It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


OP/ED: Why the recent Anti Corporation sentiment?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 12:52 AM
I don't understand this recent anti-corporation benge here on our beloved ATS. Corporations or any big company incorporated or not are just like people, there are good ones and there are bad ones.

It is nonsensical to say that every big, successful company is evil or corrupt. There are thousands of huge companies that are VERY GOOD global citizens. These companies take excellent care of their employees, they provide good returns on the investment of the shareholders and they advance man's capabilities and knowledge daily.

Additionally, there are many companies that are more concerned with improving Humanity's plight than they are about the Bottom Line. They are known as the recently Bankrupt. Funny? not really true? you bet.

Economics is pretty straight forward stuff. Investing in the stock and bond markets is a zero sum game. If you make a dollar someone lost that dollar period.

Your 401K, IRA or whatever market tied retirement/savings account you have is doing exactly that, investing your money in the stock and bond markets.

Unless you inherit a lot of money, you are counting on that money to grow so that when you retire you can have a home, food and maybe go on a trip or two every year right?

How hypocritical is it to decry these corporations as evil beasts for being successful then turn around and GLEEFULLY deposit the gains of your investment account?

Certainly there are corrupt companies out there, but it's NOT the company, it's the greedy HUMANS that run it that cause the corruption. These cats CHEAT the system, cheat their fellow man, and are basically pond scum. The obvious example of this type of filth is Enron.

Enron was a classic example of more than corruption at the top. The employees that cried about losing all of their retirement money when the scandal was exposed were hypocrites IMHO to the extent they left WAY too much of their retirement account in Enron stock. No diversification. This is STUPID investing for the obvious reason that if you have all of your eggs in one basket and that basket breaks, you lose your eggs.

Let's look at why these employees had all of their money in Enron stock... Hmmmm could it be because it was outperforming the market by a HUGE margin? YES it certainly could be. If these employees would've diversified they would have taken a huge reduction in return or profit on their investment. That's called GREED overpowering common sense. It bit them in booty in the end like it usually does.

Truly the free enterprise, capitalist, open market competitive system is the BEST system man has devised for production, invention, progress, quality of life improvement, etc... Is it perfect? NO! Is ANY Human perfect? NO!

Communism is an utter failure as a political/economical system. WORSE yet is "Socialism" as far as economics goes.

Socialism has enjoyed some limited success as a means to provide essential services to a population. Canada and the UK's health system are examples. Unfortunately it's horribly expensive for those who work hard and make a large income because they pay a far greater amount in taxes. It's very unfair mathematically but if the population of "go getters" are altruistic enough to pay for the less productive it's a viable system for SOCIAL issues ONLY.

The reason the UK and the other developed nations do NOT employ socialism economically across the whole market is they would be bankrupt inside of a year. What I mean by employing "economically" is everything being provided by the state. A TRUE socialist government would provide every citizen a car, a house, all the things in the house, clothing, etc...

Nobody would "buy" anything in a genuine socialist government. There isn't a nation on this planet that uses this system for obvious reasons...

To use such a broad brush casting all corporations as corrupt slave masters simply won't stand up to logical argument.

Without the collective that most corporations are made up of Humanity would be hard put to get anything done. The typical manufacturing corporation for example, employs and coordinates the talents of many diverse skill sets. It is a means to organize and manage several complex operations and market the produce of those operations in order to get the money needed to create and produce the next set of complex operations.

The people who invest in that company are RISKING their money and rightly expect a PROFIT from that investment.

Who among us would go work hard for 40 hours somewhere, excluding volunteer work obviously, and not expect to get paid for our work? NOBODY. WHY then is it held in such disdain that a company who innovates, produces and beats the competition makes a pile of money? What, exactly is wrong with that? The employees and investors/share holders of that corporation deserve the fruits of their risk/efforts.

Would we hold a farmer who worked twice as hard as his neighbor and produced a bumper crop out as a crook because he made much more money than his neighbor? I would hope not.

Generally speaking the market polices itself rather well too, Enron collapsed because they were cheating, cooking the books. You simply can't "kite"(1) forever, it catches up when the loop is closed and the payments are due. Post Enron there is much better standards of accounting and accountability. Now a days the CEO, CFO and Board of Directors take personal liability for the "numbers" that are being published on public companies. If they try to "cook the books" they will probably go to jail, it simply isn't worth it to cheat anymore. Outright stealing is the best method for the incorrigible crook who finds himself in a CEO position of a big company.

