what to do with those Corporations?...

[Qdrop]

so i purchased The Corporation on DVD....

great Doc...great extras...

http://www.thecorporation.com/

so i'd like to entertain the debate on here...

should corporations be made illegal?

should they just be more stictly regulated?

should we instead just lift restrictions, educate the public more (god knows how), and let the public rule with thier dollars?

read first:
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.php?page_id=2

[Ali]

so i purchased The Corporation on DVD....

great Doc...great extras...

http://www.thecorporation.com/

so i'd like to entertain the debate on here...

should corporations be made illegal?

should they just be more stictly regulated?

should we instead just lift restrictions, educate the public more (god knows how), and let the public rule with thier dollars?

read first:
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.php?page_id=2Let them do what they want. What difference does it make what we think. In the end, it's the major shareholders who determine policy and the major shareholders are the directors. Profit is their god.

[Qdrop]

Let them do what they want. What difference does it make what we think. In the end, it's the major shareholders who determine policy and the major shareholders are the directors. Profit is their god.

but if we made corporations illegal...
there would be no more shareholders.

only owners...with direct responsibility and LIABILITY!!

[Ali]

but if we made corporations illegal...
there would be no more shareholders.

only owners...with direct responsibility and LIABILITY!!Who's "we"? Politicians who receive corporate campaign contributions?

"Owners"=Shareholders. Major shareholders=executives, see above post.

[Qdrop]

Who's "we"? Politicians who receive corporate campaign contributions? we the voters/activists/ect.
nothing is out of reach of the will of the people..IF the people unify.

big "IF"...

"Owners"=Shareholders. no no no...
in the corporate structure...shareholders all have part ownership in the corporation, but have NO liability.
in fact, the corporation is LEGALLY it's own entity...a PERSON. and has all the rights endowed to any other person (disgusting).
so the shareholders can enforce any activity they want, in the name of profit...but can never be held liable.
so it's ownership without the liability...which causes much of the problems we see today.

[valvano]

but they do face liability through decreased share value, etc...if shady things go on, the market will adjust the value of the corporation and the shareholders will pay the price...therefore it is in the shareholders interests to assure things are on the up and up...

maybe you should look for guidance in your life from sources other than the latest documentary out on DVD??
:D

[Qdrop]

but they do face liability through decreased share value, etc...if shady things go on, the market will adjust the value of the corporation and the shareholders will pay the price...therefore it is in the shareholders interests to assure things are on the up and up...but that's the thing....the mass majority of "shady things" NEVER see the light of day, or the media.
you only hear about a fraction of them.
and guess what....often, there is little to no negative effect on the market value...
for every Enron...there's many many more Shell's (biggest polluter on the planet).

maybe you should look for guidance in your life from sources other than the latest documentary out on DVD??
yeah, like that's the extent of my knowledge on the subject.

i take a statement like that with a grain of salt, considering the undereducated, overly biased source that typed it.

:D
don't use fuckin smiley icons...
act your age.

[valvano]

for every Enron...there's many many more Shell's (biggest polluter on the planet).



i'd say the us govt is probably the biggest polluter on earth

[Documad]

The best indictment of corporations I've seen was in the movie Network. I'm serious.

How far can you go in regulating US corporations and how they conduct themselves in the US? How do you similarly regulate foreign ones?

[EN[i]GMA]

so i purchased The Corporation on DVD....

You PURCHASED it?

Hypocrite.

I 'borrowed it from a friend'.


great Doc...great extras...

I was tempted to actually get/rent it for the extras. I may.


so i'd like to entertain the debate on here...

should corporations be made illegal?

Would making, quote 'corporations' illegal really do anything, or would some other entity just spring up to take their place?

There is nothing wrong or immoral about a simple corporation.


should they just be more stictly regulated?

Tempting, but I doubt that they can be effectively regulated.

I would recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684829754/104-1932240-0251944?v=glance as the other side of the debate, regarding government economic controll.

Here's the PBS series made out of the book: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/index.html


should we instead just lift restrictions, educate the public more (god knows how), and let the public rule with thier dollars?

I think more could be done in the way of education. Fraud laws must be strictly enforced, transparency must be enforced, and contracts must be fair.

If fraud were cracked down on, as in all forms of deception and false advertising, corporations malfeant effects would be severely limited.

If transparency were more existant, people would know just what goes on and what they can do about it. Corporations need to have a reason to act in the public's interest; as it is now, they don't.

Contracts, between all parties, must be fair, and take into account superiour bargaining power and fairness. Actions amounting to duress should invalidate contracts. You can't force someone to sign a contract with a gun to their head, how can you force them to sign one with starvation looming ahead?


I think that if people DON'T get educated, and DON'T take action for their own good and the good of others, nothing will work. No system of 'control' or 'regulation' will be effective, because if the people don't care enough to take action against the corporations, will they take action against their oversees should they become corrupt?

Obviously not.

I would also impose MUCH stiffer penalties on malfeant corporations. Corporations doing anything grossly illegal should be prosecuted as people. If you caused the deaths of hundreds of people, what would happen to you? Same for the corporation, or at least those running it.

For instance, a corporation does something wrong, its entire management is fired, penalized criminally and monetarily, stripped of stock options, and disinterested stock owners then vote on how to restructure the company.

A thousand different things could be done, but it's only imperitive that SOMETHING be done.

And I would also note that I found a lot of the movie to be a bit overblown. It's to be expected though.

[EN[i]GMA]

but if we made corporations illegal...
there would be no more shareholders.

only owners...with direct responsibility and LIABILITY!!

Make shareholders illegal?

Than how would one amass capital?

Beg on the streets?

The stock is SUPPOSED to (It isn't currently; I would enact policies to help it return to) be a means for small owners and entraprenuers to amass enough capital to start/run a business.

As it is, the cost to float a new stock is over a million dollars.

See how government regulation aids the rich and hurts the poor, unwittingly?

[EN[i]GMA]

no no no...
in the corporate structure...shareholders all have part ownership in the corporation, but have NO liability.
in fact, the corporation is LEGALLY it's own entity...a PERSON. and has all the rights endowed to any other person (disgusting).

I agree. THis personhood should be revoked.


so the shareholders can enforce any activity they want, in the name of profit...but can never be held liable.
so it's ownership without the liability...which causes much of the problems we see today.

I do think there should be limited liability, directly proportion to how much stock you own, but remember, without protection from liability, not as many people would buy stock, which is ultimately harmful for the economy.

A corporation shouldn't be allowed to do anything illegal or unlawful, and neither should any person, under any guise.

[Ace42X]

How to reign in disgusting corporate power? Tax tax and more tax. Anything that is even remotely anti-social, WHAM, tax it. Make acting like greedy cunties less appealing. By all means let the companies fleece consumers, just more money for the treasury and public purse (IE spent for hte consumer's benefit) and the companies barely get a whiff of the fruits of their anti-social directives.

