DiscussMormonism.com

This is a response to Black Moclips from teh previous thread...

== Having met many owners of smaller companies, its usually not some ultra greedy loon with glowing green eyes, pacing back and forth in a dark basement, wondering and considering every conceivable option on how he can squeeze a buck from unsuspecting innocent customers.

I'm not talking about small companies nor am I talking about individual owners. I am talking about the nature of Corporations, as those owned by hundreds or thousands of share-holders. They are designed to limit liability of the owners.

== But business leaders and founders of companies are usually very intelligent, very driven people with great ideas that want to share them. Sure, they want to profit from what they do to provide for their own families, employees, and the company itself.

Again, you are speaking of small companies where a single owners has the liberty to exercise moral judgment. CEOs of corporations do not have that liberty.

== And while profitability is the main goal of the company, because you have to have it in order to survive, there are many other aims and goals of the company. Most want to provide quality products and quality services to their customers.

Only because that is generally the best wayto make money.

== Most want to do it the right way, above board, without cutting corners in safety or quality, and in accordance with the rules and laws where they operate.

Not in my experience. The corporations I worked for (Pepsi co, Echostar) sacrificed safety so long as it meant more production per man-hour. This happens all the time. Shareholders are completely divorced from the ongoings of a business. They don't care if the company they own is mistreating its employees, requiring them to work 50+ hours a week, nor are they interested in whether or not being overworked in the warehouse ever leads to fatal forklift accidents. Only when a tragic accident leads to a lawsuit, do they find out how unprofitable it is to operate carelessly, so they implement safety standards to cover their own asses in case of future lawsuits. If they really cared about our personal safety to begin with, then they'd have these safety standards in place from the start.

== The cost in breaching any of these is too high to go after temporary gains. The profit motive keeps most companies in check.

My point exactly. Once they realize how unprofitable it is, then, and only then, do they try to maintain proper standards.

== In my experience, in all of the companies I've audited and reviewed, I can say most companies are not the evil thing you think they are.

You're probably auditing companies in the United States. Corporate branches overseas adapt to tyrannical environments and take advantage of employees and their stake holders, without the slightest care what happens to them or the immediate environment.

== They don't try to make money "however" they can.

Yes they do, and I'll give you an example. Companies regularly take out life insurance policies on their employees. Why? It is just another way to hit the lottery. They are called "dead peasant" policies. Here is an example, Dan Johnson was working in middle-management at Amegy Bank in Houston Texas. Dan suddenly died of cancer at age 41. Shortly afterwards his wife Irma received an insurance check that was accidentally sent to her home. The check was written out to Dan's employer for $1, 579,399.10. Now guess how much she got from that? Zilch. The company recived 1.5 million and gave the widow and her fatherless son not a single dime. Further investigations found that this is a very common practice among corporations. They randomly take out life insurance policies on their employees and nobody knows about it. They're not obligated to let employees know. Well, that's just F-ing creepy to me and there is a clear conflict of interest when you're worth more to your employer dead than alive.

Here is an article that discusses this, and says insurance companies have sold not a few hundred, or a few thousands, but rather MILLIONS of "dead peasant" insurance policies to corporations:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/ins ... p64954.asp

== Corporations are led by people, and those people have morals and ethics just like everyone else.

You see, this is why I don't think you understand what a corporation is. It doesn't matter if a corporation has Ghandi as the CEO, he will always be legally compelled to make the most profitable decision within the law. And if his decision makes the company lose money, then the share-holders can fire him. Thus, when Aetna decided in December to raise their premiums, even though they made a healthy profit last year, they sent a release saying they expected to lose something like 600,000 policy holders because they would not be able to afford the higher premiums. They were essentially willing to put people in positions that would lead to some of their deaths, just to make a bigger profit. People die every year because they do not have health insurance, so out of 600,000 being dumped, most of whom would not be able to obtain insurance because of preexisting conditions, I think it is safe to say at least a few will die based on this corporate decision. But nobody sees it this way because everyone is divorced from reality. People who own stock in Aetna aren't complaining. Incidentally, most insurance companies reject covereage for something like 20-40% of all claims, simply because they know the longer they hold off, the more money they make just off the interest. It doesn't matter if someone is dying. Did you know rape is considered a preexisting condition that insurance companies use as an excuse to drop high risk policy holders? They'll gladly accept the monthly premiums from that person until they try to file a huge claim, and then suddenly the conveniently "discover" a preexisting condition after they hire an investigator to scrub through your history as if he were investigating a murder. People have been denied coverage for operations for stupid crap, like a yeast infection. Now this isn't just one insurance company, its all of them.