I really would like to understand why it has become so "dirty" to be successful.


(1) Kiting is rolling false profits from one entity into another entity. Placing unrealized gains on the books from subsidiary companies. Before the massive accounting reforms Enron caused to happen a company could indicate income from myriad subsidiaries, joint ventures, multi level "deals", etc... without any scrutiny. Using these false profits as an increase in shareholder's equity the company could get huge lines of credit which they used to pay off the shareholders' dividends, pay themselves huge bonuses, etc... The end result always hits when the "loans come due" on those lines of credit, if you really weren't making all that extra money you can't pay the lines off. This is VERY over simplified explanation but it serves this discussion.

[edit on 10-25-2005 by Springer]

[edit on 10-25-2005 by Springer]

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 01:24 AM
I agree, Springer. The attitude that there is something necessarily evil about "corporate America" has really gotten out of hand. The fault lies in two areas, I believe. One is the marxist left who hate all things capitalistic and, two, the tendency of capitalism to be totally and completely amoral. The battle against the abuses of capitalism has been long and hard and is in fact the father of marxism, as Marx was outraged by the poverty and deprivation of the working classes of England. It is just so sad that his "cure" is worse than the "disease." Today, we are fortunate enough, because of our courageous forebears, to live in a nation with laws to control the unmerciful tendencies of the free market, i.e., greedy humans.

Robber Barons

Labor Movement

[edit on 2005/10/25 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 01:46 AM
Greedy humans in a free market system are MUCH less dangerous than greedy humans in a dictatorial/closed system.

Very apt representation of Marx Grady, the cure was far worse tha the disease.

Where are the anti corp folks? I really want to discuss this and see if I can understand what the issues are from that perspective.

Hopefully later today the discussion will ensue.


posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:00 AM
My perspective.
Here are some corporations that I don't like and the reasons why.

Procter & Gamble: They are the dominant force in house hold products. I used to purchase and like many of their products in the past but now I am boycotting them for animal testing. When it comes to non-medical product testing, using animals is not necessary and P&G refuses to stop.
Do I consider P&G evil for this? Yes.

Tobacco companies: They sell an addictive product that kills it customers (and anyone around them).
Do I consider this evil? Yes.

Coca-cola: This corporation Directs it's advertising towards children while the obesity epidemic ravages the world. The Soft Drink Industry: Putting Money Before Children's Health
Do I consider Coca-cola to be evil? Yes.

Exxon and friends: They are funneling millions of dollars into disinformation in order to confuse the public so that they can continue pollution the Earth.
Backgrounds of Scientists and Organizations Who are Skeptic of Global Warming
Evil? Again I believe so.

These are all things (aside from tobacco) I have learned about since becoming a member of ATS.
Corporations have a major influence in the world. They decide what TV shows stick around and even what news stories get reported. Whatever News story will give the network better ratings is what they will cover. Thankfully we have ATSNN.

Corporations have all this power and no one voted for them. I think this is why people have a problem with them.

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:10 AM
Thank you for that... I agree 100% with the tobacco issue. The coca cola bit is a parenting issue. If you allow your kids to slug down coca cola all day in excess you are a BAD PARENT...

I disagree that coke is targeting children more than adults in their ads, I've seen them and don't agree with that sentiment.

Proctor and Gamble is a HUGE conglomerate that does MUCH good, I need to look into the animal testing, this is the first I've heard of it.

Your statement that "these corporations have all this power and nobody voted for them" confuses me. Exactly what "power" do they have?


posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:17 AM
Nice detailed post. You make some good and rational points. In what we would think as a normal world and in their original manifestation, corperations aren't that bad. Certainly not all of them.

However, we've seen what big business tends to do if given the power, how they operate, and yes, just how much they are prepared to screw over almost anyone in pursuit of profit.

Dow (helped get cannabis prohibited, a big polluter, and manufacturer of toxic tits)
Monsanto (maybe the biggest polluter of them all)
RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris (deadly product altered to make more addicting and marketed to kids)
Haliburton (war profiteer)
Pfizer (government sanctioned drug pusher)
Bayer (government sanctioned nazi drug pusher)
Ford Motor Co (nazi supporters and manufacturer of the pinto)
The Standard Oil Monopoly [Rockefellers](Just about every major oil company is still part of this through interlocking boards of directors and joint ownership. How else can they coordinate so well on gouging the public?)
and last, but certainly not least, possibly the most powerful company in the world, The Federal Reserve Bank (who, for all practical purposes owns this country)

This was just a short list off the top of my head. Does anyone honestly trust any of these companies, or more percisely, does anyone trust the people that run them?

