The Corporation (documentary)

[Ace42X]

Anyone seen it? Features some soundbites from Noam and Micky Moore.

[GreenEarthAl]

Yes. I have seen it. I am quite a fan of it.

[ms.peachy]

Yeah, I've seen it a few times now by happenstance. It's very good. Mr.p was particularly impressed with the Interface guy, as he generally uses Interface on many of his projects and now is comitted to trying to use them even more so when possible.

That BGH business is really fucked up. I remember back when they first started using that stuff and Monsanto and the big dairy conglomerates fought (or rather more likely, bought) to not have to label milk that came from cows treated with BGH as such. So, the dairy farmers who refused to use it started to label their milk as "BGH free" and of course Monsanto went after them too and tried to make it illegal for them to do so. So, as a consumer, you really would have no way of knowing whether or not your milk contained BGH or not. Loooovely people.

[yeahwho]

(y)very good documentary

[B.style]

Yeah, I peeped that. There's many an ill shit going on in many diverse industries, especially considering the fact that documentaries such as these serve to bring awareness of business practices that are more than a little questionable but demand full outright attention to the general public not only directly affect us and our children and children's children but indirectly such as the dumping of toxic and chemical pollutants into waters and food handling mispractices. Ill shit.

[Qdrop]

bought it last year.
the DVD is fantastic....2 discs full of goodies.

that movie really blew my mind...i had no idea what a corporation actually is (a legal entity, a "person" under the law with rights).

the Doc makes a very strong case for its "psychopath" theory on corporations.
very apt.


the one exec. who was talking about sustainable enterprises came to my University back in the day for a lecture. very interesting stuff.

[Qdrop]

by the way: http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=58229&highlight=corporation

[EN[i]GMA]

I found it fascinating.

But I did get the feeling of intense bias, which I think somewhat hampered it.

But as QDrop said, apt.

For example, use of the douchebag Moore does nothing for me. But use of Milton Freidman was a plus.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
But I did get the feeling of intense bias,

Because it didn't conform to your expectations?

You expect commodity traders to think long and hard about each transaction on the floor and its environmental impact? Or Corporations to shell out cash without a fight because it is "the right thing to do" ?

Or Monsanto to produce crops that *don't* self destruct, simply because it is both more equitable and economically sound?

Do you really expect a company to tell potential customers "hey, you don't want to buy our product, you don't need it and it will just get wasted anyway!" and cost themselves a sale?

As the chap in the documentary says, its alarming how much of the planet's resources (nearly all of which are unsustainable) go into making just a dollar's worth of revenue for his company, and yet people (and I think you are included in this) seem to view this compression of resources as [economic] "growth".

And you won't seen the fatal flaw in this until you "hit the ground" as he points out. It is only when all the plastics are used up and in landfills that people will go "oh, the things I could do with the smallest bit of plastic. I could make a tool that is sturdy, reliable, and makes my community's life so much easier. Oh, but that plastic was used to make drinks cartons, because we can't recycle glass bottles properly..."

[EN[i]GMA]

Because it didn't conform to your expectations?

Not at all.

I expected it to be critical of corporations. That was the point.

If it was adulatory towards them, it could have (And would likely have been) similiarly biased.

I'm merely noting that it isn't so much an impartial look at corporations so much as an opinion about them.

I'm fine with that though.


You expect commodity traders to think long and hard about each transaction on the floor and its environmental impact? Or Corporations to shell out cash without a fight because it is "the right thing to do" ?

No, no I don't.

I expect there to be sufficient laws in place.


Or Monsanto to produce crops that *don't* self destruct, simply because it is both more equitable and economically sound?

I disagree with the concept of patenting plants and animals, partly because of this.

I don't think you can reasonably extend the concept of a patent to something with living properties.

Perhaps a microbe but certainly not a plant or animal.

This is an abuse of the patent system.

In fact, I'm becoming increasingly dissilussioned with the entire concept of patents or Intellectual Property.

They need to be re-evaluated and overhauled.

As it is now, they are an exploitive tool; they should be a useful, productive tool.

I think they are a horrific market distortion, an abberative effect, and a waste of resources.

Patents should be short, utterly specific (No shit about Amazon patenting "One click shopping"), and free to use by others for a nominal commision.

One should not be able to monopolize them, only to benefit from their use. This is eminently reasonable.


Do you really expect a company to tell potential customers "hey, you don't want to buy our product, you don't need it and it will just get wasted anyway!" and cost themselves a sale?

