could this be why there is a DLC?

[porphyrian]

26. I think the DLC was created to mirror right-wing think tanks.

Perhaps they mirror them too completely.

[WA98296]

30. It's the GOP and DLC motto isn't it?

[porphyrian]

32. It seems that way some times.

I'm just getting sick of everyone standing around and letting it happen on the scale which it does.

[Beaverhausen]

33. This is why healthcare should be non-profit

this was pointed out by Michael Moore on Oprah yesterday- talking about his new film.

He was saying that the poor state of our healthcare is mainly the fault of this law, where insurance companies have to make as much profit as they can.

Therefore, the less care they give, the more money they make.

and that is why healthcare here needs to be non-profit.

[porphyrian]

39. Absolutely. Insurance is merely legalized and mandated organized crime.

We even need it, it's so pervasive. Healthcare should absolutely be not-for-profit and universally available in America. There's no excuse for what we have today.

[HamdenRice]

35. There is not a single law

I'm glad that several writers, such as Jim Hightower and the creators of the documentary, "The Corporation," have highlighted this. Unfortunately, it is easy to over-simplify. There are fairly complex reasons that corporations pursue profit making so narrowly.

As in many areas, there is not "a law," but a whole series of public and private laws and regulations that create the environment in which corporations must pursue profit-making above all other activities.

The most important is that corporate officers under state corporation laws have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Fiduciary duty does not, strictly speaking, mean that they have to make a profit or put profits above everything else. But it does mean that they owe a duty of loyalty to the corporation and its shareholders and cannot put their own interests first (what a laugh that is, given management compensation packages!)

So if a CEO or board of directors voted to make a big charitable donation, or give a too generous pay raise to the workers, it is possible that they could be sued by their shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty. Those suits are incredibly expensive (because they can mean a payment to each of millions of shareholders) and arguably do a lot to scare officers into line.

Secondly, state corporation laws and federal securities laws enable large shareholders to threaten management if they don't perform. In the past (before the 80s), management was quite insulated from shareholders and share prices. The result was that corporate management tended to build strong bonds of loyalty with employees. Those were the days when IBM ran country clubs for their employees -- even hourly wage employees -- on the shareholders' tab. Another result was that managers pursued corporate size (conglomerates) over profitability.

Changes in state and federal law enabled big shareholders to launch "hostile takeovers." When managers began seeing corporate raiders gobbling up conglomerates, breaking them apart and selling them off, they became scared and more focused on short term profits. In other words, any corporation that contains any property that is underperforming has become a target, and corporate behavior has changed accordingly.

There are lots of other causes. For example, federal tax laws encouraged management to be paid with options, which makes managers seek short term profits and the rise of the price of stock value over other goals.

Finally, the private regulations, in the form of the corporate articles of incorporation and by-laws could allow managers to take other factors into consideration, but almost never do.

So you are right that "law" in general is responsible for this behavior, but it is not "a law."

[porphyrian]

40. Thanks for clarifying. - n/t

[triguy46]

78. This might be the sanest answer of this entire thread. Thanks.

[Odin2005]

42. It's an economic law, not a legal one.

Corporations must please thier stockholders, and that means maximizing profits. If the stockholders get POed the management gets sacked.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Of Course Their Primary Responsibility Is To The Shareholders And It Should Be No Other Way.

But being the primary objective doesn't dismiss laws and regulations under which they need to operate.

But as far as being the goal of the business itself, to make profit? It's a no brainer and something that would make zero sense to change.

[porphyrian]

48. I'm not against making profit, I'm against making profit at our expense.

And, if the regulatory laws were actually enforced in a consistent way, they might be effective. I don't presume to tell people how to run their corporations, I simply want them held as accountable as anyone else who, say, kills a thousand people a year because it's cheaper to pay off the victims' families than it is to make their product safe, or who willfully dumps toxins in a river that traverses three states claiming it isn't their responsibility.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. Well Then Your Premise Is Wrong.

Making a profit should undeniably be their primary business responsibility. But it must be done inside the laws and regulations set forth.

If that's not being done, that is not the fault of profit being their primary objective. It is the fault of laws and regulations not being enforced properly.

So I think the correct premise would be that the profit objective is fine, but that there is a problem with the enforcement of laws and regulations as they relate to corporations. But like I said, profit being their primary objective is a no brainer.