These companies and others like them are the reason that there is so much anti-corporation sentiment recently. It's not that the capitalist system is bad, but those that corrupt it, or let it be corrupted, for profit are seemingly in control of those who make the laws governing such things.

Foxes guarding the henhouses. Ain't it a wonderful world?

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:20 AM

Originally posted by Springer
Your statement that "these corporations have all this power and nobody voted for them" confuses me. Exactly what "power" do they have?

Very simple. They have the money to purchase our equally corrupt politicians.

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:21 AM
Corporations do have significant power and that power is money. Money talks and while I don't understand all the nuances of finance, currently the ongoing debate about campaign finance and Tom Delay's legal problems all stem from the power of corporate money.

However, we must also consider the power of the consumer. It is not always easy to organize the public around any given issue or to significantly impact the unsavory practices of business, but it can be done. American consumers have very many choices, perhaps too many choices, but the wise consumer can make difference and in concert consumers can move mountains.

I don't know about the rest of you, but everything that I own that provides meaning and joy to my life is made and sold by "corporate America." That might not be true for everyone, but I think it is the rare person who does not owe an awful lot to "corporate America," even the dreaded drug and petroleum companies.

[edit on 2005/10/25 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:37 AM
Yeah, it's good to hear all sides of issues like these. I can't say I'm an anti-capatalisim socialist, but I believe we need a balance in there somewhere. To have a great society I think we need a mix of both worlds.

Originally posted by Springer
The coca cola bit is a parenting issue. If you allow your kids to slug down coca cola all day in excess you are a BAD PARENT...

It is bad parenting, but I think good parenting can only go so far. I wont get into it on this thread I've already spent my energy on the subject on my 'soft drink' thread.

Proctor and Gamble is a HUGE conglomerate that does MUCH good, I need to look into the animal testing, this is the first I've heard of it.

I have a thread that gets into that a bit.. Dawn, saving wildlife for 25 years commercial. There are a few websites out there that you can find on google. I was pretty alarmed when I found this out my self. For some reason I thought animal testing was banned.

Your statement that "these corporations have all this power and nobody voted for them" confuses me. Exactly what "power" do they have?

Well lets say I'm a corporation and I'm a sponsor of a TV or News show. Now this is my money, so if the show isn't putting out a message that I agree with I can pull my sponsorship. My advertising dollars that the show needs.
One might say so what? The show will get another sponsor. But this is usually not the case corporations are friends with other corporations. Like if you lose a McDonald's sponsorship you wont be able to replace it with Disney, Heinz, or Coca-cola.
I believe this is what happened with Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect after he made remarks about 9/11.
Television is a powerful medium. You can control many people with that box. Hitler knew this and used it to his advantage. Corporations know this and use it to get you to do something as simple as buy a product or change the way a country thinks.
In my opinion this is far more powerful than our elected governments. They are getting all this power with out our vote.
I hope this has made my earlier comment more clear.

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:47 AM
Its interesting to see the Corporations have become the "whipping" post. It has kind of become a cause amongs the Hollywood folks as well. They seem to conviently forget that the movie companies that pay thier wages and thrust them into the spotlight are the very evil that they decry

“This country is controlled by corporations and that is the root of all our problems.” -Bill Maher, Oct. 22, 2004

Hmmm Bill, yet you keep working for them eh?


Its interesting to see many of these companies that people have listed. ITs also intersting to see many take this stance and yet when asked 'what do you own in your 401K/403B?" you get this blank stare then silence. Your point on hypocracy is well taken.

Okay How many people will assert that Phillip Morris aka Altira Corp. is an evil company and you do not want to support it in any way? Given that the majority of the company is owned by Institutional investors ie. Mutual Funds, the odds are good that you already have a piece of this empire. Did you pop an Altoid while reading this? Or had some Kraft cheese? Ooooops more support. While I think the tobacco company has engaged in shady practices am I willing to divest every fund in my 403B that owns it.....No

Corporations are for profit entities. I do not buy stock in Mircosoft, Intell, Dow, GE, Yes Phillip Morris, etc etc etc as some sort of charity. I expect these stocks to grow. Im not running the FredT Charity and giveaway here.