No.

I expect people to either wise-up or perish.

Wanton consumption can't be combatted without the overwhelming support of the people.

People have to stop wanting useless shit, stop using it.


As the chap in the documentary says, its alarming how much of the planet's resources (nearly all of which are unsustainable) go into making just a dollar's worth of revenue for his company, and yet people (and I think you are included in this) seem to view this compression of resources as [economic] "growth".

Growth is indeed a double-edged sword. Without it, we can't maintain a growing population, or create wealth for the current population.

But yes, destruction of resources is a problem.

Actually another thing I've been considering is outlawing the private ownership of land. I also fail to see how this government instituted monopoly can be maintained.

Why does any one person have any more right to land than any other? Completely arbitrary.

People should be free to own what they produce or what they trade, but not land, which none owns and none produced.

I think an ideal system would be one in which people who need use of significant tracts of land would be able to use it, such as for farming or mining or whatever, because its use would be most beneficial to them, but would be subject to restrictions on its use.

A factory owner would have claim to the land his factory is built on, and would fully own everything in the factory, but natural resources and land would not be fully under any personal control.

I think that producers should have a set of privaledges for land use, granted by the people in an agreement, as to how the land and natural resources can be used.

This would preserve private property in its most useful and beneficial sense, would remove an unecessary government monopoly, and, I think, improve the world greatly.

Just an idea I'm floating about, but I think it has promise.


And you won't seen the fatal flaw in this until you "hit the ground" as he points out. It is only when all the plastics are used up and in landfills that people will go "oh, the things I could do with the smallest bit of plastic. I could make a tool that is sturdy, reliable, and makes my community's life so much easier. Oh, but that plastic was used to make drinks cartons, because we can't recycle glass bottles properly..."

Perhaps.

But if such a crash is inevietable (And it probably is), what difference does it make?

To paraphrase someone else, why do my homework if the universe is expanding?

[Ace42X]

GMA']
But if such a crash is inevietable (And it probably is), what difference does it make?

Inevitable *under the current system*.

Just because a car crash is inevitable if you drive for long enough, doesn't mean you should be allowed to drink drive and ignore speed limits.

Although that argument was a pleasant chuckle, ahhh fatalism how I missed you.

Also, I liked your reply. Although it does seem a long way from your libertarian anti-regulation roots.

[EN[i]GMA]

Inevitable *under the current system*.

'The current system' being 'using natural resources'.


Just because a car crash is inevitable if you drive for long enough, doesn't mean you should be allowed to drink drive and ignore speed limits.

It's not inevietable, it just approaches inevietability.


Although that argument was a pleasant chuckle, ahhh fatalism how I missed you.

So we all starve in a few hundred or a few thousand years. What's the difference?


Also, I liked your reply. Although it does seem a long way from your libertarian anti-regulation roots.

Not really.

I don't think those concepts are at all libertarian.

The original libertarians certainly didn't support them.

They are both very un-libertarian, as they are government sponsored monopolies.

[Ace42X]

GMA']'The current system' being 'using natural resources'.


Non-renewable natural resources. There are plenty of fast-growing sustainable forests used for wood in Europe. Also, using valuable and non-renewable petro-chemicals to produce plastics *AS CARTONS OF MILK* is incredibly stupid, given the numerous other materials available, IE glass and cardboard.

Added to the the incredibly limited recycling options available (The US wastes twice as much per capita as the next most wasteful nation. IE, each yank is consuming for two of the next most wasteful people) this makes rather bad business and economic sense.

97% of the energy used to manufacture materials can be saved through recycling, and that has a knock-on effect clear across the environment.

So little is done, and for why? What does it matter to average Joe whether his milk comes in a glass bottle or a plastic one? Or if crisps come in wood-based wrapping instead of oil based?

"Well, once we've exausted all the oil, and have no grease or machinery, I guess we'll just have to make vital machines out of the other materials we are now obliged to harvest in an abundance..."

The future could be a new renaissance, but people are instead driving us to a new dark age. They are burning our salvation at an unprecedented rate, and it is accelerating.

As the guy in the documentary said, we are mortgaging the future of the planet for immediate gains. Taxation without representation for those not yet living.

I look at it like this:

Times running out, we're running out of materials (say coal for analogy's sake).

Now we can either keep burning the coal and going "when it's gone, it's gone" I guess, or we can stop wasting it and use logs on our fires, and use the coal solely to fuel machines that will build us water-wheels.