On the other side of it, give tax breaks to ethical (environmentally / socially conscious projects) corporations. Let them make the most of a good thing.

Let's see the unseen hand adjust to that.

Smokers have to pay massive amounts of tax of cigarrettes because they are harmful to society (not even through passive smoking necessarily - cancer is a drain on the NHS, and as such it is just and fair that smoker's habits keep it afloat) - ditto for drunks and their anti-social behaviour and liver damage.

Let a corporation that is a drain on society have the same penalties.

And make fines proportional. That way it won't kill small businesses that can't compete, and won't allow massive multi-nationals to buy their way out of their own problems because it is "more cost effective" than doing their job right in the first place.

[EN[i]GMA]

i'd say the us govt is probably the biggest polluter on earth

I mean, with all those factories it runs, it must be!

[EN[i]GMA]

How to reign in disgusting corporate power? Tax tax and more tax. Anything that is even remotely anti-social, WHAM, tax it. Make acting like greedy cunties less appealing. By all means let the companies fleece consumers, just more money for the treasury and public purse (IE spent for hte consumer's benefit) and the companies barely get a whiff of the fruits of their anti-social directives.

On the other side of it, give tax breaks to ethical (environmentally / socially conscious projects) corporations. Let them make the most of a good thing.

Let's see the unseen hand adjust to that.

Smokers have to pay massive amounts of tax of cigarrettes because they are harmful to society (not even through passive smoking necessarily - cancer is a drain on the NHS, and as such it is just and fair that smoker's habits keep it afloat) - ditto for drunks and their anti-social behaviour and liver damage.

Let a corporation that is a drain on society have the same penalties.

And make fines proportional. That way it won't kill small businesses that can't compete, and won't allow massive multi-nationals to buy their way out of their own problems because it is "more cost effective" than doing their job right in the first place.

I somewhat agree.

Tax should be used a tool, not as a weapon, detrimental to all.

By all means, punish malfeasance wherever possible.

But it's important to remember the Laffer curve.

Rates of 99.9% won't necessarily net more income than lower rates.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
Rates of 99.9% won't necessarily net more income than lower rates.

Greater social responsibility means less need for taxes, however.

[yeahwho]

Good Movie.

Education at an early age about the corporate structure and how it affects our daily life. Kids should have an early knowledge that Nickelodeon (http://www.nick.com/) is actually a profit oriented corporate entity named viacom (http://www.viacom.com/).

It's not like some local clown show of the 50's, 60's, 70's and even the early 80's. It's 2005 and Corporations are in a cut-throat business. This generation is fodder for whatever tactic deemed necessary to stop them from changing the channel. Kids should know why they're targeted. PBS has a different business structure and this should be taught.

Education in media is a great first step for kids to take. What grade? I'm not sure, but the corporate world has no qualms about targeting infants....so the earlier the better.

I have a lot more thoughts on "what to do" but this is it for now.

[EN[i]GMA]

I somewhat like that idea, but steps have to be made to prevent it from indoctrination.

Indoctrinating kids to hate corporations is as bad as indoctrinating them to like them.

[yeahwho]

GMA']I somewhat like that idea, but steps have to be made to prevent it from indoctrination.

Indoctrinating kids to hate corporations is as bad as indoctrinating them to like them.

I wouldn't want to indoctrinate hate of anything. I would want to teach children the reality of corporate mechanisms. Corporate responsiblity begins with us, the consumer. If left to their own devices I'm sure most CEO's would rather they have the "house edge" in all matters relating to how we consume.

They have that edge, corporate structures are set up to buy it daily with political contributions and madison avenue advertising. Lets level the playing field for everyone to play. A kid can grow up and say to himself, "I'm going be an entrepreneur" rather than "I program for (fill in the blank)".

The advantage has been bought by the corporate world w/o any thought of how this effects children.

We as a society have become way too sheepish IMO, kids are judged at school by how they behave, not what they know. They need to know at a young age how manipulation works, so they can be armed and ready for the onslaught that awaits them.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
Indoctrinating kids to hate corporations is as bad as indoctrinating them to like them.

Depends. How does "indoctrination" differ from education? Assuming corporations are bad (and any group whose only specific aim is to become as wealthy as possible by any means necessary, and keep everyone else as poor as possible by any means necessary cannot really be 'good') - how is teaching kids they are bad "indoctrination."

I suppose you could just teach people how to look at the problem sensibly, and let them come to their own conclusions (which, if you've done a good job, will hopefully e the right ones) - but the downside of this is that many people are just too dumb to accept facts. Look at Jizzmo or Racerstang as obvious examples.

In their cases, indoctrination is the only way to get them to acknowledge anything.

And really, can you say that people are not indoctrinated against facism / the Nazis ? Yes, as right thinking individuals most people can give reasons why they are wrong - but how many people do you think acknowledge this because they have examined the matter in terms of a personal or formal moral philosophy? Not many, they just recite the mantra "Hitler was the worlds most evil man, the Nazis hate freedom, they were the worst thing evar!" without any actual objective analysis. Given that, despite this indoctrination, some people STILL persist in facistic thought (Aryan Nations and other neo-nazi hate groups, etc) - is it not clearly useful as a purely educational tool?

I'd view indoctrination kinda like learning things by rote. Yes, I personally regard this as a relatively meaningless exercise - facts without comprehension are meaningless - once again as Jizzmo and Sisko prove conclusively, BUT, it is a useful tool for guaranteeing knowledge is absorbed.

And yes, not all corporations HAVE to be bad (although there is a clear prerogative for them to be so, given that cutting corners, dishonesty and inequity are sure fire money-makers) - jsut as not all communist revolutions need to be totalitarian. However, I'd still take a damned hard look at the Party's manifesto before I started waving the red banner.

[yeahwho]

Depends. How does "indoctrination" differ from education? Assuming corporations are bad (and any group whose only specific aim is to become as wealthy as possible by any means necessary, and keep everyone else as poor as possible by any means necessary cannot really be 'good') - how is teaching kids they are bad "indoctrination."

I suppose you could just teach people how to look at the problem sensibly, and let them come to their own conclusions (which, if you've done a good job, will hopefully e the right ones) - but the downside of this is that many people are just too dumb to accept facts. Look at Jizzmo or Racerstang as obvious examples.

In their cases, indoctrination is the only way to get them to acknowledge anything.