In 2007 CIGNA decided it would halt a liver transplant for Nataline Sarkisyan, based on the argument that it was "too experimental." When news spread, people started protesting, and at that point CIGNA's board of directors got together and figured a cost-benefit-analysis of letting Nataline die, so after deciding the negative publicity would probably be worse than paying for her transplant, they decided to cover the costs. But they decided two hours after she died on the table.

== You seem to think that there isn't anything the most corporations wouldn't do to make a buck. That is absolutely not the case.

Within the law, yes. They'll do anything within the law, and oftentimes they will dance around the edge of the law if it is more profitable to do so. Take for example companies that are fined thousands of dollars for pollustion, and yet continue to pollute simply because the fines are not enough to outweigh the profit they make by continuing to pollute. They don't really care about right or wrong, all they care about is what is profitable, and again, the CEO is legally obligated to make money for shareholders.

== Not to say there aren't bad companies out there that break the rules. But when it happens, its usually a few isolated individuals at fault, not the entire mass of the company.

No, this is not true. The "there's a few bad apples" argument is lame. It shows a misunderstanding of what a corporation is. They're all the same machine oeprating is different contexts. Some need to act immorally, others do not. It is all about what needs to be done to make a profit, it is not about trying to do the right or wrong thing. A corporation is a psychopathic entity, which is unfortunately granted "person" status by our government.

== There are just as many corrupt individuals in government as there are in corporations. Based on my personal experiences with both, I think the corruption is far greater in government.

Yes,human nature is the problem to be sure. So any thing run by humans is bound to have problems. But government is held accountable. Corporations are not.

== The people running the government are held accountable? How? By whom?

By us. We can vote them out of office. The only people who can vote a CEO out of a job are the shareholder, who consequently are for the most part, not liable for a corporations actions.

== In this whole mess over the last few years, how many politicians have gone to jail for the fiscal state of this country?

Not sure, have they broke any laws?

== You are extremely naïve to believe that those in government are held accountable while those in corporations are not. Businessmen go to jail all the time.

Yes, but not for doing their job.

== Ok, an extreme example, that I'll take your word for happened. But tell me, did anyone really have their home repossessed for collecting rainwater? Just curious. But if this happened, it is as much a fault of the Bolivian government as the company doing this.

You're missing the point. Corporations have no moral compass. When they are permitted to exploit teh poor and milk a third world country of its resources, they will do so. They don't care who gets hurt in the process. The reason we don't hear much about this is because in America Corporations can't get away with that crap. Federal regulations prohibit them from operating with reckless abandon.

== Corporations operate according to the laws where they reside.

Exactly, and if a country allows a corporation to pay a 12 year old 70 cents a day for a 10 hour shift, then that is exactly what that corporation will do.

== One of the legitimate functions of government is set ground rules and the infrastructure for business to operate and protect its people. But in this case, someone or some department at the Bolivian government is corrupt, probably taking bribes or kickbacks from this company rather than protecting the people. So you attack and criticize the company, yet no words for the Bolivian government?

Well the topic was about corporations, not governments, but if it makes you happey, sure, the Bolivian government is evil too. Now how does this change the fact that corporations are psychopathic entities? The fact is many of these places are ruled by corporations not because of an evil government, but rather due to a lack of government.

== But I would bet if you went to most companies in America and advertised privatizing rainwater in Bolivia, and you could make a pretty buck by doing it and foreclosing on people homes, most would say "Absolutely NO". Not worth the press, not worth the trouble.