'Cause when the coal's gone, we aren't going to be smelting no iron with wood-chippings.

This isn't something that can be put off, and fatalism isn't going to help matters. We are on a road that is only going one way, and unless people make a concerted effort to change direction, there can only be one outcome.

[sam i am]

We are on a road that is only going one way, and unless people make a concerted effort to change direction, there can only be one outcome.

Not a foregone conclusion and NOT supported by the very facts you employ above (renewable forestation, recycling, etc.).

Too bad you always see the world as half-empty in order to sustain your unsustainable argumentation for an egalitarian, socialistic utopia that will NEVER be workable in reality.

[fucktopgirl]

Just saw the corporations and its really fucking depressing!Even if you see that little wars are win againt that evil system,at the rates things are going,we cannot really win!Thoses corporations are too strongs!Evil,that what they are!And their tentacles are spreads in every little corner possible!

economic growth is synonime of destruction!NOthing positive there!Corporations have no soul,heart:its all about money!

Kids are pay couples of cents to make clothes that are sold hundred of dollars,i mean they have nothing so they dont have a choice,its better then nothing for them,,but what an injustice!

They poison people on purpose ,i mean its make the health system work,cancer its a good $$$business!

Brainwashing kids ,polluating their minds with the tv at least we can shut it off!

the patent of blue print of evry single life form,tell me what is the purpose of this macavelic thing?Why they want to patent the blue print of the human life(if they find it),what they gona do with it?


Its just sad to see how we fucked up this planet for lame values and i dont know if the situation is reversible at the stage we are now!Thoses fuckers are there to make money until they are in their graves so,,,the game is lost!Earth have cancer,i dont know how we can cure her!

An army of good have to grow fast before its too late!!

[steve-onpoint]

economic growth is synonime of destruction!NOthing positive there!Corporations have no soul,heart:its all about money!

That's the trick. The corporation gets the rights of a citizen so no actual body is blamed for his or her actions. (!)



the patent of blue print of evry single life form,tell me what is the purpose of this macavelic thing?Why they want to patent the blue print of the human life(if they find it),what they gona do with it?

right? stay aware. (lb)


An army of good have to grow fast before its too late!!

we're working at it. (y)

[EN[i]GMA]

I just found this while looking at the website of Tim Harford, whose book The Undercover Economist I'm currently reading (It's quite amazing. I implore you to read it).

His semi-review of The Corporation:

http://www.timharford.com/favourites/wenearlycried.htm

Laugh? We nearly cried

In those heady years between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the World Trade Center, it sometimes seemed as if the market was the only game in town. The corporations were the players, the World Trade Organisation and other institutions existed to broaden the playing field. Who needed governments? Even Dr Evil, the movie villain from Austin Powers, found his henchmen arguing that he didn't have to steal nuclear weapons because he already owned Starbucks.

The artistic world caught on to this idea, and the past few years have seen a clutch of documentaries offering critiques of capitalism and corporate power. Although their commercial importance has ranged from modest to trivial, they have all been critically successful: Super Size Me was nominated for an Oscar; The Yes Men won the best documentary award at the US Comedy Arts festival; The Corporation won an audience award from the Sundance film festival; Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room recently opened across the US to applause from critics. But do any of them tell us anything important about the state of capitalism in the 21st century?

The Yes Men (tagline: 'changing the world one prank at a time') claims to be more interested in changing capitalism than explaining it. The film documents two performance artists, Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno, as they impersonate WTO officials. In one of the film's more memorable moments, they perform as spokesmen for McDonald's and the WTO, lecturing a hall of students about a new fast-food business model: with the support of the WTO, excrement from first world burger-eaters will be piped into developing world McDonald's and served to the starving, who will have the choice of eating recycled 'post consumer waste'. A hilariously graphic animation sequence shows faeces being curled from a nozzle on to buns. Instead of laughing, the students are outraged. The Yes Men are delighted to reveal how disastrous WTO policies are. But surely they proved something different: that no horror story about the evils of capitalism is too implausible to be swallowed whole.

This sad truth has been ruthlessly exploited by law professor Joel Bakan, author of the book and then the documentary The Corporation. His interminable film offers a strange mixture of sophisticated imagery, 1950s advertising and pundits such as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein and Michael Moore, whose contributions are treated with reverence, and free-market supporters such as Milton Friedman, whose contributions are not. It is stitched together by commentary delivered by a robotic narratrix.