Corporations also employ people, create products WE use in everyday life, provide actual goods and services. Pay taxes to our governments, donate to charities, fund endowments, sponsor the art and the like.

Much more good comes from large corporations than does the often decried evil.

[edit on 10/25/05 by FredT]

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:51 AM
Grady, I make my living off of corporate america, so it's not like I hate them or capitalism in general. I just don't trust them.

I don't trust the legal enviornment they have created for themselves where they have all the advantages, just because they have more money and lack the ethics to not abuse the system.
I don't trust the clintonesque attitude of "just don't get caught" that I think encouraged a lot of these corporate bigwhigs to abuse their power.
I don't trust their commitment, or lack of it actually, to quality, fair value, and treating the customer like a customer should be treated.

Finally, I don't trust or respect the type of person who would actually buy a $6000 gold-plated umbrella stand, but that is the type of person I think you will find at the head of the table in most of these large corporate boardrooms.

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:58 AM
I don't know about others, but for me...

SkepticOverlord announced a conspiracy podcast competition a few weeks ago - looking for the best conspiracy theory, substantiated by research. I decided to enter. My conspiracy theory entry has several parts: A. The 300-year strategy: The ancient bloodline of banker-families dumped monarchies as puppets, and manipulated nations to create corporate laws that would allow them to create corporations as their fronts instead of kings and emperors. B. They had/have ancient knowledge and scientific verification of catastrophic events, which they used as "business opportunities," for profit, and to position to regain world control. The key catastrophes involve 1) Geophysical change triggering climate change, related in part to macro interstellar cycles; 2) Pandemic disease, resulting from prions that they released into the population, perhaps accidentally, in the beginning of the 1900's; 3) Fresh water depletion that would result in world-wide famine, at least. The idea is that these catastrophes now are converging, as is the imminent corporate takeover. I have been researching my topic on the board. And it flies, IMO.

The ATS "Best Conspiracy Podcast Competition"
Ed to add link.

[edit on 25-10-2005 by soficrow]

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 03:01 AM
Springer I tend to agree with your comments; however, it seems I am a minority. Every time I defend corporations per se I am generally shouted down by the death to corporations crowd, who seem to believe every evil on this planet originated with them. I've seen threads where citizen cooperatives were being pushed at the same time corporations were being bashed. It seems a lot of people nowdays want to have their cake and eat it too.

I have advocated two reforms for the U.S. that I believe would really help:

One, impose strict term limits on politicians. The rationale here is that career politicians care more about getting reelected that about their constituents and corporations are only too happy to donate money because that buys them influence. Therefore if career politicians became a thing of the past influence selling would greatly decrease.

Two, make it illegal for corporations and unions to donate money to political campaigns. Pass a law that essentially says that political contributions can only come from individual citizens. That change would preclude, to a large extent, influence buying.

If influence buying and selling are substantially curtailed then political power is returned largely to the people.

[edit on 25-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 04:03 AM
Roche is a classical example of what global conglomerates can achieve in the pursuit of profits. They were quite prepared to leave the world hanging and dying from a disease that they have the cure for, all controlled and patented. Stopping other companies and people from producing a product that could save their lives.

I see increasingly big corporations swallowing small business in the pursuit of the same profits. Monopolies that stamp out competition.

The corporation is the people that run it, so I think when people are deriding "corporations" its more pointed at the people that run them. Corporations are just a name on paper, the people behind those corporations are the ones who are in control.

People see huge banks making multi billion dollar profits and the next day see headlines from the same company screaming "job cuts" or they spend three hours on a automated phone system and still can't get what they rang for in the first place.

As these huge corporations make these billion dollar profits we see others suffering. The gap between the poor and the rich is getting wider and wider and there is less and less "middle class".

Socialism isn't the answer but capitalism wasn't the question either. Neither are the preffered state of being for society.

Corporations do not cause a free trade and free society they cause monopolies.

K-Mart and the story I did yesterday on covering up lead warnings on halloween masks is a small but classic example of why the anti corporation sentiment.

Its not so much a matter of why there is anti corporation sentiment, its more a matter of corporations are increasingly giving us reasons to feel anti corporation sentiment.

It's a matter of trust and once trust has been broken its hard to build again.

[edit on 25-10-2005 by Mayet]

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 04:30 AM
There is no such thing as "fair trade" if you are successfull in this dog eat dog world of international capitalism then you must be doing something dodgy.

