Every Corporation is required by law to ignore the interests of "the people" when making decisions.

[ConsAreLiars]

(Other than non-profits and not-for-profits, of course, which are exempted from this obligation and allowed to put other interests ahead of profits.)

If the directors of any corporation try to use their position to serve the common good of the common people, rather than maximizing the shareholders' profits, then they are not doing their assigned jobs. The Corporation's only permissible values and goals are measured in money and power.

This, unfortunately, poses a real dilemma for Democratic politicians who depend on Big Money from corporate interests if they are to be "competitive" in their campaigns for office. On the one hand, they may wish to serve the greater good for the greater number, but, on the other, if they are to be elected they need to serve the corporations that have the kind of money they need to get elected, and they need to avoid antagonizing those entities that can and will use massive money and influence to defeat them.

Nothing new in these observations, but it means that many of our Democratic politicians are limited in their ability to act on behalf of the common good. Better than the Republicans, who are wholly bought and paid for by the ruling classes, and a few are truly independent of Big Money.

So the dilemma is how turn a nominal democracy (in which the Supremist Court has ruled that Corporations are "people" and using "their" money to manipulate elections is a proper execrise of "free speech) into a real one, where real people make real choices based on real information and on the principle of "one person, one vote."

Any ideas better than "eat the rich"? I'm not fond of fatty foods, apart from the dietary no-no.

(edit to replace "they they" with the a single "they" and "who" (those things are not people, duh!) with "which.")

[Dover]

1. And yet they are legally identified as individuals. So what individual has those rights?

What citizen has the right to ignore the public interest, and in fact, do it harm?

And these non-democratic, fascist organizations want to be the global governing body.
They want to own, label, measure and sell all of life in monetary terms.

[ConsAreLiars]

6. For every crime a corporation commits, the punishment should hit

every participant in proportion to his/her complicity. That might be a first step.

When corporations kill people, life in prison for all those actively deciding to commit the crime that caused the deaths, and co-conspirators or enabler penalties for those who funded that act, in proportion to their investment. The mass murder businesses, or as Eisenhower more politely called them, the military industrial complex, might have a bit more trouble remaining a power player in the US if this small bit of justice came into play.

[ThomCat]

2. It is amazing how many people just don't know/believe

that corporations are required to maximize profit, and that there are no requirements for ethical or moral behavior. Corporations are inherently greed and have limited liability regardless of the consequences. It's a situation that can only result in the tragedies we've seen. The education industry, the media, the environment, every branch and agency within our government, every system that corporations get their hands on will be subverted for profit no matter how many people are harmed or how much damage is caused.

The B.S. about the self regulation via the "invisible hand" of the free market is a convenient myth that is used to deflect attention away from the greed and the damage.

[Boojatta]

5. Re the invisible hand

(..) the association of Adam Smith with the (untenable view) that capitalist firms should be left alone on the grounds that whatever they do has benign consequences on society does no favours for the valid case for limiting the instances in which the State interferes in their actions. Adam Smith was never in a position to give a view on what restrictions a future democratic society might wish to place on individual capitalist corporations because he was dead long before capitalism developed in the UK and in the USA in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Smith’s main concern in his polemic against mercantile policies in “Wealth of Nations” was to argue against ‘merchants and manufacturers’ being left alone to form monopolies, was against the state legislating to prevent tradesmen from practising their trades unless they had the permission of local Guilds (monopolists of labour), and was against the Act of Settlement that prevented labourers moving from where they lived to other places in search of work.

To transpose these sensible policies into a general carte blanche for employers a century later to employ women and children in coal mines and mills with appalling accident rates, until the first feeble Factory Inspectors began their work in the 1850s (and still necessary work today), allowing them cover to oppose intervention to stop firms polluting their neighbourhoods and those ‘downstream’ (...)

From:
http://adamsmithslostlegacy.com/2005_04_01_archive.html

However, that's just another secondary source and I don't recommend reading any more of that particular source than I quoted above.

Here's a primary source for discussions of "invisible hand":
http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWNtoc.html

[ConsAreLiars]

10. Once upon a time I had a shitload of Adam Smith quotes warning against

the dangers posed by corporations if not heavily regulated. Sounded more like Marx than anyone else, but unlike Marx, he thought preventative regulation would be possible and allow the innovative and liberating aspects of free market capitalism (also recognized by Marx), to continue without turning into monopoly despotism. Whether or not that "might" have been possible (Roosevelt gave it a shot by killing off the monopolists who had brought on the depression and attempted to bring about fascism)

[ConsAreLiars]

8. They are truly "golem."

They are man made monsters that lack all human qualities. They live only to eat.