And really, can you say that people are not indoctrinated against facism / the Nazis ? Yes, as right thinking individuals most people can give reasons why they are wrong - but how many people do you think acknowledge this because they have examined the matter in terms of a personal or formal moral philosophy? Not many, they just recite the mantra "Hitler was the worlds most evil man, the Nazis hate freedom, they were the worst thing evar!" without any actual objective analysis. Given that, despite this indoctrination, some people STILL persist in facistic thought (Aryan Nations and other neo-nazi hate groups, etc) - is it not clearly useful as a purely educational tool?

I'd view indoctrination kinda like learning things by rote. Yes, I personally regard this as a relatively meaningless exercise - facts without comprehension are meaningless - once again as Jizzmo and Sisko prove conclusively, BUT, it is a useful tool for guaranteeing knowledge is absorbed.

And yes, not all corporations HAVE to be bad (although there is a clear prerogative for them to be so, given that cutting corners, dishonesty and inequity are sure fire money-makers) - jsut as not all communist revolutions need to be totalitarian. However, I'd still take a damned hard look at the Party's manifesto before I started waving the red banner.

like I said, but even better. (y)

[EN[i]GMA]

I wouldn't want to indoctrinate hate of anything. I would want to teach children the reality of corporate mechanisms. Corporate responsiblity begins with us, the consumer. If left to their own devices I'm sure most CEO's would rather they have the "house edge" in all matters relating to how we consume.

Fair enough.


They have that edge, corporate structures are set up to buy it daily with political contributions and madison avenue advertising. Lets level the playing field for everyone to play. A kid can grow up and say to himself, "I'm going be an entrepreneur" rather than "I program for (fill in the blank)".


The advantage has been bought by the corporate world w/o any thought of how this effects children.

But it amounts to more an education.

We need to make an environment condusive to say, entrepenuers.

As I noted earlier, it costs more than a million dollars to register for the stock market; an effective means of amassing capital.


We as a society have become way too sheepish IMO, kids are judged at school by how they behave, not what they know. They need to know at a young age how manipulation works, so they can be armed and ready for the onslaught that awaits them.

Which flies in the face of the manipulation they face at school and from their government, and NGO's, and things that aren't corporations.

The problem goes deeper than corporations.

The same school system that feeds them an innaccurate, chauvinistic, lie-filled, asinine, version of our history, teaching them to be wary of authority?

School, by design, teaches deference to authority.

[EN[i]GMA]

Depends. How does "indoctrination" differ from education? Assuming corporations are bad (and any group whose only specific aim is to become as wealthy as possible by any means necessary, and keep everyone else as poor as possible by any means necessary cannot really be 'good') - how is teaching kids they are bad "indoctrination."

What would you say the specific aim of government is?

I would again say your view of corporations is myopic, and again quote the section from Smith about the brewer, the butcher, and the banker.

THeir 'aims' are not relvent; their actual effects are


I suppose you could just teach people how to look at the problem sensibly, and let them come to their own conclusions (which, if you've done a good job, will hopefully e the right ones) - but the downside of this is that many people are just too dumb to accept facts. Look at Jizzmo or Racerstang as obvious examples.

Stupid is as stupid does.

I guess this takes us back to our clockwork oranges.


In their cases, indoctrination is the only way to get them to acknowledge anything.



And really, can you say that people are not indoctrinated against facism / the Nazis ?

Certainly they are. Should they be? Different question.

I would say people should be able to rationally figure out why Nazis are bad, not just simply associate 'Nazi' with 'bad'.

What good does that bit of information do when something new, evil and disparate arrives?

How do they know something new, but similar is bad, if they can't think?

You can tell them Nazis are bad, and point out that Bush is similar to a Nazi, but do people cogently connect the ideas?

Do they UNDERSTAND? Similarily, fear of corporations can just as easily lend deference to some other entity.

Fear of Nazis doesn't stop real nazism and fascism from occuring.


Yes, as right thinking individuals most people can give reasons why they are wrong - but how many people do you think acknowledge this because they have examined the matter in terms of a personal or formal moral philosophy?

Very few.

As you stated, people are stupid.

In fact, most people are stupid.


Not many, they just recite the mantra "Hitler was the worlds most evil man, the Nazis hate freedom, they were the worst thing evar!" without any actual objective analysis. Given that, despite this indoctrination, some people STILL persist in facistic thought (Aryan Nations and other neo-nazi hate groups, etc) - is it not clearly useful as a purely educational tool?

No.

It isn't 'education' in the actual sense.

Just as "1 + 1 = 3" isn't education. If we all thought that, would it comprise any real education?

It doesn't matter if the indoctrinated fact is right or not, the fact that it was indoctrinated is a very bad thing, or at least it can be.

I ask you this; If people were objectively and rationally shown why and how Nazism is bad, would there be as many neo-nazis or Aryans or whatever?

And as a side-note Steven Pinker mentioned the fact that modern kids entering college are often afraid to label Nazis as bad as they've been taught not to be judgemental throughout school.

They can't call pure-evil evil because of how they've been 'indoctrinated', with modern liberal PC "I'm O.K., you're O.K.!" garbage.


I'd view indoctrination kinda like learning things by rote. Yes, I personally regard this as a relatively meaningless exercise - facts without comprehension are meaningless - once again as Jizzmo and Sisko prove conclusively, BUT, it is a useful tool for guaranteeing knowledge is absorbed.

But it isn't.

Not when you are indoctrinating contradictory, wrong, or biased information.

How can you indoctrinate kids to hate Nazis when you indoctrinate them not to be judgemental?


And yes, not all corporations HAVE to be bad (although there is a clear prerogative for them to be so, given that cutting corners, dishonesty and inequity are sure fire money-makers) - jsut as not all communist revolutions need to be totalitarian. However, I'd still take a damned hard look at the Party's manifesto before I started waving the red banner.

Agreed.

Do you think me blind?

I'm not just spouting the Party line, I'm trying to change things.

[racer5.0stang]

Look at Jizzmo or Racerstang as obvious examples.

In their cases, indoctrination is the only way to get them to acknowledge anything.

Now Ace, that isn't very nice.

You could at least come up with something other than desperately trying to insult my intelligence. Maybe if you take up a hobby such as knitting, it will ease your inferiority complex.

[Ali]

Now Ace, that isn't very nice.

You could at least come up with something other than desperately trying to insult my intelligence. Maybe if you take up a hobby such as knitting, it will ease your inferiority complex.Insult your what?

[ChrisLove]

Has anyone got a realistic alternative to the issue of share capital as a means by which business can raise funds

If not (and it is my opinion that there is not a viable alternative), then one is left to consider how to control the corporation in its existing format.

Government regulation is the only way to control the corporation. Preferably this should be done using economic tools (such as taxation or a tradable credit system) rather than just punitive enforcement.

The problem is that increasingly, corporations are seeking to gain political power. This move is an entirely predictable consequence of the corporate model and appears to be in quite an advanced state particularly in the US and Britain.