The film's basic idea is intriguing: corporations are legal persons, so what sort of people are they? Bakan runs through a check list of personality traits - 'Callous unconcern for others'; 'Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours' - and concludes that if a company were a person, it would be a psychopath. Unfortunately, the filmmakers find this conclusion so obvious that they do not feel obliged to prove it.

Strip The Corporation of its spin and it starts to look unhinged. All the trouble started, apparently, with the enclosure movement, which began the process of 'wealth usurpation' - the premise being that there is no sense that property rights might help to create prosperity, or even that life is better now than it was in those halcyon days when 'the land didn't belong to the people, the people belonged to the land'.

For Chomsky, privatisation means handing a company over to 'unaccountable tyranny' (I think he means shareholders); there is no mention that private companies are subject to the law, regulators and competition. Some of this stuff is right up there with the story about the shitburgers.

The Corporation gives no space to the real questions about the modern corporation and capitalism. On the subject of marketing, for instance, it spins paranoid fantasies about how anyone - from the doorman at your apartment to the strangers you pass in the street - could be in the pay of the advertisers. It would be more interesting to ask how powerful advertising really is. To what extent can Nike take away my ability to choose footwear? If advertising persuades me to buy a Ralph Lauren shirt, does that mean I will regret the purchase? Bakan is not interested in such questions: the power of advertising is infinite, and his evidence is that advertising executives say it is.

What about the role of governments? Monsanto is berated for producing a drug that stimulates milk in cows while governments are paying farmers to throw milk away. None of the talking heads makes the obvious point that the drug is profitable because governments are paying farmers to throw milk away.

Chomsky does raise an intriguing point about how corrupting it may be to work for a large corporation. 'Every one of us, under some circumstances, could be a gas chamber attendant or a saint.' It's not clear how much space he leaves for individual responsibility - his comments on advertising suggest he has little confidence in our ability to think and choose for ourselves. I disagree with his view, but it is defensible. It's a shame that, armed with a documentary running well over two hours, Bakan is too arrogant to bother with that defence.

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room does a much better job, largely because, in unpicking the causes of the most famous corporate scandal in history, it eschews abstract ranting and shows what individuals did, why they did it and what circumstances made it possible.

Unlike the other films, Alex Gibney's documentary is quite explicit about the effect of corporate culture on executives, arguing that junior executives lost the ability to question the ethics of their actions. To support this, the film devotes time to explaining Stanley Milgram's notorious experiments in the early 1960s, in which unwitting subjects were willing to apply agonising and possibly fatal electric shocks to an innocent person because a scientific authority told them to.

Will capitalism inevitably produce despicable characters such as the Enron bosses Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling? Gibney's film suggests it's not a question of whether but of how often. At times, however, the narrative is frustratingly vague. Gibney speculates that Enron illustrates a flaw in 'American-style capitalism', but fails to acknowledge that corporate governance is in worse shape in most parts of the world. CFO Andy Fastow's Byzantine structure of interwoven companies is commonplace almost everywhere except the UK and US.

Gibney is also far too hazy about what role 'deregulation' played in Enron's antics. California's experiment with restructuring its electricity contracts gave Enron opportunities to profit at the expense of the average California grandmother, who - in the words of one Enron trader - had expensive power 'jammed up her ass'. Yet the California experiment wasn't a failure because of deregulation; it was a failure because it was an unworkable political bodge. Still, Enron is fun, educational and sobering all at once.

Even more so is Super Size Me, the hilarious and alarming story of Morgan Spurlock's 30 days in a wilderness of McDonald's restaurants. Two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese, and Spurlock's thoughtful probing of the causes is given shape when he sets himself the challenge of spending a month eating only what he can get over the counter at McDonald's. This diet contains a pound of sugar a day - and a pound a day is roughly Spurlock's weight gain over the first fortnight.

Super Size Me is not only funny but fair. Spurlock scrutinises everything from school meals to corporate advertising, but never denies that what we eat is, ultimately, up to us. He obliterates his health so quickly only by following absurd rules - does anyone really eat at McDonald's three times a day, and choose 'super size' whenever it is offered? Many of us eat too much fat and sugar without ever going near a fast-food restaurant, simply because it tastes good. His compelling final message is about healthy living, not McDonald's, and is much the better for it.

