Can We Reform Corporations to Make them Responsible?

The power they lobby for now and would have if you took away the power of government, as you suggested. Basically, the power to do whatever they want with limited or no regulation.

 

the power they lobby for now is power over their market (through regulation). I don't advocate giving that power to any one company. the ACA lets the government decide what minimum amount of coverage can be offered by a health insurance company. I don't advocate a company deciding this. I advocate nobody deciding this.

 

That's not lobbying. That's just writing to a politician. Or maybe I should say that I'm not talking about the verb, I'm talking about the noun. Lobbying is done by paid pro's who meet with politicians with a "rather large reelection campaign donation check" for his/her time to hear them out. Like I said - legalized bribery and it happens 24/7 on both sides - that's why it will never be done away with.

Do you really not know that?

 

Oh I think you can come visit politicians all day long, but there should never be any donation greater than $100 from any one person or corp to a sitting politician per year...period. I don't think $100 would sway anyone. You get reelected based on your record. I'd up that amount to $200 for non-active politicians. But again - as long as both dems and reps get stacks of cash to keep the gravy train running, lobbyist will be all over DC.

 

Corporations are beholden to shareholders who want increased profits and growth that lead to dividends and capital appreciation.

I would be curious what the effect would be on doing away with dividends.

One way or another unless large companies sitting on record cash reserves and profits either lower prices, raise salaries or increase their hiring this inequality downward spiral will continue unabated.

 

Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch spend billions each year pumping out political opinions and viewpoints of their choosing 24 hours a day 7 days a week. If I want to give $200 to a local politician so they can put out their view (by means of commercials or whatever), should I not be allowed to? If CNN or Fox News wanted to, could they not just put out pro-Obama or pro-Romney messages 24/7? I see no difference between a news source throwing out an opinoin and me giving my money to a politician so they can throw out their opinion.

 

The value they've provided to customers aside, corporations have done far more charitable work than you ever have or will.

Everyone knows smoking is unhealthy.

what group is this?

You should vote out politicians that support such laws.

Absolutely, people in China and Bangladesh need the work far more, and it keeps prices low for the poor here.

Don't give your money to corporations you disapprove of. Persuade others to do the same.

 

Well I think you are arguing two separate issues. First, there is the problem with corporate influence in govt being relatively cheap for large corporate entities that generate billions and billions in revenue. Further, they can also offer these figurehead board seats to Congresspersons after they leave office which is problematic too. Term limits certainly wouldn't hurt, but I don't know what else could be enacted that wouldn't violate the 1st amendment.

The other issue you mention is bad corporate actors who only care about profit. Yes they are some ****ty companies out there, like tobacco companies and for profit prisons, but there are a lot of great ones as well. You shouldn't only be pessimistic about corporations. Their innovation, success, and failure is what developed America and the world. Hell, without JP Morgan's vision and risk appetite then the electrification of the world might not have happened for years and years later.

You mention Walmart as a bad company, but I think they have brought a lot of positives to America imo. You can get a vast array of good quality low priced products that you wouldn't have been able to get in small communities before. Walmart gets a bad rap, but they are a revolutionary company. Further, they have very slim margins so they aren't kicking out competition and then proceeding to gouge customers.

What about Costco? Are they bad a corporate actor?

Are Home Depot or Lowe's bad corporate actors because they have shut down smaller hardware stores?

Starbucks? Amazon? Apple? etc...

Are there any good large for profit corporations in your eyes?

 

So . . . no environmental protections?
Fracking et all?
No consumer protections?

Rocket River

 

yes to environmental regulation. It affects peoples' rights. I never said no regulation. I said less.

be more specific

 

"Maximize shareholder value" is a mere excuse of the weak and greedy. After all, no corporation/board has ever been sued for not lobbying, not outsourcing, not putting up false advertising, etc. etc.

What I DO have a problem with is allowing corporate structure for businesses that owe fiduciary duty to a different group of people, i.e, banks (depositors), insurance companies (insured), hospitals (patients), etc. because there "maximizing shareholder value" often or invariably come at the expense of the parties who are owed a fiduciary duty.

 

I believe most of the problems we have with corporations are caused by the People. The average American has a general disdain for oil companies but does absolutely nothing to limit their personal consumption of fuel. Admitting, via action, that their personal convenience is more important than how they feel about the environment (if they believe oil companies have a significant negative effect on the environment). The company, therefore, has no motivation to change safety or environmental policies.

 

Oh, please. Ted Turner hasn't owned CNN for years. Please take the time to inform yourself about this stuff, OK? Thanks in advance.

Want to "reform" corporations? Elect a Congress that will pass meaningful campaign finance reform, since the current Supreme Court majority clearly cares more about large corporations and freeing them of all constraints when funding issues they deem critical to their quarterly profits, and less about the buying and selling of our democracy by those same entities. The American people, through their elected representatives in the House and Senate, spent decades getting campaign finance reform passed, and a 5-4 majority dominated by extremists, in my humble opinion, tossed that decades long reform effort, which still had a ways to go, in the dumpster without so much as a reach around.

Want to stop the buying and selling of our democracy by billionaires and their corporations? You don't need socialism, glynch, although I think socialism isn't the inherent "evil" some would make it out to be. What you need is meaningful campaign finance reform, passed by Congress so that the Supreme Court can't throw it in the trash. Absent that, or rather in conjunction with that, you need to elect a President who will nominate a more moderate Supreme Court that won't toss out decades of established law simply because they can, and a Congress that will confirm those nominations.

 

The corporations the government should regulate, like banks, it treats with kids gloves.

But it'll damn you to hell if you operate a lemonade stand without a license.

I know most liberals feel regulations are what protect us from the big scary corporations from turning the environment into China's. That's all well and good.

But the lion's share are written by large corporations to kill their smaller competition.

 

Why is it necessary at all for the legal entities known as corporations to exist? Why can't their business be tied to the individuals involved?

 

I think the way to counter corporate power would be to compete with them with cooperatively organized non-profits and employee owned businesses. I think people would support it and taking the excessive profits out should yield more competitive pricing.
I think it's the organizational and management issues that are holding the idea back.

 

A corporation that has large revenues is by definition providing things of value to people, otherwise the person wouldn't part with their money and give it to the corporation.

Bingo, regulations are designed to keep competition out. The rich and powerful can afford the lawyers/accountants/lobbyists, the startup competitor cannot. Big Corporation loves Big Government, the work hand in hand.

Reduced competition and regulatory compliance costs increase the price of everything we buy, which hurts the poor disproportionately.

Licensing is the same idea. Limits the competition for labor. A poor person who might be good at cutting hair is not allowed to without paying for a license. This keeps the price of a haircut artificially high.

 

Or it keeps people without proper training from spreading infections and diseases because they don't know about sterilizing their equipment etc.

If someone is using razors, scissors and other things that are possibly exposed to blood, lice, germs, bacteria etc. I'd prefer there be regulations.

 

I'd pay more for a haircut for someone who had such a certification, but if someone wants to pay less to accept that risk, more power to them.

"We're restricting your freedom to keep you safe" is a paternalistic mindset.

 

Media spin <> making laws

If you don't see a problem with me showing up with stacks of cash to tell a congressman that I'd like him to support a bill then I don't know what to say.