While corporations are gaining political power there is still a chance to oppose them – democracy still exists after all. Ultimately, I feel that corporate control of the political system will require an end to democracy. It would seem to me to be an inevitable step in the process to end resistance to the creation of externalities by big business.

[racer5.0stang]

Insult your what?

in·tel·li·gence (in telÆi jÃns), n.
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.


Something that you and Ace are clearly lacking.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
I would again say your view of corporations is myopic,

You would.

and again quote the section from Smith about the brewer, the butcher, and the banker.

Which you singularly fail to appreciate the significance of. What that quotation means is that they serve us because it is in their self-interest.

It is not in a corporation's best interests to adhere to moral restrictions which only serve to impede their abilities. It *IS* in the corporation's best interests to circumvent these moral restrictions in any way possible. And, with power comes the ability to better circumvent moral rules.

It is easier for a hot-dog vendor to ensure he only sells adequet food than it is for him to pay an extra 200% on materials than $200 on dealing with the consequences if he does not. If he gets in trouble with health and safety he has no ability to circumvent the inspector's judgement. He is too poor to bribe his way out of it, etc.

On the other hand, if he owns a factory that produces hundreds of thousands of hot-dogs per day, that 200% increase in materials can amount to vast amounts of cash. Say, arbitrarily, it is $100,000 more than using sub-standard (illegal) materials. Now, he can either spend an extra $100,000 on more expensive materials, or $20,000 on bribing hte inspector.

What is in his best interests then?

Keep rolling with that - what if somone had information that could topple McDonalds, found out ground babies were used in the burgers or something. What would be in the company's best interests - losing billions and billions of dollars, possibly going out of business, or spending a cool mil on the world's greatest assassin?

What's in their best interests there?

Going back to the initial point, and taking your whacky idea of consumer power into account - again - what is in the company's best interest if one customer is disgusted and starts telling people how bad the product is?

Do they improve the quality of their product, which can more than double their over-heads and thus reduce their profitability by 50%? Or do they put $10,000 into advertising calling the person a sticking liar, and throwing in that they molest goats too?

No matter how you slice it equitability is very very very seldom in a company's best interests, and there is increasingly less and less power available for non-corporate structures to manipulate multi-nationals into a position where circumventing the rules will be detrimental (less preferable) to abiding by them.

By the very definition of "multi-national" they have greater reach than that of a government which can only ever be national.

THeir 'aims' are not relvent; their actual effects are

That makes the CEOs of cigarette companies worse mass-murderers than Hitler. And judging by the number of morbidly obese people throughout the world, McDonalds CEOs must be rapidly approaching if not already dwarfing Idi Amin.

I guess this takes us back to our clockwork oranges.

People that stupid are not made into clockwork oranges, they just are. Better they are faced in the right direction when wound up and released.

I would say people should be able to rationally figure out why Nazis are bad, not just simply associate 'Nazi' with 'bad'.

But, pragmatically, they can't. And this should be something that is immediately apparent and really quite cut and dry. Yet, as we can see, people are still jibbering and jabbering.

What good does that bit of information do when something new, evil and disparate arrives?

I guess what I am trying to say is that it is better they are indoctrinated to believe the truth but not know it, rather than to neither know it or believe it.

A child does not need to know why putting his hand in boiling water is a bad idea for it to be a valuable lesson to teach (or indoctrinate) regardless.

How do they know something new, but similar is bad, if they can't think?

So if the kid doesn't know that the lightbulb is also dangerous to touch because it isn't bubbling steamy water? Then he gets burnt. The same would occur if he wasn't indoctrinated against putting his hand in boiling water, but also there is the increased chance he'll've scolded his hand in the saucepan first.

You can tell them Nazis are bad, and point out that Bush is similar to a Nazi, but do people cogently connect the ideas?

No, which is the problem. It is this gap (in many ways the essence of cognitive dissonance) between belief and knowledge that the Bush administration exploits. But stupid people are going to be exploited regardless - does that mean we shouldn't bother giving them any tools for their own protection?

Do they UNDERSTAND? Similarily, fear of corporations can just as easily lend deference to some other entity.

Logical fallacy - fear of corporations has no "knock on effect" other than fear of corporations. There is no reason why this should manifest itself as anything to do with any other organisation unless there is more than just "fear of corporations" being indoctrinated.

If the indoctrination wasn't jsut "corporatism is bad, non-corporatism is good" - then yes, a non-corporate organisation that is bad could just as easily take advantage of the situation, but the whole point would be to avoid indoctrinating erroneous assertions in the first place.

Fear of Nazis doesn't stop real nazism and fascism from occuring.

Sure as hell cuts down on it though. Would you prefer it if a nation were blasé about facism?

No.

It isn't 'education' in the actual sense.

Just as "1 + 1 = 3" isn't education. If we all thought that, would it comprise any real education?

Think about that, and then if you see why that doesn't hold water, skip my next paragraph.

Is teaching kids that 1 + 1 = 2 education? Can you think of anyone who can give a reasoned answer as to why "1 + 1 = 2" ? Anyone who has actually developed a logical proof to that statement? No, you can't. 1 + 1 = 2 is an axiom - if you ask someone why 1 + 1 = 2, the most common answer will be 'it just is'. We accept it as truth because "it has to be for everything else to make sense."

The only distinction between "1 + 1 = 2" being educational and "1 + 1 = 3" being non-educational is that one asserts a fact we consider true, and the other asserts a fact we consider wrong.

This is the root of my point, if we take the statement that "corporations are bad" to be axiomatic - then teaching this to children is no less "educational" than indoctrinating them into the belief that 1 + 1 = 2

It doesn't matter if the indoctrinated fact is right or not, the fact that it was indoctrinated is a very bad thing, or at least it can be.

And here you are mistaken. Without axioms (Things we believe are true because we have to, not because it is possible to reason why) nearly all of human development would be impossible. All geometry is based on it. Take a look at some of Euclid's work on the matter.

If people were objectively and rationally shown why and how Nazism is bad, would there be as many neo-nazis or Aryans or whatever?

Unfortunately yes, because people are stupid.

And as a side-note Steven Pinker mentioned the fact that modern kids entering college are often afraid to label Nazis as bad as they've been taught not to be judgemental throughout school.

They can't call pure-evil evil because of how they've been 'indoctrinated', with modern liberal PC "I'm O.K., you're O.K.!" garbage.

Personally I think that is an attribution error. What is ACTUALLY going on is that we live in a post-nietzchen world where we are "beyond good and evil." As such they have become relatively meaningless. They are not unwilling to call Nazis evil because they don't want to pass judgement, but because they are unable to assume the context of "evil."