Perhaps because Super Size Me and Enron focus on narrower issues, they avoid the superficialities of The Corporation and The Yes Men. None of the films married a broad perspective with a willingness to ask the real questions about how capitalism is developing. Free markets work only when competition limits the power of companies to exploit employees, shareholders and customers. Is competition working better than it used to? Yes. Is that enough? No, but it's a great start. But none of these documentaries talks about competition - The Corporation acts as though each industry was controlled by a single, all-powerful organisation. Competition doesn't always work, but without some sense that it might be beneficial it's hard to talk sensibly about capitalism and corporate power.

We also learn little from these films about globalisation. Falling trade barriers weaken companies because they subject them to more intense competition from abroad. But globalisation also allows companies more leeway to bargain with governments. None of the documentaries cares to weigh up these effects.

Most importantly, governments escape from these films almost blameless. Bakan's attempt to persuade us that corporations are responsible for all our problems is pernicious not just because it is mistaken, but because it makes those problems harder to solve. As long as corporations are expected to provide charity to workers making unsellable products, or are blamed for our love of fatty food, governments escape their responsibilities.

Leaving lobbying activities aside, the most profitable company in the world, ExxonMobil, could abandon oil for solar energy but still do nothing to stop climate change because the solar panels would still be too expensive, the oil fields would be bought by competitors, and we would still use the internal combustion engine, because it's the cheapest way to move a car. We the consumers, not corporations, are the ones driving the cars, buying the junk and drinking the milkshakes. We, and the governments we elect, would achieve more if we weren't so happy to make the corporations our scapegoats.

Tim Harford writes the Dear Economist column and is author of 'The Undercover Economist', to be published in the autumn.

FT Magazine, 16th July 2005

[EN[i]GMA]

Just saw the corporations and its really fucking depressing!Even if you see that little wars are win againt that evil system,at the rates things are going,we cannot really win!Thoses corporations are too strongs!Evil,that what they are!And their tentacles are spreads in every little corner possible!

Eh, not really.

I think this is sensationalist trash.

Effective verbiage, but no real description of the actual situation.


economic growth is synonime of destruction!NOthing positive there!Corporations have no soul,heart:its all about money!

Nothing positive about economic growth?

Perhaps. This sounds like John Kenneth Galbraith's indictment of modern capitalism, only not spelled out as well.

To Ace: Have you read much Galbraith? I'd think you'd adore him.


Kids are pay couples of cents to make clothes that are sold hundred of dollars,i mean they have nothing so they dont have a choice,its better then nothing for them,,but what an injustice!

What's the injustice? That they're working and eating instead of starving?


They poison people on purpose ,i mean its make the health system work,cancer its a good $$$business!

For?


Brainwashing kids ,polluating their minds with the tv at least we can shut it off!

Than do.


the patent of blue print of evry single life form,tell me what is the purpose of this macavelic thing?Why they want to patent the blue print of the human life(if they find it),what they gona do with it?

Make money I presume.

But these patents are only for specific uses of the genetic code, not the code itself; major difference.

But I agree, they shouldn't be allowed to patent things like that.


Its just sad to see how we fucked up this planet for lame values and i dont know if the situation is reversible at the stage we are now!Thoses fuckers are there to make money until they are in their graves so,,,the game is lost!Earth have cancer,i dont know how we can cure her!

This is why I so hate to associate myself with the left on any issue, even an issue I agree with them on (As I often do).

Pointless moralizing and hyperbole instead of meaningful discussion.


An army of good have to grow fast before its too late!!

Quite.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
Nothing positive about economic growth?

Yep. Economic growth is an illusion. What are all the rich and wealthy people going to spend all the money we all have on when there are no materials left?

[fucktopgirl]

GMA'].Effective verbiage, but no real description of the actual situation.

thank !

Well if its effective,my point came across,the situation is that corporations have power/money and that to over-thrown the situation,swicht the train of rails,its almost impossible!The only possible way would be for the one at the top of the corporations who have money,to be hit with illumination!


Nothing positive about economic growth?

No ,i dont see the good in it!It benefit rich country,and carve deeper the gap between the rich and poor!THey make money without respect for people or natural ressources!Its a dead end!

.

What's the injustice? That they're working and eating instead of starving?

WEll,i think that its obvious,the injustice is that thoses exploited,young people,are pay peanuts for the works they do(3 cents a shirt thta is sold 100$)Fuck,they should be pay more and corporations make a little less money:make it more equal but nooooooo.Let the poors struggle(they are still starving and barely making it!) , let them be in a state of insecurity then is easier to abuse of them!