[tbyg52]

24. Hey, don't insult golems!

(I am thinking of the kind of golems in Terry Pratchett, of course.... ;) )

http://www.amazon.com/Feet-Clay-Terry-Pratchett/dp/0061057649/sr=1-2/qid=1169404490/ref=sr_1_2/105-2849524-1519616?ie=UTF8&s=books

[Richard Steele]

3. True. One more reason that the entire NOTION of "corporations" needs to be shitcanned.

There is -NO- good reason for "we, the people" to tolerate
the existence of "for-profit corporate entities".
Their existence serves NO common good- never has,
never will. They exist only to prevent their owners
from being held accountable for their actions.

If a ventriloquist equips his dummy with a gun, and
then walks down the street shooting people at random,
we don't put the DUMMY in jail, do we?

But we do EXACTLY THAT with corporate crimes.
If the people who run a corporation vote upon a
course of action which harms or kills innocent people,
THEY are not held responsible. The CORPORATION is.

And that, in my humble opinion, is just fucking insane.

[napi21]

4. That is simply NOT TRUE! Corporations are requiredby law to reporttheir financials

every quarter, not steal from the company coffers etc, butthere is NOTHINGin the law that say they HAVE to put profit ahead of ethcis or community good.

Now, MOST DO put profits ahead of anything else, but there is nothing, other than some greedy stockholders that says they MUST do that!

There are a few thatreally do believe their employees are their biggest asset, and they will have a better and more successful company if their employees are happy...but saddly...only a few!

[ConsAreLiars]

7. Nonsense. Look up "the interest of the shareholders" in the articles of

incorporation for any company you choose. Let me know if you find one where making money for the stockholders is not the First Law.

(edit to add) Better yet, find me one example of a for-profit Corporation which explicitly says in its Articles of Incorporation that making profits for the stockholders is secondary to any other objective.

[unblock]

15. you are correct. "fiduciary duty" requires executives to act in the interest of shareholders

but it does NOT mean that "the interest of shareholders" is limited to profit maximization only. moreover, there's a big difference between short-term profit maximization and long-term profit maximization. executives seeking long-term profit maximization for their shareholders are more likely to forge long-term, mutually cooperative relationships with employees, communities, the environment, etc.

unfortunately, short-term profit maximization is certainly an all too common singular goal of many corporations. but that is NOT a legal requirement.

[Morgana LaFey]

22. Thank you. The OP is ridiculous.

The 80s (thanks to Milton Friedman?? and Harvard Bs. School) brought the "greed is good" ideology along with the dictum that the ONLY thing a corporation should be doing is maximizing profits. That's like saying that because a human being needs to eat food to stay alive (as corporations need to make a profit to stay alive), human beings should do nothing but eat. Eat, eat, eat.

While I'm not a lawyer, I know of NO LAW that "requires" the excessive exploitation that necessarily goes hand in hand with this "profit maximization is the ONLY requirement" ideology.

Back in the 70s there was a fairly vibrant "corporate citizen" and "corporate responsibility" philosophy that served us very well. I can remember books that ranked different corporations on different socially-friendly values and activities (environment, women and minority hiring, consumer safety, etc.). Corporations were actually trying to be good citizens and considered that PART of their mission. I think what happened in the 80s was a violent reaction (backlash) to that -- so successful that you don't even hear those terms any more.

[sandnsea]

9. They're required to follow whatever laws WE pass

Therefore, if we pass laws that make them responsible for not polluting, or cleaning it up if they do, they have to follow it.

If we pass laws that require them to pay their employees enough money so that taxpayers won't be forced to subsidize corporate labor costs, then they have to follow it.

For that matter, if we pass laws that allows the corporation to set up a company town operation, then we can make the corporation take total and complete care of the workers, then that's what the corporation has to do.

AFTER they follow all the laws we pass, so that WE can stop subsidizing all these business costs, then and only then do they have their obligation to the stockholders who don't do a spit of work anyway.

[Solon]

11. All laws are vetted through a cost/benefit analysis within corporations...

For example, McDonalds may do a study to determine which is cheaper, abiding by FDA and USDA standards, which cost money in training employees and more energy for properly cooking food, or simply settling lawsuits and fines. This is only a theoretical, but, if settling lawsuits and paying fines is cheaper, any corporation will do that over following regulations. The auto industry is famous for using certain formulas to determine which is cheaper, many other corporations do the same.

