Korean Job Discussion Forums

Nowhere Man · Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.

This is another poll stemming from the political compass test.

tommynomad · Joined: 24 Jul 2004 Location: on the move

Corporations by definition have one goal: make $$$. Everything else is subordinate to that goal. Including the environment. Anita Roddick would chew through old-growth tree trunks with her teeth if the alternative was losing her company.

But under US law, corporations have the same rights as people (14th amendment?). I dunno who came up with that idea, but I can tell you:
that n*ggah's craaaazee.

ulsanchris · Joined: 19 Jun 2003 Location: take a wild guess

Interestingly enough many coporations in the US right now are voluntarily following tougher environmental standards then are set down by the US government.

Manner of Speaking · Joined: 09 Jan 2003

There are also literally thousands of examples where goverment environmental regulations have created jobs, new industries, and corporate innovation in products and technology.

R. S. Refugee · Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Location: Shangra La, ROK

A no-brainer that.

But, just for a sample of what I mean:

Shilling for Chevron
Jared Diamond, Greenwasher

By LOUIS PROYECT

http://www.counterpunch.org/proyect05092005.html

canuckistan · Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 1:43 am Post subject:

With shareholder pressure to squeeze the most profit out of the bottom line, I can imagine there's little enthusiasm amongst many for big expenditures of pollution-control technology.

Nowhere Man · Joined: 08 Feb 2004

I think this is also a no-brainer.

Whether they're above or below current standards, the concept of trusting them to regulate themselves is ludicrous.

My own personal take is that corporations are so successful at least partially because they de-humanize business. There is no one person fully in charge, but a group of people instead. Of course you have a CEO, but his responsibilty is diffused the same way a President's responsibility is, leaving room for a lot of monkey business. Especially ethical monkey business.

The good and bad result is ruthless efficiency.

Either way, I suppose they're here to stay. But when it comes to regulation, yes. YES.

Nowhere Man · Joined: 08 Feb 2004

I was looking through old posts for things related to the political compass test.

I think this is the only thread that remains.

Anyway. Just thought I'd haul it out since the test is back on the forum.

Moldy Rutabaga · Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Location: Ansan, Korea

In the long run, it may be economically advantageous for corporations to be green; with the internet relaying information at light-speed, corporations who pollute can be outed extremely quickly and investors can move their money into places that won't risk a consumer backlash. That's the optimist in me, after reading too much Tom Friedman.

But both situations imply a kind of coercion, either from government or from investor/consumer groups. Would corporations do such things voluntarily if no one was watching? There might be precedents, but normally extremely unlikely; yeah, a no-brainer.

Ken:>

ddeubel · Joined: 20 Jul 2005

Moldy Rutabaga · Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Location: Ansan, Korea

Interesting questions. I confess I don't know a great deal about the organizational theory of corporations. But my guess is that corporations aren't 'evil' in the way we often say they are, but rather they are amoral structures. Because power tends to be so heavily diluted among many agents, no single person is capable of exercising moral restraint against group decisions. Why can't they all agree on a moral code? I guess because stockholders tend to hold final power and are in large groups that aren't always likely to act in concert, the goal of the corporation tends to be non-moral-- maximization of profit. This goal often tends to conflict with doing the right thing, but when it doesn't and they are compatible, there's no controversy or people hurt and we don't read about it.

I do not know how the present capitalist stockholder system of investments can become moral, as opposed to non-moral. I see only a combination of government policies, protection for whistleblowers, consumer boycotts and support, and hopefully also a degree someday of wilful cooperation. Sadly, that might happen only when an environmental emergency makes it immediately necessary (a polluted river) or a crisis so morally ugly that the industry feels threatened as a whole (Enron).

Ken:>

Octavius Hite · Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:14 am Post subject:

Of course the government should regulate. 2 reasons why (and yes I am a libertarian as long as what you do doesn't hurt another, hus pollution doesn't get a libertarian exemption) theyshould regulate.

1. Because corporations are only concerned with the next quarter they have no long term vision, if they did they would no that taking all the fish (for example) in an unregulated manner will mean that the industry will eventually collapse.

2. Government intervention and regulation has forced companies to do things they didnt want to which spurs innovation. i.e. seatbelts, airbags, airplanes, space travel, nuclear power, solar power, etc etc etc none of these tnings would be around if not for government regulation and government support of some kind.