For?

For what would they poison people on purpose?I dont know if it all like a real planning situation but..

LIke all the chemical cleaner that people use ,they did make teste on animal to see what a fatal dose is,then they make the product less harmfull but still the dangerous chemical is there.In the long run,the body assimilate thoses nasty stuff and that create a perfect fragile state for diseases to develop,its weaken the body.People are psycho about germs nowadays,a whole bunch of products for the house exist to kill every single living organism!But you know what,that is just wrong,you need to be in contact with germ,'its naturaly build your immune system and make you stronger for others more dangerous or virulent germs.Same with food,hormones(monsanto),transgenic,,,,,,all this does not make us stronger and healthier!

why not educate the population about it?

No way, they know in a way that this is toxic,nefast but its gona make the health system profitable at the same time!


But these patents are only for specific uses of the genetic code, not the code itself; major difference.

please explain?Is in it the blue print of human the code itself?

[EN[i]GMA]

.
Well if its effective,my point came across,the situation is that corporations have power/money and that to over-thrown the situation,swicht the train of rails,its almost impossible!The only possible way would be for the one at the top of the corporations who have money,to be hit with illumination!

Or you could just stop buying their products. Every do that and see what comes of their 'power'.

And what do you mean by 'corporations'? Shareholders? Are you saying shareholders, including average people are holding average people hostage or something?

That doesn't make sense.

For a publically traded company (Which is what most of these 'evil' ones are) anyone can buy their stock.

It wouldn't be difficult to get a movement started to buy up a significant share of their stock and take controll of the company, if you got enough people behind you.



No ,i dont see the good in it!It benefit rich country,and carve deeper the gap between the rich and poor!THey make money without respect for people or natural ressources!Its a dead end!

So you're saying globalization makes the poor poorer?

That's quite a contentious statement.



WEll,i think that its obvious,the injustice is that thoses exploited,young people,are pay peanuts for the works they do(3 cents a shirt thta is sold 100$)Fuck,they should be pay more and corporations make a little less money:make it more equal but nooooooo.Let the poors struggle(they are still starving and barely making it!) , let them be in a state of insecurity then is easier to abuse of them!

They're paid enough to live and eat. They're generally paid well by their area's standards.

Multinations usually pay above the going rate for labor so they can choose from the best laborers.


For what would they poison people on purpose?I dont know if it all like a real planning situation but..

LIke all the chemical cleaner that people use ,they did make teste on animal to see what a fatal dose is,then they make the product less harmfull but still the dangerous chemical is there.In the long run,the body assimilate thoses nasty stuff and that create a perfect fragile state for diseases to develop,its weaken the body.People are psycho about germs nowadays,a whole bunch of products for the house exist to kill every single living organism!But you know what,that is just wrong,you need to be in contact with germ,'its naturaly build your immune system and make you stronger for others more dangerous or virulent germs.Same with food,hormones(monsanto),transgenic,,,,,,all this does not make us stronger and healthier!

why not educate the population about it?

Quite general here.

Is your problem with cleaning products, or just 'dangerous' ones? What constitutes danger?

And exactly what of Monsanto's do you dislike?


No way, they know in a way that this is toxic,nefast but its gona make the health system profitable at the same time!

Sounds like an example of the broken window fallacy to me.


please explain?Is in it the blue print of human the code itself?

It's a specific use of the genetic code, for a drug or treatmeant or something.

It's not the code itself.

'Patenting the code' is meaningless.

[fucktopgirl]

GMA'][QUOTE]Or you could just stop buying their products. Every do that and see what comes of their 'power'.

yes,that would be one good trick if people gather together to boycott some products!But ,let be real here!

And what do you mean by 'corporations'? Shareholders? Are you saying shareholders, including average people are holding average people hostage or something?

Well without shareholders ,corporations would'nt be very rich!So i think they all guilty in a away,as we are too!


For a publically traded company (Which is what most of these 'evil' ones are) anyone can buy their stock.

It wouldn't be difficult to get a movement started to buy up a significant share of their stock and take controll of the company, if you got enough people behind you.

MAybe,,,maybe!It would be hard tho!Corporations could easyli kick out thoses unwanted shareholders and find one that fit their criteria!


So you're saying globalization makes the poor poorer?

That's quite a contentious statement.

Yes indeed!