Exactly, but not because it is wrong, but only because it suddenly becomes unprofitable due to bad press.

== So your example is an aberration.

Hardly. You're simply out of touch. As am I and most people. We don't know about this stuff because it isn't something we hear a lot about.

== I just don't get your love and high esteem for those in government. Are you blind to what our politicians are and how they operate?

When in the hell did I say anything about politicians being men of moral character? I never saw this as a government vs. corporation deal. The fact is politicians are corrupt too, but mainly because corporations own them. Something like eight lobbyists for every politician in Congress? Leibermann is called the senator from Aetna. The best thing we could do would be to outlaw lobbying, as it is nothing short of legalized bribery. Corporations run our government, they drive our foreign policy (i.e. our presence in the Middle-East) and influence which dictatorships our CIA overthrow.

Oh yeah, and they don't give a damn about you, me, our neighbors, or anything else that isn't profitable. This is the nature of the best, and there is no way around it. I don't care how many companies you audit, since I am not referring to companies cheating on their taxes. I'm referring specifically to the effect they have on stakeholders, as well as the various "externalities" they impose on the world.

Oh, just yesterday I was reading about how Steve Jobs pitched an idea to his shareholders about "going green." It isn't HIS decision, no matter how nice of a guy he is. After hearing how much money it would cost, they voted overwhelmingly against it. So its all about seeing the next quarter being more profitable than the last.

Oh here is the story about Nataline.... CIGNA employees gave the mother the bird when she complained about how they killed her daughter.

Yeah, I'm sure CIGNA is just an fluke, "bad apple," one in a million incident too.


========================

A CIGNA employee gave the finger -- literally -- to a woman whose daughter died after the insurance giant refused to cover her liver transplant.

Hilda and Krikor Sarkisyan went to CIGNA's Philadelphia headquarters, along with supporters from the California Nurses Association, to confront the CEO Edward Hanway over the death of her 17-year-old child.

In 2007, Nataline Sarkisyan was denied a liver transplant by the company, on the grounds that the operation was "too experimental" to be covered. Nine days later it changed its mind, in response to protests outside its office. It was too late: Nataline died hours later.

"CIGNA killed my daughter," Nataline's mother Hilda told security. "I want an apology." Sarkisyan was not able to speak to Hanway; a communications specialist talked to her instead. After their conversation, employees heckled the group from a balcony; one man gave them the finger. CIGNA called the police and had the family and their friends escorted from the building.

A CIGNA executive apologized for the incident in a letter about a month later:

"I was very disappointed to learn of the behavior of one of our employees when you were at our company's headquarters," wrote John M. Murabito, executive vice president for human resources.

"I sincerely regret this individual's offensive and inappropriate action," he continued. "Please know that he did not represent the views of our company or the views of other employees who work here. We deeply empathize with you and wish you peace and comfort in your loss."

"What unbelievable nerve," said Americans United For Change spokesman Jeremy Funk in a statement. "A case that should have prompted CIGNA to seriously reevaluate its policies instead led its employees to taunt and insult a grieving mother who lost her daughter. Absolutely sick. Does Congress need any more reasons to pass meaningful health insurance reform now?"

The Sarkisyan family's wrongful-death suit was thrown out of court because of a 1987 Supreme Court ruling that shields employer-paid health care plans from damages over their coverage decisions.

The Sarkisyans say the law needs to be changed to allow people to sue health insurers for these kinds of decisions.

"If you don't sue, you can't make changes," Hilda Sarkisyan said. "It's not about the money. It's about the principle. They are just going to keep denying people care if we don't stop them."

Hey Kevin. I will try to respond tomorrow. Its late and I'm watching the Olympics and playing video games at the same time. Listen, I didn't mean for any of my comments to get snarky, so I apologize. I get heated when it comes to political type discussions, because I just can't believe that everyone doesn't agree with me! Imagine that. Anyway, I will try to respond over the weekend sometime.

Kevin,

Do you think that the government can be trusted but corporations are untrustworthy?