[porphyrian]

50. My premise is fine, your understanding of it is wrong.

But thanks for predictably finding something to disagree with me about.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. Really? How So? See, I Explained My Position As To Why I Feel That Way.

Instead of offering further reasoning to show why you would continue to disagree with what I just said, you chose to cop out instead and then even took it to a personal level unnecessarily.

So instead of doing so, maybe you should offer some level of reasoning as to how what I previously said is not accurate. Can you do so?

And you're welcome.

[porphyrian]

56. You suffer from the delusion that I care what you think.

It's funny to watch, though, so keep it up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. Since You're Now Resorting To Nonsensical Attack In Lieu Of Having The Ability To Defend Your Point,

then bye! :hi:

[porphyrian]

58. Ha! Yeah, like that. - n/t

[TheWatcher]

82. He suffers from many delusions.

Yet he persists. It's comical.

[porphyrian]

84. Well, "big tent" and all. At least he goes on record with it.

He's like a disembodied little brother, but less cool.

[HamdenRice]

53. Dodge v. Ford Motor Company

As I've tried to show upthread, there is not a "single law" that mandates corporations exclusively seek profit for shareholders. But they are "scared" into doing so by a welter of laws, court decisions and contractual relations -- many of them conflicting with each other.

But if you want to see the grand-daddy of corporations-must-seek-profit rules, take a look at this wiki entry on Dodge v. Ford Motor Company:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company

Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668. (Mich. 1919), was a famous case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate his business for profitable purposes as opposed to charitable purposes.

...

In 1916, the Ford Motor Company earned surpluses in excess of $100,000,000.00. The company's president and majority stockholder, Henry Ford, sought to stop declaring dividends for investors, and instead cut prices below the price for which they could actually sell cars, while at the same time increasing the number of persons employed by his company. Ford said that he wanted to increase the number of people who could afford to buy his cars. He stated:

"My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business."

<Ford was sued by the Dodge brothers who owned 25% of Ford Motor Company.>
...

The Court held that a business corporation is organized primarily for the profit of the stockholders, as opposed to the community or its employees. The discretion of the directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end, and does not extend to the reduction of profits or the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to benefit the public, making the profits of the stockholders incidental thereto.

Because this company was in business for profit, Ford could not turn it into a charity. This was compared to a spoilation of the company's assets. The court therefore upheld the order of the trial court requiring that directors declare an extra dividend of $19 million.

<end quote>

Ironically, the legal landscape is much less clear today. The "business judgement rule" allows corporate officers to take other factors into account, and some state corporation statutes have explicit language allowing corporate officers to take factors other than the maximizing of shareholder value into account.

But the threat of shareholder derivative suits hangs heavily over corporate officers in this field.

[porphyrian]

55. Something isn't right when corporations fear legal actions from stockholders over our regulatory...

...bodies. We need to take a long, hard look at these agencies and figure out how to fix them.

[HamdenRice]

59. That's the way most laws work

Most laws don't say, you can do this or you can't do that; they specify the conditions under which one person can sue another. It's very decentralized.

Sometimes this is called the "private attorneys general" theory. In other words, law empowers citizens to enforce social norms through lawsuits. So we control pollution because the EPA regulates; but we also control pollution because I, as a river user, can sue someone who pollutes the river.

Also, the government tends to be very conservative in imposing fines. Often the fines for the most egregious corporate behavior is about what the corporate officers pay in country club memberships. But a consumer, or shareholder, suit can impose millions or billions in liability.

It's enforcement on the cheap.

[porphyrian]

60. So then rulings go to whoever can afford the best legal team...

...which is usually the corporation or the corporate stockholders, right? Hell, most poor people I know don't even think of lawyering up until they've exhausted a number of other options because most free representation seems to actually be worse than no representation.

[baldguy]

62. And that's why they should have NO say whatsoever in gov't decisions at any level.

[porphyrian]

72. Which won't change until we enact campaign finance reform with teeth. - n/t

[leftofthedial]

66. it is the triumph of capitalism over reason

Corporations are purely evil.

They must be regulated into utter submission. Placing them legally above the public interest is unconscionable.