You cant win by playing fair... nice guys finish last.

Thats whay all big successfull internationals are EVIL!

By the way just to poop you little bubbles... this is NOT a free maket economy... we're actually living in a keynesian protectionist economy.

Keynes said business will only survive in a "free market" with government assistance, and we then protect orselves from "unfair" (read: ANY!!) competition by making legislation against it.. see copyright, patent and all Intellectual Property laws.

[edit on 25/10/2005 by Corinthas]

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 04:57 AM
I am very impressed and interested in several of the responses here. This is a fascinating conversation...

Mayet, your example of Roche is a classic conundrum, on the one hand Roche spent several hundred million dollars discovering the medicine they have a patent on and are due their opportunity to recoup those dollars through exclusive sales.

On the other hand as you point out, the world may be facing a pandemic of epic proportions that this medicine may help avert. It is the height of STUPID public relations to resist the licensed manufacturing of the medicine by other companies and I will bet dollars to dough nuts that Roche allows this to happen before this is all over. This is a good "wait and see" what happens item.

Economics of scale are ruining the small business person in many industries. WalMart is a classic small business eating machine. "Mom and Pop" stores disappear as soon as WalMart comes to town. They can't compete with a company that buys 100% of the production of a whole plant thereby becoming the manufacturer and the retailer in one step.

Interestingly enough I have noticed some of these businesses are coming back to life however. I, for one, REFUSE to enter a WalMart, I hate the place. No service 45 minutes to check out and pay, 15 minutes just to walk across the bloody thing and discover what you need is on the end of the building!

Many people are evidently feeling the same way, I see a few shops coming back in our area that initially were wiped out by the big W. Time will tell on that issue as well. The consumer is the all powerful entity of the global economy. The internet is a tool of great organizational potential. If the consumer can focus this power in a cohesive way MUCH will change.

Astronomer68 VERY GOOD points and very good solutions. I absolutely agree with term limits and the end of career politicians. The unfortunate part is the politicians write the laws and every single time this issue comes up it never makes it on a ballot. I think it's going to take a concerted effort of voters simply electing the challenger after the incumbent has served for so many years/terms be it on term or two...

I think the influence pedaling is much bigger in our minds than it is in reality. Consider the opposing forces of these corporations, there is so many of them with so many different agendas and desired legal outcomes I just don't believe a politician could please very many of them if he really tried. Surely laws are passed to the benefit of a few every term but I doubt public policy is swayed to a great degree by this.

What I do believe is swayed is the legal system itself. An example...
The trial lawyers have successfully squelched liability/damage limits and frivolous law suit reforms for years. They nearly broke the Workers' Compensation System in the state of Texas back in the 1980's. The workers' comp. insurance companies simply quit doing business in Texas because it was a guaranteed loser and a genuine risk to the financial health and stability of the carrier. The state stepped in and passed a law that greatly reformed the system and the amounts payed out, etc... The BIGGEST factor of change was they took the lawyers OUT OF THE SYSTEM period.

The lawyers were screaming that workers would be dying at their work stations, families would be ruined financially, utter chaos was at the doorstep because of this law. 10+ years later and the State of Texas is doing just fine. Injured workers get their medical bills paid, they get compensation for lost work and if the employer was proven negligent they can sue the pants off the company.

The lawyers hate it because they have to prove it was really the company's negligence if they want to strike it big on a case. The lawyers that were really in it for the protection of employees stayed and fight the good fight. The ambulance chasers who were simply bilking the deep pockets of the insurance companies all moved their practices to other states.

It turned out that over 75% of all the money paid out in workers' compensation claims in the 1980's in Texas went to... you guessed it legal fees...

I guess my point is, Humans are the problem but we don't have a cure. The above is simple example of how a few lawyers were taking the big corporations for all they had. Abusing the crap out of them and robbing them blind because of a bad set of laws that allowed it combined with a lazy judiciary and very sympathetic juries.

The cure for that was common sense and good laws. Perfect? Heck no there are plenty of horror stories of workers that get the short end of the stick when the new laws are adhered to too strictly. BUT at least there is coverage for the workers AND the carriers have to give BACK a percentage of the premium paid by the company if they have fewer losses because of running a good ship. It's an equitable situation that seemingly slipped right past the influence pedaling on BOTH sides. You can imagine the insurance companies were slobbering all over themselves thinking of all those profits sacked away from not paying huge claims, NOPE the state set the limit on how much they were going to make by the premium refund part of the law.