There remains, however, an astonishingly gaping absence in Galbraith’s worldview. While he is perfectly able to see the defects of businessmen—their inclination to megalomania, greed, hypocrisy, and special pleading—he is quite unable to see the same traits in government bureaucrats. It is as if he has read, and taken to heart, the work of Sinclair Lewis, but never even skimmed the work of Kafka.

For example, the chapter entitled “The Bureaucratic Syndrome” in his book The Culture of Contentment refers only to bureaucracy in corporations (and in the one government department he despises, the military). Galbraith appears to believe in the absurd idea that bureaucrats administer tax revenues to produce socially desirable ends without friction, waste, or mistake. It is clearly beyond the range of his thought that government action can, even with the best intentions, produce harmful effects. For Galbraith, a dollar spent on, say, public education results in a dollar’s worth of educated person, virtually without deduction. Troubling evidence to the contrary—for example, the fact that Britain spends nearly $100,000 per child on public education, and yet a fifth of the population is unable to read with facility or do simple arithmetic—does not figure in his work; he always writes as if all would be well if only $200,000 were spent.

He should have known better. In his 1981 autobiography, A Life in Our Times, he recalls the way academics flocked to Washington at the beginning of the New Deal. “Word had . . . reached the university that a nearly unlimited number of jobs were open for economists at unbelievably high pay in the federal government,” he writes. “All the new agencies needed this talent. Students who had been resisting for years the completion of theses and the resulting unemployment now finished them up in weeks. Some did not even stop to do that. So a new gold rush began.” One might think that this would have opened his eyes to the vested interests of bureaucracy—to the possibility that large government programs might operate more for the interest of the apparatchiks than for that of the alleged beneficiaries. But it never did.

Nor did it change his ideas about the politics of taxation. Over and again in his work, Galbraith alludes with disdain to the resistance that the affluent mount to tax increases, insisting that they do so only out of self-interest and indifference to the fate of the poor. In The Good Society, for example, he writes that “the comfortably affluent resist public action for the poor because of the threat of increased taxes.” It is true, of course, that the well-to-do resist tax increases in large part because they do not want to give up what they have; practically no one likes to be deprived of what he has. But in light of the “gold rush” described above by Galbraith, is it not at least equally likely that those who propose tax increases do so in order to increase their own power and emoluments?

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_1_otbie-john-kenneth-galbraith.html

Richard, I'm not talking about "defects of businessmen" nor am I talking about Free-Market Capitalism. I am talking about the nature of Corporations as being inherently evil. Most of it has to do with the rights the Supreme Court has granted them. Did you know a corporation is given all the same rights as individuals, and corporate attorneys convinced Supreme Court justices that the 14th amendment applied to them as "persons"?

Kevin Graham wrote:Richard, I'm not talking about "defects of businessmen" nor am I talking about Free-Market Capitalism. I am talking about the nature of Corporations as being inherently evil. Most of it has to do with the rights the Supreme Court has granted them. Did you know a corporation is given all the same rights as individuals, and corporate attorneys convinced Supreme Court justices that the 14th amendment applied to them as "persons"?

But do you think that the government is more trustworthy? Do you agree with the Supreme Court's Kelo decision.

Trustworthy for what? I'd have to take in on a case by case basis, but the problem with corporations is that they cannot be trusted to do anything except try to make a profit, usually at our expense. Governments are run by fallible people who can at times be bought by corporate lobbyists, but the "government" doesn't exist as a single conscience with one goal in mind. It exists to serve the people and its members answer to the people. We can remove a government official by majority vote, but we can have no influence on how a corporation operates. Government can change, whereas corporations can only change if we let our government change them.

As far as Kelo, I'm not sure what the beef is here unless you want to criticize the fifth amendment. But the big winner in that case was corporations, again. Corporations essentially run our government.

Is the corporation "evil" or merely an amoral institution?

Kevin,

If it were up to you, would you outlaw the ability of two or more people to join together to seek financial gain?

Is the corporation "evil" or merely an amoral institution?

Probably the latter, but I think evil sparks more counter-arguments.