Corporations Screw Everybody

I completely agree. And this is why deregulation should never be an option. Deregulation often allows corporations to take advantage of something to make more profit. Take the Enron satellite company that started all the power shortages in California over a decade ago. Deregulation kicks in, and the result is corporations trying to take advantage of the system to make more money. These businesses can say whatever they like, but the truth is that they are concerned with making a profit, otherwise they wouldn't be in business. And any time that is the number one priority, it is hard to imagine that loyalties will lie anywhere but to profit. And the need to please shareholders can drive companies to perpetrate fraud or shady practices as well. This has happened many times. It is hard to say that is the main motivation, but it is part of it. Enron, which I mentioned earlier, fits this bill, and one of the executives, either Lay or Skilling I believe, said something to the effect that they had never done anything that wasn't in the shareholders' best interest.

And there is a trend. When you do something dishonest, illegal, or immoral to make more money, then inevitably you keep doing it. My favorite example of how fraud and immorality escalate in this way is that of Barry Minkow and ZZZZ Best. And I even heard some months ago that he, after "rehabilitating" and being out of prison and whatnot, is probably going back in for similar reasons. For those who've never heard of this, basically a teenager starts a carpet cleaning company, and works various scams and runs a ponzi scheme to grow the business. It was fraudulent for years, and then he actually took this company with little real earnings public. An amazing feat, and is impressive for different reasons than that of say someone like Madoff, who also ran a ponzi scheme, although on a much larger scale. Impressive yes, but not justifiable at all. Anyway, he got caught, which is inevitable, and he went to federal prison.

So you have the people willing to actually break the law, but they are few and far between. But there is plenty of money to be made by simply exploiting the system. Take the entire derivatives market, which should be outlawed in my opinion. The financial crash, the sub-prime mortgage system we all heard about, was criminal, and there were plenty of people doing it. Or it should have been criminal if it was not technically illegal. The intent was there. Financial crimes by the wealthiest firms in the country apparently are a drop in the bucket. Corporations wish to appear to care about things other than money, but at the end of the day the bottom line is all that matters.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

I agree with everything that you said, except for deregulation. That is a word that means many different things to many different industries.

Deregulation is not removing all the rules and regulations governing the conducting of business. Often the result of certain types of deregulation is the abolishment of a monopoly, as in the case with electric energy producers.

In parts of the country, you have no choice who will supply your electricity. You are then the victim of whatever the power company wants to charge and what the state will allow. If the state is too strict and does not allow increases when increases are needed to provide for future growth then who suffers in the long run? The consumer, with brown and black outs.

If the state (do you really trust those appointed bozos?) allows too much of an increase then all those in the state wind up paying too much for electricity.

You will find, in general, in the states that have deregulated the industry ample future power supply and better rates.

Just saying that deregulation is the devil is not appropriate, accurate, nor logical. Get specific and do the homework rather than lumping everything into one bucket. Not all deregulation is da devil.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

It depends on what you mean by deregulation.

My husband works in a very tightly regulated industry. He deals with no less than six different government organizations with many different overlapping regulations. Do you know how much time and money would be saved simply by streamlining that process on both the business end and the government end?

For one redundant regulation, they have to spend all the extra time and effort and resources to prepare all the differing sets of paperwork necessary to satisfy all the agencies involved because they can't just prepare one set and copy it or even expect it to be propagated across agencies. They have to have originals for all agencies, and then you are basically paying redundant clerks in all those agencies to make sure the result for the same thing is filed all those times.

Now, do you need to have one test verified and filed across all those agencies? No. But since each agency has it as part of a regulation, you would need to deregulate in order to streamline. So, why not deregulate? If the regulated company has to do the test and verify it once to one agency. Shouldn't that be enough to make sure they are staying on the straight a narrow? Do they need to verify that one test across multiple agencies, and should the taxpayers pay all those government employees to essentially load up on busy work?

So, you see streamlining isn't actually loosening anything, but it would be deregulating.

a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly. Well stated.

The govt is so inefficient, so ignorant, it is not even funny.

Making a product for the govt? They will have their own specs that totally exceed private use specs when the common spec is absolutely sufficient for the use. That is how a simple bolt can wind up costing $50 each. They arent satisfied with a regular spec bolt, it has to be special. So when you order a hundred (cause you obviously will never use 100k) you cause the manufacturer to stop running common sizes/grades and they have to retool. Then they run your pitifully small order, and then have to retool back to the standard. Oh, and let's not even talk about the hoops you have to jump through to verify that the special spec is followed to the letter, from both the end user of the bolt as well as from the manufacturer of the bolt.