The problem isn't the laws, its how they are enforced, there are actually LIMITS on how much of a penalty companies have to pay if they break the law, on the order of THOUSANDS of dollars a day, in some cases. With only 365 days in a year, and with corporations making BILLIONS of dollars in profits, these types of penalties are like penalizing me a literal nickel if I kill someone.

Also, almost every time companies are actually penalized, either by the government, or through civil lawsuits, they file appeal after appeal till the fines or judgments are reduced to a pittance. The Exxon Valdez judgment is a classic example of this.

[sandnsea]

13. Which has nothing to do with the OP

Which is that corporations have a financial obligation to tell 'we the people' to kiss off. They have a legal obligation to follow the law and consequently can't tell us to kiss off. We need to guarantee the laws are enforced and effective.

[ConsAreLiars]

12. If by "we" you mean corporate find-raisers and lobbyists, then

you (and they) are right. The problems is that corporations are treated as "human," but with super-human rights and powers. They (and you with them, I guess) have far more than one vote or voice. They control "your" media, and "your" elections. You approve?

[sandnsea]

14. No, I mean WE THE PEOPLE

Which is what I said.

[porkrind]

16. Watch "The Corporation" on YouTube...

The best documentary about the tyranny and psychosis of corporations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G8StbNA9O8

[Joanne98]

20. Here's the website...

http://www.thecorporation.com/

[Joanne98]

17. The root of all evil.

[Nikia]

18. Well sometimes it is in their best interests to to not ignore people's interest

The company that I work for is a private corporation. It pays above minimum wage, but not above what most low skilled (as in no previous experience or education required) jobs in the area pay. I think that it would benefit them economically to pay better in order to attract and retain better workers, but I don't personally have a say in that.
It is important that we have free and indepedent press to call attention to companies who pollute, treat their workers poorly, engage in unethical business practices, make unsafe products, and other practices not in our own business. From this, we could encourage boycotts of companies that don't meet our interests. That makes it in the economic interests of the affected companies to change their practices.
A problem with knowing which products not to buy is that it isn't always apparent which companies are actually involved in making a product. I work in the food processing industry. Some companies co pack for other companies which means that the company on the lable is often not the company that made the product. The identity of who actually made the product is often propriatary secret. AS a result, it is hard to boycott some companies because we don't know what products they make.

[Odin2005]

19. Private corporations should be totally abolished and replaced with co-ops.

[Hidden Stillness]

21. Stockholders as bad as Executives

This reminds me of the situation several years ago, when a group that is trying to reform global corporate practices and to ban sweatshops and other slavery, exposed the sweatshop conditions of Kathie Lee Gifford's line of clothes (I think it was), and others, and exposed the fact that the "Made in U.S.A." labels on Wal-Mart and etc. products were fake, and tried to get the (after all, corporate) media to report on all these abuses. Eventually, Andrew Young, Ambassador under Clinton, Wal-Mart and Corp., went on a fact-finding tour of Asian factories to report on whether there were oppressive conditions. Magically, there were none. Still, the reform group kept presenting pesky evidence. Eventually, the stockholders of some corporation, can't remember which, took a vote on whether they should investigate and correct the situation, lowering their profits. They voted "No," they did not give a rat's ass after all. Remember, (as little as I know about any of this), stockholders are not generally individuals anymore, but huge, rich cartels of investors that are themselves corporations.

I also read something about Franklin Roosevelt that I have been trying to find again, and can't; I can't even remember which book it was in. Apparently, near the end of the great New Deal reforms, some of which had saved the Nation, and some of which had been destroyed again by the same corrupt business interests, Roosevelt told somebody, something like, that the whole system of stockholders should have been either reformed completely or abolished (I can't remember which), because it was nothing but a totally unproductive layer of leeches of the profits that rightfully belonged to the employees first, and that it was a corrupting influence. It was a great quote, I hope somebody recognizes it; I can't find it. Also, for people who might recommend searching for it on "the internets"--you may think the internets are open and free areas of expression; I think they are corporate-controlled censorship and control like everything else now. Have you ever tried to Google for a FAVORABLE thing to read on Franklin or Eleanor Roosevelt?

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. Pass Thomas Jefferson's 12th Amendment to the Constitution.

A corporation is not a person, and cannot control other corporations.