[edit on 10-25-2005 by Springer]

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 05:23 AM
Some of it is simple ignorance: Corporations are bad, Halliburton is bad, big drug companies are bad, military is bad. Etc.

And then this:

by Umbrax
Corporations have all this power and no one voted for them. I think this is why people have a problem with them.

You have the ultimate vote. You can vote with your wallet. That is why Jessie Jackson has been such a successful shakedown artist; he threatens a black boycott of a business in return for extorted funds (Toyota, Budweiser, etc.).

But who says you get to vote, anyway? If you want to vote, become a stockholder.

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 05:46 AM
To add to what I have said. Australia is led by a white collar government that favours corporations to the point of privatizing many of our assets including our telecommunication network. That is an entity that I feel should be kept in the hands of the Governments and not sold out to big business. The ramifications aree horrendous when one realises that a company can virtually hold the country to ransom.

Australia has new industrial reforms going through parliament to be rubber stamped by our senate. These take away base rights of workers that unions and other entities and people have fought for years to get put into place to protect the little people. This makes ordinary people harbour resentment against big business.

Big Business are given consessions for pulluting the environment and killing locals, if a small business polluted even a tiny bit they would be fined and harshly penalised. Big Business are given tax breaks often and bonus gift incentives by our state governments for setting up in urban areas. Little businesses should be so lucky.

But as you say there is a few corporation that encourage employee share offers and great work environments and side benefits. Those are few and far between now. Corporate world is run on greed, profits and piling up more money than can be used in many lifetimes.

I picked Roche as an example because I too had been thinking deeply on the conundrum that was created. On one hand as an artist, inventor and writer I respect patents and intellectual property. I understand how it is to have something you created taken, stolen and produced by others for profit and glory. On the other hand this company is being greedy and inhuman in that patented for profit regime.

I understand the it's mine mentality. But that creation in this case concerned a matter of worldwide importance to everyone. Hence in these such matters and areas I feel that patents should not be allowed to be created. Give them credit for discovery and invention by all means but these sort of things should be shared amongst all in matter of life and death. Its still an issue I am stll considering because I can see points on both sides but it also crosses a line. Where is that line drawn.

[edit on 25-10-2005 by Mayet]

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 05:50 AM
Typical form of Corporate Evil. De Beers. Nuff said. Why the US didn't keep their ban up I have no idea
Probably bribes.

Also read Jennifer Government, quite tounge and cheek but makes many excellant points.

The Main problem most people have of corporations is the inordinate amount of influence they have in government. They promote Artistocratic thinking amoung the upper echelons and they are generally anti-progress. Just look at the MPAA/RIAA and their idiotic DRM schemes that never seem to work out properly, so now they want a broadcast flag that will let them delete things from your own harddrive without your knowledge or consent and it's all currently being pushed through as legistlation right now! They ALSO want to be able to pre-approve any "infringment capable" new technology BEFORE it comes on the market, they want to be the gatekeepers of new technology.

Biotech companies with an average profit margin of close to 20% doesn't spend enough time(or any time) on Humanitarian R&D project of which they are in a unique position to help many many people, but that ain't profitable so they don't even bother.

Microsoft and Intel are Anti-competitive giants who will stoop to anything the shut out the competition by strongarming their retailers. They are trying to create an Ironclad monopoly which would most likely stifle innovation if they have their way. All they want is stable revenue streams and M$ is trying its hardest to stop the commoditization of OS software.

Adam Smith is rolling in his grave right about now...

[edit on 25-10-2005 by sardion2000]

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 06:15 AM

Originally posted by sardion2000
The Main problem most people have of corporations is the inordinate amount of influence they have in government.

Politicians would argue that they want to preserve jobs in their districts for their constituency. Of course, the corp. contributions don't hurt.

They promote Artistocratic thinking amoung the upper echelons and they are generally anti-progress. Just look at the MPAA/RIAA and their idiotic DRM schemes that never seem to work out properly, so now they want a broadcast flag that will let them delete things from your own harddrive without your knowledge or consent and it's all currently being pushed through as legistlation right now! They ALSO want to be able to pre-approve any "infringment capable" new technology BEFORE it comes on the market, they want to be the gatekeepers of new technology.

I wonder how much of the general public is aware of this technology hijacking? I wonder who is watching out for us?

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in