I can go on and on and on. Bureaucrats have to justify their jobs, you know.

a reply to: bbracken677

Oh, and that doesn't even get into the times when the petty bureaucrat has no clue how the industry in question works and looks at a number and thinks something along the lines of "This is good, so more should be better." My husband is in pharma, so when the bureaucrat arbitrarily decrees that more should be better, it can be akin to someone taking a medication and declaring that more should be better.

They did actually have this situation and instead of the agency admitting they were being stupid, the company had to run a costly series of tests and provide extensive data that proved the new, arbitrary standard would indeed come close to pushing their product into the toxic range. In other words, the burden of proof is always on the company when fighting a reg never on the agency that pushes it.

All these costs are passed on to consumers. This is called "screwing the customer."

Anyone bother to check into "The Treason of the Senate?" I can't believe this part of history was so openly described and yet people still don't care about the specifics.

a reply to: ketsuko
*facepalm*

Holy cow! That beats pretty much all the stories I can tell about dealing with the gov.......


And yet, ignorant people want to put everything into the federal gov's hands, including our healthcare. Sheesh!!

I'd like to read the article, if someone could be kind enough to post a link. I can't really comment on it if i haven't read it.

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
I'd like to read the article, if someone could be kind enough to post a link. I can't really comment on it if i haven't read it.

Was this a response to my comment? I have a hard copy, just tried to google the full text and didn't see anything (haven't really dug too deep yet). If so ket me know, I'll find someway to get it out there. There is no conspiracy theory here, it's historical fact at this point.

a reply to: dr1234

No, I'm talking about the one in the OP that isn't linked. Would be nice to read the whole thing instead of snippets.

It may have been mentioned at least once...

The quickest explanation of how it works.

Bribes aren't exactly necessary if you're biased and voting in favor of assets you already own. The problem isn't one of too little or too much regulation, but of regulatory capture.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: FyreByrd

May I ask how are corporations responsible for the pisspoor education system here in the USA since the latter 60's onward? Thanks

I'll respond to this one then to bed for me.

Step One - Public education was the first area of, so called, 'big government', that was cut forty years ago (read about the results of CA Proposition 13). Still going on.

Step Two - The private sector moved in with huge 'testing' regimes sucking more tax money into the private sector.

Step Three - More private, for -profit schools at all levels, sucking more money out of citizens through tuition and loans.

Step Four - A TwoFor - bust unions and set up cheap charter schools on the public dime drawing even more money away from the Public Good and into private hands.

I don't really blame the government for these actions, nor do I think government is too big. It's been a well orchestrated progrom (er - I mean program) designed by wealthy busienss owners to make Public Capital into Private Capital.

a reply to: FyreByrd

lol you don't think govt is too big?

Obviously, and I do mean obviously, you have never, ever had any dealings with the govt other than peripherally.

It's like an ant remarking about the activities of bees. Like the blind wise men's assessment of what an elephant is based on touching a single part of that elephant.

Either that or you are on the govt dole. In which case everything is hunky dory.

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
a reply to: dr1234

No, I'm talking about the one in the OP that isn't linked. Would be nice to read the whole thing instead of snippets.

And I am awfully sorry:

truth-out.org...

It's not like me to leave out my source.

a reply to: bbracken677

I deal with government at various levels regularly in my work and what I see as the problem is a lack of well-trained personel to serve citizens and businesses at all those levels due to 'small government'.

Its a Tautology, small government is incapable because the government is small. It's a logical Fallacy.

Government programs run much more effeciently and put more dollars into services that serve everyone then private capital ever can. True beauracacies move slowly - but I ask you:

"Have you ever tried to get, as a low tier customer, ever gotten fast and effiecient and accurate service from a Telecom Company?"

40 years ago, the Telephone companies, were on their game when it came to service and product but the advent of new 'multi-function', 'diverisified' telecoms with outsourced labor and equipment have become a money pit of unaccountable but needed services.

By turning 'C-levels' into owners rather then employess (who's very job depended on the health of the company - which used to be measured by dividend rather then stock-price), the health of all stakeholders in any corporate endeavor have suffered. Only the big shareholders gain from a short-term, stock-price business model.

C-Levels expoit the company for their own benefit - heck they are well trained too in contemporary business schools.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Thanks, FB. There have been times when not reading the article can make one look like a fool, and since I don't like playing the part of the fool I can now read the article in full. Probably make some foolish remarks anyway, but at least I'll have been fully informed.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Yep, lost are the days when people actually stood up for high ethics and moral standards in running their companies. And this is indeed why our current system is so corrupt right now, and it is going to get so much worse that it is going to be worse than Auschwitz. (I really hope not). But just look at what politicians are doing to retain power right now. Bills and legislation being introduced to amend our rights away, even the ones that this is illegal to do in any case.