They are taught Marilyn Manson, and gettign rid of an unwanted baby, and drinking booze under 21, and smoking mary-jane are "evil" - and yet all of these things are not, in any meaningful sense, "evil". Clearly, if you were a leading German facist, Nazism would be "good."

If they had used the term "immoral" instead of "evil" the results would no doubt be different.

Not when you are indoctrinating contradictory, wrong, or biased information.

Then, clearly, it would not be "educational." But we were not talking about obliging people to accept white is black.

How can you indoctrinate kids to hate Nazis when you indoctrinate them not to be judgemental?

Ask Orwell. It is remarkably easy - human minds are surprisingly maleable.

Do you think me blind?

I refuse to answer that on the grounds that it may incriminate me (or rather, sour the rather pleasant discourse we currently have going).

in·tel·li·gence (in telÆi jÃns), n.
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.

Something that you and Ace are clearly lacking.

You see, if it wasn't for the fact that you do not qualify under any of those criteria, that might mean something.

But as you (And thus by extension, your arguments) are "unintelligent" that comment is meaningless. Furthermore, your absence of intelligence (as defined above) means it is not possible for me to insult it.

QED.

[Qdrop]

mmmkay...

so deconstructing corporations and making them illegal would cause a drain on start up revenue which would cripple the economy.

making shareholdes liable and accountable would also likely mean less rich people willing to take a chance...and thus less shareholders and less start-up revenue....again with the crippling economy.

so that leaves us with stricter regulation and/or increased education of the public (increased awareness) so they can "vote with thier dollars".

^the obvious problem with those 2 things is that the public is at a serious disadvantage. the corporations have all the money- to avoid litigation and scandal (bribery, etc)....and to compete with "control of the mass mind".
it would be quite a war.

it already is...

the first thing that MUST be done is to separate corporate $$ from politics. until you can accomplish that...nothing else will stick.

polititions must serve the public, not the corporations.

the gov't cannot effectively regulate corporations if they are in bed with them.

[EN[i]GMA]

mmmkay...

so deconstructing corporations and making them illegal would cause a drain on start up revenue which would cripple the economy.

Yes.


making shareholdes liable and accountable would also likely mean less rich people willing to take a chance...and thus less shareholders and less start-up revenue....again with the crippling economy.

Sort of. It's possible that there's some equilibrium on accountability, but I know not what it is or of any real way to find it.


so that leaves us with stricter regulation and/or increased education of the public (increased awareness) so they can "vote with thier dollars".

^the obvious problem with those 2 things is that the public is at a serious disadvantage. the corporations have all the money- to avoid litigation and scandal (bribery, etc)....and to compete with "control of the mass mind".
it would be quite a war.

it already is...

I don't know about 'stricter' regulation, but certainly BETTER regulation.

The effectiveness of regulation isn't necessarily influenced by how strict it is.


the first thing that MUST be done is to separate corporate $$ from politics. until you can accomplish that...nothing else will stick.

polititions must serve the public, not the corporations.

the gov't cannot effectively regulate corporations if they are in bed with them.

Yes. This is really the crux of the matter.

Government/corporate collusion is the worst of both worlds and the hardest to stop.

Who do you go to?

[EN[i]GMA]

Which you singularly fail to appreciate the significance of. What that quotation means is that they serve us because it is in their self-interest.

It is not in a corporation's best interests to adhere to moral restrictions which only serve to impede their abilities. It *IS* in the corporation's best interests to circumvent these moral restrictions in any way possible. And, with power comes the ability to better circumvent moral rules.

It is easier for a hot-dog vendor to ensure he only sells adequet food than it is for him to pay an extra 200% on materials than $200 on dealing with the consequences if he does not. If he gets in trouble with health and safety he has no ability to circumvent the inspector's judgement. He is too poor to bribe his way out of it, etc.

On the other hand, if he owns a factory that produces hundreds of thousands of hot-dogs per day, that 200% increase in materials can amount to vast amounts of cash. Say, arbitrarily, it is $100,000 more than using sub-standard (illegal) materials. Now, he can either spend an extra $100,000 on more expensive materials, or $20,000 on bribing hte inspector.

What is in his best interests then?

Keep rolling with that - what if somone had information that could topple McDonalds, found out ground babies were used in the burgers or something. What would be in the company's best interests - losing billions and billions of dollars, possibly going out of business, or spending a cool mil on the world's greatest assassin?

What's in their best interests there?

Going back to the initial point, and taking your whacky idea of consumer power into account - again - what is in the company's best interest if one customer is disgusted and starts telling people how bad the product is?

Do they improve the quality of their product, which can more than double their over-heads and thus reduce their profitability by 50%? Or do they put $10,000 into advertising calling the person a sticking liar, and throwing in that they molest goats too?

No matter how you slice it equitability is very very very seldom in a company's best interests, and there is increasingly less and less power available for non-corporate structures to manipulate multi-nationals into a position where circumventing the rules will be detrimental (less preferable) to abiding by them.

By the very definition of "multi-national" they have greater reach than that of a government which can only ever be national.

Similarily, isn't in humans best interests to screw each other, live as nihlists, rape women, steal, kill etc.?

Why can't the same things that enforce personal morality enforce corporate morality?

It's in my best interest to rob you and take your money, yet I don't do it.

Why is it that you villify a corporation for its self-interest, but propose, say, a government control scheme which could be just as easily gamed by the self-serving? Isn't any and every human institution governed by self-service and avarice?

Just as it's in the corporations interest to do illegal things, so it's in the government's interest, and in the individual's interest; the only way to change this fact of life would be the change humanity as we know it.


That makes the CEOs of cigarette companies worse mass-murderers than Hitler. And judging by the number of morbidly obese people throughout the world, McDonalds CEOs must be rapidly approaching if not already dwarfing Idi Amin.

Personal responsibility, my dear friend.


People that stupid are not made into clockwork oranges, they just are. Better they are faced in the right direction when wound up and released.

But they are made into 'Christian conservative' clockwork oranges. They are surprising malleable, at least at some point. Then they acquire beliefs and ossify.


I guess what I am trying to say is that it is better they are indoctrinated to believe the truth but not know it, rather than to neither know it or believe it.

A child does not need to know why putting his hand in boiling water is a bad idea for it to be a valuable lesson to teach (or indoctrinate) regardless.

But it sure does help. Saying "Don't put your hand in here" is not as effective as "Don't put your hand in here, because if you do, it coud melt off".

If the child is old enough to understand the given concepts, which do you think is more effective?


So if the kid doesn't know that the lightbulb is also dangerous to touch because it isn't bubbling steamy water? Then he gets burnt. The same would occur if he wasn't indoctrinated against putting his hand in boiling water, but also there is the increased chance he'll've scolded his hand in the saucepan first.

But how can we educate people so they don't have to get burnt at all?