Globalisation is an utopian theory,the facts are really showing others facets of this!For shure,it had raise a little bit the life style in poor country but not too much!The free- trade mainly benefits the rich,the gap between rich and poor grow!They invade poors country,builts their industries where the cheapest labors is,when they have rise up the lifestyle their,move them around for the lower labors.They do not cares about the environnemt,easier and cheaper to polluate,move on, then install ecologic and recycling component!

They are buying the raw material for nothing in poor country,then make something out of it and sell it back with astronomous profits!So that create a chain reaction:now the labors in the rich country suffer from it and loose job ,industries closes because its cheaper oversea.Big conflict there too!

And we could go on and on and on!There is so many levels on that issue!
War is a good friend of globalisation!


They're paid enough to live and eat. They're generally paid well by their area's standards.Multinations usually pay above the going rate for labor so they can choose from the best laborers.

Well,yes enough but could be higher.Corporations could make less money and balance more the wages!But no,they want the poor to stay like that,becasue others wises they would be less $$$!Imagine if nicky(Or a lot of others name could fit here) was making their clothes in north america,,fuck they would be broke!So lets exploit people who saliva for a bowl of rice!

Not really hard to be the higest paying multinations when yoou are the only one!


Is your problem with cleaning products, or just 'dangerous' ones? What constitutes danger?

I mean not just house cleaner obviously ,all the one that we are in contact with, that are nasty in then long run,not natural,not biodegradable!

the danger is that is polluate us and the environnememt!So degradation of the planet and human health!That is disturbing ,i found!

And exactly what of Monsanto's do you dislike?

All the lies behind they tactic to hide information from the population.Not telling them that some hormones injects in the cow could create some cancer/ruin health!



Sounds like an example of the broken window fallacy to me.

Misleading? Why?

[sam i am]

GMA']Or you could just stop buying their products. Every do that and see what comes of their 'power'.

The only response to this above from fucktopgirl was "get real."

Well.....it's happened time and time again to corporations and products throughout history.

Many people who were in the horse and buggy industry said cars were a passing fad. Consumers stopped buying horses and carriages. Those "corporations" went out of business.

Or take the example of some more modern corporations like Enron or Worldcom......Effectively, consumers stopped buying their "products" and those corporations went belly up. Now, due to the criminality of the top players, those people who were criminal are being jailed and fined for millions of dollars.

The power of consumerism is VASTLY underrated on this message board and the indictment that ALL corporations are bad is not borne out by the preponderance of evidence throughout history.

[ms.peachy]

the indictment that ALL corporations are bad is not borne out by the preponderance of evidence throughout history.
The film does not make the indictment that all corporations are bad, only that the legal framework within which they exist makes it quite easy for them to be. Did you actually see the film, or are you just gonna randomly mouth off about stuff as it strikes your fancy? Which of course you're free to do, it would just be nice to know your starting position.

[fucktopgirl]

.Or take the example of some more modern corporations like Enron or Worldcom......Effectively, consumers stopped buying their "products" and those corporations went belly up. Now, due to the criminality of the top players, those people who were criminal are being jailed and fined for millions of dollars.

well its not really the consumers(regular,average person) but more the sharesholders that stop buying because they where bankrupt and investigates because of fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron

But anyway the corporations that you talk about went out of business,because no more money in it ,not because of people lucidity and choice to boycott knowing that "big corporation suck and destroy more then they build "

[sam i am]

The film does not make the indictment that all corporations are bad, only that the legal framework within which they exist makes it quite easy for them to be. Did you actually see the film, or are you just gonna randomly mouth off about stuff as it strikes your fancy? Which of course you're free to do, it would just be nice to know your starting position.

I was more addressing the people on this board who denigrate all corporations as inherently evil, rather than addressing the particulars of the film.

Sorry, I should have made that more clear up front. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to clarify myself.

[sam i am]

well its not really the consumers(regular,average person) but more the sharesholders that stop buying because they where bankrupt and investigates because of fraud.

Why do you assume that shareholders are not "regular, average [people]"?

In the US, at least, nearly every single person who has ever invested in a 401(k) or 403(b) or IRA, etc., et al has "invested" as a "shareholder."

Corporations losing money or going out of business hurt the pocketbooks of millions upon millions of "regular, average" people.

If you're even a bit savvy, however, you have the opportunity to sell shares when they are high and buy when they are low, thus ensuring a capital flow that empowers retirement, takes pressure off government to finance Social Security, and empowers government to do what it SHOULD be doing....regulating commerce and national defense.