[KansDem]

68. Might I add that we should shrink corporations...

...to get them down to the size where we can drown them in the bathtub?

:toast:

[porphyrian]

71. I'd be happy with simply redefining corporate personhood.

Either make them as accountable as individual citizens while enjoy our rights, or take away those rights. They should not be allowed to enjoy the benefits of citizenship without the responsibility or accountability.

[Tsiyu]

83. I love it!

That is so good I may steal it!

Today's corporate "leaders" are no more than pirates looting and pillaging til their ships start to sink - then they bail out, landing in their little life-rafts of obscene wealth.

It's sad to see grown men and women infused with such avarice. Nearby, "moral" people dump their institutional sewage in a rural creek because they save some money. Who cares how many kids play in that creek downstream or what creatures are suffocating?

It's money, money, money, Baby! Like the Bobble tells us so!

And upthread, we have the "it's-not-the-profit-motive-but-the-laws-and-regulations" contingent, trying to sell me on the idea that the quest for that everliving fortune turns human beings into rabid pigs who must be restrained by a severe government. The same folks will argue for deregulation, which is totally what we have now, which is why we are in the mess we are in. You can't win with these folks.

It would be nice if we could somehow force corporations to have consciences, but hey, many are falling fast because few of us can afford much of their overpackaged crap-for-the-masses. Only the truly ruthless - and those who pander to the truly ruthless - will keep making great $$$$ in this economy.

The rest of us will be boycotting by default.

So sad.

[porphyrian]

69. It's the triumph of corporatism over reason. Corporatism isn't the necessary conclusion...

...of capitalism, but you'll disagree with that, as usual.

[KansDem]

67. That's why corporations make such lousy governments...

Ever since Reagan I've heard candidates running for office (mostly GOP) proclaiming that, if elected, they would "run government like a business." I cringed whenever I heard this "populist," right-wing, neo-con mantra.

Well, it's now been tried and proven to be a complete failure.

[porphyrian]

70. It's funny how most people think bureaucracy is bullshit and that their bosses are idiots...

...but they seem to forget this when it's applied to government.

[KT2000]

73. What about state charters

I thought that corporations had to abide by their state charters which include language that directs them to also consider the common good. If they didn't, they would lose their status.
I always thought they could be held accountable to that if someone challenged them.

[porphyrian]

74. Most people are unaware of that, or how to proceed with it.

Without money and good lawyers, most people won't even consider something like that, and most people don't have money and good lawyers.

[KT2000]

75. Guess it might be difficult

to prove "common good."
I think the majority of people in this country are money worshippers. In a popular poll wealth would likely top the list of what is the common good.

[porphyrian]

77. Look at it from the other end, then.

How many babies is it acceptable to kill with a product so that a few people can make a profit?

[KT2000]

80. I really wish people

did care more about their children than money.
Loss of jobs and home values scares people more than the possibility of their kids getting cancer. That is the failing of this country.

[Solon]

86. To add to this, many corporations do cost-benefit analysis in relation to regulation...

The big problem is that Federal and State agencies technically treat corporations that employ 20 people and has assets totaling 500 grand the same as a corporation that has a hundred thousand employees and billions in assets.

Because of this, many of the fines and penalties that are levied against corporations for violations of law are capped, either on a per day basis, or absolutely, or both. Generally, the way the government actually punishes corporations, outside the penalties enforced by law, are through judgments in court, which take up time, and a lot of taxpayer's money.

A corporation that makes a billion dollars a year would probably prefer to pay a fine of 20 grand rather than abide by some regulation or law that is more expensive for them to comply with than the fine. This is generally the fault of the way the penalties are set up, they should be a set percentage of assets, if nothing else.

There is also another factor, to give a simpler example, a rich person, making millions of dollars a year, has less incentive to obey traffic laws, like speeding, than a person making minimum wage, because the fines are a set price, its cheaper for them. However, if they continue to violate the law, they may lose their license, and may end up in jail, depending on the severity of the crime, and there repeated offenses. This means the rich person may actually decide to follow the law.

Corporations, however, do not have this limitation, you can't throw a corporation in jail, however, Attorney Generals of the States can revoke their charters, seize their assets, and compensate the State and shareholders equitably. Call it a "death penalty" for corporations. The problem is that it is practically NEVER practiced.