In the real world, 'getting burnt by a lightbulb' is equivilent to letting another Hitler take office, because you didn't note his parrallels with the first one.

What do you say then? Oops?

No, which is the problem. It is this gap (in many ways the essence of cognitive dissonance) between belief and knowledge that the Bush administration exploits. But stupid people are going to be exploited regardless - does that mean we shouldn't bother giving them any tools for their own protection?

What type of tools should we be giving them?

Are the current ones effective?

Logical fallacy - fear of corporations has no "knock on effect" other than fear of corporations. There is no reason why this should manifest itself as anything to do with any other organisation unless there is more than just "fear of corporations" being indoctrinated.

Fear of one thing often leads to deference to another. They are related.

For example, fear of Jews leads to deference to the German state.

Yes, 'fear of Jews' need not necessarily lead to deference to the German state, but in that particular point in time, it did.


If the indoctrination wasn't jsut "corporatism is bad, non-corporatism is good" - then yes, a non-corporate organisation that is bad could just as easily take advantage of the situation, but the whole point would be to avoid indoctrinating erroneous assertions in the first place.

Which is like saying "If we just made the world better, it would be better."

Obviously we want to get rid of errors.


Sure as hell cuts down on it though.

Does it really? Woud Nazism be all the rage if not for indoctrination about it? Or is it's 'image' as an 'anti-' that makes it appealing to certain people?

Nazism, is a pretty poor belief system. It really has no redeeming values for anyone. You may as well just pick something at random if you're that desperate.


Would you prefer it if a nation were blasé about facism?

Aren't we?


Is teaching kids that 1 + 1 = 2 education? Can you think of anyone who can give a reasoned answer as to why "1 + 1 = 2" ? Anyone who has actually developed a logical proof to that statement? No, you can't. 1 + 1 = 2 is an axiom - if you ask someone why 1 + 1 = 2, the most common answer will be 'it just is'. We accept it as truth because "it has to be for everything else to make sense."

The only distinction between "1 + 1 = 2" being educational and "1 + 1 = 3" being non-educational is that one asserts a fact we consider true, and the other asserts a fact we consider wrong.

This is the root of my point, if we take the statement that "corporations are bad" to be axiomatic - then teaching this to children is no less "educational" than indoctrinating them into the belief that 1 + 1 = 2

Shit, all this use of 'axioms' is bringing me back to that dark month in my life when I read Atlas Shrugged.


And here you are mistaken. Without axioms (Things we believe are true because we have to, not because it is possible to reason why) nearly all of human development would be impossible. All geometry is based on it. Take a look at some of Euclid's work on the matter.

An axiom in a 'hard' subject such as math is different from an axiom in a social science/setting.

"Hitler is Fuhrer" would have been an axiom in Nazi Germany but isn't now, for instance.


Personally I think that is an attribution error. What is ACTUALLY going on is that we live in a post-nietzchen world where we are "beyond good and evil." As such they have become relatively meaningless. They are not unwilling to call Nazis evil because they don't want to pass judgement, but because they are unable to assume the context of "evil."

They are taught Marilyn Manson, and gettign rid of an unwanted baby, and drinking booze under 21, and smoking mary-jane are "evil" - and yet all of these things are not, in any meaningful sense, "evil". Clearly, if you were a leading German facist, Nazism would be "good."

If they had used the term "immoral" instead of "evil" the results would no doubt be different.

I'm not so certain.

After cracking open the book, I see that I slightly mistated the point. He made the point that people were afraid to criticize Nazi CULTURE, because they are taught that all cultures are equal. They feel it is impermissible to critcize another culture.

A better point is made with female genital mutilation. Any person would say that the individual instance of it happening is disgusting, wrong, and an abomination. But package it is 'culture' and all types of talking heads defend it.


Then, clearly, it would not be "educational." But we were not talking about obliging people to accept white is black.

Ah, but this is a point of contention. We would obviously disagree on what to teach.


Ask Orwell. It is remarkably easy - human minds are surprisingly maleable.

'Remarkably easy'? Perhaps, but not as easy as Orwell would think, or at least, not as accurate as Orwell would think.




I refuse to answer that on the grounds that it may incriminate me (or rather, sour the rather pleasant discourse we currently have going).



You see, if it wasn't for the fact that you do not qualify under any of those criteria, that might mean something.

But as you (And thus by extension, your arguments) are "unintelligent" that comment is meaningless. Furthermore, your absence of intelligence (as defined above) means it is not possible for me to insult it.

QED.[/QUOTE]

[Ace42X]

GMA']Similarily, isn't in humans best interests to screw each other, live as nihlists, rape women, steal, kill etc.?

Not really. There is a biological prerogative to "play fair." - Bonoboes will "co-operate" even though one could take all the rewards and not share with the bonobo that made it possible. There are lab experiments.

Similarly, if two children are given (without instruction or teaching) sweets and told one can cut, and the other can choose to either except the portion they are given, or refuse all the sweets - the other child will *instinctively* refuse if the deal isn't fair, even though this means they get no sweets instead of getting some sweets, but in an unfair portion.

This form of "Instinctive punishment" of anti-social behaviour allows human interaction to be possible.

Why can't the same things that enforce personal morality enforce corporate morality?

And there's the rub - a corporation is not human. A person will go without to promote "fairness" a corporation has no such biological bias. The same things cannot enforce corporate morality because they do not exist as functions within that corporation - any more than your individual cell's behaviour and needs can change your behaviour. Yes there can be an influence - but it is thouroughly detatched from the prime and pro-conscious behaviour structures.

It's in my best interest to rob you and take your money, yet I don't do it.

It isn't though. If you tried to rob me you could find yourself in a lot of trouble. The risks outweigh the benefits. This is not true of a multinational corporation. They can screw over one person with very little risk to themselves.

You need people to co-operate with you. You, alone, are not powerful enough to exist alone. A corporation with the combined might of hundreds of thousands of people in it is exponentially more powerful than individuals. It is only the combination of those individuals into a "government" that prevents the corporation from "robbing me and taking my money." - and it is a fight they are losing. Many multinational corps have a greater net worth than many nations.

Why is it that you villify a corporation for its self-interest, but propose, say, a government control scheme which could be just as easily gamed by the self-serving? Isn't any and every human institution governed by self-service and avarice?

Just as it's in the corporations interest to do illegal things, so it's in the government's interest, and in the individual's interest; the only way to change this fact of life would be the change humanity as we know it.

Not really. You seem to have misunderstood the fundamental differences between government and corporation. Not surprising given your government.

A corporation that manufactures cassette tapes is not there to "make tapes" but to make money. If it could make more money by simply *not producing tapes* it would do so, and this would be success.