They answer to those very same corporations who give them many gifts and favors to persuade them to help their corrupt aims, and the lure of easy bling and graft is too much for the weak kneed ones like our president, and John Boehner, Harry Reid, and especially Dianne Feinstein, plus most of the others on both sides of the same team as well.

A lack of morality, and ethical behavior becoming extinct soon, will be the fall of America, just as it has always been in the past for many nations, and ancient ones as well.

Never be afraid to openly condemn them and call them out for these things. Do it often, and do it publically. (I sent 2 letters to my state rep, and a senator today with themes like this today). These things are any free nation's responsibility and should be done more. With a media that does not answer to morality or ethical behavior, (unless they are using it to condemn their enemies), the battle is all uphill since most quick remedies have been made illegal already.

originally posted by: dr1234
a reply to: FyreByrd

New word order? This isn't new, check out the 100 year old "Treason of the Senate" for an in depth veiw of how this was allowed to happen. Insanely relevant to this day.

Thanks for this, I looked into it very briefly and don't really see the relevance other then it being an earlier attemp to cut down on 'purchased' politicians.

It's a moving target and as you can see that stagety may have worked for a short time but not long term.

But it does focus attention on the inablity to change govenment (generic government) to solve the problem and puts it on changing the parameters of busieness operation.

Corporations were charters to carry out specific tasks for a specific time and it wasn't until about the time of the civil war - hmmm interesting..... that things changed.

www.ratical.org...

Today, people forget that U.S. corporations, or "corpses", as this ratitor thinks of them, were extremely limited in their powers and influence prior to the Civil War. We have much to re-learn regarding the facts of how citizens, at the time of the revolution of 1776 and afterwards, gave state legislatures the power to control the "crown corporations" they had had painful, personal experience of and suffered under, from the likes of the original American "Crown Colonys" -- which were companys -- of the King of England, as well as the Hudson's Bay Company and the East India Trading companies of Europe.

Up to the mid-1800s,

Corporations had limited duration, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years -- they were not given forever, like corporate charters are given today.

The amount of land a corporation could own was limited.

The amount of capitalization a corporation could have was limited.

The corporation had to be chartered for a specific purpose -- not for everything, or anything.

The internal governance was very different --

shareholders had a lot more rights than they have today, for major decisions such as mergers; sometimes they had to have unanimous shareholder consent.

There were no limitations protections on liability -- managers, directors, and shareholders were liable for all debts and harms and in some states, doubly or triply liable.

The states reserved the right to amend the charters, or to revoke them -- even for no reason at all. [5]
Today, is it critical for all of us to "examine the fundamental difference over what is a decision for the civil society that needs to be conducted in an open way, through the constitutionalized process, and what are decisions that are the private domain of the corporation?" [6]

a reply to: FyreByrd


We need to rein in corporate control of - well - everything.

The only way to do that is to completely publically fund elections. How this can be accomplished with corporate sponsered legislators I don't quite know and will leave to smarter people then I - but I will continue to talk about it and back such organizations that fight for it. The Clean Money campaign is one such organization though, in my opinion doesn't go far enough.

It will require a constitutional admendment. The burgeoning Move to Amend movement, with some Senate activity, to overturn Citizens united is a begining but doesn't go far enough.

Our forebearers were the original revolutionaries fighting this blight on humanity. Fighting for freedom from corporate tyranny and slavery.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Here is an article from the ever hopeful and positive Ralph Nader.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

He always has solutions to offer and has probably benefited, with his colleauges at Comsumer Union, We the People, more then any other person now living.

The time for federal chartering of corporations is upon us. Meaningful federal chartering could improve corporate accountability to owner-shareholders, employees and the public. It is a concept that has been around since nearly the birth of the nation -- in fact, James Madison warned of the dangers of big business, stating that companies "would pass beyond the authority of a single state, and would do business in other states." Twice, Madison proposed that Congress be given the authority to "grant charters of incorporation in cases where the public good may require them and the authority of a single state may be incompetent." A formal vote on these proposals was never taken -- some argued it was unnecessary while others suggested it might lead to monopolies. The idea reemerged in the early 1900s with Presidents Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson all supporting federal corporate chartering as a tool of accountability. The idea continued to be bounced around throughout the 20th century, but nothing ever came of it, and corporations have grown much larger, more conglomeratized and less accountable as a result. In 1976, I, along with Mark Green and Joel Seligman, wrote the book Taming the Giant Corporation which focused on this potentially transformative idea. Congress held hearings, but no federal chartering law was created.