If the government manufactures cassette tapes, it is there IN ORDER TO MAKE TAPES - and as such if it ceases to produce tapes, even if it is more 'profitable' it would still be failing.

It is ludicrous to compare governments and corporations and individuals - each is different with totally different drives that operate to completely different ends and for completely different purposes.

It is like comparing a snake with a cow and saying that "because a snake has to remain dormant a lot of the time and bask in the sun a cow should do the same. They both need heat, they both need to eat, they are both animals, made of cells"

Yes, but they have very different purposes and are very different animals. The two should only cross under a facisitic government (Facism is the merger of corporation and state - Benito Mussolini) - and that is why in a lot of ways the US government is becoming increasingly facistic.

Personal responsibility, my dear friend.

The personal responsibility of the CEOs, I hope? Or are you going to oblige me to extend the example to point out that you may as well say "Hitler isn't evil. Why didn't the German soldiers and Jews take personal responsibility?"

But they are made into 'Christian conservative' clockwork oranges.

Again, that is a criticism against what is being indoctrinated, not the process of indoctrination.

But it sure does help. Saying "Don't put your hand in here" is not as effective as "Don't put your hand in here, because if you do, it coud melt off".

If the child is old enough to understand the given concepts, which do you think is more effective?

I concur, I have made this point myself above. But as you conceded, people are stupid. Quite frankly, most of your countrymen will never be "old enough" to make up their own mind.

As an aside, there are different kinds of "moral" judgement that people can instinctually differentiate between. We can all, inately, differentiate between something being wrong because it is against "the rules", because it is "ethically wrong", and because it is physically "wrong" and liable to cause you pain and suffering. The lines between these different shades of "good and bad" are where most people's attribution errors on ethics occur. There was an itneresting article touching on this in the Guardian a few days ago.

But how can we educate people so they don't have to get burnt at all?

In the real world, 'getting burnt by a lightbulb' is equivilent to letting another Hitler take office, because you didn't note his parrallels with the first one.

What do you say then? Oops?

I covered this. Read it again and think about it. Explore. You cannot "educate" people so they don't have to get burnt at all. Until the child experiences pain, then no amount of "education" about why precisely getting burnt is a "bad thing" can help matters. To them, this is not "knowledge" - these are just a set of abstract concepts that they are expected to believe. Indoctrination is the only way to avoid "getting burnt at all."

This is the problem with skepticism. Until you accept axioms, you are stuck with "Cogito Ergo Sum".

What type of tools should we be giving them?

Are the current ones effective?

A sound grounding in formal logic, and a set of inscrutable axioms to apply it to.

And "no".

Respectively.

An example of this would be the US declaration of independance - itself a set of axioms. "All men are created equal" and this truth is "self-evident" (axiomatic).

The problem is that the logic applied to this is flawed, and the rationale obfuscated. Does this mean we should do away with the axioms? No. Even if no-one understood what "all men are created equal" stands for, it would still be worth holding to be true and self-evident, even though this makes it practically (IE pragmatically) meaningless and redundant. This statement was obfuscated by denying the humanity of black men. This shows how an axiom can be misrepresented.

Just as the axiom "Corporations are bad, Hmmkay" can be misrepresented, so can "all men are created equal" - are you going to give both the boot?

Fear of one thing often leads to deference to another. They are related.

For example, fear of Jews leads to deference to the German state.

Yes, 'fear of Jews' need not necessarily lead to deference to the German state, but in that particular point in time, it did.

No, that is a logic error (again, attribution). You are implying a causal link when there is none. There is no reason why "fear of jews" would automatically result in deference to the state. There are plenty of examples where fear of the jews would not result in that and actually result in the direct opposite.

Firstly, what you mean is "fear of the Jews corresponded to deference to the German state" - itself a very different prospect. Secondly, it is equally (infact more likely) that it was deference to the German state (and it's propoganda) that lead to an increase in fear of the Jews.

Which is like saying "If we just made the world better, it would be better."

Obviously we want to get rid of errors.

Yes, but my point is, which is the better scenario:

1. People believe the patently false because you do nothing
2. People believe what is correct, but do not understand why it is correct, through indoctrination.

At best you can argue that "they are equally inferior to the alternative - ie everyone being able to think rationally for themselves" - which at the moment is substantially less tenable than some top-notch indoctrination.

Does it really? Woud Nazism be all the rage if not for indoctrination about it? Or is it's 'image' as an 'anti-' that makes it appealing to certain people?

Anti-Nazi indoctrination results in more people believing Nazism is wrong. People who believe Nazisim is wrong are less likely to be Nazis.
Therefore, anti-nazi indoctrination results in less Nazis.

That is an irrefutable syllogism.

You can either argue:

1. That no-one believes Nazism is "right" and therefore the indoctrination does not "reduce" Nazism below the initial value of 0. This is ostensibly false.

2. That Nazis exist as a product of anti-nazi indoctrination, and as such the anti-nazi indoctrination may produce more Nazis than it reduces. This is also ostensibly false.

Given that Nazis exist, and the above premises in the syllogism, it is clear that indoctrination is thus a valuable asset if you concur that Nazism is a bad thing and we are better off with out it.

As for people wanting to be Nazis as a sign of rebellion - yes, that is a factor. In sociology, you will come across these things in the areas of Conformity and Compliance.

The vast majorityof people are Compliant. A very powerful and easily repeated experiment goes as follows:

Get a group of people who are "In on it" and one subject for examination. Line them up in a row, and ask the group a question which they all have to answer one at a time down the line, ending in the "patsy" at the end.

Even the easiest of questions (for example, simple arithmetic) results in the last person complying with the group (making errors) against their better judgement.

Repeat this and analyse the statistics, and you can determine the breakdown of a society's compliance.

Even cross-culturally, the results show the following - the VAST VAST majority of people are compliant. A small minority of people are non-compliant. Of the non-compliant group, the majority will be "rebellious" non-compliants (They define themselves as being different from the group and are thus kean to differentiate themselves and stand out) and the minority are "independants" - IE uneffected by the social context of the questioning.

Fascinating area - this has been widely researched in a variety of formats to determine the different things that can effect compliance.

So, while it is possible that a minority of people might "rebel" against anti-Nazi indoctrination and (potentially. The 'rebelious' non-conformants are not always going to do 'the opposite') do the opposite - the majority will accept indoctrination and adopt anti-nazi sentiments. Given a starting percentage of Nazism higher than the society's percentage for the number of rebels liable to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of the indoctrination - and this is not unlikely given that Nazism cropped up all on its own without any indoctrination against it to spawn it. Furthermore you'd not introduce anti-nazi indoctrination unless it were at a sufficient level of probability to merit it - then it should be obvious.

You may as well just pick something at random if you're that desperate.

You could say that about fundamentalism. People do, all the time, and indoctrination can stop them picking Nazism or fundamentalism at random by forcibly exluding it from the running.

Aren't we?

Well, your country is, and mine is going in that direction, but generally we are pretty alert about hardcore totalitarianism.

An axiom in a 'hard' subject such as math is different from an axiom in a social science/setting.


Not really. The whole point of an axiom is that you have to "accept it" - you cannot reason it out. Otherwise is ceases to be an axiom. This is not to say that axioms cannot be accepted as fact.

But...
Hitler is Fuhrer" would have been an axiom in Nazi Germany but isn't now, for instance.

Not really. "Hitler is Fuhrer" was a fact, never an axiom.

I see that I slightly mistated the point. He made the point that people were afraid to criticize Nazi CULTURE, because they are taught that all cultures are equal. They feel it is impermissible to critcize another culture.

Again, they are quite right to be afraid of criticising Nazi culture. If they did so, they'd be the worse kind of hypocrits. Take the Coca-cola corporation for an obvious example - I bet not one of them can say they never supped a coke.

A better point is made with female genital mutilation. Any person would say that the individual instance of it happening is disgusting, wrong, and an abomination. But package it is 'culture' and all types of talking heads defend it.

And yet, I wager, you are circumcised. Americans and their double-standards... It isn't "PC bollocks" - nor "indoctrinated tolerance" - it is objectivity.

Ah, but this is a point of contention. We would obviously disagree on what to teach.

The fundamentalists believe it is wrong to "indoctrinate" with evolution. Does that justify their position?

'Remarkably easy'? Perhaps, but not as easy as Orwell would think, or at least, not as accurate as Orwell would think.

Ahhh, young Padawan - check some of "Derren Brown"'s tricks. He can manipulate people with a precision that is shocking. And he is an amateur working alone in public. Imagine what could happen if it were institutionalised. Chilling.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
Sort of. It's possible that there's some equilibrium on accountability, but I know not what it is or of any real way to find it.

That is because it wouldn't be a "true" equilibrium (IE something that naturally gravitates to a balance) - but an enforced balance. This is the problem with capitalism - it is like a plane is constantly trying to pull away and needs constant control and guidance. The bigger and more powerful the vehicle, the harder to control.

Take "wind in ground effect" vehicles as an alternative - a pilot doesn't need to keep hands on the controls, as the ground-effect keeps the vehicle level and stable.

Capitalism is a beast that needs to be chained in - and I think the better alternative is a system that is going to find its own equilbrium.

[yeahwho]

I still cannot see one fucking shred of evidence in this thread or on the planet earth that tells me McDonalds is doing any kid a favor. They aren't. They are making a profit with soft, fatty, empty calories and toys package in enviromentally damaging containers and calling it, "Happy Meal". Millions of them daily.

Fuck them and the thousands of other clowns who prey on young minds. The Ronald Mcdonald house doesn't make up for the irresponsible manner in which they behave.

Lets even the playing field....by expanding our minds. Indoctrination (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Indoctrination)? No, education (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=education). The corporate world thrives on propaganda and bias, Wal-Mart is the current business model most used in the corporate world. I can't blame Wal-Mart for doing business the way they do, but I can blame myself for not being responsible enough to teach children what the net result is by supporting Wal-Marts' business.

Wal-Mart is not an ideological point of view....it is reality, which is what needs to be understood at an early age.

Corporations will only become responsible to the community when corporations are forced by us, the community. Otherwise it's "Hey, Fuck You!", we'll do as we please, when we please, where we please and how we please. Which is how we came to this point and juncture we're in today.

I can't help but think education is a good thing and the only real viable way to make corporations work in a responsible manner.

[Documad]

As a movie, I didn't love it. It took little bits of stories from other places and slammed it all together. I read some of the books (the IBM/Holocaust book was dreadful) and Frontline has done all the topics touched on in the film in a way that worked better for me. But anything that gets people thinking is a good thing. :)

I still say that kids should have to watch the Frontline expose on viacom/MTV/rap/and Sprite, etc, as part of their classroom training. I got too bummed out watching the show on genetically-engineered food and turned it off.

I think the whole topic is pretty hopeless. If you regulate your country's corporations more vigorously, it probably puts your country at a competitive disadvantage. The US will be fading as a world power and China or whoever will be the 19th and 20th century United States so how do you propose to control them?

Rich white guys will always exercise the most control over government. I'm not sure it matters whether they work through corporations or individually.

P.S. I am constantly amused by the allegation that the media has a liberal bias when it's completely controlled by corporations with non-liberal agenda. :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

P.S. I am constantly amused by the allegation that the media has a liberal bias when it's completely controlled by corporations with non-liberal agenda. :rolleyes:

Isn't it odd how the hard hitting network news shows, 60 minutes, 20/20, 48 Hours etc, never do an expose on major league baseball owners, NFL owners or NBA owners? I wonder why? Hmmmm, is it because these guys are all sweethearts? What could stop these liberal news snoopers from snooping into professional sports? :rolleyes: Could it be the multi-billion dollar advertising revenue? It's Bud Time! ;)

If you regulate your country's corporations more vigorously, it probably puts your country at a competitive disadvantage.

If the corporations really gave a shit about the country they hail from we wouldn't be so concerned. They don't give a shit, about any country. Your right when you say the movie "Network" summed it up, the common denominator is the almighty dollar.

The almighty dollar and it's blinding power will eventually kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Or maybe, just maybe corporate responsibility to the citizen will become a reality. HA! At the drive thru window when gas is $50.00 a gallon.

Of course it may very well be the row-thru window by then, but thats a different topic.

[sam i am]

Do they improve the quality of their product, which can more than double their over-heads and thus reduce their profitability by 50%? Or do they put $10,000 into advertising calling the person a sticking liar, and throwing in that they molest goats too?

This sounds like a direct indictment of your own mental faculties, oh King Ace.

Nicely put. :p ;)

[sam i am]

I think the whole topic is pretty hopeless. If you regulate your country's corporations more vigorously, it probably puts your country at a competitive disadvantage. The US will be fading as a world power and China or whoever will be the 19th and 20th century United States so how do you propose to control them?

Rich white guys will always exercise the most control over government. I'm not sure it matters whether they work through corporations or individually.

If China becomes the dominant power in the world, wouldn't rich Chinese (not white) guys then exercise the most control over government? Is Chavez white? What about African nation dictators?

It seems like ace and Enigma got pretty far with their argument, but neither really came to an ultimate conclusion : what to DO about corporations?

Are they self-correcting through market forces? Philosophically, is there some break-even point where they have to have social stigma before they change behavior? Are the new US regulations holding CEO's personally and directly accountable for their corporate actions going to make a dent in the proclivities of corporations to only look to the bottom line without deference to the law?